Census: Why Ads & Advance Letters?
Mark Blumenthal | March 15, 2010
Topics: Advance Letters , US Census
This week's column looks at the U.S. Census and the controversy over its use of television advertising and advance letters to convince Americans to fill out and return their census forms.
The column reviews how the census differs from a survey -- the census has a constitutional mandate is to to count every member of the population -- but does not make explicit what they have in common: Both involve questionnaires that both need to coax their respondents to complete. As such, the advance letters are supported by decades of methodological research proving that their worth, something the Washington Post's Jennifer Agiesta reviewed last week.
By Mark Blumenthal | March 15, 2010 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments
There are probably about a million minority citizens and residents who are not counted. The city of Albany, NY with a populartion of about 130,000 people it was rumored that back in 2000 that half of African American residents weren't counted in the census. It is a likely reason why so many states don't have enough services to cover it's residents. It is just another reason why our system as it is is moronic.
Posted on March 15, 2010 10:57 AM
Mark, thanks for the great review of the important, difficult task of enumerating the 115 million households in the U.S.
I just wanted to make it clear to your readers that--like any pollster--I greatly appreciate the utility of the Census and the difficulty and importance of maximizing response rates to the mail questionnaire.
Additionally, I think Dr. Groves and the CPO team have done a great job of listening and responding to the concerns some people have with the Census promotional campaign.
While $133 million sounds like immense sum, it is not an outsize budget for a combined branding/call-to-action campaign whose audience is every household in America and where a direct response is desired. Accordingly, I think it is vital that the money be spent as efficiently as possible.
As you allude in your column, it appears that the spot was intended to reach the "cynical fifth"--a segment defined by their market research who don't accept the value of the census and are mistrustful of government and institutions generally, comprising roughly 20% of the adult population. With a segment that large and demographically heterogeneous, broadcast advertising is a sound choice of medium.
But that's where my praise ends. As my quote makes clear, I believe that the Super Bowl execution was a bust. The Super Bowl is high stakes, turbo-charged advertising theater. Well-established brands using iconic imagery (Budweiser, Coke) or some combination of bombast and physical humor (Doritos) tend to carry the day. So first of all, a muted, mockumentary Christopher Guest spot is just entirely inappropriate for that venue.
But more importantly, if the goal is not to raise awareness but to restore faith in a public institution among a cynical audience, than an expensive, controversial Super Bowl ad is the worst possible medium.
On the other hand, one Census outreach activity that certainly deserves praise is making public the real-time tracking of participation rates mentioned in this AP story (see below). Transparency and efficiency will do a lot more to bolster trust and enthusiasm for the Census among the "Cynical Fifth" than any Super Bowl ad ever could.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gEoTQb3c7ewKKKNz5aAT8lL1PVmgD9EF4KBO1
Posted on March 15, 2010 12:15 PM
Post a comment