Sunday, March 9, 2014

Obamacare "Got Insurace?" Campaign


         The new insurance plan, Obamacare, affects millions of U.S. Citizens. There is an attempt to advertise the benefits of this new plan and to get people to enroll. The new campaign “Got Insurance?” was developed to support Obamacare. I think this campaign wasn’t executed very well. Using the repeated tag line “got insurance?” relays my thinking back to the famous “got milk?” ad campaign. Using a new tag line would have differentiated their campaign. The individual ad I thought was the worst one was the keg stand ad. An article on adweek.com pointed out the controversial nature of the ad, but also that one of their target market may pointless. Under Obama Care, people can stay on their parent’s insurance until the age of 26. By 26 most people have graduated from college, so targeting college students to enroll isn’t necessary. Not to mention the two ads targeting this target market, especially the keg stand ad, seems outrageous. This article also pointed out that this campaign is gaining media attention due to being “mildly controversial”. Due to the media attention, there is a better chance that they’re target market will hopefully at least think about healthcare.

When correlating this campaign to the Hierarchy of Effects, the ads do a good job providing knowledge to the participant of the value proposition. The ads show situations that could put a person at risk, in which they would want and need insurance. It is focused on the behavior of the consumer explaining the person in the ad is like you and has insurance, so “now you can too”. Also, this campaign is linked to the site thanksobamacare.org, which does a good job of explaining its value proposition. On “Thanks, Obamacare” home page it provides 10 short, easy to understand reasons of what Obama care does for U.S. Citizens. Keeping it simple and clear, the website effectively explain the benefits of their service.

 




Sunday, March 2, 2014

Is Big Sugar the new Big Tobacco?


Before the government took preventive action, the tobacco industry was widely advertising smoking cigarettes, with one of their main target markets being kids. By getting kids hooked on their brand of cigarettes at a young age, the better chance they’d keep smoking that brand for the rest of their life. Finally some action was taken against big tobacco to heavily tax cigarettes and provide warnings on packages to give people an incentive to not smoke.

         In this day in age, highly processed foods that are high in sugar are sold cheaply and consumed by many Americans, especially kids. The consumption of these foods can cause many health problems. Obesity and diabetes are huge problems in the U.S. especially with children. In the last 30 years, the number of people who are obese have sky rocketed. With this epidemic there must be preventive steps taken to stop these continuously growing health problems.
These foods can become addicting, which has people choosing these unhealthy foods that are high in added sugar over healthier options. Educating people about the risks to their health from consuming foods that are high in sugar is a step that can be taken without action from the government. The government can take action like it did with the tobacco industry with the sugar industry to create incentives for people to make healthier choices.

Companies selling foods high in added sugar advertise straight to kids. Putting popular cartoon characters and bright colors on the packaging catering to children are meant to get kids to persuade their parents to buy it for them. I think that Big Sugar should be treated like Big Tobacco. Big sugar should be taxed and the effects of eating these foods should be advertised. The government must make it their responsibility to educate the public of the risks of consuming these foods. Big Sugar should be regulated because their products are fueling an epidemic that are going to continue to affect the health of children in America. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rooney-big-sugar/5050114

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/10/sugar-industry-lies-campaign