SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Cancer

Cancer

Reduced Carcinogens – img8962

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Nasty Effects – img12583

by

A common approach in anti-tobacco advertising is to portray disgusting images of people who have suffered damages internally and externally due to smoking. These advertisements are meant to belie the tobacco industry's portrayal of smoking as glamorous by showing negative, visceral images of disgusting bodily harm. For example, some go so far as to show images of dismembered fingers and mutilated mouths.

One effect of showing such explicit images is that “during exposure to unpleasant/arousing pictures, individuals have been found to initially increase cognitive resources allocated to encoding.”1 This means that anti-tobacco advertisements that contain such pictures are better recalled by viewers, which also makes them cost-effective, since they do not have to continuously distributed to be effective. However, “strong fear appeals with low-efficacy messages produce the greatest levels of defensive responses,” so viewers may not react the way public health agencies expect them to once seeing these advertisements if they do not contain high-efficacy messages about quitting smoking.2

Another thing to consider when analyzing the effectiveness of using disgusting images is the target audience of the advertisements. The images used in most advertisements are examples of how prolonged smoking can have severe consequences, so adult smokers are more impacted by these images than are youth, who have just began smoking. 3 Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of these advertisements on youth, a potential idea might be to show innocent victims suffering from the disgusting effects of smoking, which has been found to be “an effective way to elicit empathy and disgust, and that disgust, not fear, motivates societal prohibitions and social activism.” 4

References:

1. Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Wise, K. (2011). Motivated Processing of Fear Appeal and Disgust Images in Televised Anti-Tobacco Ads. Journal of Media Psychology, 23(2), 77-89.

2. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000; 27:591–615

3. Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. (200). Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada.Tobacco Control.

4. Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. (2006, May). Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 906-913.

Makes you Sick – img12695

by

The Association for Smokers Awareness (ADESF) launched the Makes You Sick campaign in Brazil in 2012. As its title suggests, the campaign aimed to increase awareness of how smoking physiologically harms our bodies. The advertisements regarding the plane, submarine, and rocket incidents are different from the typical advertisements that display health effects of smoking—which usually show negative, visceral images of the body and specific organs—because they are more abstract in portraying these effects: they draw an analogy between how one faulty part of a machine led to many deaths and how smoking negatively impacts human health.

The black-and-white color scheme allows the viewer to notice the complex framework of the airplane, submarine, and rocket. This highlights the complexities of our own individual bodies and how all the individual parts work together to allow us to perform the biological functions that keep us alive. Therefore, if even one part of the complex machine we call our body is damaged through smoking, it can have catastrophic effects on our overall wellbeing.

Although these advertisements succeed in emphasizing how even the slightest damage to our bodies due to smoking can ultimately have a drastic impact, they would be more effective if accompanied by information about how to seek aid regarding quitting, as “fear appeals are most effective when accompanied by equally strong efficacy messages, such as information to call a quitline for help.”

References:

http://www.tobaccofreeflorida.com/powerfuladswork/#sthash.UuXoIU6P.dpuf

Canada – img12755

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Reduced Carcinogens – img2138

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Nasty Effects – img12584

by

A common approach in anti-tobacco advertising is to portray disgusting images of people who have suffered damages internally and externally due to smoking. These advertisements are meant to belie the tobacco industry's portrayal of smoking as glamorous by showing negative, visceral images of disgusting bodily harm. For example, some go so far as to show images of dismembered fingers and mutilated mouths.

One effect of showing such explicit images is that “during exposure to unpleasant/arousing pictures, individuals have been found to initially increase cognitive resources allocated to encoding.”1 This means that anti-tobacco advertisements that contain such pictures are better recalled by viewers, which also makes them cost-effective, since they do not have to continuously distributed to be effective. However, “strong fear appeals with low-efficacy messages produce the greatest levels of defensive responses,” so viewers may not react the way public health agencies expect them to once seeing these advertisements if they do not contain high-efficacy messages about quitting smoking.2

Another thing to consider when analyzing the effectiveness of using disgusting images is the target audience of the advertisements. The images used in most advertisements are examples of how prolonged smoking can have severe consequences, so adult smokers are more impacted by these images than are youth, who have just began smoking. 3 Therefore, to increase the effectiveness of these advertisements on youth, a potential idea might be to show innocent victims suffering from the disgusting effects of smoking, which has been found to be “an effective way to elicit empathy and disgust, and that disgust, not fear, motivates societal prohibitions and social activism.” 4

References:

1. Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Wise, K. (2011). Motivated Processing of Fear Appeal and Disgust Images in Televised Anti-Tobacco Ads. Journal of Media Psychology, 23(2), 77-89.

2. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000; 27:591–615

3. Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. (200). Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada.Tobacco Control.

4. Pechmann, C., & Reibling, E. (2006, May). Antismoking Advertisements for Youths: An Independent Evaluation of Health, Counter-Industry, and Industry Approaches. American Journal of Public Health, 96(5), 906-913.

Canada – img12756

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Lung Disease – img13216

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

Reduced Carcinogens – img2139

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Lung Disease – img13217

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

Reduced Carcinogens – img8963

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Camel Knockoffs – img13115

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).

Lung Disease – img13218

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

Reduced Carcinogens – img8964

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Camel Knockoffs – img13116

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).

Lung Disease – img13219

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

Lung Disease – img13220

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

Hideous – img13331

by

The tobacco industry invests heavily in marketing their products and spends billions of dollars each year to ensure their advertisements are effective in recruiting new smokers and maintaining the loyalty of veteran smokers (1). These ads have played a huge role in shaping the image of the smoker into someone positive and desirable. The men in these ads are portrayed as masculine, charismatic, and desirable to women, while the women featured in the ads are beautiful, sexy, and independent. Since the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act in 1970 banned cigarette advertisements from American radio and television and the 1997 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement further regulated tobacco advertising, tobacco ads are much less prominent in the media. However, advertisements have not completely disappeared from magazines, point-of-sale store windows, and mailers. Furthermore, the image of the smoker as a rebel lives on in the media, reflected with high visibility in rock stars and in movies. When millions of people see these beautiful and talented celebrities smoking, it’s difficult for young people to believe these cigarettes can make anyone unattractive.

The anti-tobacco advertisements in this theme attempt to counter that very notion. According to the ads in this theme, “smoking makes you ugly.” Smoking can make a person physically ugly by changing the person’s appearance, such as discoloring teeth, aging skin,or causing bad breath. Smoking can also make a person unattractive socially, and these ads try to convince their audience that, contrary to tobacco industry advertisements, cigarettes do not make a person look sexy.

Aspects that affect the social image of adolescents are significant factors in many of the decisions and actions adolescents make. Being attractive to the opposite sex is related to social image, and for some middle adolescents (high school age), smoking is thought to make this goal more attainable (2, 3). Thus, young smokers are susceptible to the portrayal of smokers as attractive in the media, and it is important to address this in anti-smoking campaigns.

However, the theme of attractiveness has similar qualities to ads that stress long-term health effects and social image. Unfortunately, these kinds of ads seem to have limited effectiveness on the youth population. According to Goldman & Glantz 1998, ads that stress the long-term effects of smoking are moderately effective among adults, but not effective on youth populations (4). Most young smokers are aware of the health threats of smoking but, at the moment, they see no signs of these effects in themselves or in their peers, and it is difficult for them to find truth in what appear to be empty threats. Adolescents often feel invincible and many believe they will be able to quit before they are affected. Ads that threaten romantic rejection by smoking, which is implied in many of these ads about attractiveness and appearance, have been found to be ineffective in either youth or adult populations (4). Anti-smoking messages that attempt to denormalize smoking need to show teens, rather than tell them, that smoking does not improve their social image.

One other point to consider about these anti-smoking ads is the attractiveness level of the model. People are more willing to overlook negative habits like smoking when a person is attractive. If the model is more attractive in the ad, the ad will also be better recalled. Thus, these ads may be more effective if they show the transformation of a beautiful person into someone hideous as a result of smoking. The transformation must be something believable, like a personal testament or before-and-after pictures, because the claims must override what people see in reality, which are usually no immediate effects from smoking (5).

REFERENCES:

1. Aloise-Young PA, Hennigan KM, Graham JW. Role of the Self-Image and Smoker
Stereotype in Smoking Onset During Early Adolescence: A Longitudinal Study. Health Psychology 1996; 15(6): 494-497.

2. Barton J, Chassin L, Presson CC, Sherman SJ. Social Image Factors as Motivators of
Smoking Initiation in Early and Middle Adolescence. Child Development 1982; 53(6): 1499-1511.

3. Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2006. Issued August 2009.
4.Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA
1998; 279: 772-777.

4.Shadel WG, Craig SF, Tharp-Taylor S. Uncovering the most effective active
ingredients of antismoking public service announcements: The role of actor and message characteristics. Nicotine Tob Res 2009; 11(5): 547-552.

Camel Knockoffs – img13351

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).

Lung Disease – img13221

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13352

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).

Marlboro Knockoffs – img12262

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).

Canada – img12762

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Lung Disease – img13222

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13353

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).

Camel Knockoffs – img13356

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).

Camel Knockoffs – img13357

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).

Lung Disease – img13233

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13358

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).

Lung Disease – img13234

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13359

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).

Marlboro Knockoffs – img12267

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).

Lung Disease – img13235

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13360

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).

Lung Disease – img13236

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

Camel Knockoffs – img13361

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).

Marlboro Knockoffs – img12269

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).

Canada – img12770

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Lung Disease – img13237

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

Lung Disease – img13238

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

Lung Disease – img13240

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

Canada – img12774

by

It is known that smoking cigarettes has numerous harmful effects on people’s health, and one tactic used to dissuade people from smoking is explicitly stating these effects on cigarette boxes via warning labels. People are more likely to see an anti-smoking message if it is present in the form of a label right on the outside of the cigarette box they are holding, which is why these pack warning labels can be an effective form of advertising.1

They can be text-only, like the ones on Winston cigarettes boxes in the UK that say “Smoking seriously harms you and others around you,” or also include graphic images, such as the ones in Brazil that include images ranging from a stillborn baby to a dismembered and blackened foot. One study “found that 50 percent of subjects remembered the text-only warning label, while 83 percent correctly recalled the label that contained a graphic image,” so it is a more effective advertising strategy to incorporate pictures on labels because the message will then be more memorable. In fact, “research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels; (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks; and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.”2 Pictorial labels are also more effective at raising awareness of the health effects of smoking in areas with low literacy rates.2

However, a study on the effectiveness of Canadian warning labels shines light on the big issue of whether or not people stop to read and think about the warning labels, as people who do so are the ones who are “significantly more likely to either quit, attempt to quit, or reduce their smoking.”3 Another issue that is often brought up is the defensive and avoidant behavior that pictorial images may elicit, but in reality, “such reactions are actually indicators of positive impact” caused by the presence of graphic images.2

Resources:

1. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-graphic-tobacco-warning-labels-more-effective-at-delivering-anti-smoking-message/

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2733253/

3. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/391.full.html

Lung Disease – img13241

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

Lung Disease – img13224

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

Lung Disease – img13225

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

Lung Disease – img13229

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

Lung Disease – img13242

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

Lung Disease – img13231

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