Controversial anti-DUI campaign cost $450,000

The final invoices are in for the controversial state anti-DUI campaign that many called sexist. The cost: more than $450,000, a state official said Wednesday.

The Governor’s Highway Safety Office apologized for the campaign in mid- July and took down its website after coming under intense criticism for the slogans — including those that referred to girls looking “hotter” to guys under the influence and being “chatty” or “clingy.”

The office said materials distributed in bars and restaurants — including fliers, coasters, tents and other items — cost $77,096 to produce. But the actual costs were much higher.

Documents obtained by The Tennessean through a public records request show those materials represented only a portion of the campaign’s total cost. Office Director Kendell Poole said Wednesday the projected budget for the campaign, including television and radio ads, video production and design expenses, was $725,934.49. By the time the state halted the campaign, $ 456,923 had been spent, he said. The extra costs for television advertising and other expenses was first reported by WSMV-TV.

The 306 pages released detail the development of the campaign and the correspondence between state officials and Jay Sokolow Sr., vice president and account supervisor for The Tombras Group, the Knoxville marketing firm paid to create it.

The documents indicate the slogans, drinking stories and materials many would later find offensive were vetted and at times praised by GHSO officials, who often approved the material with such comments as “looks good” and “love it.”

In one section of the campaign’s website called “Legends of the Stall,” behaviors such as binge drinking, promiscuity and cleaning up vomit with a cat are among the activities of featured graffiti characters who, at the end of the night, choose not to drive home drunk.

Still, there were some concerns raised by GHSO employees about the campaign’s slogans and the purpose of the message, which did not readily relate to each other.

The documents show concerns revolved around whether the messages would be understood, rather than whether they would be offensive.