Introduction
Since the issue of drunk driving is a problem across America, taking action to prevent it is obvious. Thus, the government and civil society use public campaigns to raise awareness on the repercussions of driving while drunk and promote the responsible taking of alcohol. Communication is the most efficient way of raising awareness and preventing tragedies that occur due to alcohol intake. However, since there are different parties involved, one is at a disadvantage, usually, the sender of a message. Some economic and social factors may put the campaign against drunk driving at a disadvantage. Hence, even though public campaigns can bring about change and reduce cases of drunken driving, they may not be the best method to achieve the objective of 0% cases of driving under the influence.
Social Factors
The first disadvantage of public campaign is a social problem where individuals can choose to ignore the message passed across. Running campaigns against drunk driving does not guarantee that the receiver of the message will utilize it positively. Also, the success of any campaign depends heavily on the design of the message. Although mass media and other mediums used to communicate the message against drunk driving may reach millions of people, those individuals live in different societies and hold different opinions. Therefore, each message delivered to a target audience should be tailored to fit their norms and beliefs (Dunstone et al., 2017). However, since many campaigns utilize limited resources, running multiple campaigns is almost impossible. Thus, the long-term change of behavior aimed at by the drunk driving campaigns may not be achieved.
Economic Factors
Another disadvantage of public campaigns is related to the economic factors that may limit their success. Every successful campaign relies on proper strategic planning and availability of resources (Windahl, Signitzer, & Olson, 2008). Indeed, mass communication and use of roadside checkpoints may be effective in changing the behaviors of drivers and prevent drunk driving, but making these campaigns work requires massive footwork. The method of TV advertisements, print adverts, and sticker printing uses a lot of money. However, the organizations holding the campaigns depend on donors for funds. Therefore, if the donors are influenced in a way that prevents them from providing money for the campaigns, then running it would not succeed. Heavy wages required by the people on the ground spreading the word against driving while drunk also strains a campaign. As a result, reaching masses and educating them on the effects of drunk driving through public campaigns may not be successful.
Conclusion
In summary, using public campaigns to prevent drunk driving is an efficient way of changing people’s behavior and steering them towards drinking responsibly. The use of public campaigns as a solution to raising awareness and preventing fatalities related to driving under the influence and use of other drugs has many advantages. Many mediums can be used to reach many people. Moreover, the campaigns probe well-wishers and other organizations to provide funds that can be used to expand the scope of the campaign, thus, reaching more people. On the other hand, public campaigns are a disadvantage to the fight against driving under the influence because they require numerous resources to succeed. Since individuals understand messages communicated on different levels, running specific campaigns for specific groups is needed. In addition, using mass communication is expensive, and without contributions from donors and not-for-profit organizations, the campaigns would not succeed. Thus, although public campaigns are effective in preventing cases of drunk driving, achieving that goal may not be easy.