Offic

e of

Chi

ef R

esea

rche

rKnow the Score: Anti-Heroin

2006/07 Campaign Evaluation

ISSN 0950 2254ISBN 978 0 7559 6455 0Web only publication

www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

RR DONNELLEY B50398 2/07

Know The Score: Anti-Heroin 2006/07 Campaign Evaluation Campaign overview

• The attached report evaluates the second phase of the Scottish Executive’s Know The Score Anti-Heroin advertising campaign which ran between August 14th and September 17th 2006 and was delivered through TV, radio and billboard advertising.

• The post-campaign evaluation focused particularly on young people (aged 16 -34) from social classes C2DE, the key targets for the campaign based on previous intelligence about patterns of Class A drugs misuse.

• The quantitative evaluation of the first phase of the campaign showed very high campaign awareness (92%). Therefore, it was felt that a shift to a qualitative evaluation (by conducting focus groups and interviews following the campaign) would continue to provide a sense of campaign awareness but would importantly reveal more in depth insights into how effectively the campaign has been received among both our core audience (16-34 year olds) and our secondary audience (13-15 year olds).

• This research builds on the findings of the quantitative evaluation of the first phase of the campaign which found that the Scottish Executive’s advertising aimed at tackling perceptions around drugs misuse is appealing successfully to young people (aged 16- 25) across Scotland.

Highlights • Encouragingly, the research reported very high levels of campaign awareness and that

the advertising was effective in communicating the key themes of the campaign and an anti-drugs/heroin message to both target audiences.

• Among the core audience (16-34s): o The research reported that focusing on specific drugs was a more effective

strategy than issuing generic drugs communication largely due to the fact that this sort of generic messaging lacks credibility with this audience.

o The TV and radio advertising was well received and believed to deliver a credible and emotionally engaging anti-heroin message.

o Encouragingly, the research identified significant common ground in terms of attitudes to heroin amongst 16 to 34 year olds; thereby reinforcing our current approach of communicating to such a broad age group via a single campaign.

o The research also suggests that a key driver in terms of audience and their consumption of both media and campaign messages is the socio-economic group they belong to rather than their age or sex.

• Among the secondary audience (13-15s): o This group (who were not specifically targeted with this campaign) responded

very well, particularly to the radio advertising which communicated a simpler message.

o As there is no immediate plan to develop anti-heroin communications specific to this age group, it is encouraging that the current campaign is able to effectively communicate an anti-drugs/heroin message to a younger audience.

Implications

• The report recommends the continued use of existing platforms to communicate key information and suggests some other methods of distribution (such as schools work) and media channels which are important for Know the Score to explore.

• The report recommends that future advertising could communicate a message around the relationship between social non–heroin drug taking and problematic heroin use.

KNOW THE SCORE: ANTI-HEROIN 2006/07

CAMPAIGN EVALUATION

TNS System Three 152946

Scottish Executive Social Research 2006

This report is available on the Scottish Executive Social Researchwebsite only www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch.

© Crown Copyright 2007Limited extracts from the text may be produced provided the sourceis acknowledged. For more extensive reproduction, please write to

the Chief Researcher at Office of Chief Researcher,4th Floor West Rear, St Andrew’s House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG

The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers anddo not necessarily represent those of the Department or

Scottish Ministers.

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i

CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ........................................................................ 1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 1 OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................................................... 2

CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE............................................................................. 3 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................ 3 SAMPLE............................................................................................................................................................ 3

CHAPTER THREE MAIN FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 5 16-34 YEAR OLDS ............................................................................................................................................ 5 13-15 YEAR OLDS .......................................................................................................................................... 15 TRUSTED SOURCES OF ADVICE ............................................................................................................... 17 RESPONSE TO KNOW THE SCORE............................................................................................................ 19

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX A: SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................... 22

APPENDIX B: MEDIA CONSUMPTION SUMMARY..................................................................... 30

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background & Objectives 1. TNS System Three was commissioned by the Office of Chief Researcher (OCR) to conduct research to evaluate the latest phase of the Scottish Executive’s Know the Score campaign which focused on heroin misuse and ran from August 14th - September 17th 2006. 2. The broad target audience for the campaign was identified as ‘at risk’1 young people aged 16-34. The primary target audience is those aged 16-19 while the secondary target audience is those aged 20-34. The advertising is slanted to appeal particularly to those aged 16-19 from socio-economic group (SEG) C2DE, which is reflected in the sample structure of the research.

3. Qualitative research was required in order to:

• Gain a better understanding of whether current advertising is effective in communicating the campaign message to the target audiences;

• Make recommendations as to how future campaign activity could be improved to better meet campaign aims among the target audiences.

4. Although those aged 13-15 are not a target audience of the current campaign, it was hoped that the advertising would be accessible to them on a basic level. Therefore, the research also aimed to explore perceptions and the level of understanding of the advertising among a 13 – 15 year old audience and to provide recommendations as to how to communicate effectively with this audience.

Methodology 5. A programme of eight focus groups among 16-34 year olds and six paired depth interviews among 13-15 year olds (all from SEG C2DE) was conducted. In order to obtain an ‘at risk’ sample, all 16-34s were recruited on the basis that they held a liberal attitude towards drugs generally. This was identified at recruitment through attitudinal questioning. In addition, all had taken some form of drugs recently (within the past year), or were potentially open to doing so in the future. All had either never taken heroin or had only ever tried it once. 6. The 13-15 year old sample was recruited on the basis of their attitudes towards drugs generally, and also their activities outside of school hours. Response to TV advertising (16-34 year olds) 7. The TV advert was well-received among this sample. Spontaneous awareness levels were high and it was thought to deliver an emotionally engaging, credible portrayal of heroin addiction. Important themes of the advert to the sample were isolation and loss of control. 1 For the purposes of this research, those 'at risk' from heroin use are defined as non-heroin users who do not hold an anti-drugs attitude and have taken some form of drugs recently (within the past year), or were potentially open to doing so in the future.

ii

Financial hardship was one of the more obvious themes to emerge from the advertising; however, it was also thought to be slightly less emotionally engaging. Physical deterioration and fear of addiction tended not to be picked out as prominent. 8. While the advert was appreciated for being emotionally engaging and credible, few felt it held personal relevance to their own lives. All respondents appeared to harbour strongly negative feelings towards heroin as a drug, and all were confident that – in spite of their own, often extensive, drug use – heroin would never be a temptation for them in any form. They struggled to envisage how their own drug-taking habits, which usually centred around having fun on a night out with their friends, might progress to taking heroin alone at home. They viewed themselves as controlled, responsible, recreational drug users, whereas heroin was strongly associated with loss of control and isolation: for most it was not considered a drug they might come across on a typical night out. In spite of this, the message did appear to have resonated with most, as the high levels of spontaneous recall and evidence of emotional engagement suggested.

9. The tone of the advertising was also well-received; it was felt to be non-hectoring and avoided accusations of being “nanny state” communications. Although most felt that they had not learnt anything new from the commercial, it was nonetheless thought to provide an effective reinforcement of their existing convictions. Response to radio advertising (16-34 year olds) 10. The radio advert was often felt to deliver a clearer message than the TV execution, particularly among those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. The main message take-out from the radio advert tended to be more specific than for the TV; most identified the message about smoking heroin leading to addiction. 11. There was some question as to whether or not the advert was trying to suggest that smoking heroin was addictive in its own right, or whether smoking heroin would lead to injection and that injection would be the point of addiction. This view arose because the advert concluded with the central protagonist injecting himself. However, most held the view that, either way, smoking heroin was depicted as a slippery slope which would result in addiction regardless of whether it was injected or not. 12. In terms of tone, the advert was thought to be a little simplistic for some of the older respondents from higher socio-economic backgrounds. They felt that the advert lacked sophistication and tended to dismiss it as advertising for young teenagers. However, for most the tone was thought appropriate; again, non-hectoring and showing the consequences of taking heroin rather than overtly telling people not to take it. It also appeared to reach some on an emotional level, since the sense of the character losing control and denying his addiction problem was familiar to many. Response to billboard advertising (16-34 year olds) 13. The billboard communication was less successful in many of the areas outlined above. Although its message about smoking heroin and addiction seemed clear to some, it was felt that its message was perhaps somewhat ambiguous. Again, there was some uncertainty as to whether the advert was trying to suggest that smoking heroin was addictive or whether

iii

injecting heroin was the point of addiction. Those who paid little attention to the text also occasionally interpreted the smoke as cannabis smoke. Their message take-out was therefore substantially altered, since the advertising appeared to suggest that smoking cannabis would lead to addiction; a claim which lacked credibility and undermined the real message behind the advert. 14. It also seemed that few were engaged by the advertising on an emotional level. This was largely attributed to its symbolism, which was felt to distance it from human experience and act as a barrier to any emotional response. Response to communications campaign (13-15 year olds) 15. As anticipated, take-out among this group was limited, on the whole. Although most broadly understood the TV advert to deliver a generic anti-heroin message, fundamental gaps in their understanding of the drug often prevented any kind of deeper engagement. A number of misperceptions surfaced, including the belief that heroin could be grown as a plant at home, that there were many different types of heroin and that heroin and hash were one and the same. For most - especially the youngest members of the sample - heroin was a drug which was off their radar; the extent of their knowledge rarely stretched beyond cannabis. This confusion, combined with their perception that the advertising’s subject matter held little relevance to them, frequently prevented full engagement with the advertising message. 16. The main aspect of the TV advertising which appeared to strike a chord among this group was its depiction of isolation, which among this sample was interpreted as losing friends and being unpopular; something they all feared. 17. The radio advert was well-received among this audience, with spontaneous recall relatively high in comparison with 16-34 year olds. Again, the message of the radio advert was thought to be clearer than the TV advert, and this was reflected in more specific levels of message take-out. Most understood the message that smoking would lead to addiction, although again, for some, it was thought to suggest that smoking would lead to injecting (interpreted as the point of addiction). There remained a strong sense that there was little in the advert which was relevant to them, however. 18. The billboard proved a source of considerable confusion among this sample, and message take-out was usually very limited. It seemed that the creative device was too subtle for this audience; one pair did not recognise the syringe shape. It was frequently referred to as ‘dull’, with many commenting that there were no colours or cartoons, i.e. no obvious signals that the advertising was intended for them. It was very much perceived as an advertisement ‘for grown-ups’. Trusted sources of information 19. Among 13-15 year olds, trusted sources of information about drugs were identified as parents and friends, the Internet (although apart from Talk to Frank, no other drug-specific site was mentioned), local youth support groups, and school guidance teachers. There was a certain element of caution with regard to openly discussing drugs; for this reason, some felt they would not approach their parents or friends for fear of being judged.

iv

20. 16-34 year olds appeared to rely on fewer sources for help; however, since they generally had greater confidence in their sources and also in their freedom to discuss drugs openly they did not feel restricted by this. Reliable sources of help were considered to be parents (especially mothers) and friends, the Internet and their GP.

1

CHAPTER ONE BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES BACKGROUND 1.1. TNS System Three was commissioned by the Office of Chief Researcher (OCR) to conduct research to evaluate of the latest phase of the Scottish Executive’s Know the Score campaign which focused on heroin misuse.

1.2 The Scottish Executive has been running an anti-drugs campaign, Know the Score since March 2002. The main aim of this campaign is to show that drugs are unglamorous, dangerous and a waste of time and money. It is however key that the campaign does not in any way lecture, patronise, glamorise or scaremonger its target audience. 1.3 Initially, the Know the Score campaign targeted the general population of Scotland. In December 2003 however a more tailored approach commenced, aimed at young people who were deemed to be ‘at risk’ to drugs usage. 1.4 The latest phase of the heroin misuse strand of the advertising ran August 14th -September 17th 2006 and was delivered through TV, radio and billboard advertising. The main message of this strand of the campaign was that smoking heroin can turn anyone into an addict (as smoking heroin will lead to injecting heroin). 1.5 The broad target audience for the campaign was identified as ‘at risk’2 young people aged 16-34. The primary target audience is those aged 16-19 while the secondary target audience is those aged 20-34. 1.6 The campaign aims to communicate to all socio-economic groups (SEGs) except As, however, the advertising is slanted to appeal particularly to those aged 16 -19 from SEGs C2DE. Therefore, this focus is reflected in the sample structure (see Table 1). AIMS 1.7. The primary aims of this research are to:

• Gain a better understanding of whether current advertising is effective in communicating the campaign message to the target audiences;

• Make recommendations as to how future campaign activity could be improved to better meet campaign aims among the target audiences.

1.8 Although those aged 13-15 are not a specific target audience of the current campaign, it was hoped that the advertising would be accessible to them on a basic level. Therefore, the secondary aims of the research are to explore perceptions and the level of understanding of the advertising among a 13 – 15 year old audience and to provide recommendations as to how to communicate effectively with this audience.

2 For the purposes of this research, those 'at risk' from heroin use are defined as non-heroin users who do not hold an anti-drugs attitude and have taken some form of drugs recently (within the past year), or were potentially open to doing so in the future.

2

OBJECTIVES 1.9 Broadly, the research objectives were to explore overall response to various components of the communications campaign among the various target audiences.

1.10 More specifically, the research was intended to:

• explore awareness of the advertising

• assess take-out of core advertising messages

• gauge credibility and relevancy of advertising messages

• consider possible future messages, in the light of findings from this particular campaign

• consider appropriate access points for future message communications

• identify trusted sources of information / advice about drugs among different target audiences

3

CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE METHODOLOGY 2.1 A qualitative method was identified as the most appropriate approach in order to meet the objectives. While previous waves of research have used a quantitative approach, it was felt that this approach was limited in its ability to provide an indication of whether the advertising was aimed at or well received by the target audience. Furthermore, there is difficulty in defining a ‘representative sample’ with a target audience of this type. Therefore, a qualitative approach was suggested as it would enable exploration of the views of the target audience in more depth and provide recommendations for future campaign activity therefore meeting the objectives of this research more effectively. 2.2 A combined methodology of focus groups among 16-34 year olds and paired depth interviews among 13-15 year olds was conducted. The paired depth approach among the younger sample was chosen for two reasons: • the 13-15 year old audience was not a core target audience for the campaign; therefore

a focus group approach would have ‘overkill’ and would have added unnecessarily to the research costs;

• A paired depth approach enabled TNS System Three to explore sensitive issues with young people while minimising the risk of their feeling discomfort or unease (due to the presence of a friend for support).

2.3 All interviews comprised a combination of general discussion about attitudes towards drugs as well as exploration of response to the advertising. Respondents were also asked about their media consumption habits and whom they trusted to give them reliable information about drugs. 2.4 A total of eight groups and six paired depth interviews were conducted. The specific audiences included in the research are discussed below. SAMPLE 2.5 A key aspect of the recruitment was to ensure that all individuals fell into a potentially ‘at risk’ group. In other words, their current attitudes towards drugs and / or drug-taking activities made them potentially susceptible to taking stronger drugs, including heroin, in the future. This was a sensitive and difficult area to explore; however a combination of attitudinal questions and behavioural questions enabled TNS to identify suitable candidates (see Appendix A). The research excluded anyone who had taken heroin on more than one occasion in the past. 2.6 The sample breakdown for the research is summarised in Table One.

4

Table One Sample Structure Focus groups (16-34 year olds)

Paired depths (13-15 year olds)

2.7 Fieldwork was conducted between 19th September and 5th October 2006. 2.8 Analysis was carried out by both Nicola Wilson and Sarah Calver (who carried out

the interviews and groups), and involved a combination of individual study of the group transcripts, note-making and joint brainstorming before compiling key findings.

Age Gender SEG Location

G1 16 – 17 Male C2DE Edinburgh

G2 16 – 17 Female C2DE Motherwell

G3 18 – 19 Male C2DE Edinburgh

G4 18 – 19 Female C2DE Motherwell

G5 20 – 25 Male C2DE Dundee

G6 20 – 25 Female C2DE Glasgow

G7 26 – 34 Male C2DE Glasgow

G8 26 – 34 Female C2DE Dundee

Age Gender SEG Location

G1 S2 (13 & 14) Female C2DE Motherwell

G2 S2 (13 & 14) Male C2DE Glasgow

G3 S2 (13 & 14) Male C2DE Dundee

G4 S3 (14 & 15) Female C2DE Glasgow

G5 S3 (14 & 15) Male C2DE Glasgow

G6 S3 (14 & 15) Male C2DE Edinburgh

5

CHAPTER THREE MAIN FINDINGS 16-34 YEAR OLDS The Sample 3.1 As noted in Chapter Two, all respondents were recruited on the basis that their attitudes towards drugs and their current lifestyles might, in future, lead them to be in a situation in which they could be tempted to use heroin. There was, however, considerable variation in terms of current drug usage levels among the sample. While many freely admitted to having taken cocaine, ecstasy and base, there was also a significant number whose drug-taking experiences had not extended beyond cannabis. A minority had not actually tried drugs personally, although their attitude towards drug-taking in general was liberal. 3.2 To some extent, personal experience of drugs in general tended to influence response to the advertising. However, regardless of personal drug exposure, none among this sample believed they would ever be tempted to try heroin, in any form, in the future. This was an important point which also had implications for interpretation of the advertising. Response to the Advertising Spontaneous recall 3.3 On the whole, the media planning strategy for the campaign appeared to have been highly successful; awareness of the TV advertising was very high among the sample, with only one or two respondents unsure as to whether or not they had seen the advert. Several thought they had heard the radio advert, though only a handful appeared to have seen the billboard advertising. 3.4 Most were able to offer some degree of spontaneous message recall from the campaign, although this was variable. The vast majority understood the advertising to be communicating a straightforward anti-heroin message, although a minority also took out the more specific message of smoking heroin leading to addiction. 3.5 A small number appeared to confuse (or combine) the content of the TV advert with that of the radio advert; several commented that they had seen a TV advert with a man alone in a flat, saying, ‘I’m not addicted to heroin’. This fusion of the two media vehicles appeared to work successfully in terms of reinforcing the more specific message of smoking heroin leading to addiction. 3.6 Other anti-drugs advertising seen included ‘Talk to Frank’, ‘Cocaine’ (Know the Score ‘24 times more likely’ campaign) and – to a lesser extent – ‘Drug Dealers Don’t Care’.

6

Response to TV execution Prompted response 3.7 As noted above, understanding of the TV message varied among the sample, even after viewing the TV execution in the groups. The majority tended to believe the advert delivered a general anti-heroin message, rather than the more particular message about the relationship between smoking heroin and addiction. This often emerged as a secondary issue, largely because the method of heroin usage was often regarded as irrelevant among this sample; heroin was heroin, regardless of technique. 3.8 Importantly, there was no argument with the advert’s central premise that smoking heroin could lead to addiction; for most, the advertising reinforced existing beliefs and understanding about the drug. Those who did not already know that smoking was addictive - or, indeed, that heroin could be smoked at all - did not question this suggestion. This was due in large part to the perceived credibility of the advertising, which will be explored further on. 3.9 Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who were least informed about heroin (and, often, drugs in general) appeared to gain most from the advert’s message. Those who did not know it was possible to smoke heroin or that smoking heroin was as addictive as injecting were the most likely to extract the message about smoking heroin and addiction. However, among this sample, these individuals tend to be in the minority.

“I learned something new – you can get just as addicted by smoking the heroin as injecting it. Some people think it’s not as addictive as injecting,

but it is. I wasn’t sure.” Female, 26-34, Dundee

“I don’t know a lot about drugs, but I have never seen somebody do

that. It was quite hard-hitting, the way he was breathing. I have never seen that before.”

Female, 20-25, Glasgow

“It’s just about how normal his life was before, pot plant and fridge magnets, just like a normal guy. Also, there’s a heavy focus on the

smoking. It’s just as bad to smoke it as to inject it.” Male, 20-25, Dundee

3.10 A number of factors appeared to condition response to the advertising. These included age, personal exposure to drugs - in particular heroin - and overall understanding or awareness of drugs. 3.11 The age of respondents did influence response to the advertising, though to a lesser extent than anticipated. As expected, message take-out and emotional impact tended to be weakest among 13-15 year olds. For those aged 16-34, response tended to be driven to a far greater extent by the individual’s personal exposure to drugs and general understanding of the subject (in other words, how ‘streetwise’ individuals were). Among this group, age was not necessarily an indicator of knowledge or awareness of heroin. This is an important point to consider in relation to future campaign strategies, as segmentation by age would appear to be less relevant than segmentation by attitudes and understanding towards drugs in general.

7

3.12 Level of understanding about drugs - actual or perceived - in general tended to influence response to the advertising. Those who felt they were “drugs-savvy” often exhibited a strong conviction that their own drug-taking habits were controlled and that heroin usage was highly unlikely to be on their agenda, now or in the future. For this group, the advertising seemed to reinforce their existing feelings about the drug rather than teach them anything new. Many of these individuals already knew that it was possible to smoke heroin and that it was highly addictive. Consequently, the central message of the advertising about smoking and addiction was of less interest to them than its emotionally engaging portrayal of the overall effects of the drug. This went some way towards explaining their common assumption that the advertising was communicating a broad anti-heroin message – regardless of method. 3.13 Personal exposure to heroin abuse was a particularly significant factor. Those who had witnessed the effects of heroin addiction at close quarters, i.e. through friends or relatives, tended to adopt a more critical stance with regard to the advertising. Again, for these individuals, message take-out was frequently perceived as straightforward anti-heroin advertising rather than the subtler point that smoking heroin was addictive. Therefore, as a generic ‘anti-heroin’ advert, they often felt that it did not go far enough towards painting a picture of the devastation that could potentially be caused by the drug and viewed it as ‘safe’ advertising. While this is a common argument with regard to advertising of this kind, it is perhaps worth noting that for most, stronger-hitting messages with regard to heroin were largely associated with the physical effects of heroin on the body and the sense of great personal desperation it could induce. For some, these were not demonstrated powerfully enough in the advertising.

“I don’t think it’s gritty enough… People (already) know that. They’re not showing you the messier side, the actual physical damage it can do to you. In

the end, clearly you become addicted – but what about when they have to amputate your arm because it’s become so infected? … What happens when

he runs out of stuff to sell?” Male, 20-25, Dundee

Key themes 3.14 Respondents were asked to identify which themes they felt were most powerful in the advertising. 3.15 Financial hardship emerged as the most obvious theme, although not necessarily the most emotionally engaging aspect of the communication. Almost all respondents immediately referred to the loss of possessions from the central character’s flat as the most striking and memorable aspect of the execution. Among the 16-34 sample it was clear to all why the possessions were disappearing; heroin was commonly associated with desperation and selling possessions was felt to be an obvious manifestation of this. In terms of emotional impact, this theme was considered relatively strong, as the disappearance of the central character’s possessions was not only an illustration of the material impact of heroin, but also an effective metaphor for loss of control and being ‘overtaken’ by something more powerful. Financial hardship was not, however, considered as poignant as the theme of isolation. 3.16 Isolation was among the most significant themes identified. The fact that the character was depicted alone was a powerful tool in terms of encouraging the audience to engage with the advertising. It conjured up speculation as to why he was alone. Had he been abandoned?

8

Had he sacrificed his friends and family to heroin? What were the circumstances leading up to his current state? Importantly, the fact that the central character was depicted as alone taking the drug was a clear indication for most that his problem was a serious one. This had implications for perceived personal relevancy of the advertising, which will be explored later. 3.17 Loss of control was also identified as a key theme. The desperation of the main character was self-evident to all, largely driven through his isolation and the extent to which his possessions vanished (i.e. the fact that he loses bare essentials such as his table). Again, respondents found it easy to conjure up stories about the man’s predicament; how he came to be in that position, and often these stories related to his having lost his job and his girlfriend; in short, a man who had lost control of his life. A very small minority also noticed the accumulation of beer cans on the window sill, which was interpreted as a suggestion of alcoholism as well as drug addiction. This tied in with the all-round sense of losing control. 3.18 Many were unsure whether or not fear of addiction was a clear theme from this advertising. The execution did successfully reinforce a message about heroin being a highly addictive drug; however, most tended to feel pity ‘for someone else’s lot’ rather than fear. 3.19 Few noticed the physical deterioration of the character. His loss of weight was only noticed by a minority; although one or two also picked up that his clothes also deteriorated. As previously noted, physical deterioration was one of the main issues associated with heroin abuse among this sample; however it was rarely highlighted as a striking aspect here. The advert was considered to focus more on lifestyle deterioration. Since many saw physical deterioration as one of the more startling, horrendous truths about heroin addiction, there were suggestions that future advertising should focus more sharply on this. Perceptions of heroin users 3.20 Given that much of the impact of the TV advertising derived from its portrayal of a heroin addict, it is useful to explore the more generic views of heroin addicts among our sample and the extent to which these perceptions are reinforced or challenged by the execution. 3.21 A handful among the sample knew friends or relatives who had taken heroin in the past; however, it was usually not regarded as something ‘people like them’ tended to fall into. One particular stereotype prevailed; for most, a typical heroin user would hail from the lowest socio-economic background, having grown up in unemployment, perhaps in an environment where usage of the drug was normalised.

“People who have nothing in the first place, I can understand why they take heroin, to block it all out.”

Male 26-34, Glasgow 3.22 Other descriptions of heroin users – usually in reference to their own acquaintances who had used the drug - included ‘people with addictive personalities’ or ‘idiots’. While this was clearly a rationalised perspective, the important point here was that very few ever thought they personally would ever take heroin; they were too ‘streetwise’ and in control of their habits. Heroin usage was seen by all as crossing a dangerous line; whether smoked or injected.

9

3.23 Feelings towards heroin addicts tended to be mixed. Some adopted the more liberal view that heroin addicts were victims - vulnerable, with a harsh upbringing, possibly having experienced extreme trauma in their lives. They were seen as people in need of help, lacking traditional support networks, isolated and desperate. 3.24 However, another common, less sympathetic view also often prevailed, particularly among respondents from lower socio-economic backgrounds. These individuals witnessed the effects of heroin abuse everyday in their neighbourhoods, and their feelings towards addicts were frequently severe. They tended to focus more on the effects of heroin abuse rather than the causes. Typical observations included, ‘scum’, ‘steal from their families’, ‘can’t trust them’, ‘always begging’, ‘always shoplifting’, destroy their parents’ and ‘they don’t care about anyone’.

“Scum. I don’t understand it.” Male 26-34, Glasgow

“All these people down the street and they’re all sitting on the corner begging for money, or they shoplift. I don’t even go through the town

because I hate the beggars; they pure terrify me.” Female 18-19, Motherwell

“Always dingy little criminals.”

Male 16-17 Edinburgh

“When you see the people as well, their skin - there are spots all over them. It’s vile, and they way they talk as well, it is dead slow.

Male 18-19, Edinburgh

“Every word is slurred, it’s just horrible. Even physically, the eyes bulging, rotten teeth.”

Female, 26-34 Dundee

3.25 One of the most effective aspects of the Know the Score TV execution was that it successfully reminded its audience that so-called ‘junkies’ were human. It evoked an emotional response because it stirred feelings of sympathy for the central character, avoiding stereotypical caricature. Showing the central character as a victim of heroin appealed to a more empathetic view, and successfully endorsed a sense of heroin as the guilty party.

“I want to grab him, I want to help him. I feel sorry for him… I bet he has a heart-wrenching story.”

Female, 26-34, Dundee

3.26 It was important for the audience to sympathise with the central character, as this both contributed to the emotional response created by the advertising and also helped to bridge the gap between his condition and their own. Perceived Target Audience 3.27 There was frequently uncertainty as to the intended audience for the advertising. Although most felt that the advertising was probably aimed at their age group, few felt that its

10

message was personally relevant because they did not consider themselves to be at risk of trying the drug. While all empathised with the central character, very few identified with him because the transition from their own drug-taking habits to the scenario depicted in the advertising was felt to be too dramatic. It was as though a crucial stage in the addiction process was missing, which explained how an everyday guy (or girl) like them could change from shunning heroin completely to trying it and becoming addicted. How could ‘someone like them’ ever be talked into trying heroin? As explored earlier, heroin addiction was something that was thought to happen to ‘other people’ - a different segment of society. Many found it difficult to envisage how their own, more socially-orientated drug-taking habits might progress to sitting alone at home taking heroin. No one believed they’d ever end up taking drugs alone in their flat, and, importantly, they struggled to envisage how this change might take place.

“There’s a difference between taking drugs socially and getting to that stage, like that chap on the sofa.”

Male, 20-25, Dundee

“I think the social aspect is a big thing – Friday, Saturday nights a lot of the boys are going out clubbing and they will have a wee dabble in whatever is there. Everyone has a barrie time, every one has a great night. I suppose it

is part of the culture.” Male 18-19, Edinburgh

“I know that folk do take it sitting in the house, but I think it is sad to do

drugs sitting in the house. What is the point? It’s like, go out and club, a bit of music and dancing – but don’t sit in your house.”

Female 20-25, Glasgow 3.28 They considered themselves ‘sensible’ drug-users; controlled, aware of where the line between social use and addiction was. They tended to associate drug-taking with parties, clubs and drinking; loosening inhibitions and being more ‘daring’; however, heroin was not seen as a social drug.

“I don’t understand it. It’s not exactly a party drug.”

Male 20-25, Dundee 3.29 All felt confident that they controlled their own boundaries, and had no expectation that they would ‘move the goalposts’ in future – at least not to the extent of taking heroin. This was an important issue; the scenario depicted was realistic and evocative; however, as far as their own experience was concerned, it felt alien, familiar only because they had seen similar scenes on TV and in Trainspotting. As an illustration of their point, one or two pointed out that the recent Know the Score Cocaine advertising achieved a greater sense of personal relevance because the image it depicted could represent their heart and was, therefore, harder to dispute. It was easier for individuals to reject the personal relevance of the Know the Score message on the grounds of ‘I’ll never be that guy, in that situation’. This staunch conviction among our sample was evident through the highly emotive language they used to talk about heroin.

“Heroin’s the lowest.... Dirty and disgusting.”

Male 16-17, Edinburgh

11

“It rips your soul out”

Male, 18-19, Edinburgh

“It steals calcium from your body.” Female 26-34, Dundee

“It’s a horrible drug for horrible people. It’s like, if you go out with your

mates and say, ‘I tried heroin last night, the next thing you know, you’ve got no mates.”

Male, 26-34, Glasgow 3.30 Because of the group-orientated nature of this research, it was difficult to evaluate the extent to which this perceived lack of personal relevance was a genuine issue, since the group situation may have led some to reserve their true views. What is clear, however, is that, regardless of whether respondents felt the advertising was aimed at them or otherwise, all nonetheless appeared to extract a powerful anti-heroin message from it. This was further demonstrated by the unusually high levels of recall; as a rule, people tend to ignore messages which are truly irrelevant to them. Although on a rational, conscious level our sample may have considered the advertising to have been inapplicable to them, it would appear that the levels of recall and emotive response to the advertising may suggest otherwise. Tone 3.31 The tone of the advertising was well-received. It was thought to show the consequences of smoking heroin without overtly telling its audience not to do it. As such, it was considered non-hectoring and successfully avoided accusations of being ‘nanny-state’ advertising. 3.32 For most, the advertising clearly had emotional impact, regardless of whether respondents took out a generic anti-heroin message or the more specific message about smoking leading to addiction. This was largely due to the sympathetic portrayal of the central protagonist and the realistic, convincing portrayal of his lifestyle deterioration. When asked who they suspected had come up with the advertising idea, some suggested ex heroin addicts may have been involved, owing to its perceived realism. This sense of realism was to a large extent created through the smaller details of the execution, such as the beer cans building up on the window sill, and it was this which contributed to a large extent to the credibility of the ad’s message. 3.33 As noted earlier, however, for the minority who had witnessed the effects of heroin abuse first hand, the tone was not considered to be hard-hitting enough, however. These individuals tended to perceive it as ‘safe’ advertising because it did not depict the worst effects of heroin. In order to truly dissuade those who might be vulnerable to taking heroin, they felt that a shock tactic approach would be more likely to have an effect. Perceived origin of TV advertising 3.34 Most suspected government involvement in the advertising; it seemed an obvious assumption, given the subject matter. Many were aware of recent drugs scandals in the press and felt some form of government response was likely. Other assumptions include the NHS

12

or HEBS or ‘Healthier Scotland’, based on the logo, with a few viewing ‘Healthier Scotland’ as a distinct organisation from the Scottish Executive. Response to radio execution Comprehension and message take-out 3.35 The message about the link between smoking heroin and addiction was, on the whole, thought to be delivered more clearly through the radio execution than through the TV advert. For most, the main message take-out here was that smoking heroin leads to addiction (rather than a more generic anti-heroin message), and this was considered a credible, logical proposition which reinforced existing attitudes and beliefs. For those who had been less sure how to interpret the TV advert (typically lower SEG and / or younger), the radio advert was often thought stronger.

“The more you smoke it you’ll want a higher hit, so you’re going to go to the needle. There are loads of people in the background when he first starts talking about it, and then he’s just by himself and the voice is getting lower

and lower.” Female, 18-19, Motherwell

“That one stresses merely addiction; whereas the television advert stresses the money issues, the lonely issues - all those issues you showed us on the

words (exercise).” Male 16-17, Edinburgh

“He sounds like a normal person. Could be any age group.” Male 26-34, Glasgow

3.36 On a broad level, it was understood that the radio advert was communicating a message about smoking heroin leading to addiction. However, there was some uncertainty as to whether smoking would lead to injecting and injection would be the point of addiction, or whether smoking was in itself addictive.

“It seems to be coming across as if it’s OK to smoke it… Normally you wouldn’t even relate to the difference between injecting it and smoking it –

you’re just a junkie, no matter how you look at it.” Male, 26-34, Glasgow

3.37 The fact that the character injects himself at the end appeared to suggest that injection was the inevitable conclusion of smoking heroin; some felt this suggested that injection was therefore the point at which addiction began. However, the majority took the view that smoking heroin was in itself a slippery slope; a habit which would gather momentum and become addictive in itself, with injection as a possible consequence. Perceived target audience 3.38 In comparison with the TV execution, one of the strengths of the radio advert was that respondents were frequently left with a stronger sense that its message was aimed at them.

13

There were fewer executional ‘barriers’ here to prevent identification with the character behind the voiceover (such as the character being depicted alone taking drugs in his flat). Tone

3.39 Some older men from slightly higher SEG backgrounds felt the radio message was too simplistic. They had appreciated the TV advert for its perceived subtlety, and dismissed the radio execution as ‘patronising’, aimed at a younger audience. They did not feel it addressed them ‘on their level’. However for most, the tone was thought appropriate; like the TV advert, it was appreciated for showing the effects of smoking heroin rather than overtly telling its audience why the drug should be avoided. Executional details

3.40 There was some evidence of an East vs. West split with regard to the radio voiceover, which was mocked in one Edinburgh male group for being a ‘stereotype’, ‘not real’ and ‘Weegie’. However the voice was appreciated and identified with in the Glasgow groups.

3.41 A more informed minority also suggested that the advertising lacked credibility in their eyes because there was not a sufficient voice change during the advert to indicate that the character had become an addict. Many associated heroin addicts with droning, ‘drunk’ voices, which was thought to be a distinctive characteristic. 3.42 It is difficult to evaluate how problematic the above details are in reality; however usually nit-picking of this kind in groups is an indication of lack of engagement with the advertising. It seems likely that be the advertising approach for the radio execution was less successful in reaching our more informed, more experienced sample, whereas, in contrast, less informed individuals from lower SEGs found it striking and, in some cases, educational.

14

Response to billboard execution Comprehension and message take-out 3.43 On the whole, the billboard message linking smoking and injecting heroin was understood among the sample. However, as with the radio advert, there was some sense that injection was being communicated as the point of addiction, rather than smoking, particularly since the image of the needle was a metaphor for addiction here.

“What I don’t get is, it says that smoking heroin can turn anyone into an addict, but what has that got to do with the needle? It’s smoking that makes you an addict. You are an addict before you even try to inject it, so why put

the needle there?” Female, 20-25, Glasgow

3.44 Failure to read the text on the billboard led a small number to conclude that the smoke depicted in the execution was intended to represent cannabis, not heroin. It therefore seemed that there was some risk of the advertising message being thought to suggest that smoking cannabis would lead to heroin addiction - an argument which clearly would lack credibility among this target audience and undermine its real message.

“I think it just shows you that even the lightest drug, you could get addicted to harder drugs no matter what it is you’re taking. Even just smoking

(cannabis).” Male, 16-17 Edinburgh

Perceived target audience

3.45 The billboard approach was thought to have potential to stretch across a wide range of audiences. This was largely due to the absence of any characters featured in the advertising which gave less room for speculation about intended target age or gender, for example. Tone

3.46 The billboard execution was appreciated for being ‘clever’; its tone was thought sinister and foreboding, and for one or two recalled previous advertising relating to the dangers of passive smoking. In spite of this, the poster was also arguably the least impactful of the three advertising vehicles. The image was highly symbolic and as such tended not to arouse an emotional response among this audience, who often expressed a desire to see something more real or visceral. Showing the consequences or physical effects of heroin addiction was commonly thought more emotionally stirring than pure symbolism.

3.47 A minority were also unclear as to what the image represented.

“I never got it until just now, but it’s the smoking and then the needle.” Male, 16-17 Edinburgh

“I just don’t find that very effective. It is just a smoky syringe. It doesn’t

have that much of an impact… It is clever, but not effective. It doesn’t affect me like watching them smoke it.”

Female, 26-34, Dundee

15

13-15 YEAR OLDS The Sample 3.48 As expected, response to the advertising among this audience was largely conditioned by their age and relative lack of exposure to drugs or drugs information in general. Sources of knowledge about drugs among 13-15 year olds tended to be patched together from a variety of sources, including hearsay and anecdotes (often inaccurate), TV (Lost, police dramas), magazine ‘real life’ stories, newspapers and TV advertising. School was also a major source of information for some, through Social Education and, in one or two cases, ‘Choices for Life’. One or two also referred to ‘Safety in the Park’ initiatives they had taken part in through school, which they had found informative and helpful.

3.49 On the whole, drugs did not appear to be a topic which was discussed among friends as a matter of course; it was apparent in most cases that the subject was largely ‘new ground’. A number of misperceptions about drugs emerged, such as the belief that heroin was the same as hash, that there were different types of heroin and that it could be grown as a plant. A few did not know that heroin could be injected.

“He has a (heroin) plant and he has stuff growing and he is taking stuff off… So it is killing it every time he chops a bit off.”

Male, 13-14, Dundee

“Is it like, heroin - is that hash or something? Or is that different?” Female, 13-14, Glasgow

3.50 Clearly, this had implications for their take-out from the advertising. Most had heard of heroin but knew very little about it; on the whole, the only drug they were familiar with was cannabis. One or two among the S3 (14-15 years) sample said they knew friends who were cannabis users, but as far as they were concerned, their friends’ drug-taking habits were ‘none of their business’, and they rarely spoke to them about it. Response to TV advert Spontaneous recall 3.51 Spontaneous recall of the TV advert was fairly high among this group, and message take-out was, in many respects, similar to that of 16-34 year olds i.e. a generic anti drugs / anti-heroin message. In one or two cases recall was extremely accurate, with respondents even able to cite the ‘Don’t kid yourself’ strapline. As with the 16-34 year olds, spontaneous recall usually focused upon the loss of possessions depicted in the advertising, although there was evidence that several were unsure as to what the significance of this might be. 3.52 In terms of other spontaneous advertising awareness, Talk to Frank was also recalled. This was well-received among this audience for being ‘funny’ and memorable.

16

Comprehension and message take-out 3.53 As with our 16-34 year old sample, there was a tendency among younger respondents to take out a more generic anti-heroin message. Very few noted the link between smoking heroin and addiction, and there was also a minority who assumed the advert presented a general anti-drugs message. This was partly due to confusion with regard to the nature of the drug depicted in the advertising. Several assumed it was cannabis, which was perhaps unsurprising given the limited scope of their understanding about drugs in general, and their tendency to associate the act of smoking a drug with cannabis. One also thought that the drug might be cocaine, since the central character appeared to be ‘snorting’ it. 3.54 Key themes coming through for 13-15 year olds included isolation, which among this audience was expressed in terms of unpopularity, losing friends and boyfriend / girlfriend. Losing control also came through strongly; it was apparent that the central character’s life was revolving around drugs which, for them, equated to losing control. Financial hardship was also noted, owing to the obvious depiction of loss of belongings. As with the 16-34 year old sample, the themes of physical deterioration and fear of addiction were rarely identified or commented upon. 3.55 There was some confusion with regard to the specific message about smoking versus injecting. Many were unfamiliar with the different methods of taking heroin; that it could be smoked as well as injected did not, therefore, generate particular interest. The message appeared straightforward and, as noted, was interpreted loosely as ‘Don’t take heroin’. As with many among our 16-34 year old sample, the particulars of whether heroin was smoked or injected were not a matter of concern, although among 13-15 year olds this attitude was often driven by ignorance of how heroin was taken as well as a conviction that they would never personally take it. Perceived target audience 3.56 The perceived target audience for the commercial was older teenagers or young adults. This was largely because the central character was thought to be much older; guesswork put him in his 20s or 30s. The way that he appeared to live in his own apartment compounded their (accurate) perception that the advertising was not really intended for them. Heroin was essentially ‘off their radar’ as far as drugs and drug awareness were concerned. As noted, there was considerable confusion as to what it was, and most had no idea how or where they might encounter it. All respondents appeared quite convinced that they would never try it.

“Maybe not (relevant) to us at this age, but maybe in a couple of years it would be more relevant targeting people our age - people our age in five

years time. But it is still quite a good advert and you can understand what is happening in it.”

Male, 14-15, Glasgow

“(It’s) not relevant. Because how are we meant to get their hands on it? We are only, like, 13 and 14.”

Male, 13-14, Glasgow

17

3.57 As anticipated, the advertising was not felt to hold a relevant message for this age group. Drugs in general were considered an issue for older teenagers, and many among our sample were visibly perplexed as to why they had been consulted for their comments on the advertising. They found it striking and memorable, but ultimately message take-out was limited and largely felt to be irrelevant to them - a point underlined by the weak emotional response to the advertising among this audience. It is worth noting that, as the advertising was not specifically aimed at this group, it was not expected to hold a relevant message for them. It is encouraging, however, that the advertising nonetheless appeared to communicate an effective anti-drugs/heroin message. Response to radio advert 3.58 The radio advert was well-received among this audience, with spontaneous recall relatively high in comparison with the 16-34 year olds. Again, the message of the radio execution was thought to be clearer than the TV advert, and this was reflected in more specific levels of message take-out. Most understood the message that smoking would lead to addiction, although again, for some, it was thought to suggest that smoking would lead to injecting (and therefore addiction). Most felt the advert was trying to suggest that it was possible to get addicted without realising it; many commented that the main character was ‘in denial’. There remained, however, a strong sense that there was little in the advertising which was relevant to them; even though the message was considered relatively straightforward in comparison to the TV execution, heroin nonetheless remained out of their ‘range’ and therefore inapplicable to them. Response to billboard 3.59 The billboard proved a source of considerable confusion among this sample, and message take-out was usually very limited. It seemed that the creative device was too subtle for this audience; indeed one pair did not even recognise the syringe shape. It was frequently referred to as ‘dull’, with many commenting that there were no colours or cartoons, i.e. no obvious signals that the advertising was intended for them. It was very much perceived as an advertisement ‘for grown-ups’.

TRUSTED SOURCES OF ADVICE 13-15 year olds Parents and friends 3.60 Seeking advice from parents or friends was seen as a first port of call for many; since advice from these sources was largely regarded as trustworthy and with their interests at heart. Those among our S2 sample appeared to be very much reliant on their parents for help of all kinds, although there were signs that S3 respondents would lean more towards friends rather than their parents for advice. However, approaching these sources was not without its disadvantages: the consequences of talking to parents or friends about drugs could be unpredictable and might result in strained family relationships or embarrassment in the school playground, for example. They feared that enquiring about drugs among these sources might

18

raise questions as to why they were asking and suspicion that they were taking drugs or interested in doing so in future. Internet 3.61 Popular sources of help or advice among this sample included the Internet which was widely regarded as a safe, informative and non-judgemental option. In particular, the BBC website was cited as a reliable, trustworthy aid to helping with homework. One or two mentioned that their school also had a website containing information about issues such as bullying; this was potentially thought to be a useful access point for information about drugs. A minority referred to the Talk to Frank website as a possible source of information; however it seemed most likely that Google would be their first port of call as they were largely unfamiliar with drug advice websites. School 3.62 School guidance teachers were also cited as possible sources of information. On the whole, school curriculum teachers were not considered suitable sources of help on this matter; there was a sense of discomfort at the idea of broaching the subject with these individuals which stemmed largely from a perception they would not understand or be able to help, and that the embarrassment of approaching them would be more acute. Youth support groups 3.63 A few among our sample regularly attended sessions at local youth support groups or youth clubs, and it was felt that these might also be a useful point of access for learning about drugs. Other sources 3.64 In extreme cases, Childline was also referred to as a well-known source of help and support for young people in general. Know the Score 3.65 Few among this target audience thought they would visit the Know The Score website; they knew little about it and, based on the TV advertising they had seen on the subject of heroin, they often assumed that it would not contain relevant information for them. Extending web coverage to other sites, such as MSN may be a useful means of targeting this age group. 16-34 year olds 3.66 This sample cited fewer possible sources of help than the 13-15 year olds. Most felt comfortable, however, with the range of reliable drugs information available to them. This was largely because, on the whole, this group were less likely to feel embarrassed about enquiring about drugs in general, and they had greater confidence in their sources. They also tended to have a firmer grasp of where they might go to find out drug-related information. Internet 3.67 The Internet was felt to be a common source of information, particularly among those from the C2 socio-economic group who were often confident that they would know what to search for online in order to answer any questions, and that they would be able to evaluate the trustworthiness of the information made available to them. Again, most felt they would start with Google rather then specifically seeking out specific drug-related sites.

19

Family / friends 3.68 Speaking to their parents (mothers in particular) and friends was also a popular option; unlike our younger sample they had little to fear in terms of possible repercussions of speaking with these individuals and felt they could rely on their advice. GP 3.69 GP / local health centre was also a popular choice; again, many felt they would have no qualms in approaching their doctor for advice in relation to drugs if they felt it were necessary (for example, if they or one of their close friends were in trouble with drugs). Arranging a visit with a GP was thought likely to be a last point of call however, only for extreme cases.

RESPONSE TO KNOW THE SCORE 3.70 The information which appeared at the end of the advertising was rarely spontaneously remarked on. Few were familiar with Know the Score; some vaguely associated it with previous drink-driving advertising and some 13-15 year olds said they had received a Know the Score stationery pack at school. However, knowledge as to the role of the organisation was limited and tended to be described loosely as ‘general drugs advice’. Most felt they would only visit the website for a specific purpose rather than to browse; for example if they or a friend needed help. Few felt they would be likely to visit for general advice about drugs or heroin; either they felt they already knew all they need to know or did not feel in imminent danger of taking heroin and therefore saw no need to visit. Know the Score was often perceived as being for those in need of serious help, in contrast to Talk to Frank which felt more approachable to some and more likely to deal with issues relating to them. 3.71 There was some debate as to who might be expected to answer the Know the Score phone line. Some assumed the line would be manned by drugs councillors, others by volunteers such as the Samaritans or even ex-drug addicts.

20

CHAPTER FOUR CONCLUSIONS 16-34 year olds 4.1 Among 16-34 year olds, the TV advertising was well-received on the whole, and was believed to deliver a credible, emotionally engaging message about smoking leading to addiction. However, this was often not the main message take-out; the advertising tended to be interpreted as delivering a general anti-heroin message, while the subtler point about smoking being addictive was perceived to be of secondary importance. 4.2 Most among this sample did not consider themselves ‘at risk’ of trying heroin in future, even though their own drug-taking habits were often extensive. They did not identify with the situation depicted by the TV advert because they rarely – if ever – took drugs alone; for them, drug-taking was viewed as a social experience. They struggled to envisage how their own drug-taking habits might progress to the scene depicted in the advertising. In other words, how could a ‘normal’ person like them ever end up being persuaded to take heroin? It would appear, therefore, that a useful future strategy may be to attempt to bridge the gap between social drug-taking and the isolation of addiction such as the scene depicted in the TV execution, perhaps exploring how even those who do not think they will ever try heroin sometimes can be talked into it or tempted in some way. 4.3 With regard to preferred media vehicles for anti-drugs messages, TV advertising was, unsurprisingly, cited as the most effective medium for such communications. Posters in pubs / clubs were also thought to be effective, due to the increased likelihood to be tempted towards new drugs in these environments. Generating a presence on popular websites relating to gaming, sport and poker was also thought to be a possible access point. Advertising in popular magazines was also considered to be an appropriate strategy. With regard to generic versus more specific messages, it was almost unanimously felt that focusing on specific drugs was a more effective strategy than issuing generic anti-drugs communications. The suggestion that all drugs are as dangerous as each other lacks credibility among this target audience, and may also be perceived as a hectoring or ‘nanny state’ approach. 4.4 On the basis of this research, there would appear to be enough common ground in terms of attitudes towards heroin and smoking heroin for a common message aimed at 16-34 year old men and women, since there are very few discernible differences in attitudes which relate specifically to age or gender. It may be more pertinent to segment on the basis of attitudes towards drugs and heroin instead which appeared to be a more powerful determining factor in shaping response to the advertising. Another key influential driver was SEG. Those from higher SEGs tended to relate better to the TV advert, which they viewed as more sophisticated, whereas lower SEG individuals usually preferred the more self-explanatory approach of the radio message. 13-15 year olds 4.5 Message take-out for 13-15 year olds was, in some respects, similar to that of 16-34 year olds. Most understood the advertising to deliver a generic ‘anti-heroin’ or ‘anti-drugs’ message. However - as expected - understanding of the message frequently appeared confused, largely owing to a lack of knowledge of drugs in general and particularly heroin. The specific message about smoking heroin leading to addiction only tended to be picked up

21

via the radio advert among this age group; the TV approach was, in some respects, too sophisticated and required a level of understanding about heroin which they did not possess. Drugs awareness often appeared limited to cannabis, particularly among the youngest members of this sample, and on occasions, the advert was mistakenly believed to be about cannabis. To some extent, the effectiveness of the advertising message also presupposed that its target audience generally associated heroin with needles; however, this was not necessarily the case among this age group. 4.6 Working in partnership with local youth groups seems an appropriate approach for reaching 13-15 year olds; this approach allows the opportunity to deliver messages in a clear, interactive manner which enables young people to ask questions and can be tailored to meet their varying needs. Texting anti-drugs messages may also be a suitable vehicle among this age group; it was a widely used medium with high levels of perceived novelty value. Increasing Internet presence beyond the Know the Score site itself may also be of value in raising awareness, particularly through gaming and sports sites, MSN pop-ups and even school websites, if appropriate. 4.7 Generic drug messages may be more appropriate among the 13-15 age group; knowledge of drugs was largely limited to cannabis and there was evidence of some confusion with regard to the wider drugs universe. Some of the youngest sample members in particular subscribed to the view that all drugs were dangerous; there appeared to be little sense of a mental hierarchy of danger at this stage. As there is no immediate plan to develop a communications campaign specific to 13-15 year olds, it is encouraging that the current campaign (which is specifically aimed at 16-34 year olds) is able to effectively communicate an anti-drug/anti-heroin message to a younger audience.

22

APPENDIX A: SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRES PROJECT NUMBER 151309 RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PAIRED DEPTHS (13-15)

Name................................................................... Address............................................................... ............................................................................ Postcode............................................................. Telephone number...............................................

Sex:

Age:

WRITE IN EXACT AGE

....................

MaleFemale

School year/ age

S2 (13 - 14)S3 (14 - 15)

1 2

1 2

Occupation of chief income earner: ............................................................................

Social Class: C2

DE

1 2

DECLARATION: Interview conducted by me with respondent named above in accordance with instructions and MRS Code of Conduct Interviewer...................................................................................... Date..................................................... INTRODUCTION

ASK TO SPEAK TO PARENT/GUARDIAN Good morning/afternoon. I am an interviewer from a market research company, TNS System Three. I am working on a research project on behalf of the Scottish Executive, which is interested in exploring the views of young people in relation to some advertising. Can you spare some time to answer a few questions? 1a

Are there any young people aged 13 to 15 currently living here? Yes

------ No

IF CODE 2, CLOSE

1 --- 2

23

READ OUT TO PARENT/GUARDIAN: TNS System Three is a market research agency based in Edinburgh and we are conducting a research project on the subject of drugs on behalf of the Scottish Executive. The research is concerned with advertising/communications to discourage drugs use. We would like your son/daughter to participate in an interview with a friend as part of this research. The discussion will be conducted by one of our specialist consultants and will last approximately 1 – 1 ¼ hours. This interview would take place in a location in the area. As a market research agency TNS System Three is responsible for adhering to the Market Research Society’s code of conduct. This ensures that those participating in market research (particularly young people) are not misled, upset, confused or encouraged to engage in any illegal behaviour in the course of the research. SHOW LETTER. As a token of our appreciation, your son/daughter will receive a £15 record voucher. OBTAIN PERMISSION TO SPEAK TO YOUNG PERSON IN PRIVATE 1

BEFORE I SPEAK WITH YOUR SON / DAUGHTER : Do you, or any members of your household work in, or have any connections with, any of these industries or businesses? SHOW CARD

Advertising Marketing

Market Research Journalism

Central or local government Health sector

Police - - - - - - - - - - - - - No/none of these

IF ‘YES’ TO CODES 1-7, DO NOT RECRUIT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- - - - - 8

24

READ OUT TO YOUNG PERSON: TNS System Three is a market research agency based in Edinburgh and we have been asked by the Scottish Executive to conduct a research project on the subject of drugs. The research is concerned with finding out what young people think about drugs and advertising related to this. I would now like to ask you a few questions. Your responses to the following questions will be treated in the strictest confidence. 2

a) Have you ever attended a market research group discussion / taken part in a depth interview?

Yes - - - - -

No

IF YES, ASK Q2b AND Q2c. IF NO, GO TO Q. 3 b) When did you last attend a group discussion / take part in a depth interview?

Within the last 12 months - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Over a year ago

IF WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, DO NOT RECRUIT c) Have you ever attended a group discussion or been interviewed about drugs?

Yes - - - - - -

No

IF YES, DO NOT RECRUIT

1 - - - - -

2

1 - - - - -

2

1 - - - -

2

25

3

SHOW CARD Which of these statements best describes the way you feel about drugs use? A: I think people should be able to make up their own minds about drugs use B: In general I think that it is right that drugs use is illegal, but it’s okay for people to take drugs occasionally if they want to ………………………………………………………………………………. C: I would never consider taking drugs, and I think that there should be strong laws against them

IF CODE 3, DO NOT RECRUIT

1

2

-----

3

4

Can you tell me how often you meet with your friends away from home in the evenings, or at weekends? DO NOT INCLUDE ATTENDING ORGANISED GROUPS SUCH AS GUIDES, SCOUTS OR YOUTH CLUBS

Never Once or twice a month

------------------------------- Once or twice a week

More often

IF CODE 1 OR 2 DO NOT RECRUIT

IF CODE 3 or 4 RECRUIT

1 2

---- 3 4

IF RECRUITED:

Location: Date: Time:

........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................................................................

PLEASE NOTE: In line with the MRS recruitment guidelines, all respondents should be informed that the interview that they will be participating in will be audio recorded. If recruiting for a studio, the group will also be video-taped. The recording made will be treated as confidential and used only for the purpose of analysis of the research findings. Respondents should only be recruited if they agree to / accept that recording will take place as described.

26

PROJECT NUMBER 151309 RECRUITMENT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MINI GROUPS (16-34)

Name................................................................... Address............................................................... ............................................................................ Postcode............................................................. Telephone number...............................................

Sex:

Age:

WRITE IN EXACT AGE

....................

Male

Female

16-17 18-19 20-25 26-34

1 2

1 2 3 4

Occupation of chief income earner: ............................................................................

Social Class:

C2 DE

1 2

DECLARATION: Interview conducted by me with respondent named above in accordance with instructions and MRS Code of Conduct Interviewer...................................................................................... Date..................................................... Introduction Good morning/afternoon. Can you spare some time to answer a few questions? PLEASE EMPHASISE THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THIS BRIEF INTERVIEW. 5

SHOW CARD: Do you, or any members of your household work in, or have any connections with, any of these industries or business?

Advertising Marketing

Market Research Journalism

Central or local government Health sector

Police - - - - - - - - - - - - - No/none of these

IF ‘YES’ TO CODES 1-7, DO NOT RECRUIT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

- - - - - 8

27

6

a) Have you ever attended a market research group discussion / taken part in a depth interview?

Yes - - - - -

No

IF YES, ASK Q2b AND Q2c. IF NO, GO TO Q. 3 b) When did you last attend a group discussion / take part in a depth interview?

Within the last 12 months - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Over a year ago

IF WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, DO NOT RECRUIT c) Have you ever attended a group discussion or been interviewed about drugs?

Yes - - - - - -

No

IF YES, DO NOT RECRUIT

1 - - - - -

2

1 - - - - -

2

1 - - - -

2

7

SHOW CARD Which of these statements best describes the way you feel about drugs use? A: I think people should be able to make up their own minds about drugs use B: In general I think that it is right that drugs use is illegal, but some private occasional use is OK ………………………………………………………………………………. C: I would never consider taking drugs, and I think that there should be strong laws against them

IF CODE 3, DO NOT RECRUIT

1

2

----- 3

28

8

RECRUITER, IF NECESSARY, REASSURE INTERVIEWEE OF STRICT CONFIDENTIALITY

SHOW CARD Which of these statements best describes your situation? A: I have never taken drugs and I would never consider taking them. B: I have used drugs before, but I would definitely never do so again. …………………………………………………………………………………. C: I have never tried drugs, although I might think about it in the future. D: The last time I took drugs was more than a year ago. ………………………………………………………………………………… E: I have taken drugs in the last year.

IF CODES 1 OR 2, DO NOT RECRUIT

IF CODE 3 OR 4 CHECK QUOTAS, CONTINUE AS NON USERS AND GO TO QUESTION 6

IF CODE 5 CONTINUE AS USERS AND GO TO QUESTION 5

1 2

------- 3 4

------ 5

9 A. Have you ever used Heroin? Yes

----- No

IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 6. IF YES ASK QUESTION 5B B. How many times have you taken Heroin?

Once -----

More than once

IF CODE 1, CONTINUE IF CODE 2 DO NOT RECRUIT

1

---- 2

1 ---- 2

29

10

How often you go out socialising these days – by socialising I mean go out with your friends anywhere outside your home? RECRUITER PROMPT IF NECESSARY: Outside home meaning parties, clubs/pubs/bars, streets/parks etc.

At least once a week ------------------------------- Less than once a week

IF CODE 2 DO NOT RECRUIT IF CODE 1 GO TO QUESTION 7

1 ------

2

11 When socialising with friends are you aware of any drugs being taken, sold or available in the places that you go? RECRUITER, IF NECESSARY, REASSURE INTERVIEWEE OF STRICT CONFIDENTIALITY

Yes ----- No

IF CODE 1, RECRUIT IF CODE 2 DO NOT RECRUIT

1 ----- 2

IF RECRUITED:

Location: Date: Time:

.................................................................................................................... .................................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................................

PLEASE NOTE: In line with the MRS recruitment guidelines, all respondents should be informed that the interview that they will be participating in will be audio recorded. If recruiting for a studio, the group will also be video-taped. The recording made will be treated as confidential and used only for the purpose of analysis of the research findings. Respondents should only be recruited if they agree to / accept that recording will take place as described.

30

APPENDIX B: MEDIA CONSUMPTION SUMMARY 13-15 year old females

31

13-15 year old males

32

16-34 year old females

33

16-34 year old males

Offic

e of

Chi

ef R

esea

rche

r

Know the Score: Anti-Heroin2006/07 Campaign Evaluation

ISSN 0950 2254ISBN 978 0 7559 6455 0Web only publication

www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch

RR DONNELLEY B50398 2/07