Kristen Gyles | Vaccine marketing mistakes

I don’t think we have taken the time to think about the seemingly more innocuous things that may have been fuelling vaccine hesitancy. Governments and other influencers have used some of the most counterintuitive prodding to get persons to vaccination centres. In this column, I am going to highlight what I consider to be the top five vaccine marketing mistakes and how they have negatively impacted public perception where COVID-19 vaccination is concerned.

1) Get vaccinated, get back to life

This is now an oldie but goodie. “Get vaccinated, get back to life!” How majestic and powerful those words – until you skip to the evening CNN news broadcast and hear Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus from the World Health Organization saying, “There will be no return to the old normal for the foreseeable future.” That could be interpreted to mean either that COVID-19 will be with us for the foreseeable future or that we’ll be under COVID-19 protocols for the foreseeable future. Either way, the COVID-19 vaccines don’t seem to impact the prediction. In countries with very high vaccination rates, the popularly spoken of ‘herd immunity’ is yet to kick in so if we are awaiting the total absence of the virus for normality, we might be waiting till the Second Coming. The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of “getting back to life” is the suite of policies that prevent it.

Thankfully, at least here in Jamaica, there seems to be an end in sight to the Disaster Risk Management Act, based on the prime minister’s recent announcement. Many who saw their vaccine as a bus ticket back to normality have been lamenting that they haven’t got to frolic about as was promised. I imagine the health minister’s recent announcement of a calendar of events for only the vaccinated may have been an attempt to quell the frustration. (Because, as we know, vaccinated persons can transmit the virus, so clearly the rationale is not primarily a medical one, but we’ll discuss that in a bit.)

2) The best vaccine is the one that’s available

Good grief. Surely at least a few persons who have repeated this must have heard themselves as they were sounding out the words and realised the person(s) on the other end of the comment were wondering if they really look that dunce. One can accept that getting vaccinated quickly is better than waiting to get the crowd-favourite vaccine brand. Yet, that is totally different from suggesting all the COVID-19 vaccines are equal. I would have assumed this tagline was a little joke meant to evoke a friendly chuckle here and there but it has been, and is still being, used as a serious response to the question of which vaccine is best.

It is especially insulting against the backdrop of a pause in the distribution of one vaccine brand last year (pending CDC and FDA reviews), due to suspicions that it increased the risk of thrombosis and within a context in which another brand with an initial efficacy rate of over 90% against symptomatic infection has managed to become the only brand recommended for children. Clearly, all vaccines do not carry the same efficacy and carry different levels and types of risk, so why continue to repeat yet another messy marketing slogan that only breeds more opposition? The best vaccine has nothing to do with being available. Say what you mean. It will build greater levels of trust.

3) Do it to protect your loved ones

It is important to follow the science, right? The vaccine does not prevent individuals from contracting and passing on the virus and it is still unclear how different the likelihood of passing on the virus is for the vaccinated as opposed to the unvaccinated. What the data shows is that the vaccinated benefit from greater personal protection from COVID-19 because the vaccines reduce the likelihood of serious illness and death from the virus. The “Do it for your loved ones” or “Do it for your neighbour” kind of narrative is way off-centre.

The only reason one would need to consider his/her neighbour on this matter is within the context of limited hospital space, most of which is occupied by the unvaccinated. Of course, the majority of COVID-19 hospital patients will naturally be unvaccinated since the vast majority of the population is unvaccinated, but the difference in the proportion of vaccinated persons within the hospitals in contrast to that of the general population needs to be the selling point. Why not speak to that instead of repeating sensationalist but misleading stuff?

4) This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated

It is catchy, sounds cool and is guilt-inducing but the takeaway many have got from this is that unvaccinated people are the ones perpetuating the pandemic. On that point, revisit number three.

5) Anti-vaxxer over-labelling

As many have rightly said, not everyone who is hesitant is an anti-vaxxer. I had nothing to do with the formulation of the anti-vaxxer membership code, but I know intuitively that something is off when the label is thrown at people (vaccinated and unvaccinated) who have only opposed mandates, questioned scientific assertions and claims or simply asked questions about the vaccines.

It might be felt that it is easier to convince people to get their COVID-19 shots through the repetition of these sweet nothings. I think the effect has quite been the opposite, however. Many are only raising their eyebrows at some of these misleading and exaggerated claims packaged as taglines. Within a context of widespread distrust, embellishments only make a negative difference. If the aim is to reach persons who have hesitations, a fine-tuning of arguments to exclude things that are clearly erroneous would be good.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Email feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com.