How to Make Advertising about Nuclear Energy Effective
Ann S. Bisconti, PhD
May 1, 2021
Faulty communications about the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 convinced industry leaders to fund a significant program to improve communications with the public about nuclear energy, including a large print and television advertising campaign. They created the U.S. Council for Energy Awareness (USCEA) for this new program and assigned Harold B. (Harry) Finger to lead it. An engineer by training, Harry was determined to build communications with science. He hired me to lead a hefty research program. In addition to studying public attitudes in great depth, we began to test and evaluate all USCEA advertising as soon as I arrived. That research offered lessons for issue advertising that have been applied to advertising in recent years, after USCEA became part of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
How Testing Saves Dollars
Advertising was underway when I arrived in 1983, and it had not yet been tested. The ad agency team at Ogilvy and Mather was understandably worried that advertising about nuclear energy might initially generate a negative reaction, so they made a case against testing. I argued for testing all advertising, and Harry agreed.
First test surprised. The first ad test, a test of a print ad, surprised us all; public reactions to the ad were extremely favorable. Respondents were interested in the topic precisely because it was controversial, and they were eager to know more. The ad got attention and was found to provide credible new information. Some respondents referred to the ad as an article, even though the interviewers kept referring to it as an ad.
Wasted dollars with Tomorrow. When we finally tested a television ad that had been aired without testing, we learned that we had wasted precious dollars, because the ad was too timid in conveying a message. The TV ad used the song from Annie, “The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow,” to communicate that we looked forward to solar energy in the future but, for now, needed nuclear energy and coal. The idea was to let solar energy bring in viewers and then mention nuclear. Viewers got the ad’s message that we wanted solar energy, but the nuclear energy part was lost.
After that, only the best test ads were used. Following that costly misstep, we pre-tested every potential ad. Both print and television ads were tested in “clutter” to measure breakthrough with the audience, as well as ability to communicate the message and elicit positive reactions. Only the very best and very effective ads were used—fewer than half. Posttests of impact by Starch and Gallup & Robinson found that the nuclear energy ads got unusually high attention and were persuasive. In fact, the USCEA ads continually raised the Starch and Gallup & Robinson norms for corporate and issue advertising. A memo from our files shows that nine USCEA ads that Starch tested in The Wall Street Journal in 1987 and 1988 had an average Noted score of 40; the norm at that time was 29 for all same-size ads in that newspaper and 25 for corporate advertising.
Smart evaluation design. We also evaluated the impact of entire campaigns on attitudes using Market Facts consumer panel respondents surveyed twice. Our design was simple but creative:
First, respondents completed a questionnaire that measured their baseline attitudes toward nuclear energy.
The same respondents then completed a follow-up questionnaire that measured their attitudes after a designated period of advertising in magazines, newspapers, and on air.
After completing the second questionnaire, respondents opened a sealed envelope that contained pictures of all the nuclear energy advertisements that appeared during the designated period, thus yielding two groups: recallers and non-recallers.
We were able to analyze how attitudes of the two groups changed. The ads were judged to be successful if the recall group changed significantly more favorably or less unfavorably than the non-recall group. We were able to calculate the NET ATTITUDE CHANGE attributable to the advertising (change among recallers minus change among non-recallers). This method was more precise than the usual method of simply surveying a population twice to measure pre and post attitudes without controlling for recall or proven exposure.
Example of ad sheets included in sealed envelope to identify recallers and non-recallers
All these measures avoided waste of money on weak advertising. They ensured that the advertising succeeded in changing attitudes and enabled projections of impact. That was especially important as the advertising dollars decreased. For example, data in our files from 1992 used NET ATTITUDE CHANGE to project that the $6.2 million USCEA advertising budget in that year had made 8,136,000 Americans more favorable to nuclear energy.
Lessons from Testing Nuclear Energy Advertising
The ad tests revealed some guidance for publishing communications about nuclear energy:
Lead with the main point about nuclear energy. Ad agencies like to use creative strategies to draw in respondents, such as a building up suspense before trying to make the sale as the climax. In the case of nuclear energy, ad tests found repeatedly that this strategy does not work. Nuclear energy is far more interesting and surprising than other topics that could be intended to draw people in. One does not see advertising for nuclear energy every day, so the topic alone gets people’s attention.
The failure of the TV ad “The Sun Will Come Up Tomorrow” shows how easy it is for audiences to come away with the wrong message. That ad failed because it did not lead with and did not emphasize the main point about nuclear energy.
For print ads and other written materials, the best ads were those that included “nuclear energy” boldly in the headline.
Follow with subheads to make subpoints (If there is a large body of text). Many readers will only read the headline, subheads, and—perhaps—the tagline.
Use simple graphs and maps. Graphs and maps attract attention and can be used to make a point. Showing factual information graphically also adds credibility.
Use captions for graphs, maps, and pictures. Captions help to explain a point, and they also are likely to be read because they stand out from the standard text.
Do not fear to communicate about nuclear energy. Most people are interested in learning more about the topic. Intermarket Research tests of nuclear energy print ads over a decade found that an average of 74 percent of respondents rated the ads “a useful public service.”
© Ann Stouffer Bisconti, 2021.