Slate's Bizbox
ad report card: Advertising deconstructed.

Aliens Don't Do DrugsThe best anti-pot ad ever.

By Seth Stevenson

The spot: A cartoon guy and gal are hanging out in a crudely drawn landscape. The guy puffs on a joint and exhales a jet of smoke. "Not again," says the disappointed girl. Suddenly, a UFO descends from the sky. A small alien emerges and walks over to the couple. The guy politely offers the alien a toke, but the creature declines—and at this, the girl swoons. We see the alien and the girl fly off together in the spaceship, leaving the jilted stoner alone with his thoughts.

Until recently, most anti-marijuana ads made the same fundamental mistake: They tried to link smoking weed with some sort of immediate physical danger. Think of the PSA in which a carful of stoners runs over a girl on a bicycle; or the one in which a fuzzy-brained pot smoker shoots his friend (oopsy daisy!) in the head. Melodramatic scare tactics like these may reassure the older, out-of-touch politicians who approve federal funding for anti-drug ads. But when it comes to a drug like weed, this message just doesn't ring true with the people it's meant to reach.

"It's easy to do ads about drugs like heroin and meth, and the awful consequences that manifest," says Tom Riley, director of public affairs at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "It's harder to make ads about marijuana. 'Marijuana's gonna melt your face off' isn't really a credible thing to say to teens."

This realization—the result, according to Riley, of stepped-up research into the mindset of the 13- to 17-year-old target market (though I could have saved them a pile of money if -they'd just asked me)—has led to a far more soft-pedal approach of late. Consider "Pete's Couch": In this anti-pot PSA, the major immediate danger posed by smoking weed is that you might sit around on your sofa for 11 hours straight. The ad won points with me for its honesty (I've blazed away a few couch-bound afternoons of my own). But I doubt the specter of inactivity is a deterrent for the average teen. With the advent of instant messaging, on-demand digital cable, and really awesome video games, I get the sense that modern youth sees no downside to spending entire fortnights immobile on an overstuffed cushion.

This new campaign opts for slightly scarier scare tactics. Again, though, the nature of the threat is subtler and more realistic. (Well, as realistic as an ad that features space aliens can be.) There's no fatal car crash or gun accident—that kind of acute disaster would never enter into the cost/benefit analysis a teen might run before getting high. Instead, the frightening possibility posited here is that smoking weed will make you boring to be around. The animated lass in the ad described above seems fed up with her stoner boyfriend—her one line of dialogue is the ad's title: "Not again"—and she's quick to ditch him when that straight-edge alien dude happens along.

In a separate spot, a pot smoker's dog asks him to quit. (I'll just note here that I've never, no matter how blazed, been addressed by a house pet.) When the smoker declines, the dog strolls away, muttering, "You disappoint me."

Of all the legitimate fears that gnaw at the average marijuana user, two of the more troubling are 1) the fear that nonsmoker friends, or lovers, might find them tiresome and pathetic, and 2) the fear that they might be growing dependent on the drug. This campaign effectively picks at both of these insecurities. Just as important (when it comes to reaching too-cool teens), it does so in a low-key, unembellished manner.

I spoke to Ginger Robinson and Patty Fogarty, the copywriter and art director who worked pro bono on the campaign at the ad agency Wieden & Kennedy. They told me the scenarios in these spots came from personal experiences. They also stressed that they didn't want the ads to seem slick or fancy, like something the government would produce. The aesthetics here are purposefully stripped down and casual.

The lovely, doodle-y animation (by animator "Pistachios"*) helps sidestep most of the pitfalls that endanger any work aimed at teens. (The "that kid's not me, he's wearing the wrong kind of T-shirt" problem, as described by Robinson and Fogarty.) Similarly, casting an alien as the guy who sweeps the girl off her feet, while the stoner feebly looks on, eliminates the need to decide what sort of person the girl would be likely to find more appealing than a pot user. Having her new suitor be a drug-free preppie (or jock, or musician, or whatever) would be fraught with all kinds of peril. Not so with an alien—because aliens are always cool.

Finally, perhaps my favorite part of this campaign is the music. It's by Charlie Campbell, a composer in Portland, Ore., (where Wieden & Kennedy is based), and he wrote each piece specifically for the spot it's used in. His sweetly quirky sound is in large part what makes these ads so charming.

Grade: A. This is very possibly the most effective, and least offensive, anti-marijuana campaign ever created. I know that ONDCP, and the Partnership for a Drug Free America, are cautiously thrilled with it. I expect it will be the model for years to come.

*Correction, June 25, 2007: This piece originally stated that the animation in the ad was by artist Souther Salazar. The animator was "Pistachios." Salazar was the illustrator. (Return to the corrected sentence.)

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Seth Stevenson is a frequent contributor to Slate.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray Editor:

The Ad Report Card is lonely as a rejected stoner in its appreciation for these spots. Raging potheads have crashed upon our Fray to fight the law. Here and there, a few people read the article and disagreed with Stevenson's take.—G.A.

Remarks from the Fray:

No offense but I am shocked that anyone-ANYONE-could possibly see these ads as effective. [...] Every time these ads come on, I can imagine a basement full of stoners giggling and high fiving everytime the dog raises the dog flag (presumably claiming this planet in the name of Dog). [...]

What does that even mean? How about someone (without hysteria) finding a way of stating that if you are still growing and developing, marijuana will disrupt that growth, particularly your mental development? In other words, stating the truth and not making weird little cartoons about aliens that, quite frankly, look like they were designed by someone higher than Wavy Gravy at 4:21. I thought that one of the best spots was the one where the speaker states that his friend smokes weed and never got arrested, never this never that (negating all the popular myths about marijuana use) before finally stating that he never actually does anything at all and that he lives in his parents basement well into his twenties. Realistic and terribly frightening to most teens. Then again, disappointing one's dog to the degree that he overthrows the earth.. well, I guess that's scary too.....if you're high!

--mike_schmidt

(To reply, click here.)

When it comes to marijuana ads, "best" shouldn't be determined by whether one writer liked its quirky execution, but rather, how likely are teens who saw this ad vs. teens who didn't see this ad vs. teens who saw the previous marijuana ads to smoke marijuana? This ad hasn't even been in circulation long enough to determine how it compared to other ads' effectiveness in reducing teen marijuana smoking. The market ultimately determines the best ad ever. Perhaps this is the writer's "favorite" marijuana ad ever, which is how I think the article should have been titled. [...] This quirky, muted little ad looks like something Miranda July would've created and that that type of creation seems likely to be appreciated more by a late 20s early 30s ad writer for Slate than by a 13-18 year old high school kid.

--figgyforcurt

(To reply, click here.)

There's a critical flaw in throwing away taxpayer money on anti-pot campaigns - it's that any public awareness message regarding the drug is going to get it wrong because there is no right way to deliver the message (as the ad creators even noted) - there isn't even a coherent message to deliver. [...]

This ad series is simply another in a long line of failures exposing the over-reaching self-importance of advertising and its sheer inability to consistently address serious subjects with any sort of, well, contribution to society. Thank goodness we still have comedians....

--charming_weasel

(To reply, click here.)

I actually laughed really hard the first time I saw the kid telling the dog he could quit smoking any time. It was funny both because I know people like that, but even funnier because the government thinks it can reach kids through a poorly-animated talking dog. As the target audience (I'm still a teenager), I think this ad fails. Stevenson is right in that the ad pinpoints two drawbacks to pot (being a loser stoner/having no friends because you're a loser stoner), but more than anything the ad cracks me up because I'm so distracted by its extremely low-budget look and somewhat outlandish premise: If you smoke pot, your dog will disappointed in you and aliens will steal your girl. At least the government has figured out the perceived disadvantages of drug use... now to make an effective ad that doesn't provoke mockery and giggling.

--eek223

(To reply, click here.)

If they think today's high tech, educated kids actually relate to this commercial, they are stoned themselves. I would be ashamed to work for the agency which created this campaign. I understand they did it pro-bono, but still they should have done a little market research to see what would attract kid's attention. As an adult with high school students around, they usually laugh and make fun of the commercials, or they think they are dumb. This makes it obviously clear they have not hit their target market and their message has not gotten across. [...] Ads should get people talking, and thinking, this one sorely lacks in both respects.

--queentutt

(To reply, click here.)

While I agree that the ads described here are an improvement, they still come across to me as patronizing, boring, alienating, condescending, and likely to be ineffective, whether they're directed at teens or older people. Most people recognize that government is not anti-drug, that anti-drug policy is part of a cultural and class war against poor people, and that rich white people who use or sell drugs are accepted by society and can do so with relative impunity. If they're celebrities, they'll even be celebrated for it because of the glamour of bad behavior and tragic hipness which applies only to the rich. Yes, it's a good idea to be honest with the teens about the real risks of marijuana use, such as loss of ambition and motivation, weight gain, social isolation, depression, and perhaps permanent loss of short-term memory and critical thinking ability - or more practical considerations like the possibility of getting arrested, or having unprotected sex because their judgment is impaired, or not being able to finish school or get a job. It would be fair to say those things - but what is never said, is WHO are the people who are advising television viewers not to use drugs? What's their agenda? Why are they doing it? What do they have to gain? Why do they care? And I think until that question is answered, and answered honestly, these kinds of ads are always going to be regarded with suspicion and resentment.

--bluebird

(To reply, click here.)

(6/19)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon
PLUS » Achenblog: The New Capitalism Socialism