Let's talk about shock PSA's

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of countries are putting disturbing images on cigarette cartons to try to dissuade use. If this works, I think it's a great idea.

I am slightly less enthusiastic about shock PSA's in their video form. The last time I went to a Cinema, I had to sit through drink driving shock PSA's. This actually ruined a part of the cinema going experience that I used to like.

Has there ever been a study, I wonder, about the effects of shock PSA's on people who wouldn't do any of the things that PSA's are preaching against, in the first place? What does doping someone with panic, just prior (or in the case of television; during commercial breaks) do to how they perceive a piece of narrative entertainment? Other than pissing them off, of course.

There is an angle to this that will come to mind to anyone that is familiar with Kafka or has ever been admonished for something they haven't done. To feel guilty, you need not have actually done anything wrong. It is often enough that someone accuses you of doing wrong. I don't know if we humans are that great at disassociating ourselves from PSA's that aren't (apparently) intended for us.

Not sure what you mean by a "shock" PSA (as opposed to the garden variety type of PSA).

I guess I havent yet had the priviledge of seeing one yet.

Given the kind of graphic movies some folks like to watch - why not make a feature length special effects gorefest out of: footage of autopsies of people who died of lung cancer, and of people scraped off the road from being killed by drunk drivers, and people killed by drivers who text while driving, etc? Make a three hour block of shock PSAs the main attraction. It would be a summer blockbuster!

And folks will flock to see it, smoke in the theater, drink while driving to get to theater, and text each other about it while driving to theater!

Just put cigarette cartons in a sleeve or holder or something and you won't need to see them
I think it's stupid, it's not the government's business what people put into their own bodies. Smokers already know it's bad for them, just let them choose the risks they take. I don't watch much tv with commercials or PSAs in them, whether it's a normal commercial or a gore PSA they are both annoying because that's not what I was watching tv for. Same in cinema, I came for a specific film and not the crap they show before starting. I think breaking up a program for unrelated stuff is extremely rude.

I couldn't find any studies of the effects on people who weren't the target demographic, only on people who were. And the results are....the shock and horror PSAs really do modify behaviour in the intended way for a statistically significant number of people.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11968298 HIV scare ads increase condom use

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1748390/ smoking scare ads do reduce smoking

I really was so repulsed by images of cancerous lungs shown in middle school that I never smoked.

Shock PSAs are so succesful that they are used by a number of non-government groups too. Vegans use shocking images of horrible farm conditions to sway people away from meat and anti-fur protestors use similarly horrible images. I can't say for sure, but the vegans' revolting factory farm images may be a prod that helps push meat eaters towards humane small scale farms, if not away from meat as such (that's how it worked for me).

The originators of the shock PSA are..............Christians. Images of Hell and descriptions given in sermons date back pretty far and have always been intended to shock and scare people into religious obedience. I have no doubt it has worked on significant numbers of people. The only reason that particular brand of shock PSA is losing its grip is because people don't believe it so much anymore. But the idea of scaring people into/out of specific behaviours via scary descriptions/images is centuries old and still effective.

So I give it an upvote even if it is gross.

its more for people who don't smoke considering it and young naive kids. watched a show about it and in a few nations that have it even smokers are for it. only the companies are against it.

But I don't think there is anything wrong with smoking. If people want them smoke, just let them smoke in peace. It's not my business or the government's business to guilt trip or scare them into quitting. I think a better idea is to spend that money on addiction programs or making it easier/cheaper for people to quick (if they want to themselves). For example, put nicotine replacements or other addiction prevention measures in healthcare for free (tobacco and alcohol are taxed too much anyway).

Caveat: the following applies to the U.S. and does not hold in other countries.

Although the government will pay for part of some PSAs (as per the anti-smoking PSA study I linked), a lot of the funding is not from the government. So this isn't really a "the government should butt out of peoples' business" situation.

http://www.adcouncil.org/About-Us/Frequently-Asked-Questions#Is%20the%20Ad%20Council%20a%20nonprofit?%20How%20are%20you%20funded?

AdCouncil is the largest maker of PSAs (of which shock PSAs are a subset). As the link says, their funding is a mix of government and private donations.


Some pretty shocking shock PSAs come from obviously non-government sources such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Ironically, some of the more shocking shock PSAs against smoking (which may include the ones you saw) were financed by tobacco companies as part of a settlement for a lawsuit they lost.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/tobacco-companies-pay-big-bucks-for-anti-smoking-campaigns



The shock PSA you saw may actually have been paid for by Philip Morris as part of the settlement if you are in the U.S. If you are not in the U.S., I don't know who paid for it.

I'm not in the US, I'm in the Netherlands. The government wants to force tobacco companies to put those creepy pics on packaging, which means the people buying it will end up paying for it. I don't think the government should tell people that they HAVE to live healthy and make them pay if they don't. Sure, smokers are more likely to die early, but so are people who eat unhealthy, people who drink etc. People know this, they are the ones taking the risk and they should have the freedom to do that. You only live once anyway, I don't want a life as a teetotaler just because the gov wants their citizens to act like drones who never have fun.

Some good news for you, then; it looks like the TPP is going to allow corporations to sue governments over lost profits resulting from regulations they don't like. A bright future will surely result from this.

Last edited by Nebogipfel on 29 Apr 2015, 1:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

But I'm not even near the Pacific.
I would prefer that governments don't make regulations that treat their citizens like children. I don't need the government to tell me whether to smoke/drink/eat or not.

Canadian PSA's are maybe more disturbing than the US, but the ones in the UK sure have plenty of nightmare fuel. I've managed to watch some of the ones on Youtube that are like 60-second slasher horror movies. The problem is that even if they show them only late at night, kids might be up late because it's a holiday or the weekend, maybe watching reruns of sitcoms or something hopefully not *too* grown-up, or adult individuals who are sensitive are also up late, and they're dosing off on the couch in front of the TV, and then they see some PSA against wearing fur where the coats fall apart and blood and maggots spill out to show that the animal carcasses they're from are probably rotting away somewhere. Pleasant dreams!! !

That anti-fur PSA was pretty over-the-top, but the ones about reckless or drunk driving are really disturbing to me since I'm not fond of cars, and it reminds me how other people are idiots on the road and it takes only a split second and then an innocent, responsible driver or their loved ones are getting a special "treat", a ride in an ambulance with chunks of glass and metal in their flesh or their brains hanging out. Situations I have no control over terrify me, so if I'm in my parent's car while they drive and they swerve or put on the brakes suddenly I'm lucky not to shatter their eardrums with my screaming.

During the 70'-80's when I was very young the holidays loved showing people dying in DWI accidents. One I remember ended with some body being wheeled into the morgue, a close-up of their feet with the toe-tag. Another was about a surgeon talking about how celebration time is when he's the busiest and there was blood and a little girl flatlining. Season's greetings, warm and fuzzy wishes to all!

Well, I don't know if anyone actually "learns" from PSA's, but it's strangely enjoyable to talk about how disturbing they can be.

I don't drink and I've never smoked. But I can't be a boring drone, because a drone is a male bee. Seriously if you need to drink to have "fun", that's pretty pathetic. I guess a little alcohol isn't too bad unless you're driving, but how many people actually have just a little? In Canada we have the graphic images on cigarette packages which I don't have a problem with because like I said I don't smoke. If smokers and especially cigarette companies don't like it then all I can say is "tough taters" to them. I heard the US warnings haven't changed much. I think they are wimps.

nothing wrong with lung cancer?
and then everyone else has to pay for their hospital fees from said lung cancer then they need a oxygen tank. also I don't want to smoke yet get 2nd hand smoke which kills people too. again its to stop people from starting to smoke. not those addicted to it already who have very low odds of ever stopping. smokes say if they'd known before they wouldn't have started. the pictures on cigs don't' stop anyone who already smokes from smoking. nor does the increasing price. they spend half their income or more on smoking. they don't care. so it saves kids and others from starting, does not' affect smokers at all. wheres the problem?

personally I agree with laws that restrict smoking from public places.

if it wasn't for the gov cig companies would lie and deceive and make people think there's no bad side to smoking. they already try to cover up all the bad cases and bribe people to keep quiet. they can't survive just on current smokes they die from the product. they need kids to smoke so they can keep up profits.

Speaking of PSAs...

Whoever made this PSA is asking for a lawsuit

Do you want pictures of open heart surgery on a pizza box? That is the same thing. Would ruin people's appetite and maybe let them reconsider their choices (pizza is one of the most unhealthy things to eat after all), but I think it's intrusive and people should be free to enjoy pizza if they want to. Or put pictures of rotted teeth on soda cans, that'll make people stop drinking it.

And I'm not saying people NEED alcohol or drugs to be happy, I just think politicians are usually anti-fun. What I meant with drones is that politicians want their people to never have fun and be perfect worker bees, it's good for the economy! They forget that people work to live and not the other way around. If people want to drink and smoke, let them.

I think banning smoking from public places is good, but people smoking in their own home? And yes, they know they may get lung cancer, that is what healthcare is for. Everyone is doing something that is going to cost healthcare money, what about all the overweight people? They may get diabetes which is a chronic condition that costs a lot of money instead of killing someone off quickly. Yet no one puts labels on unhealthy food which is basically poison like tobacco or alcohol.

Anyway, it is not a guarantee that smoking/drinkin/eating is going to make you sick, it just increases the chances. I know someone who died from esophygal cancer which is associated with both drinking and smoking, but the guy never did either and was actually super healthy and good at sports. He just died because of being unlucky, despite his super healthy lifestyle. On the other hand I know a few heavy drinkers or smokers who also are quite old.