Upstream thinking is realising the problem you’re trying to solve isn’t the real problem.
So you get upstream of it.
Every year, agencies all over the world do anti drink-drive commercials.
Every year the commercials tell you how bad it is to drive drunk.
Every year they try to top the previous year, with even more shocking deaths, gruesome disfigurements, harrowing bereavement, etc.
Every year everyone agrees that driving drunk is a terrible thing.
And then what happens?
They get drunk.
And forget all about the commercials.
Because they don’t know they’re drunk.
They still think they’re sober.
So they get in the car and drive.
Why hasn’t anyone figured it out yet.
It’s no good talking to a drunk.
When he’s sober he’ll agree with you.
When he’s drunk he’s not listening.
Yet every year, everyone still does the same commercials.
And wonders why they’re not working.
The US Department of Transportation didn’t do that.
They realised there’s no point in talking to a drunk, even when he’s sober.
So they thought upstream of the problem.
The problem isn’t necessarily to convince him not to drive.
The problem is simply to stop him driving.
So they talked to the person next to him.
They ran a campaign with the line, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.”
It featured the advice:
“Put him in a cab.
Put him to bed.
Take his keys.
If you’re a real friend, you won’t let him drive.”
How powerful is that?
Your commercial can’t be there to talk to a drunk when he’s about to get into his car.
You can’t stop a drunk driving.
But your commercial can talk to someone who can stop the drunk driving.
So you can solve the problem another way.
That’s upstream thinking.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
i remember they also had, and perhaps still have, the best anti-drunk driving TV campaign . it’s just home video of kids killed by drunk drivers. with explanatory supers.
incredibly powerful and simple.
Hi Dave, once again one of the most interesting posts on my daily blogosphere. :o)
Dan Ariely references some research on this in his book “Predictably Irrational”.
They tested the sexual preferences of young men and found them to be good Samaritans when un-aroused, but as the mind and body got closer to sexual climax the preferences changed dramatically.
Which would mean that you can communicate all you want to calm, rational people, but they do not have the same reference maps when aroused and therefore the communication will have no relevance.
He also references speeding, and that it is not necessarily the speeder that is the problem, but the context he/she is in. They found changing the context changes the need for speed. So don’t tell people not to speed, tell them to avoid certain situations inside the car.
In the context of your story this could mean that although drink driving is stupid and people should stop doing it, they probably never will. But the upstream fact is that most drunk drivers get away with drunk driving with no accident or killing. So what makes you a drunk killer, and what makes you just a drunk driver? Find that, and remove/change the context.
I agree, it is quite cynical, but how can we know that the best effect will come from total prohibition?
You are spot on Dave. Focusing on fixing symptoms rather than the causes of the symptoms would be another way of saying the same thing, but you have spelled it out perfectly.
In Australia, there was a recent ad showing the parents of children killed by drunk drivers. The parents were holding photos of their children, and with slow music played throughout, it really struck a chord.