SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Health

Health

Future Shadow Faces – img1145

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 – img4055

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.

School Days – img8662

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Recent – img7458

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.

World War II – img5564

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 – img17043

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 – img17166

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.

Discounts – img19378

by

Pricing strategy is an important element of any product marketing campaign. Given that a big advantage that the e-Cigarette (e-cig) industry has over combustible cigarettes is its lower price point, it is not surprising to see price being a central element in many advertisements. One of the reasons that e-cigs can be priced lower than traditional cigarettes is that unlike conventional cigarettes, e-cigs do not contain any tobacco and therefore are not subject to the hefty cigarette tax but only to local sales tax.

As with all consumer products, discounts are widely used by the industry to drive short-term sales, remain competitive, and urge price-minded consumers to use the product. Price discounts offered by e-cig brands include percentage discounts, multi-pack offers, and “buy one get one free” deals. Since e-cigs are primarily sold online promotional discounts, especially through social media channels during the holidays, are extensively being used to grab a larger market share. As the e-cig market continues to grow and begins to utilize more retail outlets and convenience store chains to sell its products, it is expected that more e-cig companies like tobacco companies will offer retail owners incentives for ordering their products, placing advertisements in specific locations, and providing prime shelf space for their product. This in turn will drive more consumers to their products.

Price is a powerful tool that promote product use. For teenagers who are very price sensitive, the lower price of disposable e-cigs may make for an easy introduction to a product that is often described as a “gateway” to addiction. 1

1. Grana, Rachel A. “Electronic cigarettes: a new nicotine gateway?.” Journal of Adolescent Health 52.2 (2013): 135-136.

Eco-Friendly – img18068

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.

Cigalikes – img18204

by

There are two different styles of e-cigarettes available in the market. E-cigs that look like technologically advanced pens and smart phones and e-cigs that look and feel much like a traditional cigarette. It is under this latter category that brands such as NJOY, Premium Ecigs, Play Vapor and Real Feel belong.

For many heavy smokers, every detail of the smoking experience from the way the cigarette feels in their hand, to the taste and smell of the product, to the way it burns the throat, to how they ash it contributes to their smoking pleasure. Some studies have shown that if these sensations are removed that smoking satisfaction decreases.

In tempting these heavy smokers to switch over to e-cigs, many eCig brands are trying to mimic as much of the taste and feel of conventional cigarettes as they can. For instance both Real and NJOY are so closely designed to imitate a traditional cigarette that they include a faux gold ring, cartridge color and a tip that resembles glowing embers. NJOY and Metro eCigs are also designed to be the same size as a conventional cigarette. NJOY manufacturers are also working to get the eCig to weigh the same as a conventional cigarette.

For many heavy smokers, eCigs miss the mark because they don’t produce a throat hit, the burn at the back of your throat when you smoke. While eCig manufacturers are getting better at imitating this feature of conventional cigarettes too, for the moment it still isn’t there.

Other Bodily Disease – img12541

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes you Sick – img12664

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

Other Brand Knockoffs – img13147

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).

Not a Cough in a Carload – img2962

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.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img8823

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.

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1423

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

Protects Your Health – img1939

by

This theme features a variety of ads professing health benefits for filter cigarettes, although filters did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Leading the pack with health claims was Kent, with ads that read, “What a wonderful feeling to know that Kent filters best of all leading filter cigarettes!” (1958) and “You’ll feel better about smoking with the taste of Kent!” (1961). Ironically, Kent’s filter contained asbestos, a mineral known to cause mesothelioma, a fatal form of cancer. In fact, the asbestos in Kent’s filter was crocidolite asbestos (also known as blue asbestos), which is often considered the deadliest form of the fibrous mineral.

1. Riis, R.W. Reader’s Digest. “How Harmful are Cigarettes?” 7 Jan 1999. .

Reduced Carcinogens – img2132

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.

High Tech Filters – img8953

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 – img3102

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 – img3509

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 – img3547

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.

Keep Kissable – img0733

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 – img0746

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.

Capri – img1037

by

Brown & Williamson launched Capri as the first ever “super slim” cigarette in 1987, targeting young women. Traditional cigarettes have a circumference of 25 mm, slim cigarettes 23 mm, and Capri Super Slims only 17 mm. Advertisements for Capri follow the logic that slimmer is better, apparently influenced by the assumption that women prefer to be physically slim, since a slender figure is often presented as more desirable in women’s fashion magazines and by models in the fashion industry. Slogans such as “The slimmest slim in town” (1988) and “There is no slimmer way to smoke” (1994) provides a not-so-subliminal message that by smoking Capri cigarettes, consumers can count on obtaining or maintaining a slimmer figure than everyone else.

More – img1079

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 – img45504

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 – img1146

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)

Young Smokers – img3863

by

The ads in this theme, featuring attractive, smiling, young models, blatantly target teens and young adults. This theme spans decades of cigarette ads targeting youth, from the 1920s Fatima cigarettes slogan, “the younger crowd,” to the 1930s and ’40s Old Gold slogan, “for young ideas,” to the 1950s Philip Morris slogan “for those with keen, young tastes.” Internal industry documents show that young people have been (and remain today) a key marketing target for tobacco companies.

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, R.J.R. placed 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.

Abroad, where regulation is less strict, flagrant targeting of youth in cigarette ads remains rampant. Bright pink ads for Kiss cigarettes in Russia, using fresh-faced girls enjoying lollipops and ice cream cones, exemplify the dangers of tobacco advertising with next to zero regulations.

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

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 – img4056

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.

School Days – img8663

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British Recent – img6997

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.

World War II – img5565

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 – img17044

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 – img17167

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.

Flavor Varieties – img18609

by

A patently obvious device used by e-cigarette (e-cig) companies to attract teens is the promotion of youth-oriented flavors. In its flavored product lines, e-cig manufacturers have far exceeded the flavorings used by the combustible tobacco industry. Almost every flavor addictive available in the market is available as a vapor juice. With many e-cig manufacturers allowing consumers to pick and mix their own flavorings, the possibilities are endless.

e-cigs and vapor juices are available in a number including candy flavors such as gummi bears and bubble gum; baked good flavors such as peach cobbler and apple pie, alcoholic flavors such as beer and peach schnapps, variety of fruit and berry flavors and mint.

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. In a recent study, researchers at UCSF who analyzed data from the 2011 and 2012 National Youth Tobacco Survey found that adolescents who used e-cigs were more likely to smoke cigarettes and less likely to quit smoking1. In another study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found 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-cigs2.

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. UCSF: E-Cigarettes: Gateway to Nicotine Addiction for U.S. Teens, Says UCSF Study. Available at https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/03/112316/e-cigarettes-gateway-nicotine-addiction-us-teens-says-ucsf-study

2. 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

Knock-Offs – img23184

by

Brands strive for brand loyalty as it often involves consumers being repeat purchasers of the brand’s products and in many cases, identifying with the interests of the brand. Most major retail companies have built brand loyalty over decades. Electronic cigarette (e-cig) manufacturers understanding the importance of brand loyalty in consumer purchasing habits are trying to reap the goodwill of these companies by designing knock-off products.

A large portion of these imitations are flavor knockoffs, or flavors with branding that strongly resembles or imitates an existing brand. Take “Starbuzz Tobacco”, a play on words of Starbucks Coffee, with a logo that shares the same concentric circles and color scheme. Starbucks is a popular brand amongst teenagers, especially teenaged girls, so this attempt to mimic the Starbucks brand is also an attempt to capture that image for the e-cig product as a hip product. Another example is Pink Spot Flavor’s Raging Bull flavors, which uses the same bull outline as the one in the Red Bull energy drink logo, and also adopts a very similar color scheme. The imitations continue beyond brand associations and encompass product associations – there are many instances of e-cig companies simply using the logo of a different brand in its own packaging. Many Juicy Fruit flavor iterations of various e-cig companies directly place the actual Juicy Fruit candy logo on their packaging, which, suffice to say, is massively appealing to children. There are also several variations of popular breakfast cereal flavored e-cigs including Lucky Charms.

The established brand name companies are beginning to take note. General Mills Inc., Girl Scouts of the USA, and Tootsie Roll Industries Inc. are among the brands that have started firing off cease-and-desist letters to makers of the flavored nicotine liquids used in e-cigs.1 With sales of e-cigs booming, e-cig companies can no longer fly under the radar after ripping off a large corporations trademark.

1. Candy, Snack Companies Want Names Off E-Cigs. Retrieved from http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterprise/2014/05/candy-snack-companies-want-names-off-e-cigs.html

Discounts – img19379

by

Pricing strategy is an important element of any product marketing campaign. Given that a big advantage that the e-Cigarette (e-cig) industry has over combustible cigarettes is its lower price point, it is not surprising to see price being a central element in many advertisements. One of the reasons that e-cigs can be priced lower than traditional cigarettes is that unlike conventional cigarettes, e-cigs do not contain any tobacco and therefore are not subject to the hefty cigarette tax but only to local sales tax.

As with all consumer products, discounts are widely used by the industry to drive short-term sales, remain competitive, and urge price-minded consumers to use the product. Price discounts offered by e-cig brands include percentage discounts, multi-pack offers, and “buy one get one free” deals. Since e-cigs are primarily sold online promotional discounts, especially through social media channels during the holidays, are extensively being used to grab a larger market share. As the e-cig market continues to grow and begins to utilize more retail outlets and convenience store chains to sell its products, it is expected that more e-cig companies like tobacco companies will offer retail owners incentives for ordering their products, placing advertisements in specific locations, and providing prime shelf space for their product. This in turn will drive more consumers to their products.

Price is a powerful tool that promote product use. For teenagers who are very price sensitive, the lower price of disposable e-cigs may make for an easy introduction to a product that is often described as a “gateway” to addiction. 1

1. Grana, Rachel A. “Electronic cigarettes: a new nicotine gateway?.” Journal of Adolescent Health 52.2 (2013): 135-136.

Contests – img19407

by

Many e-Cigarette (e-cig) companies are promoting contests, giveaways and sweepstakes in an effort to build brand loyalty and to add to their existing database. The sweepstakes and prizes offered are designed to be attractive to the brand’s target audience as well as other potential consumers.

Unlike in the case of conventional tobacco products, sweepstakes and competitions are largely marketed through social media sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest instead of direct mail. The use of social media offers makes it easier for e-cig companies to target younger audiences, who are usually extremely price conscious, and also more active on social media sites.

International Vapor Group, a leading e-cig company that owns brands such as SouthBeach Smoke, Ever Smoke and VaporZone, frequently uses sweepstakes and giveaways as a marketing strategy across all its brands. Some of the exciting offers made by the company include a 1,000 cash award from SouthBeach Smoke, a five-day paid trip to Las Vegas from VaporZone, and an all expenses spa trip from Ever Smoke. Other companies like White Cloud frequently market new flavors or sample kits giveaways through its social media channels.

By entering the sweepstakes and other competitive offerings, e-cig companies are able to gain more information on their existing audience targets as well as potential consumers. This enables them to tailor their marketing efforts in the future to reach out to specific audiences.

Eco-Friendly – img18041

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.

Other Bodily Disease – img12536

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes you Sick – img12665

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

Other Brand Knockoffs – img13148

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).

Not a Cough in a Carload – img2963

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.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img8824

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.

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1424

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

Pseudoscience – img1557

by

In the first half of the twentieth century, popular faith in medicine was exploited by a series of tobacco industry-sponsored “research” and “surveys” which made its way into cigarette advertising. In this era, before the coming of the atomic bomb, little of today’s cynicism existed concerning the abilities of science to overcome societal problems. To take advantage of this popular sentiment, the industry sponsored “research institutes” and scientific symposia, many of which amounted to little more than propaganda based upon dubious methodology. Health claims were then made on the basis of these so-called studies, as when Chesterfields were advertised in 1952 under the assertion that “Nose, throat, and accessory organs [were] not adversely affected” after a six-month period of medical observation (including X-rays) by ear, nose, and throat specialists.

Reduced Carcinogens – img2133

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 – img12660

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 – img3073

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 – img3510

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 – img3548

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.

Keep Kissable – img0734

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.

More – img1080

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 – img45503

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 – img1147

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 – img4057

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.

School Days – img8664

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baseball – img4527

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 – img6998

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.

World War II – img5566

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