SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Doctors

Doctors

Doctor Ordered – img2002

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

One such article, entitled “How Harmful are Cigarettes?” (1950), notes that artificial filters “take out some nicotine” since people are “aware that nicotine is a killer” (1). The article states that silica-gel cartridges remove 60% of nicotine from cigarettes. This article spurred Viceroy to print advertisements a week later which read, “Reader's Digest tells why filtered cigarette smoke is better for your health.” These health claims sparked a boom in Viceroy cigarette sales as well as an onslaught of new filter cigarette brands flooding the market. Kent was introduced in 1952 with a filter made of treated asbestos on crepe paper. In 1953, L&M followed with a “miracle tip” and Philip Morris advertised its di-ethylene glycol (Di-Gl) filter cigarette as “the cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking.” In the next two years, Marlboro was re-released as a filter cigarette which targeted men (it had previously been a cigarette targeting women, with a “beauty tip to protect the lips”), and Winston was introduced with a hefty advertising budget of $15 million.

Women in Sports – img7316

by

Tobacco companies often solicited endorsements from athletes to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles and tie these lifestyles in with their cigarettes. Additionally, well-known athletes could give the same kind of celebrity appeal as singers and actors, especially for teens and young adults. Sometimes, tobacco companies showed every-day people playing sports to create a connection among health, energy, athleticism, and cigarettes. Female athletes were highlighted as early as the 1920s (in this collection, a 1927 advertisement from Lucky Strike features a woman playing tennis with a man). Many of the female athletes who were selected to endorse cigarette brands played sports that could be considered feminine: tennis and table tennis, ice skating, swimming and diving, golf, and skiing. Some of the modern ads feature women playing more “manly” sports, like basketball or football, with their boyfriends, or show a woman playing billiards in an attempt to entice young men to the brand.

Less Nicotine – img3178

by

Camel’s “28% Less Nicotine” campaign ran from 1940-1944, most predominantly in 1941 and 1942. The campaign claimed that Camels had “extra mildness, extra coolness, extra flavor“ as well as “extra freedom from nicotine in the smoke.” It was clear that Camel was tying nicotine content to mildness, and thereby healthfulness, but no direct health claims were made. Rather, it was implied that cigarettes containing less nicotine were inherently better for you than other cigarettes. Of course, it has since been proven that if a brand of cigarettes does indeed contain less nicotine, smokers will merely smoke more cigarettes in order to get the same nicotine “kick” they would normally receive, thereby negating any possible health benefits.

The ads in the “28% Less” campaign cite “independent scientific tests” as the source for their facts and figures. Along with the claim of 28% less nicotine, R.J. Reynolds also claimed Camels burned 25% slower “than the average of the 4 other largest-selling brands tested.” The other brands tested were Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, Philip Morris, and Old Gold. The scientific report, conducted by New York Testing Labs, Inc., can be found in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives, and is documented specifically as a “report made for William Etsy & Company,” R.J. Reynolds’ advertisement agency (1). The experiment was clearly sponsored by R.J. Reynolds with the intent of promoting Camel cigarettes. Toward the end of the report, the figures in question are reported specifically to facilitate ad copy writing: “Camel % less than average of 4 other brands by – 28.1%” and “Camel cigarettes burned slower than the average of other brands by a percentage of 25.5.”

The scientific report discloses that its methods were experimental in nature, and, in fact, a subsequent follow-up report from 1942 demonstrates much different results, with Camel coming in at only 4.9% slower-burning and 11.9% less nicotine. Clearly, the methods used were not reliable. As we now know, because this experiment was conducted on a smoking machine, its results are inconsequential; smoking machines are incapable of mimicking the variety of smoking patterns and the “smoking topography” of human smokers.

Also of note, particularly relevant to one advertisement, is a photograph of two technicians operating the “standardized automatic smoking apparatus” used for the experiment. The first ad of this theme contains the photograph. It is indeed the same machine used from the experiment, as it accurately matches the diagram provided in the scientific report accessible through the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives (1). The inclusion of the photograph in the advertisements is a clear indicator that the tests were hardly “independent” in nature, and that they were indeed sponsored generously by William Etsy & Company, and thus by R.J. Reynolds.

NY Testing Laboratories, Prvitz GJ, Jack GB JR. “An Investigation of the Ultimate Components, Nicotine in Smoke, and Burning Time of 5 Popular Brands of Cigarettes.” 31 July 1940. RJ Reynolds. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zic19d00

Opera Stars – img17005

by

Opera stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on an opera star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Opera stars were particularly convincing, because if an opera singer entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous.

Our earliest endorsement from an opera star is for Tuxedo tobacco in 1915, followed by a generic endorsement from an “opera singer” for Helmar cigarettes in 1916. Old Gold enlisted a few opera singers in the early 1930s, but Lucky Strike dominated the arena in second half of the decade, with a series on stars of the Metropolitan Opera Company. By the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, Camel was on the scene enlisting handfuls of opera singers to endorse their product.

Lucky Strike Knockoffs – img13119

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).

Kool Knockoffs – img13120

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).

Doctor Ordered – img2007

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

One such article, entitled “How Harmful are Cigarettes?” (1950), notes that artificial filters “take out some nicotine” since people are “aware that nicotine is a killer” (1). The article states that silica-gel cartridges remove 60% of nicotine from cigarettes. This article spurred Viceroy to print advertisements a week later which read, “Reader's Digest tells why filtered cigarette smoke is better for your health.” These health claims sparked a boom in Viceroy cigarette sales as well as an onslaught of new filter cigarette brands flooding the market. Kent was introduced in 1952 with a filter made of treated asbestos on crepe paper. In 1953, L&M followed with a “miracle tip” and Philip Morris advertised its di-ethylene glycol (Di-Gl) filter cigarette as “the cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking.” In the next two years, Marlboro was re-released as a filter cigarette which targeted men (it had previously been a cigarette targeting women, with a “beauty tip to protect the lips”), and Winston was introduced with a hefty advertising budget of $15 million.

Doctor Ordered – img2008

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

One such article, entitled “How Harmful are Cigarettes?” (1950), notes that artificial filters “take out some nicotine” since people are “aware that nicotine is a killer” (1). The article states that silica-gel cartridges remove 60% of nicotine from cigarettes. This article spurred Viceroy to print advertisements a week later which read, “Reader's Digest tells why filtered cigarette smoke is better for your health.” These health claims sparked a boom in Viceroy cigarette sales as well as an onslaught of new filter cigarette brands flooding the market. Kent was introduced in 1952 with a filter made of treated asbestos on crepe paper. In 1953, L&M followed with a “miracle tip” and Philip Morris advertised its di-ethylene glycol (Di-Gl) filter cigarette as “the cigarette that takes the FEAR out of smoking.” In the next two years, Marlboro was re-released as a filter cigarette which targeted men (it had previously been a cigarette targeting women, with a “beauty tip to protect the lips”), and Winston was introduced with a hefty advertising budget of $15 million.

Singers & Performers – img2717

by

In the 1920s, tobacco companies began enlisting hundreds of celebrities to endorse their products. In these advertisements, movie stars, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country. The 1920s and 1930s were the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from cigarettes to soap, from pantyhose to cars. However, it seems that no company was as prolific in its celebrity ad copy as Lucky Strike.

Singers were vital components of celebrity testimonial campaigns for cigarette companies; the emphasis on healthy, clear voices in the singers’ line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous singer entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! “If it’s good enough for Frank Sinatra, it’s good enough for me,” a consumer might decide. It is ironic, of course, that these ads also worked to reveal the possible side effects of smoking by providing a problem (irritated throats, for example) and a solution (smoke our brand.) Still, this “problem-solution” advertising was very popular at the time, and worked to position one brand as the exception to the problem rule or as the least problematic of all cigarette brands. It also served to trivialize health side effects of smoking, masking more serious side effects in the process.

Stars were also used to attract a younger crowd. Stars were glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite. It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.