SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for international

international

Blindness – img12420

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

Blindness – img12419

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

Addiction 101 – img11272

by

Addiction themed ads are a reminder for smokers and a warning for nonsmokers that smoking is very addictive. Whether they realize it yet, once they become addicted, it will be very hard to quit. For smokers, these ads offer support (usually numbers of quit lines) to help smokers quit. They also point out that nicotine is responsible for the addictive qualities of smoking.

The effectiveness of addiction-themed anti-smoking ads among youth varies depending on the delivery of the theme. Youth are not receptive to ads that warn of addiction by smoking. They have just started smoking, and they smoke primarily for social reasons, not because they crave it. They are not yet addicted, so they think they can quit before they are affected or find it hard to believe these claims can apply to them (4). Pechmann 2003 demonstrates that exposure to these ads do increase the perceptions of health risk severity, but this change in awareness does not lead to reduced intentions to smoke because there is still low perception of vulnerability (3).

However addiction can be very effective when it is portrayed as a manipulative tactic employed by the tobacco industry (2). Generally, the audience already knows not to believe Big Tobacco’s claim that smoking is not addictive, but this recognition does not affect their perception of the industry. Big Tobacco is merely stretching the truth to sell their product, which is no different from practically any other company.

On the other hand, showing youth that Big Tobacco is not just trying to persuade them, but that they are trying to control them through nicotine does change the way Big Tobacco is viewed. Youth want to be in control of their actions and the desire to try smoking is strongest at a young age. Smoking is often an act of rebellion against rules set by an authority that is dictating to them what is right and wrong. It is resistance against conformity during a time of self-discovery (1). However, realizing that someone is manipulating them to believe these things about smoking undermines all that smoking stands for. This invokes strong reactions because it relates to young smokers’ current experiences, unlike warnings about smoking’s addictiveness, which forces smokers to imagine a situation they have not yet experienced, and thus cannot yet grasp (1).

REFERENCES:
1.

Beaudoin CE. Exploring Antismoking Ads: Appeals, Themes, and Consequences. Journal of Health Communication 2002; 7: 123-137.
2. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
3. 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.
4. Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Addiction 101 – img11273

by

Addiction themed ads are a reminder for smokers and a warning for nonsmokers that smoking is very addictive. Whether they realize it yet, once they become addicted, it will be very hard to quit. For smokers, these ads offer support (usually numbers of quit lines) to help smokers quit. They also point out that nicotine is responsible for the addictive qualities of smoking.

The effectiveness of addiction-themed anti-smoking ads among youth varies depending on the delivery of the theme. Youth are not receptive to ads that warn of addiction by smoking. They have just started smoking, and they smoke primarily for social reasons, not because they crave it. They are not yet addicted, so they think they can quit before they are affected or find it hard to believe these claims can apply to them (4). Pechmann 2003 demonstrates that exposure to these ads do increase the perceptions of health risk severity, but this change in awareness does not lead to reduced intentions to smoke because there is still low perception of vulnerability (3).

However addiction can be very effective when it is portrayed as a manipulative tactic employed by the tobacco industry (2). Generally, the audience already knows not to believe Big Tobacco’s claim that smoking is not addictive, but this recognition does not affect their perception of the industry. Big Tobacco is merely stretching the truth to sell their product, which is no different from practically any other company.

On the other hand, showing youth that Big Tobacco is not just trying to persuade them, but that they are trying to control them through nicotine does change the way Big Tobacco is viewed. Youth want to be in control of their actions and the desire to try smoking is strongest at a young age. Smoking is often an act of rebellion against rules set by an authority that is dictating to them what is right and wrong. It is resistance against conformity during a time of self-discovery (1). However, realizing that someone is manipulating them to believe these things about smoking undermines all that smoking stands for. This invokes strong reactions because it relates to young smokers’ current experiences, unlike warnings about smoking’s addictiveness, which forces smokers to imagine a situation they have not yet experienced, and thus cannot yet grasp (1).

REFERENCES:
1.

Beaudoin CE. Exploring Antismoking Ads: Appeals, Themes, and Consequences. Journal of Health Communication 2002; 7: 123-137.
2. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
3. 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.
4. Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Profit Above All – img12230

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Brand Knockoffs – img12275

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).

Celebrities – img12365

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ages You – img12933

by

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

Celebrities – img12366

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addiction 101 – img11274

by

Addiction themed ads are a reminder for smokers and a warning for nonsmokers that smoking is very addictive. Whether they realize it yet, once they become addicted, it will be very hard to quit. For smokers, these ads offer support (usually numbers of quit lines) to help smokers quit. They also point out that nicotine is responsible for the addictive qualities of smoking.

The effectiveness of addiction-themed anti-smoking ads among youth varies depending on the delivery of the theme. Youth are not receptive to ads that warn of addiction by smoking. They have just started smoking, and they smoke primarily for social reasons, not because they crave it. They are not yet addicted, so they think they can quit before they are affected or find it hard to believe these claims can apply to them (4). Pechmann 2003 demonstrates that exposure to these ads do increase the perceptions of health risk severity, but this change in awareness does not lead to reduced intentions to smoke because there is still low perception of vulnerability (3).

However addiction can be very effective when it is portrayed as a manipulative tactic employed by the tobacco industry (2). Generally, the audience already knows not to believe Big Tobacco’s claim that smoking is not addictive, but this recognition does not affect their perception of the industry. Big Tobacco is merely stretching the truth to sell their product, which is no different from practically any other company.

On the other hand, showing youth that Big Tobacco is not just trying to persuade them, but that they are trying to control them through nicotine does change the way Big Tobacco is viewed. Youth want to be in control of their actions and the desire to try smoking is strongest at a young age. Smoking is often an act of rebellion against rules set by an authority that is dictating to them what is right and wrong. It is resistance against conformity during a time of self-discovery (1). However, realizing that someone is manipulating them to believe these things about smoking undermines all that smoking stands for. This invokes strong reactions because it relates to young smokers’ current experiences, unlike warnings about smoking’s addictiveness, which forces smokers to imagine a situation they have not yet experienced, and thus cannot yet grasp (1).

REFERENCES:
1.

Beaudoin CE. Exploring Antismoking Ads: Appeals, Themes, and Consequences. Journal of Health Communication 2002; 7: 123-137.
2. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
3. 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.
4. Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Celebrities – img12367

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actors & Actresses – img12362

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addiction 101 – img11275

by

Addiction themed ads are a reminder for smokers and a warning for nonsmokers that smoking is very addictive. Whether they realize it yet, once they become addicted, it will be very hard to quit. For smokers, these ads offer support (usually numbers of quit lines) to help smokers quit. They also point out that nicotine is responsible for the addictive qualities of smoking.

The effectiveness of addiction-themed anti-smoking ads among youth varies depending on the delivery of the theme. Youth are not receptive to ads that warn of addiction by smoking. They have just started smoking, and they smoke primarily for social reasons, not because they crave it. They are not yet addicted, so they think they can quit before they are affected or find it hard to believe these claims can apply to them (4). Pechmann 2003 demonstrates that exposure to these ads do increase the perceptions of health risk severity, but this change in awareness does not lead to reduced intentions to smoke because there is still low perception of vulnerability (3).

However addiction can be very effective when it is portrayed as a manipulative tactic employed by the tobacco industry (2). Generally, the audience already knows not to believe Big Tobacco’s claim that smoking is not addictive, but this recognition does not affect their perception of the industry. Big Tobacco is merely stretching the truth to sell their product, which is no different from practically any other company.

On the other hand, showing youth that Big Tobacco is not just trying to persuade them, but that they are trying to control them through nicotine does change the way Big Tobacco is viewed. Youth want to be in control of their actions and the desire to try smoking is strongest at a young age. Smoking is often an act of rebellion against rules set by an authority that is dictating to them what is right and wrong. It is resistance against conformity during a time of self-discovery (1). However, realizing that someone is manipulating them to believe these things about smoking undermines all that smoking stands for. This invokes strong reactions because it relates to young smokers’ current experiences, unlike warnings about smoking’s addictiveness, which forces smokers to imagine a situation they have not yet experienced, and thus cannot yet grasp (1).

REFERENCES:
1.

Beaudoin CE. Exploring Antismoking Ads: Appeals, Themes, and Consequences. Journal of Health Communication 2002; 7: 123-137.
2. Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
3. 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.
4. Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Bad Influence – img12726

by

Many anti-smoking advertisements use children as a motivation for adults to quit smoking. The two most common themes in this category are 1) your children are suffering from your secondhand smoke, and 2) that you are being a poor role model for your children.

These ads remind smokers that their “choice” to smoke not only negatively affects themselves as individuals, but also harms innocent bystanders and those whom the smokers love most.

Children are particularly vulnerable because they have no say in the smoking habits of the adults in close proximity to them. Children exposed to secondhand smoke wheeze and cough more often, get sick more often, and experience more frequent and more intense life-threatening asthma attacks than children not exposed to secondhand smoke. (1)

Other ads in this category concentrate on the example smokers set for their children. Multiple studies have shown that children whose parents smoke are much more likely to start smoking themselves than are their peers. These ads thus force smokers to think about the consequences of smoking not just for themselves, but for others as well.

While the primary goal of these ads is to increase the number of adult quitters, the ads may also have cascading effects on adolescents. Unfortunately, literature on the effectiveness of these children-themed ads on adult quitting rates is lacking, and there has not been extensive research on whether the ads persuade adults to talk to their children about smoking.

However, there is research on how parental smoking and parental behaviors affect smoking behaviors in children. Smoking socialization, which can include both directly transmitted knowledge of smoking through parental conversations with children and indirectly transmitted knowledge through parental smoking habits, has been shown to influence children’s future smoking habits. Exposure to second-hand smoke and a lack of anti-smoking expectations and smoking-specific rules are parenting behaviors associated with current smoking in adolescents and the likelihood of children to pick up smoking later in life.

Interestingly, one study noted that while parenting behaviors had a significant impact on smoking patterns in adolescents, actual parental smoking did not (2). The results of this study suggest that perhaps ads that focus on the health of children should be supplemented with parenting advice for adult smokers. A second study also supports the claim that “higher quality” parenting, which in this case was defined as “positive in affect and tone, responsive, directive, and empathetic,” was associated with a lower likelihood of smoking initiation in adolescents, further indicating the importance of smoking socialization between parent and child (3).

Though the primary purpose of these children-themed ads may not be to prevent smoking in adolescents, the ads may raise awareness in families about the influence parents can have on their children’s smoking behaviors. If these ads are supplemented with support and advice on parenting and how to talk to children about smoking, they may have the potential to reduce smoking not just in adults, but also in adolescents as well.

REFERENCES:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General: Secondhand Smoke: What It Means To You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2011 Mar 11].

2. Waa A, Edwards R, Newcombe R, Zhang J, Weerasekera D, Peace J, McDuff I. Parental behaviors, but not parental smoking, influence current smoking and smoking susceptibility among 15 and 15 year-old children. Aust NZ J Public Health 2011; 35: 530-536.

3. Richmond MJ, Mermelstein RJ, Wakschlag LS. Direction Observations of Parenting and Real-Time Negative Affect Among Adolescent Smokers and Nonsmokers. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2012; 0:1-12.

 

Brazil – img12824

by

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

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

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

Resources:

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

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

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

Bad Influence – img12728

by

Many anti-smoking advertisements use children as a motivation for adults to quit smoking. The two most common themes in this category are 1) your children are suffering from your secondhand smoke, and 2) that you are being a poor role model for your children.

These ads remind smokers that their “choice” to smoke not only negatively affects themselves as individuals, but also harms innocent bystanders and those whom the smokers love most.

Children are particularly vulnerable because they have no say in the smoking habits of the adults in close proximity to them. Children exposed to secondhand smoke wheeze and cough more often, get sick more often, and experience more frequent and more intense life-threatening asthma attacks than children not exposed to secondhand smoke. (1)

Other ads in this category concentrate on the example smokers set for their children. Multiple studies have shown that children whose parents smoke are much more likely to start smoking themselves than are their peers. These ads thus force smokers to think about the consequences of smoking not just for themselves, but for others as well.

While the primary goal of these ads is to increase the number of adult quitters, the ads may also have cascading effects on adolescents. Unfortunately, literature on the effectiveness of these children-themed ads on adult quitting rates is lacking, and there has not been extensive research on whether the ads persuade adults to talk to their children about smoking.

However, there is research on how parental smoking and parental behaviors affect smoking behaviors in children. Smoking socialization, which can include both directly transmitted knowledge of smoking through parental conversations with children and indirectly transmitted knowledge through parental smoking habits, has been shown to influence children’s future smoking habits. Exposure to second-hand smoke and a lack of anti-smoking expectations and smoking-specific rules are parenting behaviors associated with current smoking in adolescents and the likelihood of children to pick up smoking later in life.

Interestingly, one study noted that while parenting behaviors had a significant impact on smoking patterns in adolescents, actual parental smoking did not (2). The results of this study suggest that perhaps ads that focus on the health of children should be supplemented with parenting advice for adult smokers. A second study also supports the claim that “higher quality” parenting, which in this case was defined as “positive in affect and tone, responsive, directive, and empathetic,” was associated with a lower likelihood of smoking initiation in adolescents, further indicating the importance of smoking socialization between parent and child (3).

Though the primary purpose of these children-themed ads may not be to prevent smoking in adolescents, the ads may raise awareness in families about the influence parents can have on their children’s smoking behaviors. If these ads are supplemented with support and advice on parenting and how to talk to children about smoking, they may have the potential to reduce smoking not just in adults, but also in adolescents as well.

REFERENCES:

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General: Secondhand Smoke: What It Means To You. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006 [accessed 2011 Mar 11].

2. Waa A, Edwards R, Newcombe R, Zhang J, Weerasekera D, Peace J, McDuff I. Parental behaviors, but not parental smoking, influence current smoking and smoking susceptibility among 15 and 15 year-old children. Aust NZ J Public Health 2011; 35: 530-536.

3. Richmond MJ, Mermelstein RJ, Wakschlag LS. Direction Observations of Parenting and Real-Time Negative Affect Among Adolescent Smokers and Nonsmokers. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 2012; 0:1-12.

 

Brazil – img12826

by

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

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

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

Resources:

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

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

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