Inform to empower

The Brazilian Senate, alongside with Chamber of Deputies, is responsible for discuss and approve bills, which become laws. For this reason, the major part of its campaigns is based on the divulgation of the laws and its impacts in people’s lives. Rather than simply justify the existence of Senate or provide accountability for its activities, these campaigns are a way to increase the awareness of people about the legislation and empower them to exercise their rights.  

In this sense, it seems fair to say that campaigns as “The treatment of breast cancer doesn’t need to leave this mark” – that is currently being promoted by Federal Senate of Brazil – is a way to empower women with breast cancer. By informing them about their right to have plastic surgery after the mastectomy, the campaign allows the patients to decide if they want to use the law in their benefit or not.

The treatment of breast cancer doesn’t need to leave this mark

Issues as prejudice and low self-esteem are among the several challenges that are faced by those who fight against breast cancer (Breast Cancer Care, 2014). After all, the physical mutilation may jeopardise the treatment, since it affects psychologically and emotionally the patients. If, on the one hand, the law itself may be not enough to guarantee the expected results, on the other hand, the knowledge about its existence may mobilize women with cancer to demand their rights.

Hence, it is possible to say that this campaign uses a right-based approach. According to this theory of change, “people should be informed of their rights and empowered to exercise them” (Krznaric, 2007). This approach considers that a social change occurs when people are able to satisfy their needs by claiming their rights. This approach also emphasizes the cumulative effect of this process, considering that insofar people are more aware of their rights, more able they are to make legitimate claims to the state (Krznaric, 2007).

Nevertheless, in order to promote real social change, this campaign need to reach as much potential beneficiaries of the law as possible. Currently the campaign is based mainly in the Federal Senate broadcast system (constituted by a TV channel, a radio station and a news paper, whose audiences are not really representative) and its pages on social media and Internet. The campaign is also being published in other media thanks to the collaboration of organisations of the civil society. Despite all this effort, considering that Brazil is a big and heterogeneous country, the coverage of the campaign is still far away from the ideal. Therefore, the increase of the number of partners of the campaign and the improvement of the media strategy should be taken into consideration in order to amplify its audience.

Reference:

Breast Cancer Care (2014). Available at <http://www.breastcancercare.org.uk>. Accessed in 25/11/2014

Krznaric, R. (2007). How Change Happens: Interdisciplinary Perspectives for Human Development. Oxfam GB Research Report.

I have it. You don't have it.

Showing a scissors with the image of Mickey Mouse, an annoying boy disdains: “I have it, you don’t have it”. This Brazilian video of the early 1990’s is reminded until nowadays as example of both successful and polemic campaign.

However, what was once considered unethical may be transformed into something good? An emotional video produced for a campaign recently launched by Abrace (Brazilian Association for Assistance of Families of Children with Cancer) shows that the answer is yes.

The ends of the campaigns (profit vs. health aid) are not what differentiate both videos, but the attitude of the communicator in relation to the audience. Kenneth (cited in Baker and Martison, 2002) argues that a persuasion can be ethical if the communicator is concerned in bring about “voluntary change in the attitudes and/or actions of…receivers”. In this sense, rather than manipulate or play upon the vulnerabilities of the target, the communicator should be committed with ethical principles such as respect and equity (Baker and Martison, 2002).

In the first video there are evidence of manipulation, since the children – that are the target of the campaign – are induced to ask their parents to buy the scissors, otherwise they would be mocked by those who have the product. In contrast, in the second video the potential donors are treated with respect, since there are no threats such as ‘the kid is going to die, if you don’t help’ or ‘you are not a good person, if you don’t donate’. 

In other words, while in the first video the audience is being “treated merely as a means to an end”, in the second video, the audience is being recognised “as ends in themselves” (Jaksa and Pritchard cited in Baker and Martison, 2002). Therefore, in Abrace’s video the dichotomy ‘I have it. You don’t have it’ rather than causes discomfort by undermining the audience, causes empathy with those that are suffering with cancer and need financial help to their treatments.

November 23. National day of fight against infant-juvenile cancer.
Abrace launches campaign produced for over than 20 professionals from Federal District voluntarily.

 _________________________________________________________

Subtitles in both videos were included by this blog. To see the original videos, click here and here.

 _________________________________________________________

Reference:

Baker, S. & D.L. Martinson (2002). Out of the red-light district: five principles for ethically proactive public relations. Public Relations Quarterly 47 (3): 15-19