One of the commenters was asking for my take on the State of SD’s Meth Campaign, because apparently there haven’t been enough people weighing in with their opinions on it.
Why would I need to chime in just for the sake of chiming in?
This past week while this was all going on, I’ve been working, continuing to fight a rotten cold, working on ad/print jobs, trying to get a somewhat disorganized teenager off to NYC, and unexpectedly replacing/rebuilding/painting my master bathroom from a broken sink.
Of course, the sink was the least of my worries, as the faucet had been leaking for some time, meaning I needed to replace it, and fix the wall, and the previous cabinet was just beat to heck, courtesy of my 7 kids, demanding that as well. Now it actually looks quite nice, but it was unfortunately time consuming.
But.. I’m getting off track. “The” Meth campaign that everyone has been talking about since it came out, and we continue to dither over and talk about it.
If we’re still talking about it, it’s pretty obvious. If the goal was to get people talking about the Meth problem in SD, it was nothing but a win. Any boring run-of-the-mill message – “Meth is bad,” “Don’t do meth,’ or some other boilerplate copy – that armchair quarterbacks claim would have been better would not have even made a bubble on the surface.
We’ve seen them before. They’ve done all those before. They wanted to do something loud and disruptive with this ad campaign. They disrupted the status quo and got everyone’s attention. They made it obvious that it’s everyone’s problem.
The amount of media messaging clutter that any ad campaign has to punch through to achieve public consciousness is unbelievable (I believe it is in excess of 5000 competing messages a day now). This one did just that, it punched through.
Like it or not, this ad campaign has had a societal impact, and raised it from a ho-hum issue to what newspaper ad people call “Top of Mind Awareness.” Even with our short attention spans, there is nothing that we are talking about more as a state right now, and we’ll be talking about it for some time to come.
Doing the occasional bail bond, I see plenty of arrests for meth. People I know from other settings. People who live surprisingly close to me in a very “kid central” suburban neighborhood with two schools in sight. Meth and meth related crimes are not just something that happen in other towns. They’re selling it just around the corner. People actually need to be aware.
Maybe a hard shock to the system was needed to get people out of their complacency and get them talking about meth in our state.
No one can claim that we’re not talking about it.
I think there are 2 main (serious) complaints about the campaign, neither are addressed in this post.
1) the (hefty) contract was given to a Minnesota company when it seems like several from SD would have sufficed.
2) The money could have been better spent. Not on a better campaign, but on treatment programs that have been proven to be effective.
Any thoughts on either issue?
1) In the past, administrations have been criticized for using in-state agencies, so it would seem that you cannot win with this. SD state law doesn’t give preference to in-state companies, although choosing the “best” ad campaign is of course subjective.
2) The state spends alot of money on treatment programs and Noem has increased that spending. She has said over and over that fighting meth has three legs: education and prevention, treatment, and law enforcement.
Criticized because “Don’t jerk and drive” is as stupid as “Meth. We’re on it.”
If it were a governor Billy Sutton that signed off on this, then we’d be seeing a different headline on this article.
He would be more criticized. The Republicans would at least hold him accountable without feeling any retribution.
The meth campaign makes SD a joke, it has made meth a joke, it has undermined the governor, it hurts the image of SD.
The governor is the ambassador for SD. Why would anyone want to embarrass their state nationally and make it a joke? How is that a success.
I bet we could identify all of the neighborhoods that thrive on meth if we asked the police. I dont think TV ads are required.
Potheads don’t like the campaign.
But people are NOT talking about the meth problem, they are laughing at the ad. They think it’s funny. If they consider it a serious problem, why are they laughing? It’s funny because it’s somebody else’s problem. This is the opposite of the desired result.
They aren’t talking about what to do about meth addiction, they are complaining about the way the state spends the taxpayers’ money.
Now that meth addiction is a laughingstock and somebody else’s problem, expect resistance to spending any more public funds on it. Epic fail.
My thoughts exactly, Anne.
Quite right, Mrs. Beal. But must admit, pretty funny — and effective — when our local donut shop in Huron put on his big sign: “DONUTS… WE’RE ON IT.”
I’ll comment. 🙂
1a): This is a marketing campaign which requires an integrated strategy of advertising, free media (this discussion is an example), website coordination, etc. This is not “hefty” when one considers the expectations of “changing the game/awareness” about meth. In fact, if DSS doesn’t have a plan for future expenditures, they are being penny-wise with regard to making a long-term impact. This requires a long-term commitment.
1b): When you want to go outside the box, it might be necessary to go out-side the state. I know our in-state advertising firms have clients with almost no (if any) presence in the state. Certain ideas and creativity are found where they are found. Creativity is no place for parochialism and net-net I’m pretty sure our advertising firms are ahead on in-state vs. out-of-state revenue.
1c): In retrospect, there are people who are asserting the prior ridiculed “Don’t jerk and drive” was a raving success because of anecdotal conversations with people who have hit deer. They talk about how they now know they aren’t to avoid the animal but concentrate on staying straight and maintain control of the car. How many lives were saved for that ridiculed campaign? If it prevented just one roll-over and saved one life, I think the ridicule a bargain. However, maybe the impact on “reputation risk” for the advertising firm was such the Governor just decided to not expose an in-state firm to the ridicule. I have no idea if this is true. But, by speculating, it might have been a consideration.
2): Prevention is always more cost-effective than treatment. Because meth use ultimately costs so much in crime, incarceration, treatment, family benefits, and lost lifetime income, the cost-benefit ratio of spending money on advertising is a no-brainer. I think if this campaign 20 people from using meth, we might be money ahead over their lifetime.
P.S. Thanks Pat for a succinct statement summarizing this. I belong to two morning groups. In the decade+ I’ve been in both, never have we discussed meth, until now.
Great comments Troy! Great comments.
Troy, lets talk about “Don’t jerk and drive”. The campaign worked so well that you dont even remeber (and have actually twisted into your own, incorrect statement).
The entire message originally had to do with not jerking the wheel if you were sliding IN SNOW. The ad ran in late fall and every single poster or message featured snow or ice covered roads and windshields… never once was an animal pictured or mentioned…
So tell me again at how effective that splashy, oft ridiculed campaign was?
If I may so bold as to share my two cents regarding your questions.
1) I agree. I’m a buy local – stay local kind of gal. That said, I wonder if they used a MN firm to stay clear of the favoritism charge. I mean they probably would have used the same ole same ole Lawrence and Schiller kind of firms and perhaps we wouldn’t have gotten the bold in your face campaign that we now have. Maybe they wanted something different (just pondering that out loud). I still wish a SD firm would have handled the campaign and I’d love it even more if it had been a small firm.
2) It’s easy to say why not spend it on something better….however, I know our Attorney General ran on a platform of building a meth specific rehab center in the West side of the state and quite honestly I heard lots of push back on that. Sadly, many conservatives have picked up the Clinton banter of the 1994 crime bill and actually think throwing everyone in a cage is the way to handle addictions.
As a person who has been in marketing since 1992 my thought is it’s easy to say “spend it better,” now that the campaign has disrupted the norms as Pat suggests. However, without the disruption occurring FIRST – the idea of actually doing something about our really big meth problem means nothing to those who have been lulled to sleep in their quiet unaware lives. It’s in those sleepy places that the unaware tend to throw massive fits over someone doing something. It is often seen as just another addiction problem or another crime. Comments often follow the standard diatribe of “if you don’t want to get arrested don’t commit crimes.”
Now that the problem is exposed and poking every South Dakotan in the eye, spending money to address the meth issue is not going to get the status quo kickback….certainly no one can deny we have an alert Governor and that SD has a meth issue.
Several good points made, some on either side. Personally, I agree with Dr. Enalls. It might have been preferable to spend the money locally but, ultimately, I care about lowering the use rate of this terrible, toxic drug. I don’t pretend to know the future. Maybe the ad campaign will prove a success, maybe it’ll prove a failure. History can judge. All I know for sure: meth is POISON. Tell your kids. Tell your neighbors’ kids. Stay away. Never touch it. Never try it. I’ve seen destroy healthy children. It’s an insidious plague. It hasn’t infected my immediate family, for which I’m incredibly, endlessly Thankful. But if you’ve fallen under its dreadful sway, seek help immediately. Go tonight.
The meth problems have been exposed for years. The solution to meth addiction has not been solved. Only the individual can take the steps for recovery.
Getting people to talk, even if it is to laugh at your campaign, is a win in Pat’s eyes. I will remember this and call you on it in the future, Pat.
That might be your characterization, but it isn’t mine.
You don’t really have one other than feel-good gladhanding, which isn’t really surprising given your loyalties.
Pat, if Billie Sutton spent 1.4 million on this comedy slogan, the establishment would meth him up calling him a incompetent liberal who is wasting taxpayers money. I would be saying the same thing to Sutton.
Maybe the best way to handle this campaign would have been to engage high school students. The state could have launched a statewide contest to all high school students that could come up with the best solution to combat Meth and Opiod addiction. The winners would get a college or trade school scholarship. I would have involved the people that are most affected by it. SD High Students…We’re On It.
That’s just… truly dumb.
Pat, why do you think it is truly dumb? Kids know what is going on. Why not involve them?
As Anne stated, people aren’t talking about the issue of meth addiction, they’re talking about the stupidity of the add campaign.
And, then they talk about meth. How many memes have you seen (after the jokes) recognizing we have a problem and start talking about meth? Don’t forget the “Jerk & Drive” was ridiculed and then people talked about what to do when animals jump in front of their cars.
Marketing has many tactics which get the desired results. More importantly, the old “tried & true” marketing tactics have netted no measurable results.
I know I’m a broken record but meth needed a break-out sense of awareness. We’ve had a meth problem for years and essentially the public was disengaged. Opioids come on the horizon and the its top of mind. My theory on the difference is: we all know people who have become addicted to opioids (often from prescriptions) but meth users are under the radar (despite meth being more prevalent than opioids here).
To be clear: I don’t care how many people laugh at the campaign or the state if it leads to saving lives. Like the “Don’t Jerk & Drive” campaign.
No, the vast majority of people exposed to the campaign do not end up discussing meth addiction. They end up discussing the issue of wasteful government spending.
The dont jerk and drive campaign had nothing to do with animals. At all. Not even a tiny bit. The fact that you don’t remember it at all, claim it to be an evidence of success, and it takes over 15 posters to figure out that your characterization is provably false is pretty damning evidence that a quick splashing, widely mocked, campaign is probably not the way to go.
Don’t you have any statistics on the jerk and drive campaign Troy. I feel that the I am on meth campaign mocks the families that are struggling with their loved ones who are on it. People are laughing, doing memes and making fun of the whole traumatic situation these people are going through. I am also to blame for laughing me head off at the late night pundits and the numerous memes and comments. If you don’t believe people aren’t aware about the meth and drug problem in SD, then you are definitely Not On It.
Piggybacking on other comments – Pat it is not an obvious win. People are discussing the”Meth. We’re on it” statement – NOT the meth problem. Making a parody and satire out of addiction is never a win. Period. Waste if taxpayer money. Not to mention they engaged a non-SD firm. I guess for Noem – there is no one better to understand a SD problem than engaging non-SD people.
It’s not a parody of the problem. It’s pointing out that it’s everyone’s problem.
If you can say that with a straight face to someone who’s in the depths of an addiction, I’d buy it. People in that dark place don’t need a joke of a headline to minimize the disease. Progress comes from a place of understanding – not a hokey overpriced campaign.
Like a bad joke, if you have to explain it, you’ve missed the mark.