SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for American

American

Lung Disease – img12453

by

One of the most common anti-smoking advertisement approaches is featuring smoking-related diseases as the consequence of smoking. Ads in this “disease” category stress the long-term and short-term consequences of smoking. They are meant to inform people about the risks of smoking and counter the tobacco industry’s portrayal of smoking as glamorous and healthy.

These advertisements range from gruesome pictures of pain and suffering to images that would seem completely unrelated to smoking if it were not for the captions. Many show what smoking-related diseases look like and what they do to specific parts of the human body. The most graphic ads are meant to evoke feelings of disgust and fear that will discourage people from continuing to smoke or will prevent people from beginning to smoke in the first place.

According to the current literature, the effectiveness of these ads is ambiguous and varies among target groups. Several studies have found that ads that show long-term health consequences of smoking, such as cancers and heart disease, are less effective among youth than adults. One study suggests that adolescents are not responsive to these ads because they are already aware of the potential dangers of smoking, and these consequences seem so far in the future that they feel immune to them, believing they can quit before they contract the diseases in question (1). Adults, however, seem to be much more receptive to fear and threat, and rises in calls to quitlines and public health departments demonstrate increases in quit attempts as a result of exposure to antismoking campaigns (1).

Another reason these ads may be ineffective is because threatening information can induce defensive biases that cause the audience to stop processing the information (2). Fear, specifically, activates psychological reactance, which is a response that may lead to rejection of the message because a person’s freedom is threatened (3).

However, another study shows contrasting results and suggests that ads with higher emotional intensity, such as those that feature graphic disease or suffering, lead to reduced intention to smoke (3). These ads are more likely to be recalled, which means that they are cost-effective because they don’t have to be distributed as often to be effective.

An explanation for these conflicting results may come from another study, which examines the closely tied feelings of fear and empathy, sentiments that can both arise from seeing images of people suffering from diseases (4). The findings of this study suggest that the feeling of empathy that often comes from seeing people suffer from these diseases can increase the persuasiveness of the message, while, fear may decrease the persuasiveness of the ads by activating psychological reactance, leading to rejection of a message when freedom is threatened (4).

The effectiveness of disease-related ads may also vary between smokers and nonsmokers. Anit-tobacco advertisements are often processed in an attitude-consistent fashion. This means non-smokers tend to agree with the ads and retain the messages better, while smokers tend to avoid negative-self implications, disagree with the messages, and become less responsive to them. Repeatedly showing these advertisements to people who look upon these messages unfavorably may even strengthen these initially defensive responses(5). Similarly, fatigue by repetition may desensitize any audience to these messages.

Some methods of using disease to discourage smoking behaviors may be more effective than others. For youth audiences, highlighting their vulnerability to these diseases may be much more important than stressing the severity of the potential problems(6). In the context of low perceived vulnerability, emphasizing health risks could increase the symbolic value of smoking as a risk-seeking, rebellious, and thus attractive behavior(6). These ads appear to work better if youth know how to refuse cigarettes from peers. Thus, to enhance the effectiveness of these ads, they should be supplemented with in-school programs that teach youth these skills.

As mentioned above, ads that evoke empathy, instead of fear, can increase the persuasiveness of disease ads for youth(4). The youth audience has to be able to personally relate to the ads in order to respond to the messages. Ads that feature the long-term effects of smoking are more influential on adolescents who have personal experience with the disease represented in the ads, such as a friend or family member who has suffered or is suffering from the condition(1).

However, for youth who do not have personal experience with smoking-related diseases, the presence of a peer or someone slightly older in age that can act as a role model in the ad can increase responsiveness and help the young audience relate to the message. Anti-smoking ads that feature attractive models also lower smoking intent more than ads with unattractive models (7). Many studies have stressed the importance of testing the effectiveness of ads on focus groups to ensure that they work on their target audience before distributing them.

REFERENCES:

1. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.

2. Agostinelli G, Grube JW. Tobacco Counter-Advertising: A Review of the Literature and a Conceptual Model for Understanding Effects. Journal of Health and Communication 2003; 8: 107-127.

3. Biener L, Wakefield M, Shiner CM, Siegel M. How Broadcast Volume and Emotional Content Affect Youth Recall of Anti-Tobacco Advertising. Am J Prev Med 2008; 35 (1).

4. Shen L. The Effectiveness of Empathy- Versus Fear-Arousing Antismoking PSAs. Health Communication 2011; 26: 404-415.

5. Leshner G, Bolls P, Wise K. Motivated Processing of Fear Appeal and Disgust Images in Televised Anti-Tobacco Ads.

6. Pechmann C, Zhao G, Goldberg ME, Reibling ET. What to Convey in Antismoking Advertisements for Adolescents: The Use of Protection Motivation Theory to Identify Effective Message Themes. Journal of Marketing 2003; 67: 1-18.

7. Shadel WG, Fryer CS, Tharp-Taylor S. Uncovering the most effective active ingredients of antismoking public service announcements: The role of actor and message characteristics. Nicotine & Tobacco Research; 11 (5); 547-552

Kamel Modern – img5946

by

Marlboro has historically been the leading cigarette brand among youth, while Camel consistently pushes forward creative advertising concepts to gain youth market share from Marlboro and hook teens and young adults. The Red Kamel campaign of 1996 is just one of Camel’s many advertising techniques employed to target the previously uninitiated or new smoker. RJR’s “marketing objectives” with Red Kamel revolved around “adding new cutting edge associations to the Camel brand family” (1).

The Red Kamel brand slogan clearly targeted youth irreverence: “Back After 80 Years For No Good Reason Except They Taste Good” (2). The Kamel brand was first introduced in 1913 and existed until 1936 when R.J. Reynolds replaced it with today’s Camel brand. The limited time “reintroduction” of Red Kamel in 1996 provided a retro-vintage appeal to the brand, and RJR designed the ads to be “innovative—new and old at the same time” (3). An RJR spokesperson explained that the characters portrayed in Red Kamel ads were presented as “interesting, independent people,” indicating that “the type of person who smoked Kamels in the early 1900s would still smoke them today.” The Red Kamel campaign offered RJR a new youth marketing technique to replace the Old Joe Camel campaign which had just been “voluntarily” withdrawn.

One internal document explains that the brand positioning was “lust for living,” and that the product was meant to appear “lustier” as well as “rebellious, adventurous, authentic,” with a “hip, unexpected” style clearly targeting youth markets (4).

 

1. “Red Kamel & Kamel Menthe (Men-Th) Factbook.” 07 Jan 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqm72d00

2. “RJR Re-Establishes Red Kamel Brand February 1, 1996 (960201) Statement and Q&A for Response Only.” RJ Reynolds. 01 Feb 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oml13d00

3. “Red Kamel Is Back!” Caravan. 08 Apr 1996. http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s1/TI56580057.html

4. “1997 (19970000) Business Planning Meeting.” RJ Reynolds. 17 Sept 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xyi72d00

School Days – img3851

by

The ads in this theme target young people by featuring high school or university students hawking cigarettes. Graduates in cap and gown, holding cigarettes (as in an ad for Chesterfield from 1940), were used none too subtly to portray smoking as a proud badge of adulthood. All of the leading cigarette brands, including Old Gold, Chesterfield, Cavalier, Winston, Camel, and Lucky Strike, took part in advertising to students. To this day, tobacco companies place point-of-sale advertisements in and around corner stores near high schools, where 3/4 of students reportedly stop by every day.

Ads for Old Gold from the 1920s claim that Yale and Princeton students found Old Golds to be the best of four leading cigarette brands in a blind taste test and that Harvard students liked Old Golds second-best. Decades later, in 1953, Cavalier ran a similar campaign, claiming that “87% of college women” and “83% of Princeton Seniors who were interviewed said ‘Cavaliers are Milder than the brand I had been smoking!’”

Some Chesterfield ads in the 1940s printed college football schedules, one included a smiling young college man with two books tucked under his arm and a caption reading, “the largest selling cigarette in America’s colleges,” and another Chesterfield ad from the period featured a young female model wearing “Chesterfield’s own graduation cap.” Old Gold continued targeting college students in the 1940s with its “Something New Has Been Added” campaign; one of these ads depicted a college man whistling as he walks by a group of co-eds, a shining “G” for Gold on his letterman’s sweater. Winston jumped on the bandwagon in the ’40s, too – an ad depicts two college students sitting on school steps amidst stacks of books as their professor walks by to correct their English, but not their smoking habits. Camel was by no means exempt, featuring a model holding up a college pennant which reads “CAMELS” instead of the name of the alma mater in 1942. In 1959, Lucky Strike was sponsoring and advertising “Campus Jazz Festivals.”

Tobacco companies, which continue to target vulnerable young people today, have a long-standing investment in hooking the teen market. As one R.J. Reynolds internal industry document from 1984 explains, “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (1). Young smokers are crucial for tobacco industry success for two reasons: First, the vast majority of smokers begin smoking between the ages of 13 and 21, and almost nobody picks up the habit over the age of 24, thus, as another RJR document explains, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once older adult smokers pass away (2).

Even after harsh criticism from activists and policy makers, tobacco companies continue to advertise to the youth market. While they claim they target only “informed adults” of at least 21 years of age, recent ad campaigns tell a different story. Take a look at some of our other themes, including “Flavored Tobacco,” “Joe Camel,” “Newport Teases Teens,” and “Recent Menthol” to discover Big Tobacco’s ongoing teen marketing campaigns.

1. Teague, Claude E. “Research Planning Memorandum on Some Thoughts About New Brands of Cigarettes for the Youth Market.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 Feb 1973. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqu46b00/pdf

2. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf

School Days – img3852

by

The ads in this theme target young people by featuring high school or university students hawking cigarettes. Graduates in cap and gown, holding cigarettes (as in an ad for Chesterfield from 1940), were used none too subtly to portray smoking as a proud badge of adulthood. All of the leading cigarette brands, including Old Gold, Chesterfield, Cavalier, Winston, Camel, and Lucky Strike, took part in advertising to students. To this day, tobacco companies place point-of-sale advertisements in and around corner stores near high schools, where 3/4 of students reportedly stop by every day.

Ads for Old Gold from the 1920s claim that Yale and Princeton students found Old Golds to be the best of four leading cigarette brands in a blind taste test and that Harvard students liked Old Golds second-best. Decades later, in 1953, Cavalier ran a similar campaign, claiming that “87% of college women” and “83% of Princeton Seniors who were interviewed said ‘Cavaliers are Milder than the brand I had been smoking!’”

Some Chesterfield ads in the 1940s printed college football schedules, one included a smiling young college man with two books tucked under his arm and a caption reading, “the largest selling cigarette in America’s colleges,” and another Chesterfield ad from the period featured a young female model wearing “Chesterfield’s own graduation cap.” Old Gold continued targeting college students in the 1940s with its “Something New Has Been Added” campaign; one of these ads depicted a college man whistling as he walks by a group of co-eds, a shining “G” for Gold on his letterman’s sweater. Winston jumped on the bandwagon in the ’40s, too – an ad depicts two college students sitting on school steps amidst stacks of books as their professor walks by to correct their English, but not their smoking habits. Camel was by no means exempt, featuring a model holding up a college pennant which reads “CAMELS” instead of the name of the alma mater in 1942. In 1959, Lucky Strike was sponsoring and advertising “Campus Jazz Festivals.”

Tobacco companies, which continue to target vulnerable young people today, have a long-standing investment in hooking the teen market. As one R.J. Reynolds internal industry document from 1984 explains, “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (1). Young smokers are crucial for tobacco industry success for two reasons: First, the vast majority of smokers begin smoking between the ages of 13 and 21, and almost nobody picks up the habit over the age of 24, thus, as another RJR document explains, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once older adult smokers pass away (2).

Even after harsh criticism from activists and policy makers, tobacco companies continue to advertise to the youth market. While they claim they target only “informed adults” of at least 21 years of age, recent ad campaigns tell a different story. Take a look at some of our other themes, including “Flavored Tobacco,” “Joe Camel,” “Newport Teases Teens,” and “Recent Menthol” to discover Big Tobacco’s ongoing teen marketing campaigns.

1. Teague, Claude E. “Research Planning Memorandum on Some Thoughts About New Brands of Cigarettes for the Youth Market.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 Feb 1973. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqu46b00/pdf

2. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf