KEY CONCEPTS
- Segmentation As Stereotyping
- Hard To Reach
.......- 4 Assumptions
.......- Alternatives
- Different not deficient
- Society not individual
- Communication As Dialogue
- "Under The Radar" Marketing
- Culture Spies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
There were some really great points we touched on in todays class. First of all I really enjoyed this weeks article on "Hard-to-reach" groups. It made so much sense and I appreciated the fact that it put the blame on the researchers. I think labeling a group as "hard-to-reach" is a perfect excuse for researchers, program implementers, etc. to not be innovative in their communication tactics. I feel its so valuable to now have this new perspective that there is no "hard to reach" groups but rather "we" are doing a good job of reaching them. On the opposite side of the spectrum are those that are trying desperately and innovatively to get at their target audience. Case in point Sprite, MTV, Nike, etc. I couldn't help but feel that no matter how they market their products for teenagers teens are still made out to be suckers. Companys try to say in their ads that we care about you, and what you think. But lets face it all they care about is how can they make you believe all that even though they just want your money. Or in the case of teenagers, their parents money. Despite my pessimistic view on the marketing tactics seen in the video we watched I do see the silver lining; get to know your audience so you can best communicate reciprocally between you and them. Which brings me to last great lesson of the day, that is to follow top industries to see what they are doing in terms of marketing and apply that to health promotion campaigns. Again, as with the article it makes perfect sense and without this class I don't think I would have thought of that or at least thought that it could work in health promotion.
Here we are, adding more evidence to the notion that words really do matter. The words used to describe the assumptions inherent in words like "hard to reach" and the "alternative conceptualizations" are only subtly different. But it is their large-scale implications that matter. Just as dbc noted, using the traditional conceptualization of “hard to reach” removes personal responsibility from the researchers and health educators. How ineffective must that be?! I know I have been involved in conversations over the years where words like “hard to reach” were used. Groups of researchers trying to recruit black women to participate in clinical trials, for example. And it never occurred to me how insulting and disempowering it was. No wonder our recruitment of black women was so low for that study, which in turn negatively impacted both our study and the black community. We should have turned the tables. Thanks for a great lesson. Not only did it cause me to pause and think about how to approach the communities with which I work (i.e., primarily farmworkers) but it also gave me a good lesson in the subtle yet critical impact of language.
THe "Hard to reach" statement and definitions in the article are sooooo true and set by society. Learned a great lesson doing audience segmentation when no one fit into my target audience and how embarrasing was it to find out they had more education than imagined and pretty presumptious of us to think people who live in National City as "Po' black people" I really had to improvise and save face. So true to think of alternatives to "hard to reach". Society definitely needs to regroup and rethink--it is counterproductive to negatively label people, enough to stifle anyone. The deficit thesis is a better approach and makes more sense--most people who are soooo busy trying to get an education are usually out of touch with the real world and miss most of what they need to know. If the need is there then the info is available ot anyone today. I've noticed that people who lack formal education usually are very informative from traditional media about health and what's going on. Now illiteracy is an issue--need to think on that one--the oral culture leaves me thinking. Bad attitudes toward exams can happen at any socio-economic or educational level. Formative research is the key. But society is still the culprit, as well as cultural traditions and eating habits. PSAs are usually a great way to reach everyone. The video on culture spies really an eye opener and the differences in teen attitudes toward market research.
I think it is interesting how when we label some population we just give up. It is like a self fulfilling prophesy. If we say we cant then we cant because we wont try as hard, or so it seems. I appreciated how much research was going into the marketing for Sprite and MTV, although they are just finding ways to get our money. Imagine if we could use all that money, time and resources to actually make an influence on health and health issues. I also loved the blurb so to speak about the culture hunters, I never thought of it, but it makes sense because the people that are making the decisions for the companies are so far removed from their audience and who the consumer actually is, that they pay someone to find what is cool before they work it over and no one wants to associate with that anymore. Really interesting stuff. I loved having a change of pace in class and watching this movie.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me" Yeah right! Words hurt, and they hurt alot! "Hard to reach" is just one label that we use. In the English language, there is a label for practically everything we can think of. Catergorizing individuals of groups of people is a way to make life easy for us. It makes us see things in black and white. When we label someone, all types of images, roles, and attributes come along with these labels. For example, when you call someone a man. This implies that they should be strong, have a certain type of anatomy, behave in a certain way, and so on. However, do all men act the same? Do they all behave the same? No! They don't. Thus, we should be really carefully how we label others. Especially if we are trying to get their attention, we don't want to insult them!
This class hit the spot. When I first read the title of the assigned article "are there hard to reach audiences?" I immediately though: of course! I felt comfortable because I consider myself to have significant experience with this wrongly named audience. Little did I know that some of my perceptions of this audience would be changed for ever! I've striven to properly assist different segments of the population that deserve special attention, and have always kept in mind the concept of "us and them" since I started to understand the concept of "the other". But anyways, this is the most refreshing article i've read in a while regarding health communication. The alternatives, are specially right on point. And of course, one of the reasons why I do what I do is because society but not the individual is at fault for public health issues. Specially in hard to reach people...oops
Segmentation is more often used for evil than good. But, after this week in class, I am convinced that segmentation is a powerful tool that can be used to switch up the imbalanced dynamic. In the "Hard to Reach" article, it was easy to see how often society segments groups on so many levels for all of the wrong reasons. But, it was sensible to realize that if we stop using demographics to interpret psychographics, society would learn so much about the voice that goes under the radar. It just kind of makes you wonder why more people don't stop and listen. But, nevertheless, the psychographic technique is terrific because it emphasizes the importance of truly understanding your customer. I believe that if you treat the customer right, you will gain their trust and loyalty for years. Well, as I type this, I'm beginning to realize that while this may be true, you have to treat the customer right all of the time or today, you'll lose the customer in a heartbeat and another company will gain their loyalty. The video, "Culture Spies" illustrated this well. I was amazed, but not surprised at how much goes on undetected by the masses as corporations drain and manipulate consumers. I mean corporations are strategic. For years, we're made to think that wow, certain companies magically understand us. But, little do we know that we're feeding them enough information where they can use it to tell us what we need or want. (Yea, these guys are good.) But, as public health advocates, I think we have to be just as good if not better at segmenting because health is not a fad. And, while healthy may be trendy now, as public health students we have to work hard to understand the lifestyles and attitudes of those who want to make sure it never goes out of style and those who never could care less about "healthy" causes. Both opinions matter and even those in between if we want to make an impact and see lasting results. Focus groups anyone?
I have been checking out MTV since class. The pro wrestling seems to have been replaced with horror movies. I saw many horror movie adds I mean many many. Interesting that the time between segments was so long with very few variations. I watched for maybe 30 minutes and there was well over 15 minutes of advertisement. it seemed they were all for horror movies! I did see an anti smoking bit run a couple of times. It would be interesting to see just how often ViaCom changes up their advertisement strategy in order to keep up with the "kids". Another interesting event is the governments stonewalling the merger of Sirius and XM sat radio. It appears as though this is just a stall in order to maintain terrestrial radios market place in that medium. Bottom line terrestrial radio would die a slow death as would the target market served by that medium. Big money loss for Clear Channel = big $ loss for the political party that backed Clear Channels push to monopolized terrestrial radio for market and political ends.
For most of the documented past we have stereotyped, have held prejudices, or have had experiences with the so called hard to reach audience. Since day one there have been prejudices, stereotypes, and acts of ignorance to the so “hard to reach. ” And there will continue to be for centuries to come. Although, not a friendly term, “hard to reach,” it is an untrue reality we face everyday. Take for example, the population I work with. Society has a tendency to shun them, to put them on the back burner or to act as though they do not even exist. Although the developmentally disabled would qualify as a hard to reach audience, rather than looking at them as impossible to educate or impossible to change, perhaps we are the ones “impossible to change,” because obviously what we are doing is not working, because if it was we would not have the so called hard to reach sector. Rather than seeing this audience as a burden, we need to change our ways of approaching them as well as getting the word out. Perhaps, it is our fault that we are not reaching them or educating them as well as we do the well educated white male with an income in the triple digits. Perhaps, the health education spectrum and or public health officials need to reinvent a different approach. I do not like to look at people as hard to reach, as frustrating as they might be, but rather to look at them as a challenge and as learning to for myself. Every day they teach me something, and I teach them back in return.
This week's class touched on an interesting topic for me -- the concept of 'hard to reach' audiences. I completely agree with dbc that using this label can be seen as a excuse for those in charge of the interventions/programs to not be as creative as they could be. The alternative conceptualizations to this label that were presented made me feel optimistic that with enough time, resources, and interest ANY audience can be reached. We just have to really be committed to finding out an audience's needs, point of view, and opinions. Of course this is not easy and may be considered to be resource draining. But we are in the public health field and health affects everyone. I think we shouldn't leave out certain segments of that broad audience just to fit our own agenda. Unfortunately sometimes our projects are driven by the funding and funders may not be on the same page as the program implementers. If only we could tap into MTV and the like's seemingly unending pool of resources. Imagine the great focus groups we could do! And the valuable information we could get from a variety of audiences. And thus the fabulous, far-reaching, super-effective health campaigns we could launch.
I really enjoyed the point that was made in class regarding the labeling of the "hard to reach" audience. I agree with the thought that this is a cop-out for those of us in public health who use this label because they don't want to challenge themselves to understand those that are different. Being different-not deficient-is used and talked about in everything from women's rights to elementary school classrooms; this thinking has to spread into public health in order for us to actually reach those in need of services. I thought that the movie regarding "culture spies" was a good way to open people's eyes in regards to how important it is to fully realize the changing attitudes and beliefs of consumers. I believe that if this concept is understood and undertaken in the public health realm, we will begin to see a few more awareness campaigns that actually reflect the times instead of a PSA that has been months or years in the making, and to some, is no longer relevant.
Although I’ve learned that segmentation is a very powerful tool, it can also be discriminative. Thus, as a public health professional, I'm learning how to use the techniques of segmentation properly to be able to reach all target audiences. In addition, the concept of "hard-to-reach" audiences was very informative and true how communicators are at fault for not reaching to these "hard-to-reach" audiences. There should be more researchers out there trying to reach those who have limited access, poor information processing skills, etc. I also agree that there should be alternative conceptualizations. For instance, we talked about the idea of different not deficient which again is implied as "hard-to-reach". Communicators thus should find different ways to reach these audiences. The video was definitely an eye opener and makes you believe even more how most of these advertisements are out there to mainly get your money. It would be ideal if all the money spent on some of these useless ads would actually go toward making more health campaigns which are far more beneficial to ones life and I'm so glad that this is what we're learning to do in the future!
I like the concepts the article touched on concerning "hard to reach" audiences, it makes me realize that its not a question of the limitations "they" have to figure out, its more upon us as PH folk to find ways to reach them. This is not an easy task, but I think shifting the responsibility to us rather than finding excuses to not address this issue steers us toward the right path. The video we watched in class overwhelmed me a bit, how are we supposed to catch up with the constant moving trends?
I already feel outdated and Im not that old...I think. How do we reached the so called "hard-to-reach" populations if they are changing constantly as well? As public health professionals, we have to use some of the same marketing tactics. I agree with Amanda that health is not just a fad, its not a passing trend we are trying to make a profit off of. I think our audience would realize this especially if we make the effort to get to know them and understand how to reach them.
Hey Class,
This has been a very hard week for me, both as a student of public health and personally, due to some things that happened this past weekend. Reading the article on Hard to reach audience really hit home for me because it made me realize how certain labels can hinder the people we are suppose to help, in particular those from low SES and minorities. Here is my story on my "hard to reach" roommate.
It was late Saturday morning and I had blood all over my brad new white shirt, my right hand and arm. But it was not my blood, it was my roommate’s. She had been assaulted and I was trying my best to do first aid until the paramedics came. I was the oldest in the group so I had to remain calm and level headed; I had to know what to do because I am studying public health. I had to be the rational one to make all the right decisions, not for me but for my roommate. To be honest I was not ready for all this responsibility, but there was no way I could show fear or confusion. Anyways, once the paramedics came they examined my roommate’s injury and informed her that she needs to go to the hospital immediately for stitches. “No, I can’t afford to take an ambulance. I can’t afford to go to the hospital. Can’t I just go home?” While the paramedics are trying to convince and explain to her why she needs urgent medical care, the public health part of me kicked in. My roommate is what some health communication campaigns would call “Hard to reach”. At this moment she fits the preconceptions of hard to reach audience, that is fatalistic, poor information processing, distrust of dominate institution, and limited access to communication channels. Her knowledge on emergency care is based on her past experience not facts, she felt so negative about her injury that she thought she was helpless, and she had distrust of the paramedics and the police.
I wish there was some way that the paramedics could have treated her not having health insurance, her perception of the injury, and her past health care experience as different rather than her deficit. Communication between the two would have been less confrontational and more understanding. In the end she got the care she needed, but now she is waiting on the bill.
My question is since my roommate does not have health insurance through her job and her injury was not her fault, who pays for the hospital bill? Is this a society problem or an individual?
When watching commercials or seeing billboards I always wonder how certain the companies are that they are reaching their target audience. Throughout this class it is becoming more and more how much goes into making a campaign that will be effective. The idea or notion of hard to reach complicates campaigns that much more. It puts the scarlet letter on a person and really does put the undeserved blame on them. Putting people in a category is such a part of our culture that I don’t think people even realize they are doing it a lot of the time, I know I don’t. Since class I have been paying attention to how I view people and if I put labels on them or not. I do, I think we all do. “Hard to reach” is just another label thats meaning goes far beyond just the words. It stigmatizes people into a category that then limits their access to valuable information. While the whole time, it isn’t even their choice to take on that label. With that said it is our responsibility to specifically insure that no group of people (or single person for that matter) is in the ‘hard to reach’ group. So a campaign that isn’t effective isn’t due to the audience being hard to reach but because the campaign wasn’t designed to effective reach that audience. Put the customer first and do what needs to be done to reach them effectively and there will no longer be ‘hard to reach’ audiences!
Also, I think it is so fascinating to think about ‘cool.’ I am amazed at how cool takes over generations but what is in one day can just as easily be out the next. Then 10 years down the road those kids will be reminiscing about “remember when (fill in the blank) was cool.” I have a very good example of today’s ‘cool.’ They are called Webkins, they are an online animal that kids take care of (give them food and water, clean up after then, take them to the vet, etc). They are a far cry from my day’s of pound puppies but they are the latest craze for boys and girls. I guess it can’t hurt to teach kids to take care of things, virtual or not…Check out the website www.webkinz.com
I am sure many of you have seen this in e-mail but check out this site to have a good laugh and to remember what ‘cool’ was way back when… http://www.inthe80s.com/80schild2.shtml
In my opinion, to label an individual or a group as, "hard to reach," is conceding to failure. I think it is the researchers responsibility to look at so called "hard to reach" groups as an opportunity for a challenge to come up with innovative campaign strategies. The alternative conceptualization to approaching the issue was stated in the article as, "different not deficient" when looking at these "hard to reach" groups. It is the researchers job to empathize with the perspectives of the target audience to understand their fears and needs. In order to reach these groups, one needs to study how people process information and find the best communication channel to go through. The video we watched in class provided an example of having a customer centered focus in their marketing strategies. They looked at trendsetting teenagers to learn about what kind of styles and 'cool' things they are interested in. The companies like Sprite, would then market their findings and reach their target audiences successfully. The challenge with the teenage population is what's considered cool today will be gone tomorrow, so researchers need to adapt to the ever-changing trends. These "culture spies" demonstrate that communication is a reciprocal process between the sender and the receiver, as successful communication persists through an ongoing dialogue between the two,
Although I don't know that there's really much more I can say about the concept of "hard to reach" audiences that my classmates haven't already expressed, I still want to add that I found the lesson that there is no "hard to reach" audience to be invaluable. Sometimes it takes thinking outside the box and going outside of our own comfort zones to truly understand and to reach an audience that may be very different from what or who we know. Being that learning about people and getting to know them is one of my favorite things to do, I think that this would be an exciting challenge!
This is a great concept “different not deficient” to remember when dealing with individuals in our field. It is sometimes hard to understand why it is so difficult for clients to take what you have to offer (e.g., therapeutic intervention). I have found myself questioning why bother with these individuals. We have all heard of the saying “You can lead a horse to water…” Sometimes you want to just grab a hold of that horse and hold his head under water for few seconds. Then it hits you, the whole reason we are in the public health field. These people come from different circumstances and he or she is not permanently flawed.
Post a Comment