82543856 imc case analysis boston fights drugs a

Integrated Marketing Communication

Integrated Marketing Communication Case Analysis: Boston Fights Drugs(A)

MANGESH PATIL| PAWAN JAGNIK | SUMAN KUMAR SAHA MAHTAAB KAJLA | NILA LOHITA | VARDHAN SINGH

Group II (IMC-A) Submitted by:


Situation Analysis

Around 1000 drug trafficking arrests in Boston Drugs worth $250,000,000 seized Drugs seized only constituted 5-10% of total drug

volume Crack epidemic expected to spread in Boston

Hence Mayor Flynn asked Harvard Business School students to create a plan for “de market” of the DRUGS


Drug Programmes

Enforcement

• Strict laws implemented

• Number of arrests were doubled

• But its not very effective in convincing the people and their demand still keeps increasing

Education

• Drug education part of school curriculum

• Promotional efforts by SPECDA and BAD

• Citizens encourage to turn-up drug users

Communications Program

• Channel used is Mass Media

• Commercials featuring celebrities and local instances

• But commercials were not effectively appealing the mass


Objectives

To devise a communication program that delivers the most effective messages to target audience; thus curtailing the drug use among youth in Boston area

To do a market research and to evaluate the credibility of research

Three step Process

Identification of Delivery Channel

What message to be delivered???

Delivery of Message to Intended Recipient


Assignment Question What are your views on the team's model for drug absue? on the research methodology followed?


Our Perspective about the Model Used

Pertinent classification of drug users – Non users, Experimental users, Regular users, Drug dependent

individuals

Provides structure for data collection

Scope to identify the percentage of people in each of the segments

Can be used to highlight the ethnic and socioeconomic distribution of individuals

Screening questionnaire was an effective tool to identify the appropriate mix of respondents to be considered for FGD


Primary Research Options

Quantitative Surveys – Low response rate of 5 – 20 % expected

– Advantage – Results not biased by the interviewer

– Cost - $10,000 to $15,000

Focus Group Discussions – For each group of 8 – 10 costs will be $500 - $1500

– Psychologists to interpret the focus group data

– Could act as brainstorming exercise providing insights to researchers

One-to-One Interviews – Unstructured and more open ended

– Total cost Incurred: $75 - $150 (counselor's fee and stipend)

– Interviewers need to trained accordingly


Contrast among Research Options

Parameters of Assessment

Questionnaire Surveys

Focus Group Discussions

One-to-One Interviews

Time Low High Very High

Cost Low ($15 per person)

High($112.5 per person)

High($112.5 per person)

Type of data obtained

Quantitative Qualitative Qualitative

Degree of bias Low Moderate to High High

Number of respondents covered at a time

Significantly Large 10-12 per session 1

Number of Phases More than 2 One One


Viewpoint on FGD

Pros Cons

• Face to face interactions with participants

• Experience moderator can guide the flow of discussion

• It is recorded for future references and analysis by professional psycologists

• Provides creative ideas and insights to researchers

• The researcher can get information from non-verbal responses, such as facial expressions or body language.

• Additional cost of moderator • Peer response can influence

individual viewpoint • Time constraint might be an

issue and consumes more time than a questionnaire survey

• Doesn’t provide quantitative data


Rationale of Choosing FGD

The target respondents were in the age group of 10-18 years

Questionnaire method is not suitable as the young target

audience would find it difficult to interpret the questions

The number of stages were more in questionnaire method

in comparison to other methods thus increasing costs,

time and effort

On-to-one interview method is quite lengthy and too

subjective; the number of respondents covered would be significantly low while the cost

would shoot up


Assignment Question Are there data in exhibits to support the teams' conlusions on pg.7-8 of the case?


Excerpts to Support Conclusions

Conclusion 1: Young people do not recall drug facts or statistics

– None of the exhibits had any statement which indicates that young people recall the facts or statistics associated with drugs

Conclusion 2: Nonusers avoid both friends and strangers who use drugs rather than confronting them with persuasive reasons to discontinue use

– It is quite clear from the statements made in Exhibit 7, 8, 10 and 11 that they will walk away from both friends and strangers who do drugs

– e.g. Exhibit 11 “I stop calling them. They ain’t my friend no more”

Conclusion 3: Young people resent being told what to do and may in fact do the opposite to prove their independence

– Statements in Exhibit 8, 10 and 13 supports the statement of Conclusion 3

– e.g. Exhibit 8 “I wouldn’t pay attention to no adults. They all sound alike. Just trying tell you how to run your life. Hey, it ain’t none of their business”



Conclusion 4: Family is an important influence on drug use and attitudes

– From these Exhibit 6,7,9,10 and 11, we conclude that people look up to senior members of family for guidance about the drug menace

– e.g. Exhibit 6 “Like if my brother told me drugs were bad, I’d believe him”

Conclusion 5: Young people vividly relate stories about drugs and drug users

– Statements provided in Exhibit 6 and 14 backs Conclusion 5

– e.g. Exhibit 6 “In school we saw movies about what drugs do. It told a story about this boy taking crack and he dies”

Conclusion 6: Current drug advertising is unrealistic and does not elicit strong recall. (Exception: “Take Me Out of the Ballgame”)

– Statements in Exhibit 7 and 10 supports the statement of Conclusion 6

– e.g. Exhibit 10 “If it’s a real rapper, not some stupid guy faking it, people would listen. Like on 104.9 FM”



Conclusion 7: Celebrities are not viewed as credible spokespeople about drugs because so many use drugs, because their live are perceived as different, and because respondents think they are paid to read a script – From these Exhibits 7,13 and 14, we conclude that there is no credibility

among respondents about celebrities informing about drug abuse – e.g. Exhibit 7 “When they use movie stars, it’s not believable, because you

read about them taking drugs….”

Conclusion 8: Neighborhood programs are crucial in decreasing demand for drugs – Statements provided in Exhibit 9,10,11 and 13 backs Conclusion 8 – e.g. Exhibit 13 “ People should stop being dirty and leaving stuff in

hallways. Find a trashcan”

Conclusion 9: Educational programs which provide realistic information in an adult manner are effective in communicating an antidrug message – Statement in Exhibit 6 supports the statement of Conclusion 9 – e.g. Exhibit 6 “Yeah, we have a police guy who teaches us about drugs and

stuff. Yeah, I liked it a lot”


Assignment Question Are there alternative conclusions that can be drawn from the same exhibits? What would be the alternative broad communication direction, if any?


Alternative Conclusions

Friends can be both positive as well as negative source of influence (Exhibit 10); thus they can act as a driver to keep individuals away from drugs

Reasons for doing drugs include peer pressure(Exhibit 10), easy availability (Exhibit 10), lack of attention from family members (Exhibit 7)

Drug addiction leads to financial issues which results in activities such as theft, disrespect to family members(Exhibit 10)

Kids become more inclined towards drug campaign when they can relate more to the character in advertisements


Alternative communication direction

Objective: The communication campaign should be SMART

– Specific

– Measurable

– Attainable

– Results-orientated and

– Time-limited.

Approach: Depicting the Negative Consequences of Drugs

Audience/Target Segment:

Main Category

• Non – Users

• Experimental Users

• Regular Users/Junkies

Demographic variables

• Sex: Female

• Race: any

• Age: Teenager

Psychographic Variables

• Personality – Charming

• Attitudes – High

• Lifestyles - High


Alternative communication direction

Message: The message that the communication strategy will provide is loud and clear, Get High on Life, not on Drugs, which is also the slogan of campaign. Through this communication strategy, the message is for multiple audiences.

Basket: The Storyboard communicates “products” best capture and deliver the messages as the storyline which is being shown is very much real life and teenagers would find themselves in some time or another in that situation

82543856 imc case analysis boston fights drugs a

Documents

integrated

communication

questionnaire

assignment

drug users

respondents

family members

drug