IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aes/jetimm/v1y2017i1p57-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tit for Tat: A Perspective on Health Care Social Marketing Shock Advertising

Author

Listed:
  • Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe

    (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy)

  • Andra Victoria Radu

    (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy)

  • Consuela Mădălina Gheorghe

    (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy)

  • Octavian Negoiță

    (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy)

  • Victor Lorin Purcărea

    (Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy)

Abstract

Heath Care Social Marketing Advertising has always had a controversial perspective, as it promotes behavioral change in individuals. Moreover, the vast majority of social marketing campaigns focus on health prevention in a population, such as smoking, physical activity, alcohol abuse as well as breast cancer. Consequently, in order to assess the desired outcomes, specialists employed shock advertising in the health care social marketing campaigns. This case study concentrates on the effectiveness of a Romanian health care social marketing campaign for smoke prevention. More specifically, the shock social marketing advertisement was part of a smoking prevention campaign launched by the “Marius Nasta” Pneumophtisiology Institute in Bucharest, Romania. The sample consisted of 100 students from the “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, presenting the characteristics of Generation Y. The selected sampling method was the snow ball technique. Further, the shock advertisement was evaluated according to Dahl et al’s classification, as perceived by the health care consumers. The data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire and was analyzed using SPSS version 20. Findings revealed that the vast majority of respondents placed the health care social marketing prevention advertisement in the religious taboo category (42.6%), followed by the moral offensiveness category (22.2%) and sexual references (7.4%), respectively. The mean age of the respondents was 20 and there were 66.7% female respondents and 33.3% male respondents. However, the vast majority of the respondents perceived the prevention smoking health care shock advertisement as not being interesting (35.2%), some have felt pity (9.3%), sadness (7.4%) and even compassion (5.6%). All in all, findings pointed out that shock advertisements used in health care social marketing campaigns have no longer the impact they had, becoming more and more ineffective, in spite of embedding a shock appeal.

Suggested Citation

  • Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Andra Victoria Radu & Consuela Mădălina Gheorghe & Octavian Negoiță & Victor Lorin Purcărea, 2017. "Tit for Tat: A Perspective on Health Care Social Marketing Shock Advertising," Journal of Emerging Trends in Marketing and Management, The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 57-66, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:aes:jetimm:v:1:y:2017:i:1:p:57-66
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.etimm.ase.ro/RePEc/aes/jetimm/2017/ETIMM_V01_2017_75.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    shock advertising; marketing communications; taboo advertising; health care services; emotions.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health
    • M37 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Marketing and Advertising - - - Advertising

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aes:jetimm:v:1:y:2017:i:1:p:57-66. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucian Onisor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.