New Zealand Rehabilitation Association, Inc.

As a child, I flourished when I was praised by an adult. If I was ever told off or smacked, I would be flooded with feelings of self-pity, anger and occasionally self-hatred. If the growling wasn't warranted or not deemed fair by my standards, resentment will infuse itself into my childish brain. I am not surprised that research has often shown that most animals, including humans, respond a lot better to positive reinforcement.

The world of marketing has long since realized this phenomenon. You just have to watch TV to know that advertisers have become very savvy when it comes to seducing consumers brains. Beautiful, happy people are used to sell most products, because as consumers, we want a piece of that happiness. We want to feel good about ourselves, and we want our peers to respond positively towards us.

So my question is; does this same principle apply to campaigns aimed at changing human attitudes and behaviour?

Far too often, I am confronted by campaigns that I feel do more harm than good. As someone who acquired a disability when I was 17, I am in a unique position of being able to see both sides of the story with many disability campaigns. A recent campaign was run by a disability action group in order to deter people from parking in disabled car parks. The advert had a group of wheelchair users taking the wheels off a car that had parked in a mobility car park without a permit. Initially, after seeing the advertisement, I felt vindicated. Many times since my injury, I have been trawling the streets looking for a park, only to find a disabled park has been taken by someone without a disability. However, then I thought about what someone without a disability might think of the advertisements. Prior to my injury, my perception about people who used wheelchairs was that they were scary, different, somewhat volatile, and perhaps even angry. This stemmed mainly from my own ignorance and lack of exposure to those who were disabled. I had to go on what the media said, what films had portrayed, and first hand snippets of brief encounters with ‘the handicapped kids' in the special class at primary school. After talking to others who had seen the advert and didn't have mobility issues, my fears were confirmed. Feedback certainly did not paint a glowing picture of those who used wheelchairs. After asking whether it would stop them parking in a mobility car park, they said no as the reality of people in wheelchairs ripping of the wheels of their car seemed unrealistic. So I feel that this campaign failed on both counts. It did not seem to deter people from using mobility car parks, nor had it painted a flattering picture of those who used wheelchairs.

Another campaign from the same organisation titled ‘what did you say' used photos of disabled people with derogatory words splashed across them and then the saying ‘what did you say?' underneath. Once again, as a disabled person, I loved it as it summed up feelings of anger when people did call me ‘wheelchair bound' or a ‘sufferer'. However, the campaign wasn't about me, it wasn't supposed to make me feel justified, it was meant to change attitudes and I fear that once again, its target market had not been addressed.

Amidst the calamitous campaigns, there was one campaign that did seem to make me think, and perhaps subtly changed my attitude in a positive way. The ‘like minds, like mine' campaign uses some well known and popular New Zealanders admitting they had a mental illness and that with understanding from society, they are quite capable of living rich and happy lives, in spite of their mental illness. Having previously never been exposed to mental illness, it did make me think about the message, and I'm sure contributed to my positive response towards a good friend who told me recently he has bi-polar disorder.

I've languished over whether to include what I am about to say, however, I also feel positive as well as critical feedback should be embraced and welcomed.

My husband came home the other day and had been introduced to the Christchurch City Councils new ‘changing attitude' campaign. It depicts the CCC Disability Inclusive Group (DIG) holding signs that read ‘your attitude makes the difference' with the saying ‘is it time to change yours' underneath. His initial thought after seeing the poster was an inquiry into why they had used an insipid hospital green colour? Their response was that it was the best colour for the visually impaired. Who was their target market I wondered?

After I saw the poster, I felt mildly irritated that my rates had gone towards something that appeared to have been thrown together haphazardly. Even the photo of the group did the members no favours with one of the front members with their eyes closed.

It's often easy to criticize someone else's work, so what would I have done differently? I do know a few members of the DIG group and I know them to be extremely inspiring, capable people, perhaps an expose on each of them might be one idea. The saying they used I feel is too ambiguous, plus has negative connotations. Once again, as someone who has studied marketing, it's about selling the idea, selling the product. In this case, it's people's attitudes that need changing. Presenting various individuals in an accessible, exciting, and funky way might go towards changing some attitudes. As a designer, I am always acutely aware of my target market, and design accordingly. So my advice? Use in-vogue colours, eye catching fonts, and have flattering photos of the disabled people involved. Anyone can look good given the right lighting, the right angle, and a Photoshop touchup!

I think an effective campaign to change peoples attitudes and behaviours is possible, but it would require a lot of road-testing the idea, perhaps some background research and a decent budget. Failing that, I have a perverse fantasy of some glamourous, sexy, inspiring celebrity sustaining a spinal cord injury and having them continue to live a glamourous, sexy and inspiring life, now that would be good PR!