SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Big Tobacco

Big Tobacco

Rise Up – img12231

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Trapped – img12232

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Industry Lies – img12229

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Other Bodily Disease – img12535

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

Profit Above All – img12294

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Profit Above All – img12296

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Camel Knockoffs – img12245

by

Tobacco brand advertisements are among the most spoofed in advertising history, particularly for anti-smoking campaigns (7). Perhaps this is because the success of cigarette advertising has been immense. RJ Reynold’s Joe Camel was extremely successful at establishing itself as a household name. By age 6, an equal number of children were able to recognize Joe Camel and its association with cigarettes as Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel, even though cigarette ads had been banned from television before their lifetime(6). Though Joe Camel’s campaign only ran from 1987 to 1997, this era saw an increase in Camel’s market share of cigarettes among children from 0.5% to 32.8%, with estimated sales of $476 million per year (4). If such brands are so successful at bringing positive attention to a harmful product through advertisements, then the same advertisements, altered to present a different message, can be used to ruin the product’s image as well. This is the basis of using knock-offs or spoofs as a form of anti-smoking advertisement.

Spoof ads are considered subvertisements, and have been dubbed a type of “culture jamming” by Adbusters, an anti-consumerism organization that created “Joe Chemo” ads(1). Whereas advertisements are meant to enhance the image of a product , subvertising uses irony and sarcasm to criticize and mock the product.

The research that has been done on other anti-tobacco campaign strategies may apply to these spoofs and give us an idea of their effectiveness. One study evaluated the reactions to spoofs by evaluating Youtube comments on ad spoofs, and it seems that most of the ads invoke humor, rather than fear, empathy, or anger (8). It is uncertain whether humor enhances the effectiveness of the ads. In focus groups, humor seems to increase the likeability of an ad, which aids in recall (2). However, likability doesn’t necessarily translate into altered behaviors, and there is a possibility that humor distracts viewers from the intended message (8).

Another study showed that children were more likely to pay attention to a message that featured familiar characters (3). Using recognizable icons like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man, two of the more popular choices for knock-off ads, will draw more attention to the ad and make people stop and look twice. But again, more attention doesn’t necessarily mean the ads are more effective in reducing smoking, especially if the ads generate negative responses. The smoking status of the viewer influences how the viewer will respond. Someone who doesn’t smoke and does not find smoking appealing with have a positive reaction to the ad and be more likely to recall the ad, while someone who smokes will be less accepting of the anti-smoking information. This may mean that spoofs may not be very effective at changing smoker’s beliefs and reducing intentions to smoke (8).

Though the persuasiveness of these ads has not been confirmed by research, the industries targeted by subvertisements feel threatened. Tobacco industry perception of potential damage may be an indicator of the power of the spoof ads. Legal action in Canada has been taken against Adbusters to prevent the group from airing their other spoofs on television. TV stations believe that subvertisements are influential enough to eliminate the rest of their sponsors (1). The resistance is towards subvertisements targeting other consumer products like fast food and alcohol, because previous anti-tobacco campaigns have already resulted in the restriction of tobacco ads on TV, so those sponsors are not a concern for the TV industry.

 

REFERENCES:

Adbusters. “Kalle Lasn: Clearing the Mindscape.” Adbusters Medial Foundation, 4 March 2009. Web. 20 June 2013. https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters_blog/kalle_lasn_clearing_mindscape.html

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.

Blum A. Medicine vs Madison Avenue: Fighting Smoke With Smoke. JAMA 1980; 243(8): 739-740.

Brody JE. “Smoking Among Children is Linked to Cartoon Camel in Advertisements.” New York Times, 11 Dec 1991. Web. 20 June 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/us/smoking-among-children-is-linked-to-cartoon-camel-in-advertisements.html

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie N, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children. JAMA 1991: 266(22): 3149-3153.

Fischer PM, Meyer PS, Richards JW Jr., Goldsten AO, Rojas TH. Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA 1991; 266(22): 3145-3148.

Harvest Communications LLC. Fwd: this made me laugh. How viral ad parodies impact your brand. Harvest Communications LLC 2002.

Parguel B, Lunardo R, Chebat JC. When activism may prove counterproductive: An exploratory study of anti-brand spoof advertising effects in the tobacco industry. Première Journée Interantionale du Marketing Santé, France (2010).

Profit Above All – img12295

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Camel Knockoffs – img12246

by

Tobacco brand advertisements are among the most spoofed in advertising history, particularly for anti-smoking campaigns (7). Perhaps this is because the success of cigarette advertising has been immense. RJ Reynold’s Joe Camel was extremely successful at establishing itself as a household name. By age 6, an equal number of children were able to recognize Joe Camel and its association with cigarettes as Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel, even though cigarette ads had been banned from television before their lifetime(6). Though Joe Camel’s campaign only ran from 1987 to 1997, this era saw an increase in Camel’s market share of cigarettes among children from 0.5% to 32.8%, with estimated sales of $476 million per year (4). If such brands are so successful at bringing positive attention to a harmful product through advertisements, then the same advertisements, altered to present a different message, can be used to ruin the product’s image as well. This is the basis of using knock-offs or spoofs as a form of anti-smoking advertisement.

Spoof ads are considered subvertisements, and have been dubbed a type of “culture jamming” by Adbusters, an anti-consumerism organization that created “Joe Chemo” ads(1). Whereas advertisements are meant to enhance the image of a product , subvertising uses irony and sarcasm to criticize and mock the product.

The research that has been done on other anti-tobacco campaign strategies may apply to these spoofs and give us an idea of their effectiveness. One study evaluated the reactions to spoofs by evaluating Youtube comments on ad spoofs, and it seems that most of the ads invoke humor, rather than fear, empathy, or anger (8). It is uncertain whether humor enhances the effectiveness of the ads. In focus groups, humor seems to increase the likeability of an ad, which aids in recall (2). However, likability doesn’t necessarily translate into altered behaviors, and there is a possibility that humor distracts viewers from the intended message (8).

Another study showed that children were more likely to pay attention to a message that featured familiar characters (3). Using recognizable icons like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man, two of the more popular choices for knock-off ads, will draw more attention to the ad and make people stop and look twice. But again, more attention doesn’t necessarily mean the ads are more effective in reducing smoking, especially if the ads generate negative responses. The smoking status of the viewer influences how the viewer will respond. Someone who doesn’t smoke and does not find smoking appealing with have a positive reaction to the ad and be more likely to recall the ad, while someone who smokes will be less accepting of the anti-smoking information. This may mean that spoofs may not be very effective at changing smoker’s beliefs and reducing intentions to smoke (8).

Though the persuasiveness of these ads has not been confirmed by research, the industries targeted by subvertisements feel threatened. Tobacco industry perception of potential damage may be an indicator of the power of the spoof ads. Legal action in Canada has been taken against Adbusters to prevent the group from airing their other spoofs on television. TV stations believe that subvertisements are influential enough to eliminate the rest of their sponsors (1). The resistance is towards subvertisements targeting other consumer products like fast food and alcohol, because previous anti-tobacco campaigns have already resulted in the restriction of tobacco ads on TV, so those sponsors are not a concern for the TV industry.

 

REFERENCES:

Adbusters. “Kalle Lasn: Clearing the Mindscape.” Adbusters Medial Foundation, 4 March 2009. Web. 20 June 2013. https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters_blog/kalle_lasn_clearing_mindscape.html

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.

Blum A. Medicine vs Madison Avenue: Fighting Smoke With Smoke. JAMA 1980; 243(8): 739-740.

Brody JE. “Smoking Among Children is Linked to Cartoon Camel in Advertisements.” New York Times, 11 Dec 1991. Web. 20 June 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/us/smoking-among-children-is-linked-to-cartoon-camel-in-advertisements.html

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie N, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children. JAMA 1991: 266(22): 3149-3153.

Fischer PM, Meyer PS, Richards JW Jr., Goldsten AO, Rojas TH. Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA 1991; 266(22): 3145-3148.

Harvest Communications LLC. Fwd: this made me laugh. How viral ad parodies impact your brand. Harvest Communications LLC 2002.

Parguel B, Lunardo R, Chebat JC. When activism may prove counterproductive: An exploratory study of anti-brand spoof advertising effects in the tobacco industry. Première Journée Interantionale du Marketing Santé, France (2010).

Industry Lies – img12292

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Industry Lies – img12291

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.

Industry Lies – img12279

by

Many antismoking ads seek to counter the powerful tobacco industry by exposing the industry’s manipulative tactics and increasing counter-industry attitudes.

In 2006, together the five largest cigarette manufacturers spent $12.49 billion (more than $35 million a day) advertising their products, making tobacco products one of the most marketed products in the United States (1). The tobacco industry, with generations of trial, error, and experience behind it, has become increasingly persuasive. Smoking cigarettes kills about 443,000 people per year, making it the leading cause of preventable deaths in the US. Smoking kills more than HIV, illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined. With these statistics, the tobacco industry needs to be relentless in its marketing efforts in order to replace the customers who die from smoking (2).

The most common approach taken by anti-industry ads is to reveal that the tobacco industry is manipulating its consumers. Many people who smoke know tobacco is bad for their health, yet they make a conscious “choice” to continue the habit. It is a “freedom” they are unwilling to relinquish, a “right” they won’t have stolen from them. However, many of these ads expose that this “choice” is not completely their own, and that in fact the tobacco industry has a significant influence on smokers through manipulative tactics.

The youth-targeted Truth Campaign, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation, is one of the strongest advocators of this message. The campaign claims to be neither anti-smoking nor pro-smoking, stating that its mission is to “pull back the curtain” on the tobacco industry (thetruth.com).

Other counter-industry ads attempt to convince smokers that the relationship between the industry and its tobacco supporters may be more parasitic than mutualistic, with the tobacco industry reaping most of the profit and benefits while its consumers are left sick and dying. These anti-industry ads often quote internal tobacco industry documents and interviews to support their message. They also utilize statistics to put into perspective the amount of profit the tobacco industry is making from its consumers versus how many people are dying from tobacco products.

Various studies have examined the effectiveness of this counter-industry approach on adolescents and teens, the ads’ primary targets audience. This population is potentially more receptive to these messages because many of them begin smoking as a form of rebellion, self-discovery, and individuality (3); thus, it is considered effective to reveal to teens that smoking is actually not a means to be independent, since smokers are “controlled” by the industry.

The Truth campaign has been studied more extensively than any other statewide counter-industry campaigns, and some studies have indicated that awareness of this campaign has lowered smoking intentions in adolescents and has increased the desire to quit in young adults (3, 4, 5). These ads have also been shown to be effective beyond the age groups they target. One study suggested that the Truth campaign, which is intended primarily for 12-17-year-olds, may continue to prevent smoking in older age groups, making these ads extremely cost-effective (6).

However, another study showed that anti-industry ads did not significantly lower smoking intention, nor did they strengthen anti-industry attitudes;.the study does not necessarily suggest that counter-industry ads are completely ineffective, but instead claims that these ads can be used in conjunction with disease-and-suffering ads, which the study claims are more effective. (7). The anti-industry and manipulation themed ads may be most effective when working alongside the disease-and-suffering ads.

If presented to the right population, anti-industry ad campaigns can have lasting effects from adolescence throughout young adulthood (7, 8).

REFERENCES:

1. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/tobacco-industry-marketing.html

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses—United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 2008; 57(45): 1226-8. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/.

3. Richardson AK, Green M, Xiao H, Sokol N, Vallone D. Evidence for truth: The Young Adult Response to a Youth-Focused Anti-Smoking Media Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2010; 39(6): 500-506.

4. Bauer UE, Johnson TM, Hopkins RS, Brooks RG. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions following implementation of a tobacco control program: findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998-2000. JAMA 2000; 286(6): 2=723-8.

5. Farrelly MC, Healton CG, Davis KC, Messeri P, Hersey JC, Haviland ML. Getting to the Truth: Evaluating National Tobacco Countermarketing Campaigns. Am J Public Health 2002; 92(6): 901-907.

6. Sly DF, Trapido E, Ray S. Evidence of the Dose Effects of an Antitobacco Counteradvertising Campaign. Preventive Medicine 2002; 35(5): 511-518.

7. Pechmann C, Reibling ET. Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. Am J Public Health 2006; 96(5): 906-913.

8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health, 1994.