Just Don’t Do It: A Sequel

Shania Velikic
Professor N. Villanueva
English 101
28 November 2018
Just Don’t Do It
“Just Do It.” The infamous slogan triggers our working memory to recall the source, Nike, the American multinational cooperation catering consumers with athletic wear and equipment. Designed to elicit motivation, the company’s slogan fits perfectly with sports and athleticism. But, what about “Just Don’t Do It?’ In 2002, South Korea’s Anti-Drug Campaign Center used Nike’s logo and adjusted their slogan to inspire their advocacy against drug use. This advertisement was intelligently designed to grasp the audience’s attention and maintain its relevancy through a global pastime such as sports and a global company such as Nike. By analyzing the visual literacy of the image, we gain a better understanding of the source’s reasonings for the design and the message it aims to convey. We can also infer the reaction the advertisement aims to elicit within the public.
The advertisement used by South Korea’s Anti-Drug Campaign Center was designed by the “Diamond Ad” advertising agency in 2002. It was designed to raise awareness toward drug use and persuade people to never start using them. The backdrop of the image is pitch black with a white, powdery substance that appears to have been scraped into the form of a checkmark in disarray in the center on the image. This powdery substance is the main focal point of the image as it is visually the largest part of the advertisement. Next to the substance are the words, “Just Don’t Do It,” in typewriter front. The bottom right corner of the image is stamped “Korean Anti-Drug Campaign Center.” This anti-drug image was designed to convey a message to its audience and was purposely arranged in a way that fulfilled this vendetta.
At first glance, context clues give the impression that the white substance depicted in the image is a drug, probably cocaine. However, without the Anti-Drug Campaign Center’s stamp in the bottom right corner, it would be harder to infer what the advertisement is trying to convey. There are clues available that make it easier to infer the white substance is cocaine, such as the choppy lines of powder surrounding the checkmark. It is common knowledge that cocaine is often scraped up and cut up into neat lines with a credit card, to later be snorted with a straw or dollar bill. However, this inference heavily relies on the audience’s ability to assimilate previous information into current stimuli. Without prior knowledge of what cocaine looks like or how users consume this drug, then the audience would not have enough information presented in the image to understand what it is depicting. Knowing that the substance is a drug, one can infer that the choppy lines surrounding the checkmark are indicative of the “messy” havoc that drugs take on a user’s life. The image states, “Just Don’t Do It,” next to the substance to ward people off from starting drugs or relapsing on them.
The creators of this advertisement purposely picked the shape of the drug to resemble Nike’s logo for its relevancy. The Diamond Ad agency even adjusted Nike’s famous slogan from “Just Do It” to “Just Don’t Do It.” The reasoning behind this is to draw attention to its message because most people are familiar with this brand. Maybe it would attract people into thinking it is an advertisement for Nike, since most people do not think to search up anti-drug ads. Maybe it was so people would stumble across this image when googling Nike. The image also draws an association between sports and using drugs, since they are both activities that people are drawn to together. It is a societal perception that drug users use drugs as a past time, like how sports fan turn to sports as theirs. Knowing that this ad was used in South Korea, it is possible the creators intended for a wider audience. Nike was founded in the United States and spread globally, so most people across the world can understand the meaning of this ad without having to come from a specific region.
Pathos, ethos, and logos can be powerful rhetorical devices used in visual representations with the right intent. However, this advertisement fails to properly engage with these devices and elicit the intended response. The use of pathos fails to develop an emotional pretense due to the playful nature of associating the cocaine with the Nike symbol. The backdrop is meant to convey an ominous and serious tone but comparing the drug to a successful brand like Nike defeats this purpose. The use of ethos again heavily relies on previous knowledge and society’s perception that drugs are grotesque and dangerous for us. The image does not exactly explain or depict why drugs have this effect, but we know that drugs are against the law, lead to addiction, and possess the possibility of death. Similar to ethos, the advertisement relies on the audience’s ability to reason that drugs pose negative consequences. The advertisement fails to provide evidence on why this is true, so it is weakened in that regard. Therefore, the logical argument is missing. We know they want us to “Just Don’t Do It,” but why should we not?
The nature of the playfulness presented in the advertisement is counterintuitive because it desensitizes the seriousness associated with drugs. The phrase “Just Don’t Do It” is too similar to the original slogan “Just Do It” which may actually encourage the audience to think otherwise. From the similarities presented in both advertisements, it may cause the viewer to associate the drug advertisement with the positive representation of sports. It assumes that users will reap the reward of getting high similar to athletes reaping the reward of winning a game. If the image was reconstructed to say “Just Do It,” then the anti-drug campaign would become a pro-drug advocacy. Therefore, South Korea’s anti-drug campaign message is not strong enough because it enhances the appeal to do drugs. The message could be strengthened by replacing the Nike symbol with a depiction of an actual overdose. The slogan could be replaced with statistical information about the death rate from drugs and its potential for addictive behavior. By reconstructing this image in such a way, the image could be successful in its motives to ward against doing drugs.
The analogous relationship between drugs and sports would further destigmatize the use of drugs because of an athlete’s pressure to succumb to performance enhancements. This is true due to the widespread news of athletes being disqualified from athletics by using performance enhancements like steroids. We know the consequences of using drugs that result in unfavorable outcomes, but is it only unfavorable when someone is caught? Assuming the steroids helped boost an athlete’s performance, then the drugs worked in a favorable outcome for themselves, their coaches, sponsors, and fans. The same could be said about the use of cocaine. What if a student deliberately used cocaine for the sole purpose of its stimulant effect to stay awake and study for tests? What if the end result was accomplishing high grades? If drugs were not deemed as taboo and unethical, then recreational drugs like cocaine would be no different than pharmaceutical medications prescribed by doctors. This image could be reconstructed to present the favorable outcome of using drugs such as those used to improve athletic and studious performance.
The advertisement itself had ethical intentions of raising awareness against drugs, but its message was lost with the wrong choice of visual rhetorical devices. If it had been reconstructed in a way that enhanced its message, rather than weakened it, it would have been stronger in that former regard. The association between something as serious as drugs and playful as sports does not scream the fact that one should not partake in drugs. It actually elicits the opposite response from its target audience. With stronger regard to composition, word choice, and placement, the advertisement could be strengthened to convey the message it is set out to do.