Development of a campaign requires order and guidelines that will make it focus towards a certain end. Blay et al. (2016) point out that campaigns that merely tell the consumer to purchase a product are not very well received. Campaigns need to send a message that the consumer can identify with so that a consumer products relationship is developed. The best way to achieve this goal is in the application of a campaign development theory. Theory will help to create the intervention that will tell the consumer why they need the product, what advantages it carries and how it can be accessed (Stahel & Rost, 2017).
The "Eating out" campaign applies principles from two campaign development theories. The first is the Social Norms theory, and the second is the Health Belief Model. The Social Carbonneau et al. states that norms theory targets the consumer's norm or habit which the campaign wishes to change. The campaign presents information that breaks down a previous misconception and provides the right information about a certain issue. Pila et al. (2017) further argue that the new information is supposed to encourage the consumer to change their old norm to adopt the new habit. If such a campaign's message is well received, the people should either reduce the practice of destructive patterns or completely abandon them. The Eating Out campaign employs this theory by highlighting the dangerous long term effects of fast foods. This is the negative misconception they wish to avert. The campaign then shows the benefits of eating healthier food alternatives. It also advocates for alternatives to provide choice in food outlets. This is a holistic campaign that targets all members of the society (Skinner et al., 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Health Belief campaign also applies in this case. This theory appeals to the individual's personal decision to do the right thing. It works by swaying the person's perception. The first step is highlighting the person's perception of how their actions cause susceptibility. In this case, this action is eating fast food. The next step is relating this action to severity. Lifestyle diseases and obesity are the perceived severity of the Eating Out campaign (Tseng et al., 2017). The third and fourth step stir the individual to act and place the responsibility on him. According to DeMaria et al. (2017) creates a sense of self-efficacy that triggers responsible behavior. The last step in the clean eating campaign encourages making better food choices when in a restaurant or out of the home setting. This model motivates the target audience to consider their health when making good choices. The "Eating Out" campaign uses both of this theories to structure their campaign and make it more applicable to real-world advocacy (Ngai et al., 2015).
Habermas (2015) points out that the needs assessment identifies the low and middle-income earners in urban areas. This demographic shaped the nature of the campaign. It made it clear that both the fast food providers and the consumers were the key to a successful campaign. By incorporating the food sellers, the campaign created a quantifiable means of formative evaluation. The first measurable objective was in identifying which food sellers had introduced new food choices in their menus. This would be a positive first step in providing healthy alternatives within the price range of the low and middle-income population (Gharedaghi, 2016). The second measurable objective would be to determine the number of people who chose this new meals instead of the regular fast food choices. The comparison between the number of people who still consumed the fast foods compared to those who took up the healthier alternatives will show how effective the campaign was. An ideal campaign outcome would be an observation of new food choices in every fast food restaurant. A drop in the consumption of unhealthy foods will also be a positive move. The only aspect that was outside a measurable objective is the monitoring of individual behavior change.
References
Blay, A. D., Gooden, E. S., Mellon, M. J., " Stevens, D. E. (2016). The usefulness of social norm theory in practical business ethics research: A review and suggestions for future research. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-16.
Carbonneau, E., Lemieux, S., Turcotte, M., Labonte, M.-E., Provencher, V., Begin, C., Mongeau, L., ... Labonte, M.-E. (2017). A Health at Every Size intervention improves intuitive eating and diet quality in Canadian women. Clinical Nutrition, 36, 3, 747-754.
DeMaria, A. L., Sundstrom, B., Grzejdziak, M., Booth, K., Adams, H., Gabel, C., " Cabot, J. (2018). It’s not my place: Formative evaluation research to design a bystander intervention campaign. Journal of interpersonal violence, 33 (3), 468-490.
Gharedaghi, M. (2016). The role of social norms to interpretation. Turkish Online Journal of Design art and Communication, 6, 3201-3206.
Habermas, J. (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. John Wiley " Sons.
Ngai, E. W., Tao, S. S., " Moon, K. K. (2015). Social media research: Theories, constructs, and conceptual frameworks. International Journal of Information Management, 35 (1), 33-44.
Pila, E., Sabiston, C., " Wharton, S. (2017). Weight-related shame and guilt predict exercise behavior: A test of the compensatory health beliefs model. Journal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport, 49 (1), 190.
Skinner, C. S., Tiro, J., " Champion, V. L. (2015). The health belief model. Health behavior: theory, research, and practice. 5th ed. San Francisco (US): Jossey-Bass, 75-94.
Stahel, L., " Rost, K. (2017, July). Angels and Devils of Digital Social Norm Enforcement: A Theory about Aggressive versus Civilized Online Comments. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Social Media " Society (p. 18). ACM.
Tseng, H.-M., Liao, S.-F., Wen, Y.-P., & Chuang, Y.-J. ( 2017). Stages of change concept of the transtheoretical model for healthy eating links health literacy and diabetes knowledge to glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. Primary Care Diabetes, 11, 1, 29-36.
