If the result is the one you want, does it matter how you get there?

The New York Times Parenting blog points to an interesting new public service announcement running in New York. The PSA encourages moms to breastfeed. But the enticement is not the health benefits for the baby. The enticement to breastfeed is that many women who breastfeed lose weight.

So the question is whether it is appropriate to entice an audience to engage in a behavior for vanity? It's not unheard of. Anti-smoking campaigns have used the approach. And breastfeeding campaigns might also mention other reasons for breastfeeding that have nothing to do with the baby's health: such as monetary savings. If a health campaign is successful in getting an audience to engage in a health behavior, does the why matter?

How far should a smoking ad go?

The Today Show aired an interesting story this morning about an anti-smoking ad running in New York. The ad shows a very upset little boy, lost in a train station, and asks the audience to imagine if he was this upset to lose you for a minute, how upset would he be to lose you for a lifetime?

Some are concerned about the little boy in the ad, asking if those tears are a little too real to be acting. But it also raises the question of how far is too far to go in a health ad.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What do you think? Does it go to far? Or is it effective?

Health messages through song

The New York Times ran an article Saturday about Feliciano Dos Santos one of southern Africa's most popular singers, who writes and performs songs promoting sanitation and disease prevention. It is an interesting look at health promotion in a different culture and also examines the barriers to health promotion. Health promotion is about more than getting health messages to the people, but addressing the cultural and systematic barriers to changing behavior.

You can find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/world/africa/25santos.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.

Celebrity effect

Public figures who die from, or openly discuss their diagnosis of a particular illness, sometimes find themselves as the founder of an unintended effect. A celebrity face on an illness cloaked in shame or uncertainty can be the catalyst for the viewing public to get tested or at least raise public awareness. Perhaps the most well-known and studied celebrity effects are Betty Ford and breast cancer and Magic Johnson and HIV/AIDS. Now NBC Nightly News and other media outlets are reporting on the Tim Russert Effect, an increase in middle aged men seeking additional tests and more aggressive management of their heart health after the sudden death of NBC political analyst Tim Russert last month.

You can watch the video clip from Monday's newscast here:



Though the public does not know these public figures personally, many feel as though they can realte to these figures because they are so visible. When one of them gets sick, it may trigger some people who are watching to realize their own risk.

Changing health by changing habits

The New York Times ran an interesting article about anthropologist Val Curtis, who wanted to find a way to encourage Africans to wash their hands with soap. When education campaigns failed, she turned to consumer market researchers. Market researchers study the psychology of habits, how habits are developed, and how habits can be manipulated to get consumers to exhibit a certain behavior. The method appears to be working for the hand-washing campaign. Reported hand-washing with soap is up dramatically.

Some people worry about the campaign's manipulative approach and would like to continue to focus on education effort. But where education efforts have failed, working to develop new habits is ultimately saving lives.

You can find the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/business/13habit.html?ex=1373601600&en=e3072a7b2bc8ebf4&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink.