Fighting the War on Drugs
Using Advertising to Fight the War on Drugs:
The Power of Social Marketing or a Waste of Money?
Belch & Belch
Purpose/Objective:
• Preventing children from trying and using drugs.
Problem:
• ONDCP and PDFA couldn’t prove that the money being spent on anti-drug messages were reducing drug use among children and young people.
Key issues within the case:
• Between 1987 and 1989, advertisement produced by the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA) relied on scare tactics and stereotypes to deliver their message.
• Campaigns were not geared towards youth of varying ages, different settings and of varying ethnicities.
• Facts were presented in exaggeration, distorted, and misrepresented causing a lack in credibility.
• There was no research or evaluation of the ads to show evidence supporting the success or in relation to the objective.
• Government surveys showed an increase in cocaine, LSD and heroin use.
• Programs were often seen as inadequate and campaigns were preaching to the choir or insulting the intelligence of the audience.
• Created false paradigms by linking terrorism with drugs as opposed to drugs and the illegality of drugs.
• Growing tension between ONDCP and PDFA
• Ads stirred curiosity of drug use in the min ds of females in the 12-13 age group.
• Ads were not pre-tested.
Analysis
During the time that the PDFA was created it is very likely that there was no publication or analysis of the statistics and data associated with children and drug use. This resulted in the distribution of a message based in scare tactics, stereotypes and the PDFA’s inability to target and reach a specific market. Though the PDFA had genuine intentions, the way in which they chose to execute this campaign did not yield the desired outcome. The PDFA failed to relate to their target market through research and analysis caused the facts in the campaign to be presented in exaggeration, distorted and misrepresented. In addition to
The Power of Social Marketing or a Waste of Money?
Belch & Belch
Purpose/Objective:
• Preventing children from trying and using drugs.
Problem:
• ONDCP and PDFA couldn’t prove that the money being spent on anti-drug messages were reducing drug use among children and young people.
Key issues within the case:
• Between 1987 and 1989, advertisement produced by the Partnership for a Drug Free America (PDFA) relied on scare tactics and stereotypes to deliver their message.
• Campaigns were not geared towards youth of varying ages, different settings and of varying ethnicities.
• Facts were presented in exaggeration, distorted, and misrepresented causing a lack in credibility.
• There was no research or evaluation of the ads to show evidence supporting the success or in relation to the objective.
• Government surveys showed an increase in cocaine, LSD and heroin use.
• Programs were often seen as inadequate and campaigns were preaching to the choir or insulting the intelligence of the audience.
• Created false paradigms by linking terrorism with drugs as opposed to drugs and the illegality of drugs.
• Growing tension between ONDCP and PDFA
• Ads stirred curiosity of drug use in the min ds of females in the 12-13 age group.
• Ads were not pre-tested.
Analysis
During the time that the PDFA was created it is very likely that there was no publication or analysis of the statistics and data associated with children and drug use. This resulted in the distribution of a message based in scare tactics, stereotypes and the PDFA’s inability to target and reach a specific market. Though the PDFA had genuine intentions, the way in which they chose to execute this campaign did not yield the desired outcome. The PDFA failed to relate to their target market through research and analysis caused the facts in the campaign to be presented in exaggeration, distorted and misrepresented. In addition to