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.
James Arness
Low Tar – img3210
Claims of low ‘tar,’ less ‘tar,’ or even lowest ‘tar’ have been circulating in cigarette advertisements for decades. This theme features ads which revolve around deceptive low tar claims which try to out-do each other, some going as far as to claim less than 1 mg of tar per cigarette. By ‘tar,’ tobacco companies are referring to the brown, sticky accumulation of chemicals amassed when tobacco is burned. This residue is considered to be one of the most damaging components of smoking, as it contains a multitude of identified carcinogens and causes harmful build-up in the lungs. It is therefore no surprise that, early on, tobacco companies began to make their cigarettes appear less harmful by advertising reduced tar levels. Low tar cigarettes are intended to keep concerned smokers from quitting by providing these smokers with what appears to be a healthy alternative. Unfortunately, lower tar ratings have no bearing on the safety of the brand in question. As internal tobacco documents have revealed, tobacco companies have been fully knowledgeable that lower tar cigarettes were not actually safer or healthier.
It was not until quite recently that any action was taken in the United States to address the deceptive and dangerous mislabeling. However, when the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, these concerns came to the forefront of regulation. As of July 2010, the words “mild,” “low,” or “light” are not to be used on tobacco products, as these words cause consumers to underestimate their health risks. This new regulation 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.
TV Stars – img2533
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
TV Stars – img2534
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
TV Stars – img2535
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Couples in Love – img0718
Love and cigarettes, marriage and cigarettes, sex and cigarettes? Nothing is off limits in these tobacco advertisements which feature couples in love. The advertisements work cigarettes into the everyday lives of couples, seemingly bringing couples closer together or enhancing their sexual connection. In the 1920s and 1930s, women were pictured as part of a couple so as to lessen the shock value of women smoking. However, as times changed and women smoking became widely acknowledged, men and women continued to show up together in cigarette advertisements in romantic scenarios. These advertisements were particularly effective at targeting women, capitalizing on the stereotypical female desire to find a husband or be taken care of by a man. Often, however, these ads were also effective for men, who would imagine, after seeing one of the ads, that a woman sensuously falls into a man’s arms with just the whiff of a cigarette or the mingling of fumes.
