In
2010, First Lady Michelle Obama started the Let’s Move! Campaign to combat the
growing obesity epidemic in children here in the United States of America. The
spike in weight-related conditions in children led to Michelle Obama’s
persistence for a conversation on the country’s future (5). The campaign
prompted President Barack Obama to initiate the Task Force on Childhood Obesity
who also came out with a report (6) in 2010 stating the different ways America,
as a country, can unite to cure the obesity epidemic, especially with our
children. From empowering parents and guardians to increasing physical activity
to empowering school districts to change food choices in school, the Task Force
on Childhood Obesity provided recommendations for the federal, private, state
and local sectors as well as parents to combat the epidemic. Focusing mainly on
helping parents and their children choose healthier foods, the Let’s Move!
Campaign has put out many interventions are very effective interventions. They
have also come out with many interventions that are not so great. A study
published in JAMA in April 2014 shows that the National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) actually shows that obesity rates in children
increased from 14.5% in 1999-2000 to 17.3% in 2011-2012 (7). Therefore the
Let’s Move! Campaign interventions were not as effective as they could be. In
this critique, I will be focusing on the flaws in the Healthy Eating
Commercials First Lady Michelle Obama and President Barack Obama created with
members of the National Basketball Association (NBA), the National Football
League (NFL) and Major League Baseball (MLB). These commercials were
ineffective and confusing, showing that the interventions made in collaboration
with professional athletes are hurting the campaign. With a few tweaks, these
commercials can help the campaign acquire its goal: to bring the obesity rates
back down to what they were in 1976 by 2030 (6). The work that has been done
over the past four years proves that in order to reach their highly ambitious
goals, Michelle Obama and the Task Force on Childhood Obesity need more
effective interventions that will instill a need for action in their targeted population.
Even though the intentions of the
Let’s Move! Campaign are incredible and an amazing amount of work has been done
already in such a short period of time, such as contracts with grocery stores
to open up stores in food deserts and policies instilling more healthy options
in school lunches, the intervention with the professional athletes is a huge
flaw in the campaign. First, it puts most of the emphasis on the athletes in
the videos and not enough on the targeted population, which is also vague and
inconsistent. Is it the parents or the children? The intervention uses the
Theory of Planned Behavior in an ineffective way by confusing the consumer with
what exactly they should eat and how exactly they should get physical activity
into their daily lives. Lastly, these commercials have a flawed frame. The core
of these commercials has a weak theme and is therefore not effective in
communicating change. With minor but substantial changes, these commercials can
be very powerful and effective in changing the minds of parents and children
about healthy eating and staying physically active, and help combat the
childhood obesity epidemic.
Are We Talking About the
Athletes, the Children, or the Parents?
What
was most surprising in these videos was how much the athletes just talked about
themselves. The questions they were asked included what is their favorite
healthy summer snack/food and how do they stay active during the off-season. While
these questions might have seemed like they would inherit great responses that
would inspire children and parents alike to eat more like these successful, fit,
active and healthy men, it does just the opposite. Instead, the athletes and
coaches provide answers that prompts the viewer to think, “and that is why you
are an athlete and I’m not” or “I would never/could never be able to do that!”
The information portrayed through the videos is too specific to being an
athlete, and the workouts specified and the food examples given are just
confusing for everyone.
The most confusing part of the
videos is that it is difficult to understand to whom they are sending this message.
Using professional athletes to talk to children makes sense; children look up
to the people they see on television entertaining them and strive to be or be
seen as them. The use of professional athletes for an intervention to children
is fine. But the information we receive from the video series is too complex
for children. It is not difficult to understand, but it goes beyond what they
care about as children. One athlete says, “…inevitably we all end up as adults
realizing that we have to make healthy choices and we have to stay active and
why not get a head start on it and make that part of your lifestyle early?” (1-4).
Children will not respond to that type of intervention because this is not
their concern. They just want to have fun and live in the moment (8). This
information would be more suited for adults, but, as we will see in more detail
later, the core value given in these videos is the concept of long-term health
care. People are less likely to be convinced by that value, which we have seen
with many other public health interventions like in anti-smoking campaigns.
An Unsuccessful Example of
the Theory of Planned Behavior
The
Theory of Planned Behavior is a theory based on individual intervention,
meaning it bases its intervention on the individual rather than the community
or population. Its main goal is to “pin down the relationship between people’s
attitudes and their behavior” (9). The Theory of Planned Behavior notices that
there is not always a connection between attitude and behavior. Therefore,
people assess situations by how their behavior will be viewed by others before
engaging in the activity (9). It’s foundation stems from the attitude one has
towards a behavior and the subjective norms from society. The attitude towards a behavior can stem from
the belief of what would happen if they engage in the behavior and whether the
outcome is good or bad. Societal pressure plays a role because what other
people in the consumer’s social group will think about the behavior and the
motivation to conform to the social norms also plays a huge role in the
decision making process. The Theory also has a concept known as perceived
behavioral control, or the idea that one has control of the behavior in
question (10). Therefore, this theory argues that the targeted population will
make a health behavior change because of these three ideas –
1.
The
belief that this change will end with a good outcome
2.
The
belief that the change will offer positive feedback from one’s social group and
that the motivation to conform to this change is received well
3.
The
belief that one has the control to perform the behavior (in this case, eating
healthy and increasing physical activity).
Just like any other theory, the
Theory of Planned Behavior does have its flaws. First, it assumes that behavior
happens because of a “rational, linear decision-making process” (9). It does
not take into account emotions, habits, and demographic traits like culture and
income. Secondly, the concept of perceived behavioral control is not very clear,
especially its relevance to the decision making process (9). Lastly, the theory
does not consider the time it takes between the intent to act and the actual
action being taken; how does it take for the intervention to have an impact? (9)
In this Let’s Move! intervention,
the targeted population is supposed to watch these videos feel as if they can
also be successful and happy by just eating right and getting in physical
activity. But instead, the viewers finish the videos thinking that eating
healthy is only for athletes. The intervention wants the viewer to think that
following this lifestyle (i.e. eating healthy and exercising consistently) will
lead to others seeing them as [insert athlete name here]. Unfortunately, it
comes out as “I can become an athlete if I eat like them and do what they do.
How will I procure those resources? Can I afford it?” Immediately, the
intervention backfires because the essence of the videos was captured wrongly,
which will be looked into in the next critique. The intervention has a lot of
emphasis on an athlete’s diet and exercise regimen, excluding people who do not
have those resources or are just not interested in sports or in training like
an athlete. The intervention goes beyond and focuses so much on the athlete, it
does not send a message to the viewers regarding healthy eating and daily
physical activity.
What is in a Frame and Why
This is Lacking
The series of videos starring
professional athletes bombards the viewer with just that: athletes. The
information gathered and presented to the viewer is centered on being a
professional athlete and what it entails. Every athlete uses the frame of
long-term health to promote healthy eating and increased physical activity.
This contributes to a message that makes the viewer want to reject the goal of
the intervention: eat healthy and increase your physical activity. Framing a
message is a way to focus on a value that is important to the consumer so that
the issue becomes important in the consumer’s mind. At the same time, it can
convince the consumer to be for the cause or against it, depending on how
strong the argument is for either side (11). With a few symbols, phrases or
images, the consumer can be presented with a certain interpretation of a topic.
A frame consists of five component parts:
1.
A
core position, or the argument being presented with evidence and examples for
support.
2.
A metaphor, or an analogy given to support the
core position and make it more relatable to the consumer.
3.
A
catch phrase, or a set of words that summarizes the core position and sticks
with the consumer after the intervention.
4.
Images
or symbols that help the consumer visualize the core position and strengthen
its value.
5.
A
core value, or the reason why this is important, usually appealing to the
consumer and what is widely viewed as ideal.
Although there were many problems
with the frame used in this video series, the problem that contributed the most
to its ineffectiveness was the core value it chose: long-term health. If the
target population of the video series were children, long-term health outcomes
are the least of their worries. According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs,
health is a higher level of self-actualization so people are not driven to act
on it (12). Especially in children, this study shows that they are focused more
about immediate benefits and satisfaction, not long term (8).
The athletes throw around the phrase
“healthy lifestyle” a lot in the videos. As a catch phrase, it makes sense
because that is essentially what they are supposed to be promoting. But, if the
target population of these videos were children, they would have a hard time
understanding how to do that. If the target population is parents and
caregivers, a healthy lifestyle sounds boring and like a lot of work, which
there is no time for. According to this study, adults associate “healthy
lifestyle” with a negative connotation (13). The video series also uses symbols
and images that don’t promote the overall core position and value of the
intervention. The athletes are in suits and hanging out at the White House as
if that is commonplace for them. They are eating apples constantly, and are
just sitting all around the White House by themselves without their teammates.
The images, especially the setting of the White House, make it look more like
they want you to know this is part of the Let’s Move! Campaign and less as an
intervention towards eating healthy and increasing physical activity. There are
minor changes that can be done to make these videos more effective. Just by
changing the core value, we can see a huge improvement in the effectiveness of
this intervention.
Proposed Solution to the
Health Eating Commercials Intervention
The idea of using the Theory of
Planned Behavior makes sense because when well-known figures are involved in
the intervention, the idea of social norms playing into the decision-making
process is ideal, especially when using figures that have a good reputation
(14). I also think the intervention needs to shift more to a conversation about
the children rather than the athletes. It does need to be careful of not
turning into a lecture to parents, but more as a remembrance of the fun one had
as a child and why parents should want the same for their children. Lastly, the
framing of the message needs to change completely. Though the core position
stays the same, there needs to be a metaphor involved, the catch phrases need
to change to something that is appealing to children, the images need to show
children that they want to change their behavior, and the values need to be
important for the children and for the parents who will instill this behavioral
change. With the changes ahead, this intervention could help the Let’s Move!
Campaign be even more successful and a game changer in decreasing childhood
obesity rates in the United States of America.
Let’s Emphasize the
Children
First, the intervention needs to
change the topic to be geared towards the children and what they want to hear.
The athletes should be accentuating that this behavioral change is fun and cool
because that is relatable to children and adolescents (8). The children should
be hearing things like, “I did this as a kid” or “I wish I did this as a kid”
to really emphasize how much more fun it is to be healthy and physically active
rather than sedentary.
The videos can also show the players
in action rather than in suits at the White House. If they are going to talk
about being more physically active, show through imagery how active one can get.
By showing the athletes working out and eating together, performing drills at
the gym or on the field, and eating as a team or with their families after
practice, they would be giving a much stronger message to children and parents
across the nation. These videos also show Michelle Obama dressed as a First
Lady. The intervention can and should incorporate the First Lady working out
with the athletes and showing off what physical activity means to her, whether
it is running or playing with her kids outside. What she is doing does not
matter as long as she is doing it. With that, the videos can also have footage
of the athletes playing with their children outside, showing parents how to
promote a healthy lifestyle for their children.
An Effective Use of the
Theory of Planned Behavior
The idea to use the Theory of
Planned Behavior works well for this type of intervention because of the use of
well-known figures and the emphasis this theory has on social norms (14).
Instead of showing children and their parents that eating healthy is only for
those who want to become a professional athlete, the intervention can show that
one performs better overall when living a healthy lifestyle. There should be
emphasis on the athlete’s life outside of practice and games. Instead of asking
questions on their favorite workouts or summer snacks, the athletes should be
answering questions on what they like to do to stay active on their days off
and what they like to do cook or eat with their families during the off-season.
They should also be answering questions about societal pressure with eating
healthy and exercising consistently in their lives. For example, a question
could be, “Were you nervous or scared about what your friends would think when
you became a professional athlete? Did the pressure help or hurt you?” or “What
do your friends and family think about your lifestyle?” This way the athletes
are answering questions in a way that is relatable to both the parents and the
children watching these videos. Also, it can open up discussion for parents and
their children to talk about how they can incorporate healthy living practices
into their lifestyle.
Frame it to be Important
Enough to Care About
The
way the videos are framed now, parents and children will not care about the
implications and consequences that come from not eating healthy and exercising
consistently. The idea of long-term health is not a strong core value. As
humans, we tend to want immediate results; long-term results will take too long
and we are impatient (15). Therefore, the core value of this intervention needs
to change to something that will give parents and children an immediate sense
of satisfaction. As stated before, a frame has five major components:
1.
A
core position, or the argument being presented with evidence and examples for
support.
2.
A metaphor, or an analogy given to support the
core position and make it more relatable to the consumer.
3.
A
catch phrase, or a set of words that summarizes the core position and sticks
with the consumer after the intervention.
4.
Images
or symbols that help the consumer visualize the core position and strengthen
its value.
5.
A
core value, or the reason why this is important, usually appealing to the
consumer and what is widely viewed as ideal.
My proposed framing memo for the
intervention adds a metaphor and changes the phrases, images and core value –
1. Core Position – This would stay the same. We are still saying that eating healthy and increasing physical activity is essential in living a healthy lifestyle, which has many benefits and is the essence to ending the obesity epidemic.
2. Metaphor – The ineffective intervention didn’t have a metaphor, which may be a reason it was not relatable; there was nothing to compare what the athletes were saying. I propose a metaphor is brought in that is relatable to the children. For example, a healthy lifestyle is like studying for a test. You have to put in the work, but it is worth it when you get a good grade at the end. Living a healthy lifestyle does take time and work. It will not happen overnight, but once you start living a healthy lifestyle, the benefits of it are remarkable and worth the work and time put in.
3. Catch Phrases – Before, the catch phrases were dull and boring and were in line with the long-term health core value. I propose changing the catch phrases to simple words that will resonate with children and their parents. Words like “fun,” “safe,” and “exciting” will stay with children and parents.
4. Images and Symbols – I would want to change all the images and symbols from the ineffective intervention to something that is, again, more relatable to children and their parents. First, the White House setting needs to be changed with a park or field. The athletes, as well as the coaches and First Lady Michelle Obama, should be dressed in the clothes they wear to be physically active, not suits. There should be shots of players just having a great time while getting a workout. They should be laughing with each other, telling jokes, helping each other out; they are making it look like it is fun to hang out with your friends by getting your heart rate up.
5. Core Values – The core value is the most important piece of the frame. It is the reason why the consumer should change their behavior in this case. Rather than using the weak “health” core value, the intervention should use the core value of happiness. Children will be happy running around in the mud, eating fruits and vegetables, and hanging out with friends who do the same thing. Parents will see their children have more energy and it will make them happy that their child is happy. Living a healthy lifestyle leads to a happy lifestyle.
1. Core Position – This would stay the same. We are still saying that eating healthy and increasing physical activity is essential in living a healthy lifestyle, which has many benefits and is the essence to ending the obesity epidemic.
2. Metaphor – The ineffective intervention didn’t have a metaphor, which may be a reason it was not relatable; there was nothing to compare what the athletes were saying. I propose a metaphor is brought in that is relatable to the children. For example, a healthy lifestyle is like studying for a test. You have to put in the work, but it is worth it when you get a good grade at the end. Living a healthy lifestyle does take time and work. It will not happen overnight, but once you start living a healthy lifestyle, the benefits of it are remarkable and worth the work and time put in.
3. Catch Phrases – Before, the catch phrases were dull and boring and were in line with the long-term health core value. I propose changing the catch phrases to simple words that will resonate with children and their parents. Words like “fun,” “safe,” and “exciting” will stay with children and parents.
4. Images and Symbols – I would want to change all the images and symbols from the ineffective intervention to something that is, again, more relatable to children and their parents. First, the White House setting needs to be changed with a park or field. The athletes, as well as the coaches and First Lady Michelle Obama, should be dressed in the clothes they wear to be physically active, not suits. There should be shots of players just having a great time while getting a workout. They should be laughing with each other, telling jokes, helping each other out; they are making it look like it is fun to hang out with your friends by getting your heart rate up.
5. Core Values – The core value is the most important piece of the frame. It is the reason why the consumer should change their behavior in this case. Rather than using the weak “health” core value, the intervention should use the core value of happiness. Children will be happy running around in the mud, eating fruits and vegetables, and hanging out with friends who do the same thing. Parents will see their children have more energy and it will make them happy that their child is happy. Living a healthy lifestyle leads to a happy lifestyle.
Changing the frame of this
intervention alone would cause the most substantial change in the effect of the
intervention. Just by moving to a different core value, the intervention will
start to resonate with more viewers, creating a video series that changes the
game in commercial consumerism.
The solutions I proposed are only
the beginning and will not help end the obesity epidemic all together. But by
changing a few interventions here and there, the Let’s Move! Campaign has the
skills and the resources to become the most effective and life-changing
Campaign on ending childhood obesity. The public is well informed on the
effects of eating poorly and living a sedentary lifestyle, but that has not
stopped the increasing rates of obesity in this country. We have seen other
campaigns fail using this core value of long-term health like anti-smoking
campaigns and anti-drug campaigns throughout the years. The Let’s Move!
Campaign should move to a labeling approach for children and their parents. It
needs to show children that it is fun, cool, and part of societal norms to live
a happy and healthy life. With this type of framing, the Let’s Move! Initiative
will be a huge success.
References
–
5. Let’s Move! Campaign, Website
Introduction to Childhood Obesity. http://www.letsmove.gov/learn-facts/epidemic-childhood-obesity
6. White House Task Force on Childhood
Obesity Report to the President. May 2010: http://www.letsmove.gov/sites/letsmove.gov/files/TaskForce_on_Childhood_Obesity_May2010_FullReport.pdf
7. Skinner AC and Skelton JA. Prevalence
and Trends in Obesity and Severe Obesity Among Children in the United States,
1999-2012. JAMA Pediatrics 2014;
10.1001
8. Schlam TR, Wilson NL, Shoda Y, Mischel
W, Ayduk O. Preschoolers’ delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30
years later. JAMA Pediatrics 2013;
162(1):90-3.
9. Edberg M. Individual health behavior
theories (chapter 4). In: Edberg M. Essentials
of Health Behavior: Social and Behavioral Theory in Public Health. Sudbury,
MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2007, pp. 35-49.
10. National Cancer Institute. Theory at a Glance: A Guide for Health
Promotion Practice. Part 2. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2005,
pp. 9-21 (NIH Publication No. 05-3896). Available at: http://www.cancer.gov/PDF/481f5d53-63df-41bc-bfaf-5aa48ee1da4d/TAAG3.pdf
11. Winett L. Advocate’s guide to
developing framing memos (Chapter 46). In: Iyengar S, Reeves R eds. Do the Media Govern? Politicians, Voters and
Reporters in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 1997, pp.
420-432.
12. Goble FG. The Third Force: The Psychology
of Abraham Maslow, Chapel Hill, NC: Maurice Bassett, 2004.
13. Ogle JP, Baker SS, eds. A Preliminary
Study of the Meanings Children Attach to Healthy and Unhealthy Lifestyles. Journal of Extension 2007; 45(5).
14. Sridevi J. The Effect of Using
Celebrities in Advertising on the Buying Decision. Research Journal of Social Science and Management 2012; 2:2.
15. Narayan J. The Psychology of
Decisions to Abandon Waits for Service. Journal
of Marketing Research 2011; 48(6):970-984.
No comments:
Post a Comment