I wish I’d made the Stoner Sloth campaign

I smoke daily and work in breakneck PR. Lazy people are lazy stoners. High-functioning people are high-functioning stoners.

Well said and good points. The criticism has come from media and individuals who are not the target of the campaign. I’d want to see some data on the effectiveness before commenting either way. And I’m sure it had lots of testing.

I agree that this campaign, as ridiculed as it has been, will actually be a success in the long run, at least in terms of raising awareness of the campaign.

I’m not sure I agree Toby, that it’s because the advertisers have accurately portrayed a heavy dope user however. I think their caricature of a drug user that has made it a viral hit was a total mistake.

Since going viral however, “Stoner Sloth” has now entered Aussie vernacular and will be forever remembered, in the way that “Not happy Jan!” has been. I’ve already seen this used amongst 20 year old boys as a way of ribbing a mate who had spent the day asleep after smoking the night before.

I’m not sure that it will actively discourage drug abuse, but it will certainly be remembered as a disparaging term for a drug user, which is something

Interesting argument Toby.
If nobody is criticising what you do then you are not doing anything of value.
Ultimately it comes down to whether Stoner Sloth becomes a badge of honor or a badge of shame. I suspect a mixture of both.

And here we see the difference between marketing professionals and advertising professionals.

Thanks Toby, but I must disagree with your piece.

It appears that both rates of drink driving and smoking have significantly decreased in the last thirty years or so. In Victoria, drivers/riders killed with excessive BAC levels has fallen from 130 in 1987 to 40 in 2012

(http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road.....statistics),

and rates on smoking in Australians 14 years and older have steadily decreased from 24.3% in 1991 to 12.8% in 2013

(http://www.health.gov.au/inter.....obacco-kff).

The above drink-driving statistics show a marked decrease from 1989 and a relative plateau since, which would suggest that the initial ‘Bloody Idiot’ campaign made a significant contribution to these figures. I would suggest the reason for this plateau is not ‘cognitive dissonance’, but ‘law of diminishing returns’ whereby the shock effect is minimised by prolonged exposure to the message style.

I would also suggest the groundwork was laid with the absolutely brilliant idea of using Peter Brock’s ‘05’-numbered race-car. This point is purely anecdotal, but conversations with my parents suggest that drink-driving was not considered such anti-social behaviour in the 1970s.

As to smoking, I would credit the establishment of ‘Quit’ as a significant player in the reduced rates. That there appears to be no downward spike in these figures suggests that it has been as a result of an ongoing multi-faceted campaign of informing the populace, shocking them and also providing credible pathways to quitting – sometimes all simultaneously.

The issue with marijuana is not so simple. My studies in Psychology at Swinburne categorise marijuana as neither exclusively a stimulant nor a depressive, but rather a substance bearing a combination of both and point to its ability to trigger a psychosis in certain individuals. (Psychology; 3rd Edition; Burton, Westen & Kowalski; pub. Wiley, 2012). There is clearly a deleterious effect for certainly individuals consuming this drug, for others it simply renders them ‘slow and boring as batshit’. But for some, such as epileptic sufferers and those in palliative care, it would appear to be a saving grace denied them.

What troubled me most with your piece is this line; ‘Efficacy of these campaigns often lies in the momentum they create legislative change and enforcement, rather than persuasion of the villain.’

What legislative change are you hoping for with regards marijuana? Consumption and possession are already illegal and I am sceptical that any stronger penalties would have any effect. I think it’s fair to say ‘the war on drugs’ has not succeeded, but I welcome hard metrics indicating otherwise.

I would suggest the problem lies more deeply within us. Some people take drugs to celebrate life, and others take drugs to escape it. History is littered with examples of the consumption of drugs (including alcohol, caffeine and the various ‘harder’ substances found in nature). It’s been a part of life for millennia.

Despite the enormous soft-metric success of ‘Dumb Ways to Die’, I cannot find any figures indicating a reduction of the undesired behaviours. I would suggest the ‘engagement’ of stoner sloth is not an adequate measure. If this campaign is intended to reduce rates of marjiuana consumption, I would like to see the benchmark figures to measure against. If this is intended only to change the ‘perception’ of marijuana consumption in the target market, it would appear (at this very early stage) to have had the opposite effect.

I am not a pro-drugs advocate, not am I rigidly against them. I do think increased polarity on the issue is no help.

I also think that stoner sloth is merely preaching to the converted.

Seriously, can we please move on?

Let this terrible thing die quickly, rather than slow and painfully. It does not warrant this much analysis. It’s bad, everyone knows it’s bad (well almost everyone), the end. Our time would be better spent focusing on the good stuff instead of this crap.

This campaign has already achieved what at least 95% of all advertising fails to do – It’s been noticed.
There are “Stoner ad” parodies out there already and it’s into the everyday vernacular.
This is an issue that needs to be talked about and it’s happening.
A job well done.

Toby, get the T-shirt before they sell out, all yours for $22.40! http://www.redbubble.com/peopl.....;p=t-shirt

Fyi it was Saatchi and Saatchi.
Check the twitter feed for yourself Toby
https://twitter.com/hashtag/stonersloth?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Ehashtag

It’s obviously epic, just with the wrong effect taking hold. I say make the movie and animated series, sell the toys – invest that money into new campaigns. lol

it is embarrassing, all the other characters bully stoner sloth, not a good look, should be helping someone if they’re that bad. Needs to be legalized, fix a lot of problems, look at Colarado.

The whole point of a viral campaign is advertising that reaches the masses quickly! Messages need to be out of the ordinary – and Stoner Sloth is just that. The creative is outrageously humorous and shareable (you may even think it’s laughable). I think the NSW Government has been clever in breaking through the advertising clutter in the marketplace. It’s difficult to implement communication strategies that get the attention of the consumer, hold their interest and build awareness. Behaviour change is gradual, it takes years – the Tobacco campaign shows us how long it can take (it has been running since the 80’s).

I applaud NSW Government on thinking outside the box and for not using the typical scare tactics in their advertisements. Daring to be different has certainly helped them stand out in the crowd. The negativity surrounding the campaign only helps the campaign seed it’s messages of awareness further. I guess only time will tell (and extensive campaign evaluation), if Stoner Sloth has been successful.

This should start a precedent, instead of bashing our peers, as an industry we should embrace sharing of insights around things like this – openly and promptly.
Experience vs Expert could be defined by how well we are able to predict and influence an outcome.
The one thing we could take out of this, as an industry, is some learning as to whether we were able to predict the outcome well enough?
No doubt it was clever and the Sloth looks great, but has it missed or overshot the mark – time will tell? The world has its opinions.

****To the team at Saatchi and Saatchi:
What can we learn from the process you went through?
What were the drivers of support for the decision to go forward with this idea and what consideration was given to the risks (which seem enormous given the key elements)?
What creative testing was done (or not done)? If done, did it validate the concept? An industry debate around testing is definitely worth having here.
What else can you share with us?

One more thing, as an industry, let’s not forget to embrace those willing to do things differently! Hopefully in time it proves to be effective.

Nice one Julian, couldn’t agree more

What about just creating adverts promoting different strains of weed? Dibs on the first pot store in sydney once they legalise and let people do what they want. Cashback

I was unfortunate enough to grow up in a home where both my parents, and my sibling, smoked weed.

I smoked it every day, up to a quart / half ounce from the age of 14 until my early 20s. My family still smoke it every day. From basically the moment they wake up until the moment they go to bed.

I have many friends in the same situation.

This ad doesn’t really do anything for the ‘victim’ or user, nor does it do anything for the people who may try to help.

Instead of promoting the positives of what it’s like to be free of addiction to the most demotivating, losers drug ever to grace the earth, they show the negative – a character that reinforces every reason to get stoned, rather than a reason to not do it.

It’s a massive fail, as a recovering addict who’s been clean nearly twenty years, it really won’t work. The humour will only make teenagers want to smoke more.

I hail Stoner Sloth – at least he’s not beating the crap out of people, being abusive or aggressive – which goes to prove perhaps stoner sloth is onto something.
He’s not gambling away the families money…. The world perhaps needs more Stoner Sloths.
And clearly by the ads he is responsible enough not drive a car. Win Win I say

“He’s not gambling away the families money… ” No, he’s blowing it away on drugs instead.

It doesn’t address the worst thing about pot – that it’s a ‘harmless drug’ with ‘no conseqeunces’ which ‘nobody has died because of’ that ‘is not addictive’.

Anyone with experience of the drug knows firsthand the dealer’s propaganda is well spread. It also doesn’t offer any avenue for giving weed up – which shows how seriously the government takes this ‘non-addictive forming substance’ – which teens continue to consume daily into adulthood.

Stoner Sloth in space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBIXZCAojqw

Our industry has the worst habit of convenient post-rationalisation and shifting goalposts to fit outcomes. If most of your feedback is negative and isn’t coming from your target audience, you did a bad job. It’s the most psychopathic of cognitive biases that leads to the conclusion: most of the negative feedback isn’t coming from our teenage target audience, ergo teens love it. If Saatchis had done any of the due diligence claimed above, it wouldn’t have named its anti-pot campaign after an online smokers store. When one big agency evades responsibility for unstrategic and gratuitous work, our whole industry slips a peg closer to used car salesmen. That said, what would you do with an anti-pot brief in 2015? What a waste of time and money. 420, everyone.

This is a low point in the evolution of S & S made worse by the idiotic defence of it. Clearly the grown ups at the P R company are on holiday. Cheer up S & S people 2016 can only get better. Unless this is on your resume.