Pubdate: Thu, 16 May 2002
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Contact:  2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Website: http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Collin Levey
Note: Ms. Levey is an assistant features editor of The Wall Street 
Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/campaign.htm (ONDCP Media Campaign)

WASTED

Why Tax-Funded Antidrug Ads Don't Work--And Some Approaches That Might.

There's new evidence out this week about the power of habit to create 
irrational behavior.

On Monday, "drug czar" John Walters announced that according to a new 
study, some $929 million worth of taxpayer funded antidrug ad campaigns 
haven't discouraged drug use among children at all. Certain ads apparently 
achieved the opposite effect, making drug use seem sexier, especially to 
teenage girls.

Then Mr. Walters announced plans to spend even more money on drug ads.

True, he made a point of saying he would try to spend it in a different 
way. But all the money in the world won't make up for the failings of 
campaigns that treat kids like babies or puppets. Kids aren't buying it and 
probably never did, even in the halcyon 1950s or whenever the people who 
dreamed up these campaigns were last in touch with youthful realities.

The study itself, conducted by a private research firm and the University 
of Pennsylvania, asked 12- to 18-year-olds to watch a series of ads and 
answer questions about whether they had seen the ads and whether they 
planned to use drugs in the next year. The good news: Some 70% of the kids 
responded that they did remember the ads. Bad news: Hardly any of them saw 
the ads as particularly persuasive.

"These ads aren't having an impact on teenagers," remarked Tom Riley, a 
spokesman for the White House drug policy office, which wasn't bashful 
about embracing a study touting the failure of a Clinton-era drug policy. 
"We've spent millions on these ads and we are not seeing a return on the 
investment."

Here's the problem. Parents and policy makers, naturally, have a tough time 
putting themselves in the place of a modern teenager to know how that 
teenager might react to, say, a spot of the latest celebrity girl band, 
dolled up and telling kids not to smoke pot. Teenagers already know more 
about these people and their lifestyles than any parent or bureaucrat does.

The formula presupposes a starry-eyed idealization of movie and music stars 
that has been absent since 1959, and it can backfire badly. Britney Spears, 
star of antismoking ads, was recently caught puffing on camera. That 
information is not exactly unavailable to Web-trolling kids. Ditto on who's 
in rehab and who's out--just scroll through TeenPeople.com sometime.

One of the greatest challenges for the antidrug campaigners has been to 
avoid having their message co-opted in a tongue-in-cheek anthem by the very 
kids they hope to persuade not to use drugs. This is probably a battle 
government can never win. It shouldn't even try.

The famous fried eggs of the "This is your brain on drugs" campaign, one of 
the best ads the genre ever produced, was nonetheless quickly reproduced as 
posters wallpapering the bedroom of every teenage stoner in the country. 
And the best way to know you've pulled into the parking lot of the campus 
druggie frat is the prevalence of bumper stickers sporting the slogan 
"D.A.R.E. to Keep Kids off Drugs."

Both were campaigns done by nonprofit groups and at least had some staying 
power in the minds of kids and the society at large. You have to wrack your 
mind to recall any of the more recent federally sponsored ads, despite the 
nearly $1 billion tab. Recent campaigns--like "What's your 
anti-drug?"--come off as dumb and patronizing. Others, by trying to be 
cool, end up making drugs look cool.

Consider a campaign aimed at fighting MDMA, or ecstasy (chemical variations 
of mescaline and amphetamine that have been synthesized for their "feel 
good" effects, according to the Partnership for a Drug Free America Web 
site). With the tagline "Ecstasy: Where's the Love?" it's stylishly shot 
and stylishly cast with lush young things dancing together in great clothes 
and having an apparently fabulous time. Then it flashes alternating 
pictures of a dancing girl and ambulances. It could almost be a trailer for 
hip new independent film.

Guess what? Kids already know drugs are risky. Danger is part of the 
attraction. You couldn't have designed a more appealing image of drug use 
if you tried.

For what it's worth, drug-war strategies have been getting worse, not 
better. Nancy Reagan made fighting the crack cocaine epidemic a priority of 
her time as first lady with "Just Say No." While that campaign too 
eventually became a punch line for the late-night comedy shows (and spoofs 
like "Just Say On--Dyslexics Against Drugs"), it was more successful than 
others because it didn't treat teenagers like idiots. It suggested that 
they were grown-up enough to make a decision themselves.

That principle has gotten nowhere in recent years. Efforts to tag Joe Camel 
with the rise of teenage smoking profoundly missed the point. The 
translation of the celebrity model is that kids are clay in the hands of 
the marketing gods. But trends in the schoolyard have a life of their 
own--more often in reaction against marketing than the opposite.

How else to explain the way inner-city kids latched onto Tommy Hilfiger 
right up until the moment he started trying to appeal to them? Or how rap 
stars have suddenly made a hip-hop totem of the Cadillac Escalade? If 
marketing had tried to produce these effects, it would have failed.

This is where John Walters's recent re-evaluation of the federal programs 
will be important. He has remarked that efforts to target kids before they 
start using drugs may be proving ineffective. His instincts are right, but 
not in the way he thinks they are.

Currently, preteens are presented with a laundry list of dreadful things 
that can happen to them if they smoke pot, do "club drugs" like ecstasy, or 
venture as far afield as heroin. Trouble is, the scare campaign lasts only 
until kids start to observe drugs in action among their peers.

When, at age 12 they are told unequivocally that smoking pot ruins your 
life, that cocaine is instantly addictive and that MDMA will kill you, they 
believe it. And they will believe it up until the exact moment when their 
older brother's friend starts smoking dope, to no immediately perceptible harm.

One way to sidestep this problem would be to downplay the panic alert and 
take a page from the pharmaceutical industry's book. An ad that would get 
kids' attention is one running a real list of the long-term side effects of 
the drugs that kids are already using. It would bring a little reality to a 
world where kids are inclined to think no reality applies. More 
importantly, it would reinforce a message that really works on kids: It's 
your choice. Be informed, there are consequences.

Sure, kids are less motivated by self-preservation than adults. But many 
are motivated by a desire to please others. And that's another place the 
drug campaign could get some traction. The University of Pennsylvania study 
may have found that kids were unimpressed by the latest antidrug campaign, 
but 80% of parents took note of the ads and claimed they were moved to talk 
to their youngsters about drugs.

That should be a major red flag for federal antidrug efforts. As most 
advertisers know, ads reach the people who are already in the market for 
the message. Plenty of studies have shown that the baby boomers, for all 
their own youthful folly, are often unwilling to inquire about what their 
kids are up to. Maybe parents are the ones who need some education.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Terry Liittschwager