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.