Thread: Need Feedback on new advisory for newspaper/TV

Thanks everybody for all the feedback on the other avi products I've been working on. Here are a couple formats for a simple John Q public advisory for the newspaper, and something similar for TV. I'm figuring space is at a premium so it needs to be concise. Also it needs to be in simple terms the average Joey can understand.

http://www.avalanche.org/~uac/newicons

Some think the entire scale needs to be on the graphic so people can see where the hazard is in relation to the big picture (bottom sample). But considering space is at a premium, there is an arguement for using that space to give a brief tip on travel concerns (top sample). Kind of like when UDOT says the canyons are snowpacked and icey, then then go on to say snowtires or chains advised.

I personally think it would be better to provide travel advice than too show the whole danger scale. Ideally we could do it all, I just want options if the paper limits our space.

Remember, this is for the guy who probably doesn't even know about the forecast center yet. More advanced users will go to the web or phone for more detailed avi info.

Interested in all your thoughts.

Sarge

Originally Posted by sarge1957

it needs to be in simple terms the average Joey can understand.

Remember, this is for the guy who probably doesn't even know about the forecast center yet.

The above statements scare the crap outta me.

Be very very careful about not revealing all of your information to the public.
Particularly when your audience is expected to be dumb and naive.

It is good that you are getting in print, but it is dangerous (morally and legally) that you are providing less than a full forecast.

Given the choice between the two, I understand the importance of seeing the relative place on the scale, but if that is at the expense of written info (which elevations and aspects are most likely slabbed and how deep weak layers are), then I say give the text priority and limit the size of the graphic.

OTOH - re-reading your statement - are you saying the first sample is all they would get? ie, there would be no info on actual snowpack? If that is the case then I think you are making a huge mistake.
Telling some Joey that the hazard is "considerable" and "avlanches will occur with human and other triggers" and "you need training" is wrong.
As a more knowledgeable user, I find this information absolutely worthless. I wanna know where, what kind, how deep, etc.
For a Joey, it is asking for trouble.

Core Shot:

Thanks for the quick feedback. I agree with what you say to some extenet. I think what we are looking at is the fact that we live in a urban area of over one million people and unfortunately many of them don't know about the forecast center advisories. Almost all of the active backcountry users know to call the forecast center or get the advisory on the web. I think the info in the paper witll catch those who are slipping through the cracks (and get them into thew system of using the forecast center). The Canadian Avalanche Association did a lot of study on this and have come up with an really simple system as well.

What I'm having reviewed in this thread is the first tier of a multitiered system. The next step is the summary on the actaull advisory, then the detailed info on each avalanche concern below.

Also, for anyone with a hard on for the 5 scale system, that can't be changed yet. All the national forecast centers took a vote and almost unanimously decided to keep the current system until a new international system is developed and approved.

All that said, thanks for the words, it's all helping us work towards better forecasting products.

Sarge

OK, then assuming there is more text describing the specific types of avys that are likely, then I say use the second graphic, showing where the current risk stands relative to all risks. That should be easiest for a Joey to understand.

Since you have deflected the debate about changing the 5 scale system, you realize how confusing the language can be to some.
Try explain the difference between PROBABLE and POSSIBLE to a schmuck.

I do like the "extra caution" hazard triangle. Presumably, those get more intense as the hazard goes up.

Considerable is pretty unstable if you are in the wrong place. Moderate has even killed lots of people. The more you can emphasize that, the better.
Good luck

As a backcountry newb I would say you need to have the relative scale and some info. Also direct them to call in / check web for the full update.

What about a reminder type ad telling the Joeys that they need to have proper training and gear to even be in these areas. A running total of avi accidents across North America so far this season. Bash them over the head with details that people are getting killed when they are in over thier heads.

In light of what everyone has said so far, I'd add some copy to the tune of "Always check www.utahavalanchecenter.com for today's complete forecast" or something.

If the goal is to get the group of skiers who unknowingly venture BC without knowing the forecast/conditions, you should make it obvious that your newspaper ad is the first tier of info and that anyone skiing/snowshoeing/bc touring/sledding OB really needs to get more info.

edit: so, obviously, I'm in favor of the text in the ad, but with some emphasis on what you're trying to do.

Originally Posted by Cornholio

If the goal is to get the group of skiers who unknowingly venture BC without knowing the forecast/conditions, you should make it obvious that your newspaper ad is the first tier of info and that anyone skiing/snowshoeing/bc touring/sledding OB really needs to get more info.

That's a real good idea! I always think it's obvious, but I'm finding you have to smack people on the side of their hear with a 2x4 to get their attention sometimes. I'll make it as obvoius as space will allow. A lot depends on what space the paper gives us.

Thanks
Sarge