Meth: South Dakota is on it.

By Gonzalo López Martí  – Creative director, etc.   /   lmmiami.com/

• A few weeks back, South Dakota state authorities launched a series of PSAs under the tagline “Meth. We’re on it”.
• Next thing you know, a nationwide burst of social and traditional media handwringing ensued.
• The campaign was lavished with self-righteous outrage and condescending criticism.

In the unlikely case that you missed the uproar you can review the TV spot:

 

 

Two print executions CLICK HERE.

And two hatchet jobs CLICK HERE  #1   and CLICK HERE #2

Question is, would the outcry have been the same had the campaign been created and deployed by, say, the authorities of California or New York?

• Would the furor among coastal media digerati have reached the levels it reached if the newly elected governor of South Dakota was a Democrat instead of a Republican?
• Mind you, I’m not taking sides here.
• As I have disclosed several times on this very weekly column, I have little love for the GOP in its current iteration.
• Plus, I sporadically work for the Democratic Party.
• This doesn’t mean I should look the other way when I see something I consider unfair.
• Sure enough, the campaign tagline is obviously a gimmick to get people to talk.
• Facile?
• You bet.
• A little sensationalism is kosher in advertising.
• It is a part of our toolbox.
• I do believe this campaign is quite brave though: meth is a major epidemic in the derisively called “flyover states”.
• The campaign, at the very least, shows the courage to admit that South Dakota has a serious drug problem.
• Even if you read it literally, the VO and the copy clarify the point of the campaign.
• Are the folks featured in the ads recovering addicts?
• Are they under the influence as they speak?
• Or are they just healthy concerned citizens who care about friends, family and neighbors?
• If you ask me, the campaign is trying to convey empathy: regular folk putting themselves in the addicts’ shoes, admitting they must carry the burden and seek solutions as a community.
• Should meth addicts be singled out, denounced and/or ostracized?
• There’s a school of thought that claims addiction is a societal healthcare problem that must be addressed by communities as a whole (a POV to which liberals tend to be partial).
• Addiction doesn’t happen in a vacuum: it takes a village.
• As opposed to the other school of thought that considers drug abuse as purely a law enforcement issue affecting individuals (a POV to which conservatives tend to be partial).
• Fair enough.
• You can agree or not with the strategic/creative premise of the rollout but there’s a logic behind it.
• The first step towards solving a problem is admitting you have it.
• In any case, it is refreshing to see a government-funded PSA that is not a bland, feel-good preach to the choir.
• Will it work?
• It is impossible to know.
• To borrow the showbiz running phrase, nobody knows anything.
• I assume they tested it.
• At the very least, they are trying.
• And the increasingly numb American public has noticed.
• Should the agency behind it enter it into international award shows?
• Probably not.
• It’d be a waste of money.
• The arbiters of creative excellence have not deigned to recognize the merit of campaigns of this nature in a long time (despite the fact that they are quite happy to bestow prizes on ghost ads and spec work year after year after year).