本案例默认翻译为中文，点击可切换回原语言
已切换成原语言，点击可翻译成中文
损害: 安全带广告的长期影响
案例简介：北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国的安全带磨损率历来低于他们最近的邻居英国，导致了更高的道路屠杀率。挑战是提高安全带的合规性，从而减少道路屠杀，从而减少人类悲剧和纳税人的经济成本。Seatbelts 广告的长期影响显示了 400 万广告投资是如何产生 3.78 亿经济储蓄的，每 1 笔投资的广告回报为 15 英镑。2001 到 2007年，爱尔兰的跨境运动利用心理技术来冲击和编码情感记忆，影响安全带佩戴的决定，在安全带佩戴率方面取得了显著的飞跃, 减少了 1132 人的死亡和严重受伤，没有安全带。该运动将北爱尔兰的安全带磨损从英国的最低水平提高到最高水平，使爱尔兰共和国的后安全带磨损翻了两番，并导致 2008年的道路死亡人数创下历史最低水平: 北爱尔兰 107，爱尔兰共和国 279。我们在北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国进行的最新 2009 次影响因素调查显示，在整个爱尔兰岛, 电视道路安全广告被认为是在 ireland 的道路上拯救生命的最有影响力的因素。在北爱尔兰 52% 和爱尔兰共和国 55%，这两个人口的代表性样本都表示，电视道路安全广告在拯救爱尔兰公路上的生命方面非常有影响力。Millward Brown 的独立研究比较了公众认为在拯救道路上的生命方面非常有影响力的所有因素。道路安全电视广告被认为是 NI 和 ROI 拯救生命的最有影响力的因素，其次是警察执法、法院处罚和道路交通法。在北爱尔兰, 总共有 86% 的成年人认为 DOE 道路安全广告在拯救生命方面非常有影响力，在爱尔兰共和国，总共有 80% 的成年人认为所有的道路安全广告都非常有影响力拯救生命 上下文 1。与行业规范相比，实现高水平的意识。 2。与行业规范相比，获得高水平的影响力。 3。与运动前的基准相比，改善对安全带的态度。 4。提高整体和关键目标的安全带磨损率。减少死亡和严重伤害，实现人力和经济节约。 贝尔法斯特和都柏林政府制定的总体道路安全战略为这些目标提供了信息。两国政府都致力于减少道路死亡和重伤。两国政府通过执法措施和教育活动的结合，将提高安全带合规性作为其战略的主要目标。教育运动的目的是通过广告提高认识 -- 通过影响转化为参与、参与和内部化，衡量人们是否受到运动的影响。从 2001年到 2008年，在一波又一波的跟踪中，安全带电视活动获得了显著超过行业规范的意识和影响力得分。态度的改善，导致了观察到的行为变化 -- NI 和 ROI 中有史以来最高的安全带磨损率。NISRA 进行的独立观察调查显示: 自损害开始以来，磨损率一直在上升。NI 的总体磨损率已经提高到 96%。-与 96% (Aug-07) 的 GB 司机磨损率相比，司机磨损率提高到 94%。NI 的后座磨损率已经提高到 91%。-自 “自私” 运动 (针对父母的运动) 发起以来，1 至 13 岁以下儿童的后座磨损率有所上升或保持高水平。1 岁以下的受约束儿童从 2006年的 99% 增加到 96%。1-4 岁受约束的儿童从 2005年的 96% 增加到 92%。5-9 岁的佩戴率从 2006年的 94% 上升到 84%。10-13 岁的磨损率从 2006年的 93% 上升到 86%。-在《 Get it On 》推出后，观察到年轻人的最高穿戴率。戴安全带的 14-26 岁儿童从 2007年的 83% 增加到 2006年的 75%。NI 安全带磨损率的最大增长是:-后座 14-29 岁的儿童从 2001年4月的 46% (损坏开始前) 上升到 2008年4月的 82%。-所有后座的磨损率从 2001年4月的 67% (损坏发射前) 上升到 2008年4月的 91%。尼的安全带磨损率一直落后于 GB 率，直到今年尼现在在英国拥有最高的驾驶员、后座和前座公布磨损率。ROI 安全带磨损率的最大增长是:-所有后座磨损率P 从 1999年的 20% (发射前的损害) 到 2007年的 84%。-司机磨损率从 1999年的 55% (损坏启动前) 上升到 2007年的 88%。-总体磨损率为 88%，高于 1999年的 57%。这场运动导致没有安全带的死亡和严重受伤人数减少。运动后，没有安全带的死亡和重伤人数下降了 1132 人。这场运动导致没有安全带的死亡和严重受伤人数减少。无安全带的运动后死亡和重伤在 NI 和 ROI 分别下降了 29% 和 46%。在安全带运动启动前的六年里，有 1065 人在没有系安全带的情况下丧生或受重伤。在发射后的六年里，死亡和重伤人数下降到 755 人 *。在安全带运动启动前的六年里，有 1775 人在没有系安全带的情况下丧生或受重伤。在发射后的六年里，死亡和重伤人数下降到 953 * *。经济回报公众对道路上拯救生命最有影响因素的看法被用来计算 378 的比例。 400万经济节约 (NI 和 ROI 组合)，这可以归因于每个影响因素。从这个角度来看，电视广告作为拯救生命的一个非常有影响力的因素的道路削减回报是 2900万。在 2001年和 2.09亿之间，安全带广告活动总共花费了 2007 英镑。投资回报率为 300万，每投资 1 英镑的回报率为 15.75 英镑。*这 29% 的减少代表了今天 310 名活着和没有受伤的人 -- 对纳税人的回报是 520,000。这一数字是基于运输部对道路死亡和严重伤害的经济成本的估价 (每例死亡 1.4 万英镑/每例严重伤害 16 万英镑)。* *这 46% 的减少代表了今天 822 名活着和没有受伤的人 -- 这是对纳税人的回报 -- 358,534。这个数字是基于 Goodbody 经济顾问公司，用于运输项目成本效益分析的参数值 (死亡成本 =-018,126/严重伤害成本 =-226, 757)。***经济回报总额是用 2001 至 2007 的数字计算的，只是因为有关当局尚未公布与未系安全带造成的死亡和重伤有关的 2008 个数字。 哲学/解决方案 这种方法由研究主导、数据主导和心理主导。在 1999 和 2007 之间，28,612 个研究访谈被独立进行，北与南，对安全带的态度，使用定性技术进行战略开发，定量技术进行预测试和跟踪 作为损害前战略发展的一部分，发起了一项广泛的定性研究方案 (1月29日-2001年2月1日)。研究显示，目标观众认为不系安全带是个人的选择 -- 个人自由的行为。 他们解雇安全带背后的关键见解被揭示为他们对佩戴后安全带所产生的身体和社会排斥的强烈不适感。 当他们被限制在汽车的后部时，他们没有控制，没有自由和有限的自我表达，同时被拒绝进入汽车的社会中心 -- 前部。 他们觉得自己被削弱了，不酷，因为他们被排除在行动之外，因此他们通过确定这是他们的行为，他们的决定，合理地拒绝后排安全带, 他们的生活没有超越自己的后果。 背部安全带的执法被认为是软弱和不一致的。即使被发现，你也可以通过说话来摆脱任何进一步的行动。这有助于目标观众合理化为什么背部安全带不是真正必要的，他们自己的选择。 这些团体证实，他们决定系安全带的可能动机包括杀害家庭成员或朋友的可能性，或者终身严重残疾的可能性。
损害: 安全带广告的长期影响
案例简介：Seatbelt wearing rates in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have historically been lower than their nearest neighbour, Great Britain, producing higher rates of road carnage. The challenge was to increase seatbelt compliance and thereby reduce road carnage with a consequent reduction in both its human tragedy and its economic cost to the taxpayer. âThe Longer Term Effects of Seatbeltsâ Advertisingâ shows how a £4 million advertising investment produced a £378 million economic saving, isolating an advertising payback of £15 for every £1 invested. Using psychological techniques to shock and encode emotional memory, influencing seatbelt wearing decisions, the cross-border campaign in Ireland, 2001 to 2007, achieved significant leaps in seatbelt wearing rates, with a reduction in death and serious injuries without seatbelts of 1132 people. The campaign moved Northern Irelandâs seatbelt wearing from the lowest to the highest in the UK, quadrupled rear seatbelt wearing in the Republic of Ireland and contributed to the lowest road death toll on record in 2008: 107 in Northern Ireland and 279 in the Republic of Ireland. Our latest 2009 influential factors surveys in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland reveal that, across the island of Ireland, TV Road safety advertising is perceived as the most influential factor in saving lives on Irelandâs roads. In Northern Ireland 52% and in the Republic of Ireland 55% of a representative sample of both populations stated that TV Road Safety Advertising was very influential in saving lives on Irelandâs roads. Independent research by Millward Brown compares all the factors perceived by the public as very influential in saving lives on the roads. Road safety TV ads are perceived as the most influential factors in saving lives in both NI and ROI, followed by police enforcement, penalties imposed by courts and road traffic laws. In Northern Ireland, an aggregated total of 86% of adults believe that DOE road safety ads are âvery influentialâ in saving lives and in the Irish Republic an aggregated total of 80% of adults believe all road safety ads are âvery influentialâ in saving lives Context 1. Achieve high levels of awareness, compared to industry norms. 2. Achieve high levels of influence, compared to industry norms. 3. Improve attitudes to seatbelt wearing, compared to pre-campaign benchmarks. 4. Increase seatbelt wearing rates overall and for key targets. 5. Reduce deaths and serious injuries, achieving both human and economic savings. Those objectives were informed by the overall Road Safety Strategies put in place by the governments in both Belfast and Dublin. Both governments were committed to the reduction of road deaths and serious injuries. Both governments identified higher seatbelt compliance as a major objective of their strategies â through a combination of enforcement measures and education campaigns. The purpose of the education campaigns, through advertising, was to create increased awareness - translated via impact into engagement, involvement and internalisation, measured whether people are influenced or not influenced by the campaign. In wave after wave of tracking from 2001 to 2008, the seatbelts TV campaigns achieved awareness and influence scores which significantly outscored industry norms. Attitudinal improvements, led to observed behaviour changes â the highest ever seatbelt wearing rates in both NI and ROI. Independent Observational Surveys conducted by NISRA show: - Wearing rates have continuously increased since the launch of Damage. - Overall wearing rates have increased to 96% in NI. - Driver wearing rates have increased to 96%, compared to GB driver wearing rate of 94% (Aug-07). - Backseat wearing rates in NI have increased to 91%. - Since the launch of Selfish (the campaign aimed at parents), backseat wearing rates of those aged under 1 to 13 years old have increased or maintained high levels. ⢠Under 1 year olds restrained increased to 99% from 96% in 2006. ⢠1-4 year olds restrained increased to 96% from 92% in 2005. ⢠5-9 year old wearing rates increase to 94% from 84% in 2006. ⢠10-13 year old wearing rates increased to 93% from 86% in 2006. - Following the launch of Get it On, the highest ever wearing rates among young people have been observed. ⢠14-26 year olds wearing seatbelts increased to 83% in 2007 from 75% in 2006. The biggest increases in NI seatbelt wearing rates are in: - Backseat 14-29 year olds â up from 46% in April 2001 (before the launch of Damage) to 82% in April 2008. - All backseat wearing rates â up from 67% in April 2001 (before the launch of Damage) to 91% in April 2008. NIâs seatbelt wearing rates have continuously lagged behind GB rates until this year â NI now has the highest driver, backseat and front seat published wearing rates in the UK. The biggest increases in ROI seatbelt wearing rates are in: - All backseat wearing rates â up from 20% in 1999 (before the launch of Damage) to 84% in 2007. - Driver wearing rates â up from 55% in 1999 (before the launch of Damage) to 88% in 2007. - Overall wearing rates 88%, up from 57% in 1999. The campaign resulted in a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts. Post-campaign deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts fell by 1132 people. Human Payback The campaign resulted in a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts. Post-campaign deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts fell by 29% in NI and 46% in ROI. NI During the six years pre-launch of the seatbelts campaigns, 1065 people were killed or seriously injured while not wearing a seatbelt. In the six years post-launch, the number of deaths and serious injuries fell to 755*. ROI During the six years pre-launch of the seatbelts campaigns 1775 people were killed or seriously injured while not wearing a seatbelt. In the six years post-launch, the number of deaths and serious injuries fell to 953**. Economic Payback The publicâs perception of the most influential factors in saving lives on the roads has been used to calculate the proportion of the £378.4 million economic saving (NI and ROI combined) which can be attributed to each of the influential factors. From this the road reduction payback of the TV ads as a âvery influentialâ factor in saving lives is £66.29 million. The Seatbelts advertising campaigns cost a total of £4.209 million between 2001 and 2007*** . With a payback figure of £66.3 million the return per pound invested is £15.75 per £1 invested. * This 29% decrease represents 310 people alive and uninjured today - a payback to the taxpayer of £59,520,000. This figure is based on the Department for Transportâs valuation of the economic cost of a road fatality and serious injury (£1.4m per death / £160,000 per serious injury). ** This 46% decrease represents 822 people alive and uninjured today - a payback to the taxpayer of â¬401,358,534. This figure is based on Goodbody Economic Consultants, Parameter Values for use in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transport Projects (cost of a death = â¬2,018,126 / cost of a serious injury = â¬226,757). *** The Economic Payback total is calculated using 2001-2007 figures only because the 2008 figures relating to deaths and serious injuries attributed to not wearing a seatbelt have not yet been released by the relevant authorities. Philosophy/Solution The approach was research-led, data-led and psychology-led. Between 1999 and 2007, 28,612 research interviews were independently conducted, North & South, into attitudes to seatbelts, using qualitative techniques for strategy development and quantitative techniques for pre-testing and tracking An extensive programme of qualitative research was launched as part of the strategy development pre Damage (29th January â 1st February 2001). The research revealed that the target audience felt that the decision not to wear a seatbelt was a personal choice - an act of personal freedom. The key insight behind their dismissal of seatbelts was revealed as the acute sense of discomfort they felt with the physical and social exclusion which wearing a rear seatbelt generated. When restrained in the rear of a vehicle they had no control, no freedom and limited self-expression whilst being denied access to the social centre of the car - the front. They felt diminished and uncool because they were excluded from the action, consequently they rationalised their rejection of rear seatbelts by determining that it was their behaviour, their decision, their life which had no consequence beyond themselves. Enforcement of back seatbelt wearing was perceived as being weak and inconsistent. Even when detected it was felt you could talk your way out of any further action. This helped the target audience rationalise why back seatbelts were not really necessary and their own choice. The groups confirmed that their possible motivations for deciding to wear a seatbelt included the prospect of killing a family member or a friend, or the prospect of being seriously disabled for life.
Damage: The Longer Term Effects of Seatbelt Advertising
案例简介：北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国的安全带磨损率历来低于他们最近的邻居英国，导致了更高的道路屠杀率。挑战是提高安全带的合规性，从而减少道路屠杀，从而减少人类悲剧和纳税人的经济成本。Seatbelts 广告的长期影响显示了 400 万广告投资是如何产生 3.78 亿经济储蓄的，每 1 笔投资的广告回报为 15 英镑。2001 到 2007年，爱尔兰的跨境运动利用心理技术来冲击和编码情感记忆，影响安全带佩戴的决定，在安全带佩戴率方面取得了显著的飞跃, 减少了 1132 人的死亡和严重受伤，没有安全带。该运动将北爱尔兰的安全带磨损从英国的最低水平提高到最高水平，使爱尔兰共和国的后安全带磨损翻了两番，并导致 2008年的道路死亡人数创下历史最低水平: 北爱尔兰 107，爱尔兰共和国 279。我们在北爱尔兰和爱尔兰共和国进行的最新 2009 次影响因素调查显示，在整个爱尔兰岛, 电视道路安全广告被认为是在 ireland 的道路上拯救生命的最有影响力的因素。在北爱尔兰 52% 和爱尔兰共和国 55%，这两个人口的代表性样本都表示，电视道路安全广告在拯救爱尔兰公路上的生命方面非常有影响力。Millward Brown 的独立研究比较了公众认为在拯救道路上的生命方面非常有影响力的所有因素。道路安全电视广告被认为是 NI 和 ROI 拯救生命的最有影响力的因素，其次是警察执法、法院处罚和道路交通法。在北爱尔兰, 总共有 86% 的成年人认为 DOE 道路安全广告在拯救生命方面非常有影响力，在爱尔兰共和国，总共有 80% 的成年人认为所有的道路安全广告都非常有影响力拯救生命 上下文 1。与行业规范相比，实现高水平的意识。 2。与行业规范相比，获得高水平的影响力。 3。与运动前的基准相比，改善对安全带的态度。 4。提高整体和关键目标的安全带磨损率。减少死亡和严重伤害，实现人力和经济节约。 贝尔法斯特和都柏林政府制定的总体道路安全战略为这些目标提供了信息。两国政府都致力于减少道路死亡和重伤。两国政府通过执法措施和教育活动的结合，将提高安全带合规性作为其战略的主要目标。教育运动的目的是通过广告提高认识 -- 通过影响转化为参与、参与和内部化，衡量人们是否受到运动的影响。从 2001年到 2008年，在一波又一波的跟踪中，安全带电视活动获得了显著超过行业规范的意识和影响力得分。态度的改善，导致了观察到的行为变化 -- NI 和 ROI 中有史以来最高的安全带磨损率。NISRA 进行的独立观察调查显示: 自损害开始以来，磨损率一直在上升。NI 的总体磨损率已经提高到 96%。-与 96% (Aug-07) 的 GB 司机磨损率相比，司机磨损率提高到 94%。NI 的后座磨损率已经提高到 91%。-自 “自私” 运动 (针对父母的运动) 发起以来，1 至 13 岁以下儿童的后座磨损率有所上升或保持高水平。1 岁以下的受约束儿童从 2006年的 99% 增加到 96%。1-4 岁受约束的儿童从 2005年的 96% 增加到 92%。5-9 岁的佩戴率从 2006年的 94% 上升到 84%。10-13 岁的磨损率从 2006年的 93% 上升到 86%。-在《 Get it On 》推出后，观察到年轻人的最高穿戴率。戴安全带的 14-26 岁儿童从 2007年的 83% 增加到 2006年的 75%。NI 安全带磨损率的最大增长是:-后座 14-29 岁的儿童从 2001年4月的 46% (损坏开始前) 上升到 2008年4月的 82%。-所有后座的磨损率从 2001年4月的 67% (损坏发射前) 上升到 2008年4月的 91%。尼的安全带磨损率一直落后于 GB 率，直到今年尼现在在英国拥有最高的驾驶员、后座和前座公布磨损率。ROI 安全带磨损率的最大增长是:-所有后座磨损率P 从 1999年的 20% (发射前的损害) 到 2007年的 84%。-司机磨损率从 1999年的 55% (损坏启动前) 上升到 2007年的 88%。-总体磨损率为 88%，高于 1999年的 57%。这场运动导致没有安全带的死亡和严重受伤人数减少。运动后，没有安全带的死亡和重伤人数下降了 1132 人。这场运动导致没有安全带的死亡和严重受伤人数减少。无安全带的运动后死亡和重伤在 NI 和 ROI 分别下降了 29% 和 46%。在安全带运动启动前的六年里，有 1065 人在没有系安全带的情况下丧生或受重伤。在发射后的六年里，死亡和重伤人数下降到 755 人 *。在安全带运动启动前的六年里，有 1775 人在没有系安全带的情况下丧生或受重伤。在发射后的六年里，死亡和重伤人数下降到 953 * *。经济回报公众对道路上拯救生命最有影响因素的看法被用来计算 378 的比例。 400万经济节约 (NI 和 ROI 组合)，这可以归因于每个影响因素。从这个角度来看，电视广告作为拯救生命的一个非常有影响力的因素的道路削减回报是 2900万。在 2001年和 2.09亿之间，安全带广告活动总共花费了 2007 英镑。投资回报率为 300万，每投资 1 英镑的回报率为 15.75 英镑。*这 29% 的减少代表了今天 310 名活着和没有受伤的人 -- 对纳税人的回报是 520,000。这一数字是基于运输部对道路死亡和严重伤害的经济成本的估价 (每例死亡 1.4 万英镑/每例严重伤害 16 万英镑)。* *这 46% 的减少代表了今天 822 名活着和没有受伤的人 -- 这是对纳税人的回报 -- 358,534。这个数字是基于 Goodbody 经济顾问公司，用于运输项目成本效益分析的参数值 (死亡成本 =-018,126/严重伤害成本 =-226, 757)。***经济回报总额是用 2001 至 2007 的数字计算的，只是因为有关当局尚未公布与未系安全带造成的死亡和重伤有关的 2008 个数字。 哲学/解决方案 这种方法由研究主导、数据主导和心理主导。在 1999 和 2007 之间，28,612 个研究访谈被独立进行，北与南，对安全带的态度，使用定性技术进行战略开发，定量技术进行预测试和跟踪 作为损害前战略发展的一部分，发起了一项广泛的定性研究方案 (1月29日-2001年2月1日)。研究显示，目标观众认为不系安全带是个人的选择 -- 个人自由的行为。 他们解雇安全带背后的关键见解被揭示为他们对佩戴后安全带所产生的身体和社会排斥的强烈不适感。 当他们被限制在汽车的后部时，他们没有控制，没有自由和有限的自我表达，同时被拒绝进入汽车的社会中心 -- 前部。 他们觉得自己被削弱了，不酷，因为他们被排除在行动之外，因此他们通过确定这是他们的行为，他们的决定，合理地拒绝后排安全带, 他们的生活没有超越自己的后果。 背部安全带的执法被认为是软弱和不一致的。即使被发现，你也可以通过说话来摆脱任何进一步的行动。这有助于目标观众合理化为什么背部安全带不是真正必要的，他们自己的选择。 这些团体证实，他们决定系安全带的可能动机包括杀害家庭成员或朋友的可能性，或者终身严重残疾的可能性。
Damage: The Longer Term Effects of Seatbelt Advertising
案例简介：Seatbelt wearing rates in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have historically been lower than their nearest neighbour, Great Britain, producing higher rates of road carnage. The challenge was to increase seatbelt compliance and thereby reduce road carnage with a consequent reduction in both its human tragedy and its economic cost to the taxpayer. âThe Longer Term Effects of Seatbeltsâ Advertisingâ shows how a £4 million advertising investment produced a £378 million economic saving, isolating an advertising payback of £15 for every £1 invested. Using psychological techniques to shock and encode emotional memory, influencing seatbelt wearing decisions, the cross-border campaign in Ireland, 2001 to 2007, achieved significant leaps in seatbelt wearing rates, with a reduction in death and serious injuries without seatbelts of 1132 people. The campaign moved Northern Irelandâs seatbelt wearing from the lowest to the highest in the UK, quadrupled rear seatbelt wearing in the Republic of Ireland and contributed to the lowest road death toll on record in 2008: 107 in Northern Ireland and 279 in the Republic of Ireland. Our latest 2009 influential factors surveys in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland reveal that, across the island of Ireland, TV Road safety advertising is perceived as the most influential factor in saving lives on Irelandâs roads. In Northern Ireland 52% and in the Republic of Ireland 55% of a representative sample of both populations stated that TV Road Safety Advertising was very influential in saving lives on Irelandâs roads. Independent research by Millward Brown compares all the factors perceived by the public as very influential in saving lives on the roads. Road safety TV ads are perceived as the most influential factors in saving lives in both NI and ROI, followed by police enforcement, penalties imposed by courts and road traffic laws. In Northern Ireland, an aggregated total of 86% of adults believe that DOE road safety ads are âvery influentialâ in saving lives and in the Irish Republic an aggregated total of 80% of adults believe all road safety ads are âvery influentialâ in saving lives Context 1. Achieve high levels of awareness, compared to industry norms. 2. Achieve high levels of influence, compared to industry norms. 3. Improve attitudes to seatbelt wearing, compared to pre-campaign benchmarks. 4. Increase seatbelt wearing rates overall and for key targets. 5. Reduce deaths and serious injuries, achieving both human and economic savings. Those objectives were informed by the overall Road Safety Strategies put in place by the governments in both Belfast and Dublin. Both governments were committed to the reduction of road deaths and serious injuries. Both governments identified higher seatbelt compliance as a major objective of their strategies â through a combination of enforcement measures and education campaigns. The purpose of the education campaigns, through advertising, was to create increased awareness - translated via impact into engagement, involvement and internalisation, measured whether people are influenced or not influenced by the campaign. In wave after wave of tracking from 2001 to 2008, the seatbelts TV campaigns achieved awareness and influence scores which significantly outscored industry norms. Attitudinal improvements, led to observed behaviour changes â the highest ever seatbelt wearing rates in both NI and ROI. Independent Observational Surveys conducted by NISRA show: - Wearing rates have continuously increased since the launch of Damage. - Overall wearing rates have increased to 96% in NI. - Driver wearing rates have increased to 96%, compared to GB driver wearing rate of 94% (Aug-07). - Backseat wearing rates in NI have increased to 91%. - Since the launch of Selfish (the campaign aimed at parents), backseat wearing rates of those aged under 1 to 13 years old have increased or maintained high levels. ⢠Under 1 year olds restrained increased to 99% from 96% in 2006. ⢠1-4 year olds restrained increased to 96% from 92% in 2005. ⢠5-9 year old wearing rates increase to 94% from 84% in 2006. ⢠10-13 year old wearing rates increased to 93% from 86% in 2006. - Following the launch of Get it On, the highest ever wearing rates among young people have been observed. ⢠14-26 year olds wearing seatbelts increased to 83% in 2007 from 75% in 2006. The biggest increases in NI seatbelt wearing rates are in: - Backseat 14-29 year olds â up from 46% in April 2001 (before the launch of Damage) to 82% in April 2008. - All backseat wearing rates â up from 67% in April 2001 (before the launch of Damage) to 91% in April 2008. NIâs seatbelt wearing rates have continuously lagged behind GB rates until this year â NI now has the highest driver, backseat and front seat published wearing rates in the UK. The biggest increases in ROI seatbelt wearing rates are in: - All backseat wearing rates â up from 20% in 1999 (before the launch of Damage) to 84% in 2007. - Driver wearing rates â up from 55% in 1999 (before the launch of Damage) to 88% in 2007. - Overall wearing rates 88%, up from 57% in 1999. The campaign resulted in a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts. Post-campaign deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts fell by 1132 people. Human Payback The campaign resulted in a reduction in the number of deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts. Post-campaign deaths and serious injuries without seatbelts fell by 29% in NI and 46% in ROI. NI During the six years pre-launch of the seatbelts campaigns, 1065 people were killed or seriously injured while not wearing a seatbelt. In the six years post-launch, the number of deaths and serious injuries fell to 755*. ROI During the six years pre-launch of the seatbelts campaigns 1775 people were killed or seriously injured while not wearing a seatbelt. In the six years post-launch, the number of deaths and serious injuries fell to 953**. Economic Payback The publicâs perception of the most influential factors in saving lives on the roads has been used to calculate the proportion of the £378.4 million economic saving (NI and ROI combined) which can be attributed to each of the influential factors. From this the road reduction payback of the TV ads as a âvery influentialâ factor in saving lives is £66.29 million. The Seatbelts advertising campaigns cost a total of £4.209 million between 2001 and 2007*** . With a payback figure of £66.3 million the return per pound invested is £15.75 per £1 invested. * This 29% decrease represents 310 people alive and uninjured today - a payback to the taxpayer of £59,520,000. This figure is based on the Department for Transportâs valuation of the economic cost of a road fatality and serious injury (£1.4m per death / £160,000 per serious injury). ** This 46% decrease represents 822 people alive and uninjured today - a payback to the taxpayer of â¬401,358,534. This figure is based on Goodbody Economic Consultants, Parameter Values for use in Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transport Projects (cost of a death = â¬2,018,126 / cost of a serious injury = â¬226,757). *** The Economic Payback total is calculated using 2001-2007 figures only because the 2008 figures relating to deaths and serious injuries attributed to not wearing a seatbelt have not yet been released by the relevant authorities. Philosophy/Solution The approach was research-led, data-led and psychology-led. Between 1999 and 2007, 28,612 research interviews were independently conducted, North & South, into attitudes to seatbelts, using qualitative techniques for strategy development and quantitative techniques for pre-testing and tracking An extensive programme of qualitative research was launched as part of the strategy development pre Damage (29th January â 1st February 2001). The research revealed that the target audience felt that the decision not to wear a seatbelt was a personal choice - an act of personal freedom. The key insight behind their dismissal of seatbelts was revealed as the acute sense of discomfort they felt with the physical and social exclusion which wearing a rear seatbelt generated. When restrained in the rear of a vehicle they had no control, no freedom and limited self-expression whilst being denied access to the social centre of the car - the front. They felt diminished and uncool because they were excluded from the action, consequently they rationalised their rejection of rear seatbelts by determining that it was their behaviour, their decision, their life which had no consequence beyond themselves. Enforcement of back seatbelt wearing was perceived as being weak and inconsistent. Even when detected it was felt you could talk your way out of any further action. This helped the target audience rationalise why back seatbelts were not really necessary and their own choice. The groups confirmed that their possible motivations for deciding to wear a seatbelt included the prospect of killing a family member or a friend, or the prospect of being seriously disabled for life.
损害: 安全带广告的长期影响
暂无简介
Damage: The Longer Term Effects of Seatbelt Advertising
暂无简介
基本信息
- 广告战役： #Dept of Environnement-影视-96d5#
- 广告品牌： Dept of Environnement
- 发布日期： 2000
- 行业领域： 公益慈善 , 公共事业
- 媒体类别： 短视频
- 广告语言： 英语
- 媒介平台： 网络
-
获得奖项：
- EACA Care Awards 2009 获奖作品（Public and Private Sector Businesses）
- EACA Euro Effies 2006 金奖（Stig Carlson Award）
- International ANDY Awards 2002 荣誉奖（Television: Best Existing Music）
- IPA Effectiveness Awards 2002 铜奖
- Caucasus International Festival of Advertisement 2002 评委会特别奖（Best Directing）
- Caucasus International Festival of Advertisement 2002 铜奖（Social advertising, advertising in cultural sphere）
- Golden Award of Montreux 金奖章（Direction）
- Golden Award of Montreux 金奖章（Public Services / Social Welfare）
暂无评分
已有{{caseInfo.tatolPeople}}人评分
创作者
案例详情
No seatbelt - No excuse
涵盖全球100万精选案例，涉及2800个行业，包含63000个品牌
热门节日97个，23个维度智能搜索
-
项目比稿
品类案例按时间展现，借鉴同品牌策略，比稿提案轻松中标
-
创意策划
任意搜索品牌关键词，脑洞创意策划1秒呈现
-
竞品调研
一键搜索竞品往年广告，一眼掌握对手市场定位
-
行业研究
热词查看洞悉爆点，抢占行业趋势红利
登录后查看全部案例信息
如果您是本案的创作者或参与者 可对信息进行完善
