The Federal Government has started their vaccine promotion campaign – at a cost of $24 million – so we can now look back and compare the campaign to some of the angles we thought we needed to get people on board with getting the jab.
First, a quick summary of the actual campaign:
- The slogan is “Safe. Effective. Free.”
- Fair enough – the “safe” message is the most important and it’s given prime position
- Doctor in a white (shirt) with stethoscope around his shoulders tells us how COVID has changed our lives and how “to live more freely, we need the added protection …”
- While there’s some appeal to the fear factor (if you don’t do it, we can’t go back the freedoms we used to have), it’s as weak as boarding house tea.
- Professor in a white coat in a lab tells us: “Our experts are looking carefully …” and “We only will approve vaccines when we have enough evidence that they work and that they’re safe.”
- Yes, there is some assurances of the science, which was our first messaging tip
- Yes, there is a tangential indication of extensive trials – but a strong fact was required
- Professor (midwifery & nursing) – In a hospital ward telling us the “rollout will be in batches so we make sure they are going to where they are needed first” and delivering the call-to-action: To keep up-to-date, visit the website.
- Rather than helping people feel like they have some control, this does the opposite by telling that the government will decide who gets it and when.
A 30-second television ad has it’s limitations, but out of 14 potential messages, we’re spending $24 million to hit one and two “halves”:
- Assurances of “the science” (YES)
- Experience of vaccine developers (NO)
- Point to extensive testing (KIND OF)
- Highlight successful outcomes so far (NO)
- Use of celebrities getting their shot (NO)
- Making people feel like they are in control (NO)
- Offering choice – vaccine type, doctor, or timing (NO)
- Appeal for “leadership” (NO)
- Protecting other people (NO)
- Showing how others will appreciate your action (NO)
- Sense of being “in this together” (NO)
- Suggesting everyone has to do their share (NO)
- Making it shameful to refuse the jab (NO)
- Demonstration of consequences of no vaccine (NOT REALLY)
The biggest factor needed was something that would gain people’s trust and that simply isn’t there. Even pointing people to the Federal Government website for more information to “get educated, be educated, and make your own decisions (as the professor mentioned in an interview)” falls flat. There’s not many people who blindly trust the government. They would have been better off saying ask the old bloke at the bar at that bowlo for more information.
But what’s really missing is the emotional connection. There’s no cut-through to grab people’s attention (nothing like the grim reaper ads that warned us about AIDS). There’s no stickability – nothing anyone will remember from the ad. And the messaging, as discussed, is fairly wishy-washy. It’s almost like they didn’t want to risk giving anyone ammunition for complaints or memes. If that was the strategy, it worked. But if the strategy was to get results, a risk needed to be taken. Someone needed to risk losing a bit of political skin to spark conversations make sure those conversations are framed in way to get the desired outcomes.
VERDICT: Hardly worth $24 million
QUICK FIX: The message “Australians are benefiting from the experience of xxx million vaccinations worldwide.”