some years ago, a comprehensive research was done on the habits and attitudes of pinoys on family planning. both qualitative and quantitative researches were done on a nati0nal basis.
first to be conducted were a series of qualitative research, focus group discussions in metro manila, davao and cebu among several groups of women and men with varying age groups. and marital status. the qualitative research was done to gain possible consumer insights for the development of advertising that will promote family planning use, advocacy work and public relations efforts. equally important, the qualitative researches were conducted to serve as inputs for the design of the quantitative research that was going to be done nationwide.
these charts are only a small portion of the whole research but it is quite telling on where the minds and hearts of pinoys, specially filipina women are in relation to family planning to themselves and their families.
the first part of the FGDs (focus group discussions) was a discussion on values and dreams of the respondents for their families.
an interesting methodology was designed. a drawing of a tree with roots, trunk and leaves were placed on the board. respondents were given post it pads where they were asked to write on them the values they believe in, those that are important for them or their dreams. they were asked to put the post its on the board, place it anywhere inside or outside the tree. once everyone has done this, their answers were processed and discussed with the moderator.
where the respondents placed the post it in relation to the tree had meaning to them. post its placed outside the tree meant whatever was written there was not very important for them. those placed on the leaves were more important and down to the roots. to the respondents, those they placed on the roots were the most important for them.
these were the findings:
first, everyone in the FGDs said their family is the most important to them. that is true even among singles, specially more for those married or with children, across all age groups and in both sexes. in fact most of them even said their family is more important to them than themselves. they are absolutely willing to do anything and everything for their family.
they said that what they are working and living for is to fulfill the dreams of their families as a unit, to secure the future of their children and the family’s well-being. this is not necessarily just about money or wealth, in fact those were hardly mentioned. what was more important to them were the emotional aspect, the joys and happiness that their families felt or aspired for. most of them said it is these priorities that they are presently working for and making such a huge effort for.
after this was discussed extensively, the respondents were then asked – how will you feel when you find out today that you are pregnant? (or for male respondents if their spouses or significant others were pregnant?) the idea was to present to the respondents a simulation of what happens in real life – how an unplanned pregnancy happens to people.
to most of the respondents, pregnancy was something that is planned. for those who were married, they discuss it and plan for it with their spouses. the planning usually is just to agree if they want or do not want to have a child or an additional child at the moment. for single respondents, it is normally not thought of as it was certain they did not want to have children out of marriage.
while they had these in their minds, the respondents know that getting pregnant was always a possibility as most of them were sexually active, even those who were single. they saw sex as part and parcel of having a relationship with the opposite sex.
to the question how will they feel or what is their reaction if they found out they were pregnant now, these were their answers to that question:
the respondents saw unplanned pregnancy essentially as a major disruption, something that will stop or derail the plans that they have been pursuing and currently working on for their families. there is nothing else in their lives that had quite the same impact and effect on their lives than an unplanned pregnancy.
all of them considered being pregnant and having a child as a blessing, even among the singles. but they would rather plan it or get pregnant out of a determined, clear and agreed to goal and at the right timing with their partners. an unplanned pregnancy to them is very unwelcome.
the respondents knew that having a baby at that point in time of their lives mzy not be the best time. they do not take having a baby lightly. they know it is a big responsibility and will involve giving most if not all of their time and effort for the caring of the baby. that would necessarily take time and effort from their work and the duties and responsibilities they were presently fulfilling. most of them said life at its present state was already difficult, having an unplanned pregnancy will make everything more than doubly difficult.
that was the mindset by which advertising and marketing efforts on family planning will be set on in getting the target audience to use it. this and other researches were conducted to get a good picture of the user mindset.
but over and above the advertising and marketing use, this explains very well the challenges faced by family planning advocates.
carlo p arvisu
the DOT, secretary mon jimenez in particular is explaining the new slogan for philippine tourism as you read this. live tweets from reporters in the venue have said this is the new international line : “It’s More Fun In The Philippines”.
we like the line. the power of the line rests on the key insight that tourists really want to have fun. it is the first and last goal of every tourist. filipinos too are fun to be with. we in fact can find humor in almost everything.
another core insight is what sec jimenez said – “It is the Filipino that completes the Philippine experience”. that could very well be the secret weapon of this new tourism campaign. the philippines do not have a monopoly of mountains, beaches and other tourists sites, every other country has one. but it is only in the philippines where filipinos are everywhere. it will be the filipinos themselves who will make a difference for tourists to enjoy themselves during their vacation.
a country can have the best beaches in the world, but a rude and an unpleasant encounter with the people will delete all that joy.
however, we have not seen the execution of the filipinos as key to the campaign in the ads so far. they are still about tourist spots. jimenez in his speech this morning and in other times have been talking about the importance of the contribution of pinoys to the success of the tourism campaign. we will need to see how this is executed in future ads.
the line is also a competitive line. it does not just say what the philippines is all about, it says the philippines is better than other countries in giving them what they want which is fun. in advertising terms, that is a powerful slant.
but then again “#1forFUN” is included in the local line. this is not an original as it is in the amazon.com website.
first, we are unable to appreciate the need for a local line. this line, though simple is also in english. in twitter, singer and songwriter jim paredes of the APO said the tagalog translation of the international line also works very well – “Mas Masaya Sa Pinas” we agree with paredes. we think that is a great line for pinoys in the country.
we do not see any value in having two lines for the same thing. besides the line “#1forFUN” is not an original. we do not think it has any place in the slogan we want to use for the ocuntry.
so far pinoys seem to take to the line looking at the number of tweets it was able to get from everyone so much so that it was trending worldwide. practically all the tweets were positive with almost all giving their own example of why it is more fun in the philippines.
this is a far cry from the precious DOT chief who had to junk the line they developed where people were vjust divided plus the fact that there logo design was just too close to the the Poland tourism logo.
we will see how the ad agency will take this further if this line has legs.
the DOT also has a new website – http://www.itsmorefuninthephilippines.com/
~~a mindscape landmark~~
this ad defines the RH Bill squarely on the positioning of helping the poor.
it says the RH Bill will give those born in poverty a chance in life, chance to continuous education, to eat properly, to have ambition and not just dreams, and a chance to get out of poverty and in summary – a chance to life.
after that list, it said “yun lang naman ang hinihingi natin” (those are just the things we are asking for).
poverty alleviation or as we prefer to put it, to give the people the tools to help themselves get out of poverty is what sectors of the pro-RH Bill is promising. we don’t entirely agree with that thinking as we do not think the RH Bill is the lone silver bullet for poverty alleviation, we think the RH Bill as we have said previously is just one of many tools that the government can give the poor ro use in taking themselves out of poverty.
the cause of poverty in our view is mutli-faceted and its solutions need to be multi-faceted as well. the government, civil society and the poor themselves need to offer multiple solutions, from all sides and levels to solve poverty.
this outright positioning of the RH Bill as poverty alleviation solution while we think it makes sense at a certain level brings it right smack to what anti-RH Bill proponents are saying about their opposition to the RH Bill. one of the things they are saying is that the RH Bill is not the solution to poverty. that there are many other solutions that the government can employ to solve poverty,
we are not however saying the ad is making the wrong argument, we are just saying this jumps directly into the frying pan of debate that anti-RH Bill proponents can have very good arguments for.
we like the ad just the same for the very idea of redefining the RH debate in favorable terms for the RH Bill. it is a very clever advertising strategy – this ad defines the RH Bill as a pro-chance, adding a new term to the debate and a dig at the traditional debates lodged by the anti-RH Bill proponents in saying the RH-Bill is anti-life, they are pro-life and that the RH Bill is pro-choice.
actually these terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” are being misused in the RH debate in the country. pro-choice in the western countries mean women hace the choice to abortion while pro-life is anti-abortion and protecting the unborn child.
in the philippines, the anti-RH Bill proponents have demonized it to mean the RH Bill is pro-abortion, which it isn’t and modern methods of contraception as abortifacient, which they are also not.
this ad in a way corrects the misinformation advanced by the anti-RH Bill proponents and very smartly re-defines the debate by making the RH Bill to mean pro-chance for the poor to remove themselves from poverty,
it is excellent strategic thinking and excellent copywriting. we applaud PLCPD and the ad agency who developed this ad.
~~a mindscape landmark~~
the latest (march 2011) hunger and poverty survey of SWS got a reaction from president n0ynoy aquino – he said the SWS was unable to properly capture the efforts they did in visayas and mindanao where he said many of the government poverty alleviation programs were implemented. from the point of view of statistics, he means the respondent sampling done by SWS was incorrect.
Aquino finds flaw in hunger survey
“I myself can’t reconcile that sometimes,” Mr. Aquino said, referring to the contrasting survey findings and the claimed achievements of the government’s programs to generate employment and reduce poverty.
President Aquino said the bulk of the data in the SWS survey came from Metro Manila and the rest of Luzon.
He said that 400,000 new beneficiaries of the government’s conditional cash transfer program, or CCT, were from the Visayas and Mindanao but this was not reflected in the survey.
“It so happened that the statistical sample used didn’t capture the ones helped by the CCT. If it was reversed, the result would have been skewed to show that more people experienced their hunger being alleviated,” Mr. Aquino said.
The President said the CCT was first rolled out in the Visayas and Mindanao because the poverty incidence was more serious in those areas compared with Metro Manila and Luzon.
aquino is wrong in what he said.
it is not true that the survey failed to capture the government’s poverty alleviation efforts in visayas and mindanao where the government did bulk of their efforts. the hunger ratings in fact in visayas and mindanao went down from previous with 14.7% in march in visayas from previous 18.2% and to 16.7% in mindanao from 21.1% of previous period.
self-claimed “mahirap” or poverty ratings however climbed up in visayas and mindanao. visayas went up to 61% from 53% and mindanao to 49% from 44%.
aquino’s complaint about the sampling skew towards NCR and Luzon is also baseless. bulk of the respondents come from NCR and Luzon for the simple reason that most of the population of the philippines come form these same two areas. that is how sampling design is supposed to be done – you get more respondents from the areas where most of the population are for the sample size to be truly representative of the country. the sample size is supposed to mirror where the people are in the country.
in other words, there is nothing wrong with the sampling design of the SWS survey as aquino is saying. there is only something wrong with aquino’s understanding of what is a good sampling design.
also, one can expect a difference in results between the SWS survey and aquino’s efforts at poverty alleviation for the simple reason that SWS used random sampling while the aquino government’s efforts were not random but purposive and specific. given that, it is possible results will be different.
for the aquino government to find out how effective their efforts are , the aquino government should do a purposive sampling of the actual people they helped and see if their economic lives have changed. in simple terms they should do a before and after study on the specific people they reached.
these are the rest of results: