Great story and take-aways, Mack!

Now, I want to tryout some latex on CDs and see if that works.

I would assume Latex gloves work as well as condoms. ;-)

Good story, Mack. But perhaps the government needs to do more outreach so students actually do use the condoms for sex, in addition to using them to clean CDs. Just because they have them onhand does not mean they'll use them for the originally intended usage.

"Just because they have them onhand does not mean they'll use them for the originally intended usage."

Agreed David, but if they don't have them, there's zero chance they'll use them as the government intended ;)

It's VERY difficult to re-route your community when it is flowing in a direction you don't like. Much easier to shift gears and accept their chosen path by altering yours.

Well it's a good story on the reflection of your marketing on the target community.

But let's think again, don't you agree with me that the initial purpose of a marketing activity is to create a certain awareness, perception, brand image, etc. the moral of your story is that final aim of the government was achieved whether or not the same way they wanted it to be. But does it work for marketers?
I mean if the goal a marketing campaign was to create certain awareness, do you think it would be really useful if it created a whole different perception?

What does this have to do with marketing.

One problem, though, Mack... Having a supply of condoms onhand isn't the government's real intent.

Their real intent is to prevent AIDS, which simply having a supply of condoms isn't enough to do.

You might say that simply having the condoms increases the odds that people will use them, but that contradicts the body of data in this article, which is that people are using them for something other than what they intended.

It isn't unusual for any government to both attack the wrong problem and to pick a problem that they are ill-equipped to solve anyway.

This is a complex issue and one that we'll have to wait a while for a longitudinal study to prove what really happens.

But I'm with you Mack. Having condoms is better than having no condoms.

Maybe they'll be listening to CDs instead of having sex. I've often heard tell that the birth rate spikes when a city loses power during an evening. The TV and everything else shuts down, and the people have nothing to do except the horizontal Mambo which you can do in the dark.

So whether the students put these condoms on their Led Zeppelin, or if they just use them to clean their CDs, it's all got to help.

"What does this have to do with marketing."

It speaks to the futility in marketers attempting to change users behavior by telling them NOT to do something. One of the biggest wastes of time and energy is for a marketer to attempt to re-route the flow of its community, and to 'force' them to change behavior. It is far easier to find ways to work with their behavior, in order to get the results you were looking for.

IOW, telling students to STOP using condoms to clean CDs, is probably the quickest way to ensure that they spend even more time using condoms to clean CDs.

"One problem, though, Mack... Having a supply of condoms onhand isn't the government's real intent.

Their real intent is to prevent AIDS, which simply having a supply of condoms isn't enough to do.

You might say that simply having the condoms increases the odds that people will use them, but that contradicts the body of data in this article, which is that people are using them for something other than what they intended."

Yes but the government is supplying them in an effort to increase 'protected' sex, which is in an effort to decrease the spread of AIDS. What we do know is that if students have the condoms onhand, it increases the chance that they will use them during sex, which in theory will decreasse the spread of AIDS.

Now if you are trying to argue that they should scrap the 'free condoms' initiative altogether and go with another angle in fighting the spread of AIDS, that's another story for another day. My point was that if they are going to give away condoms, they should do so in a way that encourages students to use them. Telling students that they can have thm, but that they CAN'T use them to clean CDs, isn't going to work, IMO.

"You kids quit listening to music and get busy having sex like we intended!"

Perhaps the logical step is to encourage the students to use the condoms twice; first to wax up their Barry White cds, then for the intended purpose.

[NOTE: Mack, I'm blaming you and Chris for inspiring the following comment...]

I think we're all missing the most obvious effect: in this instance, social marketing yielded one of the worst, most costliest euphemisms ("waxing our CD's") imaginable.

That alone should be a turn-off for doing it, and if government and advocacy interests were smart they'd find a way to incorporate a "give the finger to AIDS" image/logo, benefit CD full of crazy scratch beats (with scratched surface of course), and package *that*.

But I'd imagine fingers are too preoccupied up other places, such that hands are tied elsewhere...

"What we do know is that if students have the condoms onhand, it increases the chance that they will use them during sex, which in theory will decreasse the spread of AIDS."

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Yogi Berra

And yes, that's the best retort I have. :)

""In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Yogi Berra

And yes, that's the best retort I have. :)"

"Better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it, and not have it" - Woodrow F. Call, Lonesome Dove ;)