 |
 |
|
|
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Phase 1 (Report No. 1)
3.3.2.3 Community Response to ONDCP Media Campaign
Two common themes emerged from the key informant interviews: the ads should be unsparing in their portrayal of the destructive power of drugs and the ads should feature local, as opposed to national, celebrities. Many informants felt that youth believe that the "famous" can afford to use drugs and get treatment when it gets out of hand (Atlanta) and that "you have too many people that youth look up to, who aren't putting the anti-drug message out there" (Baltimore). Most informants felt that the ads needed to be more realistic; for example, the girl in the heroin ad (Teeth) "looked too neat and clean" to be a former user. Many informants also believed that the ads should not use scare tactics that are not based on the truth.
A perception that was common across sites was that to reach youth, drug prevention messages require a strong message. An urban middle school administrator in Atlanta had heard students talking about the Frying Pan ad and thought the violence in that ad captured the students' attention.
Some informants felt that anti-marijuana ads featuring young people on a high who are acting-out (such as the woman in the Frying Pan) ad seemed more comical than hard-hitting. The ONDCP marijuana billboards (Cannabis Stupida) drew substantial negative comments from informants everywhere; some informants responded positively to other billboards, but a number felt that they served to advertise marijuana. Many informants reported that the message of the Cannabis Stupida billboard is not understood by most youth (e.g., some youth thought it was pro-marijuana).
A number of informants suggested that the ads need to be more localized and to reflect local issues. Some community members in San Diego were surprised that they had not seen any ads on methamphetamine given that San Diego is considered the "methamphetamine capitol." An educator in Baltimore asserted that "these youths are not afraid"; a Baltimore youth influencer felt that what was needed were "one-on-one, face-to-face, let-me-share-with-you-my-experiences" types of efforts. An effort to feature local people, a perspective shared by informants in many of the sites, was thought to be most effective.
One informant said that the messages were too negative and did not focus enough on the positive things people could do. This informant felt that the negative ads would only work with "low-risk youth." A non-urban youth influencer in Hartford said that the youth in his community have been mentioning the ads and that "they seem to find them credible." Another Hartford non-urban youth influencer related that "the youth are talking about the Frying Pan ad and how it got their attention."
An African American service provider in Atlanta praised the Father and Son at Fence ad because it shows a black father in a positive, pro-active position. The ad prompted him to talk to his own son about drugs. Another service provider had witnessed students at an area school discussing that same ad. Two service providers in Atlanta felt that the I Learned It From You PDFA ad was very effective in conveying to parents the importance of behavior modeling. Community informants reported overall that the ads urging parents to communicate with their youth were very effective.
In general, informants from target sites were more likely than informants in comparison sites to express a belief that anti-drug media messages could be effective in changing norms and behaviors. However, community informants also reported that although messages can be effective, the Media Campaign must be "backed up by other efforts," such as presenting the drug prevention messages in conjunction with alternative activities and integrating the Media Campaign with local training and service delivery (teacher training, prevention programs, workplace activities, and school and parent involvement).
Even the informants who thought the Media Campaign would be effective in changing attitudes thought that changes would occur primarily among younger children and less so among teenagers because of peer pressure and because teenagers simply do not think marijuana use is harmful. (One law enforcement informant in Atlanta said that youth growing up in poverty and violence are making a rational economic decision when they sell drugs, and they are not going to be influenced by advertisements).
The following suggestions were offered frequently by community informants:
- Ads must be aired more frequently-saturate and vary;
- Ads must be shown during the programs youth are most likely to watch;
- Ads must inform; provide youth with the facts about the effects of drug use and give parents information on the signs of youth drug use;
- Use popular music to get the message across;
- Use personal testimony from teenagers-the ads "need to come out of the experiences of youth";
- Create an ad like the McDonald's ad in which Calvin advances from "flipping burgers" to being the manager;
- Feature local personalities respected by young people;
- Stay away from "don't" messages; instead, use messages of hope;
- Avoid sports figures or stars; most adults and youth have the sense that celebrities use drugs themselves and only appear in the ads for the money;
- Include adults of all races and ethnic backgrounds talking to youth in roles in which they serve as positive influences;
- Show other ways of feeling good besides using drugs;
- Use bus billboards more often than highway billboards because many people in the target audience use public transportation;
- Show the ads at school assemblies and in movie theaters; and
- Use a local telephone number at the end of the ad rather than an a toll-free number; especially do not use a toll-free number that is answered by a recording.
Cultural relevance/credibility of anti-drug ads -- Informants were divided on whether anti-drug advertising through minority-owned outlets would be more effective with minorities than ads provided through mainstream outlets. Most informants perceived that the general public was unaware of who owned a station or a newspaper. Furthermore, not all media that targeted minority groups were owned by minorities. Representatives of most Spanish-language outlets agreed that minority groups were more likely to pay attention to an advertisement that reached them through a minority-owned radio or TV station or publication than to an ad from another source.
In Milwaukee, several key informants agreed that minority groups were more likely to pay attention to ads that reached them through minority-owned outlets. One felt that there was greater variation between minority and non-minority adults than among youth (e.g., more white youth than white adults are familiar with radio stations that African Americans listen to). Two Milwaukee media informants had negative responses to the ads; one complained that his station had not been approached, that blacks from the community should be used in the ads, and that more of the paid ads should be aired on the radio because radio is the medium to which blacks pay the most attention.
One minority newspaper editor had similar concerns. He said that African American newspapers had been excluded from the ONDCP Media Campaign until congressional members intervened. He felt that some of the PDFA anti-drug ads were culturally insensitive. For example, the ad asking "Are you waiting to talk to your youth about pot?" uses a "non-urban" term for marijuana that is not used by African Americans, who refer to it as "weed" or "blow." He also commented that African Americans did not understand the "Cannabis Stupida" billboard.
Another media informant reported that crack-cocaine and cocaine are problems in the African American community, and not marijuana. She advised using real-life situations in advertisements (e.g., showing babies at the hospital and their mothers in jail). Another informant said that African American women rarely see themselves portrayed in PSAs and that ads depicting only affluent white women have no credibility with the African American population.
Most informants, however, said that what mattered was who delivered the message, not who owned the media outlet. Most believed that a newspaper or radio or TV station, regardless of ownership, would be credible with minorities if it presented issues of concern in their communities. An informant from an Hispanic outlet in San Diego indicated that several ONDCP ads were rejected because they had little connection with the Hispanic audience there.
