Talk to the consumer in their language

Some public officials have a bad habit of following old fashioned traditions rather than considering what they are trying to achieve.  We deserve the best.

There's no place to hide behind legalese

The best public campaigns focus on achieving an objective,  the worst are bureaucratic and legalistic.  Take this sign, from my neighbourhood. With wording like this it's no wonder it's been covered with graffiti!

Projectiles thrown at trams may cause serious injury or death to occupants.  Offenders will be prosecuted.

Real campaigns must talk in the language of those we are trying to influence

Two of the most successful public campaigns in Australian history have been the Grim Reaper campaign of the 1980s, and the Victorian TAC (Transport Accident Commission) campaigns since 1989.  In particular, the phrase: "If you drink, then drive, you're a bloody idiot" has become a part of the Australian vernacular.

These campaigns were highly controversial at the time, as they were graphic, dramatic, and unlike anything before.  Yet, they both worked - Australia successfully dodged the AIDS bullet, and dramatically reduced the road toll.  An important part of their success was the way that their language was direct - not at all inhibited by legalese.

More recently, a series of ads to educate young men about alcohol fuelled violence have used the device of "championship moves".  Again, these ads use language and visuals that are consistent with the way young men act and speak. Likewise, the Save-a-Mate program talks to young people about drugs in a way that is realistic.

Stop with the bureaucracy and legal threats

Thankfully, most public officials are less bureaucratic than my local signage.  This New York example of a campaign against train surfing is direct, and doesn't mention one word of prosecution. In reality, the people that public service announcements are trying to talk to don't take much notice of legal sanctions.  But, like the Grim Reaper, TAC and drugs campaigns,  disincentives are those that affect them personally, like death, or social embarrassment.

We have no reason to use complex, legal language in communicating with our audience.  Let's be honest, and direct.  Everyone will benefit.

Let me know what you think.

Hey Lindsay Fox: The economy is no excuse to compromise on women's rights

Lindsay Fox's encouragement to women to have 6 babies in 7 years reflects an outdated view from an old generation.  His economic objective makes sense - grow our population. It's the social element that is two generations out of date.

Fertility rates in the developed world are permanently lower since women's liberation

This chart shows the fertility rates for Australia and the US since 1950.

As you can see, the numbers of children born per women plummeted since the availability of the pill. It wasn't that women actually wanted 3 or 4 children each - they simply had no way to plan their family.


Lindsay Fox would need to turn Australia into Burundi

But take a look at this map of fertility rates around the world. It's only the poorer sub saharan African nations where fertility rates are above 5.0.  Those countries lack the same liberties for women that developed and even developing nations enjoy.

Except for sub-saharan Africa, almost all of the world has lower fertility
rates than Australia in the 1960s

To populate Australia the way Lindsay Fox advocates would require the wholesale rejection of contraception, and decades of feminism. We would need to have a culture like Burundi, where a woman's primary role is to breed boys for agricultural labor.

Obviously that isn't going to happen.


We can import population, Lindsay, so hopefully you support that as well

The first half of Fox's suggestion sounds like a great idea ...  "go home and make love tonight and create another baby for Australia.". But I'd strongly encourage safe sex, and remind Lindsay that you don't have to create a baby when you make love.

The economic premise of Lindsay Fox's suggestion makes a lot of sense - more people in Australia has a whole raft of economic benefits. But there's an obvious alternative to 1950s fertility levels. Let's just increase migration.  I've written a blog on migration here, so won't go over that again.  However, I would call on Lindsay Fox to support that option.

The key issue is that a suggestion to achieve a valuable economic solution by reducing women's options is just not acceptable. It's even more of a concern when it is said in humor or by a well respected citizen like Fox, as it softens the blow, and entrenches very old-fashioned attitudes.

We cannot condone any comments that suggest women should comply with any set of behaviors - especially those that reduce their equality


Let me know what you think

Mark S