This paper raises another possibility. Not only could we market public transport as attractive and desirable, but de-market the automobile as a status symbol and a convenient accessory of modern life. The aim of this paper is to explore the potential for advertising themes that by-pass rational logic and appeal directly to the emotions. We seek ways of confronting irrational desires with propaganda.
People are more conscious than they used to be of the pollution and nuisance caused by road traffic, and worsening congestion has raised public awareness that something needs to be done. The problem is that individuals do not necessarily see themselves as the cause of the problem. Even if they did, they might still not see any personal advantage in moderating their car use. Yet there are personal advantages in do so: the question is how they can be articulated. The authors examine the concept of de-marketing and how it might be applied to relieve some of the burden of road traffic demand. They draw on established theory in putting forward an outline strategy, and examine the likely strengths and weaknesses of such an approach.
Since the market is segmented, it will be necessary to target different groups with different themes. How should they be conveyed to the public? The government cannot do it directly because it will risk the disapproval of voters. On the other hand, if the message is spread by politically independent institutions, the government will benefit. The most likely agencies are public transport corporations, local authorities, health organisations, and environmental lobby groups. A co-ordinated approach would be difficult to manage but it could influence public attitudes towards car ownership and use among the next generation of potential drivers.
At this stage of the research, we can only draw tentative conclusions, but we believe that there is potential for de-marketing to contribute towards restraining the demand for car travel, at a relatively low cost.
As car-sharers, we might suggest to the two authors of the idea of
"de-marketing" the car that we are all very active _deconstructing_ the car.
When we offer people car-access without car-ownership, we are creating a
huge cleavage that has never been aggressively put to the billions of people
who have been told that access = ownership.
And by doing that, we deconstruct in two additional ways:
1) individuals can use different cars/vehicles at different times
(suggesting that cars have ties to trip, not people), and
2) individuals don't have to use _any_ motor vehicle, since they can stop
the "meter" whenever they want, making walking, cycling, transit, and
taxi/limousine more attractive. The pressure-to-drive that ownership
creates is based on a) getting value from a large investment, b) having most
costs "hidden", and c) making availability unreasonably high (e.g., personal
ownership, off-street parking, garage access directly into house).
Finally, the simple act of sharing unbundles the privateness of the car
experience, but in a different way than car-pooling. As the car becomes for
many people a
private room in which to escape from social pressures, it also becomes a
place to store personal things and to do personal things that subsequent
users would object to. Car-sharing brings the car back to being only
transportation. And there is also the extra obligation of protecting a
shared resource.
I hope other CSOs are proudly casting our 'product' as "Car, Deconstructed."
From: Oded Roth [rothar@inter.net.il]
Car marketing in general is a cluster of many specific and focused marketing ideas that are carried by wealthy different organizations each one of them has sheer, focused and very specific interests and targets.
De-Marketing the car is a nice idea, but in my humble opinion have a lot of deficiencies since it is a fight of negating a general idea with less focused and specific targets and less interests that may support this campaign.
A better way to fight against positive ideas is by setting competitive positive ideas that are supported by competitive parallel interests. There may be a better chance to success by identifying or building commercial interests that might compete with the private car by presenting better solutions.
I may interest this forum by a vision of a better balanced vehicle use than the totalitarian car free idea. The vision and more details can be found at http://www.transportationet.com.
From: Thomas Krag
It is very true that the use of cars is associated with strong emotions. Car users will often make their choice of mode based on an overestimation of the car performance and an underestimation (if notal total ignorance) of the alternatives.
Marketing strategies concerning improving the image of the alternatives have been successful. Several studies have shown that both image and use can be influenced by a number of "soft" measures.
Still, however, the strength of the attraction to the car is big, which makes the idea of reducing this attraction by marketing means obvious.
Campaigning groups have for decades argued about the negative impacts of the car. That it's dangerous, polluting, generally destructive to the urban environment and unjust in the sense, that it so to say steal mobility from other potential road users.
One cannot say that this negative marketing has been unsuccessful. The problems of the car is widely accepted. Probably also some people choose alternatives due to the environmental impact of the car. The effect in terms of numbers is however limited. A Danish study suggests that only 1% of the users of bicycles and public transport can be found in this group.
The negative car marketing has also an adverse effect. People don't want to be confronted with their "bad" behaviour and have developed a strong filter to avoid thinking about the negative consequences of their choice. This filter is probably effective also towards not-so-negative communication about cars.
"De-marketing" of the car should therefore be very intelligent in order not to fall in the trap developed to filter out traditional anti-car communication. It is very true that it has to make use of emotions. Humour would also be an effective tool. And respect of the target group imperative, something which often weakens the anti-car communication. Be careful telling people that they are irrational. Let them find out themselves - or do it in a funny and gentle way.
The Greater Copenhagen Transport Authority has for some years had a campaign under the headline "The bus - unlike the other cars". This can be seen as an example of such a careful car de-marketing as part of a usual public transport marketing campaign.
Thomas Krag, Transport Consultant
Comment and discussion of this paper by Chris Wright and
John Egan of the
Middlesex University Business School
is invited over the month of August in the @ccess World Forum. The full text is available by clicking here (Acrobat .PDF file).
Address your comments to access-forum@egroups.com. Kindly use the phrase "De-marketing the Car" (without quotes) to indicate the subject, to facilite reference.
It is widely recognised among transport professionals that the demand for car travel in cities must be limited in some way if the road network is to be used efficiently. Most of the schemes aimed at traffic reduction involve a package of measures. The measure with the greatest potential is road pricing, provided that it is supported by measures to make other modes of travel more attractive. These include better public transport services, better facilities for walkers and cyclists, and incentives for car-sharing, for example. Unfortunately, road pricing is politically unattractive, because car owners are strongly attached to their vehicles and resent interference with their freedom to use them. By itself, investment in public transport will not persuade people to leave their cars at home.
De-Marketing The Car - Abstract
Comments will be found as indicated under the @ccess Message Center, and will regularly be edited and placed here for handy reference and further discussion.
Post Comments Here
your reactions and comments here.
From: Chris Bradshaw [mailto:chris@ties.ottawa.on.ca]Discussion
Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2000 5:23 PM
Sent: Sat 07/29/2000 4:16 AM
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2000 10:21:21
Wilhelm Marstrands Gade 11 - DK-2100 København Ø
tel +45 35 42 86 24, thomas.krag@email.dk
Back to top  @ccess Home |
 @ccess Forum
|
 Send
E-mail |
Updated 26 July 2000