Chris Powers explains how shock tactics may not be the best option for encouraging pensions saving

If you watch prime-time television during an advertising break, there’s a good chance you will be confronted by a cancerous tumour, mutating its way through the innards of a cigarette. All rather gruesome stuff. And we’ve had nine weeks of it.

The £2.7 million campaign, launched by the Department of Health, is designed to shock smokers – many of whom still underestimate the risks of their habit – into quitting. The intended message is clear and simple: smoking is a time-bomb. Change now before it’s too late.

All well and good, you might think. But what does this have to do with pensions?

In short, with increased life expectancy, mounting debt and inflation, it is estimated that the average pensioner’s income will fall £10,000 below a ‘comfortable’ level.

These are vast sums, and, in order to correct this, a nation-wide culture change is required. People need to change their habits. So, why not shock them into submission?

Shock tactics are often used to combat scepticism, and people will naturally be cautious when asked to part with their money.

They’re in season too. January and February are particularly popular months for habit-change shock tactics, as campaigns target those susceptible to a glut of guilt-inducing New Year messages. Indeed, if you want to show a hard-up pensioner living on a park bench and scrounging for hand-outs, now would be the time. “This could be your future,” the advert would preach, “unless you start saving now.”

There’s a growing school of thought in the pensions industry that these types of communication should be used more readily. But, doing so can often cause more harm than good.

Consider, for example, that the park bench advert had been aired. It was watched by a 35-year-old male, in full-time work. The advert, correctly, explains how the pensioner featured did not save adequately. Adequately, our audience member finds out, means he should have been contributing about half his age in earnings, that’s over 17%, towards his pension.

From 0 per cent to 17 per cent is a very large jump for anyone. But, how will this affect those who have never put money aside? Put simply, even if our 35-year-old began paying towards his pension now, he’s missed the boat. He will never save enough to live ‘comfortably’ in retirement. So, in all probability, he will not contribute at all, and will instead rely on the state.

Like a bully in the school playground, shocking messages get noticed. Often though, they may be too rough, too tough, and will ultimately leave you less popular.

In communications, there is rarely a one-size-fits-all solution. After all, the advert could have had an entirely different effect on a recent graduate in his twenties.

To combat alienation, messages need to be tailored to specific audiences. They need to stimulate, not isolate – and this is where the Department of Health’s smoking advert fails most remarkably. “Every 15 cigarettes smoked,” the advert notes, “causes a mutation that can lead to cancer.”

January was the ideal time for a ‘stop smoking’ advert. Yet, this doesn’t sound like a call to arms, or a reason to quit. “You’re a lost cause,” the advert may as well lament. “The damage has been done.”

When trying to prompt behavioural changes, there will always be an urge to make your communications hard-hitting, and shock tactics will certainly get attention. But, beware. When challenging people’s lifestyles, giving them a good kicking isn’t always the best place to start…

Written by Chris Powers, communications coordinator, Shilling Communication

Share Story: