Read the following story from the NY Times and this one from the AdCouncil .Also watch the two videos. Which type of tactic works better? Why or why not? What could be done differently to make the message more effective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the video with the teenagers all dying had a better effect. The video of Willard- haunting was jus a joke. If this is a serious problem then they shouldn’t have went about it with a joking solution. The first video was more dramatic; nobody would want to die with their friends in an accident like this, nor would they want to be the only one who survives. It would definitely open teen’s minds to the danger that can come from texting while driving. Plus the Willard video was short and it didn’t really lay an impact of what could happen if you text and drive.
ReplyDeleteI feel as though the first “Textracted” Driving was the more convincing advertisement warning teenagers not to drive. The “Textracted” Driving in a way scared the audience not to text and drive at the same time. After watching this advertisement against texting and driving, I will not text and drive anytime soon. While the second “Willard-Haunting” made this only seem to be like a joke and the audience probably would just laugh it off instead of getting the full message that it is seriously dangerous to text and drive.
ReplyDeleteI think the video with the graphic crash scene was more effective. By incorporating the detailed gore and all that blood, it definitely left a negative impression. I would never want to experience anything that looks so painful and traumatizing. Not to mention that the girl is now responsible for the death of her two friends. I can’t imagine what it would be like trying to tell someone that some friends of yours are dead because you decided to text while driving. Although I don’t drive yet, I’m sure the image of this video will pop up some time later on, and I won’t be willing to put myself or others in such danger for the sake of texting.
ReplyDeleteThe Tactic which works best in my opinion is the first video because it CLEARLY shows the possible consequences which can happen as a result of diverting your attention to something such as texting whie driving. It works better than the second commercial because the second commercial seems to have to much humor while the first one remains dead serious. In many ways both of the videos can be proven effective but I guarantee someone who saw the first one will likely remember it. If you wanted to make the first one better, make it shorter and provide a few words at the end saying “Keep your eyes on the Road” or “safety first” or something like that. To make the second video better and more effective, simply add a little more humor with a larger warning. For instance, if they showed the crash and then Fred Willard haunting the driver, you would be less likely to want to experience the results of texting and driving.
ReplyDeleteHow will people perceive these different anti-texting campaigns? The first one, from Wales, I believe to be far more effective. The humor of the second ad may give it a more relatable, and possibly “cooler” image, however, it does not take its subject nearly seriously enough to allow the message to sink in. The first ad, featuring the crashing teenage girls, utilizes fear to cross their message. This has proven to be effective in many different political campaigns throughout history, and chances are, it will be here. It is particularly effective in that it provides two distinct images: the girls using the cell phone, and the dead bodies after the crash. If these two are linked in the mind of the viewer, he or she will fear texting while driving. Some people believe that this first ad may be ineffective because they claim that “most teens already know the risks.” Others criticize this ad because they don’t show the cell phone usage prominently enough. The first criticism I believe to be invalid because the ad focuses on the implications of the risk itself rather than the activity being a risk itself. The second ad I believe will just be a laugh for many, and it won’t sink in for most viewers. It might make some feel guilty, and therefore be somewhat effective, but for most, it won’t work.
ReplyDeleteWhen I watched the two videos I thought the video from the New York Times was more effective than the Ad Council video. I thought this because the video from Ad Council had humor in it while the NY Times video was full of blood, pain and death. The NY Times video does not need to be changed in my opinion, it is quite effective as it is. I think the Ad Council video could add a more serious tone to grab the attention of its viewers.
ReplyDeleteThe tactic from the UK video works better than the one from Ad Council. The UK video is more dramatic and sickens than the other. It actually shows the consequences of texting while driving. The message was carried out effectively. However, the video from the ad council has a bit of humor to it. I personally thought it was funny when I watched the Ad Council, but not when I watched the UK video. The Ad Council needs to be more serious about their video to make it effective as the video from UK.
ReplyDeleteComparing the two videos, I find the ‘Driven to Distracted’ video more affective. I believe this video is more effective into getting this message across: texting and driving is dangerous. The violent imagery displayed in the video really gives one something to think about: should I text and drive? Or wait until later? For the most part using blood and gore in videos to get messages across can influence people, but some people don’t buy it. The ‘Willard-Hunting’ video has more of a sense of humor to it. I believe it is a good idea to let the driver know that it isn’t safe to text and drive but most would react just like the driver did: “Relax man I got it.” Teenager’s these days feel like they can do anything and nobody can tell them they cannot. Having the driver of the ‘Willard-Hunting’ video actually sway to the other side of the road would give it more of a dramatic effect and give one a visual of why exactly texting and driving is very dangerous.
ReplyDelete