|
|
| Kids, Drugs and Bureaucrats |
|
Posted by CN Staff on May 20, 2002 at 21:19:09 PT By Jim Burke Source: Washington Post 
Four years ago a joint campaign was launched by the public and private sectors to fight drug use by young people. The original vision of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign -- the vision Congress signed up for in backing it -- was focused and promising: • The best and brightest minds in advertising would provide strategic counsel and advertising -- pro bono. • The federal government would provide close to $190 million per year to purchase high-quality media exposure, thus providing consistent delivery of hard-hitting ads to parents and children. In addition, $1 in free exposure would be required for every federal dollar spent on media buys. It was a good idea then, and it still is. But today, as Congress considers reauthorization of the anti-drug campaign, its future is very much in doubt. The program has fallen into a bureaucratic trap, and only strong legislative action can get it out. We in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America -- an organization whose work has been augmented by the national media campaign -- were warned. Some in Congress said putting large sums of money in any federal agency would create a bureaucracy. Leaders in business shared painful experiences of having private-sector practices strangled by Beltway processes, consultants and political pressures. Much of this has proven prophetic. Indeed, it appears the only chance Congress now has to save this program is to legislatively fence out a bureaucracy that has been eating the campaign alive and to mandate a return to the campaign's original vision. When the media campaign began in 1998, it had a remarkable impact in the marketplace. Anti-drug messages were everywhere, and with a combination of paid and free media exposure channeling hard-hitting messages over the airwaves, the percentage of teenagers seeing or hearing anti-drug ads every day jumped 41 percent in the first year. Key drug-related attitudes moved in the right direction and, most important, teen drug use declined. Then the tentacles of bureaucracy began creeping in. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which coordinates the paid media effort, spent nearly $1 million to develop an overarching communications strategy for the campaign. What resulted was an enormous, unproven theoretical construct for the program. While consultants were paid handsomely for their advice, parents and children paid dearly as the effort moved from its focused beginning and gradually lost its way. Despite the counsel of seasoned marketing professionals who volunteer their time and talent to the partnership, campaign coordinators and consultants disregarded lessons from the past and altered the original vision of the campaign in unfathomable ways. Instead of focusing on a singular, proven theme in all advertising (e.g., ads about the risk of drugs), they forced dozens of themes into the advertising. Fulfilling the campaign's theoretical design required the hiring of more than two dozen vendors and subcontractors. Eventually a bureaucracy with little to no experience in managing marketing efforts of this size and scope took over -- the thing Congress feared most. Early on, one business CEO described the campaign's burgeoning architecture as an utter nightmare. As a marketing person and former CEO, I would have to agree. Last week ONDCP released new data and concluded the campaign has "flopped." But well-respected scientists say that conclusion isn't supported by the data, which actually say the media campaign appears to be having a positive influence on parents and that teen drug use is unchanged. As for a "finding" ONDCP emphasizes regarding exposure to the campaign and favorable attitudes toward drugs, the report states: "This unlikely finding is best interpreted as anomalous rather than as a basis for inferring negative campaign effects." ONDCP's choice to spin the findings so negatively is irresponsible. We had early indications the campaign was getting off track back in 2000. Recommendations such as having the ads speak to older kids, focusing the campaign's messages and increasing spending to ensure those messages were seen and heard consistently were shared with ONDCP. All have been ignored. Steadily, as the campaign's resources have been consumed, fewer and fewer dollars have been invested in the essence of the campaign's original vision: media buys to deliver messages to parents and children. The campaign's ad buying has been reduced from what should have been 100 percent of its original $195 million allocation to just $65 million for ads aimed at parents and $65 million for children -- probably much less when contractor fees and related costs are deducted. This means additional exposure from the free media has also been drastically reduced. With fewer messages being delivered to the target audience -- and with multiple themes forced into the advertising -- is it any wonder the campaign has had a negligible impact in the past two years? Media-based drug education programs can work. Independent research verifies this not only for anti-drug advertising but also for other focused, research-based efforts. The problem with the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is its grandiose, bureaucratized structure. Since the media campaign began in 1998, adolescent drug use has declined, but that decline has stalled over the past two years. Congress should give this program a final chance to get its act together. We know it can work if it's focused and the ads are tested. There's simply no more cost-effective approach to educating millions of kids, generation after generation, about the dangers of drugs, than via media-based education. The writer, chairman emeritus of Johnson & Johnson, is chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Source: Washington Post (DC) Related Articles & Web Site: Crossfire: Do Drug Ads Work? Wasted - Wall Street Journal Drug Control Office Ads Entice Kids To Try Drugs Drug Czar Walters' Assertion of Ads' Flop Absurd New Drug Czar Says Ad Campaign has Flopped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
|
Comment #9 posted by el_toonces on May 21, 2002 at 12:32:44 PT:
|
| ...Ms. Graham recounts in her autobiography the first meeting she attended in which government and 'public health' reps attempted to recruit the media -- in particular, the newspaper she loved -- into the WoSD. She tells of her initial revulsion at the idea, then her later acceptance of what her advisors recommended -- "Just Say Yes". If she could read this swill, I think she would start spinning, if only from regret. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #8 posted by goneposthole on May 21, 2002 at 07:58:52 PT |
| It's a piece of work. [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo MD on May 21, 2002 at 07:24:49 PT:
|
| Stephen J. Gould, one of America's premier scientists is dead of cancer: http://www.msnbc.com/news/754908.asp Gould was outspoken about his use of cannabis during his treatment. He also survived 21 years with a diagnosis that has a median survival of 8 months. What does PDFA have to say about this? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on May 21, 2002 at 06:52:55 PT |
| If they would hire 1950 'consultants' at 100,000 dollars per anum, the government would recoup something like 75 million dollars in taxes. The money could be frittered out another window, and no one would be the wiser. "A penny spent is a penny taxed." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #5 posted by Dark Star on May 21, 2002 at 06:36:28 PT |
| I am not one to enourage paranoia or conspiracy theory, but let us consider the source here. In just 15 minutes research, I was able to establish the following: Johnson and Johnson owns 197 companies in 54 countries. Among those are included J & J itself and the following subsidiary pharmaceutical companies: Alza, makers of Concerta (methylphenidate, same base drug as Ritalin), and Ditropan. Cannabis has been suggested as a substitue for ADHD drugs, and is excellent for bladder spasms, the indication for Ditropan. McNeil, makers of the family of Tylenol products including all the various narcotic combinations sushc as Tylenol #3, Tylox, etc., Imodium and Motrin. Cannabis is an excellent analgesic, treats diarrhea very well, and is an effective anti-inflammatory without burning out the stomach. Janssen, makers of Duragesic (narcotic painkiller), and Risperdal (major tranquilizer/anti-psychotic). Cannabis might substitute for these in some patients. Ortho, makers of Haldol (major tranquilizer/anti-psychotic), Pancrease (digestive enzymes), Topamax (anti-convulsant) and Ultram (narcotic analgesic). Again, cannabis has been suggested as a subsitute for all these medications. Could it be that the author of this piece has a conflict of interest? Consider that Lester Grinspoon has suggested that cannabis, if legal, could replace 30% of current pharmaceuticals. Imagine the billions and billions of dollars of profit to J & J as they disappear. Should we trust companies with this much power? [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #4 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on May 21, 2002 at 06:12:54 PT |
| They just featured this article as their yes/no call-in on Washington Journal. A surprising number of callers on the yes line, although one did mean to call in as no. While the "no" line made some good points - and I was actually on hold waiting to be the next No when they switched to the live House coverage - it's always interesting listening to the "yes" people, since these are the people we need to convince. The last yes caller said the 1980s Just Say No ads worked because "when someone handed me that big bong, I just said no." If I had gone next, I would have asked if he thought his friend with the bong was a criminal and needed to be locked away. Then I would have made my point somewhat like this: It's hard enough to un-sell something, but it's even harder to track how well your ad campaign has un-sold it. However, we have more high school seniors addicted to heroin now that at any time since we began studying. The DARE program has been proven ineffective - how are 30 second advertisements supposed to succeed when a lengthy class fails? Here's a great cartoon mocking the whole ad campaign, and showing you how to use its logic in your daily life: [ Post Comment ] |
|
Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on May 21, 2002 at 05:11:25 PT:
|
| Dan Forbes has written extensively on Barry's de facto payola scheme; that it didn't ruffle some feathers in high places only shows that the feathers have been tarred down with endemic corruption. His article remains the definitive source of information on how it was done: The Drug War Gravy Train http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread5245.shtml As to this article: When the media campaign began in 1998, it had a remarkable impact in the marketplace. Anti-drug messages were everywhere, and with a combination of paid and free media exposure channeling hard-hitting messages over the airwaves, the percentage of teenagers seeing or hearing anti-drug ads every day jumped 41 percent in the first year. Key drug-related attitudes moved in the right direction and, most important, teen drug use declined. So. Here we have a member of Corporate America...who says it was just fine to arm-twist all those collaborating writers and producers...to write anti-illicit drug messages in their programs...to get that reduced rate. I am assuming that Mr. Burke is a free-marketer, the kind of person who rails at government 'interference' in the affairs of his business - like worker safety standards. Yet, he's all for the US Government using yours and mine tax dollars for this scheme. But, it gets better: We in the Partnership for a Drug-Free America -- an organization whose work has been augmented by the national media campaign -- were warned. Some in Congress said putting large sums of money in any federal agency would create a bureaucracy. Leaders in business shared painful experiences of having private-sector practices strangled by Beltway processes, consultants and political pressures. Ah, yes, the perpetual howl of the wannabe plutocrat: "If I ran my business the way the government ran things, I'd be broke!" This statement is most often spoken by government contractors whose daily bread is made overcharging Uncle for goods and services shoddily rendered or not rendered at all...in short, the very same people who would dry up and blow away if rigid government control of wasteful practices would be fully engaged. The same kind of wasteful practices that the ONDCP and other governmental organizations have performed in their wastrel War on (Some) Drugs. And Mr. Burke has the brass cojones to whine about tax dollars he helped the ONDCP to waste? Now that times are tight, and the money doesn't flow as much, the vultures have seen their carrion ration being cut. And the noise we are hearing in articles like this is the squawking of their protests...and fighting over the leavings. Music to my ears... [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by BGreen on May 20, 2002 at 23:42:50 PT |
| "The writer, chairman emeritus of Johnson & Johnson, is chairman of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America." Give me a freakin' break. If it was truly a "Drug-Free America," there wouldn't even be a "Johnson & Johnson." [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by qqqq on May 20, 2002 at 23:17:02 PT |
| ......Now,,the finger pointing continues,,as the buck is passed in a circular charade....The numerous "coalitions",,"partnerships",,"offices of",,"administrations"........ It is quite striking to realize how many anti organizations exsist....Now,the blame game continues,as this corporate imperial epicurian jackass,attempts to confuse the issue with absurd tidbits of eloquent bullshit!.... .."What resulted was an enormous, unproven theoretical construct for the program. While consultants were paid handsomely for their advice, parents and children paid dearly as the effort moved from its focused beginning and gradually lost its way."........ ...Yes,,,it's true; "parents and children paid dearly..".....yup,,they paid dearly for a bunch of idiots to do experimental things with tax money ....It's not like,"We The People", ever asked the government to fund this ad campaign!...yet,,in hundreds of articles like this one,,there is an assumed presupposition that the whole anti-drug campaign was necessary in the first place....I dont know about you,,but I'd like to be able to vote on shit like the drug war...Our votes have been turned into a strange new demockratic game....In the states,we are allowed to vote on propositions,and such,,that have important ramifications for change in the law,,but nationally,our votes have been limited to a two party game...I am still a really pissed off Californian.,,and even more so after the Texas Enron Energy ripoff...I have zero confidence in the integrity of the federal government,,and the state governments are becoming little more than spineless tools of the empire. ...Statements such as this are from the mind of a CrackPot,living in Freakwood City!: "The campaign's ad buying has been reduced from what should have been 100 percent of its original $195 million allocation to just $65 million for ads aimed at parents and $65 million for children --" ....WHAT????....Oh,,what a waste!....only $130 million out of $195 million??What a shock!...That means $65 million has been wasted and mis-spent on stuff that really wasn't necessary to make "parents and children" not do drugs.?...I challenge anyone to explain what this idiots rhetoric has to do with reality....he makes me look normal..... Here's one of the best gemstones from the article: "Media-based drug education programs can work. Independent research verifies this not only for anti-drug advertising but also for other focused, research-based efforts. The problem with the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is its grandiose, bureaucratized structure..." ...Astounding,,yet tragically silly......The best of the best is this: " Congress should give this program a final chance to get its act together. We know it can work if it's focused and the ads are tested. There's simply no more cost-effective approach to educating millions of kids, generation after generation, about the dangers of drugs, than via media-based education." ....Did I mis-read that??,,,did that say;" Congress should give this program a final chance to get its act together." ?? ..Does this mean that we are financing program that "dont have their act together"???...."act".???? This article deserves a spot in the anti Hall of Fame. [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |