Advertising: Antidrug Campaign, Lacking Federal Funds, Turns to Social Media

Antidrug Campaign, Lacking Federal Funds, Turns to Social Media

A MULTIMEDIA campaign that was deemed effective in fighting drug and alcohol abuse among American teenagers is seeking a second act after the federal government ended its financing.

A previous Above the Influence ad. The campaign is shifting its focus to thriftier digital media, and away from print and TV.

The campaign, known as Above the Influence, was introduced in November 2005 by the Partnership at Drugfree.org, formerly the Partnership for a Drug-Free America; Foote, Cone & Belding, now the Draftfcb division of the Interpublic Group of Companies; and the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Unlike many public service campaigns, which gain significant exposure only if media companies agree to donate substantial amounts of commercial time and advertising space, Above the Influence was guaranteed considerable placements because the drug control office spent $540 million of federal money, appropriated by Congress, to run the campaign; the money was amplified by matching donations from the private sector.

Congress reduced the annual appropriated amounts several times; they fell from a high of $120 million in 2005 to a low of $45 million in 2010 and 2011 before hitting zero last year. Executives of the Partnership at Drugfree.org have decided to try keeping the campaign going, taking steps like soliciting corporate sponsorships and shifting to lower-cost platforms â€" among them digital and social media â€" from pricier previous efforts that included television commercials.

“We have this incredible brand that was about to go fallow,” said Steve Pasierb, president and chief executive of the Partnership at Drugfree.org in New York. “We’re going to step in and make certain it survives.”

The Partnership will oversee the Above the Influence ads aimed at teenagers at the same time it continues its primary mission: commissioning public service campaigns to help adults, particularly parents, prevent children from abusing alcohol or drugs.

What makes it worthwhile to maintain Above the Influence, Mr. Pasierb said, is the campaign’s approach, which he contrasted with antidrug initiatives that tell teenagers to “be a good kid” or hold them “to things that are unattainable.”

“The original strategy was always about being true to yourself,” Mr. Pasierb said, summarizing the core message as “‘Anything that makes me less than me is not for me.’”

For instance, to reach teenagers who care “about skateboarding more than school,” he added, the ads would describe how “drugs get in the way of skateboarding.”

One well-known ad in the campaign, a commercial titled “Little Brother,” showed a teenage boy helping his younger brother practice fending off schoolyard entreaties to get high. “Big brothers who live above the influence have little brothers who live above the influence,” an announcer declared at the end of the spot.

The campaign “turned out to be very successful,” said Allen Rosenshine, vice chairman and executive director of the Partnership at Drugfree.org, who was a longtime senior executive at the BBDO Worldwide agency owned by the Omnicom Group.

The campaign won honors that included an Effie award for effectiveness, and research among teenagers showed that Above the Influence “has high awareness,” Mr. Rosenshine said, “and they understand the message.”

“Saying ‘Don’t do drugs because they’re bad for you’ became ineffective because their sense of mortality is nil,” he added. “It’s more insightful and in tune with the target audience to say: ‘Drugs rob you of yourself. You can be better than that. You have things you want to do and don’t let drugs get in your way.’ ”

After Foote, Cone & Belding created the campaign, other agencies also produced ads, among them Atmosphere Proximity, Campbell Mithun, GSD&M, McGarryBowen, McKinney, Team One, Vigilante and Wieden & Kennedy. All that work has reflected the original idea on which the campaign was based.

“If you say ‘Just say no to drugs,’ it’s a one-sided conversation that’s almost always tuned out,” said Keith Ross, a creative director at Atmosphere Proximity who described himself as “part of the original pitch team at F.C.B. that came up with the campaign idea: ‘Maybe it’s not about the drugs. Maybe it’s about the influence that leads you to feel you need to take them.’ ”

Although the shift to thriftier venues like digital and social media makes a virtue out of necessity, Mr. Ross acknowledged, it “may be a good thing” because the campaign can increase its visibility on platforms with more appeal to teenagers than traditional media. They include Tumblr, Instagram and Facebook, where Above the Influence has almost 1.87 million “likes.”

Another example of the new campaign approach is a digital initiative created by Mr. Ross and Atmosphere Proximity, which is part of BBDO Worldwide, that is centered on a contest, Made by Me. Teenagers get a chance to submit ideas for the next Above the Influence commercial.

The winner is to be announced on Aug. 16 after a public vote. The grand prize includes a trip to New York to participate in the production of the commercial and a trip to Washington to take part in a national Above the Influence Day, on Oct. 17.

As for the search for corporate sponsorships, “we’re going to have to choose carefully,” Mr. Pasierb said, “to match our demographic and our agenda.” He offered as examples marketers in telecommunications, entertainment, insurance and sports.

Mr. Ross agreed that sponsorships can be “tricky,” adding: “We have to find the type of brands that fit with our messaging in an integral way. The most important thing is for the teens who are following us to believe we’re not selling them out â€" and we won’t.”

‘Scandal’ to Be Quickly Syndicated on BET

The cable channel BET will televise episodes of the hit ABC drama “Scandal” just eight days after they premiere on ABC, under an unusual syndication deal announced on Monday.

BET will also present a marathon of Seasons 1 and 2 of “Scandal” before Season 3 starts in September.

" ‘Scandal’ is a cultural phenomenon that has resonated with viewers for the past two seasons, and we’re excited to be part of its continued journey,” Debra Lee, the BET chairwoman, said in a statement.

Episodes of shows like “Scandal” typically don’t start to be replayed on other channels for several years. But the owners of shows are increasingly willing to experiment with new business models that greatly shorten that time lag: CBS, for instance, is letting Amazon rerun episodes of “Under the Dome” four days after they have their premiere on television.

The free version of Hulu, the online video Web site, will continue to have the five most recent episodes of “Scandal” available for catch-up viewing, and Netflix and the paid version of Hulu will continue to have full seasons available for binge viewing. But by giving the show another home on television, the BET deal might expose the show to first-time viewers and turn them into new fans, potentially benefiting both ABC and BET.

The planned marathon of episodes this summer is a one-time-only event this year, but BET will have broader rights to replay the episodes more often beginning in fall 2014, according to a news release.

“Scandal” is a natural fit for BET, given that the channel seeks an African-American audience and the show ranks No. 1 among all broadcast television series among African-Americans. The show’s star, Kerry Washington, is the first African-American woman to lead an American network drama since the 1970s.

The show is by no means niche: it has become one of ABC’s most watched and most talked about shows, attracting upwards of 10 million viewers for new episodes when digital video recorder playback is included.

Media Decoder: Film Academy Adds Board Members as It Prepares to Pick a Leader

Film Academy Adds Board Members as It Prepares to Pick a Leader

LOS ANGELES â€" Ten first-time governors joined the board of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, as the group, which awards the Oscars, expanded its governing body to 48 members from 43, the academy said on Monday.

Eight governors were re-elected, another returned to the board after a hiatus, and the rest continued to serve their multiyear terms, the academy said.

New first-time governors included Judianna Makovsky and Deborah Nadoolman, representing costume designers; Rick Carter and Jan Pascale, representing designers; Alex Gibney, representing documentarians; Lynzee Klingman, representing film editors; Amy Pascal, representing executives; Kathryn Blondell and Bill Corso, representing makeup artists and hairstylists; and Nancy Utley, representing publicists.

Mark Johnson, a producer, rejoined the board after sitting out for a time.

The governors are expected in the next several weeks to elect a new president to replace Hawk Koch, a producer who left the board because of term limits. Speculation within the academy has centered on Cheryl Boone Isaacs, a marketing consultant, and Rob Friedman, a Lionsgate executive, as the most likely prospects to succeed Mr. Koch.

Campaign Spotlight: New Ads for Warhol Museum Offer Different Look at Summer

New Ads for Warhol Museum Offer Different Look at Summer

Mention the name Andy Warhol, and it is safe to say most people would not immediately think of summer or summertime imagery. Warhol would, in the mind’s eye, most likely be ensconced indoors on beach or pool days, taking Polaroids or painting.

An ad from the campaign for the Andy Warhol Museum.

The incongruity of Warhol in a summer setting is the basis for a new campaign that promotes the summer exhibitions at the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh. The ads, which began appearing last month, give seasonal mainstays a wild, Warholian perspective.

The campaign, by the Marc USA agency in Pittsburgh, carries the theme “Summer’s different here.” The print, outdoor and digital ads bring that promise to life in surprising â€" even startling and perhaps shocking â€" ways.

Each ad is styled to look like a nostalgic postcard, with the words “Must be summer at the Warhol” displayed above a photograph that delivers a skewed view of a summertime staple. For instance, in one ad, a woman has in her mouth a ball gag that is decorated like a beach ball.

Here are what the rest of the ads depict:

■ A bare-chested man standing next to a barbecue grill holds a shish kebab on a skewer that is piercing his left nipple.

■ A hot dog roll, in close-up, is filled with worms that are topped by mustard.

■ A man is wearing a skimpy swimsuit woven out of firecrackers.

■ A pair of flip-flops or sandals has barbed wire in lieu of rubber or leather straps.

■ A woman in a bikini reclines on a chaise lounge that includes a bed of nails.

The campaign, with a budget estimated at $200,000, is promoting exhibitions at the museum by Nick Bubash, a sculptor and tattoo artist; Caldwell Linker, a photographer; and Genesis Breyer P-Orridge, an avant-garde musician and visual artist.

“Summer’s different here,” the text reads on some ads. “Enjoy three provocative exhibitions under one roof.”

The ads are another example of an increasingly popular trend in marketing: ads that seek to stand out by featuring images that were once deemed unacceptable to appear or be used in public. The trend even has a name, shock-vertising, that speaks to its roots in provocation.

Shock-vertising was once mostly confined to small, upstart advertisers that sought to gain attention in categories dominated by bigger, more conventional competitors with far larger marketing budgets. It was commonplace for jeans brands like Calvin Klein and No Excuses.

Of late, however, some mainstream brands have been dipping their toes into the water, usually taking a humorous tack that is meant to deflect criticism. So, too, are organizations like charities and museums that were once perceived as too strait-laced or upright to try shock tactics.

When the Warhol Museum began working with Marc USA last year, says Eric Shiner, director of the museum, there were conversations initially about ads that would “go in a really different direction” to be memorable.

“We definitely wanted this ad campaign to say: ‘We’re going to challenge you. We’re going to provoke you,'” he adds. “We absolutely intend people to look at it and say, ‘What on earth are they doing at the Warhol now?' ”

The museum may have more license or permission “to take people out of their comfort zones” than other cultural institutions, Mr. Shiner says, because “we have a reputation for doing exhibits other museums would not touch with a 10-foot pole.”

In fact, if the ads had showed actual images from the exhibits at the Warhol, “maybe our average audience person would say, ‘There’s no way I’m going to see that,' ” he adds.

The campaign is not meant to administer a “shock treatment” per se, Mr. Shiner says, because “I don’t think that ever works.”

But he acknowledges that the ads are “definitely more provocative than we normally do,” partly to let museum visitors know they “are going to see something that will shock them, so we might as well get that out of the way.”

The campaign displays a “sense of dark humor,” Mr. Shiner says, that “will play well to the Pittsburgh audience.”

Since the ads began running, “we’ve been getting positive feedback,” he adds, with “only one phone call along the lines of ‘How on earth could you do something like this?' ”

“But we get that all the time anyway,” Mr. Shiner says.

Marc USA’s working for the museum coincided with the appointment of Michele Fabrizi, president and chief executive of the agency, as the chairwoman of the museum’s board.

“We get a lot of the services pro bono” from the agency, Mr. Shiner says, “which is critical when you’re trying to raise money for a nonprofit.”

Josh Blasingame, creative director at Marc USA, says that he and his colleagues at the agency “took this idea of doing something different for the museum in the summer and ran with it.”

“It was a really fun project,” he adds. “They let us cut loose.”

That was not unexpected because “the Warhol is about changing convention, looking at the world through a different lens, turning things on their head,” Mr. Blasingame says.

The theme of “Summer’s different here” is also “about challenging yourself,” he adds, and signals to visitors that “however you do that, this museum will help you.”

At the same time, “there’s a tightrope, a fine line, we’re walking to not be repulsive,” Mr. Blasingame says, because “we still have a responsibility to get people into the museum.”

“People will be less uncomfortable with some” ads and “more uncomfortable with others,” he adds.

That was demonstrated by the negotiations with some publications about accepting the campaign. If one ad was met with a rejection, Mr. Blasingame says, “we’d say: ‘How about worms and hot dogs? O.K.?' ”

The creative team at Marc USA, he added, is considering “some real-life tactics” to give the campaign tangible form in public spaces.

In addition to Mr. Blasingame, who is also an art director, the team is composed of Bryan Hadlock, chief creative officer; Greg Edwards, associate creative director and copywriter; Craig Ferrence, associate creative director and art director; Alyssa Davis, copywriter; Tyler Bergholz, art director; and Dave Slinchak, art director.

The campaign began running on June 14 and is to continue through September. There are print and online ads, outdoor installations at events like PrideFest and the Dollar Bank Three Rivers Arts Festival, posters on bus shelters and at the Pittsburgh International Airport, and ads on actual postcards.

The agency and the museum are already considering their next campaign, Mr. Shiner says, to promote an exhibition that will offer a retrospective of the work of Yasumasa Morimura. He is known for appropriating images from artists and photographers like Warhol, Rembrandt and Cindy Sherman and inserting himself into them.

*

If you like In Advertising, be sure to read the Advertising column that appears Monday through Friday in the Business Day section of The New York Times print edition and on nytimes.com. http://www.nytimes.com/

The Quiet Force Behind DreamWorks

DreamWorks Animation/20th Century Fox

DreamWorks Animation's latest computer-animated film, "Turbo," arrives in theaters this week.

GLENDALE, Calif. â€" Inside a modest upstairs office at DreamWorks Animation here â€" the one next to a framed poster reading “You’ve Got the Goods, Step Out and Show ‘Em!” â€" sits one of the film industry’s most important executives. His name is Bill Damaschke.

Never heard of him? Neither has most of Hollywood.

Mr. Damaschke, 49, is chief creative officer at DreamWorks Animation, which means that he runs the factory floor, working with directors, writers and artists to deliver hits like “Kung Fu Panda,” “How to Train Your Dragon” and the “Madagascar” movies. On Wednesday, the studio’s latest computer-animated film, “Turbo,” about a speedy garden snail, arrives in theaters.

“I trust Bill’s taste more than anybody else’s, including my own,” said Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks Animation’s chief executive.

Mr. Katzenberg has always been the studio’s public face. It was partly design, a way for a small publicly traded company to get noticed on Wall Street, and partly because Mr. Katzenberg is who he is: relentless. But while Mr. Katzenberg is still involved in major artistic decisions, he has been moving further away from the day-to-day running of his company’s movie pipeline, which is expanding. DreamWorks Animation in 2014 will begin releasing three movies a year, up from two.

While Mr. Katzenberg is working on a new TV endeavor, an entertainment complex in Shanghai and indoor theme parks in Russia, Mr. Damaschke (pronounced DAH-mash-kee) is increasingly calling the creative shots. “As someone who really doesn’t like attention, I feel almost uncomfortable saying this, but that is true,” Mr. Damaschke said last month. “We put things in front of Jeffrey less frequently.”

Mr. Damaschke, who started at the studio 18 years ago as a production assistant and rose to chief creative officer in 2011, would be entitled to an insufferable ego. He was blessed with dashing good looks and churns out blockbusters; over the last five years, DreamWorks Animation’s nine films have taken in roughly $5 billion worldwide after accounting for inflation, compared with about $3.6 billion for Pixar’s five releases. Instead, the dapper Mr. Damaschke is quiet and polite, perhaps reflecting his Midwestern upbringing.

Then again, unassuming is all the rage in Hollywood: Kevin Feige, who expertly runs Marvel Studios, is also nearly invisible. If you “strut your stuff,” as another poster outside Mr. Damaschke’s office instructs, you become vulnerable when movies misfire, as they inevitably do.

Despite positive reviews, DreamWorks Animation’s dark “Rise of the Guardians,” released in November and directed by Peter Ramsey, cost more than $250 million to make and market but took in $303.7 million, roughly half of which went to theater owners. The company wrote down $87 million tied to the film.

“Guardians” is not Mr. Damaschke’s first disappointment. The money-losing Broadway adaptation of “Shrek” was also his baby. But the movie’s failure was particularly crushing.

“Some of the things that we thought were cool may have given pause to the most important person buying tickets, and that’s mom,” he said. Noting that the movie was a big seller on DVD, he added, “I’m still healing from the ‘Guardians’ experience, to be brutally honest with you.”

“Turbo” is another creative gamble. Aside from the obvious â€" it stars a snail â€" the movie was directed by David Soren, a first-time feature filmmaker. Early reviews have been mixed. The Hollywood Reporter deemed it “narratively challenged” and zeroed in on a theme that could turn off mom: “If you’re too small or weak or otherwise incapable of greatness, you have a shot to win if you’re juiced.”

But Variety called it an “endearing underdog story” that finds the animation studio “taking a welcome risk and betting on a far-fetched story idea.”

“Turbo” in many ways represents a storytelling and artistic shift that Mr. Damaschke has quietly been implementing at the company. In its early days, DreamWorks Animation movies clung tightly to the successful “Shrek” formula: irreverent humor, pop culture inside jokes, lots of action, celebrity voices. “Turbo,” which riffs on the “Fast & Furious” movies, certainly has some of that D.N.A.

Jenny McCarthy to Join ‘The View’ on ABC

One of the vacancies on ABC’s longtime hit daytime television talk show “The View” has been filled by Jenny McCarthy, the former Playboy Playmate and actress.

The show’s creator, Barbara Walters, announced on the air Monday morning that Ms. McCarthy would become the next co-host on the program. Her selection had been widely expected; she has been a frequent guest host on the program and her name was at the top of the list for prospective permanent hosts.

Ms. McCarthy will fill one of the empty chairs left by the departures of Joy Behar and Elisabeth Hasselbeck, both of whom had long been regulars on the program. Ms. Hasselbeck left for Fox News last week and Ms. Behar is scheduled to leave in August. Ms. McCarthy will start on “The View” on Sept. 9.

In order to accept the position, Ms. McCarthy had to win a separation from the VH1 network, where she had been hosting a late-night show. That show has not been scoring big ratings.

Ms. McCarthy, 40, has had roles in a few short-lived situation comedies but is probably best known on television for the game show “Singled Out” on MTV, where she was a host in the 1990s.

In a statement, Ms. Walters said, “Jenny brings us intelligence as well as warmth and humor.”

“She can be serious and outrageous,” Ms. Walters added. “She has connected with our audience and offers a fresh point of view.”

The show will still have decisions to make, first to fill the other current vacancy and then whether another co-host will be added when Ms. Walters herself leaves the show a year from August.

The Public Editor: Making Sense of a Sensational Case

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »

The Public Editor: Making Sense of a Sensational Case

Log in to manage your products and services from The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune.

Don't have an account yet?
Create an account »

Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account?
Learn more »

Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like a Tossup

This weekend’s announcement by the former governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, that he would not seek that state’s Democratic nomination for Senate represents the latest in a series of favorable developments for Republicans as they seek control of the chamber.

The G.O.P.’s task will not be easy: the party holds 46 seats in the Senate, and the number will very probably be cut to 45 after a special election in New Jersey later this year. That means that they would need to win a net of six contests from Democrats in order to control 51 seats and overcome Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s tiebreaking vote. Two years ago at this time, Republicans faced what seemed to be a promising environment and could have won the Senate by gaining a net of three seats from Democrats and winning the presidency. Instead, Mitt Romney lost to President Obama, and the G.O.P. lost a net of two Senate seats.

But Montana along with West Virginia and South Dakota â€" two other red states where an incumbent Democrat has retired and where the Democrats have not identified a strong candidate to replace them - gives Republicans a running start. Republicans could then win three more seats from among red states like Louisiana and Arkansas, where vulnerable Democratic incumbents are on the ballot, or they could take aim at two purple states, Iowa and Michigan, where Democrats have retired. More opportunities could also come into play if the national environment becomes more favorable to Republicans (such as because of a further slide in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings). Meanwhile, while Kentucky and Georgia are possibly vulnerable, Republicans have few seats of their own to defend; unlike in 2012, they can focus almost entirely on playing offense.

A race-by-race analysis of the Senate, in fact, suggests that Republicans might now be close to even-money to win control of the chamber after next year’s elections. Our best guess, after assigning probabilities of the likelihood of a G.O.P. pickup in each state, is that Republicans will end up with somewhere between 50 and 51 Senate seats after 2014, putting them right on the threshold of a majority.

The chart below reflects our current overview of the Senate landscape, including the probability estimates. (The estimates are not based strictly on a formula but instead are best guesses, accounting for the partisan lean of each state, the quality of the prospective candidates, and approval-rating or polling data to the extent that it might be informative.) When we last conducted this exercise in February, our projection was for Republicans to win between 49 and 50 Senate seats, meaning that their standing has improved by about one seat since then.

What follows is a series of comments on the most critical races, or those where there has been significant news since February. The races are listed in order of the contests that look strongest for Democrats to those where Republican chances are strongest.

Massachusetts. Although the Democrats’ position has become more vulnerable over all, one state where they have less reason to worry is Massachusetts, where Representative Edward J. Markey defeated the Republican Gabriel Gomez by 10 percentage points in a special election in June. The special election reflected reasonably favorable circumstances for Republicans relative to the usual (very difficult) ones in Massachusetts - an extremely low turnout, and a Democratic candidate who had survived a tough primary. But Republicans did not come particularly close to winning, and November’s environment will be no easier for the G.O.P. as Mr. Markey will have gained experience as the incumbent and turnout will probably be high because of a governor’s election.

New Jersey. This seat is currently held by a Republican â€" Jeffrey Chiesa, the former state attorney general who was appointed to the seat by Gov. Chris Christie after the death of the Democratic incumbent Frank R. Lautenberg. However, it is likely to revert to Democratic control later this year, as the timing of the October special election (and current polling) suggests that Republicans will not nominate a viable opponent against the likely Democratic nominee, Mayor Cory Booker of Newark. Although Republicans could regroup to nominate a stronger candidate in 2014, when the special election winner will stand for re-election, a candidate like Mr. Booker will have gained more experience by that time, as well as the financial advantage that comes with being an incumbent.

Colorado, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. These states fall into the “likely Democratic” category, where Democratic odds of holding the seats vary between about 75 percent and 85 percent, in our view. They consist of two purple states, Colorado and New Hampshire, where a reasonably popular Democratic incumbent is running, and two others, Minnesota and Oregon, where the Democratic incumbent’s numbers are more mixed but which are somewhat blue-leaning. In each state, Republicans have had trouble recruiting top-tier challengers. To make the races competitive, Republicans would probably need at least two things to go well: first, a stronger G.O.P. challenger; and second, either a shift in the national political environment toward Republicans or some other circumstance (such as a controversial vote or an ethics problem) that made the incumbents more vulnerable. At this early stage of the election cycle, either is possible in each state, and if it were to occur in one or more of thes states the Republican path to a Senate majority would be more robust. But these races will gradually drift toward Democrats absent such changes in the landscape.

Michigan and Iowa. These are states where Democratic incumbents have retired, but where Democrats retain an edge in candidate strength. The G.O.P. avoided their worst-case scenario in Iowa after Representative Steve King declined to run for the seat there, as Mr. King would likely have been far too conservative to win a statewide race. But Republicans have nevertheless had trouble identifying strong candidates to run in Iowa, whereas Democratic Representative Bruce Braley could win his primary easily and conserve money for the general election. In Michigan, the G.O.P.’s list of potential candidates is slightly better, but their strongest potential candidate, Representative Mike Rogers, has decided not to run â€" and Michigan has become somewhat blue-leaning in races for federal office.

Alaska. Alaska is the closest thing to the tipping point state in the Senate battle. If Republicans avoid losing any of their own seats (other than New Jersey), and win the races that favor them in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota and the tossup races in North Carolina, Louisiana and Arkansas, then Alaska would represent their best option to go from a 50-50 tie to a 51-49 Senate majority. However, Alaska is more idiosyncratic than its reliably Republican results in presidential elections might imply, and the Democratic incumbent, Mark Begich, is faring reasonably well in head-to-head polls. A good Republican nominee could nevertheless turn the race into a true tossup â€" but the G.O.P. could also nominateJoe Miller or former Gov. Sarah Palin, both of whom are now quite unpopular among voters statewide. The Republican primary outcomes in Alaska, Iowa and Michigan will thus go a long way toward determining whether the G.O.P.’s path to a Senate majority is a narrow or wider one.

North Carolina. Republicans have also not yet identified a top-tier challenger in North Carolina. But the approval ratings of the Democratic incumbent, Kay Hagan, are no better than break-even, which means that a merely decent Republican nominee could make the race very competitive. Although North Carolina is increasingly purple in presidential election years, the coalition of African-Americans and college-aged voters that Democrats depend upon to win races in the state is less likely to turn out for midterm elections.

Arkansas. We had this race rated as “lean Democratic” in February on the basis of reasonably strong approval ratings for Mark Pryor, the Democratic incumbent, despite an otherwise difficult environment in the state. However, a poll that came out since then shows middling numbers for Mr. Pryor, with 41.5 percent of voters approving of his job performance against 35 percent disapproving. Mr. Pryor is a savvier politician than the former Democratic senator, Blanche Lincoln, and he is unlikely to face a serious primary challenge, as Ms. Lincoln did in 2010. But Ms. Lincoln lost her race for re-election by more than 20 percentage points, so Mr. Pryor will have to avoid several of her mistakes to hold on to his seat.

Louisiana. This race also rates as a true tossup, as it did in February. The most likely Republican nominee, Representative Bill Cassidy, has an extremely conservative voting record, while the Democratic incumbent, Mary Landrieu, has a moderate one that could partially offset the state’s strong Republican lean. But Ms. Landrieu will need to maintain her distance from President Obama while at the same time getting a strong turnout in New Orleans, where her bother Mitch Landrieu is mayor â€" a difficult balance.

Montana. The decision of Mr. Schweitzer not to enter the race leaves wide-open primary fields in both parties. However, we have Republicans as roughly three-to-one favorites based on the state’s overall partisan lean. Although Democrats have had somewhat more success in statewide races in Montana than in contests for the presidency â€" their incumbent senator, Jon Tester, survived a tough re-election race last year â€" Republicans now have the best-qualified potential candidate in Marc Racicot, the former governor.

Kentucky. Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, has only break-even approval ratings, and Democrats got one of their better potential recruits in Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state. Although some early polls show a relatively close race, the fundamentals favor Mr. McConnell as Kentucky has become very red-leaning and as he is likely to have a strong fund-raising edge. One factor helping Ms. Grimes is the lack of other credible pickup opportunities for Democrats, which could mean that more Democratic money will be directed toward her race. Still, she will have to run a pitch-perfect campaign to win in such a conservative state in a midterm year.

Georgia. This is something of an overlooked pickup opportunity for Democrats. While Democrats have yet to identify a strong candidate, a number of the Republican ones are extremely conservative, Tea Party-backed candidates who could be vulnerable in the suburban counties around Atlanta and Augusta that make up the swing regions of Georgia. Nor is Georgia as conservative as Kentucky â€" although as in North Carolina, Democrats depend on African-Americans and young voters to make the state more purple, groups that may not turn out for the midterms.

Maine. Senator Susan Collins, the popular and moderate Republican incumbent, has clarified her plans to run for re-election, which reduces the risk to Republicans of losing a seat. We give Democrats a small, residual chance of a pickup here â€" about 10 percent â€" because if Ms. Collins loses in a primary, or has a change of plans, the race would instantly go to favoring Democrats. But she will be an overwhelming favorite if she stands on next November’s ballot.

South Dakota and West Virginia. These are red states where Democratic incumbents are retiring â€" and where some of the more viable Democratic alternatives, like former Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of South Dakota â€" have declined to run. Meanwhile, Republicans have very strong recruits in both states in the form of Representative Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia; and Mike Rounds, the former South Dakota governor. Democrats have had more success in Congressional races in both of these states than in presidential contests, and they might stand a decent chance to retain these seats with a candidate-quality edge. But the combination of a conservative electorate, a very strong G.O.P. nominee and an underqualified Democratic one will make their chances very slim. In addition, our research does not find much evidence for a carry-over effect or afterglow rom incumbency once the incumbent retires; now that Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Tim Johnson of South Dakota are leaving politics, they won’t provide much in the way of electoral benefit to Democrats. Add all these factors up, and we don’t see much justification for describing these races as tossups or as merely “leaning” toward Republicans, as some other forecasters have them: they are pretty safe bets to be Republican pickups.

Nebraska. Republicans suffered a recruiting blow in Nebraska when the popular Gov. Dave Heineman said he would not run in the Senate race. But Mr. Heineman’s decision improves Democrats’ chances only to slim from none. In 2012, Democrats nominated an extremely qualified candidate in Bob Kerrey, the former senator and governor, while Republicans had a middling one in Deb Fischer, the state senator â€" but Ms. Fischer won overwhelmingly.

***

Let me close with our usual reminder: the fact that the battle for Senate control appears to be very close right now does not guarantee that it will end up that way. Although Senate races behave more idiosyncratically than some other types of contests â€" local factors and candidate quality play an important role â€" one party has won the vast majority of tossup races in each of the past four election cycles.

In a strong Republican year, the G.O.P. could win all of the tossup and “lean Democratic” seats and pick up one of the “likely Democratic” seats like New Hampshire, which would give them a net gain of nine seats and leave them with a 55-45 majority in the chamber. In a strong Democratic year, the party could lose only West Virginia and South Dakota - and pick up New Jersey and one of Kentucky and Georgia - and hold their current 54-46 edge. It is therefore important to watch macro-level indicators - especially Mr. Obama’s approval ratings, the generic Congressional ballot and major economic measures - in addition to following the recruitment and polling in individual states.

It is equally important to look for early indications of whether G.O.P. primary voters will be more tolerant of moderate and “main street” Republicans than they were in 2010 and 2012. A strong set of Republican nominees could give the party as many as a dozen credible opportunities to pick up the seats they need - whereas a weaker series of candidates could require them to win almost all of the races that remained competitive after the primaries.