3.4.1 Television Data

Prior to the ONDCP Media Campaign kickoff, the preponderance of national drug prevention TV ads was produced by PDFA. In both target and comparison sites, total Campaign/PDFA ads far outnumbered other drug ads and accounted for 92.7 percent of all anti-drug ads (see Exhibit 3-1, Exhibit 3-2, and Exhibit 3-3). Campaign PDFA ads are reported in the same category as PDFA ads in general (e.g., PSAs that are part of the PDFA's own rollout campaign) because paid ads that are part of ONDCP's Campaign could not be distinguished without prior imprinting (tagging) of those ads.

For Campaign/PDFA ads alone, target and comparison sites recorded similar frequency (5,099 in target sites and 4,545 in comparison sites) during the pre-Campaign period (see Exhibit 3-2 and Exhibit 3-3). During the Media Campaign, however, the frequency of drug prevention ads increased dramatically in target sites (11,381 ads) and only modestly in comparison sites (5,301 ads). These figures represent a 123.2-percent increase in Campaign/PDFA advertisements in target sites compared with a 16.6-percent increase in comparison sites, presumably due to Campaign-related placement of paid and pro bono PDFA ads.

Because PDFA sponsor verification reports are not yet available, it is not possible to verify whether the increase in frequency of anti-drug ads in target sites is entirely due to the ONDCP Media Campaign. Nevertheless, the data suggest the presence of the ONDCP effort has had a significant impact on drug prevention TV advertising.

Target sites with the largest increases in Campaign/PDFA advertising during the Media Campaign were Washington (280%), Houston (246%), and San Diego (224%) (see Exhibit 3-2 and Exhibit 3-3). Target sites with the smallest increases in Campaign/PDFA advertising include Atlanta (57%) and Denver (61%). Although the Atlanta and Denver increases are modest in comparison to those of other target sites, it is noteworthy that these sites also experienced the highest levels of pre-Campaign advertising.

Comparison sites generally demonstrated moderate increases in PDFA advertising in the intervention period, except for Dallas (see Exhibit 3-2 and Exhibit 3-3), which showed a 67-percent increase. However, compared to its matching target site, Houston, which showed a 246-percent increase in PDFA ads in the same period, the increase in Dallas was not significant.

Audience exposure levels were measured through GRPs in this analysis. GRP represents the percentage of the target viewing audience exposed to the anti-drug messages. Overall, target sites showed a significant increase in audience exposure to anti-drug advertising during the intervention period.

Rate measures the change in frequency or gross rating point from the pre-Campaign period to the intervention period. It is calculated by dividing the intervention amount by the pre-Campaign amount.

Frequency (intervention)
Frequency (baseline)

or

GRP (intervention)
GRP (baseline)

For example, a frequency rate of 1.6 for Atlanta means there were 1.6 times more Campaign/PDFA ads during the intervention period than in the pre-Campaign period.

Prior to the Media Campaign, target and comparison sites revealed little difference in audience exposure to drug prevention ads (9,706.1 total GRPs for target sites and 7,933.5 total GRPs for comparison sites) as seen in Exhibit 3-4, Exhibit 3-5, and Exhibit 3-6. During the Media Campaign, however, total GRPs increased at a rate of 3.7 in target sites. This means that 3.7 times more of the target audience was exposed to the anti-drug messages in the Media Campaign period than in the pre-Campaign period. Meanwhile, comparison sites experienced a total GRP rate increase of only 2.0. An analysis of the sponsor data indicates that increases in audience exposure in target sites is attributable to dramatic increases in both Campaign/PDFA and other drug ads during the intervention period. By contrast, the increased audience exposure in comparison sites is due primarily to other drug advertising.

The increase in audience exposure for both Campaign/PDFA and other drug ads during the Media Campaign may be a reflection of the success of ONDCP's ad buying strategy. The ONDCP plan requested television stations to match paid advertising time with pro bono advertising time. The pro bono spots had to capture the equivalent level of audience exposure (or GRP) as the paid spot. These pro bono contributions would account for the concurrent rise in Campaign/PDFA and other drug ad GRPs in target sites during the intervention. In target sites, Campaign/PDFA ad GRPs increased at a rate of 3.6 and other drug ad GRPs increased at a rate of 3.9 (see Exhibit 3-4, Exhibit 3-5, and Exhibit 3-6). By contrast, comparison site PDFA ad GRPs increased at a rate of only 1.8 and other drug ad GRPs rose by a factor of 3.5.