It’s taken the social media world by storm: “Meth. We’re on it.” And doubtlessly you’ve also seen the accompanying memes on social media too, showcasing the main characters from “Breaking Bad” saying “Load up the van, we’re heading to South Dakota!” or a portrait of Kristi Noem saying, “We may be on meth, but at least it’s not hemp.”
The Argus Leader reported that the Department of Social Services spent $449,000 on the advertisement that came from an ad agency in Minneapolis called Broadhead Co. However, the contract with Broadhead Co. “shouldn’t exceed $1.4 million.” Meaning there’s more to come of this “campaign.”
Noem responded to the Argus Leader stating that the ad is “bold” and designed to emphasize how the meth epidemic in South Dakota afflicts everyone.
In conjunction with the advertisements, next year’s budget for the state includes $1 million in meth rehabilitation funding as well as $730,000 for meth prevention education in schools.
Laurie Gill, the Social Services Secretary, told the Argus that “83% of South Dakota’s 2019 court admissions for controlled substances are related to meth.”
The rate of people needing and seeking treatment for meth has increased by over 200% since 2014, Gill added, with twice as many teenagers using meth as compared to the national average.
The intention of the advertisement was to make people talk about the issue of meth addiction in South Dakota.
Congratulations, people are talking about it.
The ad has not just created a mockery of Noem and the citizens of South Dakota, but also the issue itself. An advertisement that provokes emotion is not synonymous with something that compels action to be taken. It leads people to question, “How the hell could they come up with something so ludicrous as this?” not, “How can I help in alleviating this issue?”
The ad warps the issue into a strawman argument – meaning everyone is focused on a distraction instead of the actual issue.
There’s also the issue on why it wasn’t a South Dakota-based ad agency that made the campaign. What happened to all of the shopping local initiatives that the state government had put forth (e.g., the out-of-state online sales taxes)?
Not to mention there’s the question of why the absurd amount of money used for this farce couldn’t be poured into existing rehab facilities?
Outside of talking about how far gone South Dakotans have succumbed to meth, what was the intent of the advertisement? The 2020 budget calls for additional funding for rehabilitation centers in South Dakota – which is needed – but of what actual substantive value is the ad? Advertising that makes people talk isn’t a matter of the issue, but rather of how good the advertising is.
This parallels to Gillette’s snafu of an advertisement from earlier this year. The commercial’s intent was to address and support the #MeToo movement but ended up calling any masculine men rapists and abusers. Gillette lost $8 billion in a single quarter as a result of that commercial.
“The highway to Hell is paved with good intentions,” the adage goes. It’s obvious what the play-on-words in the advertisement is intended to mean, showing that everyone in South Dakota has a role to play in supporting our community; however, the intention is not the product of this disgraceful excuse of our tax-dollars.
The Argus Leader recently wrote a piece on South Dakota sponsored ads that received national attention due to their embarrassing nature. “Why die on Mars when you can live in South Dakota,” “Don’t Jerk and Drive,” Scott Hoy’s “Please Stop” commercial and now “Meth. We’re on it.”
