Creative Approaches Proven to Drive Action

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis:  The Ad Council produces multi-media PSA campaigns for more than 50 social causes. We are often asked what creative approaches “work.”  Is humor an effective way to motivate action? Is being witty better or worse than using sarcasm? Is a loss-framed message effective? How should ads balance information and inspiration? Is it even possible to develop criteria and guidelines for creative, given the wide range of social issues being addressed via communications today, and the accompanying range of objectives, barriers, and target audiences? Recently, we have begun to answer these questions. Using data from quantitative evaluations of 142 ads, we are able to make generalizations about what creative factors drive likeability, informativeness, relevance, and behaviors in public service television advertising.

Methods:  Ace Metrix, an online market research provider, continuously feeds Ad Council TV PSAs into its service platform. Ace uses a standardized approach to surveying and scoring all ads. 500 respondents age 18+ view each ad and are asked a series of standardized questions, rating each metric (e.g. likeability, attention, relevance, information, and intent to take a series of actions) on a sliding scale from 1 to 1000. Results are available to the Ad Council in real time. We looked at results from 64 campaigns active from 2009 - 2013, incorporating a wide range of creative styles. Campaigns were sorted into two target categories: General Market (n=102 ads) and Parents (n=40 ads). Ads were then coded based on creative approach, and average scores were compared for: Use of humor and humor type (witty vs. sarcastic); Timing of reveal (first vs. second half); Use of a celebrity; Tone (sad vs. scary); and Appeal Type (informative vs. inspiring).

Results: 

• The right kind of humor works. Humorous messages are likeable and relevant, especially for parents. Use sarcasm with care.
• Tonal appropriateness varies by audience. Scary messages are more relevant to parents, while those with a more inspirational feel may end up seeming less informative.
• Tone influences likelihood to take action. Scary messages may be least likely to motivate respondents to talk to others about a cause or visit a website, yet were among the most motivating for donating money. Humorous and uplifting messages were the least successful at inspiring donations or changing attitudes. Information-focused messages spurred respondents to talk about an issue, think differently, and learn more.
• Timing of the reveal may influence some groups. Messages with an early reveal may be seen as more informative.
• Celebrities don’t necessarily help (or hurt). Ratings of information, likeability, or relevance were not affected by the presence of a celebrity. However, including celebrities may help to motivate certain behaviors, like visiting a website and talking to someone about a cause. Celebrity presence, however, did not drive respondents to take action.

Conclusions:  There is no “one size fits all” solution for public service television advertising. 

Implications for research and/or practice:  Based on a campaign’s target and objectives, marketers can use these principles to craft more effective communications.