This was a commercial, which aired about 5 years ago. It embodies some of the ideas discussed in lecture regarding awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about a public health concern – in this case, mental health.
While the opening seconds of the advertisement lead you to believe that the man passing out fliers was the subject, the advertisement went on to show that the well-dressed, unassuming man was, in fact, combating mental health issues. As the narrator tells the audience that 1 in 4 people experience mental health problems. After viewing this ad, people are not only aware that anyone can experience such problems, but potentially can have their attitudes changed regarding the ‘types of people’ and situations in which this is most common. Additionally, someone that is suffering from mental health troubles can gain a sense of community, knowing that they are not alone, and that they have the power to successfully overcome mental health issues after viewing the ad.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This brief commercial and today's lecture does present a lot to think about, especially given the wide scope of the public health field. Often, public health is thought of this field which prepares for and prevents global catastrophes, epidemics, and conflict. However, this video shows that the public health field can be much narrower and targeting more hidden battles. It can be about those those individuals with very specific life circumstances. By targeting the two men, I think the creators are trying to say that the most severe cases are not the ones we immediately suspect. It is very easy to outwardly disguise those problems, but difficult to resolve them without proper aid.
By isolating the one unsuspecting man, this commercial greatly narrows its audience, but also seems to strengthen its take-home message and emotional affect. In the case of talking about a public health concern such as mental health, which is so widespread in terms of age, sex, etc., is it better to do narrow and highly-specialized commercials? Or, should the target audience be kept large and somewhat ambiguous? The target audience clearly sets the stage for many of these public health commercials, but, as proved by this video, mental health has no biases, so how do we decide how and when to limit the audience the message is catering to? Lastly, do these case-specific commercials still function for those audience members that do not parallel or relate to the given actor(s)?
This reminds me of the "Less Than 3 Drinks" campaign we talked about in class today in that by getting people to see the reality of statistics (in this case, that more people experience mental health issues than one might suspect), people might be more prone to seek treatment for their own issues if they feel that they are not alone. The major difference between the "Less Than 3 Drinks" campaign and this one is that this one is attempting to inspire people to seek treatment whereas the "Less Than 3 Drinks One" is attempting to deter people from partaking in a behavior.
This is a very effective advertisement. The way the commercial is shot with many people walking on a sidewalk, makes me think how many other people are suffering from mental health.
I think the primary message of the commercial is for employers to be more tolerate of people suffering from mental health, not to encourage people to seek treatment. The commercial is good at raising awareness, but I doubt it could actually change attitudes and behavior. Maybe, it would be a more effective campaign if the organization directly targeted employers.
Post a Comment