<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87450.wais]
ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
DRUG POLICY AND HUMAN RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 27, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-17
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
87-450 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Randy Kaplan, Senior Counsel/Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JOHN L. MICA, Florida WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia Maryland
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee Columbia
CHRIS BELL, Texas
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Christopher A. Donesa, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Elizabeth Meyer, Professional Staff Member
Nicole Garrett, Clerk
Julian A. Haywood, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 27, 2003................................... 1
Statement of:
Marston, Christopher, Chief of Staff, Office of National Drug
Control Policy............................................. 21
Pasierb, Steve, president, Partnership for a Drug Free
America; David McConnaughey, Ogilvy & Mather; and Peggy
Conlon, president and chief executive officer, the Ad
Council.................................................... 51
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio.............................................. 9
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Conlon, Peggy, president and chief executive officer, the Ad
Council, prepared statement of............................. 86
Marston, Christopher, Chief of Staff, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, prepared statement of...................... 27
McConnaughey, David, Ogilvy & Mather, prepared statement of.. 73
Pasierb, Steve, president, Partnership for a Drug Free
America, prepared statement of............................. 55
Portman, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 12
Ruppersberger, C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 107
Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Indiana, prepared statement of.................... 4
ONDCP REAUTHORIZATION: THE NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
----------
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and
Human Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark E. Souder
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Souder, Carter, Cummings, Bell,
and Blackburn.
Staff present: Christopher A. Donesa, staff director and
chief counsel; John Stanton, congressional fellow; Elizabeth
Meyer, professional staff member and counsel; Nicole Garrett,
clerk; Julian A. Haywood, minority counsel; Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager.
Mr. Souder. The subcommittee will come to order. Good
afternoon, this is our second hearing on the reauthorization of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs.
Today we will focus on the Media Campaign.
The Media Campaign was authorized in 1998, and has since
become a highly visible sign of the Federal Government's
commitment to preventing drug abuse.
It carries important messages to our kids about the
consequences of drugs and reminds parents of the importance of
their involvement in keeping kids from drugs.
Advertisements on the consequences of marijuana use, ties
between the drug trade and terrorism, and parenting sometimes
now are becoming part of the popular culture that they were
created to counter.
The Media Campaign is also an integral part of the National
Drug Control Strategy, and a key tool in meeting President
Bush's aggressive goal of reducing youth drug use by 10 percent
over 2 years and by 25 percent over 5 years.
A year into that strategy, we are on track to meet the
goals, but to do so will require a continued aggressive effort
at drug prevention among children and youth. The Media Campaign
is almost solely dedicated to the President's fundamental
objective; without it our national prevention efforts would be
reduced to the diluted messages of the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program and the independent pro bono advertising
efforts of the Partnership for a Drug Free America.
As one who has worked with this issue for several years, I
believe it is clear that it will be very difficult to meet the
national goal unless we have a robust Media Campaign. I,
therefore, strongly support the reauthorization of the Media
Campaign.
At the same time, however, the subcommittee has serious and
intensive work ahead of our committee to ensure that the
program pursues its original goals, that it is accountable, and
that it delivers results.
We also must ensure that the ONDCP Director has appropriate
flexibility to react quickly and to shape campaign messages,
and that past contractor issues will never be permitted to
reoccur. Today's hearing gives us an opportunity to examine
several key issues prior to consideration of legislation to
reauthorize the campaign.
Among these questions are fundamental ones of program
structure and management. The campaign originally was created
primarily to fund the airing of anti-drug ads created on a pro
bono basis by the advertising agency. It has since become far
more developed and sophisticated, with the campaign contractor
assuming a direct role in ad development and evaluation, as
well as overall strategy.
While this approach has had some demonstrable benefits,
such as facilitating quick reaction and the coordination of the
campaign with administration policy and strategy, the program,
in many respects, now significantly differs from the original
vision.
The subcommittee will need to consider how best to balance
the lessons we have learned from the first years of the Media
Campaign with our ongoing goal of controlling unintended growth
and complexity in government programs.
We must also consider how best to provide for evaluation of
the program and its results. I appreciate the significant
efforts that Director Walters has made to improve and
streamline evaluation of the Media Campaign, and I hope we can
build on them to ensure clear, accurate, and unambiguous
measurement of program results.
Reauthorization legislation must also deal with questions
relating to past contract irregularities that have already been
reviewed in detail in the subcommittee. At a minimum, I would
expect to ensure that any future contract irregularity would be
grounds for disqualification from participation in the Media
Campaign.
Several other issues also await us, and I look forward to
working with the subcommittee members, Director Walters, and
interested parties to ensure a strong campaign in the coming
years.
We have excellent witnesses with us today to review each of
these issues. Our first panel is Congressman Rob Portman, who
is one of my co-chairs on the Speaker's Task Force on a Drug
Free America. There are three of us, along with Congressman
Mica. From the inception he has been at the fore of efforts in
the House to create and support the Media Campaign.
Our second panel will be Mr. Chris Marston, who is Chief of
Staff to Director Walters at the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, and is appearing on Director Walter's behalf.
On our third panel, we will hear testimony from Mr. Steve
Pasierb, the president of the Partnership for a Drug Free
America. From Ogilvy & Mather, we have Mr. David McConnaughey,
who I would like to thank for adjusting your schedule to be
here. We appreciate that very much. From the Ad Council, we
will be joined by Ms. Peggy Conlon, the president and CEO.
I wish to thank all of you for coming, and I look forward
to the discussion. With that, I yield to our distinguished
ranking member, Mr. Cummings.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.003
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you
for holding this important hearing on one of the Federal
Government's most important and visible drug prevention
initiatives.
One of two major national prevention programs administered
by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is the Federal Government's
primary vehicle for communicating anti-drug messages to the
American public, with the primary focus on discouraging illegal
drug use among our youth.
Authorizing jurisdiction for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy lies with this subcommittee. In the weeks to
come, it will be our job to report out legislation
reauthorizing ONDCP, the Media Campaign, and other programs
within ONDCP's administrative purview.
In the meantime, we must evaluate the performance of those
entities to date, and determine what changes may be in order to
help the programs do more effectively the jobs Congress created
them to do. Today's hearing is an important part of that
process.
From the beginning, the bedrock of the Media Campaign has
been television advertising provided to the Government on a pro
bono basis by leading U.S. advertising agencies through the
coordinating umbrella of the Partnership for a Drug Free
America.
It is notable that the advertising industry took it upon
itself to begin airing anti-drug ads well before the Government
got involved. PDFA was founded in 1986 by industry leaders who
had the vision to realize that their industry's talent and
expertise could and should be brought to bear against the
problem of drug abuse.
Only in 1997 did the industry approach the Clinton
administration in Congress for help in purchasing air time to
keep the campaign going in the new environment of media
deregulation.
Because there was evidence that PDFA's anti-drug ad
campaign had been effective in reducing drug usage, Congress
appropriated $195 million for the campaign for fiscal year
1998, and passed legislation authorizing appropriations through
fiscal year 2002.
Appropriations for the campaign have gradually declined
over the past couple of years, and this year, the program is
operating on unauthorized appropriations of $150 million.
Even as Federal funding has dwindled ONDCP has pursued an
ambitious multi-media strategy for the campaign, involving Web
sites, print publications, and partnerships with the
entertainment industry, community anti-drug coalitions and
others, in addition to planning and executing media buys to run
donated advertising.
These efforts include creating paid content to extend the
campaign's reach to specific minority and foreign language
populations.
All of this is commendable. The bottom line challenge that
we face in reauthorizing the campaign is deciding how to
maximize the campaign's impact in reducing drug usage.
Since assuming the Office of Director of National Drug
Control Policy, John Walters, to his credit, has restored the
campaign's original focus on emphasizing the risk of drug use
and targeting older teens.
Director Walters and ONDCP also deserve credit for
improving coordination and communication with PDFA, and
increasing attention to ad testing.
Despite the negative press attention that it has received
of late, the campaign has produced positive results, but we all
believe it can do better.
Looking to the campaign's future, preserving the heart of
the campaign by making the most of the expertise of the
volunteering advertising agencies involved in creating pro bono
content for the campaign, that must be a high priority.
Other priorities should include ensuring the testing of ads
and making sure we have an evaluation component that enables us
to measure results in a timely and cost-efficient manner.
Another important issue, Mr. Chairman, is fiscal
accountability and contract management. The concept of Federal
support for anti-drug media messaging is hard to find a fault
with. But public support for this campaign can only be
maintained with assurances that the well publicized contract
mismanagement problems of the recent past will not occur again.
We will hear today from most of the major parties with
direct involvement in the campaign. And I want to extend my
warm welcome to all of them.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to welcome our House
colleague, Rob Portman of Ohio, who will testify on the first
panel. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Portman worked very
closely with us in reauthorizing the Drug Free Communities
Program in the 107th Congress.
I am happy to be working with him again, and with Mr. Biden
and Mr. Hatch in the other body, to develop a bill that
addresses some of the critical areas in which improvements to
the Media Campaign can be made.
It is our hope that the bill, when introduced, will serve
as a useful point of reference for the subcommittee, as it
considers Media Campaign language for inclusion in the ONDCP
reauthorization bill that will move through this subcommittee
in the coming months.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working
with you, our fellow members of the Drug Policy Subcommittee,
our counterparts in the Senate, Director Walters and ONDCP
staff, and all of the groups represented here today, in a
cooperative effort to make the campaign as effective and cost
efficient and as accountable as it can be.
I thank you again for holding the hearing, and I look
forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Souder. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
We are joined by our distinguished colleague from Texas,
Mr. Carter, and also Mr. Bell. Do you have any opening
statements?
[No response.]
Mr. Souder. Let me say for the record and for the other
members of the committee, in 2 weeks, we will be having a
hearing on the HIDAs, which is another key part of the
reauthorization. Our intention is to move ahead with the mark-
up in subcommittee, right after break, after the April recess,
basically that last week/first week of May, and then move to
full committee, and we have been meeting with the Senate.
But as Members have input on any of those particulars or
for the hearings, I know in the legislation, we are doing all
this simultaneously, so we can try to move the House version
early on in the year and hopefully have it pretty synchronized
with the Senate, as we move forth.
I would like to ask unanimous content that all Members have
5 legislative days to submit written statements and questions
for the hearing record, and that any answers to written
questions provided by the witnesses also be included in the
record. Without objection, it is so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that all exhibits, documents,
and other materials referred to by Members and the witnesses
may be included in the hearing record, and that all Members be
permitted to revise and extend their remarks. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Our first panel is our colleague, Congressman Rob Portman.
By tradition, we do not administer an oath to Members of
Congress, so you are recognized for 5 minutes. If you come
forth and your ears are burning, we all said nice things about
you in our opening statements, but you missed that.
But we still feel those, and know that the record is
littered with praise to Rob Portman for your leadership in the
prevention efforts, both by the ranking member and myself. It
is a great honor to have you here today to lead off our hearing
on this particular aspect of the reauthorization.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Portman. Thank you very much for having me this
afternoon to speak a little about a very important part of our
overall efforts to reduce demand.
Judge Carter, it is good to see you. Mr. Cummings, my
colleague and co-sponsor of these important pieces of
legislation on this issue, thank you for your many efforts back
home in Baltimore and here in Washington to try to keep our
kids safe and drug free. Mr. Bell, welcome to the subcommittee.
I am sure it has been an interesting experience.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership and for
allowing me to testify on the reauthorization of the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. The subcommittee has been great
to work with.
It is always good for me to come back to this committee. I
used to be a member of the Government Reform Committee, and I
have great respect for your work and your jurisdiction over
this issue that you have certainly taken very seriously.
By recognizing the importance of the Media Campaign and an
effective Media Campaign, you are signaling to our whole
country that this Congress will not cede the health, safety,
and lives of our children to the dangers of illegal drugs.
We all want to prevent our children from using drugs. We
all know there is no single magic bullet or solution that is
going to accomplish this goal. But we also recognize, I think,
as a group, that one important way to do so is to use the
popular media.
As you all are well aware, the Partnership for a DrugFree
America, and I see some of the representatives here today,
operated a successful Media Campaign long before we got
involved.
The Federal Government got involved when Congress
understood the importance of the anti-drug media message and
wanted to ensure that it would continue at a time when,
frankly, for a variety of reasons, it appeared there would be a
serious drop-off in public service advertising, particularly
doing prime time with regard to the TV advertising.
Congressional involvement began in 1998, with the idea of
using Federal dollars, but on a matching basis to purchase
media time to air anti-drug ads created by the best and
brightest in the advertising world on a pro bono basis.
The Partnership ensures that the creative and production
elements of the process, the actual developments of the ads,
are secured on a pro bono basis, which has been very important
to us over the last several years. So we are receiving for free
really what the corporate America community pays thousands and
even millions of dollars for.
Only the actual advertising time itself is purchased with
these Federal tax dollars and, again, that is matched. Even
though that is expensive, I believe the taxpayers get a strong
return on the investment, as every dollar spent is matched.
Since 1998, the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
ONDCP, has run the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
With the help of their private sector partners, including the
Partnership, the campaign has now created well over 200
commercials.
Some have said the campaign has lost its way. While the
outcomes from the latest wave of data could have been better,
not all the news is bad.
We are seeing extremely positive outcomes with parents, for
instance, which I think, all of us agree is extremely
important. I believe it is the single most important thing,
that we get our parents more engaged in our kids' lives, and
talking to their kids about drugs.
The Media Campaign has helped to make parents realize that
they do play a vital role in preventing their children from
using drugs.
Unfortunately, we are not seeing a meaningful decrease in
the most important number and that is the percentage of
teenagers who are using illegal drugs.
That being said, I remain convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the
Media Campaign can be effective. I say this because of the
proven ability of public service campaigns to change attitudes;
when you change attitudes, you change behavior. We know it
works.
But I also see it firsthand in my own community. We have
had a very aggressive anti-drug Media Campaign in Cincinnati,
OH. We have gotten over $1 million a year in free advertising,
and it has made a big difference.
We know that because the Coalition for a Drug Free Greater
Cincinnati, which I founded and served as chairman, has
conducted a very comprehensive research-based survey, which
showed a decline in teen drug use in our region for the first
time in 12 years.
Over the past 2 years, marijuana use by teens is down 13
percent; alcohol use is down 24 percent; and cigarette use by
teenagers is down 28 percent. The Coalition helps run this
extensive local Media Campaign through TV, radio, and print.
In fact, the local media in our area, again, has generously
donated over $1 million in local anti-drug ads, on an annual
basis, for the last 3 years. The survey data also tells us the
Media Campaign is specifically involved in bringing these
numbers down.
Based on our survey, kids who have seen anti-drug ads on a
regular basis are 20 percent less likely to use drugs. We
surveyed, by the way, 67,000 local students from 123 high
school. This is a huge sample. It almost makes it more like a
census than a survey. Based on the experts, they believe these
results, therefore, are extremely accurate.
The results I have mentioned indicate to me that prevention
and education tools like the Media Campaign are working, and we
need to keep the effort going with effective media.
Mr. Chairman, many ideas have been suggested to improve the
campaign. As you know, I have been working with you and with
Congressman Cummings, your ranking member, and also Senators
Hatch and Biden, to draft legislation that would strengthen and
improve the Media Campaign.
We agreed that the Director of ONDCP must be granted the
flexibility to chart the general course of the campaign and he
should have the final say over the ads, because I think that is
where the accountability rests, ultimately. We also believe the
actual creation and production of the ads should be left to the
experts, and on a pro bono basis.
For efficiency and effectiveness sake, our bill seeks to
delineate the functions carried out by the Drug Czar, who is
Director of the ONDCP; the Partnership for a Drug Free America;
and the contractor hired to purchase the actual advertising
time.
We also need to ensure that the greatest possible amount of
funds that Congress appropriates to the campaign are used to
purchase these ads: radio, TV, and print ads.
Our bill will also put provisions in place to ensure that
any remaining vestiges of fraud and abuse have been eliminated.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we need to better test the outcomes
of these campaigns. We need to be sure that we have a clear
understanding of the campaign's actual effects on teenagers and
on their parents.
Again, thanks for having me here today. I am very hopeful
and confident that this and other hearings will give us the
needed guidance to be able to draft a better reauthorization
bill that will result in a more effective campaign.
But I must say, again, now is not the time to let our guard
down. I think it is a very crucial time, actually, for us to do
all we can on the prevention time to decrease demand for drugs
in this country. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, and the subcommittee on this very important project.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Rob Portman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.007
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much, not only for your
testimony, but your work. We were both relatively upset at some
of the statements made around the release of some of the data
and the interpretation which indirectly led to the funding
being cut in the Appropriations Bill last year.
Could you give your opinion, and I know how we both feel;
but for the record, what would have happened, had we not had a
Media Campaign, which is part of it; and elaborate on it a
little bit on what you said, as far as its effectiveness and
the problems we are having with how to measure it.
Because the implication was that the ad campaign was
failing, which I do not believe was the case at all. With the
crime dropping in the United States, what we had were a couple
of categories of questionable effectiveness in its relationship
with the ad campaign.
Mr. Portman. I think, again, if you look at the study and
not just at the media stories that accompanied them, there was
some very positive news in there. That is with regard to
parents and changing attitudes.
That, for us, I think, mid-term, and not even long-term,
but over the next 2, 3, 4, 5 years, will have more impact than
a single element of the campaign. Because, again, I think
parents are the single most effective influence in a young
person's life.
Mr. Rung. All the data supports that, by the way. Sometimes
as a parent, you may wonder, and I do, but that is the kind of
direction that I think these ads can help us to obtain. So I
was very impressed with that.
I think some of the other data with regard to the young
people was mixed, frankly. I was very disappointed, as you
know, by some of the interpretations of some of that data that
could have suggested that some young people and, particularly,
I think it was girls, might have been influenced to use drugs
more on the basis of the Media Campaign.
That was later viewed to be inaccurate and was refuted, I
think, in a very definitive way. But I thought that was
irresponsible to have that out in the public.
I also think that we can do a better job. You and I have
talked about this, to be sure that these ads are all tested, to
be sure that we are putting the very best up on the air, to be
sure that we are focusing on where we view the problems,
because they will change over time. That is in terms of drug
use and in terms of attitudes.
I also think, as you state, that there are so many external
factors regarding drug use, including popular culture, and you
mentioned crime, and other factors, that it is very difficult
to pin the credit or the blame on one element or another, for
our prevention efforts.
But to me, it would be foolhardy for us to pull away from
what we know in the abstract works, which is advertising;
otherwise, my constituent, Proctor and Gamble, would not be
spending the millions of dollars a year that they do to sell a
soap.
Second, we have good research on how anti-drug ads do make
a difference. We would be, I think, at a very crucial time,
setting back our efforts substantially.
Finally, I will say that there is some good data out there.
I mean, look at Monitoring the Future, which is probably the
best single survey, nationally. If you look at their data over
the last 2 years, and even back to 3 years, we are beginning to
see some leveling off, finally.
As I have told you, back in our own community of
Cincinnati, for the first time in a decade, we are seeing
reductions in drug use. Our survey, we believe, is about the
best local survey we know out there.
We benchmarked to all the past surveys that have been in
our local community. We benchmarked to the national survey,
including Monitoring the Future survey. We are encouraged by
the fact that by having what we think is the most aggressive
anti-drug Media Campaign in any market our size in the country,
that we are making a difference.
So I would just say that if the President is going to
achieve his lofty and, I think, very appropriate goals of
reducing drug use by 10 percent over the next 2 years and 25
percent in 5 years, which I know this subcommittee supports, we
sure as heck better have this tool in our tool belt, which is
an effective popular media culture campaign; where we are
dealing with these kids through the media that they actually
watch. That significantly includes television, but also radio
and appropriate print.
So I know there has been a lot of discussion in this
committee, as to how to best measure, and I do not have any
single magic bullet there, either.
Measurement is tough, but I do think we need to be sure, as
Members of Congress, that we're holding ONDCP's feet to the
fire, and the Partnership's feet to the fire, on testing these
ads, making sure they are as effective as possible, before they
go on the air; and then once they do go on the air, continuing
that testing.
That is totally appropriate for us to insist on, and I
think that should be part of our effort with the
reauthorization.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. First of all, I want to thank you,
Congressman, for all your efforts. It is certainly good that we
are able to come together on a bipartisan basis, to address
such a significant problem.
I just wanted to say, we have spent a lot of time in this
subcommittee, last session, talking about the Ogilvy part of
this process. Mr. Barr, he and I did not agree on 99 percent of
things, but we need to agree that if the public is not
satisfied that things are right with regard to the way the
money is being spent, then it does not help the campaign.
I have often said that Republicans and Democrats agree that
our funds should be spent effectively and efficiently, our tax
dollars. I am just wondering, do you feel satisfied that matter
has been cleared up now? I know you have kept your eye on it.
Mr. Portman. Mr. Cummings, that is a very important issue,
both because you and I do not want to see waste and, certainly,
fraud, in any of our spending programs.
But specifically, you say on this program, the last thing
we want to do is have our colleagues, who have basically looked
to us to provide some leadership, and particularly this
subcommittee, to say, wait a minute, we are willing to do these
ads, but not to have any fraud or certainly any waste of money
in the process of doing something, which is pioneering. The
Government getting involved in advertising is a big step.
So I was extremely concerned about it, as you were. I was
at one of those hearings where Mr. Barr spoke about it. I think
the issues have been cleared up, in terms of the specific
allegations.
I also think that when they went through the process of
letting the contract; I know you spoke with ONDCP on the public
record, and I am sure you did privately, as well, as did I, on
a private basis, that I believe that was a fair and objective
process.
They ended up going with the same contractor, but only
because that contractor won through a fair and objective
process, and I believe that.
So I think we are back on the road. I do think there are
some outstanding issues, and they relate less to the fraud
issue and more to the question of, what is the role of that
contractor? Should the contractor be simply to purchase ads?
Let us assume, as I said, that it was a fair and objective
process; they are the most efficient entity to do that. In
other words, they are giving us the best deal, the ``best bang
for the buck,'' in terms of buying those ads.
Should they also be producing those ads, or should we be
having the traditional practice of production of the ads by the
best and brightest in the creative process, in particular, on a
pro bono basis, and then having the contractor simply purchase
the ads?
I think that is a concern of mine. I think we, in certain
instances, should allow flexibility to permit that to happen,
when there is a timing issue, when there is just an inability
to get creative through the more traditional process, which is,
again, a pro bono process, where you have Madison Avenue's
best.
But I think it should be very limited, and I think you and
I are in good discussions about that with regard to our
reauthorization bill. So that is the contractor issue that we
face now; what should their role be? I think Congress
appropriately should help to identify that role, rather than
leaving it strictly up to ONDCP.
Mr. Cummings. The reason why I asked you that question is,
the whole concept of advertising and even treatment, it seems
as if many Members of Congress and the public, I think are
basically willing to allow us to go to a certain degree, and
they are even a bit skeptical.
When you are talking about ads, and you are talking about
$195 million, and you are talking about drug treatment, and
whether it works, I guess, first of all, I agree with you; that
as far as the process of Ogilvy being selected again, from
everything that I heard, I think that it was a fair and open
process.
But at the same time, I just want to make sure if there are
things that maybe were not in the previous legislation, if we
have learned some things in this process; I mean, some things
you simply cannot legislate. But there are other things that we
need to have, as a part of the reauthorization, that might help
us to avoid some of those problems, and I think we ought to try
to do that.
I do not know what they are, I am sure. But I was just
wondering whether you had some ideas, and I think you have
given us a pretty general overview there; but if there were
specifics.
Mr. Portman. Well, I think you have raised an appropriate
issue. I think I mentioned earlier in my testimony that I have
a concern that this money, as the chairman indicated, got a
short haircut last year.
Then when you look at it on an inflation index basis, it is
obviously not keeping up with the cost of ads and the inflation
in that business. So we have got fewer dollars to work with. We
have got a huge problem out there. We are trying to leverage as
much of the private sector match as possible.
Again, locally, we get a lot of this free, all together. We
do not even use the Federal match. I think we have got to be
sure that it is not spread too thinly, and I think that is one
of the issues that you and I have talked and need to address;
what should Congress' role be there? We should not legislate in
a way that ties ONDCP's hands to be able to react to
circumstances as they change.
On the other hand, if we believe that the taxpayer's dollar
would not be well spent by being spread out over a lot of
sporting promotion events, or a lot of Internet advertising or
messaging, and a lot of other fora that dilute the central T.V.
portion of those particularly; and also radio and print, then I
think we should stipulate some of that in the legislation. We
have not done that in the past. So I think that is a legitimate
example of what you are talking about.
All of us run political campaigns. Some of us have to spend
more than others. Unfortunately, I do not have to spend as much
anymore, due to TV. But when I did, you know, all your
consultants say the same thing, which is you need to have a
certain amount of advertising on TV to make a difference.
Otherwise, you are throwing your money away.
That general concept, I think, applies to advertising, in
general, and we need to deal with that in this reauthorization
bill.
Mr. Souder. Thank you; pencils are not a big portion of our
budget, when we are in a close race, and that is part of the
danger. We need to make sure that your Cincinnati data is part
of the debate. Because a key part of that was the $1 million
local match.
We either need to make sure that there is a threshold of
advertising. Otherwise, the data is going to come back more and
more negative. As you reduce the television advertising, it is
going to have less impact, and then they will say, it is not
working.
Then, in fact, we would be throwing away the money. If
there are also ways that we can get--in other words, if you are
going to go to things that are not on television, you would
have to show that the market area came up with some kind of a
match. We need to look at some kind of a creative way to dress
up, because without a certain threshold, it is probable.
We need to look at some kind of a creative way to address
that, because without a certain threshold, it is probably
wasted.
Mr. Souder. Judge, do you have any questions: Mr. Bell?
Mr. Bell. Thank you very much for your testimony, and I
just have a couple of questions, based on what you have seen
and witnessed with the overall ad campaign.
You referenced the testing of the ads. What kinds of tests
have worked, in your opinion, because obviously, there are
different ways to approach that.
Mr. Portman. There are, and as I said earlier, I do not
think there is any silver bullet there, either. As I said at
the outset, there is no silver bullet in general in this
prevention and education area. We do everything, and come at it
from all angles.
With regard to the ad testing, there are experts who will
testify, in the course of this hearing, who will know a lot
more than I do, and they are the ones that should answer this
question, but let me take a stab at it.
My concern is that if the testing is done on a focus group
basis, and that data is used to make a determination, yes or no
on an ad, and the focus group is not large enough or
representative enough, particularly of the group we are trying
to address with these ads, and affect a behavior of, that it
can be quite misleading.
I know there are people that do this professionally, who
have been involved in this process, again, who can talk about
it much more intelligently than I can.
But I want to be sure that the testing that is done is
broad-based enough, representative enough of the group we are
actually trying to address, so that we do not come to premature
conclusions as to the effectiveness of the ads. I also had made
the point earlier that we should test all the ads, and we were
not doing that.
Mr. Souder. So some would be put on the air without ever
being tested?
Mr. Portman. Right, and others can talk to you more
specifically about how that happens and why it happens. My
understanding is that the goal now is to test all ads.
Again, you have got the best minds in corporate America out
there working on this, so you should come up with some pretty
good material; but even they, sometimes, miss the mark. So
there is a need to test them before the taxpayer's money is
used to go out and buy the ads.
Then once they are up, we should again see what is the
impact. That should not just be focus group. I think it should
be a broader-based survey of some kind.
Mr. Bell. And let me talk to you about that for just a
moment, as far as the impact and measuring the impact, because
we get confronted with so many different figures, from so many
different types of surveys here.
Do you have a certain level of confidence in the figures
that you relayed here today, in terms of the decreases that
have been seen? Do you have any sense of confidence that those
decreases can be directly related to the ad campaign?
Mr. Portman. Well, the survey data that I indicated earlier
is from our local survey. Again, it is 67,000 kids. It is a
very substantial part of our junior high and high school
population in Greater Cincinnati.
What the experts tell is that because it is an anonymous
survey, and because they have gone back to test these surveys
with followup questions and so on, that they believe these
surveys are very accurate. The one concern that I have with the
surveys is that they do not pick up the kids who drop out of
school, because they are not there to take the survey. This
would sometimes skew the figures a little bit, in a more
positive way.
But I think the survey is good. What the survey showed us
was that when you asked kids, have they seen the ads or not,
they indicate yes or no, and how many times have they seen
them, per month or per week, and then we ask the questions
about their drug use.
Those kids who have seen the ads tend to be the children,
young people--junior high and high school--who use drugs less
frequently. I think that is about as good as you are going to
get, in terms of that kind of a survey.
Now people could argue, gee, is that because those who
watch TV more are, for other reasons, less likely to use drugs,
I do not think so. In fact, you could make the opposite
argument. I apologize to our TV people here, who disagree with
that.
But that is the data that I use from our local survey. We
find that data is pretty compelling. We also have the general
data which is, for the first time in a decade, in our area, we
have actually seen a leveling off, 2 years ago, and now this
last year, we have seen actually a decrease in use, and a
pretty substantial decrease, when you look at the percentage
decrease, and still unacceptably high levels. During that time,
we have had a more and more aggressive Media Campaign.
Mr. Souder. What about, as far as you also reference a lot
of the ad being just on the parents now and getting them more
involved; but as far as measuring that, and the effectiveness
of that, and how many parents are actually responding, have you
seen figures that give you a certain sense of confidence there,
as well?
Mr. Portman. Yes, I have. That is the most positive data
that has come out of the testing that was done if the ad
campaign. There is also though a lot of good data out there
indicating that if you can get parents involved in talking to
their kids about the dangers of drug use, that there will be a
substantial decrease in drug use.
We would like to take it locally to the next level, which
is not just talking to kids about it, but talking about the
dangers of drug use and arming parents with the kind of
information they need to be able to talk to their children more
intelligently about it. We spend a lot of time locally doing
that.
But the data there is unbelievable. There is a study out
there which shows there is a 50 percent decrease in drug use
among those kids whose parents talk to them about the dangers
of drug use and get engaged in their lives on it. I have also
seen data as high as 75 percent. I am not sure I would believe
that. Again, there are some experts here who can talk more
about that.
But the Pride Organization out of Atlanta has done some
good work on that. I think, generally speaking, there is an
agreement among the people who follow this much more closely
than I do, that getting parents engaged on this issue, rather
than, as in the case of many baby boomers, taking a pass on it,
because they may feel guilty about their own past drug use, so
they are just uncomfortable raising it; or they are just too
darn busy, because they are passing in the night as they go off
to their second job.
But if you can get parents to engage, that is the single
most effective tool to reducing substance abuse. It is the best
prevention tool because, again, the data shows that young
people still listen to their parents. Although they may not
seem like they are listening at the time.
Mr. Bell. It sure does not. I have got a 12 year-old,
almost 13 year-old, and an 11 year-old, and I wonder,
sometimes. But I think that is appropriate for this Congress to
focus on, in terms of testing the campaign; not just looking at
the impact on teens, but also looking at the impact on parents,
because we need to use them more as tools. Thanks a lot; thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. One of our biggest challenges is how not to
over-sell the campaign and what it can do; and at the same
time, sell it so we get the adequate funding. It is a limit
that we have.
For example, basic advertising principles would tell you
that, for example, the Drugs and Anti-Terrorism Campaign, what
it is doing is selling the link between drugs and terrorism. It
is a supposition that will reduce drugs. You cannot ask an ad
campaign to do the supposition. That may be a second campaign,
where we make the link on that.
Yet, we are so busy trying to sell the basics, that we do
not even do the normal two-step of ad campaign. Furthermore,
the amount of advertising dollars that we have in this,
compared to one movie or song that would promote a kind of a
lackadaisical attitude toward marijuana, can be undone.
Then the last part is, all the sub-markets that come in
each day; families where they may only have one parent, and it
is a dysfunctional family that is at high risk. It is so
complicated with a limited amount of budget. So we do not want
to over-sell this.
Yet, what we know, fundamentally, is that this has to be
doing tremendous good on any subgroup that we can reach; and
that we cannot just do the Colombia plan that I agree with, the
law enforcement; you have to have some prevention component.
So the danger is, when we sell this hard, they say, the
data is not doing everything that you say; yet, if we don't
sell it, they will not give the funding for it. So it is a huge
challenge.
Mr. Portman. Well put, Mr. Chairman; I am glad you are
chairing the subcommittee, because you spend enough time on
this to understand some of these dichotomies and complexities;
but still understand the importance of us taking the lead, as a
Congress, in promoting prevention and education as an important
part of the overall effort.
Mr. Souder. Congressman Blackburn, do you have any
questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Portman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. If Chris Marston could come forward. He knows
the drill, because he used to be a staffer here. He is one of
our great alumni.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Chris, it is a great privilege to have you here
today. You know the bill backward and forwards, having worked
with it both from this side on the Hill with Mr. Portman, and
now as Chief of Staff for Director Waters.
So it is a great honor to have you here today. We will try
not to get too much blood out of you during the questions, and
we look forward to your testimony, thanks.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER MARSTON, CHIEF OF STAFF, OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Mr. Marston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege.
Congressman Cummings, Congressman Blackburn, and Congressman
Carter, thank you all for having me. It is a pleasure to
testify on behalf of Director Walters and the administration in
support of the reauthorization of the Media Campaign. It is a
campaign that we are very proud of.
Director Walters when he was last here 2 weeks ago to
testify before you talked about the same study that Congressman
Portman referenced, Monitoring the Future, that showed drug use
declining, that was released in December. We think the Media
Campaign had a great deal to do with that, and we are very
proud of our contribution to it.
Congressman Portman has reviewed a lot of fundamentals of
the campaign, so I will not repeat those. But I do want to
highlight a few things.
I am loathe to disagree with the man that I respect and
worked with. But just to briefly correct one portion of what he
said, we pay, in addition to the purchase of the advertising,
we actually pay a great deal of the production cost; not the
creative services which the partnership and the agencies they
work with on a pro bono basis, but we actually do cover most of
the costs of producing the ads themselves; the fees for rolling
film, having a director in place.
Where ad agencies provide those services, obviously that
comes pro bono. But in a great number of cases, we actually do
pay for more than just the cost of playing the ads.
So in addition to that component of the advertising portion
of the campaign, I wanted to spend a brief moment on some of
the non-advertising communications which, while they do not
make up very much on the expenditure side, they are an
important part of the campaign.
To provide a little context, about 87 percent of the
expenditures of the appropriated funds are for the advertising
communications portion. That is having the contractor in place,
having the production costs paid for and, of course, the very
most significant part is the actual media buy for time and
space.
In addition to those expenses, on the non-advertising side,
we have several Web sites, an ``800'' number and a clearing
house that provides for film and services that give people
additional context and information. The ads drive people to
those resources, to get the help they need and further
information. We think that is a very important part of the
campaign, and an important support to the advertising itself.
We also have corporate participation that we think adds
quite a bit. It gives us some new delivery mechanisms for the
same messages. It varies as to what they do.
For example, Ms. Blackburn, the Greyhound terminal in
Memphis is providing free play at the PSAs on its terminals,
and that is part of our corporate participation program.
Borders Bookstores are distributing some of the parenting
information through their outlets.
Safeways in this area actually are printing anti-drug
messages on their shopping bags. We have cellular phone
companies that include statements in their billing records. Our
expenditure in corporate participation is under $1 million a
year. So we think that adds a lot of value for a fairly small
expense.
Additionally, we pursue some earned media strategies to
highlight our message, often based on the release of one of our
advertising campaigns. We do aggressive work to get some earned
media to bring more attention to the message.
We also pursue, well, it is not so much earned media but
related, in our entertainment industry round tables and our
journalist round tables.
Chairman Souder, you mentioned the impact that
entertainment products such as movies and songs can have on the
culture, and how the advertising is sometimes also a small
force to push back.
We are trying to change some of those messages that the
entertainment industry provides, and we certainly do not think
we are presenting a magical solution. But by reaching out to
the entertainment industry, particularly writers and producers
in Hollywood and New York, we think we are having an impact on
having more accurate depictions of drugs in movies and popular
entertainment. That is another small but important part of the
campaign.
I wanted to briefly review some of the changes we have made
in response to concerns that this subcommittee and others have
raised in the past. Director Walters made some significant
changes, and he was aided in that effort by a task force that
included several of the folks who are going to testify today:
the Partnership for a Drug Free America, the Ad Council, our
Behavior Change Expert Panel, and our advertising contractor.
The changes are guided by our strategy, the National Drug
Control Strategy, and some advertising industry best practices.
From a strategic perspective, we look at the demand
reduction problem for youth as a public health problem. The
vector by which drug use spreads is non-addicted use. No youth
sees an addict and says, I want to grow up and be like him.
That is not the way it works.
Rather, they are deceived by the lie non-addictive use
presents, the lie that says, it is OK to use drugs. You can
handle it. It is not a big deal. That is the force we need to
push back against.
In order to do that more effectively, we are targeting 14
to 16 year olds, an older age group than the campaign
originally targeted. That is the age group at which drug use
nearly doubles among the population, and we need to present our
message to the youth who are most directly exposed to the lie
of non-addictive drug use.
Additionally, we have increased and made an intense focus
on marijuana, which is the drug responsible for the most
treatment needed among youth. More than alcohol, more than all
other illicit drugs combined, marijuana presents that problem.
We have also shifted some resources from the parent portion
of the advertising, which Congressman Portman mentioned as
being quite successful, to the youth portion, where we think we
have more room for success. So we are going to put more
resources behind our youth messages.
The task force also helped with integrating some best
practices from the advertising industry. In particular, you
have discussed testing today. We have raised our testing
standards by changing from a procedure where we tested one of a
group of ads, to literally testing each ad that we are going to
air before it airs; and we have also increased the threshold
for acceptance.
In the past, we had a short set of belief statements that
we would test the ads against; and as long as there were no
negative results, we would say, OK, let us go ahead and air it.
Now we are insisting on what I think is much more
important, which is positive results on those belief
statements, and that testing is a service that is one of the
costs of our advertising contracts. So as you consider the
balance of where funds should be appropriated and limitations
on any particular role, I think that is important to keep in
mind.
We have also instituted greater involvement by all of the
partners in the campaign at an earlier stage in the creative
development and production process. This way, we hope to make
sure we stay truer to strategy and decrease the need for late
revisions in ads that can be much more costly; because if you
change something early on it is, of course, a significant
savings over having to make a change late in the process.
We have also tried to make our ads more hard hitting. By
that, I mean we have focused on more negative consequences much
more heavily.
We have some other strategies that we think are important
in terms of giving coping skills to youth, and enforcing the
positives that they have for not using drugs. But we focused
much harder on negative consequences, and we have seen great
results from that, particularly with our last round of
advertising that Leo Barnett prepared, under PFA's direction,
that played over from last fall through the holidays.
Some of these negative consequences we have been trying to
include are the external consequences; not just the consequence
to yourself; but things like terrorism, the impact on your
family, things that are external to you. We found that those
messages can resonate, as well as messages about the
destructive force to a youth, to himself or herself.
In addition to these changes we have instituted, we are
planning an early intervention strategy as a new initiative for
the fall. We are going to promote early intervention by peers,
parents, and other influences with youth who have begun to use
drugs.
To meet the strategic goals that Congressman Portman
mentioned earlier, a 10 percent reduction in 2 years and 25
percent in 5 years, we need not only to focus on a prevention
message to stop people from using drugs, but we need to reach
out to youth who have used drugs, casually and infrequently
even, but who have used them and have a higher risk of becoming
serious drug users and addicts.
We need to get them to stop using. We need folks to
intervene with them to stop that use. So that is one of the
things that we are planning on in the future, that we are very
optimistic about.
I would also like to address the evaluation, which is a
topic that received quite a bit of attention. We have an
evaluation, an expertly designed instrument provided by
contractors to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, that has
evaluated the campaign's paid advertising portion.
We are pleased by the results that it has shown on exposure
and recall. Both were very high, and those are obviously
important precursors to having an impact on behavior. We have
been disappointed though on findings in changing attitudes,
intentions, and behaviors.
They did lead to the positive effect of assembling this
task force and putting together some of the changes I have just
mentioned. But they may have also been misleading, and I think
that is the problem, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Cummings, that you
referenced in terms of the appropriators deciding that a lower
funding level would be appropriate.
Unfortunately, the evaluation has been limited by its
sample size to detecting changes of 3 percentage points over
any period of time. While that sounds small, I am talking about
the percentage change or actually the change in points from,
say, 12 percent of youth who use marijuana to 9 percent.
Well, my math is terrible, but that actually is a 30
percent reduction. So 3 points is a substantial reduction. Did
I get my math wrong? You are looking at me like it was wrong.
[Laughter.]
That is not a reduction that we would expect to see in a 6-
month period, and that is the frequency with which we have
produced these reports. It would be virtually impossible to see
that. Even in a 2-year period, that would be a remarkable sign
of success.
So as we look at these evaluations that have come in each 6
months, it is really not a great surprise that we have not seen
a behavior change that the evaluation instrument could
register.
As a result of that and also the decreased appropriation
level, we have decided that it is probably not cost effective
to continue on the course with the current evaluation. So what
we propose instead is a measurement system that more closely
mirrors what the professional advertising industry would use.
What we plan to do is present data on the pre-testing of
each ad that we have talked about before it airs, to show that
both at the focus group level and on a quantitative level,
where we actually do a survey on the ad, that we have good
outcomes on belief statements specifically tailored to the ad.
So does this change your attitude; does it change your
intention; will it have a change in your behavior; or, if it is
a specific execution, like drugs and terror, do you find this
to be credible; statements that are directly related to it?
So we will present that data to you which shows that the
ads are likely to have an effect if they are exposed highly
enough and have high enough recall.
This next thing we will show you is the tracking data that
is provided by our contractor, which is a standard industry
practice, so you can make decisions about buying in the future,
to determine how your ads are running now. That tracking data
will tell us about the exposure of the ads and the recall of
the ads. So those are important steps.
But the big leap comes then, and we are totally satisfied
with this, but we do not have a good alternative, to link those
results to the national instruments that we already have;
things like Monitoring the Future, the Partnership Attitude
Tracking Survey.
These national instruments are not specific to what is the
outcome of this immediate campaign; but they give us the
general sense of direction and amount of change in the drug use
problem, and not just in the behavior, but also in attitudes
and intentions.
Also, several of them, although not all, have questions
about your exposure to media messages, in general. So in that
way, we hope to be able to link from our very specific data on
particular ads to the national outcomes. We certainly will not
be able to claim that the Media Campaign was responsible for
the full change of drug use in any 1 year in either direction.
We think that it is going to give you the kind of
information that you need to make decisions about the campaign
in the future, along with your colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee.
Having covered some of the things that are going on in the
campaign now and changes that we propose to make, I just wanted
to briefly highlight two items that we think are important to
consider in the authorization. We will be formally transmitting
our proposal in short order, to help the committee with its
consideration of reauthorization of the whole office and the
campaign.
But the two things I would like to highlight today are
first, to ask that you include in the authorization a provision
that has been part of the appropriations since fiscal year
1998, which allows us to pay for creative services when they
are not otherwise available.
It is certainly our intent and has been our practice to
rely principally on the Partnership for a Drug Free America to
provide pro bono creative services. There are a few
circumstances in which that is not a practical solution.
On some of our multi-cultural or ethnic advertising, it is
very difficult to recruit a pro bono agency to provide creative
services, and we do not want to leave out any part of the
population in the reach of this message. So it is important for
the Native American community, the African American community,
some Asian foreign language groups, that we be able to provide
those.
There are also a few niche needs that we fill by using paid
services. For example, to highlight one of our initiatives, we
have a site called Mediastory.org, which provides information
to journalists to help them with their coverage. We have
promoted that in a publication that journalists frequent.
That is not something that is a typical ad that would be in
the paradigm that the Partnership for a Drug Free America
works. It is also not a very expensive part of the campaign,
either of those activities.
So we hope that you will allow us to continue that on an
authorized basis, as opposed to just a reoccurring
Appropriation basis.
The second change we would request, the FCC has recently
made a decision that our media match, and the space and time
that comes as a result of that, is not actually pro bono. The
networks are giving it to us because we bought paid
advertising. So in that way, it is not actually a pro bono
service on their part.
As a result, the Communications Acts rules that require the
sponsorship of an ad to be displayed on the ad come into play.
So for those ads that are not developed by the campaign
itself, but play as part of our media match, they would have to
be tagged as being sponsored by ONDCP, even if they are created
by another organization, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving;
the National Crime Prevention Council.
That has created a big problem for the Ad Council. I know
Peggy Conlon, who is testifying on the next panel, will have
more to say about that. But we would ask you to accept from the
provisions of the Communications Act the media match portion of
our program.
That covers the things that I had for my opening statement.
I would be delighted to answer any questions the committee has,
on any of those topics or anything else about the campaign.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marston follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.021
Mr. Souder. Let me just say up front, we are going to
submit quite a few written questions, so that we have it in
detail. Let me also say for the record that this was sold as a
national ad campaign, and the money for it will rise or fall on
the success of the major ad campaign.
I fear, even though every single thing that you raise in
your testimony and that you are doing has merit. This is much
like what we each face in our campaigns. Every single proposal
that comes toward us to possible run as an ad sounds good.
Every single thing for every sub-group sound good.
But the bottom line is, if you do not reach a certain
threshold, none of them work. If you are trying to be something
to everybody, you are nothing to anybody. We were powerfully
close, with the amount of money that we have, and we got a real
wake-up call in the appropriations process.
I was over at Appropriations yesterday to try to do it, but
we have got a wake-up call that many Members of Congress feel
that this is not focused enough and our results are not
dramatic enough.
I agree with your more complex measurement system. But the
bottom line is, we are going to rise or fall on the ads. We
have got to figure out how to make sure there is a threshold
there and how to work it through.
Now I believe that some of these sub-parts all sound good.
But what I would like to know is, are you doing any
measurement, like we are asking for the ad campaign, of the
sub-parts?
Because my feeling is, probably your dollars invested are
so small that your measurement, it would not be wise to be
doing measurement of it; in which case, whatever percentage of
the budget that is, is not getting measured, and that may be
the part that is not working. I will let you address that
question.
Mr. Marston. Certainly.
Mr. Souder. For example, how would you measure Internet
advertising to see whether it is working? How do you measure,
other than the number of people who hit the Web page; but if
you do not analyze it as hitting the Web page, how do we know
there are not just a bunch of druggies hitting the Web page to
see what it is; or the same people hitting it 1,000 times?
You have to pay money for it, if you are only putting a
little bit into it. But when you add up all these sub-parts,
how do we know the effectiveness?
Mr. Marston. Well, Mr. Chairman, you are right. It is a
real challenge to evaluate it, and if I could, I would like to
address the beginning of your comments, in addition to the
portion about specific evaluation of those programs.
You are right, that spreading thin is a challenge and we do
not want to do. The one piece of good news is, at the amount we
have been spending on advertising, we have had very, very high
exposure and recall levels. So I do not think we are in a
position where we are running a risk of having it too diffuse
to make a difference. That is to provide a little context.
On the specific additional activities and how we measure
them, an example would be a promotional activity we took. It
was an open letter to parents on marijuana.
We did a type of promotional activity. It was a video news
release and an audio news release that we released to a bunch
of stations to generate earned media. We measured the content
of stories that mentioned marijuana before and afterwards. We
had an increase of 600 stories afterwards that portrayed
marijuana in a more accurate light, more favorable to the
position of, do not use drugs, than we did before.
Each program we have to approach differently as to how we
measure it. But we are working very hard to measure our
results, and we plan to include that in the evaluations that we
send up, along with the information about the advertising.
Mr. Souder. Could you elaborate a little bit more on your
multi-cultural activities, and how you see that as separate
from the ad time? Do you do ad time that is counted in the ad
time budget, that is targeted toward Black Entertainment
Television, other specialty networks, or does that get counted
if it is television under multi-cultural or does it get counted
under the ad buy?
Mr. Marston. We include the multi-cultural portion within
the ad buy. In the last year, $12 million of about $150 million
spent on advertising was on targeted multi-cultural messages.
Mr. Souder. And we can ask this of the buying agency, but
do you also factor in, high risk populations, whether they be,
if you are moving from the little bit older group, from 14 to
16, do you look at the buys of what they are watching, for
example, and where these targeted subgroups are?
Mr. Marston. Absolutely; that is one of the really
important services that our contractor provides. We have target
audience specialists, who provide assistance in the process of
planning and buying ads; both in terms of what the message in
the ad needs to be and in terms of where it should be played,
to take into account just that factor of who is watching when.
Mr. Souder. I have one last factual question. Roughly, what
proportion of the time in billings from Ogilvy & Mather go to
buying advertising time versus other activities related to the
campaign. In other words, what percent is actually media buy?
Mr. Marston. Eighty-six percent of their budget is for
planning and purchase of media time. Seven percent of what we
pay to them is for ad production, the costs I mentioned
earlier, where even if the creative service is provided pro
bono, we have to pay for some of the production. Six percent of
it is labor fees, materials travel, and other direct costs that
are negotiated as part of the contract.
Mr. Souder. Tell me what the 86 percent was, again.
Mr. Marston. That is for planning and purchase of media
time and space, including the multi-cultural.
Mr. Souder. How much of it is actual media time?
Mr. Marston. The 87 percent includes all the funds that
they actually use to purchase media. There is some additional
money in there. I do not know what it is, but I will be happy
to respond for the record.
Mr. Souder. Yes, we would like to know what the planning
percent is, the other percents, and then what is the actual
purchase time.
I have a technical question, too, to know whether, for
example, if go through an agency, there is a 15 percent fee
usually. So when I want the media time, I want the media time
without the agency placement fee.
In other words, the evening news in my district would be
$700 if you go through and agency, and it is 15 percent less
than that if I placed it direct without going through an
agency. I want to know what is the actual real purchase time
percent of the budget.
I do not have a number that I am looking for, because I
know people have to make money or they are not going to do it.
But I would like to know how much of our budget is actually
going into media time.
Mr. Marston. Certainly.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask you, as far as this purchase of creative talent,
I think that is how you phased it, you said you want some
flexibility, right?
Mr. Marston. To continue the practice we have with
appropriators, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Give me an example of what we are talking
about. Have we run into that problem? Can you give me a live
and in living color?
Mr. Marston. Sure; I cannot cite a specific ad. But the
Native American ads that I think you might have seen at a
previous hearing of the subcommittee, those ads, because they
were targeting a Native American population, it was very
difficult for the Partnership to recruit an ad agency that just
did Native American ads and have that as a specialty to work
pro bono.
So in that case, we went and paid a Native American
advertising firm to develop those ads for us. That would be an
example of procuring a creative services campaign.
Mr. Cummings. Now a few years back, when the advertising
campaign was moving along pretty nicely, there was a finding in
some of the testing that African American young people were not
being affected. As a matter of fact, I think it was going in
the opposite direction. Their usage was maybe increasing
slightly, but they were not affected like white kids were.
What I did was, I brought the then-Drug Czar to Baltimore,
and had him sit down with some young people, some teenagers,
some high school kids, and looked at quite a few of the ads.
They told him why ads were effective, and it was basically
unanimous. I mean, I had about 100 kids.
I guess what I am aiming at, just talk about all the things
that are in place to make sure that these ads are being
effective.
These kids, when the Drug Czar listened to them, it just
made sense why they did not think they were effective. So we
are just spending all this money, and I just want to make sure
we have all the mechanisms in place.
I guess the thing that kind of got me about that one is, I
thought we were doing all this testing and figuring out, and
literally, this little venture that we did cost us nothing
except bus fare to one location. They were the experts. After
all, they were the ones that were affected.
I just find it amazing. So often, we sit up here and we
spend all this money on different projects; not just in the
drug area. But we never even talk to the people who are
affected. Talk to me.
Mr. Marston. Well, we share your concern and we have taken
steps to address it. The way we do our testing now, we start
with focus groups very similar to the group you assembled for
General McCaffrey. We have taken their perspectives, based on
story boards, descriptions of the ads before they have gone
into production. We get their opinions and take in that
feedback.
For a specific ad targeted at a multi-cultural community of
some sort, we use that community to do the focus group. For a
general audience, we collect a cross-cutting group of people
for the focus group.
Then we go on and the ad is produced, based on the learning
from that focus group, we do our quantitative testing. Again,
we would differentiate, if it is for a multi-cultural audience,
to play a specific communications media for them. We test it
with that group.
If it is for a general market, we do the same kind of
testing with a cross-cutting group of people. But we also test
for negative, unanticipated facts.
So if an advertisement, for example, had a very positive
impact on white male youth, but unintended by the creators had
a negative impact on young black women, then we would say, OK,
we are not going to go with that, because it is obviously going
to reach that audience, as well.
So we take that into account at testing in those different
stages. That way, I think that we address very carefully your
concerns. Specifically, we do that now on every advertisement,
not just on one of the group of ads or anything like that. So
every ad is tested in that way before it is put on the air.
Mr. Cummings. Talk about, and I sure we will have some
testimony about it a little later, the terrorism aspect. I am
just wondering exactly how effective they are and what was the
theory behind them. Maybe somebody else will tell me.
I can understand perhaps right around September 11th, maybe
it would be even more effective. It seems like as we would get
away from September 11th, they might not be as effective.
But the interesting thing is that it seems I see them more
than I see any other ads. It may just be when I look at
television; I do not know.
But on the other hand, I am concerned about our young
people being affected. I do not know how much they are affected
by those ads. Those who are going to testify later, you might
be able to answer this question. Think about that.
I was just curious and, as a matter of fact, I have heard
it in some of my town meetings. Because they know that I have
something to do with this campaign, and they wonder why their
tax dollars are being used talking about terrorism.
They would almost rather see the kind of ads where Venus
and Serena Williams were featured or, you know, something that
could relate to their kids. So I was just curious about that.
Mr. Marston. Sure, and I am actually pleased to hear that
you see more of those ads than you do of other ads and that
members of your communities do. Because we are targeting adults
and people who influence youth opinions with those drugs and
terrorists. They were not specifically targeted at our younger
youth audience.
If the folks at your town hall meetings were seeing ads
with Serena and Venus Williams, I hope that was when they were
watching television with their children, because that is who we
are targeting with those ads.
So much of the function of what you see and when you see it
is a reflection of our buying strategy in reaching the kind of
target that we are trying to reach.
Mr. Cummings. Boy, that was a smooth answer; 2 points.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Marston. Thank you, sir; additionally, we have reached
the same conclusion you have relating to effectiveness on drugs
and terror and the distance in time between September 11th. We
actually are slated to end our drugs and terror initiative, I
believe it is in late May or early June of this year.
We have done, as you know, several sets of those, and we
have tried to make them more relevant as the time got further
away by doing different things with them. But that initiative
will be coming to an end.
Mr. Cummings. But let me just say, that is not to say that
I do not think they are not excellent. I think they are
excellent, the drugs and terrorism. I just wonder about the
effectiveness.
Mr. Marston. Sure.
Mr. Souder. Thank you; Judge Carter.
Mr. Carter. I guess I am going to ask a couple of
questions, because I agree that those are adult ads, the
terrorism ads, and that was my comment just a moment ago to
Congresswoman Blackburn. Your target audience, is it the young
people, or is it all dope smokers in America?
Mr. Marston. The target we are trying to affect the
behavior of is youth in America. We have two strategies to do
that. One is to target them directly with our advertising
efforts. A second is to target their parents and other people
who have influence over them, to get them not to engage in that
behavior.
Mr. Carter. But you are not trying to convert the parents.
Mr. Marston. That is not a primary objective, no. If we do
it, we will be very happy; but it is not one of our objectives.
Mr. Carter. If I am understanding this correctly, because I
am new at this; I am not new at drugs, but I am new at this,
you are basically using television and radio almost
exclusively. Is that correct?
Mr. Marston. The bulk of our spending is television and
radio. We also do print and we do some Internet advertising to
drive folks to the Web sites we do, that provide additional
information. We also put the Web address on the radio and
television.
Mr. Carter. Well, when I hear the word ``campaign,'' of
course, I think about a campaign I just running.
Mr. Marston. Sure.
Mr. Carter. Being the poor kid on the block, I was not
running a whole lot of television and radio, but we did direct
mail.
I happened to have raised four kids. I have never had one
of my kids ever receive a piece of mail that they did not open,
because they do not get that much mail. Have you ever, at all,
thought about doing direct mail?
Mr. Marston. I have not been with the campaign since its
inception. I do not know that we have considered that, but we
can certainly give it a look.
Mr. Carter. I will tell you an experience that I had. I was
a Juvenile Justice Judge, on a rotation basis, several times.
In Texas, when you become 17, you are an adult in the eyes of
the law.
I can tell you where your at-risk kids are; they have
dropped out of school. You know, most of your juvenile justice
people know where they are.
We send all 17 year olds on their birthday, that are at-
risk kids, and there are about maybe a couple thousand of them,
a birthday card on their birthday, on their 17th birthday. It
said, ``happy birthday,'' on the front, and it has got a cake.
If we open up the cake, the cake is behind bars and it says,
congratulations, you are now an adult in the eyes of the law.
If you decide to break the law, you will go to the
penitentiary; happy birthday.
That is one of the most effective things we have ever done.
Kids tell us about it, and it scares them to death. We get
comments; we get calls. You are talking about an eye opening,
as you kids say; and these are kids that have been in trouble
and are at-risk.
But they have been in the juvenile system, and they realize
now that they are not playing in the juvenile system any more.
They are playing in the adult system. I will tell you, it is
very effective.
Mr. Marston. Judge Carter, it sounds like a very
interesting program. What I am going to do is share it with the
folks who run our Drug Free Communities Program, and suggest to
community coalitions that they consider an initiative like
that.
We will also take a look at whether mail might be a good
strategy for the media campaign. One thing you should be aware
of is, some of our corporate participation, while probably not
as directly targeted at youth; although the ones who use cell
phones and pay their own bills would get billing statements
that have our anti-drug messages. I do not think that is going
to save the day, but it is one more way that we use corporate
participation to reinforce the messages of the campaign.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Thank you very much for being here today and for
your testimony. I am curious, how much control do you all have
over the creative content of the ads that are being
disseminated?
Mr. Marston. Well, it is, of course, the Director's final
decision as to whether we air an ad or not.
Mr. Bell. You have the final say?
Mr. Marston. Absolutely.
Mr. Bell. So any testing of the ad and that sort of thing,
are you responsible for that, as well?
Mr. Marston. Our contractor provides the testing, but we
review the results.
Mr. Bell. I know you talked about some possible changes in
the direction of the campaign. But I am kind of curious, going
back to the previous testimony, a lot of the focus has been on
parents and that seems to be a goal here of late. Is that fair?
Mr. Marston. It is definitely an important part of the
campaign. One thing we are thinking about doing, we have had a
lot of success with parents, and we are going to move some of
our resources off of parents onto youth, but we still plan to
maintain that parent communication effort.
Mr. Bell. My original background was in journalism, not in
advertising. I can sit up here and try to be an expert in
advertising, but I also kind of like to take a common sense
approach to some of these things.
So when my staff was preparing and looking at some of the
ads for today's hearing, we were somewhat surprised, because
here is one. It was on A-8 of the Washington Post, and it is
the dime bag ad. ``Is it OK to support terrorism, if it is only
a little bit. So you buy a dime bag occasionally?'' You are
familiar with the ad?
Mr. Marston. I am.
Mr. Bell. Who did you all think might be reading the
Washington Post that is buying all the dime bags out there?
Mr. Marston. Well, that is certainly targeted at our parent
and youth influence or audience, we call it; folks who are
going to have an influence on youth decisionmaking.
We want to reinforce the negative consequences, and give
them a negative consequence to reinforce with youth when they
talk to kids about drugs.
Mr. Bell. Well, I guess that is where I am getting a little
confused. Because most parents, you would hope, would
understand the negative effects of drugs, going in. You do not
really have to sell them that their kids using drugs is a
negative. You are trying to sell them on the fact they need to
sit down and talk to their kids about it being negative,
correct?
Mr. Marston. I would definitely agree that we are trying to
sell them on that. But I also think that there is not as high
awareness as you might think among parents about the extent of
drug use and the chance that their child, in particular, might
be someone who is at risk.
So we need to reinforce that message with parents and get
them to pay attention to the issues, so that they can take that
opportunity to communicate with their kids about it.
Mr. Bell. Well, if a parent is completely out of the drug
culture, let us say, would they even know what a dime bag is?
Mr. Marston. Not being a parent, I am not in a very good
position to answer. But I think that is a sufficiently common
expression for particularly baby boomer parents, who have been
a real problem for us.
As you know, some parents in that generation who
experimented with drugs in their youth are uncomfortable
talking to their kids about drugs, and feel like they are not
in a good position to do it, because of their own past use. So
we need to reach that group, and I am sure that they are
familiar with the expression, dime bag.
Mr. Bell. The same ad, in the National Journal, focused on
who?
Mr. Marston. The same target, the adult and youth
influencer population.
Mr. Bell. Do you see where I am going? I am just a little
bit confused on the focus of the campaign. Has that been one of
the problem areas for the campaign, knowing exactly where to
channel the resources?
Mr. Marston. Well, it is always a problem for any
advertising campaign to do your targeting in the best way
possible. But we think we have worked really hard to do that,
and I think the placement strategy is actually working.
As Congressman Portman mentioned, our effort to reach
parents is actually what has been demonstrated to be the most
successful evaluation tool we have been using.
Mr. Bell. One of the studies backs that up, the NIDA study.
It showed that it was having some demonstrable effects with
parents.
Mr. Marston. Yes.
Mr. Bell. But then the study did not, however, show any
demonstrable effect on youth attitudes toward use of marijuana,
widely considered a gateway drug.
Mr. Marston. That is correct, and that is why Director
Walters took very aggressive steps to change the focus of the
campaign to change the age focus to 14 to 16, to intensively
cover marijuana, and to do all of the testing of each ad before
it goes on, to make sure that we have that impact.
So the other thing that I mentioned about the evaluation is
the problem it has in the scope of change that has to occur for
it to appear as a statistically significant event in the
survey. You actually have to have a 3 point change.
So, for example, youth marijuana use would have to go down
from 12 percent to 9 percent, over whatever period the
evaluation is reporting on, for it actually to be detected.
Over a 6-month period, which is the frequency of the reports,
that is extremely unlikely to happen.
Mr. Bell. Congressman Portman was also talking about the
testing. Have you been at it long enough where you can get a
pretty good test sample before an ad begins running, where you
can have some certainty that it is going to have an impact on
your targeted audience?
Mr. Marston. I think we have. We use an advertising
contractor who has extensive experience in testing. We have
changed the testing protocol, using a lot of ad industry
experts, who were on that task force that I mentioned, who
helped inform some of the changes we made to the campaign, to
decide on the testing protocol, what kind of sample, how to
collect the data. So to the extent the advertising industry is
successful in doing that, we think we are, too.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Congresswoman Blackburn.
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Marston, thank you so much. I want to move back for
just a moment and talk about your percentages on how you are
spending your money and the media buy, production and media
buy. Now, 7 percent of that is on production, and 6 percent is
on labor fees.
What I would like to know about that production portion,
what rate are you paying? Are you paying the market rate on
that? Do you have a favored rate, that everybody works at a
reduced rate for you? How do you arrive at the rate that you
pay?
Mr. Marston. On the production costs, we actually do have a
very favorable rate. Because it is a public service campaign,
we have been able to secure that.
Additionally, to make sure that all of the costs are
acceptable and within the range of what should be paid, we have
a subcontractor, Madison Avenue Management, which reviews the
invoices for us and tells us if they are acceptable costs or
not, so we can make a decision about payment on production
costs.
Ms. Blackburn. Do they charge a fee for that?
Mr. Marston. They do, but it is a function, review of
invoices, that would have to be performed by a Government
employee, if it were not performed by them. So it is a function
we have to expend resources on anyway.
Ms. Blackburn. What is their fee, their percentage?
Mr. Marston. It is actually not on a percentage fee basis.
They do it on an annual contract, and it is between $250,000
and $300,000 a year.
Ms. Blackburn. So then 73 percent of that budget is being
actually used for a media buy.
Mr. Marston. I am sorry, my presentation of the numbers
might have been confusing. The percentages happen at so many
levels, because there are different contracts.
The 87 percent of the funds paid to our principal
contractor for advertising services, that is what is going to
the buy and the planning and expenses. Seven percent is what
goes to pay for those production costs.
Those are the invoices that are reviewed by the
subcontractor I mentioned, and 6 percent goes to pay the fees
for labor and expenses of the contractor.
Ms. Blackburn. Let me ask you this. Would you mind giving
us a line item break-out on how that money is being spent?
Would you submit that?
Mr. Marston. I would certainly be happy to provide more
information.
Ms. Blackburn. That would be great. I think that would be
very helpful for us to know that. Because I think that looking
at paying a percentage for the purchase, one of the things that
actually concerns me is that you have got companies that are
giving their creative services to Partnership for a Drug Free
America, and they are doing that on a pro bono basis.
The concern would be that they would stop doing that,
because there are companies that are being compensated for
their work.
I think what I would like to do is look at your budget and
see how it is that you are using those funds that are going
into that campaign. That would be great.
Mr. Marston. Certainly; the advertising industry has been
very generous in the pro bono creative services they provided
through the Partnership. That is why we limit as much as
possible how much we spend on creative to the few areas that I
mentioned, the multi-cultural and the niche ads where it is not
available.
It has not been a problem, as far as I am aware of, but I
am sure the Partnership can tell you more when they testify,
that folks in other parts of the advertising industry, such as
buying and production, have not made all those services
available pro bono, so long as it is the creative that has made
pro bono.
We will be happy to provide additional information. If it
is alright with you, I am going to have someone followup with
your staff to find out specifically which line items you would
like it broken out in.
Because frankly, it is much more confusing than I have ever
been able to understand when I read the accounting tables. But
we will make sure we get you the information you need.
Ms. Blackburn. Unfortunately, most Government budgets are.
I think it would help us if we were able to have a better feel
for exactly what the dollar items are, and where you guys are
placing those.
I commend you for looking at some non-traditional marketing
avenues, when you are dealing with youth and trying to
communicate a message. I think that is tremendously important.
I would hope that the individuals who are doing your media
buys have access to your survey information and your focus
group information, as to what is working.
Mr. Marston. Absolutely; all of the partners work very
closely together on that decisionmaking.
Ms. Blackburn. One other thing you had not mentioned, we
talked a bit about the electronic media, the Web-based media,
the print media.
Mr. Marston. Yes.
Ms. Blackburn. Are you looking at anything on an
interactive basis, working with tours and entertainers and
concerts, and some of those on-the-ground efforts that are so
appealing? When you look at your 14 to 16 target market and the
things they go for, those concerts and tours, and you have got
some great corporate sponsor, are you linking through that?
Mr. Marston. Absolutely; we think that is a great way to do
sort of grass roots marketing. One example is N-Sync, which is
very popular in that age group, or was when we did the ad. They
did an ad on their concert tour.
That was one of the examples where we needed to have the
flexibility to pay for creative services, because the
opportunity arose in such a timeframe that we had to just go
send the camera crew right now to record them.
That was something that we were not able to secure a pro
bono person or agency for that quickly. So it is a good example
of why we need that authority that I mentioned that the
appropriators have given us on a reoccurring basis in the
authorization.
Ms. Blackburn. So when you talk about paying for the
creative services, you are talking about the actual planning of
the creative; or are you talking about behind the lens, the
camera people?
Mr. Marston. In that particular instance, it was the
creative concept for the ad.
Ms. Blackburn. The concept, OK, thank you.
Mr. Marston. In most instances, we pay for production
costs, but not for the sort of brainpower of creative that goes
into it.
Ms. Blackburn. Thank you.
Mr. Souder. Thank you; the newspaper ad that Mr. Bell
referred to, did that run in lots of cities?
Mr. Marston. I believe it did. No, I am wrong, one moment.
That was part of our adult influencer series, and it ran
influencer publications with very large circulation, like the
Washington Post.
Mr. Souder. Did they do pro bono, as well, as part of the
package?
Mr. Marston. Yes; actually, to be clear, when we say pro
bono, we mean only the donated creative services. When we talk
about media giving time and space, we call it the media match,
because of this confusion on the FCC issue. But yes, that
received a media match.
Mr. Souder. So it is not just television that is under that
criteria.
Mr. Marston. That is correct.
Mr. Souder. Thank you; we appreciate your testimony today.
Like I said, we will have a series of written questions with
particulars for numbers and so on.
We certainly will attempt to address the two particular
things that you said at the end; although it is not clear how
much we will micro-manage the one that has been granted a
waiver the last few times.
As you could hear from Congressman Portman's testimony and
from the questions here, this is one of the big, unresolved
questions that we are going to deal with, as to how much
flexibility will be in the office. We are trying to work that
out, as you well know.
The Senate is certainly going to have opinions, too, but it
will be one of the difficult questions. What we have chosen to
do the last few years is to not object to any waivers on the
authorizing, to give maximum flexibility. But we do need to
come to some resolution, and the followup questions will help
us to do so.
Mr. Marston. Well, I encourage you to ask Mr. Pasierb about
his view on that flexibility. Because I think that you will
find that the Partnership is supportive, and believes that in
the cases where we have used it, it is an important tool to
have. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Souder. Do not be too worried, but if we catch you in
perjury, you may never see daylight, again; no, not really.
But we do this as an oversight committee, just to make
sure, and most of you have been through this before, so you are
familiar with why we do it. But we have had all kinds of
adventures in this committee and the precedent is there.
So first, let us start with Mr. Pasierb. We welcome you,
and we appreciate your meeting with us in New York and in other
places here on the Hill, your past testimony, and the great
work that you have done.
STATEMENTS OF STEVE PASIERB, PRESIDENT, PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG
FREE AMERICA; DAVID MCCONNAUGHEY, OGILVY & MATHER; AND PEGGY
CONLON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE AD COUNCIL
Mr. Pasierb. Thank you, Chairman Souder, and we appreciate
all the efforts that you have done. Also, Mr. Cummings had to
step out of the room, but we also thank him for his work as the
ranking member on the committee.
As a former Baltimore resident, I know the good that he
does, and we appreciate your effort and Mr. Cummings' effort,
in particular.
For the record, I am Steve Pasierb, the president and CEO
for the Partnership for a Drug Free America. Our chairman
emeritus, who is Jim Burke, and also our new chairman, Roy
Bostock, as well as our vice chair, Alan Rosenshein, send their
personal gratitude, as well, to you, Mr. Chairman, for your
leadership and to the committee's leadership and unwavering
commitment to the drug issues.
I would also like to recognize the efforts of Director
Walters, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy, who is not with us today. He has done an enormous
amount of tireless work since he has taken over ONDCP, and that
is greatly appreciated.
I would also like to recognize Congressman Rob Portman, who
was with us earlier, for his dedication to the drug prevention
issue, which has gone back throughout his career, and also his
leadership on the Coalition for a Drug Free Greater Cincinnati.
That is an effort, in particular, that we are very proud to
partner with Mr. Portman on; and that is a campaign for which
we provide the majority of the drug-related advertising.
For members of the subcommittee who do not know the
Partnership, the Partnership began back in 1986, some 12 years
before the inception of the federally funded media campaign.
With the deep roots in the advertising discipline, the
Partnership is a very unique coalition of volunteers from the
communication industry, who work together on a pro bono basis,
as we have heard, to help reduce demand for illegal drugs in
America.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of volunteers from advertising
agencies, from production firms, from talent unions, the SAG
and APTR people who work for free in these messages, who do not
get their talent free, make this organization what it is.
As a non-profit, just for background, half of our funding
comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the World's
largest health care philanthropy, and the other half from some
200 private sector corporations and funders, whose diversity
helps ensure our independence.
Our role in this media campaign that we are here to discuss
today, simply stated, is facilitating the creation of
advertising, pro bono, by the best and brightest throughout the
communications industry.
We recruit and direct dozens of ad agencies in this
process. In fact, through the life of National Youth Anti-Drug
Media Campaign, that number is somewhere near or above 50
different advertising agencies, who have volunteered their time
to this effort.
We also coordinate the input of leading advertising
creative directors, who review all of the campaigns. We bring a
wealth of experience and knowledge to bear on the process. It
has really been taken from our 17 years in running national,
research-based drug education campaigns.
To date, the value of our net contributions to the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign tops $120 million. Even in this
economic environment, the communications industry continues to
find ways to give, and we are very much grateful for that.
Mr. Chairman, the Partnership wholeheartedly supports the
reauthorization of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media campaign.
This is a very unique campaign that Congress created 6 years
ago it's innovative, in that it is taking advantage of the
enormous influence that mass media can have in reducing the
demand for illicit drugs.
While this media campaign has directed significant
attention from this committee, and also from others in
Congress, it is critically important to keep in mind, as you
have heard from others, that as we discussed this and as we
move forward through the reauthorization process, that since
the campaign started, back in July 1998, drug use among
teenagers in America has indeed declined.
It is fairly remarkable when you consider that very little
national news attention has been paid to the drug issue over
the last several years. We have got adolescent drug use,
trending downwards or stabilized, in some cases. As we heard
from Congressman Portman that was the first step in the great
reductions that they have seen in Cincinnati.
We believe that the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign
really has played a significant role in the positive trends
that we are seeing.
Reauthorizing this media campaign is the right thing to do,
Mr. Chairman, and we also believe it is the smart thing to do.
That is because we know that anti-drug advertising, when
grounded in research, when executed with the higher creative
standards for its target audience, when pre-tested extensively
for maximum impact, and when delivered at high levels of media
exposure, can work.
Now let us be clear, advertising alone will not solve the
drug problem. But there is a growing body of evidence that
shows it can drive down drug use and the demand for drugs.
Independent studies on partnership advertising, from Yale
University, the London School of Economics, Johns Hopkins
Medical School, the University of Pennsylvania document this
fact.
In fact, one National Institute on Drug Abuse study
reported that anti-drug ads cut marijuana use by 27 percent
among at-risk teens in just 2 years. In fact, the Harvard
Business School actually teaches a case history on the
Partnership business model of social change.
In market case studies, they also prove this point. We
heard from Congressman Portman's Cincinnati coalition. This has
also happened in Miami, in New Jersey, and elsewhere.
There is also the Partnership's own national campaigns,
predating and outside of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. Inhalant's use is down by 13 percent since 1995; a
change that Monitoring the Future closely associates with the
Partnership for a Drug-Free America's national campaign on
inhalant abuse.
The dramatic rise in ecstacy use, which increased by 71
percent in just 3 years, has been cutoff, according to the
latest data, concurrent with the Dedicated National Education
Campaign from the Partnership, focusing on this drug.
With so much evidence stating the value of media-based drug
education, we have every confidence that this media campaign,
with further improvements, can work.
Since taking office as head of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, Director Walters has indeed refocused the
campaign on the core principles on the original mission of this
effort. We are particularly pleased on the points of an older
target audience; very appropriate for this campaign, as well a
return to hard-hitting, negative consequences messages.
Since taking over as our chairman of the Partnership, Roy
Bostock has established regular communication with Director
Walters, to ensure that the ONDCP PDFA relationship is strong,
productive, and mutually supporting as one that is leading
toward an optimally effective media campaign.
Above all else, through reauthorization, the subcommittee
can provide safeguards to ensure focus of the Media Campaign in
the future. We know and appreciate how seriously the
subcommittee regards its responsibility, and we have heard some
of that today.
In this regard, we believe the Media Campaign can benefit
from some of the things that Mr. Portman talked about, in a
clearer sense of the contributions made by each of the major
campaign partners.
Surely, the effort will benefit from maintaining the Media
Campaign as a public/private partnership. The Partnership
stands committed to delivering the vast majority of
advertising, to fulfill the campaign's needs on a pro bono
basis.
Maximizing message delivery, both through purchased and
matched exposure, must be a priority for the campaign in the
future. Intensive testing of the advertising to ensure its
effectiveness must take place before air.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely clear that the
campaign needs a responsive, agile evaluation instrument; one
that is useful and can form the strategic direction of the
campaign.
Obviously, there are established and credible data sources
like the University of Michigan's Monitoring the Future, as Mr.
Marston testified, which can help us evaluate this campaign.
In closing, now more than ever, the Media Campaign truly is
needed, and I know that you believe that. We are not going to
find a more efficient way of reaching millions of kids with
consistent and impactful messages about the dangers of illicit
drugs than through media-based education campaigns like this.
This program requires less than 1 percent of the Federal
drug budget. Taxpayers invest about $8 per teen, per year, in
this campaign. It is a wise and honest investment, one that the
vast majority of Americans have supported in the past.
With continued improvements and your leadership, the
investment in this campaign will prove to be one of the best
investments ever made in a federally funded prevention program.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pasierb follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.035
Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
Mr. McConnaughey, we appreciate again you working with our
schedule today, and we look forward to your testimony.
Mr. McConnaughey. Thank you, Chairman Souder; just on a
personal note, when your staff called, there really was not
much question as to whether I was going to appear here today;
not for any reason other than my responsibility to both my
company, to my client, the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy, to the U.S. Congress, and, of course,
ultimately, the role that I personally feel I can contribute in
this important cause. So I appreciate your recognizing my
changing schedule.
Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee, I am the project director of the
ONDCP National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign at Ogilvy, the
advertising services contractor for the program.
Just as background on Ogilvy, Ogilvy is the eighth largest
global advertising network. We serve such well-known clients
and brands as IBM, American Express, Kodak, Motorola, Hershey,
among others.
As one of the world's largest and most respected
advertising companies, Ogilvy's partner media company,
Mindshare, is also one of the largest media planning and buying
organizations in the world, ranking second with over $20
billion in worldwide billings placement.
This gives us significant negotiating leverage, clout, if
you will, which results in the lowest possible market rates and
access to substantial and unique pro bono media match
opportunities.
This has helped us achieve the unprecedented success in
out-performing the congressional goal of the 100 percent media
match donation value.
Importantly for the campaign, we are also a full service
advertising contractor agency, known in the industry as a
leader that understands how audiences consume, use and are
impacted by media and advertising.
We have significant resources and in-house expertise, based
on a breadth and depth of our broad client experience, working
both in the private sector and in pro bono paradigms.
We unite diverse disciplines and partners, ensuring that
the latest industry thinking and practices are brought to the
campaign. This is vital in a dynamic marketplace, with changing
trends, media consolidation and fragmentation, new consumer
choices and new media and burgeoning clutter.
The job of understanding and reaching audiences today is
more than just running traditional TV ads, although I do agree
you must reach a threshold, as you have mentioned, Chairman
Souder.
It could include Internet, cable television, which again,
of course, is broadcast television; but perhaps school-based
messaging or community communications. Even mobile text phone
messaging today is affecting our kids.
With our marketing and media expertise, Ogilvy understands
the strategies and tactics that help increase support behind
the right core anti-drug messages.
Leading and managing a paid campaign is different from
managing a pro bono effort. Doing both together, which is what
ONDCP requires be done, is a challenge that requires current
and real market experience.
The role of the partners and the contractors is very well
defined by ONDCP. Ogilvy is the primary full service
advertising services contractor, a strategic advisor, one of
quite a few to the campaign, and the coordinator for the media
efforts.
Ogilvy recommends media strategies. We develop detailed
plans from those media initiatives, negotiate and buy the media
time and space. We do this for all the target audiences,
meaning the general market, and specific multi-cultural
audiences, which we do working with the specially knowledgeable
subcontractors.
This media responsibility involves continuously evaluating,
balancing, and negotiating with thousands of media outlets all
the time, organizations, vehicles. We purchase in any given
plan year over 1,300 different outlets.
Ogilvy negotiates, oversees, implements, and tracks the
congressionally mandated pro bono match which, in effect,
doubles our media stewardship responsibilities and, of course,
increases the impact of the campaign, delivering more messages
to our audiences.
Ogilvy has outperformed the goals on the media match by
succeeding to negotiate and deliver more than the
congressionally mandated 100 percent match every year of our
contract. That has totaled nearly $800 million in matched
value, 107 percent of the goal, more than doubling the taxpayer
value of the campaign.
Ogilvy directs all advertising strategy, research,
development, and testing. Working closely with ONDCP and PDFA,
we have established rigorous processes for the development and
testing of all advertising. These processes parallel those of
the most sophisticated private sector marketing programs, and
help ensure that the creative work is more effective than what
might be driven largely by opinions.
The strategic guidance afforded by the ongoing investment
ONDCP makes in the independent research process, has generated
a significant base of knowledge and data, which has aided in
the development of what we believe is some of the best, most
focused, and effective advertising to date, referenced both by
Mr. Pasierb and Mr. Marston, I believe.
Ogilvy has led these processes with its depth of in-house
and on-contract resources, working closely with all of the
campaigns partners. These processes have been, over time,
continuously improved and refined; most recently using the good
guidance of the director.
Ogilvy also manages the Behavior Change Expert Panel, an
independent advisory panel of experts with qualifications in
advertising and marketing communications, behavior change,
youth development, substance abuse issues, multi-cultural
audiences, parenting skills, and public health.
The BCEP is an example of Ogilvy and the ONDCP improving on
industry standards and exceeding private sector standards to
enhance campaign learning through the use of independent
advisors.
Ogilvy provides private sector best practice insights to
the effort, working on the development stewardship of the ONDCP
brand, ad flighting, and lead coordinating with campaign
partners, and work on valuative analysis are examples of some
of the best practices activities that we deliver for the
campaign.
We regularly develop advertising for the campaign on a pro
bono basis, as well as for ad gaps, which Mr. Marston spoke
about, and for inter-active banners. We also do the operational
logistics components. There is quite a lot of that, that has to
be done for the campaign.
Over the course of the campaign, Ogilvy or our multi-
cultural subcontractors have served regularly as creative
contributors to the campaign. In fact, in an account we
recently did, we figured that we have produced approximately 29
percent of the traditional ads done for the campaign.
We have worked primarily within the PDFA process, but also,
as Mr. Marston mentioned, we have provided other direct
support, where the advertising could not be delivered through
the traditional volunteer paradigm.
The circumstances have been for multi-cultural efforts,
niche, or specialty audiences, or when dictated by the need to
move quickly or with particular deep and direct involvement on
ONDCP parts, as with the Drugs and Terror Initiative. We do
develop all of the interactive banner advertising under
contract with the campaign.
In conclusion, I would like to say that we know that the
campaign is reaching its intended audiences and achieving
break-through anti-drug awareness that has been referenced by
Congressman Portman, by Mr. Marston, and Mr. Pasierb.
The anti-drug message, and particularly the new marijuana
message, is being infused in the market and is becoming a
verifiable part of youth vernacular and pop culture. In focus
groups, kids repeatedly indicate that they see our ads all the
time, and they are reporting positively on their belief that it
is affecting them.
You have heard in previous testimony the good results
reported by the Monitoring the Future study from the University
of Michigan. We believe this is very good news and evidence the
campaign is working as intended. Attitudes are changing and
drug use by adolescents is declining.
The campaign has achieved significant campaign impact on
parents. The purpose of the campaign is to prevent drug use
before it starts and to motivate occasional youth users to stop
and, of course, reduce drug use.
It is a hard, hard job, but this campaign is working, and
the opportunity exists to drive the success forward and
effectively sustain this kind of change in youth in what are,
of course, future adults.
One of the hallmarks of the campaign has been ONDCP's
continuous improvement approach, a quest to make the campaign
better and stronger. As the campaign moves forward, it is
important to recognize that it is better.
It is more focused than it was in 1998 when it started.
With a strongly established grant, some of the best tested,
most effective advertising ever on the air, and new guidance
provided by the ONDCP Director, the campaign is a hard working
tool for positive
change, making a difference in young people's lives.
Ogilvy is proud to be associated with the Media Campaign,
and we have worked to help make the campaign better, stronger,
and smarter. We look forward to continuing to do so. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McConnaughey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.045
Mr. Souder. I would feel much more guilty about saying you
have 8 minutes to summarize these complex things, if you did
not spend your whole life spending 27 seconds to try to sell
different things.
Ms. Conlon.
Ms. Conlon. Chairman Souder, Ranking Member Cummings, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am very grateful
for your invitation to testify today about the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign. I am here today in my role as the
president and CEO of the Ad Council, but I bring with me my
passion for the future of our Nation's youth.
I commend you for holding these hearings despite these
difficult times. While I know our country's national security
and our troops are first and foremost on your minds, your
attendance is testament to an unwavering commitment to help
keep our Nation's children drug free.
The nonprofit Ad Council has been a proud partner of the
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, or the campaign, since
its inception in 1998. As the Nation's leading provider of
PSAs, the Ad Council has over 60 years experience in correcting
social problems through advertising.
The Ad Council's experience to date with the campaign has
been exceptionally positive. As full partner, the Ad Council
provides assistance to ONDCP in two important areas.
First, we develop and implement a PSA campaign that
encourages the public's participation in community anti-drug
coalitions. Since its launch in 2000, this PSA campaign has
received over $196 million in donated media. Second, the Ad
Council facilitates the national Pro Bono Media Match Program.
As you know, when ONDCP purchases time and space from media
outlets for the core campaign, the media companies, in turn,
provide a matching public service contribution. The purpose of
the media match is to ensure that the paid campaign does not
supplant current pro bono public service time donated by
national and local broadcasting networks.
A portion of the media match inventory is divided among
organizations whose programs support the ONDCP's youth drug
prevention strategy. The requirement for participation is that
an organization's PSA must address a scientifically proven drug
prevention strategy, including after-school programs, mentors
for at-risk youth, and toll-free help lines for kids in
trouble.
Speaking on behalf of the 65 community groups that
participate in the match, I commend Congress for recognizing
that preventing youth drug use can only succeed with the full
partnership of these grassroots organizations.
I have included a complete list of these groups in my
written testimony. They include Big Brothers/Big Sisters, 100
Black Men, National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency,
Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and Mothers Against Drunk
Driving.
Let me clarify for the subcommittee exactly what percentage
of the match these community groups enjoy. Up until last
November, drug prevention PSAs other than the paid core ads
accounted for 70 percent of the TV and radio match.
The remaining 30 percent of TV and radio, as well as 100
percent of newspaper, 100 percent of magazine, and 100 percent
of outdoor and nontraditional media match elements go to the
campaign's core ads.
Although the community nonprofits comprise a relatively
small piece of the overall match pie, they have received
tremendous media exposure since they began to participate in
the match program.
Consider the following successes for these organizations
while they were participating in the match: The National
Mentoring Partnership received over 200,000 calls from
prospective mentors, resulting in over 40,000 new mentors for
at-risk youth.
The National 4-H Council enlisted over 56,000 more youth in
positive anti-drug behavior like volunteerism and community
service.
Alanon and Alateen's English and Spanish language hotlines
received a 200 percent increase in calls, which offer help to
families and friends of substance abusers.
As you well know, in your congressional districts and in
communities nationwide, these groups, one teenager at a time,
are doing as much to prevent teen drug use as the Ad Council,
ONDCP, and PDFA, combined. I assure you, they very much
appreciate that Congress gives them their fair share of
exposure through the campaign's media match program.
These grassroots organizations are ardent supporters of the
media campaign, and we simply cannot expect to successfully
reduce drug use without the critical local resources that they
provide.
It is our belief that we can pour millions of dollars
behind a single focused message that drug use is bad for kids.
However, if at the same time we do not offer real tools and
alternative activities in their own backyard, then our
strategies will likely fail.
Frankly, it is analogous to a national advertising campaign
that might successfully convince teens to wear Nike sneakers,
and yet, they are not available for purchase at the local
store. One could hardly expect a rise in sales.
As this subcommittee considers reauthorizing the campaign,
I urge you to consider the impressive results of these 65
community organizations. I cannot over-emphasize how important
it is that their PSA messages continue to be represented to the
greatest extent possible in the match.
I would like to focus the remainder of my testimony on the
tagging of PSAs that qualify for the match. This is a time-
sensitive and critically important issue to the Ad Council and
the participating non-profits.
In its November ruling, the FCC sided against the Ad
Council and with the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws [NORML], and determined that Section 317 of the
Communications Act requires that match PSAs be identified as
``Paid for [or sponsored] by ONDCP.''
The FCC ruling violates plain language of the Media
Campaign Act, and creates a result that is misleading,
confusing, and costly for the 65 nonprofit participating
organizations.
Identifying ONDCP as the paying sponsor, rather than the
nonprofits that independently produce and pay for these PSAs,
is an incorrect labeling of the spots. ONDCP neither creates or
exercises editorial control over their content, and the air
time during which these spots are broadcast is not paid; rather
it is donated by the media, networks, or stations.
In addition, Ad Council research has uncovered a strong
resistance by the public to volunteer for an organization, if
they perceive it is drug-related.
For all of the aforementioned reasons, several nonprofits
that provide key drug prevention support, such as Big Brothers/
Big Sisters, the National Fatherhood Initiative, and the
National Crime Prevention Council, have chosen to opt-out of
the match, unless the FCC ruling is overturned.
As a result of the ruling, networks have refused to air
spots without the ``Paid for by ONDCP'' tag. Unless corrected
immediately, the ruling will result in fewer prevention PSAs
from community organizations that are offering real solutions
to America's youth.
On behalf of all the nonprofits in the match, we urge the
subcommittee to correct this pressing matter, as you consider
the reauthorization of ONDCP.
I have submitted specific legislative language in my
written testimony, and we respectfully request the subcommittee
to include this in your final bill.
In closing, I thank the distinguished members of the
subcommittee for your leadership and commitment to help our
Nation's children stay drug free.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Conlon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.055
Mr. Souder. I thank you all for your testimony. I first
want to address the last point that you made, Ms. Conlon.
First, I think the ruling is absolutely stupid. I do not
know how they could say it is paid for, when it is not paid for
and the creative control was not there, and I assume we will
address it in the bill.
I am a little disturbed by your statement about the
research, and I would like to ask a little bit more about that.
Are you saying that people do not want to volunteer for groups,
if they think it is anti-drug?
Ms. Conlon. Yes, sir, and I will tell you where that
research comes from. As I mentioned early in my testimony, we
do a PSA campaign for ONDCP. The purpose of that campaign is to
get community members to participate in coalitions. Those
coalitions are very broad after-school mentoring, as you know.
When we probed about the concept of asking people to
volunteer on behalf of kids, whether it is coaching a soccer
team or being a tutor, they are open to that. But as we got
further into the messaging and we mention drugs, they are
recoiled by that, frankly.
Mr. Souder. This is really important, because you are, in
effect, questioning the whole concept of whether or not anti-
drug advertising works in our Community Coalitions Bill,
because we put up ads and we run these things as anti-drug
volunteers.
I do not want you to overstate what the study shows. So be
careful in your choice of words, because we are on the record
here.
What I want to know is, are you saying they are less
enthusiastic if they find it is anti-drug, and they are more
enthusiastic if they think they are helping the kids; or are
you saying there is actually a resistance to volunteering, if
they think one of the purposes is to reduce drug use?
Did the question say, you are going to be involved in
reducing drug use? I am trying to figure out what the
questioning was, because this is a challenge to what we do
here.
Ms. Conlon. No, I understand, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
happy to submit to you the actual verbatims from the focus
groups. But this research was done about 2 years ago. I will
give you, to the best of my recollection, what some of the
themes were that came out of the focus groups.
There were comments made such as, ``I do not feel I am an
expert on drug prevention.'' When they hear drug use and
keeping kids off drugs, they immediately leap to the fact that
they are going to be dealing with people that are experimenting
with drugs, as opposed to preventing drug use. That is why we,
in our language, are very careful to phrase the request.
Mr. Souder. In other words, the resistance is not to the
concept that it is an anti-drug group. It may be that they do
not feel qualified as a volunteer then to participate in
something that requires more expertise than playing basketball
with the kids.
Ms. Conlon. Right, or they assume that when you say ``drug
prevention,'' they assume that there is an expectation that
some of the people they will be interacting with are using
drugs.
So as I said before, we are very careful when we look at
that language, because they also do not want to put themselves
or their families at risk. It is really creating the perception
of, what is this about?
That is why the organizations that I have mentioned that,
although they really appreciate participating in the match,
they do not want to include that language at the end of their
tagging.
Because you can talk about being a Big Brother/Big Sister,
but then when you say, paid for by the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, they are afraid that paints it with a different
meaning than the broader, volunteering on behalf of at-risk
children.
Mr. Souder. Mr. McConnaughey, can I ask you a followup
question to this? I know this is not a primary focus of it, but
it relates to another question that we have talked about, as
well as Mr. Pasierb. That is, the labeling of the actual ads as
``paid for by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.''
The groups opposed to us often say they are for a
responsible drug policy. Do you believe that it hurt the
effectiveness in reaching some kids in America in the at-risk
population by the way we label our ads? Because would we not
have some of the same rub-off problem in the ads when they see
it come up at the end that it is paid for by the people who may
send you to jail?
Mr. McConnaughey. That is a very interesting question, Mr.
Chairman. I think that what we found in our research as we
developed the brand, and we worked closely with PDFA on this,
is that quite frankly, when you say something that says,
``brought to you from the Government,'' if you will, or
``brought to you by the White House Office of National Drug
Control Policy,'' it carries with it a certain authoritarian
tone.
Many of the kids that we are talking to, they are not ready
to hear a message that is brought to you by the principal of
the school or whomever it might be. I think that it is very
possible that you could get that kind of rub-off.
One of the advantages of the anti-drug brand that we call
my anti-drug-free kids is that it takes that authoritarian tone
off of it and allows the advertising to be much more
approachable and understandable.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pasierb, obviously, the Partnership for
Drug Free America also includes the word ``Drug'' in its ad. It
has a more positive connotation than Office of National Drug
Control Policy, which I am not in favor of changing the office
name. I am questioning what should be on the ad.
Do either of you know, in the FCC regulations, if it is
paid for by that agency, are we allowed to put in the ad a
different name of an organization that you could see where we
could put the money through; or are we under a legal
requirement that we have to say, ``paid for by Office of Drug
Control Policy''?
Mr. Pasierb. I am not really an expert on the FCC piece. I
do know that when the Partnership was first started, one of the
goals was to have no branding on our messages, not even the
name of the organization.
At the time, our name was the Media Advertising Partnership
for a Drug Free America, and the FCC actually required a name.
That is why it was shortened to Partnership for a Drug Free
America. But beyond that, I am really not an expert on the FCC
individual requirements.
We are about to release a campaign which has a different
name than ours. But we have found that as long as that is a
codified organization, it can carry that name.
Right now, the media campaign messages carry the ONDCP in
partnership name in what we call mouse-type. It is little,
little tiny type that you can hardly read.
Mr. Souder. Yes, we tried to change that in political
advertising. We have to have a box now around who is paid for,
because that can be carried in political advertising to the
other extreme. Mr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. It sure can. There are a lot of similarities
there.
Thank you for your testimony. I will start with Mr.
McConnaughey, because I am interested and I am certainly
supportive of the campaign going forward. But as it goes
forward, obviously we want to make sure the money is being
spent properly, and you all have been at it long enough now and
engaged in this war against drugs on television to take
somewhat of a systematic approach toward it. Is that fair?
Mr. McConnaughey. Yes, sir, there is a specific protocol,
as we develop our media strategies and plans to identifying
target audiences and the people that we are trying to reach in
each of those groups.
Mr. Bell. Is that followed on every one of these ads? Mr.
Pasierb, if you can followup on this, as well. When you were
talking about efficacy of these campaigns so they will work,
you conditioned them upon, if the ads are grounded on research
and are properly tested beforehand.
I will start with Mr. McConnaughey, if you want to
followup. Are all of the ads properly tested, in your opinion?
Mr. McConnaughey. Yes, sir, we have worked very closely
with the Partnership, with the behavior change expert panel,
which brings a range of expertise in behavioral science,
marketing and advertising, to develop a protocol for testing
the advertising. As I mentioned, some of the very best
advertising we have ever had on the air has come out of that
process in the past year.
In my written testimony, there is a more detailed
description of the protocols that we take our advertising
through. If that is not adequate, I would certainly be happy to
provide any further information to your staff.
Mr. Pasierb. I would certainly concur, the new system is
more exhaustive; and as you heard in other testimony, rather
than testing a representative sample, we are now testing each
and every message. I think that is a level of quality assurance
that this campaign needs to have.
Mr. Bell. The behavioral change that we refer to, I would
think that's what makes the campaign perhaps the most
difficult, because it is somewhat of a moving target, is it
not?
Years back, it may have been cocaine that you were focused
on. That goes to marijuana. That goes to finding out parents
are not talking to their kids. So the target is constantly
changing.
Mr. Pasierb. Absolutely, and behavioral change is the
business we need to be in. So many times, campaigns like this
were talking about raising awareness, and that is only the
first step in the process.
We need to not only raise awareness through this campaign,
but shape attitudes. We need to be measuring attitudes in the
marketplace, to see if people's beliefs on these drugs change,
and then relate that to a behavior change. It is really a three
step process.
Whether that drug is marijuana or cocaine, there is a lot
of evidence through the field, particularly the Monitoring the
Future study, that has been done over a 25 year period. It
shows that there are two really strong drivers of that; the
first being perception of risk; the second being social
disapproval. That is why the return to a larger percentage of
the negative consequences messages in the campaign, we think,
is the right step forward.
You heard Mr. Marston talk about the Leo Barnett campaign
that was on the air and some of the new work. We think the work
that is out there right now is doing those things.
Mr. Bell. How do you go about finding the focal point? I am
a little bit confused about that. How is the decision made of,
well, we need to start focusing on parents, because we believe
parents are not talking to their kids about drug use?
Mr. Pasierb. In the Partnership for a Drug Free America,
what we do and what we spend the majority of our time and
dollars on is doing consumer research; finding out what the
underlying attitudes are.
It is most important, and we got into this, this morning,
in a session with Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. All that
matters is the mind of 13 years olds. At one point, it really
does not matter what we think.
We have to go out there and do the learning, in a very
exhaustive way, and find out what is going on in the minds of
13 year olds, 14 year olds, 15 year olds, and 16 year olds, and
then be able to play that back in a credible and persuasive
manner through the advertising. So, if you will, you are also
combining art and science here.
Through that same attitudinal research, we have learned
very clearly that kids who learn a lot about the risk of drugs
at home are half as likely to use. That is the primary argument
to make certain that this campaign pays attention; and the
parents, caregivers, or whoever that caregiving adult is in
that child's life, and encourages them.
Right now, the thing that we are doing is monitoring; know
what the who, what, where, why, and whens of that child's life.
Mr. Bell. Knowing how quickly things change with kids, and
I assume it is not different with teenagers, as it is with my 7
year old. We started with Pokemon and now we are on to YuGiOh.
Mr. Pasierb. Pokemon is so over. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bell. I have noticed that, and the characters with
YuGiOh are much more difficult. But that aside, how long does
the data stay fresh?
Mr. Pasierb. That is one of the challenges of the
Partnership; that we have to constantly be gathering the data,
and we have to constantly be doing new advertising.
It is actually a frustration of ours that we do amazing
campaigns that work so well, but we know after a specific
period of time, we just have to retire them. That is because
the target audience has changed; the world has changed; the
perception of the drug has changed.
That is one of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
That is to continue to do that learning, and continue to
produce an ongoing flow of advertising. It is not like we can
create one body of work and say, we are set and we are just
going to run this for the next year. We do need new campaigns
and we are constantly refreshing it.
We also have to be responsive to the campaign to what some
of the rising drug trends are. Obviously, marijuana use makes
up the majority of drug use. But there is also methamphetamine
and Ecstacy and some other issues out there, that luckily we
are getting a handle on in society, but we still have a long
way to go.
Mr. Bell. Mr. Chairman, if you will indulge me, is that
piece in place for the data?
Mr. Pasierb. The Partnership for a Drug Free America,
through our campaigns and our ad time, we have made a conscious
decision through working with ONDCP that we are going to direct
our attention to those things. So the combination of the two is
to get that done.
So organizationally, our primary focuses right now are on
ecstacy and methamphetamine, and also some new campaigns that
we are going to roll out on intervention.
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Souder. Let me followup with some particular questions.
Mr. McConnaughey, you followed-up with some of the discussion
here. You have talked about a more rigorous action standard of
raising the bar. In going through your written testimony, and
all of your written testimony will be inserted, as well, you
talked about, to test every ad, adjusted samples. Mr. Marston
talked about some of the pre-test and releasing some of that
data.
I would like to hear how the inter-relationship works with
the Partnership. If they develop an ad, who is doing the
testing? Will that be through Ogilvy, Mr. McConnaughey?
Mr. McConnaughey. Yes, we are managing the testing
protocol. Members of the Partnership attend, in the case of the
Early Development Group, the focus group sessions. Members of
the Partnership and members of the volunteer agencies often
attend those sessions.
Mr. Souder. And if there are adaptations to the ads that
are required, how is that resolved?
Mr. McConnaughey. That is usually communicated by the
moderator, in the case of the FSEPS that we are referring to
here. That is communicated by the moderator in a written
report, reviewed by the representatives of our strategic
planning and research group, along with strategic planning and
research group at PDFA, who come to consensus on the findings.
That is communicated to ONDCP. ONDCP occasionally attends
the FSEPS groups, also, and agreement is reached, because the
creative process is a dynamic one. You want to take the data
from those groups, for instance, and apply the judgment of the
creative resources that the Partnership brings to bear on this.
Because advertising requires a little art and science to
resolve the changes that may or may not be made to any given
piece of advertising, before it moves forward.
Mr. Souder. As a practical matter, how does this work with
your agency being directly paid by the Government, and the
other being pro bono in the sense of Robert Wood and others
funding and donating creative time? Can it be done in a timely
fashion?
Mr. McConnaughey. Can it be done in a timely fashion? If
you mean, in terms of the research process, yes. I think that
we work the research process as expeditiously as we can, given
the fact that we have marketplace pressures to put advertising
on the air at given times, because we have time slots
purchased.
As Mr. Pasierb mentioned, we have to change and refresh
advertising, and we seek to be as efficient and timely as
possible. There occasionally is some slippage, from time to
time, that has required that we step in or change a schedule to
address the need to make sure that the advertising is right
before we move forward with it.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pasierb, could you talk about some of the
changes that might have occurred in this and how you feel it is
working, from the Partnership's standpoint? Director Walters is
under clear mandates that he has to reduce drug use. He has re-
focused, and you said in your statement you were comfortable
with some of that re-focus.
We have talked with both your groups in New York, and I
appreciate all the time you have spent. As we evolve, some of
this has changed from longer term to more short term, very
specific, and the director is looking for certain things. We
have tightened the research standard. How does this work, from
your perspective, with Ogilvy?
Mr. Pasierb. The research process is absolutely essential
to any advertising campaign. The feedback that we get from the
groups is processed and implemented in a fairly timely fashion.
In fact, the advertising agencies who were volunteering to
the campaign, particularly the level of input from the target
audience, is unequivocal. If we have learned this from the
target audience, then we need to make a specific change in a
message, and it is done right away. That is the kind of
learning that any advertising agency, anybody working in the
creative process, wants to assure their work.
Because as we have said, you do not just want it to be
creatively excellent. You want it to be impactful and you want
it to be effective. That is what the FSET process, as we call
it, brings to the advertising, and those agencies and the
people at the Partnership appreciate that kind of consumer
insight.
At the end of the day, it is not what we think. It is not
what Ogilvy thinks. It is not even, in some way, what ONDCP
thinks. Again, it is that 14 year old, that 15 year old, that
mom, that dad that we are trying to talk to, and we need to
make absolutely certain we are touching them and moving them.
Mr. Souder. You mentioned a few minutes ago some of the
campaigns you are working with. I know partial answers to this.
But to what degree do you do your own research or idea
development or creative development, and to what degree does it
come from ONDCP and/or Ogilvy saying, this is what we are
targeting; we have ``x'' amount of dollars that we are focusing
on in the Nation, and this is what we need?
Mr. Pasierb. The role that we play in the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign is to fulfill the creative product.
The strategies in a lot of that is directed toward this.
We basically operate as an organization on two tracks: the
campaigns in the Partnership for a Drug Free America that we do
with our own process in the air time that we are able to get
from the national media, as we always have; and then the work
from the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.
Those are built on the message strategies of the campaign,
and the goals of the campaign as delineated by the director.
Our job is to make sure we create advertising that moves that
target audience in the way that the strategy has outlined.
Mr. Souder. What percentage of what you do is related to
the national ad campaign, and what is what you do
independently?
Mr. Pasierb. Let me ask my colleague.
It is roughly half and half, at this point, I think, as we
looked at it. We spend a considerable amount of time, and right
now, for example, we are doing new campaigns for the National
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign that are essential to the
balance of 2003 and early 2004.
We have made a conscious decision within the organization
to put our priorities aside. That was something we did about 3
months ago to make certain that we could go out and find seven
to nine new ad agencies to produce a large collection of
campaigns.
Overall, through the history, it has been about 50/50.
Maybe right now, it is more like 90/10. But that is what you
have to do, to make sure that we are fulfilling the needs of
ONDCP.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Marston used an interesting expression
earlier. He said where there were not agencies basically, or
they had the discretion at ONDCP, if they did not feel that
alternatives were available, to go and seek other than
Partnership support for the creative, and he mentioned a Native
American agency. Have you seen this happen more?
Mr. Pasierb. Absolutely; there are cases, and the American
Indian agency is a great example. There are very few players in
that field. They are not of a significant size to be able to
absorb the number of people and the financial burden of
volunteering their time.
In those cases, on some of the multi-cultural pieces in
particular, we do need to reach out to them in a different way
and help for some of those funds.
Also, there is the development of the Internet advertising,
the actual ad units that run on the Internet is a very labor-
intensive process. In the Internet production advertising
world, you do not have that same sense of volunteerism that you
do in the mass media advertising world.
So while we see our role as creating the majority of the
parent and youth-targeted advertising, those are two good
examples, multi-cultural and Internet, where there does need to
be that ability to reach out and do things in a different way.
Mr. Souder. Do you believe, other than those exceptions,
that there have been some of the more mainstream things that
you have not had the opportunity to work with, and have you
been working with Ogilvy to figure out how to balance those?
Mr. Pasierb. Absolutely, it is an ongoing process. There
have been a number of components of the campaign that we have
been involved in, the Drugs in Terrorism Campaign and others.
Striking the balance of the flexibility to do those things is
the issue at hand.
Mr. Souder. Mr. McConnaughey, do you have any insights into
this process? There is no question that this is one of the
difficulties.
We have had very blunt discussions among both groups. This
is a huge matter of debate in Congress, among yourselves, and
in the office of ONDCP, of which this is merely a mild version
right now; that the Director's goals of flexibility, which is
the euphemism that everybody is using today, the ability to get
fast, rapid response the way he wants it, and Ogilvy as a paid
agency that does that, versus the willingness of the
Partnership, which has been aggressive and is a commitment to
try to be responsive to that.
How do you see this playing out, as far as how much we
should micro-manage this in the bill, versus how much
flexibility we should leave? I ask you both to comment on that.
Mr. McConnaughey. Sir, I think the answer to that is that
flexibility, using the euphemism, for the Director to guide the
campaign to be responsive to the market place conditions if you
will is, of course, very, very important. It is not our task to
do the creative product for the campaign on an ongoing or
large-scale basis.
The Partnership for a Drug Free America is a remarkable
organization, bringing together the skills of many advertising
agencies from around the country to create, as Steve just
referred to, a large body of work.
Just recently, they put more work on the table to meet some
very important immediate needs for ONDCP well into next year.
There are some gaps in that work that they are working to fill,
but some of our multi-cultural subcontractors are standing by,
ready to do that if, in fact, we have some of these issues. As
we said, sometimes these things are difficult to do in some of
the niche areas, the multi-cultural areas, or some immediate
demand areas.
I think that the opportunity is there for us to help, when
we need to help. But the principle of the campaign, the way the
campaign has been established, creates this very important
public/private partnership that has never been done before.
It is hard, that process, but also the task that is before
us is a difficult one. But I think that what we are beginning
to see, the hard work is paying off. Yes, there are always some
frictions and squabbling. But we know about debate, and I
certainly do not have to tell any members of this committee
about debate, because it is what you do every day.
But out of that sort of thesis antithesis, we come to come
to a synthesis, and I think the fact is that some of the best
advertising ever seen directed to parents and kids is on the
table today; on the air today, if you will, and we have some
terrific work in the pipeline coming forward.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Pasierb.
Mr. Pasierb. I would concur on that. In early December,
when we were able to settle the 2003 media plan, it became very
clear that there was an enormous amount of work that needed to
be produced in a very quick way.
We were able to go out and secure those agencies, get those
agencies briefed, along with our friends at ONDCP; get out
there, get them on board, get them briefed, get them turned
around so that, I believe, it was 3 weeks ago, we were able to
present that entire body of work to the Director, and get his
input and his opinions and move forward on it. That was a very
fast turnaround.
Doing advertising is certainly a unique process. If you do
testing and you find out your advertising is not correct, you
need to go back and you need to take the time to make sure it
is correct. Speed is not all important; accuracy is, in this
case.
So we have been able to meet the needs of the campaign. We
feel we are going to be able to continue to meet the needs of
the campaign. Mr. Bostock, our new chairman, has some
strategies in terms of producing larger pods of advertising
from each volunteer, to make sure that we build, essentially, a
reservoir of advertising, should we need to access that
reservoir for tactical needs of the campaign.
But in terms of producing advertising, speed probably is
not the issue here, because the campaign has a process we need
to go through; the FSEP testing, the review, the behavioral
change expert panel. If those processes are applied to all the
advertising, it is going to take a certain amount of time to
work through the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign checks
and balances that are in place.
So we view the flexibility issue, again, in those places
where you simply cannot get someone to volunteer to do this
work, or we do hit a place where there simply is not a
sufficient number of volunteers and you have to fill a gap; if
you need an ad for a specialty publication for coaches and it
is a one little print add, it is very hard to go out and find
somebody to go out and volunteer and turn that out right away.
In that case, it might be easier for someone to just turn it
around quickly. But those are the instances where we need to
have that.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Bell, did you have a question?
[No response.]
Mr. Souder. Let me ask one other question of Mr.
McConnaughey, because it is a very difficult subject that we
have more than adequately, in general, debated. But now we are
down to writing the bill, and there is the question of the past
accounting problems.
We are still debating with the Senate as to language and
how to work through this. I, as you know, have had deep
problems, as we all did, with what happened, and at the same
time, have not hammered on Ogilvy as hard as some, because
those were kind of how the accounting world works. But somebody
should have read the Government regulations before you did a
Government contract.
I am assuming that, in general, Ogilvy has now figured out
the difference in the contracting world for how you cross-bill.
What is your opinion about if we include language that says,
violations or anybody who has future violations loses the
contract; and also, how we could better prepare if other
agencies are involved in this process in the future, so that we
do not have re-occurrences?
Mr. McConnaughey. Chairman Souder, I am not an expert on
policy matters, nor am I am expert at all in Federal
procurement.
What I can say is, I appreciate your consideration of me as
a witness with regard to this matter. I know there are systems
which regrettably were not up to the task when we first won
this contract, and have now been found to be more than
adequate, if you will, by the defense contract audit agency,
one of the most rigorous of the Government accounting
organizations.
We have an administrative agreement with the Department of
the Navy and with the new Department of the Interior, which has
taken over administration of the contract, which ensures that
the integrity of the program will be maintained.
Based on my experience with that, there are protocols and
processes to ensure that, and I think it certainly is the
responsibility of future contractors to be sure that they do
so. I know that ONDCP has committed to ensuring the integrity
of the program, also.
Mr. Souder. If anyone from your firm wants to add
additional material to your answer for the record, because
there were statements made in the record today, and there have
been in the past; and if Ogilvy wants to make any additional
statements or any recommendations, we would strongly consider
those. Because it is one of the main things being debated in
the last few parts of where there is not necessarily agreement,
both internally and between us and the Senate.
These are going to be hard decisions to figure out. It is
very easy to demagog off past experience. What we are trying to
figure out is, how best to address the most effective
advertising that we can get in this country, because the issue
is so difficult.
Are there any closing comments that anybody wants to make?
We have covered a lot. We have some written questions that we
will be sending each one of you, so we can build the record and
get this in, in a timely fashion.
You have probably heard me say that we are looking for a
mark-up in a few weeks. So when we get the questions, if you
can respond relatively rapidly, so we can get them to the
subcommittee members.
The full committee is likely to have at least one hearing,
as well, and have some debate to try to engage further members.
But hopefully, if we do our job right on the subcommittee, we
will have at least clarified where the remaining differences
are likely to be. Mr. Pasierb, did you have a comment?
Mr. Pasierb. You have our absolute commitment to all of
that. Also, on the Appropriations side, our vice chairman, Mr.
Rosenshein, will be testifying to Mr. Istook. We realize this
is a two-part process of getting both the good reauthorization
language and then the appropriators on our side to continue the
campaign.
I would just echo what I said in my testimony. We have made
a lot of improvements in this campaign over the last year. The
Partnership finds itself at a point of significant strategic
agreement with Director Walters on the changes he has made in
this campaign, and we believe that this campaign can indeed
prove what we have said all along, that anti-drug advertising
does indeed work.
Mr. Souder. Thank you all for your work, and thank you for
your many years of dedication in all your organizations.
[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
and additional information submitted for the hearing record
follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7450.062
-