Was the ultimate conclusion of Dr. Marjorie Kruvand, and Dr. Fred B. Bryant’s case study of the CDC Zombie Apocalypse Campaign a fair assessment?

Dr. Kruvand and Dr. Bryant sought out to discover if the CDC’s now famous Zombie Apocalypse campaign produced positive results in disaster preparation. They reached a fairly straight forward conclusion: No.

Public Health Reports / November–December 2015 / Volume 130 – Page 662

Although the campaign garnered
substantial attention, this study suggests that it was not
fully capable of achieving CDC’s goals of education and
action.

With respect to the research and groundwork laid out in Dr. Kruvand and Dr. Braynt’s study, I must respectfully, but vehemently disagree. It is true that instantaneously quantifiable results did not see significant change vs. a control group. However, it is also true that a campaign established in 2011 continues to attract attention and discussion in 2018. This intangible result has even filtered its way into classrooms, now serving as the target metaphor in the very course this assignment was crafted for.

One might compare the CDC Zombies to the mascot of a sports team. He, she, or it has no short-term effect on the outcome of an individual game. Rather, the mascot serves as an emotional focal point for support efforts. In turn, those efforts may attract attention and resources in the form of greater financial influx, superior staff, and more player talent that ultimately translates to success on the scoreboard. So it is that while a single campaign alone may not have sent John Q. off to pack supplies, it can and has served as a proverbial lighting rod to education and public service alerts for the better part of seven years. Those intangible results may well be far more valuable in the long-term than a year of boosted preparedness statistics.