Shock tactics - a reputation minefield or a risk worth taking?


Published on

Ali Stunt, CEO, and Natasha North, marketing and communications manager, Pancreatic Cancer Action

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Use multiple points, if necessary.
  • Use brief bullets and discuss details verbally.
  • Shock tactics - a reputation minefield or a risk worth taking?

    1. 1. Shock tactics - a reputation minefield or a risk worth taking? Pancreatic Cancer Action advertising campaign Limited resources – maximum impact! Ali Stunt, CEO and Founder Natasha North, Marketing and Communications Manager
    2. 2. About Pancreatic Cancer Action  Set up in 2010 by a rare survivor  Key aim is to get more people diagnosed in time for surgery – only cure!  Focused on raising awareness of disease and symptoms  Small charity with 2.5 full-time equivalent staff
    3. 3. Big problem  No method of early detection  Chronically underfunded ◦ Receives just 1% of cancer research funding  Chronic lack of awareness ◦ 70% of UK population do not know where their pancreas is or what it does ◦ 50% patients never heard of disease before their own diagnosis
    4. 4. The Strategy  Stand out and provoke thought  Generate interest so people read on  Get the most out of limited budget and resources
    5. 5. I wish I had… campaign
    6. 6. Why the campaign was necessary There has been a huge improvement in survival rates of many cancers in 40 years
    7. 7. Objectives of the campaign  Tackle low awareness ◦ Of the disease in general ◦ Of diagnosis, survival rates and lack of research funding ◦ Of symptoms  Drive earlier diagnosis ◦ Get more people to ask their doctor ◦ Encourage doctors to be less ‘shy’ about referrals
    8. 8. The advert featuring real patients…
    9. 9. We did our research… Neuroscience  Measured how 115 people responded to the adverts.  Outcome: risk of offence was low once people had read the advert. Online survey (2000 respondents)  Outcome: only 6% were angry and over 50% were made more aware and wanted to do more. In-depth interviews with people affected by different cancers  Outcome: once the message was understood, they were supportive of the advert.
    10. 10. Low cost – maximum impact  The adverts appeared only 9 times over 4 days in regional newspapers in London and Manchester.  Total spend for the initial hard-hitting campaign was £15,000  Followed up with symptoms campaign on London Underground featuring same three patients….
    11. 11. The symptoms advert…
    12. 12. What happened  Social media went bonkers  Inundated with media calls in one day  Spokesperson in high demand
    13. 13. How we managed it  Adaptability  Respond to media enquiries quickly  Released regular statements online and on social media  Prioritise complainants
    14. 14. Extensive media coverage The campaign reached well over 20 million people just in the UK and more globally (backed up by research). Over 150 pieces of press coverage relating to the advertising in the UK alone:  TV including Newsnight, Daybreak and Sky News  Online and printed national including The Times, Daily Mail and BBC News  Extensive radio coverage including most BBC stations, 5 Live and LBC  At least 100 regional pieces of coverage. Also:  International coverage including US Doctors TV, CBS Canada, BBC World Service and Melbourne 10  Social media – Twitter mentions of pancreatic cancer up 69% on previous month of campaign and over 100% increase in followers on Facebook. Over £1m of highest quality earned media
    15. 15. The good…
    16. 16. The bad…
    17. 17. The ugly…
    18. 18. What the comms team could have done differently  More resource  Complaints procedure  Used a monitoring tool  Received more third party input
    19. 19. Impact of the campaign  Months after the campaign it is still being discussed.  43% of people who recognised campaign more aware of the symptoms.  Traffic on explanatory page of website up 963%.  Donations up 60% on same period last year.  Modelled increase in pancreatic cancer diagnosis 14% up.  Modelled number of lives saved = 36.
    20. 20. Impact of the campaign  Surge in petition signatures  Drug approved by Cancer Drugs Fund  Meeting with Jeremy Hunt and Lord Saatchi  Offered speaking opportunities  Pancreatic cancer has higher profile
    21. 21. The challenges for a small team • Lack of resource • Managing damage limitation - building bridges while fighting fires • Supporting stakeholders • Emotional impact
    22. 22. Was the campaign worth it? As Philip Schofield said to the late Kerry Harvey on This Morning:
    23. 23. Summary Means to an end  Set out to shock in order to get attention and then use that attention to deliver an important message. Do your homework  Use research to assess the risk. Be brave  Don’t be put off by the impossible – be prepared to take a calculated risk. Ride the momentum  use it to drive change