<< Previous Page | Page 6 of 6 | Next Page >>
The results of the research can be summarised in the simplest of terms. To communicate with the audience we have to first understand them, and make sure that they can understand us.
It is essential that those involved in the creation of waste awareness campaigns consider the world that their audience lives in and the contributing factors that have created the current environment. Without the appreciation of the culture of convenience there is little hope of creating an appropriate means for the vast majority of consumers to take part in the reduction of waste. An understanding of just how much faith is placed in technology is important in understanding the scope of public knowledge expectations of the waste industry. Ignorance of just how sensitive the general public is to being forced to take responsibility and accept blame for environmental factors can severely damage reactions to a campaign. Cultural considerations are undeniably key to the creation and design of any campaign.
And it is undeniable that to talk to the general public, their language has to be adopted. The first, and most crucial casualty in the linguistic purge that is necessary for such coherent communication is the term 'waste' which means very little to our audience. Instead of applying to household refuse, it is regarded as a toxic by-product of industrial and nuclear sources, and as such remains possibly the most intangible and inaccessible term for discussing the subject. The far more popular 'rubbish' on the other hand is pleasantly pejorative whilst highly identifiable and consumer-friendly. Most individuals could produce some rubbish on demand if required. It is essential that it is adopted for waste awareness purposes for the campaign to communicate with the majority of people on a friendly, accessible basis. Similar thought is required for the disposal terminology - landfill and incineration are not the most recognisable of processes.
Having ensured an awareness of the cultural dynamics and made an effort to avoid terminological complexity, the scene is set to define and create a campaign that will talk to the audience in their own language and on their terms. Imagery and language should be used to the greatest effect, allowing the audience to notice and remember the message, no matter what medium. And this message must be simple and focussed, leaving consumers in no doubt as to what the campaign is trying to achieve and how it expects them to help. Of course, empathy must be displayed at all times, especially in terms of understanding the size of the gulf between how high a priority these issues are to today's audience and how high we would like them to be. Similarly important is an avoidance of anything that might even slightly be construed as accusatory or ignorant of the responsibility of those in power - alienation of the audience will be swift to follow.
The personalising of an individual execution within a campaign is also something that cannot be ignored, no matter which medium is being used. Consumers need to know how the issue affects them and what they can do to make a difference (the significance of this contribution being impossible to over-emphasise). Simplicity is the key here, providing a single, focussed message that ideally challenges the complacencies that we all live with and are prone to ignore.
With conflicting cultural motivators implying the need for not only localisation of a campaign to specific needs in specific areas but also a broadness that can underline the national significance of the campaign, it might seem at first that it is impossible to specify a campaign for all needs. However, flexibility in the design should allow it to be a highly vocal and effective tool. A nation-wide campaign, under a national title, that is open to local interpretation and has the potential to be malleable to regional needs should fulfil all requirements.
So, does this mean that the fluffy bunnies should be abandoned, that the cute mascots will find themselves redundant and likely to come face-to-face with the bulldozers and incinerators they have been connected with for so long? Not at all. There is no evidence that these are disliked or ineffectual. What is apparent is that campaigns have failed to hit the spot so far because of a lack of insight into the societal dynamics and a failure to acknowledge a general lack of waste-related understanding in the public at large. Before discussion of the use of mascots and cute characters can even commence in any seriousness, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the methods used to present consumers with the issues. Meaningful language has to be employed, interesting visuals have to be used and an understanding of the target audience must be constantly displayed.
So before the bunnies are burned and the cute dustbin illustrators fired, we need to rethink rubbish, and work out how to encourage consumers to do the same.