'Hate Hurts' tackling hate crime marketing campaign 2024: evaluation report - September 2025

5. Evaluation

Methodology

Post campaign evaluation was carried out by an independent research agency. This took the form of an online survey with a sample of the target audience after the campaign activity ended. The sample consisted of 1,120 adults 18+ across Scotland and was broadly geographically representative. Quota controls were used to guide sample selection for the survey and the data was weighted by age, gender and socio-economic group, to reflect the population of Scotland.

Fieldwork was carried out 1 – 3 April 2024.

Over a third (36%) of those surveyed identified as having one or more protected characteristics themselves (excluding age) and 43% had any experience of hate crime (as a victim, as a witness or having been with a perpetrator).

1. SMART objectives: Results against targets

Overview of results

The campaign exceeded all four of the SMART objectives set for it despite a relatively short campaign period and a busy communications landscape in the lead up to the introduction of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 on 1 April 2024.

Advertising

In spite of the vast amount of news coverage / commentary on the topic when the campaign was running, it did ‘cut through’ with a third of those surveyed (35%) naming a campaign channel as the source of advertising or publicity they had seen recently and 15% describing without prompting something thought to be linked to the campaign.

Almost half (47%) recognised the campaign on prompting with campaign materials (including the full 40 second film which was recognised by 37%). Catch-up TV / video-on-demand drove recognition with 25% saying they had seen the 40 second film on catch-up TV or video-on-demand. Social/digital activity (including the 10 second cut-down films) was recognised by 22% and out of home posters by 15%.

Results suggest the campaign is communicating three core messages:

• that Scotland will not tolerate hate crime: 70% agreed that the advertising sends out a clear message that Scotland won’t tolerate hate crime;
• promotion of the idea of tackling hate crime as a shared responsibility (73% were in agreement that the advertising makes clear that we all have a role to play in tackling hate crime in Scotland) and within this the need to tackle or report it (34% spontaneously described this as the main message of the campaign); and
• reinforcing the idea that there is no such thing as no harm from hate crime (74% agreed that the advertising makes clear that when it comes to hate crime there is no such thing as no harm done and 25% spontaneously described aspects relating to hurt / harm as the main message).

Good levels of engagement^[4] with the campaign were achieved (70% overall). Campaign recognisers were more engaged than those seeing activity for the first time (73% vs 68%) suggesting campaign exposure encourages a positive response.

Agreement with the statements used to assess engagement did vary, however, with 70% agreeing with the trust attribute (I believe the advertising to be true) and around 60% agreeing that: The advertising encourages me to report hate crime if I see it’ (motivation) and ‘The advertising would catch my attention’ (salience).

However, only two fifths agreed that they believe the advertising is aimed at people like them (the relevance statement) while 25% disagreed. Men were more likely than women to disagree about the relevance of ads (33% vs 18% among women). Those aged 65+ were also more likely to disagree (32%) while in contrast, agreement was higher than average among those who had witnessed hate crime against another person (44%), and those with a protected characteristic (43%).

Campaign impact

Claimed action as a result of the advertising exceeded its target. Almost six in 10 (59%) of those who saw the campaign reported that they had taken at least one action from a prompted list (including deciding that they would report a hate crime if they saw one) as a result. Actions taken among those who saw the campaign included the following. It should be noted that respondents were able to select multiple responses.

• Decided I would report a hate crime if I saw one – 28%
• Discussed the campaign with friends or family – 26%
• Discussed hate crime with friends, family or colleagues – 25%
• Looked for more information on hate crime/ reporting it - 8%
• Encouraged someone else to report a hate crime – 5%
• Liked/shared/discussed the advertising campaign content online – 5%
• Reported a hate crime - 3%
• Tried to stop a hate crime – 3%

Among all respondents, almost three quarters (73%) said they planned to act as a result of the campaign, including 46% who said they would report and 34% who would intervene, if they witnessed a hate crime. Generally, men and older respondents were less likely to plan to act as a result of the campaign.

Almost all respondents had heard of hate crime but campaign recognisers were more likely than others to feel certain they know what it means (with 52% giving this response vs 46% among non-recognisers), suggesting the campaign may be positively influencing understanding. Campaign recognisers were also more aware of the characteristics protected under hate crime legislation (albeit more likely to also believe other things are also protected). Among all, awareness of the newly added age characteristic (62%) and variations in sex characteristics (56%) were lower than awareness of the other protected characteristics (80%+).