Posts filed under ‘Campaign evaluation’
A very interesting article from the The Stanford Social Innovation Review : “Stop Raising Awareness Already”.
The article critiques a number of awareness campaigns and how they do not achieve what they set out to do – and in some cases may even do harm.
One campaign they look at is the “Dumb way to die” campaign focused on reducing the number of rail accidents in Victoria, Australia. This campaign was much appreciated for its quirky video and song:
However, the campaign failed to address the main cause of railway accidents – the majority were suicides. And as the article states:
“It is worth considering that the video’s charming figures and catchy hook may have actually made death seem more appealing or normal to those already at risk.”
But it’s not all criticism! The article provides some lessons for campaigners:
- Target your audience as narrowly as possible;
- Create compelling messages with clear calls to action;
- Develop a theory of change;
- Use the right messenger.
The website Better Evaluation has many great resources and explanations of evaluation approaches, processes and methods.
I just came across this page on Evaluating Policy Influence and Advocacy that details well the methods and types of advocacy/policy influence – well worth a read!
Earlier this year I had the opportunity to present the findings of my PhD in 30 minutes (!) to the Geneva Communicators Network. I titled my presentation “communication evaluation: challenges and complexities” – and you can view it below – it’s a very summarised version of my PhD! If you are really keen, you can view the full PhD thesis here.
This week I made a presentation at the European Evaluation Society conference on a tracking study on the use of campaign evaluation (that I had carried out). For those interested in this subject, my slides are here for your consumption!
For any readers in the Zurich, Switzerland area, I will be giving a presentation for the EMScom Alumni Association (of which I am an alumni of..) on communication evaluation; here is a short description:
Evaluation of communication activities is consistently named as one of the top concerns of communication professionals. Yet paradoxically not even half reportedly undertake any evaluation. Drawing from his recent PhD studies and over a decade of experience in evaluating communication campaigns and programmes, Glenn O’Neil will set out the challenges and complexities of evaluation and offer insights into solutions and approaches to ensure that evaluation brings value to communication professionals and their organisation
Thursday, April 28, 2016, 18h30-21h00
Widder Hotel, Zürich
Cost: 50 CHF (free for EMScom alumni)
Hope to see some of you there! Further information >>
Register also by email: firstname.lastname@example.org
The US-based Media Impact Funders have produced a ten point list on elements of success for policy change (what I’ve labeled “advocacy”), as reproduced below in this post.
Although it is looking from a US perspective of influence on policy through advocacy, what struck me was that many of the points are relevant to advocacy done globally or in other countries/regions. For example:
Point 1: Solutions – when evaluating advocacy initiatives and talking with policy-makers, a common complaint I have heard is that advocacy is not “solution focused”, i.e. it makes valid points about the given issues (that often policy-makers are also aware of) but don’t necessarily put forward possible solutions to these issues.
Point 3: Agility – the ability to be flexible is so important – to take advantage of opportunities that arise, that were not necessarily included in the original advocacy plan. That I saw recently in an evaluation I carried out for Oxfam on global development policy – where they had enough flexibility to move resources as the issues peaked and new opportunities emerged.
Point 5: Humanity – often advocacy focuses on the “facts” but what can also make an impact is the “human factor”. One effective example of this was in the creation of the Arms Trade Treaty where state representatives drafting the treaty were directly confronted by survivors of armed violence; certainly bringing a human face to the dry legalistic treaty process and language.