EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS OF ANTI- SMOKING CAMPAIGNS AUSTRALIA

Evaluating effectiveness of anti-

smoking campaigns Australia

NANDIN ERDENE BANZRAGCH

The Australian National University

Abstract: This paper revises the literature review of evaluation of social marketing campaign and analyses the eight evaluation reports of National Tobacco Campaign. According to literature review, the importance of evaluation has been emerged recently. Therefore, Australian evaluation reports have become exploring impacts of National Tobacco Campaign rather than demonstrating process outcomes. At this paper, I tried to revise literature review and analyse current evaluation reports. At the next assignment, my study will focus on how to develop marketing metrics of anti tobacco campaign.       

Research method: revising literature review, analysing past evaluation reports of anti smoking campaigns    

Keywords: anti smoking campaign, evaluation of anti smoking campaign    

Introduction

Marketing is one of the important functions at many organizations and it is least measurable function either (Farris et al, 2010). Because many marketers still have a lack of understanding how to measure effectiveness of marketing activities. For this reason, data driven marketing (marketing metrics) has been emerged in both commercial marketing and social marketing recently (Farris et al, 2010). Both social marketers and business marketers started to evaluate their marketing performances based on actual market data and reliable marketing metrics. Because successful evaluation analysis can define pros and cons of marketing activities, therefore it helps to make a better decision for the future (LeSueur, 2007). In commercial marketing, evaluation process of marketing campaigns might be easier than evaluating a social marketing campaign due to commercial marketing nature (Farris et al, 2010). In contrast, evaluating a social marketing campaign is a more complicated process and it is hard to distinguish as well as define each campaign’s impacts or effects (Levy et al, 2010). Moreover, effectiveness of social marketing campaign may depend upon many factors such as duration, measurement methods and type of outcomes. For example: Sowden and Arblaster (1998) reported that anti smoking campaigns had positive effect in the short term but effects tended to dissipate in the medium and longer term. Hence, my paper aims to analyse evaluation reports of current anti smoking campaigns in Australia therefore try to propose the optimal marketing metrics for future evaluation study. Because Australian government has been implemented “National Tobacco Campaign” since 1997 therefore many different evaluation studies conducted for exploring effectiveness of National Tobacco campaign. Some evaluation studies have failed to describe why Australia has still high rates (16.6 percent) of daily smoking those aged 14 or older(NTC, 2011). Moreover, Euromonitor (2010) reported that cigarette sales increased by 2% in 2009 and around 19% of teens were smokers in Australia. Thus may tell that Australian anti smoking campaign needs to have more advanced evaluation metrics and methods in order to increase its effectiveness.     

Literature review of evaluation of social marketing campaigns

An effective evaluation of social marketing campaign helps social marketers to implement better campaign for next time and increase funding for social marketing campaigns (Kotler and Lee, 2008). There are several benefits of evaluating a social marketing campaign. Firstly, it helps to monitor a progress of anti-smoking campaign (McDonald et al, 2001; Kotler and Lee, 2008). The secondly, proper campaign evaluation helps to re-allocate financial resources and marketing efforts effectively (LeSueur, 2007). Thirdly, it helps to determine effective marketing campaign mix and develop a social marketing campaign for the next time (Kotler and Lee, 2008).   But evaluating a social marketing campaign is not easy task for marketers due to distinguishing each campaign’s effects for short, medium and longer term (Levy et al, 2010; Sowden and Arblaster 1998 ). Furthermore, campaign objectives should be clear and specific in order to evaluate effectiveness of anti smoking campaign (MacDonald et al, 2001). 

The most scholars have agreed that there are the two main types of evaluation methods (monitoring and evaluating) are used for a social marketing campaign. Kotler and Lee (2008) clarified the difference between monitoring and evaluation. According to their classification, monitoring is the measurements for ongoing social marketing campaign. On the other hand, evaluation is the measurements for defining final outcomes or impacts of completed social marketing campaign. MacDonald et al (2001) debated the almost same classification of monitoring and evaluation but they used the term of surveillance instead of monitoring. Therefore, they mentioned that the data gathered by surveillance systems can be useful for evaluation of social marketing campaign. Thus may tell that monitoring and evaluation are different but they are interrelated in order to measure effectiveness of social marketing campaign. Moreover, Schar et al (2006) debated the three levels of evaluation process. Their study suggests that formative research and evaluation should be conducted before anti smoking campaign is created. Formative research helps social marketers to benchmark from past anti smoking campaigns. Based on these studies, evaluation of anti smoking can be conducted in prior campaign, during campaign and post campaign.

The second stage of evaluation process is defining measures. Kotler and Lee (2008) suggested that the three different types of measures can be used for social marketing campaign.  Process measures are easiest as well as straightforward measures for evaluating social marketing campaign (Kotler and Lee, 2008; Scollo and Winstanley, 2008). Those measures focus on quantity of marketing activities for a short term such as reach and frequency of campaign. On the other hand, outcome measures are a more complex measures that tend to describe customer behaviour change to a implemented social marketing campaign (Kotler and Lee, 2008).  Unger et al (2001) debated that outcome measures of anti-tobacco campaign can be grouped into four categories: perceived pervasiveness of pro-tobacco marketing, perceived pervasiveness of anti-tobacco marketing, recognition of specific anti-tobacco ads, and receptivity to pro-tobacco marketing. Impact measures are most complicated and controversial measures for social marketing campaign. Impact measures tend to describe the impacts which caused by customer behavioural change. Common impact measures of anti smoking campaign are number of lives saved, savings of medical costs and number of diseases prevented.

The next stage of evaluation is choosing a method of evaluation. Kotler and Lee (2008) mentioned that primary research methods such as surveys and observation methods can be  applied for process evaluation. In contrast, scientific and technical surveys can be applied in order evaluate impacts of anti smoking campaign. The most anti smoking campaigns use repeated cross sectional survey, continuous information tracking method and natural exposure advertising research methods for evaluation (Scollo and Winstanley, 2008). Therefore, the new methods such as online methodologies are becoming a common for evaluation due to rise of internet usage and internet technology advancements (Scollo and Winstanley, 2008). In recent years, scientific methodologies such as Sim Smoke model and Quit Benefit model has been emerged in evaluating long-term impact of anti smoking campaign (Hurley and Matthews, 2008; Levy et al 2010).

The history of anti smoking campaigns in Australia

Australia is known as a pioneer of anti tobacco campaign (Hill and Carroll, 2003).  The first anti smoking campaign “Quit for life” in Australia  was initiated by New South Wales government in 1983. Since this time, Australian Government has tackled cigarette smoking issue and has been introduced its significant policies and social marketing campaigns against smoking behaviour (please see Table 1). The result of early campaigns was a steady reduction of tobacco consumption between the 1980’s and the 1990’s (Wakefield et al, 2008). The percentage of the adult smokers fell from 35% at the beginning of the campaign to 26% in 1990 (Chapman and Wakefield, 2001).

Australian Federal Government has been implemented “National Tobacco Campaign” since 1997 (Scollo and Winstanley, 2008). Currently, Australian Federal Government has invested $61 million for National Tobacco campaign and National Youth Tobacco campaign and $14.5 million for Indigenous Tobacco campaign. The National Tobacco Campaign 2011 aims to contribute to a reduction in the prevalence of adult daily smoking from 16.6 percent to 10 per cent or less by 2018 (NTC, 2011). The National Tobacco Campaign is different from the early campaigns in terms of having the full support of the federal government and cooperation with the non-government organization (Hill and Carroll, 2003). Although National Tobacco campaign has gained the significant achievements, there are some concerns for effectiveness of National Tobacco Campaign. Australia has still high rates (16.6 percent) of daily smoking those aged 14 or older(NTC, 2011). Moreover, Euromonitor (2010) reported that cigarette sales increased by 2% in 2009 and around 19% of teens were smokers in Australia. Euromonitor (2010) estimates suggest that the number of cigarettes sold in Australia fell steeply in the year 2000 following changes to the tax system but it has remained reasonably steady since that time. Moreover, the percentage of current smokers almost stabilised (but shifts from heavy to light smoker occurred) since 2000 (Please see Table 2).    

The evaluation studies of the anti smoking campaigns in Australia

There are number of evaluation studies conducted in measuring effectiveness of National Tobacco Campaign. My paper only focuses on evaluation studies of National Tobacco campaign which implemented by Australian Government.  Because industry driven anti tobacco campaign may have a negative impact on smoking behaviour and it may not intend to decrease number of smokers (Hasting and Angus, 2011).  My paper analyses the eight evaluation reports on National Tobacco campaign and National Youth Tobacco campaign (please see Table 3 ). Five of them were conducted behalf of Department of Health and Ageing, while the three of them were conducted by independent scholars. Early evaluation reports were conducted for measuring process of National Tobacco Campaign and the most measures are process measures such as exposure to anti smoking campaign, recall, recognition and intention to quit. Furthermore, the early studies mostly used follow up survey methods such as telephone interview and focus group.

In contrast, the latest studies more focused on impacts of National Tobacco campaign. The measures are mostly impact measures such as number of lives saved, savings on heath cost and cost effectiveness of campaign. Therefore, the advanced evaluation methods such as scientific model, quantitative methods were used for exploring impacts of National Tobacco Campaign. Hence, my paper debates that scholars shifted their focus from process outcomes to impact outcomes of National Tobacco Campaign. Because, National Tobacco Campaign has been implemented for 15 years and it may give them a chance to analyse impacts of National Tobacco Campaign. Moreover, the marketing measures are becoming a more complex and reliable due to evaluation methods. For example; Hurley and Matthews (2008) reported that National Tobacco Campaign avoided 32 000 cases of COPD, 11 000 cases of AMI, 10 000 cases of lung cancer, and 2500 cases of stroke. Therefore, National Tobacco Campaign prevented 55000 deaths and saved $740.6 million of medical cost. Cotter et al (2008) found that there is a significant relationship between anti smoking advertisement and quit line call. In conclusion, the latest studies are more reliable and demonstrated the effectiveness of anti smoking campaign.   

Improving evaluation of anti smoking

Based on my studies I would like give following basic recommendations in order to improve effectiveness of anti smoking campaign.    

Firstly, National Tobacco Campaign should have a clear purpose that enhances evaluation process (McDonald et al 2001). The current aim of National Tobacco Campaign is too general and it does not help to measure impacts of National Tobacco campaigns.

Secondly, marketing metrics for social marketing campaign could be a more quantitative rather than qualitative. The quantitative metrics are more reliable and easy to see effectiveness of anti smoking campaign. For example: the number of quit line call may be more reliable for demonstrating intention to quit.   

            Thirdly, scientific evaluation methods are emerged in evaluating anti smoking campaign. For example: Sim Smoke model has been used by 15 countries and it clearly demonstrates impacts of anti smoking campaign (Levy et al, 2010). So, I would like to suggest that using Sim Smoke model for evaluating National Tobacco campaign.

Fourthly, due to the rise of internet usage, social marketers should use internet survey for evaluating anti smoking campaign. Therefore, the marketing activities that are broadcasted via internet have not been evaluated in Australia.

       
Appendixes

Table 1: Timeline of Australian anti smoking campaigns and policies

 

Source: Scollo and Winstanley, 2008; NTYC evaluation report, 2007

 

­

Table 2: Percentage of current smokers (by self reported)

     

	Source: Scollo and Winstanley, 2008

 

Table 3 : The evaluation studies for National Tobacco Campaign

№	Study name	Published Date	Conducted by	Research design and Methodology	Metrics
1	Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign: Evaluation report volume one	1999	Hill and Hassard	Benchmark survey Follow-up survey Telephone interview	·      Recall and recognition ·      Appraisal of campaign advertising ·      Change in health beliefs and attitudes ·      Change in quitting intentions and activity ·      Effects on the non smokers ·      Price of cigarettes
2	Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign: Evaluation report volume two	2000	Hassard	Follow-up survey Telephone interview	·      Recall and recognition ·      Appraisal of campaign advertising ·      Change in health beliefs and attitudes ·      Change in quitting intentions and activity ·      Effects on the non smokers ·      Price of cigarettes
3	Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign: Evaluation report volume three	2004	Hassard et al	Follow-up survey Telephone interview	·      Recall and recognition ·      Appraisal of campaign advertising ·      Change in health beliefs and attitudes ·      Change in quitting intentions and activity ·      Effects on the non smokers ·      Price of cigarettes
4	National Tobacco Youth campaign evaluation	2007	The Social Research centre	Benchmark survey Follow-up survey Telephone interview	·      Awareness of the NTYC ·      The impact on the knowledge, beliefs, intentions and behaviour
5	Smokers respond to anti-tobacco mass media campaigns in NSW by calling the Quitline	2008	Cotter et al	Quantitative survey	·      Target Audience Rating Point ·      Quit line calls
6	Cost-effectiveness of the Australian National Tobacco Campaign	2008	Hurley and Matthews	Quit Benefit Model	·      Number of lives saved ·      Savings on heath cost ·      Cost effectiveness of campaign ·      Common disease type o   Lung cancer o   Acute o   Myocardial infarction (AMI) o   COPD.
7	Impact of Tobacco Control Policies and Mass Media Campaigns on Monthly Adult Smoking Prevalence	2008	Wakefield et al	Quantitative method Statistical analysis	·      Monthly estimates of population exposure to antitobacco television advertising ·      Tobacco control policies ·      Serial cross-sectional monthly surveys of smoking prevalence
8	Tobacco Social Marketing Campaign	2010	Urbis Pty Ltd	Qualitative research in the form of focus groups	·      The changing role of smoking within society ·      The effects of changes in the tobacco control environment ·      The de-normalisation of smoking ·      The complexity of factors that keep people smoking ·      The exploration of barriers to cessation and the reasons behind successful versus unsuccessful quit attempts ·      The exploration of a number of advertising approaches for tobacco social marketing ·      The use of different media particularly new media

References

Chapman, S & Wakefield, M. (2001). Tobacco Control Advocacy in Australia: Reflections on 30 Years of Progress. Health Education & Behavior , 28(3), pp274-289.

Cotter, T., et al (2008). Smokers respond to anti-tobacco mass media campaigns in NSW by calling the Quitline,  NSW Public Health Bulletin, 19(3–4) pp 68-71

Donovan, R. (2011). Social marketing’s mythunderstandings. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), pp.8-8-16

Euromonitor. (2010). Cigarettes - Australia. Retrieved August 31, 2011

Farris, P. (2010). Marketing metrics : the definitive guide to measuring marketing performance. Upper Saddle River, N.J., FT Press.

Hassard, K (ed) (1999). Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign Evaluation Report Volume One. Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra.

Hassard, K (ed) (2000). Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign Evaluation Report Volume Two. Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra.

Hassard, K (ed) (2004). Australia’s National Tobacco Campaign Evaluation Report Volume Three. Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra.

Hastings, G. & Angus, K. (2011). When is social marketing not social marketing? Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), pp. 45-53.

Hill ,D. & Carroll,T. (2003). Australia's National Tobacco Campaign. Tobacco Control , 2,pp ii9-ii14.

Hurley ,SF., Matthews,JP (2008) Cost-effectiveness of the Australian National, Tobacco Control, 17,pp 379-384

Kotler P, R.Lee Nancy. (2008). Social Marketing. California, US: Sage Publication, Inc.

LeSueur, J. (2007). Marketing automation : practical steps to more effective direct marketing. Hoboken, N.J., John Wiley & Sons                 

Levy, D. T., PhD., Cho, S., Kim, Y., Park, S., Suh, M., &Kam, S. (2010). SimSmoke model evaluation of the effect of tobacco control policies in Korea: The unknown success story. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1267-73.

MacDonald G, Starr G, Schooley M, Yee SL, Klimowski K, Turner K. (2001) Introduction to Program Evaluation for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Tobacco Campaign (2011)

Schar,E. Gutierrez ,K. Murphy-Hoefer, R. Nelson DE. (2006) Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health

Scollo, MM, Winstanley, MH (2008). Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues.3^rd . Melbourne, Cancer Council Victoria

Sowden, A. J. & Arblaster, L. (1998) .Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (4)

The Social Research Centre (2007) National Tobacco Youth Campaign Evaluation. North Melbourne 

Unger, JB., et al (2001) Measuring Exposure to Pro- and Anti-tobacco Marketing Among Adolescents: Intercorrelations Among Measures and Associations With Smoking Status, Journal of Health Communication, 6(1),pp 11—29

Urbis Pty Ltd (2010) Tobacco Social Marketing Campaign

Wakefield,M., et al (2008). Impact of Tobacco Control Policies and Mass Media Campaigns on Monthly Adult Smoking Prevalence. American Journal of Public Health ,  98(8), pp1443-1450.