Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• 'Foolsspeed' was a five-year campaign by Road Safety Scotland (formerly the Scottish Road Safety Campaign) designed to reduce the use of inappropriate and excessive speed on Scotland's roads. It was targeted at the general driving population in Scotland, although a key sub-group was drivers with a known tendency to speed, particularly 25-44 year old males in social classes ABC1. The main component was a mass media campaign underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour ( TPB) (Ajzen, 1988), a model which explains and predicts behaviour in terms of key psychological determinants. The TPB was used to shape a series of television advertisements, each designed to address a key determinant of behavioural intention according to the TPB: "Mirror", designed to address Attitudes regarding speeding and speed choice (1999); "Friends and Family", designed to address Subjective Norms in relation to speeding (2000); "Simon Says", designed to address the third main component of TPB, Perceived Behavioural Control (2001). A 4-year evaluation was conducted and has previously been published as a Social Research report (Stead et al, 2002).
• In 2004 a final Foolsspeed ad was developed, focusing on the positive benefits of calmer driving. The 'Doppelganger' ad, in keeping with the realistic approach of the overall campaign, depicted no dramatic crashes but instead focused on the journey to work of a man and his doppelganger. One character drives calmly and without incident; the second is impatient, takes unnecessary risks and ends up being reprimanded by the police at the side of the road. He arrives at the office stressed and unable to find a parking space, while his doppelganger observes him through the window calmly sipping on his coffee. The rationale behind the ad was that it tapped into 'affective beliefs' about speeding. Positive and negative affective beliefs refer to beliefs about the emotions one might experience while performing a behaviour (for example, pleasure or remorse). An affective beliefs ad had not formed part of the original Foolsspeed campaign strategy. The 'Doppelganger' advert was aired from 8 ^th November 2004 to 16 ^th January, and again between 3 ^rd October and 18 ^th December 2005.
• The overall aim of this research was to evaluate qualitatively the 'Doppelganger' advert within the context of the Foolsspeed campaign, and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, and was guided by the following objectives:

1. To explore unprompted and prompted recall of the 'Doppelganger' advert and the Foolsspeed Campaign
2. To explore unprompted and prompted reactions to the campaign.
3. To explore the extent to which the Doppelganger advert linked with and supported the previous Foolsspeed adverts, in terms of message coherence, thematic progression and mutual reinforcement.
4. To explore retrospectively reactions to the Foolsspeed campaign as a whole, including perceptions of the campaign's credibility and impact and the appropriateness of the overall campaign style.
5. To identify further areas in which the campaign approach could be developed.

• Ten focus groups were conducted with respondents aged 17-54 quota-sampled by gender, age, and social class, and representing drivers living in urban and semi-rural locations. As with the previous research, the sample was skewed to over-represent the campaign's core target group: men from socio-economic groups ABC1, aged 25-44, living in urban areas. A key finding of the 4-year Foolsspeed evaluation was that drivers who were classified as 'frequent speeders' often engaged with the advertising differently from drivers who were classified as 'moderate' or 'infrequent' speeders (Stead et al 2002). Focus group respondents were therefore also sampled by reported frequency of speeding behaviour in order to compare any differences in response by speeding.
• Recall of road safety advertising generally centred around a number of prominent campaigns, the majority of which had been screened within the last year or so. Five specific television advertisements were frequently recalled, four of which formed part of the Department of Transport's recent 'Think!' mass media campaign; the fifth was the most recent television advertisement from the Foolsspeed campaign, 'Doppelganger'.
• There was a general tendency, particularly amongst males, to favour hard-hitting advertising employing graphic imagery. However, although respondents claimed that this sort of advertising was memorable, few would admit to being personally influenced by it. It was notable that what respondents seemed to particularly like in these adverts was the sophistication of their special effects. There appeared to be a degree of voyeurism and vicarious enjoyment of the suffering shown in the adverts, which stood in sharp contrast to the way in which other respondents, particularly females, engaged with the 'slice of life' realism of the Foolsspeed campaign, which was regarded by many as a new and fresh approach to road safety advertising.
• Recall of the four main Foolsspeed adverts varied, with the most recent advert, Doppelganger, recalled most frequently. Very few respondents spontaneously recalled the Foolsspeed title or campaign logo. When prompted, the majority reported having seen the logo before, although reports of where they had seen it were wide-ranging and in some instances inaccurate. Most respondents appeared to understand the intended wordplay on 'full' and 'fool' in the slogan and the implication that driving at a high or inappropriate speed is foolish. However, some respondents, particularly male drivers, rejected the assertion that all drivers who speed are fools on the grounds that they believed that speeding (or more precisely speeding marginally above the legal limit) was a widely accepted and relatively safe behaviour, and that other factors such as lack of awareness were a more likely cause of road accidents.
• The most prominent feature recalled in the Doppelganger ad was the two identical cars, one being driven fast and aggressively and the other at a slower, safer speed. Most respondents recognised that the advert employed a double image of the same driver to convey "good" and "bad" driving. Interestingly, some respondents said they had initially perceived Doppelganger as a commercial for the car featured in the advert. The use of stylistic interior shots, smooth gear changes and low engine noise to convey a sense of stress-free driving all served to reinforce this interpretation. These initial misinterpretations were generally corrected following repeated exposure to the advert.
• Perceptions of the Doppelganger ad's target group were consistent with the intended target, namely 25-44 year-old male white collar workers. Importantly, this did not exclude other groups, such as manual workers who regularly commuted to work, from identifying with the advertising, largely because they also identified with the frustrations of urban congestion. Rural drivers on the other hand tended to relate to the ad less strongly as traffic congestion was not a common feature in the areas where they drove.
• Another factor affecting identification with the advertising was the types of driving behaviour portrayed in the advert. The behaviour of the speeding driver - weaving in and out and overtaking a slower driver on a single carriageway - was generally regarded as extremely reckless. This had a distancing effect, leading some respondents to pigeon-hole the Doppelganger as a dangerous driver and, therefore, unlike themselves. In contrast, there was a mixed response to the safe driver. Some rejected him as being smug and unattractive, while others approved of what they perceived as his more astute behaviour.
• Generally, the message of Doppelganger was initially perceived as highlighting the risks of driving recklessly in a built-up area . However, the consequences shown were perceived as lacking in severity, leading several respondents to request portrayals of the more serious negative consequences of speeding, such as losing one's driving licence. Importantly, it was only when reviewing the ad in more detail that most respondents identified a more positive message relating to the benefits of safe driving. Here, discussions focussed on the advantages of arriving at work on time and free from stress. While some were prepared to engage with this message, others were unconvinced.
• Overall, a tension emerged between the Doppelganger ad's strategy of evoking a sense of calm to convey the idea of stress-free driving and what audiences traditionally expect in road safety advertising. The apparent lack of incident, although consistent with the desired focus on good rather than bad driving, appeared to create a bland and uneventful ad for many respondents.
• The Mirror (Attitudes) ad had lower levels of spontaneous recall, but nearly all respondents recognised it when it was shown. Generally, the ad evoked positive reactions. The idea of being distracted while driving was a very real one, and caused respondents to reflect on their own 'heart stop' moments brought about by momentary inattentiveness. The central concept of the driver's conscience was also generally understood and resonated with respondents.
• The ad appeared to have a high degree of credibility, in terms of both the depicted driving context and the characterisation. Many recognised and related to the scenarios, and there was also a high degree of personal identification, with many respondents describing the ad's target as themselves. This was true also of younger and female drivers, although rural drivers again seemed to have lower identification because of the urban driving environment featured. Consistent with the 4-year evaluation findings, it tended to be respondents who had been recruited as frequent speeders who were particularly able to recognise themselves in the ad. A key element in this identification was that the driver was seen as a convincing character. His views on his own driving were familiar (many respondents described themselves as above average drivers, and able to handle speed "better than other people"); furthermore, he appeared to be a fundamentally competent driver unlike some of the drivers in other Foolsspeed ads.
• The intended anti-speeding message in the Mirror ad was generally correctly picked up, but it tended to be in the context of other related messages concerning attentiveness and taking care. The other message respondents identified in the ad was the one implied in the strapline and which reflected the TPB thinking behind the ad: "change your attitude", "have a look at yourself", "think about your driving".
• The Friends and Family (Subjective Norms) ad had reasonable levels of both spontaneous and prompted recall. Immediate reactions to the ad were more mixed than for Mirror, although more positive than for Doppelganger. The ad generated slight mockery, which may suggest that its reliance on humour, characterisation and initial suspense had caused it to wear out more quickly than the other ads. However, some aspects of the ad were liked, such as the way it criticised boy racer behaviour in drivers who "should know better", and its depiction of the passenger perspective, particularly that of the concerned parent and young child.
• The boy racer character was credible to several respondents who said they knew drivers like that or recognised similar tendencies in themselves. Others, however, found the character unconvincing, perceiving a father who drove recklessly with a baby in the car as too extreme to be believable. For many female drivers and rural infrequent speeders it was difficult to relate to behaviour which seemed remote from their own. Overall, although the ad perhaps succeeded best of the ads in positioning speeding as a 'foolish' behaviour, this seems to have been at the expense of identification and empathy.
• The anti-speeding intent of the ad was understood but, as with Mirror, this was not necessarily seen as the main or only message of the ad, and other more general messages were also identified such as "drive carefully" and "don't be a selfish driver". The central idea of looking at one's driving though passengers' eyes was generally grasped, although it sometimes took a bit of discussion to reach this point. One aspect of the ad which weakened its impact was the final scene implying that no passenger wanted to be in the car with the driver, which several felt was too tame a consequence to have any real impact. This was further underlined by the driver's apparent unconcern at the prospect.
• The central Subjective Norms concept of the Friends and Family ad rests on the assumption that being made aware of other people's disapproval can influence a driver to reassess his or her behaviour. Respondents had mixed views of this concept. Several male drivers claimed that admonishments from a mother, wife or girlfriend could be and were routinely ignored, and that it was only when they became a father that they began radically to consider the impact of their driving on other people, suggesting that expression of external disapproval has limited effect unless the driver internalises the needs of other people. The one exception for some was that they said they would take notice if a male friend criticised their driving - one of the scenarios depicted in the ad. These reactions may suggest that the ad was less successful in addressing its intended TPB component, Subjective Norms; or it may suggest that this is a more challenging concept than Attitude to translate into advertising.
• The Simon Says (Perceived Behavioural Control) ad had lower levels both of spontaneous and prompted recall than the other two original TPB ads, which may reflect the fact that it was screened less frequently, although it was also more recent. Urban drivers could relate strongly to the ad's depiction of being pressurised and intimidated by other drivers, although rural drivers again related less strongly to the focus on urban commuting. Despite recognising the situations shown in the ad, respondents did not always relate to the driver himself. Where they had readily identified with the Mirror driver because his confident attitude to driving echoed their own, this driver was seen as somewhat nervous and over-cautious, and this hindered empathy, particularly among frequent speeders. Identification may also have been hampered by the fact that the ad does not get inside the head of the driver, nor give any insights into his personality from the perspective of others, unlike the earlier two ads.
• Two related broad messages were identified in the Simon Says ad, not to pressurise other drivers, and not to give in to pressure, although the final strapline 'Be Your Own Man' focussed attention on this latter message. Again, as with Mirror, respondents also identified messages about concentration and being careful. Overall, the ad appeared to have been effective in focusing attention on the concept of pressure when driving, and to have had a high believability. However, the extent to which the ad challenged drivers' perceptions of being in control over their speeding and increased their feelings of control over their speed choice (the central TPB aim of the ad), was not clear. The ad seems to imply that anxiety and nervousness can force drivers into speeding, whereas respondents' own experiences tended to suggest that speeding was more often linked to over-confidence and impatience.
• After seeing and discussing each individual ad, respondents were asked to compare all four ads in terms of perceived impact, particularly the extent to which each ad had made them personally reassess their driving behaviour. There was a widely shared view that Doppelganger was the least resonant of the four ads, and that Mirror and Simon Says were the strongest. Frequent speeders were particularly likely to pick Mirror as the ad which had made them personally think most about their driving, closely followed by Simon Says. Very few picked Doppelganger as the ad which had most made them reflect on their own driving; the small number who did tended to be infrequent speeders who liked its endorsement of their unhurried way of driving, which was part of the strategy behind it.
• A number of factors influenced respondents' views of the ads. Firstly, some were seen to be more engaging in terms of content. Although all the ads were seen as low-key compared with other road safety ads, Mirror and Simon Says were relatively more dramatic, in that they had a relatively strong narrative and culminated in a near miss which had the potential to jolt respondents into thinking "what might have happened". The other two ads, in contrast, had far less dramatic endings, and were felt to be lacking in the same degree of emotional impact.
• Respondents varied too in the extent to which they saw each ad as personally relevant to them. Many could identify with the over-confidence and the momentary distraction shown in Mirror, and nearly all respondents could relate to being pressurised by other drivers, as in Simon Says. Identification with these two ads was enhanced by their recognisable 'Scottishness'. In contrast, fewer could identify with the apparent selfishness and disregard shown by the Friends and Family driver, or with the 'bad' driving behaviour shown in Doppelganger, which was seen as extreme and reckless.
• There was a perception that Doppelganger was executionally different from the other ads. Where the first three ads were generally seen as rather low budget, Doppelganger was felt to be more polished, which fostered a perception that it had "been made by someone else". Several felt that, unlike the original three ads which were recognisably Scottish, Doppelganger was 'made in England', a perception supported by the anonymity of the scene, and, more obviously, by the lack of Scottish voices in the ad.
• Respondents were asked whether they perceived similarities between the four ads, and to what extent they perceived them as forming a unified campaign. A key feature the ads were perceived as having in common was their departure from traditional road safety advertising. Some respondents, equating shock value with impact, maintained that because the Foolsspeed ads lacked "children flying through the air", they were less effective. Related, however, to this perception that the Foolsspeed ads were not graphic and shocking was the perception that they were more "realistic" than many ads. Several, on reflection, saw this greater realism as an intended strength of the Foolsspeed campaign, arguing that the choice of more believable driving scenarios could possibly be more effective because people would be less likely to dismiss the scenarios as unlikely to happen to them. Another differentiating feature of the Foolsspeed ads was their perceived subtlety. Unlike more hard-hitting ads, the Foolsspeed ads were seen as merely hinting at the possible consequences of speeding and requiring the viewer to use their imagination; more specifically to think through how one would act in the same situation and what the outcomes might be.
• Two broad themes were perceived to be shared across all the ads: self-reflection ("look at your own driving") and personal choice and responsibility. The Foolsspeed ads were seen to focus on the driver's ability to choose between different courses of action and the importance of taking responsibility for one's decisions when driving. However, it was less clear how effective the ads had been in communicating a shared speeding message. All the ads were perceived, to varying degrees, to be about speeding, but this was not necessarily seen as the most important message in each ad and nor was it immediately identified as a feature linking the ads together. In addition, there appeared to be a tension between getting drivers to identify with a campaign focusing on everyday driving and the proposition that speeding is foolish.
• A number of recommendations for future campaigns emerge from the research. Firstly, there does seem to be merit in the realistic approach. The combination of everyday driving behaviours, "average" characters and 'Scottishness' seems to have been effective at evincing feelings of recognition and identification. There also seems to be merit in the decision throughout the campaign to avoid shocking accidents in favour of more plausible consequences of speeding. Despite flying in the face of conventional road safety advertising approaches, the Foolsspeed ads appear to have stood up well in communication terms.
• More fundamentally, there are hints from this research that this sort of approach may not only foster stronger identification but may also encourage deeper self-reflection than more graphic advertising. Nonetheless, it was still apparent that those Foolsspeed ads which were more dramatic, albeit within the context of a campaign strongly grounded in realism and everyday driving, were still more engaging than the less dramatic ads. This suggests that ads may still need to portray or imply a degree of more dramatic (but credible) consequences in order to evoke some kind of emotional response to jolt drivers into reflecting meaningfully on their own driving behaviour.
• Finally, the Foolsspeed campaign lends support to the use of theory to underpin road safety advertising campaign. Substantial effort was made to translate Theory of Planned Behaviour constructs into advertising which would not only work in communication terms but would also relate closely to the three main determinants of speeding intentions and behaviour - Attitudes, Subjective Norms, Perceived Behavioural Control - and the additional subcomponent of Affective Beliefs. Not all ads were equally effective, and some of the TPB constructs are arguably harder to translate into convincing advertising than others. Nonetheless, the campaign demonstrates that it is possible to design convincing ads around these constructs.