SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Health

Health

Today's Youth – img4025

by

Young people have been (and remain today) a key marketing target for tobacco companies. It is easy to assume that tobacco companies have discontinued advertising to teens in recent decades, as tobacco companies vehemently claim that they target adult audiences and do not market to people under the age of 21. Though we have many ads from decades past which clearly target teens, children, students, and young adults, we also have a wide selection from recent decades which target youth in more subtle ways.

In particular, older models are featured in ads behaving like children – in this way, the ads appear to target older audiences because the models are older, but their actions speak to younger audiences. For example, a group of friends plays together on a swing or sleds down a snowy slope (Salem), friends eat ice cream sundaes or practice hand stands on the beach (Newport). More extreme cases still can be seen in ads from overseas, which face less stringent regulations than those in the U.S. Ads from Russian brand Kiss, for example, feature young female models dressed in pink, enjoying lollipops and ice cream cones like little girls.

Tobacco companies also use the opposite technique to attract youth, featuring young adults in “adult-only” scenarios. For example, young men and women mingle in a nightclub, meet at a bar, or play billiards (Kool). Teens who see these ads see smoking as a gateway to mature actions which are normally off-limits but desirable.

Most smokers do not begin smoking as adults. Almost all new smokers, the lifeblood of the industry, are teens and young adults aged 13 to 21. An R.J. Reynolds document from 1973 reveals the long-seeded emphasis on targeting teens with cigarette ads: “Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market” (1). In the 1980s, RJR places a stronger emphasis on the necessity of hooking teens early, claiming that “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (2). Later in this same document, the company literally refers to its smokers as if they assets, claiming that a young smoker “appreciates in value over time because of increased consumption.” Decades later, the sentiment that youth must be targeted remains prevalent. A more recent R.J. Reynolds document from 1998 explains that because only 31% of smokers begin smoking after age 18, and only 5% after age 24, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once adult smokers pass away (3).

The emphasis on targeting teens was by no means restricted to R.J. Reynolds. An internal Philip Morris document from 1981 explains that the teen market is “particularly important,” because “today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens” (4). Even after harsh criticism from activists and policy makers, tobacco companies continue to advertise to the youth market. While they claim they target only “informed adults” of at least 21 years, recent ad campaigns tell a different story. Take a look at some of our other themes, including “Flavored Tobacco,” “Joe Camel,” “Newport Teases Teens,” and “Recent Menthol” to discover Big Tobacco’s ongoing teen marketing campaigns.

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

2. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf PERFORMING ARTS PAGE 36

3. “The Importance of Younger Adults.” R.J. Reynolds. 27 Feb 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eyn18c00/pdf

4. Johnston, M.E. “Young Smokers Prevalence, Trends, Implications and Related Demographic Trends.” Philip Morris. 31 March 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fts84a00/pdf

Flavored Tobacco – img4051

by

Flavored cigarettes and flavored tobacco have long been held to be gateway products for children, teens, and young adults. Sweet flavors like Camel’s limited edition “Warm Winter Toffee” or Kool’s “Midnight Berry” mask the harsh, unusual flavors of tobacco by overpowering the tobacco flavor with taste sensations that first-time users would find more predictable. Flavored cigarettes continued to be sold well into the 2000s, and didn’t leave U.S. shelves until 2009, when President Obama granted the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Finally, the FDA was able to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes, citing studies which showed “that 17-year-old smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as smokers over the age of 25” (1).

Unfortunately, the 2009 ban on flavored cigarettes did not extend to menthols, the most popular flavor added to cigarettes, nor did it extend to cigars, cigarillos, or smokeless tobacco products. And here is where the tobacco companies have been making their biggest marketing pushes recently. Chewing and dipping tobacco brands like Skoal and Klondike continue to sell tobacco flavored with apple, berry, peppermint, and more, while Camel makes serious inroads on smokeless tobacco products as well as menthol cigarettes. The Camel Crush line clearly targets youth as a flavored cigarette, which allows the user to release a refreshing “burst” of menthol flavor with just a pinch of the cigarette, while Camel Snus, a smokeless tobacco “pouch” provides an alternative to smoking with little packets of sweetened tobacco that can be tucked discreetly under the lip during class or in front of parents.

The FDA does have the power to instill further bans on menthol cigarettes and/or flavored smokeless tobacco. It remains to be seen what actions will be taken in the future.

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.

Broadway Stars – img2612

by

Like Opera singers, Broadway stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in a Broadway star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Broadway performers were particularly convincing, because if the star entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous. Lucky Strike and Camel made the most use of Broadway performers in their ads. In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also 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.

Newsman – img2624

by

The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.

Famous voices, in this case newsmen, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the broadcast journalist’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. If Walter Winchell, for example, trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems less irritating and dangerous. Newsmen also represent a more serious side of the celebrity industry, appealing to hardworking businessmen who may be less swayed by other celebrity endorsements.

Baseball – img4522

by

The marriage of tobacco and baseball dates back to some of the sport’s earliest days. Before 1900, professional baseball was a sea of leagues popping up and then disappearing and dispute over disregarded player contracts. By the turn of the century professional baseball as we know today began to take shape, and tobacco had already entered the scene. Cigarette companies used cards with images of baseball players to stiffen their packs of loosely packed tobacco and thin paper wrappings as early as 1888. In a time when chewing tobacco was widely popular in the U.S., many players indulged in the same habit. While players and ball clubs would go on to advertise many forms of combustible tobacco, cigarettes and chewing tobacco stayed connected most closely with baseball.

In the 1910s, tobacco’s solidification in baseball grew greatly. Bull Durham smoking tobacco launched a revolutionary campaign in 1912, installing large bull bill-boards at almost every major league ballpark. Their promotion ran that any player to bat a ball to the bull would receive $50, or roughly $1200 in today’s money. The prominence of the bull signage and its association with what was becoming America’s pastime led to enormous profits for the company and perhaps the origin of the term “bullpen” to refer to the warm-up area for pitchers. Some of the baseball figures to take a stand against tobacco included Honus Wagner, a legendary player for the Pittsburg Pirates, Ty Cobb, Connie Mack, and Walter Johnson. Wagner, for his part, refused to have his image associated with tobacco-promoting baseball cards. Today, some historians question whether his intent was to help curb young children’s chances of smoking or more to punish the company for improperly compensating him for his image. His decision, nonetheless, made some 1911 Americans question tobacco, while others only more attracted due to the surrounding controversy. In addition, Cobb, Mack, and Johnson all spoke out against cigarettes or allowed their names to be used as part of testimonies collected in Henry Ford’s Case Against the Little White Slaver, published 1914. Cobb and Johnson were both raised to refrain from all forms of mind-altering substances. For their early years in the leagues, right around the time Ford’s book came out, they held true to these ideals and yet still appeared in tobacco ads. Cobb, outside what his ball club may have required of him, even appeared for a self-named brand of tobacco. Clearly, baseball and tobacco were early slated for a complicated and deep relationship.

As baseball’s popularity exploded at the advent of the live-ball era—around 1920—players like Babe Ruth became the idols of millions. Ruth, a hearty man of strength and precision, publicly smoked and drank while living an extravagant, expensive lifestyle. The image of a homerun-belting giant such as Ruth safely smoking cigar after cigar and appearing in numerous ads helped people feel more comfortable with smoking. If such a healthy and lovable character included tobacco in his public portrait, the risk of smoking appeared greatly mitigated. Shocked fans saw Ruth, gaunt and dying of throat cancer, when he returned to Yankee Stadium in 1947, a year before his death at age 53. Despite this clear sign of tobacco’s danger, ads continued to run. Ruth’s former teammate, Joe DiMaggio, appeared in Chesterfield ads a year later. DiMaggio—another public figure who shamelessly smoked cigarettes for millions to see—played a major role in American culture, too. (DiMaggio, also, later died of tobacco-related cancer.) With icons living large and dying painfully from these products, the advertising kept on.

In the mid-1950s, foreboding studies began to warn of the true effects of smoking tobacco. The scare surrounding these products led to tighter restrictions on advertising, such as the 1971 ban on television commercials for tobacco. Tobacco advertising executives needed an avenue to fall back on—a way to separate tobacco from the dark health effects spreading about their products. Advertisements that specifically spoke against the dangers tested poorly, as prospective buyers were simply reminded of the controversy. Instead, advertisers had to turn to focus on a subject that had nothing to do with the growing body of scientific evidence against them. In numbers, R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris bought up ad space in ballparks around the country: Houston’s Astrodome, the Phillies’ Veterans Stadium, the Mariner’s Kingdome, and the Angel’s Anaheim Stadium, to name a few. Fans’ typical experience involved seeing a giant Marlboro or Winston sign, conveniently placed above the scoreboard or exits. Without technically advertising on television, cigarette companies received significant ad time on television through these bill boards.

The cigarette scare also influenced baseball in another way—the second rise of smokeless tobacco (ST). ST, as cigarettes do, also poses serious health risks. The act of spitting the tobacco back out and the lack of smoke, however, made users feel safer. ST was so popular among some baseball players that they would keep a dip in when posing for baseball card pictures (signified by a bulge under the cheek or lower lip). Bill Tuttle, a ballplayer, almost always had a dip in on his cards. In 1993, he was diagnosed with oral cancer, and his disfiguring facial surgeries provided living proof of the effect of ST for players and fans to see. That same year, Minor League Baseball banned ST outright; Tuttle spent the next five years of his life campaigning against its use. The 90s also saw the fall of the Winston and Marlboro ads that had grown into the atmosphere of their respective stadiums for, in some cases, over two decades. The tide was turning for baseball to separate from tobacco.

Today, smoking and ST are waning in the public eye and in baseball. Smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in most major league ballparks. Ones with particularly loose restrictions include Marlins Park, the Mets’ Citi Field, and the Rangers’ Globe Life Park, though policies here will likely change in the next few years. The Tigers’ Comerica Park, for its part, has a cigar bar (aptly named the “Asylum Cigar Bar”), but strongly prohibits all other types of smoking, even inside the bar. On the other end of the tobacco spectrum, while Minor League Baseball has moved on from ST, the Majors lag behind. In 2014, Hall-of-Famer Tony Gwynn died of ST-related cancer at 54. This tragic event adds to the numerous chapters of baseball players plagued by tobacco, but may accelerate cause for a ban. Major League Baseball (MLB) has banned spitting and the visible sign of a tin of chew in uniforms when fans are present or during press interviews. One third of players, however, still chew tobacco, either straight, or by mixing it with gum, sunflower seeds, or other products to spit with less suspicion.

The collective bargaining of the players’ union currently blocks the MLB from a ban on ST, however some cities are making the decision themselves. San Francisco enacted a ban effective January 1st, 2016 that prohibits the use of ST anywhere in the city, including the Giants’ AT&T Park. Some players claim this ban will not prevent them from chewing; however, even if only a symbolic gesture, this measure carries great weight. Efforts such as these demonstrate a step toward the wellbeing of the millions of young fans, among others, who idolize ballplayers. On August 6th, 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called for a similar ban. Curt Schilling, a former Red Sox pitcher who used ST and survived the resultant mouth cancer, currently aids Walsh in the effort. With 15 percent of high-school males using ST, the nation waits to see who will bring what change to America’s game.

World War II – img5559

by

A unique quality of both WWI and WWII armies was that a majority of their combatants were not professional soldiers but rather citizen conscripts1. Thus, habits the common soldiers picked up on the battlefield, such as smoking, were brought home after the war’s end3. WWII soldiers used cigarettes similarly to their WWI forbearers, smoking to escape the stress of battle and steady their nerves1. Soldiers had been rationed 4 cigarettes a day during WWI. In WWII authorities also saw tobacco as a necessity to the maintenance of fighting men, and actually added cigarettes into their daily K-ration before toilet paper2. K-rations provided a four pack per meal, meaning soldiers were issues a total of 12 cigarettes per day. Soldiers could also buy discounted twenty-packs at the army post exchange (PX) stations2. Hence, cigarettes were made readily available to men in the armed forces.
The army didn’t necessarily use one brand for rations, instead cigarettes came in sample packs of different brands, with the most common being Chesterfields2. Tobacco companies specifically targeted the troops stating that they used “personalities associated with the war” such as test pilot “Red” Hulse4. They also sent “cigarettes by millions to GI’s overseas” claiming that the Camel brand was “First in the Service.”4 WWII cigarette adverts focused on themes of smoking as patriotic, promoting solidarity between armed forces, relieving stress, increasing battle performance, encouraging romantic fidelity, and a connection to home. Even after the war was over, WWII continued to be used as an advertising strategy due to its role as a common relatable event among the cigarette consumers of the time.

1. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240820.php
2. http://www.kration.info/cigarettes-and-matches.html
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034360
4. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ksfy0061

Healthy – img17037

by

As the conventional tobacco industry continues to get demonized over predatory marketing practices and concern grows over the ill-effects of smoking, e-cigarette (e-cig)manufacturers have lost no opportunity in selling their products as a “safe” and “healthy” alternative. As Njoy claimed in its commercial “the most amazing thing about this cigarette is, it isn't one.”

Many e-cig brand names and advertising messages contain reassuring phrases that imply no harm and sometimes even medical benefits. Examples of e-cigs with reassuring brand names include Safe-cigs, Lung Buddy, iBreathe, and E-HealthCigs. In addition ads and packages for e-cigs contains reassuring phrases such as “safe,” “healthier, “cancer cure” “vitamin rich,” “light,” “mild, ” “intelligent,” “no smoker’s cough or phlegm,” and “better stamina.” Ads in this theme run the gamut from the shock inducing Flavor Vapes ad which shows a mother blow e-cig vapor into her baby’s carriage and Ever Smoke’s “Save A Life. Save A Lung. Save a Boob” to the mundane.

Advertising of nicotine based products is coming a full circle as most of the strategies employed by the e-cig industry today has been tried by the combustible cigarette industry until it was regulated. More than 85 years ago, the Federal Trade Commission regulated the combustible tobacco industry and prohibited it from making weight loss claims, 5o years ago, the same agency prohibited it from using the images of doctors and nurses to sell its products, and 5 years ago the Food and Drug Administration prohibited the industry from using descriptors such as mild, light, ultra etc. that subliminally suggested that using such a product reduced the harm for the consumer. In April 2014, seven years after e-cigs were introduced in the United States, the Federal Drug Administration has proposed regulations that will restrict health claims made by the e-cig industry. If the regulations are approved, e-cig companies will no longer be allowed to make health claims unless approved by the regulatory agency to make “direct or indirect claims” of reduced risk.

It may follow that like the tobacco industry, while the letter of the law may be followed, the intent of regulation is often subverted.”

Doctors & Nurses – img17163

by

In the first half of the 20th century, tobacco company advertisements often featured doctors hawking cigarettes or cigars. The images were always of an idealized physician – wise, noble, and compassionate. Consumers who saw these ads were made to feel that they would be following the doctor's orders to achieve health or fitness if they were to smoke the cigarettes advertised.

While it may seem hard to believe that such an audacious advertising strategy would be tried in the 21st century, it is precisely what is playing out in the newer and less-well understood electronic cigarette (e-cig) industry. e-cig brands such as Vapestick, Vape Doctor, and Love are resorting to the old and familiar tactic of using the image of the “trusty” doctor to sell their products. In an ad for E-Cigexplorer, an online e-cig store, a surgeon wearing a mask is seeing giving the e-cig a “thumbs-up.” In a more obvious push for the product by the online retailer, two surgeons at an operating theater are seen laughing at a patient who we are to understand is being treated for a tobacco-related illness. The headline for the ad reads, “Still smoking tobacco cigarettes?!” The rest of the text reads, “Haven't you heard of e-cigarettes.” A video for Vapestick has a doctor vaping an e-cig while attending to a pregnant woman. Advanced e-cig uses a more subtle approach to promote the healthfulness of its product. The e-cig packet contains the image of a Caduceus, the most commonly accepted symbol of medicine.

While e-cig companies use the image of the doctor to convince consumers that its products are healthy. Most scientific evidence till date only proves that e-cigs are “healthier” than traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, which is found in most e-cigs is very addictive and the fruit flavored vape juices could hook teenagers and serve as a gateway to traditional cigarettes. At present there is also not much research that has been done to determine the impact of inhaling so much nicotine-laced vapor into the lungs.

Ice Cream/Popsicles – img17505

by

The e-Cigarette (e-cig) industry zealously claims to target only adult and primarily established smokers. As much as e-cig companies deny it, the plethora of vape juices in alcoholic or sweetened flavors and sugary names serve to make these products appealing to children and teenagers who are curious to experiment with tobacco products and are taken in by false notions of the “safe nature” of e-cigs.

Appealing to an almost universal love for ice cream by children and adults alike, e-cigs and ejuice are available in a number of sweet flavors including caramel frappe, ice cream pops, vanilla, mint and banana split. The sweet flavored additives in the vape juice help mask the bitterness of tobacco and the nicotine serves to addict teens.

The images used in the ads are heavily borrowed from the food industry and some of the ads have kid-friendly slogans such as Lucky Flavor Store’s red, white and blue popsicle labelled, “It’s the bomb.” Some creative names used by the e-cig industry to market the product include Desert Moon Vapor’s Sultrysickle, Rocket Fuel’s Rocket Pop and WizMix’s Primal Icecream. In addition to standard flavors, customers at several online as well as retail boutique vape stores can create their own unique flavors by mixing any number of essences at a variety of nicotine strengths for a personalized vape.

Flavored cigarettes and flavored tobacco have long been held to be gateway products for children and teens. There is now a growing concern that the use of flavored e-cigs by youth could lead to them experimenting with regular cigarettes. A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that rates of e-cig use among U.S. youth more than doubled from 2011 to 2012, with 10 percent of high school students admitting to having used e-cigs. Almost 76% of youth who had tried an e-cig had also tried a regular cigarette. Altogether, in 2012 more than 1.78 million middle and high school students nationwide had tried e-cigs1.

< p> With the Federal Drug Administration opting not to ban flavors in e-cigs, advocates fear that flavored e-cigs will serve to entice a new generation of kids to become addicted to nicotine based products.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2013). E-cigarette use more than doubles among U.S. middle and high school students from 2011-2012. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0905-e-cigarette-use.html

Eco-Friendly – img18033

by

At a time when everyone’s mantra is to “go green,” it is no surprise to see the e-cigarette industry’s marketing machine clamor to announce that its products are environmentally conscious and much better for an individual’s health and the environment than conventional cigarette products.

First, most e-cigs companies point to the fact that since their products do not produce any smoke but only emit a vapor, it is less polluting than conventional tobacco products. For instance, Green Smoke says it “aspires to create a greener planet” by offering a cigarette that has no second-hand smoke, no ash and no risk of fire.” SouthBeach Smoke also equates the healthier, i.e. no carcinogens and no smoke aspect of e-cigs to being a more eco-friendly product.

To promote the image of being an earth-friendly product, e-cigarettes are appropriately branded with subliminal brand names such as Green Smoke, Eco-Cigs, Ever Smoke, EverGreen Vapor, Enviro, and Green Nicotine. Many of the ads for these products also use terms such as “additive-free,” “organic” and “eco-friendly” to imply that the ingredients are “pure” and not harmful to the individual or the environment. For instance, Green Nicotine e-cig manufacturer’s claim to being environmentally friendly comes from the fact that its manufacturing processes uses green techniques by restricting the use of “hazardous materials” and incorporating “pure” materials. However, it is important to note that since e-cigs are unregulated, there is no standard definition of the purity of nicotine or flavoring ingredients used in these products.

To further suggest, the green nature of the product, the packaging is plastered with green leaf symbols and shades of green predominate the advertisement and e-cig package. In a Green Smoke advertisement, a woman with apple green colored lips is seen holding an e-cigarette near her lips. The ad seems to suggest that the e-cig is as safe as a lipstick for a woman. In another ad for Green Smoke, a man is seen enjoying the freshness and pure air of a mountaintop with an e-cig between his lips. The text of the advertisement reads, “Enjoy your nicotine. No Lighter. No Fire. No Mess.” An advertisement for EverSmoke that showcases the company’s diverse products has the following text, “Healthy for You. Green for the Environment.” A Green Nicotine advertisement shows a single e-cig against the backdrop of a lush green moss lawn.

E-cig companies are also eager to make the point that since its products are mostly reusable they aren’t thrown away like traditional cigarette butts that pile up in landfills and pollute the environment. However, the eco-friendly nature of e-cigs warrants a closer investigation. E-cigs contain several plastic and metal components that need to be properly disposed. In addition to this, the nickel-cadmium or lithium batteries used in e-cigs need to be properly disposed in e-waste recycling bin instead of the general trash. While some e-cig manufacturers offer “recycling programs” to promote proper disposal of e-waste, it is unclear how many consumers take the time to invest in such programs. When e-cigs don’t get properly disposed they are as much a pollutant as traditional cigarettes.

Profit Above All – img12230

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patches – img12413

by

The message of quitting is widespread in anti-smoking advertisement and is found practically throughout every theme. Cessation ads explicitly advise their target audience to quit smoking. They offer certain objectives for quitting, including more money, improved health, and freeing up time and energy to engage in other exciting activities. These ads often acknowledge that quitting is extremely difficult, but they provide advice and support for quitting. Many of them employ an empathetic smoker-to-smoker voice that shows smokers they are not alone in their struggles.

There is also an array of cessation ads sponsored by nicotine-replacement products and other anti-smoking products. Their main purpose is not exactly aligned with public health departments’ concern for improving the well-being of the community, but rather focuses on marketing an alternative product to smokers. Many of these product-sponsored ads are more creative than the cessation ads produced by public health departments and other health organizations. This difference may reflect the inequality in funding and resources between businesses and non-profit organizations. There are some product-sponsored ads that do use tactics and persuasive messages similar to those used in public health messages, such as demonstrating incentives to quit smoking ranging from personal health and the health of children to personal beauty. However, unlike public health ads, which are persuading smokers to quit, many of these anti-smoking product ads are targeted to an audience that already wants to quit, making it unlikely that these ads make a significant difference in reducing the number of individuals attempting to quit smoking.

Cessation ads target all age groups, though they are more commonly directed towards adult smokers, because these ads have been correlated with increasing quit attempts in older age groups (1). The success of these ads begins by getting smokers to think about quitting. They then help to increase attempts to quit, often by providing a plan and/or a phone number for a support or quitline. (1, 2). In 1991, California’s antismoking campaign’s heavy focus on cessation efforts resulted in dramatic increases in calls to local health departments and quitlines (1). Many former smokers have, to some degree, attributed their decision to quit to their exposure to anti-smoking ads. In one study, 6.7% of smokers who were interviewed and uncued about the influence of antismoking ads on their decision to quit admitted that antismoking ads were the main reason they quit. When cued, 34.3% said the media campaigns were influential in their decision to quit. (3).

Cessation ads are an important component of antismoking campaigns because of their effectiveness in reducing the prevalence of smoking in the adult population. The power of the message of quitting can also be enhanced when coupled or rotated with other themes, such as anti-industry manipulation and secondhand smoke (1). Although cessation advertisements play an important role in the fight against smoking, they should not be the only antismoking campaigns in circulation. Again, the majority of adult smokers pick up the habit when they are under 18, and prevention among youth is extremely important in the fight to eliminate smoking.

REFERENCES:

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

2. Valone DM, Duke JC, Mowery PD, McCausland KL, Xiao H, Constantino JC, Asche ET, Cullen J, Allen JA. The Impact of EX: Results from a Pilot Smoking-Cessation Media Campaign. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38(3S): S312-S318

3. Popham WJ, Potter LD, Bal DG, Johnson MD, Duerr JM, Quinn V. Do Anti-Smoking Media Campaigns Help Smokers Quit? Public Health Reports 1993; 108(4): 510-513.

Makes you Sick – img12658

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

Hospitalized Patients – img6773

by

Many tobacco ads featured injured, hospitalized patients receiving tobacco products which supposedly cured them, healed them, or provided them with relief. Though this association between cigarettes and healing was not always stated explicitly, it was always implied through thoughtful strategy. When a doctor or nurse provided the patient with the product, it was given even more of a medicinal connotation.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img2738

by

Philip Morris’ famous spokesperson of over 40 years, Johnny Roventini (1910-1998), began his career as, reportedly, “the smallest bellhop ever.” Coming in at under 4 feet tall, Roventini resembled a child in stature, later gaining him and Philip Morris popularity among children and adults alike. While working as a bellhop, Roventini was approached by two Philip Morris marketing executives who heard his voice and knew he was an advertising gold mine. They asked for him to “call for Philip Morris” for one dollar. Johnny, unaware that Philip Morris was a cigarette brand, called out loudly for him. Immediately, the marketing executives saw the promise in Johnny, and enlisted him as the first ever living trademark in their new advertisement campaign. He later appeared on the TV show “I Love Lucy” alongside stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, both of whom endorsed Philip Morris in 1959.

Throughout his career as spokesperson, “Little Johnny” made appearances at countless events, ranging from supermarket grand openings to public school fairs. He booked so many events in his first year touring that Philip Morris was forced to hire more actors to play the part of Johnny. There are rumored to have been at least ten Johnny Juniors who helped facilitate Johnny’s public appearances; however, Philip Morris kept quiet about these actors, preferring everyone to believe there was only one Johnny. The most well-known Johnny Junior was Albert Altieri (1916-2002), a 3-foot-7 inch bellhop. He was hired 2 years after Roventini at the age of 19. When Altieri passed away from a heart attack at the age of 86, CNN printed his obituary which read, “The second half of a duo famous in American advertising for yelling ‘Call for Philip Morris’ has died.” It appears that Philip Morris was successful in keeping quiet the existence of the other Juniors. Two of the other Johnny Juniors mentioned in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives include Leon Polinsky and Buddy Douglas.

Not a Cough in a Carload – img7971

by

When P. Lorillard first introduced the Old Gold brand in 1926, the company advertised the brand under the slogan “Not a Cough in a Carload.” Our collection of Old Gold ads runs the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan in some capacity up until 1934. The slogan contends that in every train car full of Old Gold tobacco leaves (in every “carload”), not one cough could be found. Of course, the slogan can also be interpreted that in a carload of people – each smoking Old Golds – not a single person would be coughing. Either way, the ambiguous slogan undoubtedly served to reassure a worried public as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes, and in particular the healthfulness and safety of the Old Gold brand. This advertising technique is known as “problem-solution” advertising; it provides the problem (coughing due to smoking) and the solution (smoke Old Golds). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive. No cigarette is healthful, and no cigarette reduces throat irritation or coughing. False health claims such as this abound in tobacco advertisements throughout the decades, but “Not a Cough in a Carload” was one of the most pervasive.

Despite being one of the most recognizable advertisement slogans in the nation at the time, the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan was often intermingled with other themes, ranging from “They Gave a New Thrill” to “Old Gold Weather” in an attempt to provide consistency among ads. Many of the “Not a Cough in a Carload” advertisements include celebrity testimonials or take the form of cartoons. The comics included at the end of this theme collection were all illustrated by Clare Briggs between 1927 and 1928. The comics were already well-known in American culture, and when they began to be used toward cigarette advertising, they were a huge success for Old Gold, appearing in approximately 1,500 American newspapers nationwide. Briggs’ popularity within Lorillard was so vast that the company named another of its brands in honor of the illustrator: Briggs Smoking Tobacco.

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1420

by

Tobacco was long thought to hold medicinal properties, though the opposite is now known to be true: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that tobacco “is the single most preventable cause of death in the world today” and noted that tobacco “is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of death in the world” (1). However, as early as 1492 when Columbus and his crew first encountered Native Americans smoking tobacco, the Europeans recorded tobacco’s use as a healing agent. From then on, the supposed medicinal powers of both tobacco and nicotine were included in most European and American pharmacopoeia (official lists of approved medications) until the twentieth century, when nicotine was deleted from the American Pharmacopoeia just in time for the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Tobacco soon became regulated, as it joined liquor and firearms as taxable by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Still, as late as the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, numerous companies advertised medicinal cigarettes. Some of these medicinal cigarettes contained tobacco, while others did not. Those used to treat asthma, “asthma cigarettes,” were sold well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

1. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization. 6-7:2008

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5157

by

Towards the end of the era in which false medical claims were endemic (early 1950s) the Old Gold brand had a prolonged campaign – with more than 50 variations on this theme – in which they touted: “We Don’t Try to Scare You with Medical Claims.” Ironically, many of these ads in their fine print make outlandish statements that Old Golds were less irritating and thus safer than the competition. Somehow they calculated that the public would not see this obvious hypocrisy.

Note the white box strangely reminiscent of the Surgeon General’s warning introduced years later. In what can only be characterized as rank hypocrisy, they claim Old Gold’s are less irritating and easier on the throat.

High Tech Filters – img2143

by

Filter cigarette advertisements often tout modern technology and scientific advancement to convince consumers their filters are effective, though in most cases filters are no more effective in filtering smoke than the same length of tobacco. This theme reveals a collection of ads professing state of the art filters which appear to ensure the quality and safety of a product and the health of the consumer. American examples from the 1960s and 1970s for Lark and Doral are comparable with the Chilean advertisements for Kent from 2002. These Kent advertisements promote a filter made from charcoal which they name the ACF (Activated Charcoal Filter). The abbreviated name itself (ACF) is used to make the filter sound more scientific, and words like “innovación” (innovation) and “filtro de última generación” (latest generation filter) also present Kent’s filter as the safest and most advanced.

The Kent ads all use futuristic digital renderings of the cigarette which reveal the inner-workings of the filter chamber to the consumer. One of Lark’s ads from 1960 is shockingly similar. The inside of the cigarette is revealed so the consumer can see the charcoal filling the inner chamber, and words like “invented,” “amazing charcoal,” and “modern science” work together to further present Lark as the most advanced cigarette on the market. Also in the same category is Dorral, who, in 1972, used the same technique. The ad opens up the filter and shows consumers the “strange-looking polyethylene chamber with baffles and air channels.” Even a Viceroy ad from 1954 uses this method, pealing away the cigarette paper to expose the “20,000 filters” within. The hand-drawn diagram in the Viceroy ad is surprisingly similar to the digitally rendered diagrams used by Kent almost half a century later.

Clearly, little has changed in the marketing of filter cigarettes over the decades. It is most interesting to compare these ads for technologically advanced filters with those for cork filters. As early as the 1920s, Craven “A” was ensuring that its consumers knew the brand was made with an “absolutely natural cork” tip.

Reduced Carcinogens – img8958

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.

Other Menthol Classics – img11580

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Salem Classics – img12662

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Light – img3057

by

The ads in this theme document the decades of deceptive advertisement campaigns for “light” cigarettes. In the 1970s, the tobacco industry began heavily promoting “light” cigarettes as low-tar and low-nicotine alternatives to quitting. However, the FDA has determined that light and ultra-light cigarettes are no safer than regular cigarettes. In fact, internal industry documents reveal that from the very beginning, tobacco companies were well aware that smokers compensated for the low-nicotine draw from light cigarettes by changing their smoking behaviors. A brand of cigarette, for example, might register on the FTC Test Method as containing 12 mg of “tar” and 0.9 mg of nicotine per cigarette, but in actuality, a human smoker of the same brand would be able to receive much more tar and nicotine than the “machine smoker” by smoking the light cigarette in a different manner.

Indeed, since the 1966 release of the ISO machine-smoking method (used by the FTC to determine the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yield of cigarettes), the industry has worked intensively to create a product that would outsmart the testing equipment. For one, the tobacco companies discovered that added perforations on cigarette filters resulted in low tar and nicotine readings from the FTC Test Method, as clean air diluted the smoke “inhaled” by the machine; however, human smokers, unlike the machine smoker, are smoking for the nicotine kick. Often, this desire for nicotine causes human smokers to take longer, bigger, or quicker puffs on light cigarettes, since the cigarette provides “less” nicotine per normal puff. Additionally, smokers of light cigarettes often smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers of regular cigarettes. Sometimes (usually in the case of super light or ultra light cigarettes), smokers instinctively cover the perforations on the filters with their lips or fingers as they draw in, resulting in a very high intake of nicotine and tar from the cigarette (1). Because of these wide variations between human smokers and machine smokers, the FTC Test Method is now widely considered to be misleading for consumers.

The FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, and with this change came many new regulations, one of which directly concerns light cigarettes: As of July 2010, the words “mild,” “low,” or “light” are not to be used on tobacco products as they cause consumers to underestimate their health risks. This means that brands previously marketed as “light” or “low-tar” can no longer include these words on their packaging or advertising. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on different colored packages to indicate whether a certain product is light, ultra-light, or full-flavor. The colors vary slightly among brands, but generally adhere to the following standards: red indicates regular; dark green indicates menthol; light green, blue, or gold indicate previously “light” cigarettes; and silver or orange indicate previously “ultra light” cigarettes. Camel, for example, replaced their “Camel Lights” product with “Camel Blue.” Philip Morris stuck with the idea that lighter shades indicate a “lighter” cigarette, and thus Marlboro Lights became Marlboro Gold, and Marlboro Ultra-Lights became Marlboro Silver. Likewise, R.J. Reynolds’ Salem Ultra-Lights became “Salem Silver Box.” The FDA has regulatory authority to demand that tobacco companies discontinue their color branding techniques in the future.

1. Kozlowski, T. and R. J. O’Connor. “Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents.” Tobacco Control. 2002; 11: i40-i50. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i40.full

Freshness – img3505

by

Tobacco ads are notorious for broadcasting what can only be called the “Big Lie” – how else could the inhalation of smoke of any kind be compared to breathing in “mountain air?” In these advertisements, smoke is presented to consumers as “fresh” and “clean,” and particular brands are advertised as “springtime fresh” or even “the refreshest.” Ads offering freshness continued well beyond the 1950s, portraying verbal or visual themes of outdoor recreation, mountain air, clean rushing streams, and more.

Early on, the freshness theme became grist for the industry’s “tit for tat” advertising. Indeed, while The American Tobacco Company advertised that Lucky Strikes were better because they were “toasted,” R.J. Reynolds countered that their Camels were superior because they were “naturally fresh: never parched, never toasted!” Camel also offered an alternative meaning of the word “fresh” by heavily promoting its cellophane wrapper, intended to keep cigarettes from going stale on store shelves.

Freshness was also commonly used as a kind of code-word for healthfulness. Slogans used in tobacco ads called to mind the “cool” of ice or the fresh healing virtues of springtime mountain pastures. “Kool” and other menthol brands were also supposed to deliver a kind of hospital-like sense of sanitary safety, and one company implied cleanliness in its very name. “Sano” cigarettes didn’t last very long: they didn’t deliver as much in the way of tar or nicotine as more popular brands and their marketing skill lagged behind that of the bigger players. By contrast, menthol brands grew in popularity after the postwar “health scare,” and many other forms of “health reassurance” were offered (space-age filters of myriad sorts, promises of low-tar and/or nicotine deliveries, eventually “lights,” etc.).

Fresh as Mountain Air – img9657

by

In the 1930s and 1940s, Old Gold ran a series of campaigns touting “freshness” in their cigarettes. In these ads, “freshness” has a double-meaning, appearing on the surface to relate solely to whether or not the cigarettes become stale while sitting on the shelves; However, the word “fresh” is also a not-so-subliminal metaphor for healthfulness, purity, and refreshment. Ads claiming Old Golds were “Fresh as mountain air” or “Fresh as a spring crocus” (a type of flower), most clearly betray Lorillard’s true intentions. Indeed, Old Gold’s claim to “freshness” was a dangerous and misleading health claim, working to convince consumers that Old Golds were safe, and perhaps even beneficial, to their health.

Two “innovations” for the brand provided Lorillard with the opportunity to advertise its cigarettes as fresh. First, a “double-jacket” of cellophane – that is, two layers of cellophane – was wrapped around each pack, keeping Old Golds “factory-fresh,” and allowing Lorillard to advertise its cigarettes as such. The second innovation was the addition of apple “honey” as the humectant (the agent used to keep the tobacco leaves from drying out) in Old Gold’s tobacco. Apple honey – reportedly discovered through a partnership between Old Gold and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1943 – was Old Gold’s solution to overcoming the wartime shortage of humidifying agents. Of course, the use of apple honey also allowed for the consumer to make the subconscious leap to Old Golds being “honey for the throat.” This effect, coupled with the inference that “freshness” meant healthfulness, contributed to Old Gold’s ability to present its brand as healthful without directly making false health claims.

Sheep Dip – img13057

by

In 1931, Lucky Strike experimented with a campaign which referenced “sheep dip” in an attempt to prove the superiority of the “toasting” process. The campaign purported that the toasting process removed “harsh irritant chemicals naturally present in every tobacco leaf,” which were then sent on to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, to manufacture sheep dip, a chemical substance used to rid sheep of scabies. Interestingly, the key ingredient used in tobacco sheep dip was simply nicotine, rather than the “black, bitingly harsh irritant chemicals” the ads claimed. The ads attempted to convince consumers that the chemicals are “out so they can’t be in,” faulty logic at best.

Lucky Strike cigarettes did provide the base for sheep dip, though the resulting ad campaign was deceptive and a bit difficult for the everyday American to understand. It is no surprise that the campaign was short-lived, with just a handful (around 10) sheep-dip ads printed in total. It is important to note that these Lucky Strike ads are deceptive in two key ways; First, the ads claim that the byproduct sold to sheep-dip manufacturers is “black, biting, harsh irritant chemicals,” when in fact the byproduct is simply nicotine, never mentioned by name in the ads. Second, the ads employ a logical fallacy: “They’re out– so they can’t be in!” Two options are provided – the chemicals are either “out” or “in” the cigarettes. Because the chemicals are seemingly “out” in the sheep dip, then they must not be “in” the cigarettes. Of course, this fallacy can be broken down by stating the obvious: some chemicals may be “out,” while others certainly remain “in.”

Because most consumers were unaware of what sheep dip was, Lucky Strike dedicated a portion of its radio broadcast time to explaining the process to city dwellers. One internal industry memo documents the scripts for all 13 recordings of the NBC Studios radio show “The Lucky Strike Program with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra” for the month of August in 1931 (1). Eight of the 13 recordings expound on the sheep dip campaign. The programming for Saturday, August 22, for example, described an East Coast man to whom many listeners could relate: “Frank Leslie, whose only knowledge of sheep concerns boiled mutton and lamb chops, hasn’t the slightest notion what we mean when we speak of ‘sheep dip.’ No doubt he thinks it’s some kind of gravy for roast spring lamb.” The radio host then explains how farmers use sheep dip to treat livestock, and how this benefits smokers of Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Also on file among the internal industry documents are letters which indicate that solely the nicotine byproduct of Lucky Strike cigarettes was used in the manufacture of sheep dip. Though the American Tobacco Company had been siphoning off nicotine to sheep-dip manufacturers since at least 1915 (2), correspondence between the Vice President of the Tobacco By-Products and Chemical Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky, and the Vice President of the American Tobacco Company reveals that the nicotine from Lucky Strike cigarettes, in particular, was indeed sold in 1931. The VP of the Chemical Corporation found “improvement in the recovery of Nicotine that has been driven off by your ‘Lucky Strike process,” reporting that the nicotine could dip 1,500,000 sheep (3), or alternatively treat 2,700,000 poultry or create 765,000 gallons of spray for fruit trees (4).

1. “The Lucky Strike Program, with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra.” American Tobacco. August 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cpx75f00

2. Ramsay, RA, United States Department of Agriculture. No Title. American Tobacco. 2 March 1915. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jix70a00

3. Robinson, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 7 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iix70a00

4. Robinosn, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 12 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kix70a00

Keep Kissable – img0728

by

The ads In Old Gold’s “Keep Kissable” campaign claim that Old Gold cigarettes lack “breath-tainting” and teeth-staining properties, making them the perfect choice for a kiss. Many of the ads in this campaign targeted women who were concerned that cigarettes would cause yellowed teeth and bad breath. The ads attempted to dispel these fears in women by urging them to “keep kissable” with Old Golds. P. Lorillard employed pseudoscience in the copy text, claiming that the “greasy artificial flavorings” in most cigarettes are the cause of yellowed teeth, rather than the actual source – nicotine. Old Gold claims that their “100% natural” flavors allow their cigarettes to prevent the teeth-staining associated with smoking, though this claim is entirely false. Additionally, Old Gold cigarettes are described in this ad as comparable to “honey to your throat,” and “not a cough in a carload,” indicating that the “natural flavors” are also supposed to suppress the damage smoking has on your throat – another entirely false claim.

Objectifying Women – img0741

by

Tobacco companies know as much as the next guy – sex sells – and they have no qualms with objectifying women to sell their product. As early as the 1930s, cigarette advertisements featured sexy women to lure men to the brand, and by the late 1930s, pin-up girls were frequently used on cigarette advertisements to appeal to male audiences. The Tiparillo advertisements in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo…: campaign (1968) are shameless in their objectification of women, with the models showing cleavage (plus) as well as intense eye contact. As expected, recent advertisements of the 1990s and 2000s are no better, as such images become more commonplace in modern times. These ads target youth explicitly. Though they primarily attract young men, they also manipulate young women into believing that a certain brand of cigarette might make her sexier and more attractive to men.

Early Years – img7524

by

In the early 1900s, it was not considered socially acceptable for women to smoke in public, but according to a newspaper article from Aug 9, 1919, “Smoking in public by women has ceased to shock for ten years past.” One New York Times article from October 7, 1919, cited British women as having a “large share in doubling cigarette sales since 1914.” The article claims that some women “can’t even hang out the washing unless they have a cigarette in their mouths.” As early as 1915, Cambridge University was polling parents as to whether its female students should be allowed to smoke on campus. At the time, women were clearly interested in smoking, but it was not accepted by the entirety of the general public.

It was becoming clear that women were beginning to make up quite a bit of the market share for many cigarette brands, and it was only a matter of time before the brands started targeting women directly with advertising. Another 1919 article, this one written by a woman in the Daily Mirror, states that “most women smoke for effect: merely to be up-to-date” and to avoid the “horror of being thought to harbour old-fashioned ideas nowadays.” If it was a look women were after, the tobacco companies capitalized on this trend, featuring beautiful, glamorous, “up-to-date” women smoking cigarettes in their print advertisements, furthering the prevalence of the image of the modern smoking woman and making it seem more and more like smoking was “something that everybody does.”

The 1920s saw a boom in advertisements marketing cigarettes to women, though the tobacco companies feared the prohibition activists who were prominent from 1920-1933. Indeed, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was displeased when women began smoking in public, and in 1920 the WCTU stated that it would work to prevent women and youth from smoking. In 1921, prohibition groups were appealing to state governments to pass anti-tobacco legislation, hoping for an ultimate constitutional amendment banning tobacco. It wasn’t until after these prohibition activists became less of a threat that the major mass marketing efforts by tobacco companies targeting women would begin. However, well before these major mass marketing efforts, tobacco ads targeting women were present – though more subtle – marketing cigarette smoking as a method of evoking femininity or of providing an alluring fragrance for women.

Pretty in Pink – img10249

by

Tobacco companies are often extremely creative in their advertising techniques; however, sometimes the techniques they employ are excruciatingly obvious. In targeting women, for example, many cigarette brands turn to the classic feminine shade of pink in order to clearly communicate a certain cigarette is intended for women’s use. Pink cigarettes and ads which incorporate the color pink target a younger demographic of females. Camel No. 9, for example, uses a hot pink color palette, which accents the cigarette pack, the pack’s interior foil, the cigarettes themselves, and all of the print advertisements for the product. The ads in this theme all demonstrate the prevalence of pink in ads marketing women’s cigarettes. From Russian “Glamour” ads to American “Misty” ads, pink is everywhere. One Virginia Slims ad from 1995 works to reclaim pink as a color of power for women, with the phrase “Pretty in Pink doesn’t make you a pushover” printed next to a woman in a pink mini-dress preparing to hop on her motorcycle.

More – img1076

by

R.J. Reynolds introduced More in 1974 to take advantage of growing trends in “king size” cigarettes, especially among women. More was one of the first 120 mm cigarette brands on the market, featuring 20 mm of extra length beyond the 100 mm “king size” (which is already significantly longer than the 85 mm of a traditional cigarette). More advertisements heavily targeted women, making use of fashion-forward models and statements like “Experience the captivating color, the glamour, the excitement!” (1984).

The brand name itself, “More,” is not only representative of the fact that there is “more” length to the cigarette, but it also provides psychological associations for consumers as well, as is evidenced by ad slogans. For example, slogans like “Why be satisfied with less?” and “Never settle for less” (1987) appeal to the consumer’s sense of self worth, much like L’Oreal’s various “Because I’m worth it” slogans. Other More slogans actually work to convince consumers that they will improve by smoking More, through statements such as “I’m More satisfied” (1991) and “Dare to be More” (1986).

Another More slogan hits on the most common advertising technique among women-targeted cigarette brands: slimness. The cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, and the advertisements mean to imply that women who smoke a thin cigarette will obtain or maintain a thin figure as well. As one slogan explains: “It’s More you. It’s beige. It’s slender. It’s special” (1983).

Virginia Slims Modern Ads – img46101

by

Virginia Slims is a cigarette brand developed by Philip Morris in 1968 and marketed exclusively to women. Its early advertising campaigns exploited civil rights movements of the ‘60s with the slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby,” a slogan which has lasted into modern times. The brand’s advertising methods continue to present Virginia Slims as the choice for strong, independent, liberated women. The 1990s slogan “It’s a woman thing” and the slogan of the 2000s, “Find Your Voice,” both signify that empowerment and feminism remain key leveraging mechanisms for the brand. An ad from 1995, for example, features a man wearing an apron and preparing a meal in the kitchen as a woman hugs him, cigarette in hand; the text reads, “Equality comes with no apron strings attached.” Often, these ads distract from the position of power Big Tobacco itself holds over both sexes, by pitting women against society instead of against the tobacco industry.

Additionally, marketing for Virginia Slims harnesses the power of fashion. Many print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits and make references to fashion: “I’m a skyhigh pair of platforms in a closet full of flats,” an ad from 2001 boasts. The cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, reflected by the name “Slims.” This adoption of the word “slim” and indeed, sometimes even “superslim,” is a clear reference to a woman’s figure. A slim, slender figure is often presented as more desirable in women’s fashion magazines and by models in the fashion industry. The Virginia Slims brand portrays a subliminal, indirect message that Virginia Slims cigarettes will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Future Shadow Faces – img1140

by

Modified to remove the word sweet in response to threats of litigation from the confection industry.

The firm which marketed Lydia Pinkham’s (1819 – 1883) Vegetable Compound perhaps has received too little credit as a pioneer in marketing to women. They coined such unforgettable slogans as “a baby in every bottle.” As indicated, the 1891 Pinkham slogan “Reach for a Vegetable Instead of a Sweet” has been cited as the inspiration for the Hill/Lasker 1928 slogan “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet.”

 

What I could not find mentioned in the literature was that Pinkham also originated the key slogan of Luckies follow on campaign “Coming events cast their shadows before” in 1891. Using this quote from Thomas Campbell 1777 – 1844, Pinkham’s Vegetable compound alleged their product would “dispense all of those shadows.”

 

Earlier, I has assumed that Lasker’s team, in response to the candy industry’s protests, had cleverly created this follow on campaign as a new means of communicating the weight loss theme without explicitly mentioning “sweets.” It now seems that Pinkham’s inspiration of Lasker was more extensive previously thought.

 

Hill claimed to have created the “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet” idea seeing a heavy women next to a slender women smoking on a street corner. However, as both campaigns so explicated borrowed from the Pinkham company slogans of some 40 years earlier, it seems clear that his stories were apocryphal.

 

It also raises the possibility that the “Reach for a Lucky” and “The coming shadows” we part of a planed campaign from the outset. Someone in the Lasker shop, recognizing the great success of Pinkham’s marketing, decided that ripping off their proven method was more expedient that writing new copy of their own.

 

In the tobacco archives, I also came across a 1949 Lucky Strike proposal, by the MH Hackett Company, to resurrect the weight loss theme using the slogan “When tempted to nibble, remember your middle” and “Be smart/Be slender.” Evidently, nothing came of it.

(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fkf41a00/pdf)

 

 

Avoid the Future Shadow Campaign:

 

“Coming events cast their shadows before” (Thomas Campbell 1777 – 1844)

(appears on most ads)

 

“The shadow which pursues us all” (John Greenleaf Whittier, 1807-1892)

“And O’er his heart a shadow fell.” Edgar Allen Poe (1809-1849)

“Shadows huger than the shapes that cast them” (Alfred Lord Tennyson 1809-1892)

“Condemning shadows” (Shakespeare 1564-1616)

“First a shadow, then a sorrow” (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 1807 – 1882)

Flavored Tobacco – img8691

by

Flavored cigarettes and flavored tobacco have long been held to be gateway products for children, teens, and young adults. Sweet flavors like Camel’s limited edition “Warm Winter Toffee” or Kool’s “Midnight Berry” mask the harsh, unusual flavors of tobacco by overpowering the tobacco flavor with taste sensations that first-time users would find more predictable. Flavored cigarettes continued to be sold well into the 2000s, and didn’t leave U.S. shelves until 2009, when President Obama granted the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Finally, the FDA was able to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes, citing studies which showed “that 17-year-old smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as smokers over the age of 25” (1).

Unfortunately, the 2009 ban on flavored cigarettes did not extend to menthols, the most popular flavor added to cigarettes, nor did it extend to cigars, cigarillos, or smokeless tobacco products. And here is where the tobacco companies have been making their biggest marketing pushes recently. Chewing and dipping tobacco brands like Skoal and Klondike continue to sell tobacco flavored with apple, berry, peppermint, and more, while Camel makes serious inroads on smokeless tobacco products as well as menthol cigarettes. The Camel Crush line clearly targets youth as a flavored cigarette, which allows the user to release a refreshing “burst” of menthol flavor with just a pinch of the cigarette, while Camel Snus, a smokeless tobacco “pouch” provides an alternative to smoking with little packets of sweetened tobacco that can be tucked discreetly under the lip during class or in front of parents.

The FDA does have the power to instill further bans on menthol cigarettes and/or flavored smokeless tobacco. It remains to be seen what actions will be taken in the future.

Broadway Stars – img2613

by

Like Opera singers, Broadway stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in a Broadway star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Broadway performers were particularly convincing, because if the star entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous. Lucky Strike and Camel made the most use of Broadway performers in their ads. In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also 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.

Newsman – img2625

by

The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.

Famous voices, in this case newsmen, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the broadcast journalist’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. If Walter Winchell, for example, trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems less irritating and dangerous. Newsmen also represent a more serious side of the celebrity industry, appealing to hardworking businessmen who may be less swayed by other celebrity endorsements.

Baseball – img4523

by

The marriage of tobacco and baseball dates back to some of the sport’s earliest days. Before 1900, professional baseball was a sea of leagues popping up and then disappearing and dispute over disregarded player contracts. By the turn of the century professional baseball as we know today began to take shape, and tobacco had already entered the scene. Cigarette companies used cards with images of baseball players to stiffen their packs of loosely packed tobacco and thin paper wrappings as early as 1888. In a time when chewing tobacco was widely popular in the U.S., many players indulged in the same habit. While players and ball clubs would go on to advertise many forms of combustible tobacco, cigarettes and chewing tobacco stayed connected most closely with baseball.

In the 1910s, tobacco’s solidification in baseball grew greatly. Bull Durham smoking tobacco launched a revolutionary campaign in 1912, installing large bull bill-boards at almost every major league ballpark. Their promotion ran that any player to bat a ball to the bull would receive $50, or roughly $1200 in today’s money. The prominence of the bull signage and its association with what was becoming America’s pastime led to enormous profits for the company and perhaps the origin of the term “bullpen” to refer to the warm-up area for pitchers. Some of the baseball figures to take a stand against tobacco included Honus Wagner, a legendary player for the Pittsburg Pirates, Ty Cobb, Connie Mack, and Walter Johnson. Wagner, for his part, refused to have his image associated with tobacco-promoting baseball cards. Today, some historians question whether his intent was to help curb young children’s chances of smoking or more to punish the company for improperly compensating him for his image. His decision, nonetheless, made some 1911 Americans question tobacco, while others only more attracted due to the surrounding controversy. In addition, Cobb, Mack, and Johnson all spoke out against cigarettes or allowed their names to be used as part of testimonies collected in Henry Ford’s Case Against the Little White Slaver, published 1914. Cobb and Johnson were both raised to refrain from all forms of mind-altering substances. For their early years in the leagues, right around the time Ford’s book came out, they held true to these ideals and yet still appeared in tobacco ads. Cobb, outside what his ball club may have required of him, even appeared for a self-named brand of tobacco. Clearly, baseball and tobacco were early slated for a complicated and deep relationship.

As baseball’s popularity exploded at the advent of the live-ball era—around 1920—players like Babe Ruth became the idols of millions. Ruth, a hearty man of strength and precision, publicly smoked and drank while living an extravagant, expensive lifestyle. The image of a homerun-belting giant such as Ruth safely smoking cigar after cigar and appearing in numerous ads helped people feel more comfortable with smoking. If such a healthy and lovable character included tobacco in his public portrait, the risk of smoking appeared greatly mitigated. Shocked fans saw Ruth, gaunt and dying of throat cancer, when he returned to Yankee Stadium in 1947, a year before his death at age 53. Despite this clear sign of tobacco’s danger, ads continued to run. Ruth’s former teammate, Joe DiMaggio, appeared in Chesterfield ads a year later. DiMaggio—another public figure who shamelessly smoked cigarettes for millions to see—played a major role in American culture, too. (DiMaggio, also, later died of tobacco-related cancer.) With icons living large and dying painfully from these products, the advertising kept on.

In the mid-1950s, foreboding studies began to warn of the true effects of smoking tobacco. The scare surrounding these products led to tighter restrictions on advertising, such as the 1971 ban on television commercials for tobacco. Tobacco advertising executives needed an avenue to fall back on—a way to separate tobacco from the dark health effects spreading about their products. Advertisements that specifically spoke against the dangers tested poorly, as prospective buyers were simply reminded of the controversy. Instead, advertisers had to turn to focus on a subject that had nothing to do with the growing body of scientific evidence against them. In numbers, R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris bought up ad space in ballparks around the country: Houston’s Astrodome, the Phillies’ Veterans Stadium, the Mariner’s Kingdome, and the Angel’s Anaheim Stadium, to name a few. Fans’ typical experience involved seeing a giant Marlboro or Winston sign, conveniently placed above the scoreboard or exits. Without technically advertising on television, cigarette companies received significant ad time on television through these bill boards.

The cigarette scare also influenced baseball in another way—the second rise of smokeless tobacco (ST). ST, as cigarettes do, also poses serious health risks. The act of spitting the tobacco back out and the lack of smoke, however, made users feel safer. ST was so popular among some baseball players that they would keep a dip in when posing for baseball card pictures (signified by a bulge under the cheek or lower lip). Bill Tuttle, a ballplayer, almost always had a dip in on his cards. In 1993, he was diagnosed with oral cancer, and his disfiguring facial surgeries provided living proof of the effect of ST for players and fans to see. That same year, Minor League Baseball banned ST outright; Tuttle spent the next five years of his life campaigning against its use. The 90s also saw the fall of the Winston and Marlboro ads that had grown into the atmosphere of their respective stadiums for, in some cases, over two decades. The tide was turning for baseball to separate from tobacco.

Today, smoking and ST are waning in the public eye and in baseball. Smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in most major league ballparks. Ones with particularly loose restrictions include Marlins Park, the Mets’ Citi Field, and the Rangers’ Globe Life Park, though policies here will likely change in the next few years. The Tigers’ Comerica Park, for its part, has a cigar bar (aptly named the “Asylum Cigar Bar”), but strongly prohibits all other types of smoking, even inside the bar. On the other end of the tobacco spectrum, while Minor League Baseball has moved on from ST, the Majors lag behind. In 2014, Hall-of-Famer Tony Gwynn died of ST-related cancer at 54. This tragic event adds to the numerous chapters of baseball players plagued by tobacco, but may accelerate cause for a ban. Major League Baseball (MLB) has banned spitting and the visible sign of a tin of chew in uniforms when fans are present or during press interviews. One third of players, however, still chew tobacco, either straight, or by mixing it with gum, sunflower seeds, or other products to spit with less suspicion.

The collective bargaining of the players’ union currently blocks the MLB from a ban on ST, however some cities are making the decision themselves. San Francisco enacted a ban effective January 1st, 2016 that prohibits the use of ST anywhere in the city, including the Giants’ AT&T Park. Some players claim this ban will not prevent them from chewing; however, even if only a symbolic gesture, this measure carries great weight. Efforts such as these demonstrate a step toward the wellbeing of the millions of young fans, among others, who idolize ballplayers. On August 6th, 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called for a similar ban. Curt Schilling, a former Red Sox pitcher who used ST and survived the resultant mouth cancer, currently aids Walsh in the effort. With 15 percent of high-school males using ST, the nation waits to see who will bring what change to America’s game.

British Recent – img6992

by

In 1949, on the heels of Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “Do You Inhale?” and Philip Morris’ 1942 campaign, “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do,” P. Lorillard released a campaign for Embassy urging smokers to “Inhale [Embassy] to your heart’s content!” Lorillard claimed that Embassy’s extra length provides “extra protection.” The faulty concept was that because the cigarette was longer, it was able to better filter out toxins, since it took more time for the smoke to reach the smoker’s throat due to the long length through which it had to travel. In 1950, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigators had decided that king-size cigarettes, like Embassy, contained “more tobacco and therefore more harmful substances” than are found in an ordinary cigarette.

Lorillard’s particular choice of cliché, “to your heart’s content,” was misleading at best . The phrase was meant to impart a sense of happiness and healthfulness. Of course, inhaling would not have made anyone’s heart content; Instead, smoking has been recognized as a major cause of coronary artery disease, responsible for an estimated 20% of deaths from heart disease in the United States. Most ironically in the context of this advertisement campaign, a smokers’ risk of developing heart disease is thought to greatly increase as his or her cigarette intake increases.

Smoking Guns – img13979

by

In a prime example of marketing wizardry, tobacco advertisements have simultaneously presented cigarettes as both sedatives and stimulants. Ads worked to convince consumers that cigarettes would calm the smoker when he felt nervous, or pep him up when he felt sluggish. This theme features ad campaigns from a variety of cigarette brands, all proclaiming cigarettes to be sedatives. Many of the ads in this theme are for Camel cigarettes, and claimed that only Camel cigarettes “do not upset your nerves.” This claim implied that other cigarette brands are stimulants and do cause people to get the jitters, but Camels are the exception. Though Camel was prolific in their anti-nerves campaigns in the 1930s, they were certainly not the only tobacco brand to approach this advertising technique, nor the first.

In 1918, Girard cigars claimed that their cigar “never gets on your nerves,” a slogan which Camel also used over a decade later in 1933. Girard’s ads pose questions that many readers would invariably answer in the affirmative: “Are you easily irritated? Easily annoyed? Do children get on your nerves? Do you fly off the handle and then feel ashamed of yourself?” The ad forces most readers to question their behavior and convinces them that they need intervention, when prior to reading the ad, they felt nothing was wrong. The ad posits Girard as at least one thing that won’t cause anxiety and as the solution to the problems people never even knew they had.

Other ads positioned also their products as relaxing agents. A 1929 ad for Taretyon cigarettes claims that “Tareytons are the choice of busy, active people. People whose work requires steady nerves.” Similarly, many of Camel’s ads explain that people in high pressure situations can’t afford to feel nervous or to have shaky hands (sharpshooters, circus flyers, salesmen, surgeons). The ads don’t provide the reader with the opportunity to think that avoiding cigarettes altogether would be an option if they were worried about the nervous effects of smoking; Instead, Camels are presented as the only “solution” to the nicotine-jolt problem. The ads target a wide variety of audiences, both male and female, young and old, daredevil and housewife. Camel ensures that everyone feels the need for a Camel fix, siting common fidgets like drumming one’s fingers, tapping one’s foot, jingling one’s keys, and even doodling as signs that someone has “jangled nerves.”

Still more brands took the anti-anxiety approach in their ads. In 1933, Lucky Strike advertised that “to anxiety – I bring relief, to distress – I bring courage.” One such ad features a man sitting nervously in the waiting room of a dentist’s office as a woman offers him a Lucky Strike to ease his nerves. Similarly, a 1929 ad for Spud cigarettes poses the question: “Do you smoke away anxiety?” Presuming you answered yes, the ad explains, “then you’ll appreciate Spud’s greater coolness.” The 1938 “Let up – Light up a Camel” campaign explained that “people with work to do break nerve tension” with Camels, and that “smokers find that Camel’s costlier tobaccos are soothing to the nerves!” Even 20 years later, in 1959, King Sano cigars advertised that “the man under pressure owes himself the utter luxury of the new ‘soft smoke’ King Sano.”

Also of note, many of these ads claim that Camels provide their smokers with “healthy nerves,” misleadingly implying that Camel cigarettes themselves are healthy.

World War II – img5560

by

A unique quality of both WWI and WWII armies was that a majority of their combatants were not professional soldiers but rather citizen conscripts1. Thus, habits the common soldiers picked up on the battlefield, such as smoking, were brought home after the war’s end3. WWII soldiers used cigarettes similarly to their WWI forbearers, smoking to escape the stress of battle and steady their nerves1. Soldiers had been rationed 4 cigarettes a day during WWI. In WWII authorities also saw tobacco as a necessity to the maintenance of fighting men, and actually added cigarettes into their daily K-ration before toilet paper2. K-rations provided a four pack per meal, meaning soldiers were issues a total of 12 cigarettes per day. Soldiers could also buy discounted twenty-packs at the army post exchange (PX) stations2. Hence, cigarettes were made readily available to men in the armed forces.
The army didn’t necessarily use one brand for rations, instead cigarettes came in sample packs of different brands, with the most common being Chesterfields2. Tobacco companies specifically targeted the troops stating that they used “personalities associated with the war” such as test pilot “Red” Hulse4. They also sent “cigarettes by millions to GI’s overseas” claiming that the Camel brand was “First in the Service.”4 WWII cigarette adverts focused on themes of smoking as patriotic, promoting solidarity between armed forces, relieving stress, increasing battle performance, encouraging romantic fidelity, and a connection to home. Even after the war was over, WWII continued to be used as an advertising strategy due to its role as a common relatable event among the cigarette consumers of the time.

1. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240820.php
2. http://www.kration.info/cigarettes-and-matches.html
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034360
4. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ksfy0061

Healthy – img17038

by

As the conventional tobacco industry continues to get demonized over predatory marketing practices and concern grows over the ill-effects of smoking, e-cigarette (e-cig)manufacturers have lost no opportunity in selling their products as a “safe” and “healthy” alternative. As Njoy claimed in its commercial “the most amazing thing about this cigarette is, it isn't one.”

Many e-cig brand names and advertising messages contain reassuring phrases that imply no harm and sometimes even medical benefits. Examples of e-cigs with reassuring brand names include Safe-cigs, Lung Buddy, iBreathe, and E-HealthCigs. In addition ads and packages for e-cigs contains reassuring phrases such as “safe,” “healthier, “cancer cure” “vitamin rich,” “light,” “mild, ” “intelligent,” “no smoker’s cough or phlegm,” and “better stamina.” Ads in this theme run the gamut from the shock inducing Flavor Vapes ad which shows a mother blow e-cig vapor into her baby’s carriage and Ever Smoke’s “Save A Life. Save A Lung. Save a Boob” to the mundane.

Advertising of nicotine based products is coming a full circle as most of the strategies employed by the e-cig industry today has been tried by the combustible cigarette industry until it was regulated. More than 85 years ago, the Federal Trade Commission regulated the combustible tobacco industry and prohibited it from making weight loss claims, 5o years ago, the same agency prohibited it from using the images of doctors and nurses to sell its products, and 5 years ago the Food and Drug Administration prohibited the industry from using descriptors such as mild, light, ultra etc. that subliminally suggested that using such a product reduced the harm for the consumer. In April 2014, seven years after e-cigs were introduced in the United States, the Federal Drug Administration has proposed regulations that will restrict health claims made by the e-cig industry. If the regulations are approved, e-cig companies will no longer be allowed to make health claims unless approved by the regulatory agency to make “direct or indirect claims” of reduced risk.

It may follow that like the tobacco industry, while the letter of the law may be followed, the intent of regulation is often subverted.”

Doctors & Nurses – img22014

by

In the first half of the 20th century, tobacco company advertisements often featured doctors hawking cigarettes or cigars. The images were always of an idealized physician – wise, noble, and compassionate. Consumers who saw these ads were made to feel that they would be following the doctor's orders to achieve health or fitness if they were to smoke the cigarettes advertised.

While it may seem hard to believe that such an audacious advertising strategy would be tried in the 21st century, it is precisely what is playing out in the newer and less-well understood electronic cigarette (e-cig) industry. e-cig brands such as Vapestick, Vape Doctor, and Love are resorting to the old and familiar tactic of using the image of the “trusty” doctor to sell their products. In an ad for E-Cigexplorer, an online e-cig store, a surgeon wearing a mask is seeing giving the e-cig a “thumbs-up.” In a more obvious push for the product by the online retailer, two surgeons at an operating theater are seen laughing at a patient who we are to understand is being treated for a tobacco-related illness. The headline for the ad reads, “Still smoking tobacco cigarettes?!” The rest of the text reads, “Haven't you heard of e-cigarettes.” A video for Vapestick has a doctor vaping an e-cig while attending to a pregnant woman. Advanced e-cig uses a more subtle approach to promote the healthfulness of its product. The e-cig packet contains the image of a Caduceus, the most commonly accepted symbol of medicine.

While e-cig companies use the image of the doctor to convince consumers that its products are healthy. Most scientific evidence till date only proves that e-cigs are “healthier” than traditional cigarettes. Nicotine, which is found in most e-cigs is very addictive and the fruit flavored vape juices could hook teenagers and serve as a gateway to traditional cigarettes. At present there is also not much research that has been done to determine the impact of inhaling so much nicotine-laced vapor into the lungs.

Eco-Friendly – img18065

by

At a time when everyone’s mantra is to “go green,” it is no surprise to see the e-cigarette industry’s marketing machine clamor to announce that its products are environmentally conscious and much better for an individual’s health and the environment than conventional cigarette products.

First, most e-cigs companies point to the fact that since their products do not produce any smoke but only emit a vapor, it is less polluting than conventional tobacco products. For instance, Green Smoke says it “aspires to create a greener planet” by offering a cigarette that has no second-hand smoke, no ash and no risk of fire.” SouthBeach Smoke also equates the healthier, i.e. no carcinogens and no smoke aspect of e-cigs to being a more eco-friendly product.

To promote the image of being an earth-friendly product, e-cigarettes are appropriately branded with subliminal brand names such as Green Smoke, Eco-Cigs, Ever Smoke, EverGreen Vapor, Enviro, and Green Nicotine. Many of the ads for these products also use terms such as “additive-free,” “organic” and “eco-friendly” to imply that the ingredients are “pure” and not harmful to the individual or the environment. For instance, Green Nicotine e-cig manufacturer’s claim to being environmentally friendly comes from the fact that its manufacturing processes uses green techniques by restricting the use of “hazardous materials” and incorporating “pure” materials. However, it is important to note that since e-cigs are unregulated, there is no standard definition of the purity of nicotine or flavoring ingredients used in these products.

To further suggest, the green nature of the product, the packaging is plastered with green leaf symbols and shades of green predominate the advertisement and e-cig package. In a Green Smoke advertisement, a woman with apple green colored lips is seen holding an e-cigarette near her lips. The ad seems to suggest that the e-cig is as safe as a lipstick for a woman. In another ad for Green Smoke, a man is seen enjoying the freshness and pure air of a mountaintop with an e-cig between his lips. The text of the advertisement reads, “Enjoy your nicotine. No Lighter. No Fire. No Mess.” An advertisement for EverSmoke that showcases the company’s diverse products has the following text, “Healthy for You. Green for the Environment.” A Green Nicotine advertisement shows a single e-cig against the backdrop of a lush green moss lawn.

E-cig companies are also eager to make the point that since its products are mostly reusable they aren’t thrown away like traditional cigarette butts that pile up in landfills and pollute the environment. However, the eco-friendly nature of e-cigs warrants a closer investigation. E-cigs contain several plastic and metal components that need to be properly disposed. In addition to this, the nickel-cadmium or lithium batteries used in e-cigs need to be properly disposed in e-waste recycling bin instead of the general trash. While some e-cig manufacturers offer “recycling programs” to promote proper disposal of e-waste, it is unclear how many consumers take the time to invest in such programs. When e-cigs don’t get properly disposed they are as much a pollutant as traditional cigarettes.

Celebrities – img12366

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Sport Stars – img12377

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Makes you Sick – img12659

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

Ages You – img12933

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.

Hideous – img12936

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.

Lucky Strike Knockoffs – img13118

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).

Other Brand Knockoffs – img13142

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).

Hospitalized Patients – img6774

by

Many tobacco ads featured injured, hospitalized patients receiving tobacco products which supposedly cured them, healed them, or provided them with relief. Though this association between cigarettes and healing was not always stated explicitly, it was always implied through thoughtful strategy. When a doctor or nurse provided the patient with the product, it was given even more of a medicinal connotation.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img2739

by

Philip Morris’ famous spokesperson of over 40 years, Johnny Roventini (1910-1998), began his career as, reportedly, “the smallest bellhop ever.” Coming in at under 4 feet tall, Roventini resembled a child in stature, later gaining him and Philip Morris popularity among children and adults alike. While working as a bellhop, Roventini was approached by two Philip Morris marketing executives who heard his voice and knew he was an advertising gold mine. They asked for him to “call for Philip Morris” for one dollar. Johnny, unaware that Philip Morris was a cigarette brand, called out loudly for him. Immediately, the marketing executives saw the promise in Johnny, and enlisted him as the first ever living trademark in their new advertisement campaign. He later appeared on the TV show “I Love Lucy” alongside stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, both of whom endorsed Philip Morris in 1959.

Throughout his career as spokesperson, “Little Johnny” made appearances at countless events, ranging from supermarket grand openings to public school fairs. He booked so many events in his first year touring that Philip Morris was forced to hire more actors to play the part of Johnny. There are rumored to have been at least ten Johnny Juniors who helped facilitate Johnny’s public appearances; however, Philip Morris kept quiet about these actors, preferring everyone to believe there was only one Johnny. The most well-known Johnny Junior was Albert Altieri (1916-2002), a 3-foot-7 inch bellhop. He was hired 2 years after Roventini at the age of 19. When Altieri passed away from a heart attack at the age of 86, CNN printed his obituary which read, “The second half of a duo famous in American advertising for yelling ‘Call for Philip Morris’ has died.” It appears that Philip Morris was successful in keeping quiet the existence of the other Juniors. Two of the other Johnny Juniors mentioned in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives include Leon Polinsky and Buddy Douglas.

Not a Cough in a Carload – img2960

by

When P. Lorillard first introduced the Old Gold brand in 1926, the company advertised the brand under the slogan “Not a Cough in a Carload.” Our collection of Old Gold ads runs the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan in some capacity up until 1934. The slogan contends that in every train car full of Old Gold tobacco leaves (in every “carload”), not one cough could be found. Of course, the slogan can also be interpreted that in a carload of people – each smoking Old Golds – not a single person would be coughing. Either way, the ambiguous slogan undoubtedly served to reassure a worried public as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes, and in particular the healthfulness and safety of the Old Gold brand. This advertising technique is known as “problem-solution” advertising; it provides the problem (coughing due to smoking) and the solution (smoke Old Golds). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive. No cigarette is healthful, and no cigarette reduces throat irritation or coughing. False health claims such as this abound in tobacco advertisements throughout the decades, but “Not a Cough in a Carload” was one of the most pervasive.

Despite being one of the most recognizable advertisement slogans in the nation at the time, the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan was often intermingled with other themes, ranging from “They Gave a New Thrill” to “Old Gold Weather” in an attempt to provide consistency among ads. Many of the “Not a Cough in a Carload” advertisements include celebrity testimonials or take the form of cartoons. The comics included at the end of this theme collection were all illustrated by Clare Briggs between 1927 and 1928. The comics were already well-known in American culture, and when they began to be used toward cigarette advertising, they were a huge success for Old Gold, appearing in approximately 1,500 American newspapers nationwide. Briggs’ popularity within Lorillard was so vast that the company named another of its brands in honor of the illustrator: Briggs Smoking Tobacco.

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1421

by

Tobacco was long thought to hold medicinal properties, though the opposite is now known to be true: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that tobacco “is the single most preventable cause of death in the world today” and noted that tobacco “is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of death in the world” (1). However, as early as 1492 when Columbus and his crew first encountered Native Americans smoking tobacco, the Europeans recorded tobacco’s use as a healing agent. From then on, the supposed medicinal powers of both tobacco and nicotine were included in most European and American pharmacopoeia (official lists of approved medications) until the twentieth century, when nicotine was deleted from the American Pharmacopoeia just in time for the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Tobacco soon became regulated, as it joined liquor and firearms as taxable by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Still, as late as the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, numerous companies advertised medicinal cigarettes. Some of these medicinal cigarettes contained tobacco, while others did not. Those used to treat asthma, “asthma cigarettes,” were sold well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

1. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization. 6-7:2008

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5158

by

Towards the end of the era in which false medical claims were endemic (early 1950s) the Old Gold brand had a prolonged campaign – with more than 50 variations on this theme – in which they touted: “We Don’t Try to Scare You with Medical Claims.” Ironically, many of these ads in their fine print make outlandish statements that Old Golds were less irritating and thus safer than the competition. Somehow they calculated that the public would not see this obvious hypocrisy.

Note the white box strangely reminiscent of the Surgeon General’s warning introduced years later. In what can only be characterized as rank hypocrisy, they claim Old Gold’s are less irritating and easier on the throat.

Reduced Carcinogens – img2131

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.

High Tech Filters – img2144

by

Filter cigarette advertisements often tout modern technology and scientific advancement to convince consumers their filters are effective, though in most cases filters are no more effective in filtering smoke than the same length of tobacco. This theme reveals a collection of ads professing state of the art filters which appear to ensure the quality and safety of a product and the health of the consumer. American examples from the 1960s and 1970s for Lark and Doral are comparable with the Chilean advertisements for Kent from 2002. These Kent advertisements promote a filter made from charcoal which they name the ACF (Activated Charcoal Filter). The abbreviated name itself (ACF) is used to make the filter sound more scientific, and words like “innovación” (innovation) and “filtro de última generación” (latest generation filter) also present Kent’s filter as the safest and most advanced.

The Kent ads all use futuristic digital renderings of the cigarette which reveal the inner-workings of the filter chamber to the consumer. One of Lark’s ads from 1960 is shockingly similar. The inside of the cigarette is revealed so the consumer can see the charcoal filling the inner chamber, and words like “invented,” “amazing charcoal,” and “modern science” work together to further present Lark as the most advanced cigarette on the market. Also in the same category is Dorral, who, in 1972, used the same technique. The ad opens up the filter and shows consumers the “strange-looking polyethylene chamber with baffles and air channels.” Even a Viceroy ad from 1954 uses this method, pealing away the cigarette paper to expose the “20,000 filters” within. The hand-drawn diagram in the Viceroy ad is surprisingly similar to the digitally rendered diagrams used by Kent almost half a century later.

Clearly, little has changed in the marketing of filter cigarettes over the decades. It is most interesting to compare these ads for technologically advanced filters with those for cork filters. As early as the 1920s, Craven “A” was ensuring that its consumers knew the brand was made with an “absolutely natural cork” tip.

Light – img8026

by

The ads in this theme document the decades of deceptive advertisement campaigns for “light” cigarettes. In the 1970s, the tobacco industry began heavily promoting “light” cigarettes as low-tar and low-nicotine alternatives to quitting. However, the FDA has determined that light and ultra-light cigarettes are no safer than regular cigarettes. In fact, internal industry documents reveal that from the very beginning, tobacco companies were well aware that smokers compensated for the low-nicotine draw from light cigarettes by changing their smoking behaviors. A brand of cigarette, for example, might register on the FTC Test Method as containing 12 mg of “tar” and 0.9 mg of nicotine per cigarette, but in actuality, a human smoker of the same brand would be able to receive much more tar and nicotine than the “machine smoker” by smoking the light cigarette in a different manner.

Indeed, since the 1966 release of the ISO machine-smoking method (used by the FTC to determine the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide yield of cigarettes), the industry has worked intensively to create a product that would outsmart the testing equipment. For one, the tobacco companies discovered that added perforations on cigarette filters resulted in low tar and nicotine readings from the FTC Test Method, as clean air diluted the smoke “inhaled” by the machine; however, human smokers, unlike the machine smoker, are smoking for the nicotine kick. Often, this desire for nicotine causes human smokers to take longer, bigger, or quicker puffs on light cigarettes, since the cigarette provides “less” nicotine per normal puff. Additionally, smokers of light cigarettes often smoke more cigarettes per day than smokers of regular cigarettes. Sometimes (usually in the case of super light or ultra light cigarettes), smokers instinctively cover the perforations on the filters with their lips or fingers as they draw in, resulting in a very high intake of nicotine and tar from the cigarette (1). Because of these wide variations between human smokers and machine smokers, the FTC Test Method is now widely considered to be misleading for consumers.

The FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, and with this change came many new regulations, one of which directly concerns light cigarettes: As of July 2010, the words “mild,” “low,” or “light” are not to be used on tobacco products as they cause consumers to underestimate their health risks. This means that brands previously marketed as “light” or “low-tar” can no longer include these words on their packaging or advertising. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on different colored packages to indicate whether a certain product is light, ultra-light, or full-flavor. The colors vary slightly among brands, but generally adhere to the following standards: red indicates regular; dark green indicates menthol; light green, blue, or gold indicate previously “light” cigarettes; and silver or orange indicate previously “ultra light” cigarettes. Camel, for example, replaced their “Camel Lights” product with “Camel Blue.” Philip Morris stuck with the idea that lighter shades indicate a “lighter” cigarette, and thus Marlboro Lights became Marlboro Gold, and Marlboro Ultra-Lights became Marlboro Silver. Likewise, R.J. Reynolds’ Salem Ultra-Lights became “Salem Silver Box.” The FDA has regulatory authority to demand that tobacco companies discontinue their color branding techniques in the future.

1. Kozlowski, T. and R. J. O’Connor. “Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents.” Tobacco Control. 2002; 11: i40-i50. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/suppl_1/i40.full