Agreed. It's interesting that we can no longer stick to the old idea that if people had more information they would buy into the science. These days many of those who steer clear of immunisation are well-educated, so this notion of there being an information deficit has fallen flat.
So how do we reach people? The truth is that the science of science communication is still quite a young discipline and I'm not sure anyone can say for sure what methods are most efficacious. (So, communication tools are not 100% effective and may carry certain risks, but are nonetheless essential for public health - a bit like medicines and vaccines!)
For me, the most interesting question is whether those who advocate for vaccines should use the same strategies as those who agitate against. Should scientists and public health authorities be appealing to emotion and using celebrities given that presenting cold, hard facts appears to have failed.
In the last link posted above, author Seth Mnookin argues that human stories of children affected by preventable diseases should be used "to illustrate data rather than as a substitute for data". I'd go along with that provided it's not pure fear mongering.
The other thing to add is that a one-size-fits-all approach won't do. The groups with the highest measles rates right now are the Roma community in Bulgaria and educated liberals in France (I'm simplifying slightly, but you get my point!). They obviously require tailored messages delivered through carefully chosen media.
Some could use a new iPhone app; others need to hear from their own community leaders.
Similarly, campaigns targetting parents will differ from a campaign aimed at healthcare professionals (although some parents will be health professionals and vice versa).