2007 Anti-smoking campaign by the Health Promotion Board (HPB)
there are many ways in which one could view and interpret an image. For me, i would always focus my attention on the visuals and how this would relate to reality. Most of the times, the ads that have a high recall for me is one that sparks interest (either positive or negative) alongside an aesthetically appeasing image.
For this assignment, Sin Guan and me decided to use this ad above (as an analysis for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY) as most people would have already seen it and thus, able to relate to it.
We used two forms of framework in analysing this photo — the Morris framework and also Chandler’s Semiotic Analysis
Morris Framework:
Syntax ; combination of text and visuals
here, HPB has used a combination of colours to attract attention to the viewer. The red (which may connotes anger/passion, may also refer to something dangerous and blood-related) and white (purity vs sinister) colours that are combined in this poster leaves the viewer to imagine if this is indeed something which is real. Though we all know post-processing software may exaggerate certain parts of the gore, it is inferred here that HPB is trying to convey a message to the viewer.
in singapore especially, we are really used to accident images being portrayed in many of the ads and so the use of colours and special effects here may portray a sense of reality for the viewers — that this MAY happen to you if you do not quit smoking.
Semantics
Irony : Does continuing smoking prevents such ulcers from happening instead?
Here, the viewer is led to infer the relationship between the signs that are evident on the poster — that the symbol communicates ‘quit smoking’, whereas the image of the lady communicates the tagline that ‘not quitting is harder’. Pragmatics
We feel that the purpose of this ad is to stop people from smoking/encourage people to quit smoking.
By saying that ‘Quitting is hard’, it expects people to understand that smoking is highly addictive. However, the addition of ‘not quitting is harder’, assumes that people think continuing smoking is the easy way out, but ironically, you have to get through this the ‘hard way’ and that is quitting for an easier life without diseases. Otherwise, coping with illnesses is way harder than quitting.
Chandler’s Semiotic Analysis:
Modality markers:
i) Puffy eyes
ii) Bad mouth ulcers
iii) Yellow teeth
From the viewer’s point of view, all of these elements may seem pretty gory and not exactly one in which they would look at for a really long time. On why this is so, we present a few questions for you to ponder (maybe as you look away from the poster as well, you might ask yourself why you do not want to look at it further.)
- Does such a person really exist?
- Is she a patient? An everyday singaporean?
- How real is this to you? Can you relate this to reality around you?
Pragmatic Analysis:
In other words, the analysis seeks to unleash the viewer’s inquisitive mind, and leave them to imagine if the image was to be presented in another way. I questioned some of my friends (both smokers and non-smokers) on their opinions of this ad. And most stated that they do not believe such a person would exist and with that, this campaign may not be that effective. They also feel that changing the persona of the character in the ad might add another feel to it. As such, the demographics of the lady which is absent leaves the viewer pondering if they can really allude this to reality.
from an audience POV, a typical viewer would be immediately thrown into the ad at first glance due to the gaze of the lady in the image. As much as one would like to look away from the poster, he/she is drawn further into the ad. this is because of the ‘in-your-face’ feature of the whole image. i also feel that there seems to be a concentric circle in the ad. the bull’s eye will be the gory ulcers at the middle, and the viewer’s gaze will slowly move outwards to the image of the lady, and lastly, to the copy that is evident at the sides of the poster.
Comments from the class:
Tea mentioned if this was really effective in coveying the message to the masses. However, I feel that such an ad is really subjective. As I have also mentioned in class, these ads are typical Fear-instilled ads — those that exaggerate certain elements to spark some sort of realisation for the viewer. and so it is ultimately up to the individual to take the advice to prevent such a thing from happening, or take the risk to continue smoking.
Mr Reddy also asked who we feel is the target audience for this ad. And we feel that is for both smokers and non-smokers. The ad can be seen from two points-of-view:
1) a non smoker will be afraid to take up the habit coz once he/she is addicted, he/she might suffer from the consequences as shown.
2) a smoker might realise the detrimental effects he/she may suffer from as the image seems to present some sort of reality. Hence, the quitline that is also available on the ad gives them a source to call in case he/she considers quitting. the downside (as mentioned by Karen : there are already so many gory images on cigarette packs and so, presenting such a campaign wouldn’t increase its effective level.
My personal take on it:
The ads that instilled Fear in them, such as the ad above, may be too cliche. There are too many of such ads and campaigns around that people no longer feel affected by it. In addition, as said by Mr Reddy, the scary feel of an image may also be too high such that one may just choose to avoid it.
When i first saw this image on newspapers, and also the TVCs, i was entirely grossed out by it. (for if you remember the TVC, they zoomed in on the ulcers first before zooming out on the lady.) And I feel that maybe the ad would’ve avoided all the controversies in the media if they could allude a character with a more non-fiction persona. but then again, it wouldn’t get so much coverage if it wasn’t effective, would it? =) at least it did capture the public’s attention. heh.
Overall, i feel that Sin Guan and I deserve a 9/10 for this assignment as we really take so much into consideration for this ad. The analysis especially, made us understand a lot more from a layman’s point-of-view, versus those who have more of a critical eye. I also feel that Paul’s and Meimei’s analysis of the Las Vegas ad is fabulous coz they manage to instill the connection between a normal deck of playing cards vs the one presented on the ad. It was really something that I would not have thought of (me being a non-card player). As such, in terms of creativity (for presentation) and analysis, i’m giving them a full 10/10. =)
here’s more of HPB’s 1999 campaign on the anti-smoking campaign. it seems that they have moved from producing gory images on the internal organs to the external features of a smoker. =)
and a last food for thought : what would the effect be if the campaign were to use a real person as shown in this ad below? (she was featured on Oprah even..)
