In a recent reading you saw the reaction to a Breast-Feeding Ad as part of a campaign for the Department of Health and Human Services. The designers of this original advertisement intended for the message to be one of public awareness concerning the research on the benefits of nursing. Write about your thoughts on what happened to this ad, who opposed it, and what was later put out for public consumption. Also talk about whether the DHHS should consider these topics and ad campaigns in the future. Why or why not?
The federal health officials put out an add to grab the attention of mothers across American. This add was directed towards mothers as it was trying to encourage mothers to breast feed because of the obvious health benefits. Although for some people, like baby formula companies, were outraged. The add was targeting the health risks of not breast feeding, it included insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples. Using fear as propaganda works very well so I can see why the Department of Health and Human Services used this technique. Breast feeding has been proven to lower risks of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome. Therefore, I think it is very important to get the message out to mothers and soon-to-be mothers the importance of breast feeding. On the other side of the argument, I did agree with a statement that was said in the article, "many women cannot breast-feed or choose not to for legitimate reasons, which may give them "guilty feelings"". If a mother couldn’t breast feed their child because of health-related issues, seeing this add may worry the mother that they are putting their child at health risks and not being able to do anything about it. There are both sides of the argument that I agree with, but I think DHHS should consider using these adds in the future to help inform the American people the importance of breast feeding and the health benefits that go along with it.
ReplyDeleteKennedi,
DeleteI completely agree with you, fear as a propaganda is a successful way to make a point to the public. There are meth commercials with uncensored images, scarring people to not try it. So, I personally do not see why the Department of Health and Humane Services were forced to "tone it down".
The reading about the Department of Health and Human Services ad campaign was interesting. The HHS was using these ads in an attempt to raise the nation's breast feeding count, due to the health benefits of breast feeding. The add stated that breast feeding can lower chances of certain risks such as some cancer, obesity, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome and that children could face serious health issues if not breast fed. However, while stating that these risks can be lowered with breast feeding, other mothers or soon to be mothers that were advised not to breast feed could have been struck with fear. Also, may formula companies were not too excited about this add. This is obviously because their money is made from selling formula, and if a lot of mothers began to breast feed instead of formula feed, due to these types of ads, they would lose money. However, I believe that it is important for mothers, soon to be mothers, or anyone planning to have children in the future see these types of ads. This is because science displays that breast feeding has many benefits and mothers need to know the risks before choosing to formula feed.
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts on this ad are mixed. I understand why the striking ad was used, but at the same time, I understand why certain people make decisions, some medical, not to breastfeed and this leaves me with many mixed emotions. This ad, specifically, had backlash because of its harsh nature and the use of syringes and inhalers.
ReplyDeleteThe infant formula industry obviously would oppose these ads seeing as this is how they make all of their money. Also, mothers who have previous used formula instead of breastfeeding would oppose the ads as well.
What was later put out for public consumption was “positive” ads. These were released and were more “friendly” ads that featured dandelions and ice cream which dramatized the the benefits of breastfeeding. I do not think that what the DHHS did was politically correct. At the same time, I understand their goals, but there is a better way, such as education, to go about spreading breastfeeding benefits. All in all, I would need to know more and research more on the essentials of breastfeeding before making the complete judgement of whether or not these ads should be publicized in the future. As of now though, I do not agree with using a “scare tactic” against new mothers.
Great post Sydney! I so appreciate your honesty about not knowing very much about this topic. I too am not very well versed in this area and enjoyed learning some more about it. What you said about how the original advertisements were not very politically correct I think is accurate. The way in which the DHHS used the "scare tactic" as you put it, in the first ads was definitely not the best way to go about raising awareness for this issue. Again, what you mentioned about bringing this issue to the public via education or social media would be a much better choice of advertisement . Overall, good post.
DeleteThe Department of Human Health Services (DHHS), in an attempt to broadcast the benefits of breast feeding, created ads that they thought would accurately and appropriately inform the public. Their original ads however, showed more of the potential hazards of not breast feeding, including dramatic pictures of syringes and inhalers. This blunt approach to the ads came with huge resistance, mainly from the infant formula industry that argued that these ads would "scare expectant mothers into breast-feeding" and would also impact their monetary income if mothers actually decided not to use their milk formulas. Because of the push back from the formula industry, the ads were redone to be more friendly and light-hearted, talking more about the benefits of nursing rather that the potential health risk of NOT breast-feeding.
ReplyDeleteI have a few thoughts in regards to the outcomes of the final ads and their effectiveness to reach the public with the right information. On one hand, I do not agree with the use of scare tactics in the original ads in order to "scare" mothers into breast-feeding, but, on the other hand, I do want to point out that there was practically no distinguishable influence on the breast-feeding rates after the running of these ads. I think that the DHHS should definitely consider running these types of ads for the simple fact that there are actually significant and valid benefits that go along with breast-feeding infants. The way in which they should approach these new ads should not again be done by way of the scare tactic approach but should also not be so lighthearted that peopled disregard them as the public might have done with the first ads. I think that if the DHHS could find a way of presenting both the possible heath benefits of nursing AND health risks of not nursing, without the use of any dramatic pictures or scenes, the public would actually consider the pros of breast-feeding and therefore increase the overall rates of breast-feeding in the United States.
The Department of Health and Human Services put out an ad campaign regarding breast-feeding, in an attempt to raise the percent of breast-fed infants. This ad was extremely opposed by the infant formula industry, because the advertisement essentially told the public that formula-feeding your infants will cause them health issues later in life. The original post featured shocking images of asthma inhalers and insulin syringes topped with rubber nipples (Kaufman and Lee, 2007). These ads aimed to scare mothers into breast-feeding their children and told them that formula-feeding could cause serious health issues like Type 1 Diabetes later in life. These ads also gave mothers who had no other choice but to formula feed their babies, a large sense of guilt.
ReplyDeleteThe formula industry backfired so much, that the ads were eventually toned down a bit to “be fair” to the formula industry and to not guilt and scare mothers. The DHHS still wanted to warn mothers of the risks of not breast-feeding their babies, but they used more positive images instead of striking photos (Kaufman and Lee, 2007).
I think that the DHHS should still consider these ads in the future because of the very low percentage of breastfeeding mothers. However, I do think that these ads need to be fair to formula companies and mothers who cannot breast feed for specific reasons. These ads should not make mothers who cannot breast feed feel guilty about not being able to and make them think that they are harming their child. Breastfeeding should be the first choice of new mothers if they are capable, up until their infant is six months old. Mothers should not be just choosing to formula-feed their babies if they are well capable of breastfeeding.
Reference
Lee, Christopher. Kaufman, Marc. (2007, August 31). HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads, Formula Industry Urged Softer Campaigns. Retrieved from Washington Post: Article 7. pp 39-41.
Federal health officials attempted to put out an ad that used a tactic that would ultimately scare mothers into breastfeeding. They did this by presenting the possible risk a mother takes when she chooses not to breastfeed. The formula companies were obviously not happy with this campaign so they got lobbyist to make the DHHS to tone down the ad and use a more positive approach. Although breastfeeding does lower chances of leukemia, diabetes, asthma, and SIDS this ad campaign does not take into consideration those who biologically can’t or shouldn’t breast feed. The article talks about how this campaign could cause the feeling of guiltiness for not being able to breastfeed. I agree that breastfeeding is more beneficial for the child, but I think there are better ways to advertise this. Once the DHHS figures out how to advertise this I think it can be effective.
ReplyDeleteBraxton,
DeleteI agree with you when you said that you believe that breastfeeding is more beneficial to the child; much research has been done to prove this point. Then again, I also agree with you when you mentioned that even though breastfeeding is beneficial, there are better ways to promote it that does not include these heartless advertisements. Overall, great post!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFederal Health officials put out a very controversial ad that was directed toward mothers who are at the stage of nursing, or expecting mothers who may be nursing a child soon. The ad conveyed the possible health risks a child could face if a mother did not breast-feed. Some of the health risks included were obesity and type I diabetes which was displayed as insulin syringes in the ad. The ad sparked major controversy and criticism especially from formula companies. The ad could be seen as offensive to some mothers who are unable to breast-feed or with complications, and it was told it needed to be “watered down,” along with outrage from formula companies. Later, an ad was put out that had different images such as dandelions and ice cream to create a softer image for the public eye.
ReplyDeleteI believe that formula companies were irritated due to the obvious reason of losing profit when mothers choose to breast-feed for the health benefits instead of using formula. Also, some people may find the ad offensive as it can create guilty feelings in mothers who do not breast feed or imply that children who are given formula may have health problems, even though the ad was suggesting that you lessen the risk for certain problems. The tactic of using fear may work somewhat well as it grabs attention, but it can create an issue for those who really have legitimate reasons not to breast-feed. I think the health officials should definitely be advocating for women to breast-feed due to the health benefits for the child, but another approach may be necessary as to make sure no one is offended or faced with shame or guilt for being unable to do so.
I totally agree, Cameron! They use fear to steer people into thinking that if you don't breast-feed, your child will most likely become diabetic or have breathing issues. It's so incredibly wrong!
DeleteI have mixed feelings on what happened to this ad. I am a strong believer that babies should be breastfed if at all possible but sometimes, mothers are unable to do so. These mothers should not have to feel guilty or that they are putting their babies in danger as stated by Clayton Yeutter (Kaufman & Lee, 2007). I do feel that the ads were “watered down” form the original drafts to the point of having little to no effect on the public and that the major goal of the ads were not met. Of course that was with the help of infant formula companies who opposed these ads, feeling that it would harm the formula industry. Instead of stating the dangers of not breastfeeding one’s baby, the final ads only informed the public about the benefits of breastfeeding. I think that the DHHS should consider these topics in the future. There are always mothers that are looking for what is best for their baby and how they can help their children. There needs to be a resource to show and explain the risks and benefits that go along with making the choice whether or not to breastfeed one’s baby.
ReplyDeleteReference
Kaufman, M., & Lee, C. (2007, August 31). HHS Toned Down Breast-Feeding Ads. The Washington Post, pp. 39-41.
MacKenzie, I completely agree with your statement about having mixed feelings toward the breastfeeding ads. I, too, believe that if a mother is physically able to breastfeed that they should. However, women who cannot breast feed for whatever reason, should not have to feel guilty for not doing so. It is not their choice to not breast feed, they would breast feed if they were able to. The ads did not serve their purpose in part due to the formula industry backfiring. If the DHHS were to do these kind of ads in the future, I feel they would need to have a different approach to both be fair to the formula companies, and have success with increasing the percentage of breast feeding mothers.
DeleteThe original intent of the advertisement for a campaign for the Department of Health and Human Services was not interpreted how it was meant to. The intended message was how important breast-feeding is, but it seemed to make everyone upset. The ad was altered from the original where syringes and inhalers had rubber nipples on top of them, to the ad approved by the formula industry that contained flowers and ice cream. The new ad was meant to portray the idea that if someone chooses to breastfeed, then it could help respiratory problems.
ReplyDeleteThe way the ad was changed because some people did not like it is very appalling. There are many people that do not realize how important breastfeeding is, and the original ad could have given them some insight. The ad that replaced it was not the same message. The only thing the second ad was portraying was that breast-feeding could help some respiratory issues. I think that the Department of Health and Human Services should have ran the original ad, and should in the future.
Breast-feeding is very beneficial, but not all woman are able to breast-feed. These women could feel targeted by the ad, but I believe that this ad was meant for woman who have the ability to breast feed but choose not to. There are many known benefits to breast-feeding that go beyond immunity against diseases and health issues. The bond formed between a mother and child during the process of breast-feeding is very beneficial to the mother and child.
Julia you bring up an interesting point with mothers who can't breast feed and thus feel targeted by the ads. Hopefully the DHHS would be able cater to all of their audiences by running multiple ads with different styles but the same message. Then mothers who can't breast feed might be able to find a solution and help their child get the nutrition that is most beneficial.
DeleteJulia, you did a nice job on your post. I hadn't really thought about mothers who couldn't breast feed feeling targeted by the ads. But it did seem that the main reason the ads were changed was because the formula industry didn't like them because of fear of losing profits rather than offending people.
DeleteIn an attempt to try and get more mothers to breastfeed their infants, the DHHS started a very graphic campaign that included advertisements showing images of syringes and inhalers with rubber nipples from bottles on the top of them. The point of this advertisement was to portray future issues that may occur in children who are not breastfed, they wanted to make sure mothers understood that there are many health benefits to breastfeeding vs using formula and bottles. Formula companies were not happy with these adds and decided to fight back. They claimed that the adds could scare mothers and in turn they would almost feel forced into breastfeeding. No mother wants their unborn child to have health issues in the future, especially when it comes to obesity, sudden infant death syndrome, and asthma which were all issues stated in the add. Another obvious reason that formula companies disliked these adds was because it was taking away from some of their business. After this dramatic add did not go over well with many people, the DHHS decided to change it and make it something less daunting. They instead changed it to pictures of dandelions and ice cream with cherries on the top to help further explain that breastfeeding can lower the chances of children developing respiratory issues as well as obesity.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do understand why the DHHS decided to use these original adds, I do think they were a little horrifying for some to see, however, I think that the health benefits of breastfeeding are important and should be something the public understands and knows about. I think that the toned down adds did just as good of a job as portraying the importance of breastfeeding while helping to remove some of the fear in mothers because the images were not so horrific. In contrast to this, some mothers face issues that make it hard or impossible for them to breastfeed. They probably felt as though they were doing so much wrong and bringing possible future harm to their children after seeing these adds even though they have no control over being able to breastfeed or not. If one of the health issues were to become present in their children, I can only imagine the guilt they would feel whether the issue was because of breastfeeding or not.
I think that is important for the DHHS to get this information out to mothers and expecting mothers on the benefits of breastfeeding. While there original add may have not gone over well I think there is a more educational way to go about it. This could include information required for doctors to give out, classes, and maybe even seeing a consultant to decide what the best option is. I think keeping the adds toned down is a good idea, there is no reason to scare mothers into breastfeeding and overall, they are going to make the ultimate decision to do whatever is best for them and their baby whether that be breastfeeding or using formula and bottles.
The ad that the Federal health officials put out is incredibly wrong. No new mother should feel guilt or shame that they chose to breast feed or not. That is the choice of the new mother or expecting mother. In some cases, new mothers are unable to produce breast milk or physically unable to feed their babies from their breast. Formulas is sometimes the only alternative to providing nutrients. They're applying that babies that are not breast fed will ultimately have breathing issues and diabetes. There are better ways to promote the health benefits to breast-feeding then to scare future/ current mothers into choosing breast or formula. They can provide more educational ads or support groups, compared to the ads that strike fear.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, I agree with your point about how formula is the only alternative method. I know some mothers whose milk didn't come in, and they had to give their babies formula anyway. I don't think babies who are breast fed will be any worse off than any other child, and I think there are a lot of other factors that could lead to asthma or diabetes.
DeleteThe advertisement was pretty much entirely gutted due to corporate lobbying from "big formula". A large part of the DHHS was opposed to changing the advertisements, but the people that ultimately cause the ad to be gutted were those that weren't actually involved in the research or medical aspects. The people that opposed it were mostly from the formula corporations, and the people that the formula corporations were paying, a majority of the medical professionals were firmly of the opinion that the ad should have been published as it initially would have been. I personally side with the people that believe that the advertisement should have been published in its original state. Instead of getting an ad that had a lot of hard data and images designed to make people feel like they would be putting their child at risk if they weren't breastfed, the public received and ad that was flowery and pleasant that tried to play off the downsides of not breastfeeding as benefits to breastfeeding, which have very very different context. I also believe that the DHHS should make more advertisements similar to the original breastfeeding ad, people generally pay more attention to advertisements when they see that there are real risks associated with their choices, and when the ads are able to make it about the individual rather than a collective. There is valid criticism that ads similar to the originally ad might provoke unearned feelings of guilt or shame due to an inability to follow what the ad is saying should be done, but I believe that these possible feelings of guilt and etc. are worth the chance of greatly improving public health.
ReplyDeleteThe DHHS was addressing the very low rates of mothers who were breastfeeding their infants. The reason this was being addressed is because there are many benefits to breastfeeding over formula. The AHRQ proved this point through multiple studies that showed there were fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, lower rates of leukemia, diabetes, obesity, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. The first round of the ads that were aired used a harsh and frightening tone trying to catch the mother’s attention, so they saw the true benefits of breastfeeding. However, many formula companies were quick to complain. They thought they ads needed a lighter message and shouldn’t be trying to scare mothers. Another problem formula companies found in the original ads was that while there were benefits to breastfeeding, yet not all mothers are capable for many reasons including the safety of both the mother and infant. For these reasons and many critiques, it was demanded that the ads promoting breastfeeding only showed the benefits of breastfeeding and not the downfalls of formula. I believe the DHHS should be discussing and drawing attention to topics like these. I’m not too happy that the first edition of the ads was scrutinized so much. I think it’s very important for mothers to have all of the facts and information on the benefits of breastfeeding before they make their decision. I am glad however that the ads turned slightly more positive because many parents are striving to be the best parents they can be and provide the best life for their infants. The last thing a worried parent needs is to feel guilty about their choice to breast or bottle feed.
ReplyDeleteMadison you're totally right! The problems with ads is that they don't give all the information that we need. I'm sure that some companies wouldn't be able to sell as many products if they listed all the pros and cons of it. That's why I look into products that seem to be fantastic from looking at or watching an ad because sometimes it seems too good to be true.
DeleteThe DHHS add was put out to the public to make it very clear that breastfeeding is the best choice. The rate of mothers who are breastfeeding is very low so this add was an attempt to raise these numbers along with awareness. The add was misinterpreted by the public leaving some even outraged. It was using inhalers and other striking images to relay the message that breastfeeding can lower the rates of those with asthma, obesity, and even type 1 diabeties. The formula companies were hit hard by this add, and in return made their own add using pleasing items such as ice-cream cones. They were overall losing business due to the add and mothers were becoming concerned with what was right for the infant. I can see how this add can be taken the wrong way especially from a mother who potentially is not physically able to breastfeed. This leaves them with the feeling of shame and guilt. I strongly believe in advocating for women, but there is a right way to do it. Both companies had faults in the approaches they chose.
ReplyDeleteLynsi,
DeleteI completely agree and you made a great point that both companies had faults regarding ads about breastfeeding. As we discussed last week, many parents are already worrying about being the best parent and are trying to do the very best for their child, the last thing they need is to feel guilty about a choice of feeding their baby. I believe it's important that parents know all of the facts ahead of time, but ultimately it's their decision.
Breastfeeding is a topic that has a lot of heat behind it. There are points to both sides of the arguments, and it's something we really need to consider. I think the original advertising for the campaign, while it may have been a bit over the top, had the right idea. I do believe that advertising for public health should be more blunt, as more often than not, they get the message across far more effectively. I think the original ad campaign would not have been clear to expectant mothers, as it could have been confused with the ingredients put into formula rather than long term effects of using formula. Similarly, I also believe that the "modified" ad campaign was also not clear, as showing images of dandelions and ice cream somehow correspond to asthma and obesity. The formula company was outraged about the first one and demanded a new one be put out. They were much less angered by the second one, which I find alarming as it would mean they didn't find how it could hurt their business. Large companies, in the past, have their main priority be making money with little to no regard to the consumer. I don't think these ads should be sugarcoated, as this is the fate of our future. Anti-smoking and drinking ads are really blunt, so I don't really understand why breastfeeding ads have to be. Furthermore, I think the DHHS should consider mothers who's breastmilk does not come in after having their baby, or the mothers whose milk does not have enough nutrients for their child, where in both cases the baby would have been supplemented with formula anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe add campaign was pulled from the public because the images were too offensive to mothers. The add was not just promoting the benefits of breast feeding, it was used to scare mothers into breast feeding which caused backlash from the formula company. After that add was pulled they put a cherry topped ice cream cone add for obesity and dandelions were used to show asthma. The ice cream cone add was used to show how not breast feeding would lead to obesity. The dandelion add said not breast feeding would lead to increased risk in asthma. The dandelion and the ice cream cone adds were not effective. I think the DHHS should continue to make adds about these topics with facts that will persuade mothers to breast feed without using a scare tactic or using adds that distract viewers of the real purpose.
ReplyDeleteKelsey, I agree with you that the DHHS should still continue to make these ads to promote breast feeding but not make them so harsh. I just think that they need to be more sensitive to the mothers that didn't choose not to breast feed, but physically cannot breast feed.
DeleteThis ad was used to scare the mothers into breastfeeding. Mothers, especially new and young, are worried about what they should and can do to keep their babies healthy. This ad used fear to instill into the mothers that they absolutely need to do breast feed their babies, otherwise if they do not it can lead to health risks, such as diabetes. Some mothers are not able to breast feed to complications with the babies. My littlest brother had to be bottle fed, and breast fed in between if my mom could get him, so as to get more nutrients into him since he was born premature and needed to gain a lot more weight.
ReplyDeleteI believe the companies who carried and made baby formula opposed it the most because they knew they would not get as many customers as they did before. They would have to make their own ads about why formula is just as good as breastfeeding, listing the benefits that come with it.
The DHHS should consider these topics and ad campaigns in the future because instilling fear into a new and young mother should not be the way they advertise. Like I stated earlier, mothers want what is best for their babies, so they will do anything to keep them safe and healthy. A better ad would list all the benefits of breastfeeding because all women want to hear them, especially that it helps with weight loss after pregnancy.
I’m a firm believer that, just like the saying goes, “the truth hurts”. Explaining all of the benefits of breast milk while also scaring people with “what ifs” can cause uproar from parents but it also gets them thinking. Cigarette and Meth commercials use very strong “what if” portrayals to scare users into not wanting to do it. In the article, it explains how the DHHS “toned-down” the initial commercial that showed strong imagery to persuade parents to persuade more effectively. The toned-down commercial that came after used lighter imagery but after it aired had no credible impact on the rate of breastfeeding, or so the article says. Obviously senior advisers wanted to avoid any conflict following their ads from the DHHS, so they went with a lighter ad. If it were me, as a researcher, I would want the info out there and hammer persuasive methods in any way, even if it means scaring parents. If I were an executive, I’d want the least amount of backlash to avoid cuts of funding and credibility.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you use a straight to the point ad that explains how your family and your baby can benefit from breastfeeding. I wouldn’t dramatize anything since people will discredit it or think it’s over the top. Appealing to your crowd can help persuade so the DHHS should hire some better marketers. Maybe ads aren’t the best thing to use as well. Speeches, online videos, and articles can be just as effective.
The ad that the DHHS put out was very aggressive towards mothers who did not breastfeed their babies. Mothers who breastfeed or don't have a good reason behind their decision, usually. Breastfeeding does have many pros, but some people are not able to do that, and some choose not to. The ad made the mothers who can't or choose not to feel guilty because of the aggressiveness of it. Formula companies also were not a fan of the ad because it took business away from them and made it look like formula is not a healthy option for babies. The ad was changed to a less aggrressive analogy of breastfeeding and included the pros of breastfeeding, such as reducing the risk of certain diseases.
ReplyDeleteThe DHHS probably should not put out ads that make moms feel guilty for not breastfeeding. There is more than one way to raise a healthy baby, and while breastfeeding might be the best, or a better option than the alternatives, it would be a better approach to talk about those advantages without shaming other options.
The conflict in this article surprised me. I think the federal health officials genuinely wanted to aid mothers by making them aware of the risks and benefits of not nursing versus nursing an infant, even if it was not presented in the most appeasing way. The United States is a very capitalist country which makes sense why formula companies would be upset over advertisements supporting breast milk. However, I do not think it is moral or ethical to bash an ad that is trying to improve the overall health of a nation just because companies could be at stake. There will always be mothers who are unable to nurse their child and that is okay. If a mother nurses for a couple early months of their baby's life, they will have to purchase formula anyways until the age of one so a balance is actually created between the ad in promoting nursing and the formula companies who oppose it. But this reasoning was not satisfying to DHHS or its alliance.
ReplyDeleteThe public eye was suddenly altered because the ads promoted nursing by using fear and shifted to a more "happy" and "comforting" view. I personally do not think the ads were intended to scare mothers into breast feeding, rather educate them on potential risks. Granted, the education aspect of the ads could have been improved but they should not have been "eliminated" for the sake of a company.
I think DHHS should consider ads focused on the true education of nursing versus the use of formula. Not every mother has the same resources and because society is technologically driven, ads such as these may make a difference on how American babies are raised and how their overall health with turn out.
Brianna,
DeleteI completely agree that ads should be focused on the education of nursing and formula feeding. Instead of stating the risks of not breastfeeding, the benefits of breastfeeding should be used in their ad campaign. Some mothers who are unable to breastfeed may take offence to the ads stating the risks because they have no choice in the matter. I think that it is important for everyone to know the benefits of both formula feeding and breastfeeding so they can make their own decision for whats best for their baby.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe department of Health & Human Services were campaigning these specific ads to raise awareness that breastfeeding is much more beneficial to an infant's health then formula food. My thoughts on the add was that DHHS did nothing wrong and the mothers who were formula feeding got offended because the facts prove that breastfeeding would have been more beneficial. On the other hand not all mothers are able to produce milk or enough milk to keep up with their infants demand, so the mothers who may have to use formula to feed their babies my a fallen into a huge guilt trip. Thoes who mostly opposed the ads were the mothers who couldn't brest feed due to complications of their body. I believe DHHS should continue to make these controversial breastfeeding abs to keep mothers aware that formula food isn't as healthy, but DHHS needs to learn to present the add in a way that won't make mothers who have no choice to use formula food feel guilty.
ReplyDeleteThe DHHS released risky adds in an attempt to encourage mothers to breastfeed their children. The ads they released depicted the negative effects on the lack of breastfeeding rather bluntly. Having a picture of an insulin bottle rather than a nursing bottle is a pretty graphic way of getting their message across. However, I do agree with the way they executed the ads. The effects of breastfeeding should not be taken lightly, and the public should know the serious implications that come from a lack of. The formula industry did not take these ads lightly because this would dramatically hurt their profits if these ads were effective. The DHHS was then pushed to change the style of the ads, so they would depict breastfeeding in a positive light. The new ads focused on the benefits of breastfeeding rather than the negative effects. This way of advertising is still effective but not as memorable as the negatives. A shocking or offensive add will stick with someone for so much longer than a neutral one. In the future, the DHHS should still focus on the negative effects of not breastfeeding, but in a more neutral way. Taking the shock factor out of them would prevent any pushback from industries who profit off the lack of breastfeeding.
ReplyDeleteThe federal health officials started an ad campaign on breastfeeding in an attempt to increase breastfeeding rates. They wanted to increase the amount of mothers breastfeeding their babies because of all of the benefits. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted multiple studies finding that breastfeeding is associated with fewer ear and gastrointestinal infections, and lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. The campaign initially was used to startle women with images warning that babies could become ill if not breastfed. This campaign was quickly opposed by the infant formula industry for valid reasons. One reason is that the ads were trying to scare mothers into breastfeeding their infants. Another reason is some mothers cannot breast feed due to health and safety risks and the ad is only making them feel guilty about something that isn’t their choice. The infant formula industry asked the DHHS to get rid of the hard hitting ads, and instead use positive visual images and state the positives of breastfeeding, not the health risks. I think that the DHHS should be putting out campaigns to inform and educate mothers the benefits of breastfeeding. However, I don’t think they should put out ad campaigns that scare mothers into breastfeeding their children. This makes mothers who don’t have a choice to breastfeed feel guilty and scared about what could happen to their children because they can’t breastfeed.
ReplyDeleteThe DHHS started to run breastfeeding ads in the hopes to increase the number of new mothers who would breastfeed their babies. The ads that we being run were quickly found offensive by the formula industry, who wanted the ads to be removed or at least rewritten. The ads were informative and gave facts as to why mothers should breastfeed their infants as opposed to using formula. I understand why some were offended by ads that the DHHS had put out, and I agree that at first they were almost aggressive. However I do think it is important for mothers to understand the potential risks of not breastfeeding, such as asthma or diabetes. Going forward it may be more beneficial to be more informative and to try and stay clear from scaring mothers into breastfeeding with blunt advertising and what could consider graphic images.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) put out an attention-grabbing advertising campaign in an attempt to raise the nations low breast feeding rate. Trying to convince mothers that there are great health benefits for breast feeding their babies, the ads featured eye-catching photos of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples. These adds were then toned down due to the infant formula industry being angered by them, and because it would scare mothers in to breastfeeding their child, or make the mothers that cannot breastfeed feel very guilty like they were harming their child. More friendly images were then used in the ad to help convince mothers to breastfeed, using cherry-topped ice cream scoops and dandelions.
ReplyDeleteI think that the DHHS should consider these topics and ad campaigns in the future since breastfeeding a child can impact a child’s health so much. Scaring mothers into breastfeeding their child, or making a mother feel guilty for her inability to breast feed her child is never okay. However, I think that the more toned down ads are beneficial for the DHHS in trying to raise the low rate of breast feeding, especially because they give the infant formula industry a fair campaign, and it will also grab more mothers’ attention rather than scare them or make them feel guilty.
I had mixed feelings about this article. There are many mothers out there that does not breast feed for a good reason. This ad in some way shame them because they were not breastfeeding their kids. If they don't breastfeed their kids, their kids will have problems when they get older.
ReplyDeleteI think the best way for DHHS to educate mothers about the benefits about breastfeeding is to promote it through doctors, flyers, pamphlets, etc. Yes there is a big health benefits into breastfeeding but we need to consider the fact maybe the mother wants to do it badly but cant. That does not make that mother a bad one. I think there is so much shame out there towards mothers that does not breastfeed and its not okay.
Of course the formula industry would not be happy about this campaign. This promotes mother not to use their products which would bring their sales down.
After reading the ad about breast feeding put out by the Department of Health and Human Services, I have mixed feelings about the ad. I can see both sides of the argument, some people choose to not breast feed for many reasons, and that’s their own choice. The ad was made to increase the number of breast-fed children. This ad was opposed by the infant formula industry and mothers who chose not to breast feed their child/children. They opposed it because the ad way saying that by feeding your child formula it could cause health issues later in their life such as type one diabetes and obesity. These ads were put out there to scare mothers into breast feeding and guilt mothers who formula fed their children. Later, the DHHS put out ads for public consumption that were not as harsh, and the ads included dandelions and ice cream.
ReplyDeleteI think that the DHHS should consider making these ads in the future, but not make them so harsh. I personally think that the percentage of breast-fed children should be higher and that DHHS should push that issue but be sensitive towards the mothers that cannot breast feed. I think it is very important to breast feed your child if you are capable. However, some mothers physically cannot breast feed and should not feel guilty for it and feel like they are harming their child.
This article pulled me in several different directions. The DHHS put out an ad to scare women into breastfeeding their children. They designed this article to show to complications that can happen if you don't breastfeed. It showed images of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers topped with rubber nipples. The infant formula industry was not pleased with these ads being put out for all new mothers to see. The intervention did not block their ads but helped them change the image. They made sure that they would modify these statements and make them more gentle and simple to get their message across.
ReplyDeleteI like that they want to educate all mothers about the complications that come with not breastfeeding but the big factor to all of this is not all women have the choice. Some mothers physically are not able to breastfeed so are forced to use formula. This already scares mothers enough and then for these ads to come out and really show them the issues that could happen is just too much.
I believe the DHHS should definitely consider all mothers and their needs before putting out an ad that doesn't support everyone. It is good to educate people but it needs to be done in a good and healthy way and not to terrify mothers.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) released a very controversial ad regarding breast feeding and the potential risks associated with it. In 2007, The Washington Post relased an article concerning the HHS and the ads released. The ads that caught eyes of many, were released in response to an all time low of babies getting breastfeed. The ads released showed horrific images of insulin syringes and asthma inhalers attached with rubber nipples. The ads immediately started a lot of uproar and infuriated mothers who didn’t breastfeed, companies producing formula, and the public. This initially scared mothers who were not breastfeeding and soon to be mothers because when they came across these ads it made them feel guilty, ashamed, scared and upset. In addition to, formula companies were upset because if mothers weaned their children off bottle feeding than that would impact their business. Needless to say, mothers have the right to choose if they want to breastfeed or not. There are many reasons mothers choose not to breastfeed including the following: some mothers can not due to medical reasons, adoptive parents don’t have the ability, and many more reasons. On the other hand, there are benefits to breastfeeding. I think that breastfeeding is very important for the newborn and will ensure the baby they receive all the proper nutrients. Due to this ad, I think the point came across but more harshly than it needed to be. In the future DHHS should release ads that won’t trigger certain groups but make sure they are helping the nation. All in all, the DHHS should continue helping Americans become aware of what’s going on in our country.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Health and Human Services published an ad that was suppose to grab the attentions of mothers and soon-to-be mothers. This ad was about the major benefits of breast feeding and the down sides of not breast feeding. This ad was promoting breast feeding and encouraging women to do so, because the ad stated that breast feeding can lower your child's chances of risks such as cancer, obesity, asthma, and sudden infant death syndrome. The ad also made it clear that children could face serious health issues if not breast fed. Using fear to promote breast feeding was a good idea in my opinion because it is an eye opener, it gives the facts and tells the truth about what could happen if you don't breast feed. Of course infant formula industries would hate this campaign and say it's bashing them, but there can be a happy medium when promoting the ad.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand of this argument, I do believe that for those mothers that can't breast or choose not to for legitimate reasons, shouldn't be left with "guilty feelings" because it's not their fault. The question that they asked in this article really stuck out to me was, "Does the U.S. government really want to engage in an ad campaign that will magnify that guilt (Yeutter,2004)?" I know if I was part of this ad campaign I would never want to make someone feel that way about how they are a mother. In the future I would tell the DHHS to use to ad campaign if they found a way to inform the mothers that physically can't breast feed, that they do have other options, which is where they could promote infant formula industries. But for those mothers who can breast feed they should choose to do so, so they put their child's best foot forward in life.
The article explains the events following the DHHS running a pro-breastfeeding ad campaign in the hopes of raising public awareness regarding the health benefits for developing infants who breast Fed versus formula fed. After receiving backlash from formula corporations and political figures backing the companies were able to smother the intent that the Department of Health & Human Services set out to inform the general public. I don't find it very surprising that yet another human vs. corporation battle was won by the corporations here in America. I believe it is the individual mother's choice in providing for her infant to choose formula feeding or breastfeeding. However, I think that people should know the pros and cons of both just as everything else we make decisions in our daily lives. I believe that the DHHS has the responsibility as a governing entity, paid for by our taxes, should provide unbiased facts to advocate for the people in which its established to, not corporations who will line their pockets. Unfortunately, this is just another unfortunate example of how important it is for everyone to research on their own regarding anything from the media, and more recently our government departments. I feel that even if the DHHS had provided a slightly watered-down ad campaign, baby formula companies would have reacted the same way in their efforts to lobby against it. What is stopping companies with financial means to also do this? For example tobacco companies, general household product companies using this same approach.
ReplyDeleteThe topic of breastfeeding has become increasingly controversial. In an attempt to promote the phenomenon, federal health officials released an ad that caught the attention from both advocates and protesters. The ad took the most heat from the infant formula industry and thus was forced to undergo several revisions and alterations to make the ad less 'blunt'. There after, health officials brought together top public health people to examine the health claims being made. By doing so, they helped determine what should be included in the ad and what should be left out to contribute being fair to the formula companies. Furthermore, I think it's important to educate soon-to-be-mothers the facts regarding breastfeeding but also be mindful for those mothers that do not have that opportunity. The DHHS should consider for future ads that to make an argument strong- both perspectives regarding the issue should be recognized. That way they don't appear to be narrow minded and biased. It would also diminish the liklihood of readers opposed to the idea to become overly offended.
ReplyDeleteI think the health benefits of breast feeding that have been outlined in this article should have been included in the release of the advertisement. It is not right for a company to fight against the distribution of Health Sciences just for the good of their income. Breastfeeding had been shown by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to be associated with fewer cases of ear and gastrointestinal infections, along with lower rates of diabetes, leukemia, obesity, asthma, and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). With this datum backing their ad campaign, the original ad should have been run. Even though I agree that breastfeeding provides fewer health risks, I believe that health officials should remain sympathetic to circumstance. For instance, in an optimal environment, adoptive mothers or mothers who are unable to provide enough or any milk for their child should not be made to feel guilty.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, I have a couple different thoughts. I think that breast feeding is very important for a baby’s development, but I do not think a mother should be scared into breast feeding. Some mothers cannot breast feed or have reasons to not and I think that such a blunt commercial would leave the wrong impression. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) made a very “attention grabbing and blunt” commercial to increase the number of breast-fed babies in the U.S. I think that the ad should have been toned downed but not so much to the point of making zero impact. It was the infant formula industry that opposed this commercial the most. They definitely had a part in toning the commercial too far down. Once again, I think that the DHHS had the right idea but took it a little too far. Unfortunately, they were not able to keep a clear message in the commercial and it had little impact. I think that the DHHS should consider these topics and ad campaigns as long as they can get their message across without offending their audience in such a negative way. The audience has to remember what the message was.
ReplyDeleteThe Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) wanted to put out an ad that would be effective at increasing the number of mothers who breast feed their babies in the United States. They knew that to be effective, it had to startle women with scientific facts about the risks involved in not breast feeding their babies. So they planned on using statistics, such as a child being forty percent more likely to develop Type 1 diabetes if it had not been breast fed, in the ads. The planned advertisements were opposed by the infant formula industry because an effective ad would cause them to lose money. If the ad worked, more women would breast feed which would lower the number who would need to buy formula. The formula industry was very effective at getting the DHHS to change the ad. The resulting ad had less controversial images and talked about the benefits of breastfeeding rather than the risks associated with not breast feeding. The ad that was eventually run did nothing to improve rates of breast feeding in the U.S. So basically it was a waste of time and money. I do think the DHHS should consider running ads that do include the science and statistics associated with not breast feeding babies. They are the Department of Health and Human Services after all, their funding comes from our tax dollars, so they should do things that promote health rather than giving in to the pressures of industry who only care about profit.
ReplyDelete