Dumb Ways To Die and social media bullshit

“we really need to see the imperial evidence.”

Empirical?

Unless you’re looking for Darth Vader and an Excel Spreadsheet.

Fair point. We already have enough sloppy thinking without that. And yes, I loved the video too!

One thing you may like to fix in the article – I believe you mean ” empirical evidence”, not “imperial evidence”.

I appreciate that the 20% statistic probably doesn’t hold water. But that title is absolute linkbait.

Why not just “Dumb Ways to Die Statistics Don’t Hold Water”?

Great article. True, playing silly buggers with Social Media or Internet stats drives me insane and makes the whole industry look dodgy 🙁

Was my first thought exactly.

Would love to see the statistical analysis to back this up with a good few years of data collected.

Really the success of this campaign is in the follow up, with a brilliant platform to converse with consumers set, now the real job of changing behavior can begin.

@Tim Apologies for being _that_ guy. It just amused me…

Really interesting article, though. It’s a bold statistic to claim, hope they respond to clarify.

Apologies for the awful typos, guys (and gals). Lesson; don’t write an op-ed in the pub on a Sunday after more than 2 beers and rely on computer-enabled spell check 😉

@Brett – totally agree. The disappointing thing is exactly as you’ve pointed out; Dumb Ways to Die phase one (video) was creating interest in a public so used to hard-hitting, shock campaigns. The key is to progress the conversation to ‘correct behaviours’ and have a long tail program of change. Then the 20 percent reduction stat would be believable. And awesome

yes, i agree that social media is largely bullshit and in a coupla years time everyone will look back on it and say “what the hell was that really all about?”

Current phrase:
“it sort to achieve; a behaviour change.”

it should be:
“it sought to achieve; a behaviour change.”

You could also change ‘behaviour’ to ‘behavioural’ but it’s a coin toss.

As i said in previous comments about DWTD, likes, clicks and talk is not what means an advert is successful.

The viral/online/digital world rarely translates to (real) results.

It wouldn’t surprise me if people were humming the tune as they wandered across the tracks in front of an on-coming train.

Excuse my ignorance if this has already been addressed but exactly who is this video meant to target? Are the railway rule breakers domestic or international? After all, Bondi Rescue is a great program for educating people on surf safety but it’s aired in Australia and have you noticed how the majority of rescues involve international tourists? Wrong market! If the Vic government is targeting foreigners before they hit our soil then perhaps the 20% figure is valid (to some extent – comparing to annual safety figures isn’t an accurate marker) since they reached their target audience. I’d be keen to see if they release any other “interesting” analytical insights now.

Sorry, sorry, sorry, but I think you meant “sought to achieve” not “sort to achieve”. Yes, I am that annoying person.

Great article.
I just can’t help but feel that much of the quantum claimed success in social media is a bit like the early internet start ups…Views = a success
The bubble will only burst when more people ask rigorous questions rather than buying into the hype !

Brilliant and honest piece Karalee.

Recently signed a new NFP client who had been advised by two social media ‘gurus’ (cowboys) that they could run a social media campaign for them, that would make 10 million dollars in 10 days. All it would cost the NFP is $60K…

These kinds of people and stats like the above cause issues for social media as a communications tool and create distrust in PR/Marketing professionals.

Welcome to every award case study since 1853.

83% of stats are made up, etc.

Sorry what? I was distracted by all the semi-colons. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon

How did McCann crack viral with mobile? That makes no sense.

@adgrunt – that might be true, but these are more likely to be the losing submissions 😉

I agree with all above that the concept and execution of DWTD is well worthy of recognition, but I’ve been dissapointed with how this has translated to the physical livery on platforms – I would’ve expected to see more than the odd A3 poster. All very well to (admirably) harness the power of social media and build awareness, but where’s the follow-through? e.g. traditional non-sexy communications tools like point-of-decision prompts have a much stronger and longer track record in actually influencing behaviour change.

Thanks Karalee for calling the ’20 percent’ to account. I couldn’t believe the claim when I read the article and would also like to see the stats and definition of risky behaviour. On the other hand, happy to be proven wrong by Metro if it means people stop throwing themselves between the doors of a train when they are snapping shut …

Isn’t 4 X “bullshit” a bit of an overkill?

Haven’t seen this language used in a while either “… smells like an asshole based economy..”

I didn’t know they made ‘meters’ to stop trains.

And it takes at least 400 of them to stop a 41.5 tonne train, so does this mean that each ‘meter’ can stop a roughly 100kg object. Cool. I’m off to SuperCheapAuto to try and find one!

Hi Karalee, good call out of the BS factor. One small point, methinks a train weighs more like 415 tonnes not 41.5 tonnes. Or am I exaggerating!

Thanks, Doug.

To your point (and others) about weight and stopping distance, it’s interesting – the weight of a typical train varies across Metro’s rolling stock, and how many couplings it has, etc. Weight cited is a single carriage Siemens (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Nexas) – so yes, if it were a peak 6-car Siemens, you’re looking at 6 x 41.5 = not going to stop in time for you or your car trying to beat the boom gates…

It’s also now that I admit my secret pass time as a gunzel 😉

I was overseas when it first went out, and was pretty amazed at the timing, especially after a tragic rail accident(?) on the previous weekend. My question is, what do groups like Beyond Blue think of such campaigns. These groups spend all this time and money educating the public, yet a stupid catchy tune that mocks methods of death is actually sanctioned by a government department. It’s good to see that it has worked so effectively… NOT!!! 39 Million hits, yet most of them were from everywhere but the target market, Melbourne.

Try these stats on for size:

90% think DWTD was an engaging piece of creative.

50% of comments focussed on tone and grammar trivia — not the substance of Karalee’s opinion piece.

85% of the media ran the “20% reduction in risky behaviour” without so much as beg-yours.

0% of anybody has seen a shred of evidence to substantiate Metro’s claim.

WELL?

I’m with Karalee, excellent article. Notwithstanding the silliness of the Metro claim, it IS the sort of thing that might well be cited by an agency next time it pitches. I’ll write this slowly – Having a lot of hits – and this one certainly has – is not the only measure of success.
As Karalee points out, it really is a hit for the agency, a big one, and for Metro which (eventually!) is seen to be the client it’s helped raise its profile in a positive way. The reality is that people hurting or killing themselves by train is a massive community cost in terms of delays to me as a passenger, metro as a business which is penalised by the government for late trains even if it’s nothing to do with them.
The trouble with social media is that it is often portrayed as THE solution, usually by acolytes on the bandwagon. This ‘campaign covered all manner of ‘dumb ways to die’ not just falling/jumping in front of trains, driving around boom gates, tagging or riding on the outside of trains. Most of the offerings in the catchy song were in fact, dumb. Like Karalee I’d like to see the figures for other deaths, serious injuries and attempts at self-harm before and after this campaign. Perhaps Mumbrella could have a chat to beyondblue, Vic Pol or the ambulance service which actually deal with them before we decide that this campaign is really a success at the human level.

Thank-you for saying what so many of us can’t out of fear of backlash from our peers for daring to be a ‘non-believer’.

Looks like Metro are standing by their claim, in fact, increasing it to 30% reduction including cars at boom gates. No evidence cited. Again. http://www.theage.com.au/victo.....2eelt.html

From today’s Age:

“Metro’s quirky Dumb Ways to Die campaign – which has amassed 40 million hits on YouTube after going viral – has cut the number of ‘near-miss’ accidents by more than 30 per cent… for November to January 2011/12 there were 13.29 near-misses per million kilometres travelled by Metro trains on Melbourne’s suburban train network.
For November to January 2012/13 – after the campaign started – there were 9.17 near-misses per million kilometres.”

http://www.theage.com.au/victo.....2eelt.html

Karalee, Im stoked these figures are coming out now and that a good effie campaign will be coming out. Your attempts to belittle it (and thats what you’ve done) is in itself unsubstantiated.

@Happy Would be stoked if those stats are proven to be from
effect, not correlation, too. But nothing belittling about asking
for substantiation. We should be doing that more, not
less.

@34: It is, however both belittling and less unprofessional to slander without prior confirmation of deception.

Poor understanding of communications sensitivity in a small community comes to mind as well.

Until something that appears questionable is proven to actually BE that way, how can one go ahead and commit an even deeper trespass by jumping on the peak hour express to potty-mouth central?

Making sure to not write an article after “more than two beers” is good advice. And while we’re on the subject of behaviour change…

Analysis of the above Comments show beyond doubt that several have been deceptively planted.

Perhaps “good” blogging PR; the real ‘intestinal end’ of online behaviour that could more than do with a clean up.

There are multiple Comment characters above showing the precise same writing pattern. Name hyperlinks cross-checked with networks for equally obvious signs of good old bs also came up trumps.

Moving on…

The number of Melbourne-based youth required to view the YouTube video for a significantly measured effect on behaviour would be about 60,000.

An actual pertinent question is how many locals have viewed it. Or, no, wait, you must know that right.

Nevertheless I would expect serious egg-on-face, not just invisible egg such as but not limited to reduced new business as a direct result from the conduct in the article, but from the obviously massive effect that DWTD is having on both the reduction of high-risk behaviour, and on reduced incidences of self-harm acts involving trains in Melbourne over the coming years.

Whether by accident or on purpose, DWTD manipulates multiple behavioural (and antecedent) change contributory constructs including mortality salience, attention and recall, empathy vs perspective-taking, cognitive structuring and heuristics, and false consensus effect (def check that one out on wiki) in such an effective way that the only mystery is when its behavioural effects will begin to wane.

To wit the question, do you know anything about behavioural analysis?

*less than professional*

@35 (anonymous behavoural expert that can reference TEDx) Would be good to clarify how asking for proof of claims is slander. Also, would be good for you to clarify if you are inferring I, or indeed others, have astroturfed this post.

Because while asking critical questions of metrics is perhaps uncomfortable, it is not unprofessional nor slanderous. And goodness me, if people can’t distinguish quotes from a Book (the colorful language you call out), between unquoted passage, it is a worry.

And are you seriously asserting my questions here, all while praising the campaign, will negatively impact New Business?

started out as a comment but it’s got too long so I made it into a separate post.
http://eaonpritchard.blogspot......media.html

thank you eaon for taking the time to write something balanced, intelligent and non-hysterical.

the fact that you probably didn’t spend the afternoon at the pub prior to hitting the keyboard helps too.

@Hard to argue with these numbers

It is easy to argue with the numbers. Comparing one year in a period to another means nothings. Comparing one year to another in a period over 5 years means something. Also, state authorities have a habit of moving the goalposts; a near miss may have been redefined, much like the rail authority always redefines on time running according to their own agenda.

S it is valid to say that year on year there was a decrease. It is utterly invalid to say it is a trend.

Eaon……I read you blog……”The 20% number acts as ‘social proof’ that the behaviour has begun to change.

Because in any conditions of uncertainty (ie all the bloody time) we take cues on how to behave from what we see or percieve to be the norm (what others are doing) then the mere description of a shift in behaviour acts as a spur to the continuation of that behaviour”

So……I tell my boss I am doing a world class job, I am growing sales by 20%……and even though I am not…..it has the effect! Awesome! Sounds more like “bull shit factor” buddy….

@ The Accountant

Quite right too. I have been in so many meetings and argued with colleagues, when they only take the benefits for the business out of intelligence v taking the actual true facts:

– The benefits are taken out and are spun to the masses for short term gain. To customers and staff alike (most staff can see through them, because they live and breath the product or service…)

– What should occur is the actual facts are taken out, addressed and acted upon for the long term gain of the business, customers and staff.

Sadly in most larger companies, it is everyman for him / herself and everyone is trying to impress the boss, get a pay rise or a promotion and long term the business suffers. For these corporate whores it is all about “me, me, me” and short term wins. Greed.

I have witnessed apparent (in the eyes of their bosses and the yes men and women below them) great leaders, fudging numbers to suit their agenda’s. In reality they are con artists and deserve to fail, however often are able to stay camouflaged in their bureaucratic worlds. They rarely have any real friends and live to work, act a bit like David Brent – you know who I am talking about…

Stats – certainly always take them with a pinch of salt.

@client very droll. but 8 out of ten cats prefer my explanation.

how many Australia views and how many victorian views did it receive? Like anything that goes viral far more views are from other countries but that doesn’t mean it did not get many in views Vic. So what is the number? If it got 500,000 AU with no promotion that is a big success – realise this is not the point of the story but interested to know

Re, Streisand effect… You are using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The campaign that was going on here was to reduce the number of hours drivers were off following a fatal accident…plain and simple…making rail fatalities appear cute is minimising the mental trauma a driver suffers after being involved in a fatal accident…

Why would any driver sustain mental trauma injuries after a cute lil accident? What’s wrong wit you get back to work and stop costing us money!

Wonder how much Metro paid to have people sit there and watch that video over and over and over again or was it some kinda Bot?