U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

63–938 cc WASHINGTON : 2000

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

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri

SLADE GORTON, Washington

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

JON KYL, Arizona

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

HARRY REID, Nevada

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois

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

JON KYL, Arizona

TED STEVENS, Alaska

(ex officio)

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

(ex officio)

Professional Staff

PATRICIA A. RAYMOND

TAMMY PERRIN

LULA EDWARDS

CHIP WALGREN (Minority)

Administrative Support

ELIZABETH BLEVINS (Minority)
(III)

CONTENTS

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

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY ANTIDRUG 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.
2

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
3

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 antidrug 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
4

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.
5

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 ANTIDRUG 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
6

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 DrugFree 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.
7

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.
8

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 antidrug 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 pre-
9

vention 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
10

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.
11

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
12

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
13

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 drugprevention 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
14

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
15

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.
16

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
17

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, shoehorning 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.
18

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
19

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.
20

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 AntiDrug 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.
21

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. § 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
22

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 to-
23

1 Brown, Childers, & Waszak, 1990; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signiorelli, 1986; Marc, 1984.

2Williams and Frith, 1993.

3Mediascope Issue Brief, ‘‘Popular Culture and the American Child,’’ Brief Number 199G3d,

January 1999. 4Monroe, 1994.

5 Coombs, Paulson, & Palley, 1988.

6Office 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.

wards 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

—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

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 shortterm 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
24

7ONDCP, The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign: Communications Strategy Statement, 1997.

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.

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 & 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. § 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.’’
25

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).

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.

The Ad Council performs three crucial tasks in support of the anti-drug media

campaign on a pro-bono basis.
26

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. 10Ogilvy’s 377 offices in 98 countries service more Fortune 500 clients in 5 or more countries

than any other advertising agency.

—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

—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.

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 cre-
27

ative 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 au-
28

diences 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 MEDIA 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 antidrug efforts at the local level.
29

11See for example Substance Abuse in Popular Movies & Music, Office of national drug Control policy & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 1999. 12 EMarketer, September 20, 1999. 13Meeker, Mary and Pearson, Sharon, Morgan Stanley, U.S. Investment Research: Internet

Retail, May 28, 1997. 14 Jupiter Digital Kids, 1999. 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. 16Media Metrix, August, 1999.

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.

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

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

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 noninteractive 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.
30

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.
31

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 writ-
32

ers 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.
33

17Winsten JA. Promoting Designated Drivers: The Harvard Alcohol Project. American Journal

of Preventive Medicine. 1994 May-June; 10(3 Suppl):11–14. 18The 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.

—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

—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

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.
34

—‘‘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 antidrug 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 halfhour show, it is valued at an additional fifteen-second ad. A main storyline in an
35

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 DrugFree America, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department

of Justice, and the Department of Education. It assesses implementation of probono 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 parentchild 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 consider-
36

19Findings 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. 20 Ibid. 21ONDCP 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.

ation 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:

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

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

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.
37

22SAMHSA/NCADI briefing to ONDCP Director Barry McCaffrey, September 2, 1999.

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

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 antidrug 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.
38

—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 antidrug 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.
39

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 AntiDrug 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
40

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
41

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-
42

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 researchbased 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
43

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 AntiDrug 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
44

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 AntiDrug 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.
45

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
46

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.
47

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 AntiDrug 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-fordollar. 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
48

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.
49

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 na-
50

tional 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.
51

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 sitcoms 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
52

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 em-
53

ployee, 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 sayso 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
54

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 email 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
55

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.
56

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.
57

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 in-
58

volving 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
59

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 midJanuary, 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
60

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.
61

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 sug-
62

gestion’’ 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
63

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
64

‘‘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.]

Æ