Report from Home Intelligence on the pictorial press advertisement inserted in the Sunday papers of March 2nd.
1. There is general agreement that the advertisement was seen and read by the majority of the public. R.I.Os. consider it was “seen by the majority”, “Sunday papers are read more carefully than others”, “reached industrial areas but not villages” (Scotland). Evidence from Mass Observation shows that in a small sample of interviews, approximately 60% had seen and read the advertisement. In a village in Worcestershire where a detailed study was made rather over half of those questioned had seen the advertisement but many of these had not been sufficiently interested to study it in detail. More men than women had read it and interviewers encountered some evidence of resistance on the part of women to its subject matter.
2. The broadcast announcements of the forthcoming advertisement were very little heard, or, if they were heard, they were not remembered. Mass Observation records that 20% of those interviewed said they remembered an announcement, but there was considerable vagueness in their replies.
3. Not one report records any opposition to the use of Sunday papers. (Even Northern Ireland states “no opposition” but Sunday papers have a smaller coverage there). Some people expressed doubt that the Sunday papers would reach everyone.
4. Most R.I.Os. stress the need for additional publicity by poster, broadcast, leaflet, etc. Several suggested the desirability of reprinting the advertisement and giving it a special circulation.
5. R.I.Os. consider that the advertisement was not generally cut out and pinned up. Reports from special contacts, however, show that a limited number of people seemed to have cut it out; few pinned it up. Mass Observation records that nearly 15% of the London sample said they had cut it out, but there was no evidence that they had pinned it up.
6. On the whole the public appeared to think the instructions adequate. 10% of M.O's. interviews showed the need for some clarification.
The principal difficulty, mentioned by women, was that sandbags were too heavy to handle, particularly to raise to face level. Many mention the filthy condition of sandbags at the foot of lamp posts.
There was some discussion of explosive fire bombs and some people (particularly women) expressed apprehension. One R.I.O. thought that on this particular aspect of the problem “the campaign deceives the public and is extremely bad propaganda”.
A common difficulty mentioned was shortage of stirrup pumps and buckets, and a small number of extremely strong criticisms of Government policy are recorded. Some people said that they could not possibly collect all the implements suggested.
7. The pictorial method of presentation was everywhere praised but there were important criticisms of special aspects. Detailed interviews showed that the pictures had been studied with care.
The commonest criticism was of the inaccuracy of certain positions taken up by the fire fighter. “He held his head far too high” “He's changed his hand”. William Hickey's criticisms in the Daily Express were noted and, undoubtedly, had caused the pictures to be scrutinised again. The advertisement was generally recognised as authoritative but there was criticism that the make-up was “too much like a commercial advertisement”, that it did not stand out sufficiently well from the rest of the page, and that arrangements for cutting out were not sufficiently emphasised.
Some people wished that a woman had been represented, others that more difficult situations had been shown, e.g. incendiary in a roof cranny.
Conclusion
The advertisement appears to have registered well and its pictorial form was generally appreciated. Detailed interviews showed a freedom from anxiety about the various problems involved. Although few people have had experience of dealing with fire bombs, the majority appear to have confidence that they can tackle them successfully.
