The worst cervical cancer campaign ever...

The DM 👋 has been reading MN again

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12769993/cervical-cancer-awareness-advertisement-airbrushes-women-out.html

Those quotes. Even after being told. They're so indoctrinated they cannot bring themselves to use the word 'woman'.

The effect to the last group may affect their health beyond the risk of cervical cancer.

It's been demonstrated that there are people who stop engaging AT ALL with health services if doctors are too aggressive about issues other than the wants they want to engage with. For example constantly asking someone overweight about trying to lose weight when they've engaged for say an ingrowing toenail or a broken arm can cause a breakdown in the relationship between doctor and patient because it breaks trust and leads to these people being reluctant to engage at all with health services for absolutely anything because of the level of harassment.

There were women who started to be threatened with deregistration from their GP a few years back because they wouldn't have a smear. It caused a big deal and it's now not supposed to happen, but it highlights the level of pressure some surgeries put on women.

It absolutely is a trust and respect issue. It can lead to harms to health elsewhere if a woman won't go to the doctor about a mole because they don't want to be harassed about smears.

There needs to be a better and easier way to disengage with screening and to stop this without a multitude of hoops to jump through by consent.

I think this is a good article on the sort of approach that would make smear tests more possible for many women. It talks about autonomy and control being an important part of the experience and how to facilitate that.

It should be the standard not the exception so that it's offered, rather than being an out of the ordinary request from the woman..

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/diy-pap-smear

Having said that I just don't see an argument for putting a woman through it in the first place when only a fraction of full smears would be required if self testing was an option.

I suspect that the women who don't find this imagery problematic and aren't offended by the campaign go for their smear tests anyway.

Surely a campaign aimed at increasing uptake of smear tests should be designed to resonate with the groups of women who are least likely to have a smear test, and that's where I think this campaign most likely goes wrong.

I can't imagine that this is the best way to speak to, for example, women who avoid smear tests due to a history of rape or sexual assault.

I keep coming back to this thread!

I agree completely that the ad misses two important demographics - those people who simply don't understand very much about what a cervix is or why they might need cervical screening, and those who are frightened of cervical screening because of previous trauma or painful experiences - but I think it fails for everyone else too.

That's because having a cervical smear is not like having your blood pressure taken. It's having someone poking around in the most sensitive part of your body - naturally there's a fear that it's going to hurt.

And it's a part of your body that is never touched by another person except during sexual encounters. You're asking women to consent to a level of intimacy with a stranger that in the normal course of events they would only ever experience with a regular sexual partner. Of course it's offputting. We have taboos around showing our genitals to other people - let alone allowing other people to touch them - for a reason. This ad is pretending that our completely normal and reasonable fear of breaching a universal social taboo is somehow irrational and silly.

Isn't the font and, on the last board, the colours very similar to the ones used by Sainsbury. Rushing through a train station I'd have glanced at that and assumed Sainsbugs were flogging tights, then paid it no further mind. Which, at least, would have spared me realising how bad it was for all the other reasons posted here.

I no longer had a cervix before I was 49 so I wouldn't have had an appointment either, doesn't mean I wasn't a woman and including all women would have distorted the stats as I'm not the only woman without a cervix.

From following the links, a male advertising exec specialising in bold graphic design I believe.

That would be much better.

Always nurse does it often short tempered - my fault if things aren't easy - only once have I not been told I had to have a student there as well - any pain is imaginary on my part or really discomfort -one one time there was office door opening and closing to rest of complex as well as staff wondering in and out.

I just saw this thread and honestly I am just in shock seeing this campaign. Who made this? does anyone know?

The amount of women who are victims of sexual assault, rape or even just coercive behaviour from men/boyfriends is astonishing and then someone does this kind of campaign?

This just shouts queer theory... Seriously who made this and thought it was great???

Now I will move on to the second group of women who don't engage with the screening programme. They doknow where a cervix is and who has one: that'swhythey're not booking appointments to have a screening. Perhaps they have already experienced painful or traumatic screenings, or perhaps they have good reason to expect that any future one will be painful or traumatic.

Either way, they have plenty ofawarenessalready.

What they need is reassurance that they will be taken seriously and treated with respect during an appointment. They want confirmations that they will be treated with gentleness and compassion; promises that the nurse or other HCP won't be dismissive. In short, adverts for screening need to build trust with prospective patients.

This would be me - and despite some awful experiences of smears I did try and get one booked at last GP for over 6 years - and was constantly thwarted and yet it was brought up at every other appointment as if it was my fault.

I'd have much less of an issue I think doing a regular HPV tests and then doing a smear if needed - rather than battling to have a traumatic smear that may well just be thrown away and never looked at.

@NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision your posts and this thread should be used in every marketing degree at university as a case study.

At first glance the sexy disembodied legs and bright colours look like a win to male marketers.

Sorry, haven’t RTFT. Just parts of it. Does the UK not have self administered cervical screening? In Australia we have it. You go to your GP or wherever you’d normally go, a nurse explains how to do it, then you head off to the clinic toilet to do it yourself. Hand it back to the nurse and done. Nobody has to see any part of your naked body. My mum is very reluctant about cervical screening but once she found about self administered tests she was happy to do it, and then encouraged her sister to get screened too. Hopefully it’s on its way to being available in the UK seeing as it’s here.

The ad campaign in the OP is appalling. No way would it encourage me to get my screening done and I’m pretty relaxed about cervical/vaginal medical things with no trauma. It makes me cross my legs and think no way, fuck off you dirty pervs. Also no use of the words women or females is a big fail.

I posted earlier in the thread with a link to an update about self sampling. The screening programme is working on it.

I've remembered another cohort of forgotten people: those with acquired brain injuries or cognitive degradation, e.g. the many types of dementia.

Right now I know exactly where a cervix is. But sadly, we're all one accident away from a life-changing injury. If a speeding car jumps a red light while I'm crossing the road tomorrow and I'm lucky enough to survive, not remembering the word "cervix" could be the least of my problems.

I actually find it ridiculous that there is any expectation that women should need to know they have a cervix at all. The ‘let’s educate the significant proportion of women who don’t know they have one, or what it’s called’ argument to be in the missing the point camp of interventions.

The messaging around this stuff should be clear and relayed in ways that are meaningful (and appropriate) to the audience.

I don’t, for example, need to know that I have villi in my intestine to seek help for gastrointestinal issues. In fact, I only know this now because my son has coeliac disease. Tying his ability to be diagnosed in any way to knowledge of villi would be a completely unreasonable barrier.

Just as women’s access to healthcare screening shouldn’t be in any way contingent on them Knowing the antaomical names for internal parts of their reproductive system. Why do we need women to know they have a cervix to deliver appropriate healthcare?

That's the kind of thing you need in information around screening (glad to say we have this very tip in our resources!), practical advice on how to make it more comfortable, and reassurance, not stupid jokes.

Women who find it painful need to know they can ask for a smaller speculum, they can ask to insert it themselves, they can lie on their side rather than their back - all options to make it more comfortable. They don't need to be told to just spread their legs and suffer.

I don't know. Most of my marketing friends don't really need to be told that, but then again, we tend to not be working in FMCG or prestige sectors anymore. As a comms person, I am always very conscious of the final message and whether it will or will not achieve the objective, this was drummed into us at uni three decades ago. Maybe that part gets missed these days?

Brilliant explanation, very much agree with this and the person who said ad agency people need to get out of their bubble. Yes, there are budget restrictions but if you're creating a campaign like this without doing qualitative work with the target groups, you're wasting your client's time and money anyway.

I really hope there will be a roll out of self testing at some point as an additional strand to the screening programme at least - it may not be perfect, but it allows women who otherwise wouldn't participate to at least clarify their HPV status and make informed decisions about their risk level.

And for examples of just how false 'there is no such thing as bad publicity' is: any one doing a Marketing degree gets a list of them. Top ones include things like :

Nestle pushing formula into the African nations while completely ignoring that those nations had limited access to fresh water to make the formula. That took decades of work by health professionals and mothers groups to work through the damage and some families were destroyed by this.

-Pepsi and Kylie Jenner
-McDonalds in 'supersize me' forced positive changes however, this had long term ramifications.

Here is another that hit an industry rather than a company:.

-Sideways movie - Merlot sales in the USA were impacted for years for absolutely no fault of any Merlot producer. Pinot Noir sales did amazingly well. All because Merlot was dismissed by someone on the movie as not being a wine that they would ever drink.

There are many examples in large companies who had the financial foundations to weather the damage.

Does any person on this thread supporting 'no such thing as bad publicity' honestly think that a charity should ever spend their money on a campaign that is likely to deliver 'bad publicity' and very little positive results?

As it is also likely to have tax payer support, should tax payers be paying for divisive and polarising campaigns?

Iheartmysmart

If you should decide to go in the future (and please, please, please don't take this as an instruction that you should - it is your choice and your body), here is a great tip I got from MN, that came in very useful.

Wear an incredibly long skirt, and only remove your underwear. You feel so much more covered and dignified on the bed; it's so much better than a blue piece of paper over your legs.

Great post neighbourhood. Sums it up 👏👏👏

Thank you. I absolutely do not think some women will find that particular campaign empowering, it suggests to me that the advertising agency involved has zero understanding of the factors influencing non-attendance, which should have been a key part of their brief.

What most women who don't access cervical screening need is either education (because they don't know what it is, why they might need it or how to access it, or to help remove stigma and cultural/language barriers) or support and reassurance to know that healthcare staff will take their fear or pain seriously and treat them with compassion.

For those of us who are willing to go for screening, there are of course as several other people have mentioned the practical issues around access, not being able to get appointments at convenient times etc.

This campaign doesn't address any of these issues, so I can't imagine how the charity thinks it's going to achieve anything.

Excellent post @NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivisionI’ve not been for screening for years. My last one was so awful that I ended up in tears. It’s even worse now I’m post menopause. I’m probably also neurodiverse and can’t bear being touched by people.

What might encourage me to go is:

A decent practice nurse who treats me with care and understands my fears.
Minimal touching which I appreciate is difficult but maybe being allowed to insert the speculum myself.
More than a tiny piece of blue paper to cover myself with.
A bed that doesn’t face straight out onto the corridor that also has no curtains around it. How am I supposed to relax when someone could open the door at any time.
Not being told off when I do finally go which happened last time.
Not being weighed the minute I go in - yes I know I’m overweight but that isn’t the time or place for such discussions.

All very simple and pretty cost free things that would make a world of difference to me.

An advertising campaign telling me to uncross my legs. Nope, that’s totally inappropriate and just makes me feel sick.

Thank you for clarifying that. I was far too roundabout in that section, even though I have come to realise that the only way the impact of sexual abuse on women will ever be acknowledged, is if women force the ignorant to think about it.

It's been a hard habit to unlearn, and I still unthinkingly fall back on allusion to the impact of sexual violence instead of spelling out clearly what I mean.

Once again, thank you. It was a very good spot.