FRANK: Research summary of qualitative research

This report summarises a large amount of qualitative work done on the FRANK campaign. It found that:

• ‘FRANK’ was understood to be a source of information and advice about drugs, and was seen as warm, human, and empathetic. These characteristics made the prospect of contacting FRANK easier for both parents and teenagers, leading many to feel they might make contact in order to obtain information, or to resolve a problem or a worry rather than needing the stimulus of a ‘crisis’ as had been felt to be the case for the National Drugs Helpline in previous research.
• A factor in establishing ‘FRANK’s’ personality was the brand’s clear point of view about drugs. FRANK seemed to ‘know the score’, in the sense of understanding what drugs and drug culture were about from a ‘real life’ perspective. These attributes were crucial in establishing credibility among teenagers who rejected uninformed dismissal of drugs, whether they themselves were drug users or not. However, it was clear that FRANK was not involved in drugs, and was outside drug culture looking in. Parents can be uneasy over FRANK’s familiarity with drugs, but are reassured once they understand that FRANK wants to help young people to avoid, or stop taking drugs.
• Both parents and teenagers are likely to feel misunderstood by the other, and to feel that the other is guilty of over reacting! Both groups could relate to the ‘Talk About Drugs’ TV commercial and felt understood and supported by FRANK.
• FRANK was seen to be clearly ‘anti drugs’ but expressed this point of view via observations, and offering information or food for thought, rather than by overt condemnation or direct instruction to ‘just say no’. Parents recognised from their own experience that teenagers do not respond well to direct pressure on drugs or any ‘difficult’ subject. While they felt that FRANK was more accepting of drugs than they were, they were prepared to forgive this stance (and some of his jokes) because they felt it was an appropriate way to engage with teenagers
• Humour was felt to be a vital part of FRANK’s personality, and the style of this was felt to be in tune with the type of humour appreciated by teenagers. Parents recognised this to be the case, and therefore the value in taking this approach, even if FRANK’s humour was not to all of their tastes. This sense of humour also seemed to be a useful weapon in undermining positive views about drugs, as it allowed negative comment to be delivered in a non-confrontational way that could also provide a positive starting point for conversations about drugs between parents and teenagers. However, there was a consensus that drugs should never be a laughing matter, and so while there was a positive response to for example, humour around the difficulties that parents have talking to their children about drugs, and to a serious message delivered in a humorous way, it was felt inappropriate to simply ‘play for laughs’. Also, everyone saw heroin and crack use as too serious to be a subject for humour in any form.
• The name FRANK worked well. On the one hand it had a literal meaning in the sense of ‘straightforward’, ‘open’ and ‘honest’. At the same time the name felt warm, friendly and down to earth. As a result ‘FRANK’ sounded like someone people could talk to. A small minority (parents) queried FRANK, either because it felt like an older name to them, or because, as would be the case with any name, they had personal or idiosyncratic feelings about it. However, the literal interpretation of ‘FRANK’ always resolved these issues and underpinned the choice of name. While FRANK was seen to be a man’s name this was not seen to be a problem by female teenagers, as the overall character of FRANK was not excessively masculine. There was no particular association of ‘FRANK’ with any particular socio economic or racial group.
• Many vulnerable and marginalized young people already have access to information and support about drugs through professional youth and drugs workers who they trust. However, FRANK is nevertheless still relevant to 'supported' young people because they do envisage using the telephone service and the website possibly in the first instance simply to check if the information is as good as implied in the advertising, but latterly as an additional source of information/support if their initial experience is good. Thus the tone and content of FRANK communications aimed specifically at vulnerable or marginalised groups needs to take account of their special experiences of life and use of drugs
• The same media channels can be used for targeting most teenagers. The only groups who appear much less likely to be reached by mainstream advertising are those who live rough much of the time (and are often also problematic drug-users) because the concepts of 'leisure activities' and 'media consumption' cannot really be applied to them and their lifestyle.
• Ambient media in its many forms offers an opportunity to get in touch with teenagers on their own ground. Stickers on lampposts and in bus shelters, posters in pubs and clubs, and in toilets and other such approaches can reach young people in their own environment, and in places where drugs are likely to be encountered and used.