Selling Ourselves: Questioning HIV Prevention Campaigns

Via Wiretap Magazine
By Kirk Grisham
Opinion: Rather than reinforcing stigmas, ads need to promote holistically healthy lives.
"We wanted to do something different," said Jim Pickett, director of advocacy at the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. "Gay men are tired of hearing they are dirty." Pickett is referring to a new marketing campaign, "How Are You Healthy?" produced by Project CRYSP. Most of the ads scattered across Chicago's cityscape feature neither condom images nor directives like "get tested." Nonetheless, this is an HIV prevention campaign.

For many of us, these ads are a breath of fresh air but also something of a shock. Until Gay Men's Health Crisis (GMHC) ran the "I Love My Boo" campaign, I didn't know that public health initiatives could address HIV prevention outside the narratives of compulsory testing and condom use. GMHC's ads address gay men as adults rather than focusing on rules like wearing condoms for oral sex. (One recent study shows that only three percent of transmissions occur through this act.) LifeLube's approach, as its website states, is holistic. The assumption, the declaration, is that gay men are healthy.

HIV prevention campaigns usually engage their audience with directives. Some have controversially targeted specific individuals, such as Philadelphia's infamous and short-lived "Have YOU Been Hit?" campaign that ran in 2006. The costly campaign depicted young African American men on the street, one in the scope of a rifle. The ads hit the streets at a time when handgun murder rates were on the rise. At first glance, you might think: "What's with the public health directors and city agencies producing these tasteless campaigns?"

That question certainly came to mind when the San Francisco Department of Health debuted Homoboy.org, an ad campaign depicting a shirtless, muscular African American man decked out in bling with a caption that read, "Don't Be a Bitch, Wear a Condom." Les Pappas, director of Better World Advertising, the social marketing firm that helped produce the ad, recalls receiving negative and often personal criticism for producing it. It turns out that the campaign was created through a collaborative process including focus groups and extensive target population evaluation.

City agencies, private firms and the populations themselves share blame for producing these messages, which begs the question: Do we know what's good for us? Are we simply propagating the same stigma, homophobia and racism vis-à-vis mainstream society through marketing, as seen in the Homoboy campaign?

Do these negative, racist and stigma-filled homophobic messages sell? Would positive messages work any better? Can one sell liberation?

I suggest no.

As negative as they are, these narratives serve a purpose. Misconceptions surrounding HIV/AIDS exist, and people are going to consume them, regardless of the message. But populations being addressed by these campaigns need to have the tools to be critical and question what the goals are. These campaigns may spark dialogue through controversy but are not always educational. Stigma and homophobia drive the transmission of HIV, which a plethora of organizations are working to combat. So, why not focus on positive messages that strengthen family ties?

While "you" are responsible for stopping HIV (as many HIV prevention ads loudly proclaim), so are the organizations that produce hate in the guise of "family values," schools that fail to educate our students in prudent health practices and parents who are too afraid to talk to their kids about sex.

I am not opposed to targeted awareness campaigns, but what about all the people who do not think about HIV who should? Isn't it time we stop singling out individuals and start criticizing the institutions that drive this pandemic?

These questions are necessary to ensure that everyone who needs to see these campaigns gets the message. For instance, will a young man who has sex with men but does not identify as gay or DL benefit from these ads? Departments of health and organizations are limited by their budgets to produce a campaign that "works," but how do we define what's effective? And how do these campaigns justify their effectiveness after 28 years of failing to make a difference?

Maybe the problem is marketing itself. Can we expect social change if we use the same venues that oppress us? As New York-based HIV justice organization Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP) posited in a social marketing forum two years ago: "Are We Selling Us to Ourselves?"

I want more positive messages in my neighborhood, school and workplace. These messages need to come from within our populations and make sense to us. It's irresponsible that we allow simplistic ads with messages like "wear a condom" or "get tested" when greater institutional issues such as inadequate education, sexual violence and poverty continue to drive the pandemic. We're placing too much value on the market. What's selling is not always best for us.

To learn more about Project CRYSP and the LifeLube project go to www.lifelube.org. You can also find them on Facebook and Twitter @LifeLube.

Kirk Grisham is a writer and student living in New York. His work explores domestic issues surrounding sexuality, health, education and criminal justice.