[Senate Hearing 106-636]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-636
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY ANTI-DRUG
MEDIA CAMPAIGN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
63-938 cc WASHINGTON : 2000
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
SLADE GORTON, Washington FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky TOM HARKIN, Iowa
CONRAD BURNS, Montana BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah PATTY MURRAY, Washington
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
JON KYL, Arizona
Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
James H. English, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JON KYL, Arizona BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio) (ex officio)
Professional Staff
Patricia A. Raymond
Tammy Perrin
Lula Edwards
Chip Walgren (Minority)
Administrative Support
Elizabeth Blevins (Minority)
deg.C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening remarks.................................................. 1
Statement of Alan Levitt, Director, National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign, Office of National Drug Control Policy,
Department of the Treasury..................................... 5
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.......................... 5
Influencing youth................................................ 6
Pro bono match................................................... 7
Other campaign components........................................ 8
Examples of the match............................................ 9
Media campaign impact............................................ 10
Technical assistance............................................. 12
Credits towards pro bono match................................... 14
Scripts.......................................................... 16
Entertainment industry........................................... 17
Public service obligation valve.................................. 19
Prepared statement of Alan Levitt................................ 20
Rationale for an Anti-drug media campaign........................ 22
The influence of popular culture................................. 23
The media campaign's communication strategy...................... 24
The media campaign & public law.................................. 24
The media campaign's major non-governmental partners............. 25
The integrated nature of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign....................................................... 28
The campaign's entertainment initiative.......................... 31
The role of programming.......................................... 33
The pro-bono match requirement................................... 34
Results of the anti-drug campaign................................ 36
Youth attitudes and behavior have changed since the launch of the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign........................ 37
Transparency of the media campaign............................... 38
Statement of Peggy Conlon, President, The Advertising Council,
Inc............................................................ 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Statement of Richard Bonnette, President, Partnership for Drug
Free America................................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Recommendations.................................................. 46
Statement of Daniel Forbes, freelance writer..................... 49
Prepared statement......................................59
(iii)
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY ANTI-DRUG
MEDIA CAMPAIGN
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Treasury and
General Government,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 9:34 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (chairman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Campbell and Dorgan.
OPENING REMARKS
Senator Campbell. The Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee
will be in order. I would like to welcome everyone here today.
Given the recent articles on the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) media campaign, I and some of the other
members of the committee have some serious concerns and I felt
it was important for the committee to have an opportunity to
look more closely at the campaign.
An article in The Washington Post on January 14, 2000
prompted me to hold this hearing. For those of you who have not
seen the article, it discusses how the ONDCP is providing
networks credit for running anti-drug messages. The article
also touches on the issue of the Federal Government influencing
the creative process, and that is also one of the things that
we want to talk about today.
I have to tell you right from the beginning, I think it is
inappropriate that we have to find out in this committee, we
who are elected to pass legislation and to oversee the budget,
what is going on by reading it on the front page of a
newspaper. By the same token, I do commend The Washington Post
for bringing this to the attention of Congress.
I have looked over some of the testimony that has already
been turned in and the summary, and I have to tell you that I
note with some interest that the ONDCP's summary implies that
Congress was kind of a full partner in this, that we knew about
it, that we had done hearings on it, and I totally reject that
idea. I have been here 4 years. We have done no hearings on
this, and in checking with Congressman Kolbe's staff, our House
counterpart, they have done no hearings on it, either, although
there was one slight sentence that kind of flew by in the
process of doing another hearing.
I also want to reject the idea that, in my view, the ONDCP
was given legislative authority to enter into credit
agreements. In their summary, they cite 21 U.S.C. section 1801.
Well, I have looked it up and read everything from 1801 to
1804, and that language does speak of a number of things, of
contracts in lieu of contributions and things of that nature,
in-kind contributions, I mean. There is nothing in here that
say anything about credits that I can understand. It talks
about the purchase of media time and space, the talent reuse
payments, out-of-pocket advertising production costs, testing
and evaluation of advertising, evaluation and effectiveness of
media campaign, negotiated fees for winning bidders on request
proposals, things of that nature.
Under Paragraph (H), it does talk about the entertainment
industry, collaborations to fashion anti-drug messages in
motion pictures, television programs, popular music,
interactive media projects, things of that nature, but at no
time does it say that there would be any kind of quid pro quo
agreements to trade credits for time. In fact, if you go
through 1803 and 1804, in fact, in 1804, it does, under
prohibitions, say that it is prohibited to supplant current
anti-drug community-based coalitions and to supplant current
pro bono public service time donated by national and local
broadcasting networks.
We put that in there. This committee put that in there
because we were worried at the time, although all of us support
a media campaign to reduce drug use by youngsters, that this
huge amount of money, $1 billion in 5 years, could become a
windfall for the media and, in fact, could end up supplanting
what they were supposed to do anyway. It was not supposed to be
a windfall. It was not supposed to be any kind of new added
money that they could rely on in lieu of actually doing the
advertising.
As appropriators, we place the responsibility of ensuring
that Federal funds are spent wisely and carefully. There are
tough choices we have to continually face and many worthy
projects were not funded when we were asked for the original
money. We put a lot of money into this, as everybody here
knows. In my myriad of notes, I have for fiscal year 1998, $195
million; fiscal year 1999, $185 million; fiscal year 2000, $185
million. That is a total so far of $565 million--$565 million--
and in order to be able to do that, because we do support a
media campaign, we had to rob some other programs.
We had to take money from other programs and they were very
upset about us taking the money out of the program. We had
budget caps in this committee, as all committees did. We had to
live within those budget caps under the budget agreement and it
was not easy to find the money to put into this program. When
we have scarce dollars, we have to exercise stewardship, and I
think everyone in this community knows that.
We included the language. We worked very hard to make sure
the campaign was a success. We also put a section in, if you
will remember in those days a few years ago, that would require
ONDCP to come back and give us some kind of verifiable
information on whether the program was working, some type of
measuring stick that we could use to justify further
appropriations for it. We have gotten some numbers back, but we
have not under the original agreement gotten the full study
back, as you well know.
I am most concerned that the ONDCP may be allowing the
networks a way out of their contractual obligations to run the
anti-drug ads. As I understand it, the networks could be
getting credit for running anti-drug messages under the
existing law that would have run anyway. Now, if the shoe is on
the other foot, I am not sure that we would have been treated
quite so well. But as I understand it, under this agreement, we
pay them for ad space, then give them credits so that they can
then sell the same ad space again to commercial advertisers. If
that is not a windfall, I do not know what is. They are being
paid twice. One of our first concerns when we went to bat for
it was exactly that, and that is why we put the language in
dealing with this issue.
But let us go on. Today, we have Alan Levitt of the ONDCP,
who runs the media campaign. I am hoping Mr. Levitt will be
able to tell us about the current status of the campaign, and
shed some light on how that program is running. I have not been
able to find any kind of verifiable yardstick about how it is
administered with some kind of cohesive answer. I would also
like him to address the news articles and clarify exactly what
is going on.
We also have Peggy Conlon from the Ad Council, which
provides us with a very unique perspective. The Ad Council is
an organization which assists the nonprofit world in
advertising marketing campaigns focused on social themes and
attitudes, and I am hoping Ms. Conlon can provide us with some
insight and information on how the public service ads, or the
PSAs, as they are called, work in the commercial marketplace.
With Ms. Conlon, we have Richard Bonnette, President of the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA). PDFA is an
organization whose mission is to reduce the drug use in this
country through media communication, and I certainly applaud
their efforts. They have been involved in delivering anti-drug
messages throughout the year, for over 10 years, in fact.
This is not a question about who supports reducing teenage
drug use. We all do, and we are not the bad guys here, but we
have to account not only to our constituents but a lot of other
people, too, about where the money is going. So, let us make
sure that we are on the same page from that standpoint. We do
not oppose the media campaign. We do not oppose spending money
on reducing drug usage. But this, I think, although it may not
violate the letter of the law, I think it violates the spirit
of what we want to do.
With that, we will proceed to the first witness. Oh, excuse
me. I apologize. I would like to give Senator Dorgan, the
ranking minority, an opportunity to speak to us.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. This is
an interesting issue and, I think, an important issue. Last
weekend at the Super Bowl, my understanding is that some 30-
second ads were sold for $2 million for a 30-second
advertisement. Why? Why would anyone pay $2 million for a 30-
second advertisement on television? Because those who know
these things know that advertisements on television are
extraordinarily powerful. They affect a lot of things in this
country, what people wear, what people purchase, what people
drive, how people choose the airlines they fly. We know and the
private sector knows that television is a powerful, powerful
medium.
Now, a decision was made by Congress to spend a substantial
amount of money, $1 billion, on television advertising, trying
to persuade young people not to take drugs and telling them of
the dangers of taking drugs. That was an experiment of sorts.
We have never done that before. We do not know the consequences
of it. It is an experiment. But all of us embarked on that
experiment together because we believed it was worth doing. We
are in the process of trying to measure as we move along what
effect, if any, this has had on drug use by young Americans.
It probably was inevitable that in the context of an
experiment like this, we would also run into some controversy.
I do not diminish the controversy. I think it is important and
something that we ought to understand and get to the bottom of.
Recently, a magazine article, I believe authored by one of
the witnesses that will appear this morning, Mr. Daniel Forbes,
claimed that the Office of National Drug Control Policy lured
the networks into an agreement to place anti-drug messages into
regular network shows, and, in fact, there were scripts
furnished and approved by a Federal agency and so on. It raised
a lot of questions. There has been since that article denials
and charges back and forth and a piece that I saw in the Wall
Street Journal that said much is being made of little or
nothing here. So there is a lot of controversy swirling about
this.
I agree with the chairman. I do not think the fact that
there is some controversy raised ought to diminish the effort
that is being made in this experiment that we are attempting,
which I think is a very important experiment. But because these
questions are raised, I think we ought to try to understand
them and get to the bottom of them.
Without at all diminishing Mr. Forbes, I would say that as
someone who has been in public life for some long, long while,
as has my colleague from Colorado, we know that there is from
time to time a difference between a news article and the facts.
I do not allege that is always the case. There are a lot of
wonderful journalists and it is an honorable profession. But we
need to understand, what are the facts? People see things
differently, represent them differently. Let us try to sift
through all this and understand what has happened and is what
has happened here something that is countenanced by those of us
in Congress who supported this program and do support this
program.
So I commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
am anxious to hear the witnesses. I want this program to work.
All of us have the same goals here. All of us want very much
for our children to get the message that taking drugs is
something that they should not do. It is bad for all Americans,
and bad for children. So we want this to work, and I think this
hearing is a step to try to understand what this controversy is
about, to resolve it, and to move on. Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much.
Senator Campbell. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Dorgan.
We have worked well together and certainly our interests are
the same in trying to reduce drug use by our young people.
With that, we will go to the first witness, Mr. Alan
Levitt, the Director of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. Mr. Levitt, if you would like to proceed.
STATEMENT OF ALAN LEVITT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL YOUTH
ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN, OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY
Mr. Levitt. Thank you. On behalf of ONDCP and Director
McCaffrey, thank you for the chance to testify today about the
National Youth----
Senator Campbell. By the way, we did invite General
McCaffrey to appear. He had a conflict, as you probably know.
Mr. Levitt. He is at a prayer breakfast this morning.
Chairman Campbell, Senator Dorgan, your bipartisan support
of this campaign is very much appreciated. I have some opening
remarks but respectfully request that my complete written
testimony be submitted for the record.
Senator Campbell. We have that on file.
NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Mr. Levitt. We are indebted to Mr. Jim Burke and Dick
Bonnette of the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, Dr. Alan
Leshner and the National Institute of Drug Abuse, Major General
Art Dean and the 5,000 Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of
America, Peggy Conlon of the Ad Council, and Wally Snyder of
the American Advertising Federation and the National
Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors. These
are our key partners in the campaign. I would also like to
recognize the members of the law enforcement community and
other community organizations and public health organizations
in this room today.
Finally, I would like to recognize our advertising and
communication partners. Tro Piliguian is the CEO of Ogilvy
North America and is here. Ogilvy has just been voted the best
ad agency on the East Coast by Ad Week, and Paul Johnson, the
Regional President for Fleishman-Hillard, provides us with a
world class communications team. Last month, Fleishman was
named Agency of the Decade by Inside PR.
A word about myself. I am a career civil servant. I spent
the last 30 years of my career doing public education and media
outreach efforts on such concepts as energy conservation,
environmental protection, hunting and conservation, science,
and substance abuse.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand where the
campaign began and the factors that precipitated it. To remind
us all of the landscape in 1996 and 1997, there was more than a
doubling of drug use among youth. The perceptions of harm was
decreasing. There was a ``not in my backyard'' syndrome that
this was a poor black inner-city problem.
Congress recognized the seriousness of the situation and
legislation was passed authorizing this campaign, a huge
bipartisan commitment and historic public health communication
initiative. We did not take this lightly. We spent 8 months
developing a plan. We talked to over 200 experts and set up
expert panels. We gathered the best and the brightest minds in
behavioral science, advertising, communications, substance
abuse, and research. We garnered the best practices of the
public and private sectors and looked at very successful, not
just consumer product marketing campaigns, but behavioral
change programs that got people to wear seat belts, or use
designated drivers, or conduct breast cancer awareness.
What we developed was a strategy which we affectionately
call the ``Burgundy Bible,'' which is the underpinnings of the
entire campaign. All of our strategic messages and the
rationale behind them are listed there. Simply put, it is a
communications strategy which was broken down into message
areas for both youth and parents and youth influential adults--
four for adults and four for youth. The strategy was based on
what research and the experts told us. Everything we do in the
campaign, everything we do in advertising, in programming, in
the Internet is linked to one of these strategic messages.
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Strategic Message Focus
Youth
Norm Education
Positive Consequences
Negative Consequences
Resistance Skills
Parents/Caregivers
Perceptions of Harm
Your Child at Risk
Personal Efficacy
Parenting Skills
----------------------------------------------------------------
INFLUENCING YOUTH
The experts told us to communicate to the youth wherever
they are. If you look at youth, of course, they are the center
of their environment and they are not just influenced by ads.
They are influenced by programming. They are influenced by the
Internet, but also by coaches and the faith community and
teachers and a whole variety of other influences in their
culture, environment. We set out to try and change many of
those, on the drug messages, on the information about drugs
that were coming from those areas. The experts told us to go
beyond advertising and get it down to the community level, and
we have done that.
This following chart sort of gives you an idea of how we
approached the campaign, for one of the strategic messages on
parenting skills. And you see we have paid advertising, public
service advertising, a whole range of other techniques to
change behavior.
The campaign is structured in six components. Advertising,
of course, is the most visible. More than 200 of the top ad
agencies in the country work pro bono through the Partnership
for a Drug-Free America to produce our ads. The pro bono match
is one of the unique and most successful concepts of this
campaign. For the advertising, last year, you mandated 100
percent match in public service. The first year, it was our own
negotiation tactics. These charts are also in your packet. You
can see there are six ways we get to the environment of the
children, and advertising is the biggest.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T13FE03S.000
PRO BONO MATCH
The next chart talks a little bit about the pro bono match.
You can see that for every 48 cents we are spending of taxpayer
dollars, we are getting $1. We are spending 48 cents, we are
getting ads--actually, it is even a better deal than that,
because Ogilvy is the largest media buyer for broadcast media
in this country, so they get a good deal just on their volume.
But in addition to the Ogilvy rate, we get the pro bono match,
which is almost equal to that, plus programming, plus a whole
range of other kinds of in-kind contributions, like Websites
and materials for schools and teachers.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T13FE03S.001
OTHER CAMPAIGN COMPONENTS
Not as visible, but no less important, are the other
components of the campaign, including the Internet, which is
the fastest-growing area of influence for adolescents, second
only in influence to television with respect to where youth get
their information. Over 10 million youth and parents have
visited our Websites. We are about to launch Websites in six
other languages, including Spanish and five Asian languages.
These are for parents.
The entertainment industry, although we are spending about
$1.5 million to do the outreach to the entertainment industry,
is probably the most highly leveraged and effective component
and of our efforts. We provide technical assistance to writers
and producers. A lot of that information comes directly from
the National Institute of Drug Abuse, where we are spending
over half-a-billion dollars a year to find out more about drugs
and behavior issues with kids.
We also do a whole variety of technical briefings and
outreach to the creative community. Most recently, we have done
one on sex, drugs, and teens in partnership with the Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. We had about 20 writers and
producers attending that in New York. This was in December.
We have public education and news media outreach, which
have contributed more than 400 million other impressions about
the drug issue in magazines and newspapers across the country.
One of the efforts we have done with the New York Times is an
anti-drug teachers' guide. This was part of a pro bono match.
We have almost 100 other partnerships with groups like the
YMCA, which has just instituted its first after-school program
with a drug prevention component for middle-school youth. The
Future Farmers of America, the largest youth organization in
the country, has a writing contest about drugs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Pro Bono Match
Public health organizations with drug-related public service
messages benefit from match:
--265,000 TV and radio time slots
--168 million Internet impressions
100 Black Men
Alanon/Alateen
American Symphony Orchestra League
America's Promise
Big Brothers Big Sisters of America
Boys and Girls Club
Boys Town USA
Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice/Justice Policy Institute
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention/Health and Human Services
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment/Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control
Connect for Kids (The Benton Foundation)
Country Music Association
Do Good, Mentor a Child/Save the Children USA
Drunk Driving Prevention/U.S. Department of Transportation
Education Excellence Partnership
Educational Testing Service
Girl Scouts of the USA
Give a Kid a Hand/International Advertising Association
Harvard Mentoring Project
Health and Human Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Admin.
Hepatitis Foundation International
Kids Peace
Mentoring USA
Mothers Against Drunk Driving
National Action Council of Minority Engineers
National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency, Inc.
National Crime Prevention Coalition
National Fatherhood Initiative
National 4H Council
National Inhalant Prevention Coalition
National Institute on Drug Abuse
Parental Responsibility/Department of Health and Human Services
Parents at First Teachers/El Valor
Partnership for a Drug-Free America
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports
Points of Light Foundation
Prevent Child Abuse America
Recording Artists, Actors and Athletes Against Drunk Driving/Department
of Transportation
Talking with Kids about Tough Issues (Children Now/Kaiser Family Fnd)
The Reiner Foundation/Families and Work Institute (Early Childhood Dev)
YMCA
----------------------------------------------------------------
EXAMPLES OF THE MATCH
I would like to submit for the record about a half-a-dozen
letters and other materials from outside organizations.
Senator Campbell. Without objection, that will be included.
Mr. Levitt. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to show now two
different approaches to fulfilling the pro bono match. The
first is two public service announcements. We have gotten
265,000 radio and TV public service time slots that we have
given away to 45 different organizations. You should also have
this in your packet. That is done through a process with the Ad
Council, and I will just show two of these right now.
[A videotape was played.]
Senator Campbell. I might mention, Mr. Levitt, I do not
think anyone on the committee has any problem with that type of
ad. We all know it is an ad, probably very effective. It is
measurable. That is not subliminal.
Go ahead and proceed.
Mr. Levitt. I think Peggy Conlon will talk a little bit
more about these ads and that process, but I would like to show
now some examples of the television programming that we have
credited in the pro bono match.
[A videotape was played.]
MEDIA CAMPAIGN IMPACT
Mr. Levitt. Senator Campbell, the most important news about
the campaign is that it is working. We are already seeing
changes and reported many of the results to this committee in
the last year. The number of parents who have had discussions
with their kids about drugs has increased from 44 to 57
percent. The percentage of teens exposed to anti-drug messages
every day has increased 41 percent. And in the last year, the
percentage of teens who strongly agree that cool people do not
smoke marijuana rose by 14 percent.
There has also been a tremendous impact in the prevention
community. Just at the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and
Drug Information, there has been almost a three-fold increase
in calls for anti-drug information, and many of the anti-drug
coalitions at community levels have experienced a three- or
four-fold increase in phone calls. The Ad Council is also
helping us in one of our campaigns to promote the concept of
community anti-drug coalitions.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to set
the record straight about some misinformation contained in some
of the inaccurate press reports that you have referred to. I
can understand your concern. The reports were very alarming,
and I think many of them are quoting people who have no
understanding of this campaign. People who are involved in this
campaign do not see in any way that we are intruding on their
creative freedom.
Taken out of context by reporters and others not familiar
with the campaign, the story attracted press attention
throughout the country. There were unfounded allegations of
attacks on the First Amendment, ``Big Brother,'' and
nonexistence conspiracies involving the Government and the
networks. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is the most public and open communications campaign in
the history of this country. We believe it is a matter of
public law. Our appropriations and authorization language, we
believe, gives us as we interpret it, a mandate for this. We
have been very clear in all of our contracts, in all of the
briefings to other Congressional staff and to this
subcommittee. This is the fourth committee to whom we have
talked about the pro bono match. Articles have been on the
front page of the Los Angeles Times over 1 year ago, in 1998.
We had articles in Variety and in USA Today that have talked
about this. We have not done this in secret.
We are doing it because it is the way you change behavior.
There are about 70 organizations in this country that actively
lobby the entertainment industry from one issue or another to
change programming. Every single one of these organizations, if
you give them the choice of having ads or programming, would
take programming, hands down, because that is what the experts
tell us. You need that in addition to advertisements and the
other channels of communication.
We have had a GAO audit where we have shared this
information for the last year, and the pro bono match credit
for programming has been mentioned in two Presidential press
conferences in the last year.
Mr. Chairman, the campaign is reaching millions of parents
and kids every week with the truth about drugs. Thousands of
partners are signing on as well as communities across the
nation. I am honored to have devoted the last 4 years or 3
years of my life to this campaign and to see the progress that
we have collectively made.
The authorization of this campaign was a bipartisan
demonstration of the national will to get at this problem,
youth drug use. You gave us the resources and we jumped on it
with both feet. Drug use is going down in this country. By any
measure, this is the ``gold standard'' of public communication
programs. It was planned by the experts, it is being
implemented by the experts, and it is being evaluated by the
National Institute of Drug Abuse and the Annenberg School of
Communications, through the most prestigious institutions in
the country.
It is also recognized as a model in the public health
community. In May, it will be in an article in the Journal of
Public Health Management and in the Public Health
Communications Journal. Over 25 other nations have sought our
advice and dozens of cities and States are looking into the
same kinds of programs, not to mention other Federal agencies.
Again, the Media Campaign is working. We have 4 million
chronically addicted people in this country and we are working
to stop that from growing, and in the long run, ultimately
reduce it.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions.
Senator Campbell. Thank you for your comments. First, I
would point out to you that we have no problem with all of the
agencies you mentioned that support the efforts of reducing
drugs. That is not the question. None of those agencies are
responsible for protecting the taxpayers' dollar.
Also, there is no question, as you mentioned, it does
change behavior. I am sure it changes behavior. That is not the
question, either. I think the question is the propriety of how
we change behavior.
About 30 years ago, one of our largest manufacturers of
soft drinks tried some experiments in the developmental days of
TV in which they inserted subliminal ads to drink their
product, and they found that, in fact, if they would put that
in the different frames of the film, drink this product, that,
in fact, the purchase of the product did go up. See, we know
you can influence behavior. That is the basis of all
advertising, whether you buy a Ford over Chevrolet or a certain
kind of toothpaste over another kind of toothpaste. We know we
can influence behavior. I mean, political campaigns influence
behavior. The question is how we go about doing it, and I think
that is one of the things we need to get to.
Let me ask you some questions. First of all, some of these
programs are late at night and we are trying to get to
youngsters 8 years old to 12 years old. That is one of the big
areas. How many youngsters are watching late-night programs? Do
you have any information on that?
Mr. Levitt. Well, I can provide it for the record, of
course. We rely on the experts who do this for a living.
[The information follows:]
Of course, very few children watch any late night television, which
runs from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Appropriately, ONDCP is currently not
running advertising in any late night programming on network
television, nor have we credited network late night programming in our
pro bono match valuing process.
Prime time programming airs from 8 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday through
Saturday and 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. on Sunday. Advertising time is purchased
for ONDCP in these programs, during these time periods, to reach both
our parents target and our youth target. Networks such as the WB and
Fox air prime time programs that appeal to the younger age groups.
ODNCP purchases advertising in these shows (such as ``Buffy the Vampire
Slayer,'' ``The Simpsons,'' and ``Dawson's Creek) and airs youth
targeted advertising/commercials.
ONDCP advertising also airs in programs such as ``NYPD Blue'' in
which time is purchased to reach parents and other youth influencers.
Advertising that is directed to parents is what we schedule to air in
these adult-targeted programs.
Mr. Levitt. Ogilvy operates about a $16 billion a year
business. What they do is buy eyeballs and ears, and they know
when the kids are watching and where they are watching. Ogilvy
is the organization that guides us in putting ads on different
programs or which----
Senator Campbell. Let me ask you something else. When Bill
Cosby made the comment and there was a number you should call,
I understand that. Anybody can understand that. That is easy to
understand. But are these youngsters, the younger ones,
particularly, are they sophisticated enough to understand
messages that are in the script, particularly when there is
taped-in laughter and jokes going on, as there was with a
couple of those? Is that a serious message that they would
understand, as a paid ad would be?
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Levitt. The researchers and the people who are advising
us say that often that is more effective than an ad because it
has context. It may have the kids' favorite character. There is
a plot line. It may last for more than one episode. We think
that this is one of the most effective things that we could do.
It is the way that a network can contribute the most to this
campaign. We could buy ads, but if you are going to the
bathroom or getting something to eat when an ad is on, you are
not going to see it. You are going to watch that program.
Senator Campbell. Let us get to some of the scripts. I also
want to ask you about how these agreements were reached. As I
read our notes, according to officials of several networks,
their scripts were not reviewed. If the scripts were not
reviewed, how do you arrive at some type of a monetary figure
about the trade for credits if you do not review the scripts?
There has been a lot of talk about the scripts. I
understand for a while that some were being turned in to be
reviewed beforehand. After this was broken in the news, it was
changed and now scripts are reviewed only afterwards. If it was
a good idea to review the scripts before, my question would be,
why did you change it so you do not review them before now, and
if it was not a good idea to review the scripts at all, if
there is some kind of First Amendment problem, why were you
reviewing any scripts?
Mr. Levitt. There are two processes that got confused, and
in no instance was there any coercion in any way or requirement
for anybody to send a script. This was a purely voluntary
thing.
Let me just step back for a second and tell you how these
are negotiated. When Ogilvy, which is our current media buyer,
negotiates with a network, they say, for example, we want to
buy x million dollars on your network. The network will come
back and propose how they are going to fulfill their public
service obligation. Fifty percent or more must be in time and
space. It is running about 85 percent, but the only requirement
we have is that 50 percent or more of their public service
obligation must be in media time and space.
The rest could be in any one of a number of activities that
the Government finds useful. AOL and Disney, for example,
created Websites last year, wonderful Websites. The New York
Times may do a teachers' guide. Others will do other community
programs or a public affairs show. We need a way to quantify
it. The time slots are the easiest way to quantify it.
Let us go to the criteria. The Ad Council established some
criteria for the pro bono match. These are the areas that we
are supporting in the pro bono match, the nine areas, promoting
effective parenting practices, among others. So either the
public service messages or the programs must----
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pro Bono Match: 9 Criteria for Qualification
Public Service Messages or Programming that:
--Promote effective parenting practices.
--Foster greater parent/caregiver involvement and develop effective
drug-prevention strategies.
--Strengthen parent-child relationship through early childhood
development programs.
--Support in- and after-school youth programs and services.
--Enhance high expectations and self-esteem in youth.
--Prevent drug abuse including underage tobacco or alcohol use.
--Highlight nexus of drugs and crime and violence.
--Illustrate connection between substance use and AIDS.
--Develop other drug information-related messages.
Developed with The Advertising Council, March 1998.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Campbell. I do not want to get too far outfield
because we support most of this, if not all of it. I have said
that. Senator Dorgan has said that, too. The question is, how
are we arriving at this.
Mr. Levitt. What we----
Senator Campbell. As I understand, you believe that the
chance of millions of dollars of windfall money would not
influence them to change a script?
Mr. Levitt. I do not think so.
Senator Campbell. According to one of the producers of CBS,
although no one from your office asked them to change the
script, they were, in fact, leaned on to change the script by
some of their own officials, and I can only assume that it was
because they saw an opportunity to make millions of windfall
dollars.
Mr. Levitt. I am not aware of that, sir, but let me explain
the process----
Senator Campbell. I must tell you that the intent of
Congress and this committee was that the money, 100 percent of
the money, would go to paid advertising. Continue.
Mr. Levitt. I understand that. Long before this media
campaign was in existence, we provided technical assistance and
sometimes script review assistance for the entertainment
industry.
Senator Campbell. At their request?
Mr. Levitt. Always at their request, always. What we have
been able to do with this campaign is accelerate that and
increase it. We have, for example, media briefings planned to
the entertainment industry on the subjects of children of
substance abusers, on inhalants, and on designer drugs. We have
workshops for writers of medical shows. What we have are panels
of experts from the Federal Government in other areas that come
to Hollywood or New York and make presentations and answer
questions to writers who are interested in these subjects. The
subjects are or are not woven into their scripts.
We also make ourselves available by the telephone. Our
Deputy Director, Dr. Don Vereen, for example, has consulted for
``ER'' on numerous occasions. It is a phone call. For example,
``Can you tell me, how a 16-year-old girl would react to
Rohypnol?'' or, Can you refer to me an addicted physician that
I may want to interview for my show, get some background
information?''
CREDITS TOWARDS PRO BONO MATCH
Senator Campbell. Is the committee to understand, what you
are saying is that the networks seek you out to get advice on
the scripts and you do not offer the credits beforehand?
Mr. Levitt. Not at all. Not at all. No credits are offered.
Senator Campbell. How do they know about the credits?
Mr. Levitt. The business office knows about the credits
because that is part of the negotiation with Ogilvy, okay, two
separate processes. So the technical assistance has preceded
this campaign and we are basically giving the information that
the Federal Government has learned from its billions of dollars
of research on drugs, alcohol, and tobacco and other youth
issues, and that will continue, and there is no prostletyzing.
It is purely voluntary. ABC has set up a briefing of their
prime time writers and executives and----
Senator Campbell. All right. So if there is nothing wrong
with that, they come to you and you review the scripts----
Mr. Levitt. Right.
Senator Campbell. Is it our understanding that you just
recently changed your method of operation so that you only
review them afterwards instead of before they air?
Mr. Levitt. For the purpose of pro bono match credit, we
always reviewed them afterwards. At least, we thought that we
were always reviewing them afterwards. In most instances, it
was a completed script or a tape. In a few instances, as we
learned during this controversy, some of the scripts that were
sent to us for review to see if they were on our message
strategies and to get credit for the public service obligations
were, in fact, scripts that had not yet been aired.
But in no instance, in no instance did anybody associated
with ONDCP or our contractors, after that script was reviewed
for compliance or if it met these areas, was that information
transferred back to the network to change the match, to get
them to do something.
Senator Campbell. Let me ask one more question, and then go
back to Senator Dorgan for his question.
Mr. Levitt. It would go back to the----
Senator Campbell. If the scripts were not reviewed before,
how did you arrive at a monetary figure for the value of the
credits?
Mr. Levitt. The scripts or the completed programs were sent
to us to see if they would be eligible for a credit. It was
either yes and here is how much it is worth, because Ogilvy
would value it, or no.
Senator Campbell. I understand also from my notes, one of
the network officials said, and I quote, ``all the shows we put
on, we were going to do anyway.'' I believe that was the ``Home
Improvement'' show, if I am not mistaken, but I may be
mistaken. But if they were going to do them anyway, and I
commend them for doing them, if they were going to do them
anyway, then why would we be offering them credits to do what
they were going to do anyway?
Mr. Levitt. Our intention is to reward both the development
and the airing of anti-drug messages. We want to encourage the
networks to continue to do this. I think one of the most
unfortunate parts of this last storm of stories is that the
networks have done a wonderful job in the last year, and that
has gone unrecognized like there is something nefarious about
it. These writers have hundreds of hours of programming to
develop every year and they need story lines and they want,
they thirst for accurate information. This is entertainment,
and this is----
Senator Campbell. We are on the same wavelength with that,
Mr. Levitt. I mean, I commend the networks for--they are
Americans, too. I am sure they want to see a reduction in drug
use, too. We do not have a problem with that. Certainly,
anything they do from the standpoint of offering time or
adjusting scripts, if they do that on their own, that is one
thing.
Let me go to Senator Dorgan. I do not mean to monopolize
the time, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I have spent a lot of time
over recent years trying to embarrass or bludgeon or in other
ways affect networks from programming decisions that send
increasing amounts of violence into our living rooms on
television programming. I have been fairly out front about
that. I think there is a lot of trash on television and some
wonderful things, as well, but television is excessively
violent, and I have certainly tried to alter that.
Children by the time they graduate from high school have
spent about 12,500 hours sitting in a classroom and about
20,000 hours watching television, so they are much more a
product of what they have seen than what they have read. As I
watched some of these messages I think it is fine to have a
program that provides a good message to young people in this
country. I think that is a good thing to do.
But let me just make another point here. I mentioned Mr.
Forbes saying that that which is reported is not always
accurate. I know that for a fact, and so does Mr. Campbell. On
the other hand, often, investigative reporting provides us with
information we have not previously known and it provides a very
useful service in our country.
Let me try to get to the nub of what I think Mr. Forbes was
saying. His article, and we will hear him testify today, but
his article was very assertive, and at the start of his
article, he wrote that few Americans would know of a hidden
Government effort to shoehorn anti-drug messages into the most
pervasive and powerful billboard of all, network television
programming, and his point was that networks were getting
monetary credit for that, part of the money that we were, in
effect, appropriating was being given to the networks in the
form of financial credit for doing something that I think I
just heard you say the networks were going to do anyway.
But I want to have you answer a couple things, because I
think it is important. I think it does raise real serious
questions about the Government's role here if, in fact, scripts
for television programs are sent to the Government to be
perused to determine, are these appropriate scripts? If we do
it this way, can you pay us? Can we get credit? I mean,
clearly, Mr. Forbes is right. That raises a lot of questions.
And there have been some statements since this controversy
developed that suggest that some scripts were provided by, and
let me give you an example of that. One ABC executive,
apparently ABC executives, plural, said that ONDCP asked them
to start submitting scripts of TV shows before they aired in
order to be considered for an anti-drug ad swap. Can you
respond to that? I mean, if that is the case, that is
troublesome.
SCRIPTS
Mr. Levitt. There are three things. First of all, Director
McCaffrey has clarified the policy and made one change in it.
That is, we will no longer do any of the review of the scripts
within ONDCP. That is going to be done at Ogilvy and through
our behavioral change panel or with the National Institute of
Drug Abuse and other experts. It will be removed from our
office completely, and it will only be done after the program
has aired. So it is not, in essence, going to affect the pro
bono program because we never changed scripts when they came in
for vetting initially.
With respect to the issue of ABC, this happened during May
of 1999. We had about a dozen--it was about $7 billion or $6 to
$7 billion worth of advertising that sold in the May-June up-
front period. We had about a dozen or two dozen meetings over a
2- or 3-day period in New York to brief other networks about
the media campaign. No other network got that misunderstanding.
I do believe there was a miscommunication, because we talked
about the pro bono match. We also talked about providing
technical assistance and doing creative briefings, and I think
that issue became confused in it, and we have since provided
clarification.
Senator Dorgan. Let me ask you, though, would you not agree
with Mr. Forbes, as tough as his article was, and I know you
allege that some of it is not factual, but would you not agree
that if, in fact, scripts were sent to the Office of Drug
Policy prior to the airing of a program for the Drug Policy
Office to review them. It just raises all kinds of questions of
the type that Mr. Forbes raised----
Mr. Levitt. I could understand how people could get that
impression, if they were not familiar with the process.
Senator Dorgan. And you understand, I think, from the two
of us, we would not want, and I think most Members of Congress
would agree with us, we would not want a circumstance here
where we decide, we are going to have a $1 billion campaign to
purchase advertising on television in many different ways to
persuade young Americans not to take drugs. We would not want
that to become a program in which there are, in addition to
advertisements being aired, there are connections between the
Office of Drug Policy and producers and television networks
about what the American people are going to see in network
programming.
I mean, frankly, in terms of your influence on network
programming, I assume if there is a network that is going to
put on a batch of prime time shows that glorify drug use and
never show the consequences of drug use and so on, that you
would probably want to ask, we will not advertise on that
network. I mean, if a network has an entire menu of shows that
glorify drug use, I assume you would not want to be advertising
a lot. Would that be a fair statement?
Mr. Levitt. Again, what I tell people when they call me to
ask, will you buy on my station, I say, you would not want a
bureaucrat making that decision. We allow the people who do
that for a living, who are trying to reach the target
audiences, to make those recommendations to us, and very rarely
do we disagree with them.
Senator Dorgan. You want to persuade networks to do better
in terms of the message they are sending to young Americans
about drug use. I understand that, and there is nothing wrong
with that. I think that is a goal all of us share. I think that
one of the questions that has been raised that is legitimate is
the issue of sharing scripts and so on.
Mr. Levitt. Senator Dorgan?
Senator Dorgan. Yes?
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
Mr. Levitt. You mentioned about shoe-horning scripts, shoe-
horning messages. The creative--you just cannot do that in the
creative community. You cannot shoehorn a message where it does
not belong. It will mess up the script. The audience ratings
will go down. And the creative community is very sensitive to
that, and our approach to the entertainment industry is that
they are part of the solution, they are not part of the
problem. I know that Congress and other people have banged on
the entertainment industry for violence and for sex. Our
approach is, we educate them to youth drug use issues, and they
have been very responsive. Those programs are a good example.
Senator Campbell. If I might interject, Senator, since the
networks, know what it takes to get a credit, that in itself
becomes a form of subtle suggestion, if not pressure, because
if they do not get the credit, they do not have the ability to
get the money and resell the space to get paid again for it, in
my view.
Mr. Levitt. Well, I know that you have a letter from the
executive producer of ``Beverly Hills 90210'' that addresses
that very issue, and he does not feel in any way that we have
influenced his programming or that we could influence his
programming through that kind of effort.
Senator Campbell. Excuse me for interrupting.
Senator Dorgan. I do not think any of us ought to suggest
that it is inappropriate for us to be able to see on television
a better fare of programming. I mean, to suggest to children
that the way adults solve their problems is to slug each other
and stab each other and shoot each other, which we have
routinely done for 20 years, is not a very appropriate thing,
and if we can improve all of that in the violence area, I want
to do that.
On the other hand, dealing with violence and drugs and
other issues, the questions that are raised about an
advertising campaign in which we have direct influence about
what we put on the 30-second ads and then presumably some other
influence about the kind of credits people are given for
messages put in the programs, I understand why it raises
questions and I bet you do, as well, just because that is an
entirely new field.
No one, I think, no one wants to have an office in
Washington saying, here is the content of a sit-com that is
going to be aired on Wednesday night by this network. That is
not the job of Government. Government should not ever do that.
I mean, that is not the way this works, could work, or should
work, and I do not think any of us who have appropriated money
for this program anticipated that.
So I think we should think through a little bit this issue
of credits, to understand more about how that is used and is
the use of credits, in fact, supplanting other pro bono efforts
that we should be getting from the networks in any event for
anti-drug advertising, not programming, but advertising.
Mr. Levitt. I think Advertising Age pointed to this
program, the pro bono match component, as one of the causes of
increased, what they call clutter--clutter is anything other
than programs--because we have had about 5,000 local and
network public service ads in prime time in the last year, and
that is an increase. Look at the list of organizations that you
have. A lot of those messages are getting out there that would
never have gotten out before.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just finish by saying I sort of feel
the same way that Senator Campbell does. I was not aware of how
the credit system worked or, in fact, that the credit system
existed. Now, I do not know whether it was hard to have picked
out of what was coming from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, but I think it raises some questions that we need to
think through with you and resolve, because I think the
questions raised by the critics are reasonable questions. We do
not want scripts moving back and forth between those that
produce television programs and those in Washington who have a
very large amount of money with which to pay for advertising
and, therefore, credit people who are doing script production.
But let me finish by saying this. I do not think we should
allow these questions, which I think are reasonable questions
to ask, to tarnish an effort that I think is a pretty
reasonable effort. People advertise on television and pay
mountains to do it because it works, and I think that the
experiment that we have begun is a worthwhile experiment, to
see if we can package an effort to send messages through
advertising on television to young Americans about drug use.
I hope that, even as we have a kind of a dust-up about
these issues, that it does not detract from the central mission
here. This is an experiment that I think can work, and I think
at least initial evidence suggests is working. So let us
address and fix some of the issues that develop, but let us not
back away from an experiment that I think has great potential
to steer some young children in this country away from a life
of drugs.
Senator Campbell. I certainly agree with Senator Dorgan.
Ads work. Subliminal also works. The question is not whether
they work or not. I think everybody knows they work. The
question is whether it is ethical to use those or not.
But let me ask you a final couple of questions. We have
received different numbers about how much money was actually
expended in these credits. I have seen the number $2.5 million
up to $22 million. So far, what is the dollar value of the
credits that you have given?
PUBLIC SERVICE OBLIGATION VALVE
Mr. Levitt. Nothing was expended, sir. These are--this is
part of the public service obligation that the networks have in
return for the buy. The figure is $21.8 million in television
programming so far, 130 different episodes of shows, I think it
is 39 different programs.
Senator Dorgan. Can I just add?
Senator Campbell. Yes.
Senator Dorgan. The ``Home Improvement'' show that you put
up here, can you tell us how it works that they got credit for
that, and were you aware that program was going to run before
it ran? Did you see a script?
Mr. Levitt. No, we never did. In all of those, we never saw
anything until after it ran, except ``The Wayans Brothers.''
Senator Dorgan. So who determined after ``Home
Improvement'' played--that it had a very significant anti-drug
message--who determined after that program played that that
network got a certain credit, and if so, how much?
Mr. Levitt. Their sales department would send the script to
Ogilvy and Ogilvy would send it to us and say, is this on
strategy or not? I have two charts here, about the old system
and the new system. I think General McCaffrey has significantly
clarified it and we will no longer be involved in viewing in
any way, even after the fact, scripts or tapes. That will be
done at our contractor's office, and they will only be done
after they have played.
Look, I am very sensitive to the First Amendment. I
participated in the free speech movement in Berkeley in 1965.
But the first time I was offered drugs, I was 19. My daughter
was 12 in Chevy Chase when she was offered LSD and marijuana.
That is the difference between when I was a kid and now. This
is what we are trying to do. We are trying to keep kids off
drugs.
I think that we may not have communicated as clearly as we
can. We think we have communicated in many venues with the
Congress and with TV and the entertainment industry. It is a
very complicated program. Everybody does not understand every
aspect of it. I think the people who are involved in this, the
people who got credits or people who have helped in another way
the technical assistance process, did not feel any pressure. It
would be the antithesis of what we wanted if the creative
community felt pressure to change because of the financial
incentive.
Senator Campbell. We have a vote on and we are going to
take a break in a couple minutes. Let me just ask you one last
thing. If we are not actually spending money on the ads and we
are appropriating this amount, why do you need it? If you work
some pro bono----
Mr. Levitt. Pardon me?
Senator Campbell. If you work some agreement to give them
credit for it and you are not actually spending the money on
it, why do you need the money? I mean, why should we not just
reduce the amount? We have a lot of other places we can put the
money.
Mr. Levitt. Because the value far, far exceeds the value of
the ads. A Bill Cosby episode like that or an ad or ``Home
Improvement,'' that has enormous impact on youth and parents,
and that is exactly what we want to do.
Senator Campbell. One last question before we run, and then
we will go to the next witnesses when we return. If the
networks sold the time under this credit arrangement, did they
sell it for a higher amount than what ONDCP would have paid for
the ad, or do you know?
Mr. Levitt. I have no idea.
Senator Campbell. You do not know.
Mr. Levitt. The networks are giving us what we want. This
is the most valued part. If you ask ten organizations that are
lobbying to change programming or social issues, the depiction
of this issue or the understanding of that health issue, would
they rather have ads or programming, ten out of ten would say,
I would rather have programming. It is the most effective use.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Levitt, I appreciate you appearing
here.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Levitt
INTRODUCTION
Office of National Drug Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey
thanks the Committee for the opportunity to have me testify today about
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. This campaign is an
integrated youth and adult marketing and public-health communications
effort to reach American audiences with traditional and modern
communication strategies to influence attitudes and action regarding
drug use.
Chairman Campbell, Senator Dorgan, distinguished members of the
subcommittee, your interest in all aspects of drug control policy and
your commitment to bipartisan support of the National Drug Control
Strategy's number one goal--to Educate and enable America's youth to
reject illegal drugs as well as alcohol and tobacco--are much
appreciated. We welcome this opportunity to explain important aspects
of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and to urge you to
continue supporting its science and research-based communication
strategy.
I would like to recognize several individuals and organizations
that have played important roles in shaping and conducting this vital
drug-prevention campaign. We are all indebted to Mr. Jim Burke and the
Partnership for a Drug Free America. The Partnership has been our lead
partner in implementing the campaign. The ads they have produced are
helping change how our young people view drugs and drug use.
Dr. Alan Leshner and the National Institute on Drug Abuse play a
critical role in the evaluation of the campaign, helping to ensure that
we are producing the results we need. Dr. Leshner is, without question
one of the world's leading authorities on drug abuse. NIDA sponsors
roughly 85 percent of the world's research into drug addiction. The
media campaign is bringing to bear the half a billion dollars worth of
research on drug abuse conducted by NIDA every year.
Major General Art Dean and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of
America (CADCA) are also key partners. For this campaign to succeed, we
need to reach people not only via the airwaves, but also in their
communities. Through the help of CADCA, and others such as the
Prevention Through Service Alliance (an alliance of 47 service groups
ranging from the Improved Benevolent and Protective Order of the Elks
of the World, YMCA of the U.S.A., Boys and Girls Clubs, Girl Scouts of
the U.S.A., to 100 Black Men, Inc.), we are ``localizing'' the
campaign. We are developing ways, from parenting programs to anti-drug
soccer tournaments, to reach Americans, where they live, work and play.
Peggy Conlon of the Ad Council is the quarterback of the anti-drug
campaign's public service component. The Ad Council is the nation's
largest clearinghouse for public service advertising. Through the Ad
Council's help, the campaign has succeeded in actually building new
opportunities for campaign-related public service advertising efforts
in support of forty-five national organizations and campaigns, even in
a time of declining PSA air time.
Wally Snyder of the American Advertising Federation (AAF) is
another of our key partners. As a leading representative of the
advertising industry and advertising agencies across the country, the
AAF, through its local chapters, provides leadership and facilitates
development of local market public service announcements to include in
our media match process at the grass roots level.
Tro Piliguian CEO, North America of Ogilvy our advertising
contractor and Paul Johnson Regional President, General Manager of
Fleishman Hillard, our public affairs contractor are here today
representing their companies. We are very proud of the smart work these
firms have done to help us develop and implement the National Youth
Media Campaign.
SUMMARY
Congress approved the Administration-proposed National Youth Anti-
Drug Media Campaign in response to surging youth drug-use rates.
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, past-month
drug use rates among 12-17 year olds rose from 5.3 percent in 1992 (the
historical low in the trend since 1979) to 10.9 percent in 1995.
This integrated public-health communications campaign uses all
communications vehicles required to influence adolescent attitudes and
behaviors. Popular culture (including media programming and advertising
content) too often portrays drug use as common, something to be
expected, or even humorous. The undisputed influence of popular culture
on attitude formation and the manner in which it depicts illegal drugs
and substance abuse are recognized by the Communication Strategy that
orients all media campaign activities.
In recent weeks, there have been unfounded assertions that ONDCP is
not complying with legislation. This is not the case. 21 U.S.C. Sec.
1801 et seq. outlines the requirement to conduct a national media
campaign and provides specific instructions to ONDCP. Congress requires
media outlets to match federal anti-drug advertising dollars on a one-
for-one basis. Networks, magazines, and newspapers may elect to make
this match with content, public-service activities, or free
advertising. Congress has wisely allowed ONDCP to ``fashion antidrug
messages in television programming.'' We fulfill this mandate by making
available expert scientific advice and technical assistance through a
Behavior Change Expert Panel and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
All ONDCP contracts related to the media campaign are consistent with
this law.
The media campaign is being implemented by the best organizations
in the fields of prevention and communication. The Partnership for a
Drug-Free America is a key partner. It is best known for its national,
anti-drug advertising campaign. Ogilvy & Mather is one of the largest
and most respected advertising companies in the world. Its major task
is media planning and buying. The Advertising Council, the nation's
leading producer of Public Service communications programs, oversees
the National Media Match Clearinghouse on a pro-bono basis. Fleishman-
Hillard, one of the largest and best-respected communications firms in
the world, conducts media outreach, and oversees the use of the
Internet and other ``new media'' outlets. The National Institute on
Drug Abuse plays a critical role in the evaluation of the campaign,
helping to ensure that we are producing the results we need.
Advertising (both purchased and pro-bono) on TV, radio, print and
on the Internet is the cornerstone of the media campaign. We programmed
178.584 million in fiscal year 1999 for advertising. National
advertising follows specific anti-drug themes each month across 102
local markets with more than 2,250 media outlets. We currently reach 95
percent of 12 to 17 year-olds an average of 8.3 messages per week. The
non-advertising component of the campaign delivers our messages through
radio and television, print media, the Internet, faith communities,
health professionals, community coalitions, schools, parents, coaches,
and organized sports.
Everything about this campaign--including the pro bono match--has
been conducted openly with Congressional oversight, news coverage,
publicity, and outreach to the media so that reporters could learn more
about the process. There were three congressional hearings in 1999 on
the subject of the media campaign, so the notion that this project is
being conducted ``in secret'' is inaccurate. We have also written
opinion editorials explaining all aspects of the campaign; these pieces
have been published in newspapers, magazines, and journals throughout
the country. Countless press releases, news conferences, and events
with the President and congressional leadership were devoted to this
topic as was much TV and radio coverage and a website
(www.mediacampaign.org) that was accessed 446,596 times in 1999.
We take seriously concerns about the campaign's pro-bono match
procedures. There can be no suggestion of federal interference in the
creative process. In the future we will review programs for pro-bono
match consideration only after they have aired. We will continue to
make available information and experts on drug prevention issues to any
media that requests such assistance.
We are enormously proud of our hundreds of media partnerships. Drug
use by America's youth declined 13 percent between 1997 and 1998. We
are convinced that if we continue to emphasize drug prevention,
juvenile drug-use rates will drop further. Since illegal drugs cost
this country more than one hundred billion dollars and 52,000 deaths a
year, this media campaign addresses a vital issue of public health.
RATIONALE FOR AN ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Let me begin by framing the problem that brought us here today:
youth drug use. Adolescent drug use takes a great toll on our young
people and society. Most of the leading causes of death among
adolescents--motor vehicle crashes, homicide, suicide and HIV
infection--are more likely to occur under the influence of illegal
drugs. On September 4, 1996, following the release of the 1995 National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Director McCaffrey testified before the
Senate Judiciary Committee about juvenile drug-use trends. At the time,
he noted that past-month drug use rates among 12-17 year olds was 10.9
percent in 1995, up substantially from 8.2 percent in 1994, 5.7 percent
in 1993, and 5.3 percent in 1992 (the historical low in the trend since
1979). The following excerpt of the Director's testimony identified two
issues that, in ONDCP's view, contributed to the problem of rising
youth drug use rates:
Lower public profile of the drug problem
``According to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, there was a
30 percent reduction in the number of public service announcements
(PSAs) carried by TV, radio, and print media since 1991. From 1989 to
1994, there was also a progressive decline in drug coverage on network
news. While 849 minutes of network news were devoted to drug-related
issues in 1989, in 1994 only 135 minutes dealt with this topic.
Attention to drugs did increase slightly in 1995, as reflected in 163
minutes of network news. Total media support for anti-drug messages
(broadcast, print, and outdoor advertising) is down $100 million a year
since 1991. We cannot afford to take our eye off the ball.''
Glamorization of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco condones adolescent use
``The glamorization of drugs has not been limited to television and
film portrayals. It also occurs in videos and the lyrics of popular
music, advertising and marketing (i.e. fashion's heroin chic look),
comedy, the Internet, and merchandising where items like jewelry, T-
shirts, temporary tattoos, candy, and soft drinks are among the
products that promote drug use. The promotion of drugs permeates every
facet of a child's life. The Budweiser frogs and Joe Camel are very
familiar cartoon characters for our children. This inundation of pro-
alcohol, tobacco, and other drug messages occurs at a time when new
technology and techniques enable media to form more dramatic, multi-
sensory, and powerful images than ever before. PSAs and other anti-drug
messages have demonstrated the ability to influence attitudes towards
drugs among today's youth. Prevention messages must be repeated with
adequate frequency and in appropriate venues so that they can counter
pro-drug messages.''
ONDCP proposed a National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign to address
these two issues. We very much appreciate the broad bipartisan support
the proposal enjoyed and Congress' continuing support for the campaign
in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. This support allowed a seamless
transition from a twelve-city test phase (January-July 1998), to a year
of nationwide testing and evaluation (August 1998-July 1999), to a
fully integrated media communications effort (August 1999-present).
THE INFLUENCE OF POPULAR CULTURE
What we see and hear in the entertainment media influences our
beliefs about the world around us.\1\ Today's adolescents are deeply
immersed in popular culture as it is conveyed through various forms of
media. On average, American children are exposed to at least eight
hours of media per day including television, radio, movies, recorded
music, comics, and video games.\2\ The ubiquitous presence of the media
in our lives is underscored by the following statistics: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Brown, Childers, & Waszak, 1990; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, &
Signiorelli, 1986; Marc, 1984.
\2\ Williams and Frith, 1993.
\3\ Mediascope Issue Brief, ``Popular Culture and the American
Child,'' Brief Number 199G3d, January 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Ninety-eight percent of American households have a television set.
Among households with children, nearly 87 percent have two or
more television sets, and 66 percent of American children have
a television set in their bedrooms.
--Children spend about 28 hours per week watching television. Over
the course of a year, this is twice as much time as they spend
in school.
--Sixty-three percent of kids aged 9-17 say that seeing the latest
movies is important. 62 percent say that they watch a video at
least once a week.
--Between the 7th and 12th grades, American teenagers listen to an
estimated 10,500 hours of rock music. More than three-quarters
of American youth between the ages of 9-14 watch music videos.
--Eighty-nine percent of teenagers use computers several times per
week. 71 percent of young people use computers to play computer
games, compared to 47 percent who use them for homework, and 31
percent for education. Teens spend an average of two and one-
half hours per day on a home computer.
Unfortunately, popular culture (including media programming and
advertising content) too often portrays drug use as common, something
to be expected, or even humorous. For example, by his or her 18th
birthday, an average adolescent will have seen 100,000 television
commercials for beer,\4\ and will have watched 65,000 scenes on
television depicting beer drinking.\5\ The ONDCP-sponsored Mediascope
study Substance Use in Popular Movies and Music examined popular movie
rentals and songs to determine the frequency and nature of depictions
of substance use (illicit drugs, alcohol, tobacco, and over-the-counter
and prescription medicines).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Monroe, 1994.
\5\ Coombs, Paulson, & Palley, 1988.
\6\ Office of National Drug Control Policy, Substance Use in
Popular Movies & Music, Donald F. Roberts, Ph.D., Lisa Henriksen,
Ph.D., Peter G. Christenson, Ph.D., April 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mediascope study found that 98 percent of movies studied
depicted substance use. Illicit drugs appeared in 22 percent. About
one-quarter (26 percent) of the movies that depicted illicit drugs
contained explicit, graphic portrayals of their preparation and/or
ingestion. Less than one half (49 percent) of the movies portrayed
short-term consequences of substance use, and about 12 percent depicted
long-term consequences. All movies in which illegal drugs appeared
received restricted ratings (PG-13 or R). However, 45 percent of the
movies in which illicit drugs were used did not receive specific
remarks identifying drug-related content from the Motion Picture
Association of America. The major finding from the study's song
analysis is the dramatic difference among music categories, with
substance reference being particularly common in Rap. Illicit drugs
were mentioned in 63 percent of Rap songs versus about 10 percent of
the lyrics in the other categories. Neither movies nor music provided
much information about motives for substance use.
Last month, ONDCP released a second Mediascope content analysis,
Substance Use in Popular Prime Time Programming which examined the
twenty five top-rated, most watched primetime broadcast network shows
(for Hispanic, African American, and general market audience teens and
adults). The research was commissioned by ONDCP as the first national
study of the frequency and nature of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug
portrayals on television. The research showed that illicit drugs are
rarely depicted on primetime network television and that when they are
depicted, drug use is usually associated with negative consequences.
We will use this study to take the discussion of the influence of
TV programming out of the realm of subjective judgement and into the
domain of verifiable and quantifiable data that can be tracked over
time.
THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN'S COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
The undisputed influence of popular culture on attitude formation
and the manner in which it depicts illegal drugs and substance abuse
are recognized by the communication strategy that orients all National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign activities. Nearly a year of research
went into developing this communication strategy.\7\ Hundreds of
individuals and organizations were consulted, including experts in teen
marketing, advertising, and communication; behavior change experts;
drug prevention practitioners and representatives from professional,
civic, and community organizations. These findings resulted in a
comprehensive communication strategy that uses a variety of media and
messages to reach young people, their parents, and other youth-
influential adults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ONDCP, The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign:
Communications Strategy Statement, 1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific conclusions that make the case that the entertainment
industry must be involved in drug prevention follow:
--The Campaign should encourage action on the part of other people
who influence the lives of youth.
--Consistent messages conveyed through a variety of channels and in
different contexts are necessary to produce an effect.
--Professional groups--must incorporate the communication strategy
into their new and on-going programs.
--To achieve the maximum effect, the Campaign should use a full range
of media mechanisms and formats in an integrated fashion.
--Effective message tailoring involves . . . working with
communications professionals who specialize in creating content
for particular audiences.
THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN & THE PUBLIC LAW
Public Law
In recent weeks, there have been unfounded assertions that ONDCP is
not complying with legislation. This is not the case. 21 U.S.C.
Sec. 1801 et seq. outlines the requirement to conduct a national media
campaign and provides specific instructions to ONDCP. Pertinent
excerpts of Sec. 1802 (Use of funds) are cited below:
--In general . . . Amounts made available to carry out this chapter
for the support of the national media campaign may only be used
for . . . ``entertainment industry collaborations to fashion
antidrug messages in motion pictures, television programming,
popular music, interactive (Internet and new) media projects
and activities, public information, news media outreach, and
corporate sponsorship and participation.''
--``Amounts made available under Section 1804 of this title should be
matched by an equal amount of non-Federal funds for the
national media campaign, or be matched with in-kind
contributions to the campaign of the same value.''
Binding Agreements
All ONDCP contracts related to the media campaign are consistent
with this law. Pertinent excerpts of contracts are cited below:
Porter Novelli.--(Effective date 09/15/97). Task was to recommend a
``broad, comprehensive, cost-effective media strategy, with appropriate
sub-strategies, which links defined target groups and issues with
effective message techniques, media of communication, and other
components . . .'' (P. 10).
The contractor was specifically instructed to ``determine the most
appropriate and effective strategies . . . techniques, and media, in
addition to other non-advertising components necessary for motivating
youth to reject illegal drugs.'' (P. 9).
Bates Advertising USA, Inc.--(Effective date 05/26/98). Major task
was to ``plan and execute media buying.''
``The contractor must . . . negotiate pro bono time or in-kind
public service contributions. Bonus weight shall include, in addition
to pro bono air and/or space, appropriate programming, public affairs
efforts, publicity, or in-kind bonus weight equivalent offers.''
(Section C, Page 4)
Ogilvy & Mather.--(Effective date 01/04/99). Task was to
``implement an integrated communications campaign.''
This integrated communications campaign is required to include a
``public service (``media match'') component in which the Contractor
shall, as part of the media planning and buying process, negotiate with
media outlets to secure approximately 100 percent additional household
exposures for public service messages (or other relevant media
programming, public affairs, or other public service contribution)
related to the well-being of the nation's youth.'' (Section C, Page 11)
``The contractor shall track and document the fulfillment of the
public service (``media match'') component and value of other media
exposures generated by the campaign. For example, a TV sitcom featuring
an anti-drug story line as a result of campaign efforts shall be
appropriately documented and assigned reasonable dollar value based on
its contribution to the campaign communication strategy.'' (Section C,
Page 11)
Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.--(Effective date 12/03/98). Task was to
conduct the ``non-advertising component'' of the media campaign.
One of the specified elements of non-advertising communication is
``outreach to, and collaboration with, the entertainment industry,
including television, movies, interactive games for the purpose of
encouraging media depictions that ``denormalize'' drug use and
accurately portraying the negative consequences of drug use.'' (Section
C, Page 14)
THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN'S MAJOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERS
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America (PDFA)
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is a private, non-profit,
non-partisan coalition of professionals from the communications
industry. Best known for its national, anti-drug advertising campaign,
its mission is to reduce demand for illicit drugs in America through
media communication. PDFA has generated more than $2.8 billion in media
exposure and created more than five hundred anti-drug ads. Its long-
standing national campaign is the single, largest, public service ad
campaign in history. For twelve years, PDFA's process was the paradigm
for a public service campaign. No other organization was as successful
in generating high-quality free ads and placing them pro-bono in the
media.
PDFA is a key campaign partner. Mr. Jim Burke, Chairman of the
Partnership has been one of the strongest advocates for this public-
private media campaign. The Partnership had concluded that intense
competition, brought on by the splintering of the media, brought new
economic realities to the media industry in the 1990s. It became quite
clear to PDFA that the glory days of 1989 and 1990--when its combined,
estimated media exposure reached $1 million a day--were simply not
going to return. Indeed, with media donations to the Partnership down
by more than $100 million since 1991, the outlook for national media
giving was not at all promising. The ONDCP campaign promised something
unprecedented for PDFA's public service advertising effort: precise
placement of the right ads, targeting the right audience, running in
the right media, consistently, over time. With first-rate anti-drug
messages produced by advertising agencies through PDFA's creative
process, that is exactly what the campaign is now delivering.
Presently, PDFA has developed 37 television commercials, 36 print ads,
and 21 radio spots for parents and 37 TV commercials, 35 print ads, and
35 radio spots for youth.
The Advertising Council
The Advertising Council is a private, non-profit organization,
which has been the leading producer of Public Service communications
programs in the United States since 1942. The Advertising Council's
mission ``is to identify a select number of significant public issues
and stimulate action on those issues through communications programs
that make a measurable difference in our society.'' To that end, the Ad
Council marshals volunteer resources from the advertising and
communications industries, the media, and the business and non-profit
communities for the public good. As the nation's largest producer of
PSAs, the Ad Council has created more than 1,000 multi-media public
service advertising campaigns addressing critical issues.\8\ During
1998 alone, the Ad Council advertising received $1.2 billion in donated
media in support of these efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Ad Council campaigns, characters and slogans are more than
memorable--they raise awareness, inspire individuals to take action and
save lives. Campaigns the Ad Council has conducted include Smokey Bear
and his famous words of wisdom, ``Only you can prevent forest fires,''
(USDA Forest Service); ``Friends don't let friends drive drunk'' (DOT/
NHTSA) McGruff the Crime Dog, who urged Americans to ``Take a bite out
of crime,'' (National Crime Prevention Council); and ``A mind is a
terrible thing to waste'' (United Negro College Fund).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ad Council performs three crucial tasks in support of the anti-
drug media campaign on a pro-bono basis.
--Oversee the National Media Match Clearinghouse-sharing over two
hundred and sixty five thousand broadcast pro bono ad units
with forty five public health organizations \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 100 Black Men, Alanon/Alateen, American Symphony Orchestra
League, America's Promise, Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Boys
and Girls Club, Boys Town USA, Center for Juvenile and Criminal
Justice/Justice Policy Institute, Center for Substance Abuse
Prevention/Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse
Treatment/Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control,
Connect for Kids (The Benton Foundation), Country Music Association, Do
Good. Mentor a Child/Save the Children USA, Drunk Driving Prevention/
U.S. Department of Transportation, Education Excellence Partnership,
Educational Testing Service, Girl Scouts of the USA, Give a Kid a Hand/
International Advertising Association, Harvard Mentoring Project,
Health and Human Services/Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, Hepatitis Foundation International, Kids Peace,
Mentoring USA, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, National Action Council
of Minority Engineers, National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse,
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, National Council on
Alcohol and Drug Dependency, Inc., National Crime Prevention Coalition,
National Fatherhood Initiative, National 4H Council, National Inhalant
Prevention Coalition, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Parental
Responsibility/Department of Health and Human Services, Parents as
First Teachers/El Valor, Partnership for a Drug-Free America,
President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports, Points of Light
Foundation, Prevent Child Abuse America, Recording Artists, Actors and
Athletes Against Drunk Driving/Department of Transportation, Talking
with Kids about Tough Issues (Children Now/Kaiser Family Foundation),
The Reiner Foundation/Families and Work Institute (Early Childhood
Development), YMCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Production Review.
--Create an Anti-Drug Coalition Recruitment Campaign.
Ogilvy & Mather
Ogilvy & Mather is one of the largest and most respected
advertising companies in the world.\10\ Ogilvy's media company,
``MindShare'', is by far the largest media organization in the world
($16 billion in worldwide billings). Ogilvy buys more national
broadcast media in the U.S. than any other company and is the nation's
number one radio buyer. Ogilvy's interactive company, OgilvyOne, is the
largest purchaser of advertising in the world. The company is also
third largest print buyer in the country. These factors give Ogilvy
significant negotiating leverage, which results in the lowest possible
market rates and access to substantial and unique media match
opportunities. The Company also has considerable experience in social
marketing campaigns having been responsible for the highly successful
``America Responds to AIDS'' campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ogilvy's 377 offices in 98 countries service more Fortune 500
clients in 5 or more countries than any other advertising agency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ogilvy & Mather performs the following tasks in support of the
anti-drug media campaign.
--Media planning and buying.
--Oversight, negotiation, and implementation of media match.
--Internet media planning and buying.
--Strategic planning and consumer research.
--Creative development for advertising ``gaps.''
--Development of advertising copy rotation plans.
--Trafficking all advertising materials to media outlets.
--Management of the Behavior Change Expert Panel.
--Management of six multicultural subcontractors.
--Management of three target audience specialist subcontractors.
In its role as the primary advertising contractor on the ONDCP
contract, Ogilvy offers added value to both ONDCP and PDFA in the
following areas:
Media Planning and Buying.--With buying leverage based on handling
the world's largest aggregate media budget and widely acknowledged
planning and buying expertise, Ogilvy can secure the highest quality
media for the lowest possible price. Moreover, Ogilvy's media plans and
buys are creative and savvy, selectively identifying effective,
intrusive and relevant vehicles from the plethora of media
opportunities available to a contemporary advertiser.
Ogilvy's superior media planning and buying enables anti-drug
messages to receive greater visibility than they have ever had in their
history, getting more television in better time slots, for instance,
than any other agency could have achieved for them. In addition, PDFA's
volunteer agencies have many more media vehicles with which to show off
their talents. This range of vehicles is an unprecedented opportunity
to build the individual portfolios of agency creative personnel and
expand an agency's new business book and reel of great advertising.
Creative Executions.--The pre-testing, planning, and research
regimen that Ogilvy is working to put in place greatly raises the odds
of developing more effective creative material that will help prevent
drug use among youth. Pre-testing will help hone specific messages,
while generating learning that will inform ad creators. Ogilvy manages
an array of planning resources--from full-time agency planning staff to
Target Audience Specialists to the BCEP--that provide invaluable input
to the creative development process. No private sector marketer would
mount an effort of this scope without conducting such extensive
research.
Strategic Counsel.--Ogilvy's strategic and planning resources not
only have enhanced the creative message; they have also improved the
development and implementation of the overall marketing plan. Branding
and flighting are two useful examples.
Branding is universally acknowledged by sophisticated marketers and
leading advertisers as the way to ensure long-term, sustainable
success, and to multiply the impact of advertising dollars. Branding is
essentially unites the diverse elements of our message platforms
through one unifying concept--a brand, which is the sum of what our
effort represents. Branding increases consumer mind share of anti-drug
messages; maximizes the impact of advertising dollars; creates synergy
between advertising and non-advertising messages; and unites an
organization's messages. Branding is a business proven concept.
Ogilvy's 4-month Brand Stewardship research process (which entailed
interviewing adults and youth of all ethnicities) led to the adoption
by ONDCP of ``The Anti-Drug'' As the campaign's brand. Phone call
response to the new branded ads has been excellent.
Ogilvy's flighting plan will enable ONDCP to focus all elements of
the integrated communications plan on strategic message platforms that
have been identified by ONDCP's behavior expert panel. The flighting
approach schedules each message platform for a four to six week period
and allows both youth and parent strategies to be ``seeded'' before
shifting to the next message platform. This ensures that each platforms
receives sufficient impact. As opposed to the first two phases, each
individual platform will receive sufficient media exposure to change
attitudes and ultimately behavior. Moreover, disparate local coalitions
and community efforts can work synergistically with this focused
national campaign to increase the effectiveness of the effort. PDFA and
its Creative Review Committee have endorsed this strategic approach.
Multicultural Resources.--Both ONDCP and PDFA have gained access
through Ogilvy to substantial multicultural resources, from target
audience specialists to ethnic advertising experts. Indeed, Ogilvy's
subcontractors have helped PDFA develop much of the work that has been
created to address critical ethnic ``gaps.''
Accountability.--Ogilvy has helped ONDCP fulfill its responsibility
to the public and its mandate from Congress that the National Youth
Anti-Drug media effort be a completely transparent operation. Through
sophisticated and proprietary methodologies like the econometric
analysis of Pathways Plus and initiatives like the Tracking Study,
Ogilvy will be able to monitor the campaign's successes and failures--
and refine and improve its execution.
Fleishman-Hillard
Fleishman-Hillard is one of the largest and best-respected
communications firms in the world. Fleishman-Hillard has a 53-year
history of delivering results for some of the world's best-known brands
like McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Levi-Strauss and United Airlines. It is no
accident they represent nearly a fifth of the top 100 of Fortune
magazine's annual list of ``Most Admired Companies.'' Their network of
eighteen fully owned domestic agency offices and more than 850
employees are ready to support the needs of this challenging campaign.
For the fifth year in a row, a 1999 Harris-Impulse Poll rated
Fleishman-Hillard as having the best reputation of any of the major
public relations firms. This year they also rated Fleishman-Hillard as
the top agency in the Washington, DC market. It is also the only agency
to be ranked either first or second for overall quality of service by
the industry's leading trade publication, Inside PR, for nine
consecutive years.
The Fleishman-Hillard team has managed research-based social
marketing and communications efforts for non-profit organizations and
partnerships to educate Americans about health and social issues
ranging from safe food handling, improving nutritional content in
Americans' diet, to protecting our children from danger online.
Fleishman-Hillard performs the following task for the media
campaign:
--Media outreach to generate earned media placements of key campaign
messages and improve accuracy in coverage of facts and issues
to educate the media about youth drug use.
--Partnerships and alliance building with government, non-profit,
professional, community and civic organizations designed to
reach members of the target audiences with credible campaign
messages and other programmatic activities to extend the impact
of campaign messages.
--Internet and other ``new media'' activities including strategic
analysis and use of ``new media''; web site design and
maintenance; coordination with Internet advertising; other
Internet, CD-ROM, and other interactive activities capable of
delivering high impact campaign messages or coordinating
campaign stakeholders.
--Outreach to and collaboration with the entertainment industry
including television, movies, music, interactive games for the
purpose of encouraging media depictions that ``denormalize''
drug use and accurately portray the negative consequences of
drug use.
--Graphics support and materials development for press kits, fact
sheets, publications, exhibits, and coordination of materials
development by partner organizations.
--Stakeholder communications including a bi-monthly newsletter,
update letters, meetings and briefings, interactive media, and
other communications to keep stakeholders abreast of
developments in the campaign and to generate further
involvement and support.
THE INTEGRATED NATURE OF THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDI CAMPAIGN
The anti-drug media campaign is anchored by a broad advertising effort
Advertising (both purchased and pro-bono) on TV, radio, print and
on the Internet is the cornerstone of the media campaign. We programmed
$153.017 million in fiscal year 1998 for advertising and increased
allocations for advertising by 16.7 percent to $178.584 million in
fiscal year 1999. The national advertising follows specific anti-drug
themes each month across 102 local markets with more than 2,250 media
outlets. The strategic use of advertising increases the reach and
frequency of our key messages. We currently reach 95 percent of 12 to
17 year-olds an average of 8.3 messages per week.
Complementary communications activities
The non-advertising component of the anti-drug campaign delivers
our messages through radio and television, print media, the Internet,
faith communities, health professionals, community coalitions, schools,
parents, coaches, and organized sports. The drug prevention campaign
also includes an entertainment industry component to ensure that drug
use is depicted accurately on television and in film and music. We
programmed $12.778 million in fiscal year 1999 to anti-drug outreach
media campaign programs that include the following activities:
--Partnerships w/Community/Civic and other Organizations.--To extend
and amplify the reach of campaign messages, the non-advertising
component builds support for prevention programs with
organizational and community partners; increases public
information and news coverage about drug prevention issues and
risks to target audiences; harnesses the power of the Internet
and collaborates with the entertainment community.
We have attracted thousands of partners in our effort to reach
youth and adults--allowing a wide variety of public and private
organizations to participate in and extend the reach of the
Campaign. Here are some examples:
--Blast e-mail system.--There is a media campaign blast e-mail
system that keeps more than 45,000 stakeholders aware of
campaign activities and outreach. The 45,000 stakeholders
we reach directly with these emails in turn generate more
readers and viewers of campaign products through their own
communication channels that reach literally millions.
--YMCA of the USA.--Another example is our partnership with the
YMCA of the USA, which reaches out to sixteen million
people (eight million kids). As a result of this
partnership, for the first time in their history, the YMCA
is incorporating drug prevention resources and messages
into their publications and curriculum materials.
--Youth Service America.--Similarly, the Media Campaign is
collaborating with Youth Service America--an umbrella
organization of two hundred youth service groups
representing thirty million young Americans--to regularly
disseminate Media Campaign information through their
network.
--National Future Farmers of America.--The National FFA is co-
sponsoring a national PSA contest incorporating campaign
themes.
The campaign is also working through national organizations like
the Boys and Girls Clubs and the National Middle Schools
Association to strengthen anti-drug efforts at the local level.
Entertainment Industry Outreach and Collaboration
ONDCP and PDFA are engaging the entertainment industry to ensure
that when drugs are portrayed in programming, an accurate depiction is
communicated--including risks and consequences. We are also conducting
content analysis studies to determine how drugs are portrayed in
entertainment media.\11\ We are meeting regularly with producers and
entertainment executives in Hollywood to offer factual medical and
behavioral perspectives on drug use. Our outreach initiatives to the
entertainment industry are described in greater detail in Part VI of
this testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See for example Substance Abuse in Popular Movies & Music,
Office of national drug Control policy & U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, April 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interactive (Internet/New Media) Projects/Activities
This is the most comprehensive interactive media effort ever
launched by the Federal Government. There are several reasons the
Internet is a powerful vehicle for delivering our campaign messaging.
In sum, they are: the medium is growing; our target audience's use of
the medium is growing; the medium enables targeted, personalized
messaging; success measures are granular and immediate; the internet is
extremely cost effective; and synergies with the overall media plan are
considerable.
Internet usage growth has been 100 percent over the past two years,
and is likely to continue to grow at a compounded annual growth rate of
53 percent over the next four years.\12\ The Internet's expansion
outpaces that of television and radio following their introductions.
The penetration attained by the Internet in its first five years was
matched by television after thirteen years and radio after thirty-eight
years.\13\ Users spend an average of 7.5 hours on-line each month, and
this time is increasing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ EMarketer, September 20, 1999.
\13\ Meeker, Mary and Pearson, Sharon, Morgan Stanley, U.S.
Investment Research: Internet Retail, May 28, 1997.
\14\ Jupiter Digital Kids, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While 22 percent of households with children are on-line, 34
percent of 12 to 17 year-olds have access to the Internet today, and 60
percent are expected to have access by the year 2002.\15\ Parents are
also on-line during work-hours; the Internet is the most accessible
communications medium in the workplace. Parents access the web
primarily for information. Health data is second only to news in terms
of the reasons they log on.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ EMarketer, September 20, 1999--While 22 percent of households
with children are on-line, 48 percent of 12 to 17 year olds have access
to the Internet today, and 60 percent are expected to have access by
the year 2002.
\16\ Media Metrix, August, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Wide Web, with eight million sites, allows for much
narrower targeting than other media. Internet technology is becoming an
integral component of other entertainment/infotainment vehicles (e.g.
games, CDs, CD-ROMs, DVD), further increasing target breadth/
engagement. Technology enables users to delve deeply and immediately
into subjects of interest, with the potential for immediate two-way
dialogue/response.
A distinct benefit of advertising on the Internet is the ability to
closely track its effectiveness in reaching the target audience through
site-specific information (e.g. clicks, page views, time visited). The
power of the Internet experience is in the length and intensity of the
interaction. Internet visitors tend to spend longer and get more
involved in the subject matter than they do with printed or other non-
interactive methods.
The Media Campaign manages eight web sites (Theantidrug.com,
Freevibe.com, AOL Parents' Drug Resource Center, Projectknow.com,
Mediacampaign.org, Straightscoop.org, Freevibe Teachers' Guide, AOL's
It's Your Life) where parents, teens and tweens can learn, play and
interact with others. The sites are widely publicized, including
references and links through hundreds of other web sites focused on
parenting, education, sports and general teen outreach. Current key
site statistics follow:
Freevibe:
--Since its launch in March of 1999, Freevibe.com has received
3,088,600 page views.
--Average Number of Page Views Per Day--10,500.
--Average User Session Length--8 minutes and 30 seconds.
Projectknow:
--This was the original campaign web site. It is currently being
phased out of the campaign. In 1999, Projectknow.com was
accessed 6,483,583 times by 1,647,967 users.
--Average Number of Page Views Per Day--15,465.
--Average User Session Length--10 minutes and 29 seconds.
AOL Parents' Drug Resource Center:
--Since the launch of the Parents' Drug Resource Center area, it has
received 702,151 visits.
--Average User Session length--6 minutes and 30 seconds.
--Most popular area--Be Informed (describes today's street drugs and
their effects)
Theantidrug.com:
--In its first month of full-time operation, the site received 52,950
page views.
--Average Number of Page Views Per Day--1604
--Average user Session length--7 minutes and 13 seconds
In addition to the web sites for which we have direct
responsibility, we are now linked to many other government websites.
You may recall that Representative Matt Salmon led the way by
introducing legislation to include anti-drug messages on NASA's
website--the government site most visited by young people. Since NASA
agreed to carry anti-drug messages and link to our web sites, more than
twenty other federal agencies have added anti-drug messages to their
websites.
Beyond government sites, we are adding an average of three more web
site links per week to educational groups, non-governmental
organizations, advocacy groups and others in the prevention community.
The campaign has developed and continues to develop on-line interactive
resources for all campaign audiences, both on its own and in
collaboration with major on-line media companies such as AOL and SONY.
News Media/Public Education Outreach
Central to the media campaign are Public Information activities
dealing with the news media, direct outreach, and special events to
generate a steady flow of campaign messages to youth and adult
audiences. Campaign news media outreach in 1999 alone has generated
more than 124 million media impressions. Outreach ranges from national
print and broadcast outlets to local community (and even school)
newspapers in order to provide context, relevance and repetition for
campaign messages, educate reporters, and leverage current events and
trends. In addition, program activities and outreach initiatives have
been developed to reach adults and kids where they spend the majority
of their time--at work and in school.
We have partnerships with the Chicago Tribune, New York Times, and
USA Today. The campaign created the Straight Scoop School News Bureau
as a resource for middle and high school journalists. Seven television
networks produced their own anti-drug PSAs as a result of ONDCP
outreach. Some examples of public information outreach are:
--Cub Reporters.--A major cable company, MediaOne, and ONDCP co-
sponsored a ``Cub Reporter'' bus tour from Miami to Washington,
DC in the last week of August. The cub reporters talked with
and filmed other kids' experiences and opinions about drugs. A
30-minute documentary based on their experiences will be
broadcast in November.
--School-based programs.--In August, ONDCP unveiled a package of
school-based programs for the 1999-2000 school year and beyond.
They include:
The Straight Scoop News Bureau, a resource for middle and high
school journalists to give them factual ``straight scoop''
information on drugs and drug use. Partners in the new bureau
include the Annie E. Casey School of Journalism for Children
and Families, Chicago Tribune and the New York Times. News
bureau resources can be found at www.straightscoop.org.
Just recently, the Straight Scoop News Bureau teamed up with Sun
Microsystems, OpenVoice and Athlete Direct to host a live
online chat with San Francisco 49'ers Quarterback Steve Young.
Young discussed the importance of living a healthy, drug-free
lifestyle. Student journalists were encouraged to ask Steve
Young questions and publish articles in their school papers.
This event was broadcast live via satellite to more than 250
cities across the country. Altogether, the online and
satellite-link audience was estimated at over 3 million.
Corporate Sponsorship/Participation
ONDCP and PDFA are increasing the number of strategic campaign
partners--both organizations and businesses--that help us deliver anti-
drug information. America On Line created the Parents' Drug Resource
Center (AOL Keyword: Drug Help) to help parents influence their
children to remain drug free. Many National Football League, Major
League Baseball, National Basketball Association, and Major League
Soccer teams show our anti-drug ads during games.
THE CAMPAIGN'S ENTERTAINMENT INITIATIVE
The media campaign's entertainment initiative has several major
components, all of which are guided by a fundamental philosophy: the
entertainment community is a crucial player in addressing substance
abuse among teens. They are the most powerful creative force in the
world, and we firmly believe they are part of the solution. We do not
subscribe to the widely held view that popular culture is inevitably a
destructive force in the area of drugs, and you will not hear this
campaign attacking the entertainment community. What you will hear
instead is a call for dialogue. We offer information, materials,
experts, and a commitment to working together over the long haul. We do
not proselytize. We realize that you cannot ``shoe horn'' a drug
message in a script where it does not belong. It must appear
organically, and the only way that can be done is if the creative
community is aware of the issues and facts. We want creative people and
organizations to understand drug use and prevention issues so they can
depict them accurately. Parent denial, risk perception, peer refusal
skills and other message strategies are most effectively communicated
by creative talent that is aware of and sensitized to the issues. The
media campaign's entertainment outreach goals follow:
--Encourage accurate depictions of drug use issues--including the
consequences of drug abuse in programming popular with teens
and parents.
--Incorporate strategic drug prevention messages and themes into
popular culture, and dispel myths and misconceptions about drug
abuse.
--De-normalize the image of drug use on TV, and in popular music and
film.
--Use entertainment media to provide accurate drug information and
resources on substance abuse to parents, caregivers, faith
community leaders, and policymakers.
One of our key strategies is to inform the creative process through
a series of briefings, roundtables, and workshops in New York and
Hollywood. These events are a cost-effective way to educate and inspire
television writers, film screenwriters, and executives to portray
realistic substance abuse consequences and to spur ideas for future
storylines or scenes. Sometimes only a one-second frown or wave of the
hand when someone is offered marijuana is all that is needed. The
payoff can be substantial. Campaign messages are incorporated into
dramatic storylines that are conveyed on valuable airtime, via top-
rated shows seen by millions of viewers. In fact, if the campaign were
to rely exclusively on purchasing ad time, reaching audiences of this
size would be prohibitively expensive.
Some of the sessions we conducted last year included briefings for
network executives at ABC and Fox Television and a roundtable for
creative executives involved in programming that targets children and
teens. We met with a broad array of entertainment industry
organizations and their leaders including the Writers Guild, Caucus of
Producers, Writers and Directors, Entertainment Industry Council,
Screen Actors Guild, Directors Guild, Producers Guild, Academy of
Television Arts and Sciences, and other organizations. We also met with
industry leaders in Hollywood including Rob Reiner, Richard Dreyfuss,
Barry Diller, Frank Biondi, and senior executives of major networks. We
participated in entertainment industry events and briefed executives
from Hollywood talent agencies, and publicity and management firms. And
we've provided information and subject matter experts to writers and
producers of individual shows, including Cosby, Chicago Hope, ER, and
Beverly Hills 90210.
As a result of these activities, we have captured the attention of
key creative and programming executives at, among others, all six
broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, The WB, UPN), The
Fox Family Channel, Warner Bros. Television, Disney Television,
Universal Television, The Writers Guild, The Directors Guild, and The
Screen Actors Guild. We will also partner with entertainment industry
organizations, other federal agencies, and nonprofit organizations
whose goals complement ours. For example, we are excited about a new
partnership with The Hollywood Reporter--a daily newspaper that
delivers news coverage and in-depth stories to industry professionals
around the world; it is one of the ``must read'' publications in the
entertainment industry. They have agreed to work with the campaign to
develop a series of workshops that will support our education efforts
on the topic of substance abuse.
To support its outreach strategy, the ONDCP Entertainment Team
identifies and provides experts and resources to the entertainment
community, particularly writers who may have questions concerning
substance abuse. This expertise is specifically tailored to meet the
needs of the television industry, particularly the time constraints
under which writers work. Experts are prepared carefully so that they
can work effectively with television writers and producers, but remain
true to the messages of the campaign. As a result writers gain a deeper
understanding of how to depict substance abuse accurately
To help us accomplish these goals, we work directly with many of
the key entertainment industry organizations, particularly those on the
creative side of the business. We also have retained expert counsel in
New York and Los Angeles, the capitals of the entertainment world, to
work with the campaign to develop our core strategies. Collectively, we
work on the following activities:
--Providing resources and information on substance abuse to industry
leaders and the creative community through briefings, special
events, collateral materials and access to experts.
We are working with and engaging writers, producers, directors,
network executives, musicians, and entertainment industry
associations, forming relationships and partnerships to
encourage America's young people to reject illegal drugs. By
showing the range of negative consequences of substance abuse,
by depicting drugged behavior as unglamorous and socially
unacceptable, we can discourage drug use. The creative
community is in a unique and powerful position to communicate
that drug use is neither normal nor mainstream; it is
undesirable.
Since the campaign began, ONDCP has maintained dialogue with a
number of writers, producers, directors, and studio executives.
They are an extraordinarily talented and creative group of
people who have consistently demonstrated their ability to
combine positive messages with compelling entertainment.
Popular shows like The Practice, Home Improvement, 7th Heaven,
ER, Cosby, Beverly Hills 90210, and Hang Time have featured
realistic, fact-based depictions about substance use in their
storylines. All are award-winning programs watched by teens and
parents. None of these shows saw declines in either quality or
ratings because of their choice to both depict the negative
consequences of substance use and show positive examples of
families dealing with drugs. In short, entertainment and
responsibility are not mutually exclusive, and we are
privileged to be working with some of this country's most
creative, talented, and committed individuals on this
groundbreaking effort. We believe our outreach to the
television industry has helped to make this past year one of
the best ones for accurate depiction of drug use and drug use
issues on network television.
--Engaging celebrities who are positive role models in extending the
reach of campaign messages through participation in such
activities as personal appearances and on-line chats.
Advertisers and marketers have long used celebrities to make
their messages more appealing. The technique is particularly
effective with young people, who frequently try to emulate the
looks, behavior, and attitude of their favorite stars. The
media campaign is using support from popular public
entertainment figures to enhance the campaign's credibility and
visibility among youth; increase potential media coverage of
illegal drug use and its consequences; and help campaign
messages reach key target audiences in a compelling and
effective manner by featuring celebrities in a setting more
accessible than advertising. In order to appeal to the broadest
audiences, we are using a diverse group of celebrities in a
variety of ways.
An impressive range of celebrities has spoken publicly about
campaign themes and goals. Youth and parents nationwide have
heard celebrity voices from many of the entertainment genres,
including: TV (e.g., Eriq La Salle of NBC's ER, Jenna Elfman of
ABC's Dharma & Greg, Ken Olin of CBS's LA Doctors, Lisa Nicole
Carter of Fox's Ally McBeal); film; popular music (e.g., Lauryn
Hill, The Dixie Chicks); amateur and professional sports (e.g.,
U.S. Women's World Cup champion soccer team, Olympic Gold
Medallist Tara Lipinski, Mike Modano of the National Hockey
League champion Dallas Stars), comedy (e.g., Howie Mandel); and
pop culture (e.g., Miss America 1999 Nicole Johnson, Marvel
Comics' Spider-Man). All have generously donated their services
to the American taxpayer. Seven television networks have
produced public service announcements using celebrities from
their most popular shows. We do not pay for talent--which could
amount to millions--but credit the cost of the time. These
messages are reviewed by ONDCP to ensure they are supportive of
the campaign's communication strategy--no fees have been or
will be paid to celebrities to take part in Media Campaign
activities.
--Recognizing and commending accurate portrayals of drug issues on
TV, film and in other entertainment media, and honoring the
creative efforts of writers, directors, producers, actors and
studio executives.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has long worked with
the Entertainment Industry Council (EIC) to bring science-based
information about alcohol, drugs and tobacco to creators of
entertainment products. In 1996, NIDA and EIC developed the
PRISM awards for accurate depiction of alcohol, drugs and
tobacco. We expect that the media campaign's entertainment
outreach initiative will result in a considerable increase in
the number of candidates for PRISM awards at the March 2000
ceremony.
--Conducting content analysis and other research to determine how
entertainment media depict substance abuse issues. Careful
examination of media content is a crucial first step in
determining what role media may play in promoting substance use
and abuse. The two Mediascope content analyses (whose principal
findings were summarized in Section II of this statement) are
examples of the factual way ONDCP is addressing the issue of
the entertainment industry's depiction of illegal drugs.
--Cross-Marketing: Beyond Movies and Television. To ensure that
campaign messages reach teens and parents through as many
outlets as possible, ONDCP's Entertainment Team is extending
its activities beyond music and television, and focusing
attention on the fashion and retail industries, home video, and
motion pictures.
We are also exploring partnering with home video distributors and
retailers in the promotion of campaign messages via inserts in
new home video releases and retail store promotions. This
initiative is in its nascent stage, but initial outreach has
begun with studio marketing executives and home video
distributors.
THE ROLE OF PROGRAMMING
In the 1980s, public-health advocates began to harness television
programming to promote public-health issues. Since then, numerous
campaigns have sought to communicate prevention messages within
programming. Research underscores this approach:
--The National Designated Driver Campaign.--One of the best-
documented examples of a media campaign incorporating
entertainment programming is the National Designated Driver
Campaign that was launched in 1988. According to Dr. Jay A.
Winsten, Ph.D., Associate Dean and Director of Harvard School
of Public Health's Center for Health Communication, the
campaign broke new ground when television writers agreed to
insert drunk driving prevention messages in scripts of top-
rated shows. Dr. Winsten describes this campaign as ``the first
successful effort to mobilize the Hollywood creative community
on such a scale, using dialogue in prime time entertainment as
a health promotion technology.'' This integrated public-health
communications campaign had a marked effect on alcohol-related
traffic fatalities. Whereas in the three years before the
designated driver campaign there had been 0 percent change in
such fatalities, by 1992 (four years after the campaign's
launch), annual fatalities had declined by 24 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Winsten JA. Promoting Designated Drivers: The Harvard Alcohol
Project. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1994 May-June; 10(3
Suppl):11-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--1999 Healthstyles Survey.--Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention analysis of this report reveals that almost half (48
percent) of the people who report they watch soap operas at
least twice a week learned something about diseases and how to
prevent them from the daytime drama story lines. More than one-
third (34 percent) took some action as a result. One in four
(25 percent) told someone about it, 13 percent suggested
someone do something about it, 7 percent visited a clinic or
doctor, and 6 percent did something to prevent the problem.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The Healthstyles Survey is a proprietary database product
developed by Porter Novelli. Its sampling is based on seven U.S. Census
Bureau characteristics. The survey is used by organizations such as CDC
to shape public-health outreach efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The media campaign's Communication Strategy Statement highlights
programming's potential for communicating public-health messages.
Excerpts of the document follow:
--``Research has repeatedly shown that media programs work best in
conjunction with other community- and school-based anti-drug
programs, when consistent messages are conveyed through a
variety of channels and in several different contexts.'' (Flay
& Sobel, 1983; Macoby, 1990; Schilling & McAllister, 1990;
Sloboda & David, 1997)--P. 6.
--``Health information, including information about drug use issues,
is provided through all forms of media including news,
entertainment programming, and advertising. This information is
so pervasive that most people report the media as their primary
source of information about health issues.'' (Freimuth, Stein,
and Kean, 1989)--P. 7.
--The media campaign must ``harness a diverse media mix including
television, video, radio, print, and Internet and other forms
of new media to deliver both general and tailored messages.
Within the media mix, messages will be delivered through the
full range of media content, including paid and public service
advertising, news, public affairs, programming, and
entertainment programming.''--P. 9.
--``Effective message tailoring involves . . . working with
communications professionals who specialize in creating content
for particular audiences.''--P. 9.
Evaluations of the media campaign confirm this research
ONDCP September 1998 report to Congress.--(Testing the Anti-Drug
Message in 12 American Cities: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Phase I (Report No. 1)--found:
--Youth asserted that ``TV programming promotes drug use and
violence.''--P. ES-4.
--``Parents' perceptions of the cultural relevance and credibility of
anti-drug ads, much like youth's perceptions, focused more on
program content and presentation . . .''--P. ES-7.
--The Internet, television shows, and song lyrics heard on radio
frequently condone the use of drugs. Youth are bombarded with
these messages on a daily basis. Mothers and fathers frequently
work long hours outside the home, leaving their children free
during the after school hours to watch television and be
exposed to messages that glamorize drug use. Youth,
particularly high school students, are subjected to ever-
increasing sources of stress in their daily lives. Future
decisions about the design and implementation of the media
campaign should be made within the context of these issues.''--
P. ES-13.
ONDCP June 1999 report to Congress.--(Investing in our Nation's
Youth: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Phase II Final Report)--
found that:
--``There was a significant increase in the percentages of both youth
and teens who perceived that TV shows, news, and movies were
important sources of anti-drug information.''--P. 5-2.
--``The use of TV shows, news, and movies; outside billboards; and
posters on buses, bus stops and subways are effective ways of
reaching youth and teens with anti-drug messages.''--P. 5-3.
Today, there are a number of national organizations working within
the existing structures of the entertainment industry, attempting to
have a positive influence on programming. They include the Henry J.
Kaiser Family Foundation, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen
Pregnancy, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the Population Communications
Institute, the American Lung Association, and the media campaign's own
partner, Mediascope. Their efforts are complemented by those of federal
agencies like ONDCP, NASA, the National Institutes of Health, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as all of the
branches of our armed forces, who work to ensure that entertainment
portrays issues and situations realistically and accurately. ONDCP
remains convinced that for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
to be most effective, scientifically accurate drug-prevention messages
must be conveyed through programming.
THE PRO-BONO MATCH REQUIREMENT
One of the foundations of our strategy is the pro-bono match
requirement outlined in Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277, October 21, 1998). The
act stipulated that federal funds spent on advertising must be must be
matched with in-kind contributions of the same value. ONDCP allows
Public Service Advertising (PSA) time and space, public affairs
activities, and programming to count as public service contributions.
Individual companies decide how to meet this requirement. The only
proviso is that the majority of the match must be in the form of
equivalent PSA time and space.
Zenith Media (our advertising purchasing company in 1998) created a
formula for valuing programming content similar to those used by
product sponsors for a program episode. The formula is based,
conservatively, on requirements for a product advertiser to officially
sponsor a program. For example, an on-strategy storyline that is the
main plot of a half-hour show can be valued at three thirty-second ads.
If there is an end-tag with an 800 number or more information at the
end of a half-hour show, it is valued at an additional fifteen-second
ad. A main storyline in an hour-long prime-time show is valued at five
thirty-second ads, while such a storyline in a one-hour daytime show is
valued at four thirty-second ads.
Indeed, considerable public service time and space has been
generated by the media match requirement. According to Ad Age, the
ONDCP campaign is a factor in increasing the public service time on
prime time network TV. ONDCP retains all magazine, print and out of
home space and uses it for campaign messages. The radio and TV time is
shared with other organizations that have drug-related messages. More
than 265,000 radio and TV public service messages have been played in
support of forty-five organizations. The Ad Council oversees the
process for national ads. The American Advertising Federation plays a
similar coordinating role in 102 local media markets. In the coming
year, we will see a much larger number of local organizations
benefiting from the pro-bono match component of the Media Campaign.
Criteria for evaluating consistency with the campaign's strategic
message platforms
Director McCaffrey personally approved procedures for determining
valuation of ``in-kind contributions'' to the national media campaign
on April 23, 1998. ONDCP and our contractors have followed these
procedures. Specific elements of this decision included:
--Eligibility for pro-bono match.--Media outlets were allowed to
provide in-kind contributions provided that the majority of the
match was satisfied with advertising time and space donations.
The balance of the match could be met by media outlets with
relevant non-advertising efforts such as programming, locally
or nationally sponsored community events, appropriate public
affairs programming, in-school programs, or in-kind donations.
--Requirement that current pro-bono public service time not be
supplanted.--ONDCP contracted the Advertising Council to
allocate national-level pro-bono PSA slots to eligible
campaigns and to ensure that the media campaign did not reduce
existing levels of pro-bono advertising time and space in
accordance with the law and congressional intent.
--Establishment of a Media Match Task Force.--This task force
includes representatives from ONDCP, the Advertising Council,
the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, and the
Department of Education. It assesses implementation of pro-bono
match guidelines and recommends changes.
--Specific criteria for qualification as ``in-kind contributions''
for programs.--Programs that include messages promoting
activities, behavior, and healthy environments that prevent
drug use by youth can be considered for pro-bono match
purposes. The specific criteria that have been applied are:
Does the program--
--Educate and support the development of good parenting practices.
--Encourage greater parental and caregiver involvement in a child's
upbringing and effective drug-prevention parenting
strategies.
--Provide early childhood development programs that strengthen the
parent-child relationship.
--Provide opportunities for youth through programs and services in
school and after school such as mentoring.
--Foster high expectation and self-esteem for youth.
--Prevent drug abuse including underage tobacco and alcohol use.
--Emphasize the nexus between drugs and crime and violence.
--Emphasize the connection between substance use and AIDS.
--Support other drug-related messages and campaigns as determined
by ONDCP.
These criteria have been consistently used to determine whether
programs submitted by media outlets for pro-bono match consideration
should indeed qualify for public-service credit. At no time during this
process did ONDCP--or any person or organization affiliated with the
media campaign--suggest script changes, nor were any episodes or
programs resubmitted for reconsideration in exchange for pro-bono match
credit. Indeed, we have always assumed that any transcripts or programs
submitted for public-service credit consideration were final products
and not subject to further change.
To date, seven networks have submitted programs to ONDCP's
contractor, Ogilvy & Mather for pro-bono match consideration. Thirty-
nine separate programs (with 130 original episodes and 353 repeats)
have been assigned a total of $21,820,329 in public-service credit. A
list of all programs and episodes for which credits were given is
enclosed at Tab 3.
ONDCP takes seriously questions about the campaign's pro-bono match
procedures. There can be no suggestion of federal interference in the
creative process. Accordingly, in the future, we will only review
programs for pro-bono match consideration after they have aired. The
attached January 18 ONDCP press release outlines the new procedures we
are implementing to guard against any appearance of impropriety.
RESULTS OF THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN
The anti-drug media campaign is surpassing initial expectations
Phase I.--During the initial twenty-six-week pilot in twelve cities
(Phase I, January through June 1998), we exceeded our goal of reaching
90 percent of the overall target audience with four anti-drug messages
a week.\19\ The campaign's Phase I message delivery rate follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Findings regarding the effectiveness of Phase I were presented
to Congress in September 1998 and March 1999, see Testing the Anti-Drug
Message in 12 American Cities: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
Phase I (Report No. 1), September 1998 and (Report No. 2, March 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall
Teens 12--17: 95 percent viewed an average of 8.5 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 95 percent viewed an average of 7.5 messages a week.
African-American
Teens 12--17: 96 percent viewed an average of 9.4 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 96 percent viewed an average of 8.4 messages a week.
Hispanic
Teens 12--17: 90 percent viewed an average of 5.9 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 85 percent viewed an average of 5.8 messages a week.
We are extremely encouraged to note that significant increases in
awareness of anti-drug ads occurred among the target audiences. The
evaluations ONDCP submitted to Congress showed that youth and teens
demonstrated significant increases in ad recall in the target versus
the comparison sites--youth increases ranged from 11 to 26 percent,
teens ranged from 13 to 27 percent. Parents in target sites had an 11
percent gain in awareness of the risks of drugs and said that the
campaign provided them with new information about drugs (a 7 percent
increase). Meanwhile, the number and frequency of PSAs for other
related social issues increased, demonstrating no interference from the
paid ad campaign.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase II.--When the anti-drug media campaign was expanded to a
national audience (Phase II, July 1998 through June 1999), we
maintained our planned message delivery rates:
Overall
Teens 12--17: 95 percent viewed an average of 6.8 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 92 percent viewed an average of 4.5 messages a week.
African-American
Teens 12--17: 96 percent viewed an average of 7.6 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 95 percent viewed an average of 7.2 messages a week.
Hispanic
Teens 12--17: 88 percent viewed an average of 4.8 messages a week.
Adults 25--54: 84 percent viewed an average of 4.8 messages a week.
The anti-drug campaign's messages also began to influence
attitudes. The percentage of youth who agreed that the ads ``made them
stay away from drugs'' increased from 61 percent to 69 percent. The
percentage reporting they ``learned a lot about the dangers of drugs''
from TV commercials also increased from 44 to 52 percent.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ONDCP submitted an evaluation of Phase II to both
Congressional Committees on Appropriations. See Investing in our
Nation's Youth: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Phase II Final
Report, June 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phase III (July 1999-Present).--Our broad-based advertising effort
continues to exceed planned message delivery rates. As a result of the
leverage the campaign is providing to other organizations and causes
through the required pro-bono matches, we are increasing the number
reach of the campaign.
Teens 12-17:
Paid--91 percent viewed an average of 4.4 messages a week.
Paid & anti-drug match--95 percent viewed an average of 5.2
messages a week.
Paid & all match--95 percent viewed an average of 8.3 messages a
week.
Adults 25-54:
Paid--82 percent viewed an average of 3.5 messages a week.
Paid & anti-drug match--92 percent viewed an average of 3.7
messages a week.
Paid & all match--95 percent viewed an average of 5.9 messages a
week.
The campaign's pervasive presence has also been manifested in
increased demand for anti-drug information. Since the national launch
of the campaign in July of 1998, inquiries received by the National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI) have increased
dramatically. The number of inquiries received between July 1998 and
June 1999 increased by 159 percent over the corresponding 1997-1998
period. NCADI also responded to 102 percent more requests for
information and distributed more than sixteen million items between
July 1998 and June 1999. On peak days--which corresponded with specific
anti-drug campaign events (e.g. an article in Parade magazine, media
coverage of national launch, and media ``roadblocks'')--requests surged
by 367 percent over pre-campaign levels. Per month Internet requests
for substance abuse information have increased tenfold since July
1998.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ SAMHSA/NCADI briefing to ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey,
September 2, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, the campaign has exceeded its pro-bono match requirements;
we have accomplished 107 percent of the media match at a value of $213
million. We formed partnerships with seven television networks that
have produced their own anti-drug PSAs consistent with campaign themes.
We attained 168 million pro-bono Internet impressions. The campaign's
strategic messages have been supported in 130 TV programs that
incorporated science-based anti-drug story lines.
Additional indicators of success
No child or adult ``influencer'' is being left behind. The campaign
is reaching minority youth and parents at unprecedented levels,
delivering $33 million worth of anti-drug messages. By any standard,
this is the strongest multi-cultural communications effort ever
launched by the Federal Government; it rivals that of most corporate
efforts. ONDCP is the largest governmental advertiser in African-
American newspapers. We are now developing campaign materials in eleven
languages.
Private sector support is exceeding ONDCP's goals and expectations.
The anti-drug campaign's target is a one-for-one match; for every
taxpayer dollar we spend, we require an equal added dollar's worth of
anti-drug public service, pro bono activity. The campaign's private
sector match is now at the 109 percent level (or $149 million gross)
for the broadcast industry (matches of ad time on TV and radio).
Overall, the corporate match for all campaign efforts is at the 107
percent level (or $213 million). In addition to the pro bono match, we
have received over $42 million of corporate in-kind support.
As we move into an integrated campaign we are reaching young people
throughout the Internet. The number of campaign Internet advertising
impressions (ad ``banners'' on web sites) exceeds two hundred million.
In 1999, ONDCP's campaign site, www.mediacampaign.com was accessed
446,596 times by 170,456 users. The prevention sites
www.projectknow.com was accessed 6,483,583 times by 1,647,967 users.
YOUTH ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE LAUNCH OF THE
NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The campaign is getting the nation's attention and influencing
drug-related attitudes and behavior. Based on expert analysis of drug-
use trends and media campaign impacts, we did not expect to see
appreciable impacts on drug use until two years into the campaign.
However, since the campaign's inception, we have seen noteworthy
changes in drug-related attitudes and behavior among our youth:
--In September 1998, we reported to Congress--(Testing the Anti-Drug
Message in 12 American Cities: National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign Phase I (Report No. 1)--that the campaign's ads were
stimulating discussion between parents and children.
--In June 1999, we reported to Congress--(Investing in our Nation's
Youth: National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign Phase II Final
Report)--that the percentage of teens who said they had learned
``a lot'' from TV commercials that ``drugs are bad'' increased
from 44 to 52. We also noted a 12 percent increase in the
percentage of youth that agreed the ads made them stay away
from drugs (an increase from 61 to 69 percent).
Additionally, various recent national surveys indicate that
adolescent anti-drug attitudes have stiffened and some drug-use rates
have declined.
--Adolescent drug use declined 13 percent between 1997 and 1998 (1998
National Household Survey on Drug Abuse).
--The percentage of 13-18 year olds strongly agreeing with the
statement ``kids who are really cool don't use drugs,''
increased from 35 percent in 1998 to 40 percent in 1999
(Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 1999 Partnership Attitude
Tracking Study).
--The teenage belief that ``most people will try marijuana sometime''
declined to 35 percent in 1999, from 40 percent in 1998 and 41
percent in 1997 (Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 1999
Partnership Attitude Tracking Study).
--In 1999, 63 percent of teens reported parents were talking to them
about the risks of drug use, up from 53 percent in 1998 (Center
on Substance Abuse and Addiction, 1999 Back to School Survey).
--The number of young people reporting that their schools were drug
free increased from 31 percent in 1998 to 44 percent in 1999
(Center on Substance Abuse and Addiction, 1999 Back to School
Survey).
TRANSPARENCY OF THE MEDIA CAMPAIGN
Everything about this campaign--including the pro-bono match--has
been conducted openly with congressional oversight, news coverage,
publicity, and outreach to the media. There were three congressional
hearings in 1999 on the subject of the media campaign, so the notion
that this project is being conducted ``in secret'' is inaccurate. We
have also written opinion editorials explaining all aspects of the
campaign; these pieces have been published in newspapers, magazines,
and journals throughout the country. Countless press releases, news
conferences, and events with the President and congressional leadership
were devoted to this topic as was much TV and radio coverage and a
website (www.mediacampaign.org) that was accessed 446,596 times in
1999.
Excerpts of national coverage of the pro-bono match
Advertising Age ``Networks `donate' anti-drug messages'' (July 6,
1998)
``. . . broadcast media are jumping to take the drug agency's offer
of trading its large ad budget for an equal amount of free time,
including not only spots but anti-drug programming and other
activities.''
Los Angeles Times ``Ad Plan: Your Tax Dollars on Drugs'' (August
20, 1998)
``The accompanying matches are not all straight gifts of time.
Credit is also awarded, for example, for building an Internet site. Fox
Family Network may count as donations episodes of its entertainment
programs that carry an anti-drug theme . . .''
USA Today ``White House anti-drug unit garners fortune in free
ads'' (November 2, 1998)
``. . . the government is demanding more than it's paying for. Its
requirement: that media match its purchase with free air time or space
or other public service efforts. For the networks, donated commercial
time counts. Talk show time can count. So do White House-approved
scripts that promote the anti-drug theme.''
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, Director McCaffrey asked me to reassure you that the
Anti-Drug Media Campaign has complied with all applicable laws and
carefully taken into account congressional intent. We are proud that
the media campaign is bringing to bear the scientific information that
results from the half billion dollars the Federal Government invests on
drug abuse research through the National Institute on Drug Abuse every
year.
As you know, the primary goal of the National Drug Control Strategy
is to ``educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as
well as alcohol and tobacco.'' Over the past four years, federal
spending on prevention has increased by 55 percent. This public-health
communications campaign is the most visible element of the national
response to the juvenile drug-use crisis. These extensive prevention
efforts are beginning to bear fruit. We are convinced that if we
continue to emphasize drug prevention, juvenile drug-use rates will
drop further. Thank you again for your support of our efforts to reduce
drug use and its consequences in America.
Senator Campbell. We are going to take a 10 or 15-minute
recess while we run over and vote. We will then hear from Ms.
Conlon, and I apologize for having you sit so long, Ms. Conlon,
and from Mr. Bonnette, and then we will go to Mr. Forbes. With
that, we will stand in recess for about 10 minutes.
My friends, if we could take our seats, the committee is
back in session and we will not have any more interruptions.
That was the last vote, so we will be able to finish this. I
hope, Mr. Levitt, you will be able to stay around, although I
have no further questions. I do not think Senator Dorgan does.
I hope you will stay around to hear the remaining testimony, if
you can.
We will now go to Ms. Conlon, the President of the Ad
Council. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PEGGY CONLON, PRESIDENT, THE ADVERTISING
COUNCIL, INC.
Ms. Conlon. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you so much for
inviting us to participate in this testimony today.
As President of the Advertising Council, I commend the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America for
their foresight in the creation of an unprecedented National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Thus far, the public service
match component of the campaign is an unqualified success. It
has reinvigorated public service advertising despite a highly
competitive media environment, and the media is rising to the
challenge. It is because of this PSA match that this campaign
is the most efficient use of leveraged government funding that
I have ever seen.
For 58 years, the Ad Council has served as the nation's
leading provider of public service advertising. Since we were
founded by President Roosevelt to help engage Americans in the
World War II effort, our media messages have moved the needle
on such behaviors as drunk driving, crime prevention, and
environmental protection.
Four years ago, we committed our resources to supporting
America's children and families, and we were delighted when the
ONDCP delighted us to be a full partner in an innovative media
campaign which is consistent with this mission.
The Ad Council serves the ONDCP media campaign in several
ways. Primarily, we oversee a media match task force that vets
national PSAs for participation in the match program. Together
with ONDCP, Partnership for a Drug-Free America, and other
members of the task force, including Departments of Education,
Justice, and Health and Human Services, the Ad Council was
involved from the start in recommending and designing the
guidelines of the media match component. The guidelines apply
to the national PSA match as well as the programming element,
and they form the basis of the media match program at the local
level. We have also reached out to thousands of community
organizations with an invitation to participate in the match.
The Ad Council's experience to date with the ONDCP media
campaign has been exceptionally positive. The match component
has revitalized public service as we know it. It has increased
the awareness of community-based programs that aid in youth
drug prevention by encouraging early action steps, such as
mentoring, greater parental involvement, after-school programs,
and raising young people's self-esteem. These programs are
receiving unprecedented media exposure. In fact, since the
launch of the campaign, over 250,000 television and radio on-
air PSA placements have been donated by the media on behalf of
45 national nonprofit and government organizations.
Initial concerns that the introduction of the ONDCP match
might supplant the media's existing support of public service
have proved to be unfounded. Beyond the match program, both
qualifying and non-qualifying Ad Council PSAs have received
equal support from the media.
In addition, an unintended benefit of the match is the
improvement of PSA audience reach by opening up highly-rated
television dayparts in which public service was traditionally
underrepresented. The Ad Council's independent monitoring
service has reported that in the 5 years prior to the match,
only 40 percent of donated media toward Ad Council PSAs were in
desirable dayparts, leaving the majority of PSAs to be aired
between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Since the match,
the media donation of desirable dayparts has dramatically
increased, from 40 percent to 70 percent of total donated
media.
Again, the PSA media match was well conceived and has been
executed by the ONDCP in the most inclusive manner and with
great success. It is a sustainable model that involves the
government, the media, and local communities all joined in a
common objective, to keep our kids drug-free.
On behalf of the Ad Council, I would like to thank all the
partners involved for their continued support of this
unprecedented effort. With great pride, we will continue to
support this campaign in any capacity. Thank you.
Senator Campbell. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony. I
have a couple of questions, but I will go to our next witness
before I ask those questions. I would like to repeat that, for
me, this has never been a question of whether it works or not.
I think it probably does work, as any advertising does, whether
it is subliminal or not. It is a question of propriety, of
transparency, and whether it sets a precedent. Things of that
nature is what this committee is really concerned about.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Peggy Conlon
As President of The Advertising Council, I commend the Senate
Appropriations Sub-Committee, the Office of National Drug Control
Policy and the Partnership For a Drug Free America for their foresight
in the creation of an unprecedented national youth anti-drug media
campaign. Thus far, the public service match component of the campaign
is an unqualified success. It has reinvigorated public service
advertising--despite a highly competitive media environment--and the
media is rising to its challenge. It is because of the PSA match that
this campaign is the most efficient use of leveraged Government funding
that I have ever seen.
For 58 years, the Ad Council has served as the nation's leading
provider of public service advertising. Since we were founded by
President Roosevelt to help engage Americans in the World War II
effort, our media messages have moved the needle on such behaviors as
drunk driving, crime prevention and environmental protection. Four
years ago, we committed our resources to supporting America's children
and families; and we were delighted when the ONDCP invited us to be a
full partner in an innovative media campaign which is consistent with
that mission.
The Ad Council serves the ONDCP media campaign in several ways.
Primarily, we oversee a media match task force that vets national PSAs
for participation in the match program. Together with ONDCP,
Partnership For A Drug Free America, and other members of the task
force (including the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and
Human Services), the Ad Council was involved from the start in
recommending and designing the guidelines of the media match component.
The guidelines apply to the national PSA match as well as the
programming element, and they form the basis of the media match program
at the local level. We have also reached out to thousands of community
organizations with an invitation to participate in the match.
The Ad Council's experience to date with the ONDCP media campaign
has been exceptionally positive. The match component has revitalized
public service as we know it. It has increased the awareness of
community-based programs that aid in youth drug prevention by
encouraging early action steps such as mentoring, greater parental
involvement, after-school programs and raising young people's self-
esteem. These programs are receiving unprecedented media exposure. In
fact, since the launch of the campaign, over 250,000 television and
radio on-air PSA placements have been donated by the media on behalf of
45 national non-profit and government organizations.
Initial concerns that the introduction of the ONDCP match might
``supplant'' the media's existing support of public service have proved
to be unfounded. Beyond the match program, both qualifying and
nonqualifying Ad Council PSAs have received equal support from the
media. In addition, an unintended benefit of the match is the
improvement of PSA audience-reach by opening up high-rated television
dayparts, in which public service was traditionally underrepresented.
The Ad Council's independent monitoring service has reported that in
the five years prior to the match, only 40 percent of all donated media
towards Ad Council PSAs was in desirable dayparts--leaving the majority
of PSAs to be aired between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. Since
the match, the media's donation of desirable dayparts has dramatically
increased from 40 percent to 70 percent of total donated media.
Again, the PSA media match was well conceived and has been executed
by the ONDCP in a most inclusive manner and with great success. It is a
sustainable model that involves the Government, the media and local
communities--all joined in a common objective to keep our kids
drugfree. On behalf of the Ad Council, I would like to thank all the
partners involved for their continued support of this unprecedented
effort. With great pride, we will continue to support this campaign in
any capacity.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BONNETTE, PRESIDENT, PARTNERSHIP
FOR DRUG FREE AMERICA
Senator Campbell. We will go now to Mr. Bonnette, please.
Mr. Bonette. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
thanking you and Senator Dorgan and all the members of the
committee for your support of the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign. Allow me to also thank General McCaffrey,
Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. His
leadership has been truly indispensable for this effort.
As you know, the problem of drug abuse persists across the
country. Millions of children, teenagers, and their parents and
other adults deal with this problem every day. It is, in fact,
the number one concern parents have about their children and
the number one concern among teenagers, as well.
The alarming increase in adolescent drug use since 1991 is
one reason why Congress decided to support this Anti-Drug
Campaign. I come here today, Mr. Chairman, very pleased to
report to you that the campaign is on track and is giving us
every reason to be optimistic.
As you know, the Partnership for a Drug-Free America
originated in the advertising industry. Our roots are in
advertising, marketing, public relations, consumer research,
and the media industries. Today, we have a small staff of about
30 people in New York and a network of hundreds of volunteers
around the country. The strength of the partnership is the
reservoir of advertising talent that creates our work, the same
talent that is behind the most creative, most effective
commercial ad campaigns in the marketplace today. We tap into
this talent, talent that helps sell Pepsi-Cola, Dell computers,
and Dodge trucks, not to sell but to unsell illegal drugs.
Before joining the Partnership in 1989, I spent 25 years in
the advertising industry, 19 of them with BBDO Worldwide, one
of the largest agencies in the world, and at BBDO, I was a
member of both their board of directors and their executive
committee. One of the elements that made the concept of the
Anti-Drug Media Campaign so attractive to Congress was access
to this private sector creative talent. Instead of one
advertising agency creating ads for this campaign, literally
dozens of agencies create work for the partnership, which is
then donated to the Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
That essentially is our role, managing the creative
pipeline. We provide the advertising that is at the heart of
this effort, and while the campaign now covers production costs
for our advertising, the most expensive and critical elements
of each ad, the services of the actual creative talent
producers, copy writers, directors, and actors are all donated
to this effort. With the cost of creating a 30-second
television commercial averaging about $300,000, the advertising
industry has been and continues to be a tremendous resource to
this campaign. The credit here, Mr. Chairman, goes to the
agencies themselves, not to the Partnership, because it is they
who actually do the work.
May I remind the committee that while we have devoted
significant resources and the full heart and soul of the
Partnership to servicing this campaign, we receive no Federal
funding for our role in this effort. We participate in this
campaign because we are dedicated to this cause and we believe
deeply in this model. That is our bottom line.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the strategic rationale behind
this campaign is quite simple. It is the belief in the power of
research-based advertising to persuade children and teenagers
not to use drugs and it is the acknowledgement that to tap into
the full power of mass media in this endeavor, we must employ
paid advertising to get the job done.
In the past, we have witnessed the awesome power of mass
media on the drug problem. In the late 1980s, unprecedented
support from the media contributed to dramatic and long-lasting
results, long-lasting changes in the marketplace. For example,
since 1985, among those 18 and older, regular use of cocaine is
down by 75 percent and is holding, and regular use of any
illicit drug is down by 50 percent and holding. Today, there
are 9.7 million fewer Americans using drugs on a regular basis.
It was the media, Mr. Chairman, who accelerated the rate of
attitudinal shifts that made this happen.
We have also witnessed what happens when mass media focus
on the drug problem dissipates. As news and mass media
attention on drug abuse faded away in the early 1990s and as
media exposure for anti-drug advertising declined steadily,
anti-drug attitudes began to erode. Subsequently, we witnessed
the first increase in adolescent drug use since 1979, and that
increase, as you know, continued for the better part of the
decade, driven by weaker and weaker attitudes toward drugs.
That is when General McCaffrey and we at the Partnership
came to Congress seeking support for this National Youth Anti-
Drug Media Campaign. We concluded that we would need to pay for
media exposure to truly change attitudes and behavior.
We are now, Mr. Chairman, about a year and a half into the
national phase of this campaign, and based on what we are
seeing through various national tracking studies, we believe
the campaign is having a very positive impact. For the first
time since teen drug use turned around for the worse in the
early 1990s, drug-related attitudes among children and
teenagers are now changing for the better and by significant
margins. Most remarkable, perhaps, is that fewer and fewer
teens see drugs as socially acceptable in their peer groups and
in pop culture.
I would like to submit for the record a summary of our
latest national tracking study on drug use.
Senator Campbell. Without objection, that complete study
will be included in the record.
Mr. Bonette. Thank you. Fewer teens now associate drugs
with the concept of ``coolness.'' Fewer teens now see drugs
closely associated with role models, and more teens say drugs
are not required to ``fit in.'' In marketing terms, these are
significant shifts.
Another telling finding is this. More and more children and
teenagers are aware of anti-drug advertising. Message recall is
up dramatically. In just 1 year, the number of teenagers
reporting seeing anti-drug advertising every day or more jumped
from 32 to 45 percent. More teens say they are learning a lot
about the risk of drugs from anti-drug advertising, and the
percentage of parents talking with their children frequently
about drugs has increased from 44 to 57 percent, again, in just
1 year.
To a marketing professional, these are enormous positive
shifts in a relatively short period of time, and importantly,
Mr. Chairman, we also see drug use leveling off for the last 1
to 2 years.
In terms of the changes recorded in the data thus far, we
are exactly where we expected to be with this campaign. Any
consumer marketer would be delighted to see these results in
just 18 months into a marketing effort. Attitudes are changing
in significant ways and this bodes very well for the future,
because as you know, attitudes change behavior.
At this juncture in a marketing campaign with ``customers''
moving in the direction of your product and/or service, a
marketing manager would do one thing and one thing only, pour
it on. When the market begins to move in a favorable direction,
it calls for sustained investment. That, Mr. Chairman, is
exactly where the Anti-Drug Media Campaign is today.
Relevant to the recent press coverage regarding the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Partnership has
not been involved on a daily basis with the match component of
the campaign. We have, however, all had experiences with news
stories that are not entirely accurate. Surely this is not the
first time and it will not be the last.
In the past, networks have been criticized for glamorizing
drugs in television shows. Over the past few weeks, they have
been criticized for including anti-drug story lines and themes
in their shows. From our vantage point, the networks should be
applauded and applauded loudly for working voluntarily with the
campaign. Everything about this campaign from day one has been
openly discussed and publicized, including the option for
networks to match media buys through programming.
All in all, with the paid advertising portion of this plan,
with the match component and with added value leveraged through
story lines and programming, taxpayers are getting an enormous
value for their investment in this campaign and it is now
paying off. With the continued support of Congress, we believe
this program will prove to be one of the most cost-efficient,
cost-effective investments ever made by the Federal Government
in any effort to reduce demand for illegal drugs.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify
today, and thank you and the committee for your support of the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard D. Bonnette
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you and the members of the Subcommittee on Treasury and
General Government. Let me begin by saying thank you, Mr. Chairman, to
you, Senator Dorgan and to all members of the committee for your
support of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
I also want to let you know, Mr. Chairman, how exceptionally
grateful we all are for the leadership and support of Barry McCaffrey,
director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. His leadership
has been indispensable to this effort.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the problem of illegal drugs persists
across the country. In the real lives of real people, millions of
children, teenagers and their parents are dealing with this problem
everyday. It is, in fact, the number one concern parents have about
their children, and the number one concern among teenagers as well.
While media attention focusing on drugs comes and goes, drug abuse
remains front and center for millions of families, families that are
very concerned about a multitude of influences bearing down and
threatening core family values. I know that this is a primary concern
of yours, Mr. Chairman, as it is for us as well. And the linkage to
substance abuse is undeniable.
The alarming increase in adolescent drug use since 1991 is one
reason why Congress decided to support the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign. In our minds, this program--with your continued
support--will prove to be one of the most cost-efficient investments
designed to reduce demand for drugs that the Federal Government will
ever make. And I come here today, Mr. Chairman, very happy to report to
you that the campaign is on-track and making definitive inroads.
In my opening comments, I'd like to do a few things for the
committee:
--Quickly and concisely define the Partnership's role in the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign;
--Describe the strategic rationale that set this historic campaign in
motion; and
--Comment on the progress of the campaign, and place that evaluation
in marketing and advertising terms.
As I conclude, I will leave you with our recommendations regarding
the campaign, as well as our thoughts about recent media attention
focusing on this effort.
The Partnership for a Drug-Free America
For members of the committee not familiar with the Partnership, we
like to describe ourselves this way: We are not a non-profit
organization that decided to try advertising. Rather, we are
advertising professionals who decided to apply our expertise in
marketing and strategic communication in the non-profit arena. Our
roots are in advertising, marketing, public relations, research and the
media industries.
The Partnership began in 1986 with seed money from the American
Association of Advertising Agencies. Today, we have a small staff of
about 30 people, based in New York, and a network of hundreds of
volunteers from the communications industry, based throughout the
country. The strength of the Partnership is the reservoir of
advertising talent that creates our work--the same talent that's behind
some of the biggest commercial ad campaigns in the marketplace today.
We tap this very talent--the talent that helps sell Pepsi Cola, Dell
computers and Dodge trucks--not to sell, but to unsell--to unsell
illegal drugs, which from a marketing perspective might be thought of
as a line of commercial products that attract a significant number of
young customers.
Before joining the Partnership in 1989, I myself spent many years
in the advertising industry--25 years, in fact, 19 of them at BBDO
Worldwide, one of the largest agencies in the world. At BBDO, I was a
member of both the board of directors and the executive committee.
The Partnership's Role in the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
I tell you all of this, Mr. Chairman, to remind the committee why
Congress decided to fund the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
The Congress decided to do so, at least in part, because the Congress
understood that the campaign would benefit from the Partnership's 12
years of experience in the marketplace; the campaign would be driven by
strategic counsel provided by marketing professionals; and the campaign
would benefit enormously by tapping into the Partnership's creative
pipeline. Instead of one advertising agency creating ads for this
campaign, dozens of advertising agencies create work for the
Partnership, which is then donated to the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign. That, essentially, is our role in the campaign--
managing the creative pipeline. We, through the generosity of leading
ad agencies, provide the advertising that at the heart of this effort.
While the Federal resources now cover production costs for our
advertising, the most expensive and critical elements that go into the
creative development process--the services of the actual creative
talent, producers, copywriters, directors and actors--are all donated
to this effort.
On average, creating a 30-second television commercial costs about
$300,000 in the marketplace, Mr. Chairman, so the contribution from the
advertising industry has been--and continues to be--significant. The
credit here, Mr. Chairman, goes to the agencies themselves, not the
Partnership. Our role is to facilitate the creation of the best
advertising the industry can produce, but the agencies actually do the
work. May I remind the committee that while we have devoted tremendous
resources to serving the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, we
receive no Federal funding for our role in this effort. We participate
in this campaign because we're dedicated to this cause, and we believe
deeply in this model. That's our bottom line. We do this for our
mission. Nothing more. Nothing less.
The Strategic Rationale Behind the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign
Mr. Chairman, the success of any professionally managed marketing
campaign depends on a number of variables, none more important,
perhaps, than having the right message delivered to the right target
audience consistently over time.
The message--or creative strategy--of an ad evolves from consumer
research. This is where great advertising begins. From research, we
develop different communication strategies to reach our consumers. From
research, we know that speaking with different kids about different
drugs in different ways, based on their attitudinal makeup, helps us
deliver messages that resonate with the target audience.
Delivering messages effectively also requires exposure--the right
exposure, and enough exposure. Creative approach and exposure levels
are interdependent. If your message is off strategy, it won't resonate
with the target audience, regardless of the millions invested in buying
prime media exposure. The opposite is true as well. Even if your
campaign speaks with precision to the target audience, it will never
produce results if the campaign isn't running with the reach and
frequency required to register with any given target audience.
The latter point summarizes the strategic rationale behind the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. During the late 80s, a
resounding anti-drug chorus coming through mass media contributed to
dramatic changes in drug use. The country heard a loud and consistent
message about drugs from government, the private sector, the news
media, from church and civic leaders, and in part, from anti-drug
advertising. During this period, I might note, the Partnership's
advertising was reaching its peak levels of exposure. In addition to
mass media's focus on drugs, drug-related deaths of celebrities and
athletes drove that message home deeper. During this time, consumer
attitudes about drugs changed for the better and drug use declined
steadily. As a result, the country changed.
Real and long-lasting change registered in that generation's
attitudes about drugs, resulting in dramatic changes in drug use. Since
1985, among those 18 and older, regular use of cocaine is down by 75
percent and holding. Regular use of any illicit drug, again among those
18 and older, is down by 50 percent and holding. Today, in America, as
a result of this attitudinal shift, there are 9.7 million fewer
Americans using drugs on a regular basis. That's close to 10 million
fewer drug users in the country today.
But the 90s, as you know Mr. Chairman, changed everything. Dramatic
economic changes came to the media industry as the complexion of the
industry changed itself: Hundreds of new cable channels, new television
networks and the emergence of the Internet as a new and dynamic medium
all created a new and intense competition for viewers. The impact of
all of this on public service advertising was anything but good: The
media industry--which has donated more than $3 billion in media
exposure to our campaign alone--essentially told us that if they were
going to stay competitive in an entirely new economic environment, they
simply could not give our campaign the type of exposure required to
make a difference in the marketplace.
As media exposure dedicated to the Partnership's ad campaign began
to decline in the early 90s, concurrent with a remarkable decline in
news and other mass media focusing on the drug issue, anti-drug
attitudes began to erode, first among 8th graders--and later 10th and
12th graders. A year later, in 1992, we witnessed the first increase in
adolescent drug use since 1979. As media support for the Partnership's
advertising continued to erode, dropping by more than $100 million a
year in exposure, drug-related attitudes continued eroding as well, and
drug use among children climbed steadily.
Mr. Chairman, while it is difficult to quantify, the correlative
data strongly suggests some relationship between drug trends and our
media-based prevention effort.
This, in essence, represents why we came to the Congress with
Director McCaffrey seeking support for the National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign. It was our estimation that media support for all public
service advertising would continue to erode over time, at least at the
national level. For our campaign to create real, measurable and long-
lasting change in the marketplace, we came to the conclusion that we
would need to pay for media exposure, just like a commercial
advertiser, and aggressively compete for the attention of our target
audiences.
After months of deliberation and discussion, the Congress decided
to support the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign at the initial
level of $195 million--which, as you know, represents about one percent
of the Federal Government's drug budget. The primary use for this
Federal money would be to secure the one thing our advertising campaign
could never secure, and that is guaranteed, prime media exposure for
our messages--in other words, the right media exposure, for the right
messages, designed to reach the right target audiences, consistently
over time.
Progress of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
We are now, Mr. Chairman, about a year and a half into the national
phase of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. Based on what
we're seeing through various national tracking studies, we believe the
campaign is on track and making definitive in-roads.
For the first time since drug use turned around for the worse in
the early 90s, drug-related attitudes among children and teenagers are
changing for the better, and by significant margins. More children are
looking at drugs with disdaining eyes. Most remarkable, perhaps, is
that fewer and fewer teens see drugs as socially acceptable in their
peer groups and in pop culture.
I would like to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a summary of
our latest national tracking study on drug use, released November 22,
1999. Fewer teens now associate drugs with the concept of ``coolness.''
Fewer teens now see drugs closely associated with role models. And more
teens say drugs are not required to fit in. For example, Mr. Chairman,
the number of teens agreeing strongly with the statement ``Marijuana
users are popular'' declined from 17 to 10 percent. In marketing terms,
this is a huge decline.
Another very telling finding is this: More and more children and
teenagers are aware of anti-drug advertising. Message recall is up
dramatically: In just one year, the number of teenagers reporting
seeing anti-drug advertising every day or more jumped from 32 to 45
percent. More teens say they're learning a lot about the risk of drugs
from anti-drug advertising. And the percentage of parents talking with
their children frequently about drugs has increased from 44 to 57
percent, again in just on year.
Our survey--along with studies by the University of Michigan and
the National Institute on Drug Abuse--also show drug use leveling off
over the last one to two years. And in some categories, we're seeing
actual declines in drug use for the first time since the early 1990s.
Statistically significant declines were found in teen use of crack,
cocaine, methamphetamine and inhalants. We see a leveling in marijuana
use, and in some measures a decline, plus stabilization in teen use of
LSD and heroin.
Mr. Chairman, these attitudinal shifts and usage shifts are
concurrent with the launch of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As you know, Mr. Chairman, drug trends shift like tides--slowly,
gradually changing direction. Once pointed in a new direction, then
change occurs with greater force and intensity, but tidal shifts are
slow and take time.
In terms of the changes recorded in the data thus far, we're
exactly where we expected to be with the campaign. Any brand or product
manager would be delighted to see these results just 18 months into a
marketing effort. Attitudes are changing in significant ways. This
bodes very, very well for the future, because as you know, Mr.
Chairman, attitudes drive behavior. Again, Mr. Chairman, allow me to
underscore that these changes are concurrent with the inception of the
National Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
At this juncture in a marketing campaign, Mr. Chairman, a marketing
manager would do one thing, and only one thing: Pour it on. When
business begins to move in a favorable direction, it calls for
sustained investment to move consumers in your direction. That is
exactly where the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is today.
As advertising and marketing professionals with no financial stake
in this campaign, we urge you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee
and the entire Congress to maintain support for this effort. We at the
Partnership support this campaign 100 percent, and will continue
delivering the best advertising the industry can produce to the effort.
Recent Press Coverage Regarding the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that my colleagues from ONDCP will comment
extensively on the recent press coverage regarding the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The Partnership has not been involved
directly with the match component of the campaign. We have, however,
all had experiences with news stories that are not entirely accurate.
Surely, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last.
In the past, networks have been criticized for glamorizing drugs in
television shows. Over the few weeks, they've been criticized for
including anti-drug storylines and themes in their shows. Honestly, Mr.
Chairman, it is sometimes very difficult to understand the swing of the
pendulum.
From our vantage point, the networks should be applauded--and
applauded loudly--for working voluntarily with the campaign. The
campaign embodies smart, sophisticated marketing techniques to get
persuasive messages about the dangers of drugs--our ``product''--placed
in prime media exposure. It's a smart approach that recognizes the
economic pressures facing the media industry, and the government's need
to leverage value for the taxpayer. Everything about this campaign,
from day one, has been openly discussed and publicized, including the
option for networks to match media buys through programming.
While legitimate concerns have been raised about government
intervention in mass media, those concerns would surely resonate if
such involvement promoted socially-destructive ideas, like bigotry,
war, sexual discrimination, etc. But we're talking about tapping the
full power of mass media to dissuade kids from wrecking their lives
with drugs. Let's hope we have not lost sight of the fact that most
people believe this is a good thing to pursue.
In light of the recent flurry of media attention surrounding the
campaign, it's important to place in context the various elements of
the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. At the core of the
campaign is a straight-out media buy of advertising. The media is then
asked to match each government-sponsored buy dollar-for-dollar. And
from day one, the campaign has always allowed this to be done either
through advertising or in other creative ways (like including anti-drug
storylines in various programs). ONDCP tells us more than 80 percent of
the match has been met through additional advertising.
All in all, Mr. Chairman, with the paid advertising portion of this
plan, with the match component and with added value leveraged through
storylines and programming, the taxpayers are getting an enormous value
for the investment--for your investment--in the National Youth Anti-
Drug Media Campaign.
Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, that investment is paying off: the
campaign is on track and making definitive inroads. With the continued
support of your and the committee, we believe this program will prove
to be the single most cost-efficient, cost-effective investment ever
made by the Federal Government in any effort to reduce demand for
drugs.
Again, Mr. Chairman, we've not reached a critical juncture in the
campaign. Attitudes are shifting in the right direction. Drug use among
teenagers has, at long last, leveled off. The time is now to maintain
exposure levels for the campaign so attitudes change further, enabling
a decline in use. With your continued support, and the continued
stewardship of the campaign, we are very confident that the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign will produce historic, long-lasting
results and become a model approach to this problem for the nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today, and
thank you and the committee for your support of the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
Senator Campbell. Thank you, Mr. Bonnette and Ms. Conlon
for your testimony. I commend both of you for the work your
organizations have done on trying to reduce youth drug use.
I do not know either one of you well, and you probably do
not know me, but I grew up on what you might call the wrong
side of the tracks, in a lot of trouble, running with gangs,
high school dropout, kind of the whole thing. And although I
never experimented with drugs, thank the Lord for taking care
of me on that, I had a lot of friends that really got into it.
It is not new. It has been around for an awful long time. I
have been around for a long time. It has been around for years,
but the awareness certainly of the dangers of it has been
brought to light because of organizations and the concentrated
and committed effort of organizations like yours, and I
certainly applaud you for that.
I have just one or two questions for each one of you, but I
also want you to know, all three of you, that this committee
hearing is not an indictment of General McCaffrey. We have
worked with him on a number of issues. I have attended drug
courts with him, which was part of the things he wanted to
develop. I have been involved with him in his effort to try to
provide money for the United States Olympic Committee. Having
been a former Olympian myself, to try to reduce the use of
drugs in these same people you are using as role models for our
youngsters. We certainly, I and Senator Dorgan and the whole
committee, was really instrumental in trying to find the money
for the drug programs, so I just want that known on the record.
Certainly, we are not criticizing him, but Harry Truman said it
best when he said, ``The buck stops here,'' and it is on his
desk.
Let me just ask you a question or two. I might also say
that, from my perspective, future funding for the media program
is not in jeopardy. I am going to support it. I am sure Senator
Dorgan will support it. But I am going to look for language
that is going to set some parameters about how we use that
money, to try to clarify this, what we find ourselves in now.
Ms. Conlon, let me ask you just a couple of things. I am
not totally sure we are getting our money's worth for this.
Maybe we are. The program has only been in effect about a year
and a half, I think Mr. Bonnette said, but the total program
has been in effect several years longer than that.
I have watched some of these programs and I have seen some
of those subliminal messages. I have seen them myself. But
after I watch those programs, when I do it rarely, because I
just do not have the time, I do not remember them from Adam.
But I will tell you, the thing that I can remember the most
that was ever done through the Anti-Drug Campaign was the paid
purchased ad using fried eggs. Do you remember that one?
Ms. Conlon. Of course.
Senator Campbell. This is your brain on drugs. I do not
know of anybody that does not remember that one. That was a
paid ad. We remember that.
Ms. Conlon. That is true.
Senator Campbell. So when we are told that these new
methods, the subliminal method, is more effective, well, it
might be with somebody, but it darn sure was not with me, so I
just wanted to make that statement.
Let me ask you, do you know of the criteria that is used
when we do this match, the credit match? Are you involved in
that?
Ms. Conlon. Yes. The Ad Council is the organization working
with the Partnership, ONDCP and others, that put together the
criteria that Mr. Levitt----
Senator Campbell. That criteria is printed somewhere and in
a booklet somewhere?
Ms. Conlon. Absolutely. We distribute that to all of the
organizations that apply to be part of the match, yes, sir.
Senator Campbell. Let me go to Mr. Bonnette for one
question, too. Are you involved in determining which ads are
run in which markets?
Mr. Bonette. No, we are not, sir. We provide Ogilvy, who
distributes the ads, with whatever inventory they might need
conforming with the strategy needs.
Senator Campbell. So you deal with the creative side of it
more?
Mr. Bonette. Right.
Senator Campbell. I see. Senator Dorgan, did you have some
questions for these two witnesses?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I regret I was delayed on the
floor of the Senate. Let me thank them for appearing, and I do
not have specific questions. I would like to be able to offer
some questions in writing following the hearing.
Senator Campbell. Yes. Other members of the committee may
also have questions for the record.
Senator Dorgan. As you have already indicated, we do not
want anyone to leave these hearings with the message that we do
not support the underlying initiative. This is a significant
and important initiative that I do support, an experiment that
I think at least initial evidence suggests is beginning to work
and one that has great merit.
Senator Campbell. With that, I appreciate your testimony
and apologize for having made you wait so long. You may wish to
stay a while, though, and hear Mr. Daniel Forbes' testimony. In
fact, if you have the time, Mr. Levitt, I would hope that you
would stay.
With that, we will call for his testimony Mr. Daniel
Forbes, who is a writer that really was instrumental in
bringing this to the committee's attention. Welcome, Mr.
Forbes. You may proceed whenever you are ready and speak right
into that microphone, if you would. Around here, everything you
say is recorded, as you know.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL FORBES, FREELANCE WRITER
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Senator Campbell, Senator Dorgan,
members of the committee, for this opportunity to speak this
morning. My name is Daniel Forbes. I have been a journalist for
over 15 years. If I could mention one accomplishment in that
period of time, as a staff writer for the Dun and Bradstreet
publication, Dun's Business Month, I had what was acknowledged
to be a national scoop some many months before it occurred
outlining the parameters of the stock market crash of 1987.
That is just to give you some idea of my background.
I am here to discuss the involvement of the Office of
National Drug Control Policy in crafting and financially
rewarding the content of network television. Since mid-January,
the broad outlines of ONDCP's program are well known. At least
60 articles in the nation's press and numerous broadcast news
programs have discussed the effort in some detail.
To reiterate briefly, a complicated program of Federal
financial incentives rewarding anti-drug themes in some of the
nation's most popular sit-coms and dramas was initiated in the
spring of 1998. This followed the campaign's authorization in
the fall of 1997. During the course of the 1998-1999 television
season, ONDCP financially endorsed the anti-drug motifs
contained in specific episodes of at least a score of shows.
Such programs as ``ER,'' ``Chicago Hope,'' ``Beverly Hills
90210,'' ``The Drew Carey Show,'' and ``Smart Guy'' freed up
advertising time that the broadcasters owed to ONDCP. The
network involved was then afforded the opportunity, should it
choose, to sell that advertising time at full price to private
clients--Wendy's, Ford, IBM, whoever. My initial estimates, as
published in Salon.com, valued the financial value of this
program at nearly $25 million. ONDCP confirms it at just under
$22 million.
This morning, I would like to address two points that have
surfaced since publication. They are the full disclosure to
Congress and the contention that there was no alteration of
scripts. Let me address those two points, if I may.
The contention that there was full disclosure to Congress,
as more than one government official has described it in the
past few weeks, is laid to its deserved final rest, or should
be, at any rate, by one specific fact stated to me by the
Congressman himself. The House member most charged with
financial oversight of the paid media campaign--this is on the
House side--Representative Jim Kolbe, Republican of Arizona, is
chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee that cuts
ONDCP's checks. He had no knowledge of the financial quid pro
quo with Hollywood until I approached first his staff and then
Representative Kolbe himself this past summer seeking comment.
He told me then, quote, ``I was not aware of the financial
exchange.''
Representative Kolbe's lack of knowledge was shared until
this fall by Representative Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio. He
is acknowledged by Capitol Hill staffers as the paid media
campaign's main catalyst. This characterization of
Representative Portman's lack of knowledge was told to me by
his ex-chief of staff, John Bridgeland.
This lack of knowledge, there is no wonder, given the
statements ONDCP has made to Congress. One important appearance
is Director General Barry R. McCaffrey's annual appropriations
appearances. General McCaffrey made identical statements
regarding ONDCP's fiscal year 2000 budget request this past
March before subcommittees of House and Senate Appropriation
Committees. General McCaffrey can be quite definitive, even to
the point of specifying the paid advertisement's 11 languages.
According to ONDCP's own Website, General McCaffrey in
March mentioned the paid and matching ads and, quote, ``news
and public affairs programming'' in straightforward fashion.
But then he resorted to a marvelous phrase, quote,
``entertainment venues.'' That is apparently his description of
programming content in sit-coms and dramas, entertainment
venues. Then General McCaffrey referred to the fact that the
media are, quote, ``are matching paid advertisements with other
ads'' and ``pro bono programming content''--pro bono
programming content.
That phrase bears discussion. It no doubt appeals to the
members of Congress, but anyone hearing that phrase might
think, aha, that refers to a lawyer representing an indigent
client or something of that sort. In this case, however, pro
bono refers to programming, television content that recoups
through a complicated financial formula money lost in selling
advertising at half price. That is something quite less than a
donation.
Then General McCaffrey's discussion this past March of the
topics covered in the matching ads follows, plus mention of
partnerships of local groups, corporations, et cetera, thus
removed from any sentence containing a dollar sign, from any
mention of finance. So removed from financial matters and
insulated, in my view, from understanding comes mention of 30
television programs focused on themes and messages supportive
of the campaign. That is a quote. And this past March, that was
it--no mention of financial incentives, no mention of any quid
pro quo.
General McCaffrey appeared before the House before
Representative Kolbe's subcommittee a couple of weeks later in
March of 1999, this time offering, quote, ``testimony,''
referred to as a report to the nation, specifically and solely
about the media campaign. In 21 single-spaced pages, as I
printed it out, surely there was room to delineate how the
embedded messages work. The enabling legislation, after all,
required, quote, ``that the Director shall report specific
parameters of the National Media Campaign,'' but there is no
mention of any financial incentives, a rather large parameter.
In that late March appearance, General McCaffrey did state,
quote, ``for every taxpayer dollar we spend, we require an
equal added dollar's worth of anti-drug public service pro bono
activity.'' There is that phrase again, here italicized by
ONDCP itself, and redundantly combined with the phrase ``public
service'' to swamp the understanding of even the most diligent
member of Congress. By any common understanding, the phrase
``public service pro bono,'' certainly conjoined as here, adds
up to only one meaning, a freely-given donation.
Okay. Then there is mention of the 32 network television
episodes that have included the campaign's strategic anti-drug
message points, but there the subject is dropped. No mention of
financial incentives or quid pro quo, though the detailed
testimony I am discussing continues for many thousand more
words. My printed statement details other examples of this sort
of statement before Congress.
Not surprisingly, this obscurantist testimony has left
Congress in the dark. I spoke to several Capitol Hill staffers,
legislative professionals who told me in my role as a
journalist, they doubted members of Congress who oversaw the
paid media campaign were aware that programming content would
come under Government sway as it has.
Again, Representative Kolbe, probably the House member most
charged with financial oversight, did not know, and correct me
if I am misquoting, Senator Campbell and Senator Dorgan, but I
believe they have stated this morning that they also did not
know.
Let me skip here. Funding for the annually authorized
campaign's second year was contained in a huge omnibus spending
bill passed in the fall of 1998. It was buried to a large
degree in this rushed 4,000-page piece of legislation that few
members had time to scrutinize carefully. Quote, ``these issues
were not revisited in depth in fiscal year 1999,'' says one
senior Capitol Hill participant.
For his part, Representative Kolbe, speaking of this second
year's financial authorization, maintains that the second year
funding, quote, ``received appropriate attention,'' but he
added, the second time around, financial incentives, quote,
``did not come up as an issue. There was no suggestion that
this was happening.'' So during funding of the second year of a
projected 5-year campaign, that is 40 percent into completion
of this 5-year campaign, there was no suggestion of what was
really going on, said this member of Congress.
Eventually, a Congressional hearing was held this past
October 21, 1999, a hearing engendered, says Representative
Kolbe, by a reporter's questions. He told me that, basically,
my request for an interview and my disclosure to him caused
this hearing to occur.
In 13 pages of what is referred to as General McCaffrey's
statement in the title and testimony in the heading of each
subsequent page, there is but a single paragraph on the matter
at hand, one paragraph. Anyone already aware of the deal and
paying very close attention to this 11th of 13 pages might
indeed parse these 212 odd words into a discussion of money
being exchanged for programming, but apparently few did and
none came forward. This skimpy paragraph makes a feint at
disclosure, but soon dissolves into discussion of the numerical
formula for valuing programming. Including arithmetic and
everything, this formula provided some shelter to ONDCP from
the storm it knew was coming.
That is because this summer, in fact, four pages of
questions to ONDCP's Alan Levitt, these questions given in
advance as a condition for my interviewing Mr. Levitt, I had
fully delineated how this numerical formula worked. ONDCP knew
it was coming out eventually and threw this as a bone to
Congress. I do not have proof of that. That is what my common
sense tells me.
After the General's appearance before Representative
Kolbe's subcommittee that October, the General was in the
morning, that afternoon was reserved for five independent
witnesses. They ran the gamut from A perhaps to B. Three were
Disney employees, employees of the Walt Disney Company,
undoubtedly eager to speak truth to power, employees of a
company participating in and potentially financially
benefitting from the subject of the hearing. The fourth of five
people making statements that afternoon was a paid ONDCP
consultant, a consultant on the ONDCP payroll. The fifth was a
Federal executive branch drug policy expert who works closely
with ONDCP. I will leave you to draw your conclusions about
that hearing. The one creative type, a Walt Disney Company
employee, works in animation. He presumably has little or no
dealings with live-action sit-coms or dramas, which were the
sort of television programs subject to ONDCP influence.
If I may, quickly, to move to my second topic, and I will
address it in less time, a second canard that should be laid to
rest is the contention flung about in recent days that
television scripts were not altered at Government request.
ONDCP uses phrases, phrases not lightly chosen, to indicate it
did not have the absolute final say-so over the shows it
granted financial dispensation, and indeed, as my article
stated, it did not have the final say-so. It just had, by its
own reckoning, a $22 million carrot held brightly aloft.
Having to say something, anything since this news broke,
ONDCP resorts to such circumlocutions as its statement of
January 15, that, quote, ``ONDCP does not veto, clear, or
otherwise dictate the content of network television or other
programs.'' Examine if you would, please, the diction here.
Those three verbs assembled are as random as railroad tracks
across a prairie. The Salon.com articles made it clear that at
any time, the networks could indeed tell ONDCP to take a hike
and thus forego the opportunity to earn what was typically more
or less a half-a-million dollars extra a show, the opportunity
should the networks choose to pursue it.
Indeed, ONDCP did not ``veto'' or ``clear'' or ``otherwise
dictate'' the content of any shows. Waving a multi-million-
dollar carrot under the noses of the television networks, there
was absolutely no need for thumbs-up or thumbs-down dictates.
In the strictest sense of those three verbs used in the
statement of January 15, the statement is correct, and as we
say where I come from, that and $1.50 will get you on the
subway.
On January 14, ONDCP Deputy Director Donald R. Vereen said,
according to press reports, quote, ``We do not approve scripts.
We do not alter them.'' Again, in the strictest sense of the
verb ``approve,'' he is perhaps correct. As to his second
statement regarding alteration, I believe there is not much
there.
Published on January 13, an article entitled ``Washington
Script Doctors'' in Salon.com, quoted both ONDCP consultants by
name and the show's executive producers on the Government
alterations that occurred in an episode of the Warner Brothers
show ``Smart Guy.'' It involved a previously rejected script
that was resurrected for the financial incentive program. That
was told to me by the writer of the show, Mr. Steven Young.
ONDCP and its consultants offered, quote, ``a few dictates,''
said the show's executive producer, Bob Young, no relation to
Steven Young.
One ONDCP consultant who worked on the script and whose
quotes were independently verified by a separate journalist and
verified by my editors, this ONDCP consultant noted that the
substance abusing young teenagers in ``Smart Guy'' were
transformed from appealing characters with young ladies sort of
flocking around them. That was in the original script. They
were changed to losers at ONDCP's behest. This consultant, who
was on the ONDCP's payroll, stated to me, quote, ``We showed
that they were losers and put them in a utility room rather
than out in the main party. That was not in the original
script.''
ONDCP's involvement in this show is underscored by Alan
Levitt's own e-mail sent out last May, which alerted recipients
of this e-mail to the show's airing a couple of days hence.
This e-mail read, in part, ``For your information, CWB's `Smart
Guy' episode on underage drinking, we worked a lot on that
script.'' That is the e-mail from Mr. Levitt.
Parenthetically, some 8 percent of the programming content
that is valued by ONDCP focused on underage drinking rather
than drugs. This show was one of that 8 percent.
So no force of law underscored the script doctoring.
Rather, the at least implicit threat applied that should
network resolve to maintain their basic integrity stiffen and
the paying client, that being ONDCP, got too upset as a result,
that paying client just might value a specific episode for less
money. There was a formula that applied and the valuation
process was controlled entirely by ONDCP and its two ad buyers,
first Zenith Media USA and then Ogilvy and Mather Worldwide.
Given this valuation process, the possibility existed, for what
is the point of such an exercise if more than one outcome is
not possible. So the possibility existed that an uncooperative
network might recoup less ad time as measured in dollars to
potentially resell to other clients.
It was all done collegially, nothing at stake but
potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode. There
was also full understanding that should ONDCP be disappointed
in results following the one-year contract, they could take
their ad budget elsewhere, to either other networks within
television or other media outlets, the Internet, billboards, et
cetera.
Of the collegial process, in some cases, both parties to
the transaction wrangled over any script changes initiated by
ONDCP. Said one ONDCP consultant, ``Script changes would be
discussed between ONDCP and the show, negotiated.'' That is a
different person than the gentleman I quoted before.
Apparently, it was something akin to the process by which a
reporter and an editor negotiate over the final outcome.
Reaching conclusion here, another ONDCP consultant asserted
that Mr. Levitt and his deputy helped review scripts. He
stated, quote, ``You see a lot of give and take. Here is the
script. What do you think?'' Much initial work was done during
a script's development stage, he said, when it was still
aborning, and then when a final script appeared, it was, quote,
``rush, rush,'' with a turnaround time of a week or so. He
added, quote, ``I helped out on a number of scripts. They ran
the scripts past us and we gave comments. We would say, it is
great you are doing this, but inadvertently, you are conveying
something off-message.'' And then this ONDCP consultant would
suggest changes to suit the program's paradigm.
This past summer, a news corporation executive told me on
the record there were ongoing discussions--the news corporation
owns what is commonly known as the Fox Broadcasting. This
executive told me, quote, ``there were ongoing discussions with
Zenith Media, the ONDCP ad buyer. They looked at each episode
and how prevalent the story line was.'' This person added,
quote, ``We show ONDCP scripts when they are in development and
then the final script and then send a tape after it airs.''
I am reaching my close here. Rosalyn Weinman, NBC Executive
VP for Content Policy, East Coast Entertainment, maintains that
ONDCP did not exercise, quote, ``strict approval,'' and
semantically speaking, Ms. Weinman is technically correct. In
the strictest sense of the term ``approval,'' it was not. NBC
could always walk away. But, she added, ``there were
conversations, either about broad issues or, quote, `specific
concerns.' Either ONDCP approved, in which case the episode
qualified,'' said Ms. Weinman, ``or the Government could say,
quote, `It is not working for us.' And then the availability,
should the Government say that, of a lot of money went up in
smoke.'' I wonder how often it happened.
Then in my record, I quote a couple of other NBC executives
who I named involved in the back-and-forth over scripts.
Incidentally, I interviewed at least 20 Hollywood senior
creative types, both within individual shows and within
production studios. Of those 20 or more, only one had any
inkling of the financial incentives that accrued for
programming. The rest were plainly astonished at my disclosure
to them.
Two points that were discussed this morning. The
announcement after the show that we saw on the ``Cosby'' there
indeed did occur, but it was very infrequent. Such
announcements, by my count, occurred perhaps on three or four
of the couple of dozen shows involved. On the others, there was
no announcement.
A second point, somehow, it was raised, two shows that I
spoke to the executive producers and the writers, the ``Smart
Guy'' show on the WB that I mentioned and an episode of
``Chicago Hope.'' Both scripts were previously rejected,
sitting on the shelf for a year or more. They were dusted off
the shelf and resurrected specifically to fit into this
financial campaign.
I appreciate your attention and thank you very much.
Senator Campbell. Mr. Forbes, thank you for that very, very
complete testimony. Let me ask you a couple of questions. As I
understand your testimony, you have written, the arrangements
between the White House and the TV networks may have violated
the so-called payola laws. Is that my understanding?
Mr. Forbes. Well, that is what I understood. I spoke to two
or three or perhaps four lawyers who practice communications
law here in Washington and they seem fairly clear that it
violated the payola statute requiring notice. The FCC, for its
part, I approached them formally. They said that in the absence
of anyone bringing a complaint, they could not comment one way
or the other.
Senator Campbell. I read from U.S.C. 21, Sections 1801 to
1804 when I first started out. Have you read those, by any
chance.
Mr. Forbes. I have read Section 417. I do not know if I
have read that particular code.
Senator Campbell. Well, if you have not, I am not an
attorney--I was going to get your take on whether you think
they violated the spirit of the law, if not the law itself, but
if you have not read that, I will not worry about that.
But let me ask you this. Do you believe the ONDCP--in fact,
you mentioned a carrot, I believe was the word you used, that
they do offer some subtle kinds of influence to change the
scripts?
Mr. Forbes. I do not believe there is anything subtle about
it. There are conference calls. There might be reaction to two
or three separate drafts of a script in terms of actual thought
points. That is my understanding from what participants told
me.
Senator Campbell. Do you know of any other incidents in the
past where the administration, any part of the administration,
was involved in content of programming?
Mr. Forbes. Two things come to mind, neither of which fits
your parameter. One would be the content of the movies during
wartime. The second thing, far removed from any Government
influence but I will just mention it for context, the
designated driver campaign was inaugurated by a Harvard Public
Health School professor well known in his field, Professor Jay
Winston. It involved no financial incentives. It was basically
just his approach, employing moral suasion, using the bully
pulpit of Harvard as his platform to say, hey, folks, could you
put in mention of the designated driver? There was no
involvement of Government. There was no financial quid pro quo.
In terms of a financial quid pro quo, I am not aware of any
prior to this.
Senator Campbell. I am a big supporter of the free
enterprise system, but I do not believe we have an obligation
to increase the network's bottom line, and I very definitely
believe that we were not in the loop. I cannot find anything in
recordings or any printed information that would make me
believe that we knew about this, contrary to what the summary
of the ONDCP is, and you mentioned yourself, Congressman
Kolbe's statements. Did you have any conversation with
Congressman Hoyer, who is the ranking minority on that same
committee? Did he know anything about it?
Mr. Forbes. I approached Representative Hoyer's office
formally requesting comment and his office declined comment.
Senator Campbell. I understand. I have no further
questions, but I do appreciate that very extensive testimony.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, sir.
Senator Campbell. Senator Dorgan?
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Forbes, do you think that there are
conditions under which credits can be given for shows that have
content that is part and parcel of the objectives of the Drug
Control Office without there being questions raised about
censorship and so on and so forth? I have read all of the
things you have written and you are a good writer. You have
done a lot of investigation here. I think what I seem to be
seeing you say in your pieces, without saying it so directly,
is you cannot have a series of credits here without there being
such significant questions raised that it is probably an
unworthy thing to do.
Mr. Forbes. Senator, I am a reporter, not a columnist. My
personal views are of no consequence. I will say that the
program that I described, I believe a priori raises some
questions that the American people and their representatives in
Congress perhaps should address.
Senator Dorgan. The point you make is a fair one, but the
way that you reported it led me to believe you had a view,
which is the reason I asked the question. But the description
you have given of the relationship that developed with respect
to scripts describes a circumstance that suggests there has
been more analysis of scripts than the Office of Drug Policy
indicated there was, is that accurate?
Mr. Forbes. I believe that is a good summary, sir.
Senator Dorgan. You have heard the description this morning
of the folks from the Office of Drug Policy saying, if that is
the case, if either the perception or the reality exists that
that was the case or was happening, then we are going to make
sure it does not happen again, and they have established
procedures to respond to that. Your reaction?
Mr. Forbes. Well, I will quote just a lead editorial in the
Washington Post of a week or so ago, something to the effect,
we did not do it, and what is more, we are not going to do it
again. That was the characterization on the editorial page of
the Washington Post.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Forbes, I indicated at the start of
this that, having been in politics for some while, that that
which is written is not always true, but there is a great deal
of public service performed by investigative reporting and I
appreciate your willingness to come today and share your
thoughts with us.
I would say again at the end of this that I was not aware
as a member of the committee, I think you indicated today that
you were not aware, that we had a circumstance where specific
credits were given because of program content. I think it
raises important questions, questions that do not go to the
question of whether we should abandon this campaign. This
campaign is an experiment that I think is a good experiment and
one we should continue. But I think you have done a service by
appearing here today and we appreciate that very much.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, sir. May I make a statement in
reaction to what you just said?
Senator Dorgan. Yes.
Mr. Forbes. From my reading of the public health
literature, there is no question that embedded messages, as
they are known, are far more effective than any paid
advertisement. Any teenager, even the slickest ad, what is
known as a defensive screen, will rise to greet an
advertisement. But seeing behavior modeled by a favorite
character in a TV show, that is a far more effective way to
inculcate ONDCP's message.
My last point. That message, such as was demonstrated in
the clips shown here today, ``Home Improvement,'' ``Cosby,''
and the like, is fairly benign, and other iterations of that
message raise some questions. For instance, on a ``Seventh
Heaven'' program that I believe qualified as a match, the hero
of that show is a minister. He counseled during a formal
counseling session, as portrayed in the show, he counseled
parents to advocate that their child become an undercover narc
in his school. I believe that counted as a match.
A second last example. The ``Chicago Hope'' script that was
resurrected precisely to fit in the financial incentive program
involved teenagers at one of these all-night raves. The result
of that, which certainly is a possibility, but this is the
message that is being sent to voters, the result in that show
was an overdose death, a rape, a psychotic episode, a mangling
car crash, a broken nose, and a doctor saying that she would
withhold life-saving surgery unless a criminally-telling urine
test was taken. So that is also some of the messages that are
being portrayed here.
And by ONDCP's own count, far more message impressions are
going to adults than are going to children--that is right off
their Website--adults who are voters, adults who are deciding
issues involving the regulation of drugs, police budgets, and
the like in this country. I leave that as something for you
folks to consider.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Forbes, I am a little conflicted by
this because I support legislation, for example, that would
have the FCC say to television networks, there are certain
hours of the day when you are showing programs that are
considered family viewing hours and you shall reduce the
quantity of violence in your programming because we believe
children are watching then and it is inappropriate to be
deluging children with this excessive violence. I happen to
believe that is perfectly appropriate. It would be a stated
public policy that these children's or family viewing hours
would not have programming that contains excessive violence. I
have always supported that.
So on the one hand, I say I deliberately and aggressively
support policy that we would decide as a country and as a
Congress that here is what we want to have as a television fare
that would not injure our children. On the other hand, you are
raising the question of a procedure by which a network could
earn financial credits, in effect, for certain programming
content.
Does that raise some troublesome issues? Yes, I think it
does. Would I be disappointed if television programming were
better, were providing better messages? No. I think that would
be a good thing for our country. But in the process of that, if
there is some government agency that is describing a system of
incentives by which programming content gets changed, I think
that raises significant questions.
So, I understand the point you have made. I think that the
people who have come today who are deeply involved in this
experiment that we have are people that want to do good. They
are managing a program that is being done for the first time.
But I think that what we have discussed today is an area that
needs further evaluation and further discussion with respect to
program content and with respect to the incentives that are
involved in that content. Certainly, as a result of this public
discussion, we have had testimony today from ONDCP that they
have changed their procedure so that if there were scripts
being reviewed, that will not happen again and so on and so
forth.
So all of this, I think, is useful because we need to
understand exactly what is being done with this and whether it
meets the test of what Congress intended to be done. Thank you,
Mr. Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, sir.
Senator Campbell. Well, there are a lot of questions that
Senator Dorgan alluded to that are probably not in the purview
of this committee to get involved in, but I was thinking at the
time when you were talking, Senator, you know, some of the
programs and some of the movies we see, I mean, it is just, as
you mentioned, just full of maiming and killing and blowing
things up and all that stuff, and yet the person that is
involved in it is portrayed as the hero. The Rambo series is an
example, fighting against the establishment and oppression of
government and all that business and the way to get even is to
blow them all up.
If a youngster watches that and you have 3 hours of that
program in which this anti-hero is certainly having an impact
on that youngster and you put in a little 30-second message
about not doing that, what would you think would have the most
influence on that youngster? It would seem to me that the 3
hours of constant bombardment of this hero's way of dealing
with injustice, rather than the 30-second subliminal message
about why you should not maim, kill, blow up, and so on.
I know that is a broad question, you do not even have to
answer it, but I have my own thoughts about it and I think it
is probably an area of diminishing returns. I think we probably
would not get the effectiveness that some people think we would
by putting a 30-second spot in there.
But there is no question in my mind, after hearing the
testimony, reviewing all the written things, that contrary to
what the summary of the ONDCP has written and turned in, they
did not have the legislative authority to enter into these
agreements--I do not believe they did--and that they, in fact,
skirted the relationship that they have with this committee
after we have gone to bat with them time after time after time.
In fact, I think they are rather on thin ice in dealing
with the creative content of programs, as you mentioned the
carrot and stick approach. When you talk about having a budget
of $500 million over a period of years and each line could be
worth hundreds of thousands, or each episode could, I think
that is a big thing. That can be a very big incentive in
influencing what is in that content. Whether they do it with
intent or not, it certainly is a subtle way of influencing it.
And so I think they really have set a rather dangerous
precedent. I do not know what other agencies could also use the
same kind of thinking or could do the same thing to get their
message across.
Mr. Forbes. May I address that, sir?
Senator Campbell. Yes, please do.
Mr. Forbes. I interviewed an ONDCP consultant, Mediascope,
one of their subcontractors. The person there told me if this
paradigm proved effective with drugs, that she saw no reason
why it could not address teenage sexuality in the somewhat near
future.
Senator Campbell. Well, then that is clearly a dangerous
precedent, I think, particularly when it is not done in the
light of day, not done with Congressional approval, not done
with Congressional oversight, and, in fact, the people that are
elected to try to make the decisions and appropriate the money
are just pretty much in the dark about what is going on.
Mr. Forbes, I thank you for your testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel Forbes
I'm here to discuss the involvement of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy in crafting and financially rewarding the content of
network television. Since mid-January, the broad outlines of ONDCP's
program are well known. At least sixty articles in the nation's press
and numerous broadcast news programs have discussed the effort in some
detail.
To reiterate briefly, a complicated program of federal financial
incentives rewarding anti-drug themes in some of the nation's most
popular sitcoms and dramas was initiated in the spring of 1998. During
the course of the 1998-99 television season, ONDCP financially endorsed
the anti-drug motifs contained in specific episodes of at least a score
of shows. Such programs as ``ER,'' ``Chicago Hope,'' ``Beverly Hills
90210,'' ``The Drew Carey Show'' and ``Smart Guy,'' freed-up
advertising time that the broadcaster owed ONDCP. The network was then
afforded the opportunity, should it chose, to sell that advertising
time at full price to private companies. My initial estimates, as
published in Salon.com, valued the program at nearly $25 million; ONDCP
confirms the figure at $22 million.
I would like to address two points, both rather easily exploded:
the assertion that there was full disclosure of the financial incentive
program to Congress and, secondly, the assertion that there was no
government altering of scripts.
The contention that there was `full disclosure' to Congress (as
more than one government official has described it in the past few
weeks) is laid to its deserved final rest--or should be, at any rate--
by one specific fact, stated to me by the Congressman himself. The
House member most charged with financial oversight of the paid media
campaign, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), chair of the House Appropriations
subcommittee that cuts ONDCP's checks, had no knowledge of the
financial quid pro quo with Hollywood until I approached his staff and
then Rep. Kolbe himself this past summer. He stated then, ``I was not
aware of the financial exchange.'' Rep. Kolbe's lack of knowledge was
shared, until this fall, by Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH), the paid media
campaign's acknowledged Congressional catalyst. Or so I was told by
Rep. Portman's ex-chief of staff. What's more, as I have heard here
this morning, Sen. Campbell is apparently also in the same boat.
And it's no wonder, given the statements ONDCP has made to
Congress.
One important appearance is ONDCP director Gen. Barry R.
McCaffrey's annual appropriations appearances. Gen. McCaffrey made
identical statements regarding ONDCP's fiscal year 2000 budget requests
this past March before subcommittees of the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. Gen. McCaffrey can be quite definitive, even
to the point of specifying the paid advertisements' eleven languages.
According to ONDCP's own web site, Gen. McCaffrey mentioned the paid
and matching ads, and ``news, [and] public-affairs programming'' in
straightforward fashion.
But then he resorted to a marvelously disingenuous phrase:
``entertainment venues''--apparently Gen. McCaffrey's description of
programming content in sitcoms and dramas. Then Gen. McCaffrey referred
to the fact that the media ``are matching paid advertisements'' with
other ads ``and pro-bono programming content. . . . In the past year,
we received $165 million in free public service announcement spots and
$40 million in corporate contributions.''
It's unclear whether ``programming content''--which received
monetary valuations specific to each show and so can be tallied up for
inclusion in one of these figures--is included in the $165 million, the
$40 million or not at all.
The phrase, ``pro-bono programming content'' bears discussion. It
no doubt appealed to the members of Congress. But the popular
understanding of pro bono regards donated services. (Most people might
think of something akin to a lawyer representing an indigent client for
free.) Here, however, `pro bono' refers to programming that recoups,
through a complicated financial formula, money lost in selling
advertising at half-price. That's something quite less than a donation.
Then Gen. McCaffrey's discussion of the topics covered in the
matching ads follows, plus mention of partnerships with local groups
and corporations, etc. Thus removed from any sentences containing a
dollar-sign--removed from crass financial matters and insulated from
understanding--comes mention of ``thirty television programs focused on
themes and messages supportive of the campaign.'' And that's it, no
mention of financial incentives, no mention of any quid pro quo.
Gen. McCaffrey appeared before the House a couple of weeks later
this past March, this time offering ``Testimony'' referred to as ``A
Report to the Nation'' specifically and solely about the media
campaign. In 21 single-spaced pages, surely there was room to delineate
how the embedded messages work. The enabling legislation, after all,
required ``That the Director shall report to Congress quarterly on the
obligation of funds as well as the specific parameters of the national
media campaign. . . .'' But there's no mention of any financial
incentives--a rather large parameter.
Gen. McCaffrey did state: ``. . . for every taxpayer dollar we
spend, we require an equal added dollar's worth of anti-drug public
service, pro bono activity.'' There's that dissembling phrase again,
here italicized by ONDCP itself and redundantly combined with `public
service' to swamp the understanding of even the most diligent member of
Congress.
By any common understanding, the phrase ``public service, pro
bono''--certainly conjoined as here--adds up to only one meaning: a
freely-given donation. So, Gen. McCaffrey's ``activity'' pulls off the
neat trick of being ``require[d]'' and donated all at once.
Then there's mention of the 32 network television ``episodes'' that
``have included the Campaign's strategic anti-drug message points.''
But there the subject is dropped--though this detailed testimony
entails many thousand more words.
During this March, 1999 appearance, Gen. McCaffrey also stated,
``Every activity undertaken by the Campaign is rooted in two key
documents that provide the framework for all our efforts, namely: the
Campaign's Communication Strategy and the Campaign's Integrated
Communication Plan (respectively attachments A and B to this
testimony).''
The Strategy, attachment A, is widely available. At my request,
Congressional staffers searched unsuccessfully for the ``Plan,'' the
promised attachment B, which Gen. McCaffrey stated ``provides coherence
to the more specific tactical efforts the Campaign is undertaking. . .
.'' Simple failure to locate it means little; there's a lot of paper
floating around Capitol Hill.
Needing it for the official record, a Congressional aid requested
it from ONDCP legislative affairs staffer Kevin Chicetti. Mr. Chicetti
refused, saying the ``Plan'' was ```very very old''' and no longer
relevant. Maybe a simple oversight, sure. But given all the other
misdirection, it raises an eyebrow when the director's testimony refers
to an unattached attachment that somehow ``provide[s] the framework for
all our efforts'' and yet is also old and non-relevant.
I later obtained a copy of the ``Integrated Communication Plan,''
dated April 20, 1998--about the same time frame Attachment A, the other
key document, was generated. Perhaps one reason the ``Plan'' is now
kept under wraps is that the programming content it refers to is, ``. .
. one or more television anti-drug `specials' appealing to youth and
another for parents may be generated and produced as part of the public
service contributions [sic] from paid media advertising partners. . .
.'' These specials would involve ``An extensive national outreach
effort . . . in communities around the country.''
That has nothing to do with embedded messages in regularly-
scheduled sitcoms and dramas. The fact that embedded messages are
what's actually occurring, rather than any treacly `specials' of
dubious appeal to youth or their parents, may be one reason Attachment
B has been ignominiously retired.
Not surprisingly, this obscurantist `testimony' has left Congress
in the dark. Several Washington legislative professionals told me they
doubted members of Congress who oversaw the paid media campaign were
aware that programming content would come under government sway as it
has. Again, Rep. Kolbe, probably the House member most charged with
financial oversight, did not know.
Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH) was co-chair, along with current Speaker,
J. Dennis Hastert, of Newt Gingrich's War on Drugs Task Force; Rep.
Portman led the demand reduction effort. John Bridgeland was Rep.
Portman's chief of staff when the campaign was devised. Over his five-
year tenure, Mr. Bridgeland says he sometimes devoted an enormous
quarter of his time to drug policy.
As to programming content as a match, Mr. Bridgeland says of his
boss--the campaign's Congressional catalyst--'' Rep. Portman was not
aware, no.'' And, until this interview, neither was Mr. Bridgeland, the
chief of staff who helped make it happen. As involved as anyone, Mr.
Bridgeland believes that when the paid media campaign was passed, ad
time constituted the match; there was no thought of programming content
doing so. ``I don't think we thought of programming content as a match
. . . I don't remember that,'' he says. Revisiting the issue as the
interview closed, Mr. Bridgeland says, ``Programming content as a match
was not actively discussed. But it makes sense.''
Regarding programming content as a match, one senior participant
says, ``I don't think it was explicitly dictated by law. . . . At the
time the [initial] statute was written, it was not explicit, and
members probably didn't understand the different ways they'd do this. .
. . I don't think members were aware of the financial incentives.''
More recently, this source heard ``talk of content'' at the House
hearing this past March, but it ``didn't go into the fact of the
financial quid pro quo.'' Though the financial incentives had been in
place for months by then, Gen. McCaffrey's testimony gave no indication
of their existence. The use of programming as a match ``is not widely
understood,'' this source concludes.
Funding for the annually-authorized campaign's second year was
contained in a huge omnibus spending bill passed in the Fall of 1998.
It was buried, to large degree, in an enormous, rushed 4,000-page piece
of legislation that members couldn't possibly scrutinize. Regardless of
a bill's circumstances, subsequent appropriations are usually dissected
less than the bill initiating a program. ``These issues were not
revisited in depth in fiscal year 1999,'' says a senior participant.
For his part, Rep. Kolbe maintains that the second-year funding
``received appropriate attention.'' But he adds that, the second time
around, financial incentives ``didn't come up as an issue. There was no
suggestion this was happening.'' So, during funding of the second year
of a projected five-year campaign, there was ``no suggestion'' of what
was really going on, said the effort's self-styled ``appropriator.''
Forty percent of the effort accounted for, and Congress did not know.
Eventually, a Congressional hearing was held this past October 21,
1999, a hearing engendered, says Rep. Kolbe, by a reporter's questions.
Asked subsequently if our conversation this summer resulted in the
October hearing, Rep. Kolbe said, ``Absolutely. You brought this issue
to our attention.'' (ONDCP itself confirmed this.) Tipped off, Rep.
Kolbe by then had a handle on both the scheme's workings and
implications. Even so, understanding proved elusive to anyone lacking
prior knowledge.
In thirteen pages of what's referred to as Gen. McCaffrey's
``statement'' in the title and ``testimony'' in the heading on each
subsequent page, there's but a single paragraph on the matter at hand.
Anyone already aware of the deal and paying mighty close attention to
this 11th of 13 pages on my print-out from ONDCP's web site, might
indeed parse these 212-odd words into a discussion of money being
exchanged for programming. But apparently few did and none came
forward.
The skimpy paragraph makes a feint at disclosure, but soon devolves
into discussion of the numerical formula for valuing programming.
Boasting arithmetic and everything, it provided a few sticks to shelter
ONDCP from the storm it knew was coming.
That's because, against my better judgement, this summer I had
faxed 61 questions--including my own full description of this numerical
formula--to ONDCP's Alan Levitt, laying all of my cards on the table as
ONDCP's condition for interviewing him. Thus, knowing the formula was
coming out eventually, ONDCP had nothing to lose and everything to gain
by preemptively offering it up to Congress in October. But even with
this formula, it wasn't easy to connect the dots all the way to the
realization that the networks were potentially earning half-a-million
bucks an episode for government-endorsed, embedded messages.
After the general's appearance before Rep. Kolbe's subcommittee
that October morning, the afternoon was reserved for five `independent'
witnesses that ran the gamut from A maybe to B. Three were Disney
employees undoubtedly eager to speak truth to power; employees of a
company participating in and potentially financially benefiting from
the subject of the hearing; a company notorious for its stranglehold on
the smallest detail of its public persona, never mind a potentially
explosive Congressional hearing. The fourth person appearing that
afternoon was a consultant on the ONDCP payroll, and the fifth was a
federal, executive branch drug policy expert who works closely with
ONDCP.
The one creative type, a Disney employee who Rep. Kolbe
subsequently told me dispelled the concept of any threat to Hollywood's
creative independence, works in animation. He presumably has little or
no dealings with live-action sitcoms or dramas--the TV programs subject
to ONDCP influence.
A second canard that should be laid to rest is the contention flung
about in recent days that television scripts weren't altered at
government request. ONDCP uses phrases, phrases not lightly chosen in
this semantic fandango, to indicate it did not have the absolute final
say-so over the shows it granted financial dispensation. And indeed, as
my articles stated, it did not. It just had, by its own reckoning, a
$22 million carrot held brightly aloft.
Having to say something, anything, ONDCP resorts to such
circumlocutions as its statement of 1/15/00 that ``ONDCP does not veto,
clear or otherwise dictate the content of network television or other
programs.'' Examine the diction here, the verbs assembled for this
transparent Newspeak. They're as random as railroad tracks across the
prairie.
The Salon.com articles made it clear that, at any time, the
networks could tell ONDCP to take a hike and thus forgo the opportunity
to earn an extra half-a-million dollars, more or less, a show. Indeed,
ONDCP did not ``veto,'' etc. any shows. Waving a multi-million dollar
carrot under the noses of the television networks, there was absolutely
no need for thumbs-up or thumbs-down dictates. In the strictest sense
of those three verbs, the statement is correct. And, as we say locally,
that and a buck-fifty will get you on the subway.
On January 14th, 2000, ONDCP deputy director Donald R. Vereen said,
according to press reports, ``We don't approve scripts. We don't alter
them.'' [LA DAILY NEWS January 16, 2000] Again, in the strictest sense
of ``approve,'' he's perhaps correct.
As to his second statement, he doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Published in Salon.com January 13, 2000, ``Washington Script
Doctors'' quoted both ONDCP consultants and the show's producers on
government alteration of an episode of the WB show, ``Smart Guy.'' It
involved a previously rejected script that was resurrected for the
financial incentive program. ONDCP and it's consultants offered ``a few
dictates,'' said the show's executive producer, Bob Young. One ONDCP
consultant who worked on the script notes that the substance-abusing
young teens were transformed from appealing characters in the original
script to losers at ONDCP's behest. He states, ``We showed that they
were losers and put them in a utility room [rather than out in the main
party]. That was not in the original script.''
ONDCP's involvement in this show is underscored by Alan Levitt's
own e-mail sent out last May, alerting recipients to the show's airing
a couple of days hence. It reads in part: ``FYI, See WB's Smart Guy . .
. episode on underage drinking--we worked a lot on that script. . . .''
(Some 8 percent of the programming content valued by ONDCP focused on
under-age drinking.)
So, no force of law underscored the script doctoring. Rather, the
at least implicit threat applied that, should network resolve to
maintain basic integrity stiffen, and the paying client get too riled
as a result, that client just might value a specific episode for less
money. The valuation process was controlled entirely by ONDCP and its
two ad buyers, first Zenith Media USA and then Ogilvy & Mather
Worldwide. The possibility existed--for what is the point of a
valuation exercise if more than one outcome isn't possible?--that an
uncooperative network might recoup less ad time, as measured in
dollars, to potentially resell to other clients.
Rile that client with the big, five-year bushel of money too much,
and everyone at the table knew ONDCP always had other ad-buy options at
hand the following season, both within television and in any number of
other media.
It was all done collegially, nothing at stake but potentially
hundreds of thousands of dollars per episode. A mere bagatelle, with no
possible influence on programming to be sure. In some cases, both
parties to the transaction wrangled over any changes initiated by
ONDCP. Said one paid ONDCP consultant, ``Script changes would be
discussed between ONDCP and the show--negotiated.'' To borrow from the
world I know, it sounds similar to the interaction between an editor
and a reporter in crafting a piece of journalism.
Another ONDCP consultant asserted that Alan Levitt and his deputy
helped review scripts. He stated, ``you'd see a lot of give and take:
`Here's the script, what do you think?'' Much initial work was done
during a script's development stage, he said. When a final script
appeared, it was ``rush, rush'' with a turnaround time of a week or so.
He added, ``I helped out on a number of scripts. They ran the scripts
past us, and we gave comments. We'd say, `It's great you're doing this,
but inadvertently you're conveying something [off-message.]'' And then
ONDCP and its consultants would suggest changes to suit their paradigm.
Consider this, also from ONDCP's January 15, 2000 statement: ``At
no time during the process did ONDCP or any person or organization
affiliated with the Media Campaign suggest changes, nor were any
episodes or programs resubmitted for reconsideration in exchange for
pro-bono match credit. Indeed, we have always assumed that any
transcripts or programs submitted for public service value
qualification were final products and not subject to further review.''
This past summer, a News Corporation executive told me, ``There
were on-going discussions with Zenith. They looked at each episode and
how prevalent the story line was.'' This person added, ``We show
[ONDCP] scripts when they're in development, and the final script and
then send a tape after it airs.''
The two statements taken together, the resulting cognitive
dissonance is hard to resolve.
Rosalyn Weinman, NBC Executive VP for content policy and East Coast
entertainment, maintained ONDCP did not exercise ``script approval.''
(And, semantically speaking, Ms. Weinman is as technically correct as
Gen. McCaffrey is: `approval' it was not.) But, she added, there were
conversations, either about broad issues or ``specific concerns.''
Either ONDCP approved, in which case the episode qualified, said Ms.
Weinman, or the government could say: ``It's not working for us.''
And then the availability of a whole lot of money went up in smoke.
Care to bet how often it happened?
Marianne Gambelli, Senior VP of prime time sales at NBC,
acknowledged NBC sent scripts to ONDCP. It wasn't necessarily ceding
``creative control,'' she said. ``It was more like: keep everyone
happy.'' But, she added, ``They read scripts, they approved them as
worthy of the message and said, yes, we count it'' for inclusion in the
financial incentive program. Kathryn Sullivan, also of NBC sales,
agreed that, ``There were specific guidelines as to what is acceptable,
and we discussed them'' with ONDCP and its ad buyers.
Incidentally, during the reporting of this story, I interviewed
some twenty or more senior Hollywood creative executives, both at
production studios and at individual shows. Only one had any inkling of
the financial incentives that accrued for programming content. The rest
were astonished at my disclosure to them.
Also, in response to comments made this morning, it should be noted
that the announcement following a show that was included in the clip
ONDCP showed of ``Cosby,'' was very rare. Of the dozens of shows
involved, I'm aware of the use of such a bumper announcement at the end
in only a couple of instances.
Plus, for at least two shows--``Smart Guy'' and ``Chicago Hope''--
scripts previously rejected and sitting on the shelf for many months
were taken down and resurrected to meet the requirements of the
financial incentive program.
Thank you, Sen. Campbell and Sen. Dorgan for your attention.
Senator Campbell. I want to reiterate that we are still in
big support of the so-called war on drugs and the efforts of
the media campaign to try to reduce drug usage, but I also want
to say, we are going to look for some very clear and concise
ways to make the intent of Congress very clear when this year's
appropriation bill gets finished so there will be no more
confusion about who does what, who makes the decisions, and it
may come in the form of fencing off money so it cannot be used
for this kind of a program until we have more knowledge about
it. It may just come in the form of reduced appropriations if
we have to put money back in other programs that were denied
money because of this program.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
But I do thank you and all the other witnesses who have
testified today, and with that, this xubcommittee is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., Tuesday, February 3, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-