Earlier this year, the NZTA launched a new social media campaign, called Drive Social. There are some major issues with the campaign, which would have been oh-so-easy to solve.
The NZTA gets frustratingly close to talking about other road users besides car drivers – saying the campaign was centred around the question, “If we stopped thinking ‘cars’ and started thinking ‘people’, would it change the way we drive?”. They also say:
“At its heart, the advertising poses a common question: If the road is a social space, is this behaviour really that safe for everyone who shares the road?”
Having almost raised the idea that other people (motorcyclists, cyclists, joggers, public transport users) are road users too, they seem to back right off in the campaign itself. These other users aren’t mentioned or shown on the billboards, or on the website, or on the Facebook page (with some minor exceptions).
This picture, currently used as the header at the top of the Drive Social Facebook page, is noticeably devoid of human life, apart from the single occupant in each car. No cyclists, or people out for a walk. Not even a motorbike peeking out from behind a car, maybe in someone’s blind spot – that’d make people think. The image does carry a message about being patient when driving on the highway, or on holiday weekends, but it would have been so simple to expand it just a little bit.
Someone up in Whangarei made this point rather well, modifying one of the Drive Social billboards (the black lines aren’t part of the original design):
To the NZTA’s credit, they’ve put this photo up as a talking point on their Facebook page. The bigger test, I’d say, is whether they have allowed the billboard to remain this way (can anyone in Whangarei answer this?)
Ultimately, the NZTA is trying to improve road safety with this campaign. And people in cars are not the only people who are exposed to danger on the road. As per the stats here, motorcyclists and pedestrians make up a big share of road deaths. Cyclists make up a smaller share, but still much higher than their share of travel would suggest. If the NZTA wants to make inroads into road safety, it needs to start talking about these high-risk groups.
Another issue, raised here, is that the campaign could have lent itself quite well to encouraging carpooling (or ride sharing, which is essentially ad-hoc carpooling). But it doesn’t.
The Greens have attacked the campaign, calling it a waste of money and pointing out that the $1.6 million used to make it could have subsidised a million public transport trips. Cue hyperbolic response from the PM: “The Greens are opposed to roads and that’s because they want everyone to either to walk or cycle”. I don’t think the entire campaign can be labelled a waste of money, but by gosh it could have been so much better.
Reading through the NZTA’s material around the campaign, it seems like this is the starting point, and that they’ll build the “drive social” slogan into their other advertising work. There’s room to improve – the campaign just needs a bit of tweaking.
Processing...
Which ad agency did NZTA use to help them develop the campaign?
Clemenger BBDO. http://clemengerbbdo.co.nz/#!&pageid=0&subsection=4&itemid=28
Yeah, I’m not sure what proportion of blame should be allocated to NZTA vs the ad agency. Probably a bit for both, with emphasis on the NZTA since they have a well-known and entrenched bias towards cars… it’s the ad agency’s job to come up with ideas, so it’d be surprising if at some point they didn’t say “hey, why don’t we talk a little bit about other road users?”, before that idea was probably nipped in the bud by NZTA.
Wow, I had always just assumed it was a car-pooling web-site and was happy that NZTA was doing something in that arena. Turns out it’s a weird, pointless, waste of time (I went through the steps on the web-site). Constantly disappointed in NZ’s lack of imperative to change transport behaviours.
Does make a nice change from the usual ‘picnic on the grass verge, cyclists and pedestrians everywhere’ images they usually use to try and sell projects- it’s an honest representation in that sense.
Commented on the wrong post? Should this have been on today’s apartment building post?
Cycling is indeed so much more social. When you’re not separated from the world in a metal and glass box, you notice people, they notice you, and you interact. When I’m driving, there’s a little bit of interaction as people pull into car traffic, but it’s short and limited, rather than extended.
Skycabs could be the solution. Travel above existing carriageways; minimal interference with infrastructure. No diesel required.
If you are just going to come here and say skycabs are the answer in every post then we will take action. Please provide examples of where it has successfully been installed across an entire city.
I’d be hbappy to see a single suburb, or corridor in which it had worked.
You mean like the ones in Back to the Future 2? Hell yeah, I want those as well! Do you have a Mr Fusion as well?
It’s 2013, to hell with Skycabs. I want my jetpack to fly to work.
Jet packs? Surely we should be beaming people between teleporter booths by now.
There is a huge contradiction at the heart of this very curious idea: one of the key defining aspects of the private car is that it is expressly anti-social. Cars are entirely about taking your own private space around with you, your own mobile private living room. This is considered by many to be a great advantage of the private car; you’ve got your own decor, own climate, own music or you can listen only to opinions you agree with. In theory you can go at your own pace, and change destination on a whim. And most of all you can control who else travels with you. Cars are about shutting out the world, including society, or perhaps especially society.
Whereas Public Transport (there’s a hint in the name) and walking and cycling are inherently social. You are forced, to some degree, to interact with others, this is considered by some to be a central disadvantage with these other modes. Personally I disagree, although of course not always. Loud and sometimes stinky fellow passengers are a pain, but then accidental meetings and even new friendships (and more) are great. And accidental meetings between car users is not such a good thing, being at least expensive if not injurious and tragic.
This campaign shows just how self-delusional this institution is. Move-Social could be a PT campaign…. But when would they fund that?
I’d appreciate a courtesy campaign for public transport. In Queensland they have ‘quiet carriages’ on the trains, and they’re a wonderful success. No noisy phones or music or loud conversation. I think rules should be a bit clearer about noisy people/music on public transport who are making things worse for everyone, and now that bus and train operators aren’t so busy having to collect fares, they can focus on improving the user experience.
You can’t force good behaviour, but you can encourage it.
I thought this campaign had died a natural death.
They announced this quite some time ago and when I (then) went to the website it asked all sorts of questions that appeared to me it was setting itself up as some kind of wannabe ride-sharing site [aka car-pooling for the social media set]..
They asked about what time I left for work in the AM and left from work in the PM and exactly where I lived and worked then told me who else was(not) on the road at the same time as me going to and from the same locations. But then didn’t actually do anything apart from that. And it wouldn’t work for me in any case:
Big reason car-pooling wouldn’t work for me – I Ieave from home when I’m ready not at a set time each day and I leave work when I’ve logically reached a end point for whatever I’m working on not at a set time. I don’t want be at work at 8:30am and home at 5:30pm –
and encouraging such behaviour and any carpooling scheme unless totally ad-hoc would not work for me as either passenger or driver in any car pooling scheme.
I wonder if they started it out that way as some ride sharing thing, got complete lack of interest and have now morphed it into some kind of “be a nice (car) driver” type of campaign.
Either way I think its an epic fail, doesn’t really change anything except move some $’d between NZTA and their Ad Agency.
And I think we’d see that any movement of $’s away from NZTA that doesn’t fund yet more roads is probably not too a bad thing – but this campaign isn’t really achieving anything at all.
And as the Greens said, you could subsidise a lot of PT trips for more benefits for the same $.
At about $1m per km, how many kms of Copenhagen cycle paths could this campaign have bought? At $2m, could we have another walking/cycle bridge like the one that just opened in Bayswater? That would create more social opportunities than all this crap – what is the BCR on this campaign? -3.0? Fiscally responsible government my @rse!
True Patrick – is “social” the lipstick, and is “driving” the pig?
“the Drive Social Facebook page, is noticeably devoid of human life, apart from the single occupant in each car. No cyclists, or people out for a walk. Not even a motorbike peeking out from behind a car, maybe in someone’s blind spot – that’d make people think”
The Face book page maybe, but TV ad(s) do show a motorcyclist letting the poor wet sad dude we see at the start of the ad into the traffic from a side road (which then makes a sad face sitting over his car turn happier). And the TV add also shows a poor old granny nearly gets run over by an aggressive driver who tail gates the traffic queue and overtakes unsafely and then speeds through the ped. crossing, nearly killing granny as he does. And the poor sad dude is felling much better when gets to the park so instead of kicking the dog like he might have, he picks up the ball and throws it for the dog.
Still doesn’t actually tell me much in practice, what “Driving Social” is.
It appears you have totaly failed to get the idea behind the campaign. The campaign is not about the different modes on the road but more about the anti-social behaviour road users tend to exibit when traveling.
I get the idea behind the campaign; I’m just pointing out some of the ways I think it could have been much more useful. The point of getting people to be “more social” on the roads is ultimately to reduce accidents and fatalities. As such, it’s daft that the campaign gives very little time to some of the most vulnerable people on the road, i.e. pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists.
The point is to target those that cause the deaths, as in the ones ‘driving’ the vehicles. By getting the drivers to think of others on the road you will get the biggest return on investment. Although it does happen it is very rare for a pedestrain to get killed when they get hit by a cyclist.
In terms of their website however it is rather dumb that it only works for motorists as it would be an interesting tool if it worked for all users. Note that the website is different as it gets more than 15s to make an impact on someone.
When I’m talking about “some of the most vulnerable people on the road”, though, I’m obviously talking about vehicle drivers being reminded to think of these users. I’m talking about a car driver hitting a pedestrian, not a cyclist hitting a pedestrian.
This is a classic example of a complete waste of taxpayers’ money by the government (all governments do it, whether left or centre-left). Another example is those stupid signs telling me to take a break if I’m tired or whatever – am I five? The only valid reason I can think of for any form of public service advertising are brief campaigns such as for the change to the right-hand rule. Anything else is nonsense.
So up to a point I agreed with Ms Genter, until she got onto the pro-PT and anti-motorway bandwagons: “[With] the money they are putting into this ridiculous campaign, which is highly unlikely to actually reduce road rage, they could have bought a million public transport trips,” and “They’re really just expensive propaganda for bad projects”. A lost opportunity to make a useful comment Julie Anne; not everyone thinks that PT is inherently “good” and motorways are inherently “bad”, but most people would agree that wasteful expenditure of public money is bad (did I mention a certain CIR?). So in this instance both the Greens and the PM are being equally silly.
“pro-PT and anti-motorway bandwagons” – She was lucky to get on that bandwagon. It is already pretty crowded with all the world class cities and their leaders also getting on board. Luckily Gerry B is staying well off it which should conserve a lot of free space – but not the public money being wasted on motorways unfortunately.
I realise you’re taking the proverbial goosoid because I know you’re smarter than that, but I’ll spell it out for others. If Ms Genter had said:
“The money they are putting into this ridiculous campaign is highly unlikely to actually reduce road rage”, and “They’re really just expensive propaganda [tools]” then I would be 100% in agreement. I’ve said before that I suspect Ms Genter has ended up in the wrong party as she has some good points to make on transport issues, but loses credibility by being associated with the extremism of the Green party.
I am not really taking the proverbial – when I think how hard we at CAA fight for a small amount of funds to fund cycling projects ($2m for a walking/cycling bridge in Bayswater that is used a lot) it infuriates me that money is wasted on these crap campaigns to convince motorists to stop being so horrible to other road users.
Why is it a “bandwagon” to be pro-PT and anti-motorways. I actually agree with you about some Green policies but as you say JAG is a smart woman and well qualified on transport issues. Why do you assume that she is jumping on a bandwagon rather than expressing a well thought out and researched position on those issues?
I would say rather that my old woodwork teacher and his National Party mates are just jumping on the neo-liberal, free market pro-motorway bandwagon that doesnt stand up to much financial or functional scrutiny. For example, just saying that the CRL is a waste of public money despite multiple reports saying it is the only viable option for Auckland’s urban transport issues. I know you are smarter than that.
And why is it “getting on a bandwagon” when she and her party have been saying it way back from before it had even a sheen of respectability?
How is it a bandwagon anyway, when we have government ministers who respond to any calls for better PT and cycling with comments that the Greens want to force us back to horse & cart? Sounds like there’s no bandwagon, and the funding drought for PT (except for a few big ticket items the current government couldn’t kill off in time) shows that if anything, the bandwagon is severely in need of some maintenance. So calling out somebody for supporting PT as getting on a bandwagon is really a rather weird argument.
goosoid, I respect your views on cycleways etc and actually agree with you on that. I also agree that a small marginal cost can go a long way, eg separated cycleways adjacent to motorways.
The thing is, as today’s post on the ICE picks up on, it shouldn’t be a matter of “either/or” but both. That’s where taking a hardline position on one side or the other comes unstuck.
To answer your second question, I frequently watch Ms Genter (and others) on Parliament TV and agree with many of her arguments, but cringe when she sometimes blows her own argument with a poorly prepared graph. That’s an observation, not a criticism, but poor arguments are fatal to credibility.
I had to look up neoliberal, which apparently means “in favour of small government”, so I guess that makes me a neolib. As for the CRL, I’m not totally convinced but acknowledge the arguments made here.
Quick response to Max: I would never use the horse and cart analogy myself, but I can see that it comes in response to the Greens’ opposition to just about anything that might improve my country’s economy, eg drilling, fracking, nuclear etc [granted, nuclear may not be viable at this stage of the technology]. I simply don’t understand that luddite approach.
Jonno, I appreciate your comments – they tend to be well written, courteous, and challenge our views, which is always a good thing. “Neoliberal” is more the Labour/ National position over the last 25 years, not small government per se, but based on assumptions such as equality of opportunity, user pays and individual choice. I think you’re more of a libertarian.
Drilling and fracking can be bad for the environment, are definitely bad for the climate, and may only give a boost for a few years. Furthermore, the current legal regime means that most of the economic benefits accrue to GDP and not GNP, i.e. New Zealanders don’t end up with the wealth. I seem to remember you are skeptical of global warming, which is fine, but most of the scientists who work in relevant fields disagree. Ultimately, there’s a real ‘tragedy of the commons’ going on with fossil fuel extraction; economic benefits for the area, economic costs for the planet, and that category of problem is one which libertarianism really can’t provide any solutions to. Hell, it’s even doubtful whether current world governance can solve it.
Thank you John for your considered response. (I presume you’re not the Rev Dr Sir John Polkinghorne). 🙂
The problem with buzzwords is that they can mean different things to different people; I used a dictionary definition of neoliberal. At times words are used pejoratively (eg global warming sceptics being labelled deniers, although I’m pleased to see that the latter term seems to have disappeared from this blog). As for being libertarian – maybe! Unfortunately that term has political connotations, whereas I am apolitical.
You’re right in assuming that I’m a sceptic; it’s hard not to be having been taught the scientific method, that’s the whole point. Also, as an engineer it’s essential that I get things right. Sometimes the solution to a problem can be incredibly complex, but usually reverting to first principles leads inexorably to an acceptable solution. Modelling helps, but the real world outcome never matches the model (except in the most trivial cases), it’s only a guide at best.
You’ll also be aware that I never attempt to convince anyone of my own POV, but rather try to encourage independent research to get to the truth of a matter. I fell into the trap of blind acceptance back in the late 90s with the Y2K bug scare; not being well-versed in IT I initially took the word of the so-called experts. After a bit of research I discovered there were only two significant issues: the use of 2-digit years in elderly software, and the failure to factor in that a millennium year is not leap year, both easily fixable. So there was a grain of truth in the concerns, but not the earth-shattering disaster that some had predicted. (One of my PCs, the oldest one, reset itself to either 1900 or 1972, I can’t remember which now, but that was all).
I’m pleased that you used the term “global warming” rather than “climate change”, as of course the earth’s climate has varied over aeons. The question is whether human activity affects climate, and if so in what way(s), by how much, and does it matter?
As for the tragedy of the commons, that implies scarcity or depletion of a resource, so the question then arises as to whether the resource in question is actually scarce, or whether it is simply becoming more expensive to exploit.
Finally, the strength of this blog is the wealth of transport information made available, particularly by Matt L. That’s why I lurk here.
PS I appreciate you making the distinction between GDP and GNP – a lot people don’t understand that.
For all the arguments about the intent of the campaign, and the money, at least one thing is clear. Someone at NZTA (probably a few people) is thinking beyond the car as a simple function of transport planning i.e. stick a road down, watch the pretty cars drive on it. Cars are much more than that – they are their driver essentially, so it’s nice to see a govt department moving and talking (however badly) beyond a one-dimensional view of how we move around within public space.
FWIW – I cycle commute so the website/campaign became pointless pretty quickly. I don’t drive socially, I ride defensively.