SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Light

Light

Famous Voices – img2684

by

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

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

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

Other Menthol Classics – img14545

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 – img3052

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

Super Light – img3128

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3144

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3207

by

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.

Misty – img0993

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Newport Pleasures – img4919

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

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

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

Famous Voices – img2685

by

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

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

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

Singers & Performers – img2704

by

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

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

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

Salem Classics – img12651

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

Super Light – img3129

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3145

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3208

by

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.

Misty – img0994

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Singers – img17046

by

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

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

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

Recent Black Ads – img5056

by

While print advertising for tobacco products is now seen in few mainstream magazines in recent years, it is still very prevalent in Black magazines. Particularly, the Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., publishers of Ebony and Jet, has continued to be been a consistent partner with tobacco advertising, particularly for Lorillard’s Newport. An internal document prepared by Advertising Experti for Philip Morris in 1996 outlines the major Black magazines ideal for tobacco advertisements (1):

Ebony: “EBONY Magazine is a Black-oriented lifestyle general interest publication, dealing with contemporary topics.”

Essence: “ESSENCE is a magazine editorially geared to the upwardly mobile Black woman, described as being professional, well-educated, and affluent.”

Black Elegance: “BLACK ELEGANCE (BE) is a national lifestyle magazine for the contemporary, upscale Black woman 25-44 years of age. Its readership is depicted as achievers who seek quality in their careers and lifestyles. Jet: “As a newsweekly, JET provides the latest domestic and international information concerning newsmakers and news events.”

Upscale: “This magazine emerged as a publishing entity in August 1989. Its editorial fare combines celebrity profiles with articles that explores issues effecting the empowerment of African Americans.

Black Enterprise: ”BLACK ENTERPRISE Magazine is the premier business news source for African Americans.

Ebony Man: “It was created […] to serve the lifestyle needs of upwardly mobile Black men”

Class: “CLASS Magazine began publication in September 1979, servicing the Caribbean-American population segment, a Black consumer group not specifically addressed by other Black-oriented national magazines.”

Vibe: “VIBE magazine speaks to a generation of young men and women whose lifestyles resists categorization along conventional lines of race, class or gender. From an inclusive, multicultural prospective. VIBE covers a myriad of subjects judged pertinent to the lifestyle of young adults.”

Emerge: “EMERGE covers issues, ideas and events from a Black perspective.”

1. Advertising Experti. “Benson & Hedges African American Magazine Synopsis.” Philip Morris. 16 Jan 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oug59h00:

Famous Voices – img2686

by

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

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

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

Other Menthol Classics – img11580

by

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

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

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

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

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

Salem Classics – img12662

by

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

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

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

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

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

Light – img3057

by

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

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

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

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

Super Light – img3130

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3146

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3209

by

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.

Misty – img0995

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Recent Black Ads – img5057

by

While print advertising for tobacco products is now seen in few mainstream magazines in recent years, it is still very prevalent in Black magazines. Particularly, the Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., publishers of Ebony and Jet, has continued to be been a consistent partner with tobacco advertising, particularly for Lorillard’s Newport. An internal document prepared by Advertising Experti for Philip Morris in 1996 outlines the major Black magazines ideal for tobacco advertisements (1):

Ebony: “EBONY Magazine is a Black-oriented lifestyle general interest publication, dealing with contemporary topics.”

Essence: “ESSENCE is a magazine editorially geared to the upwardly mobile Black woman, described as being professional, well-educated, and affluent.”

Black Elegance: “BLACK ELEGANCE (BE) is a national lifestyle magazine for the contemporary, upscale Black woman 25-44 years of age. Its readership is depicted as achievers who seek quality in their careers and lifestyles. Jet: “As a newsweekly, JET provides the latest domestic and international information concerning newsmakers and news events.”

Upscale: “This magazine emerged as a publishing entity in August 1989. Its editorial fare combines celebrity profiles with articles that explores issues effecting the empowerment of African Americans.

Black Enterprise: ”BLACK ENTERPRISE Magazine is the premier business news source for African Americans.

Ebony Man: “It was created […] to serve the lifestyle needs of upwardly mobile Black men”

Class: “CLASS Magazine began publication in September 1979, servicing the Caribbean-American population segment, a Black consumer group not specifically addressed by other Black-oriented national magazines.”

Vibe: “VIBE magazine speaks to a generation of young men and women whose lifestyles resists categorization along conventional lines of race, class or gender. From an inclusive, multicultural prospective. VIBE covers a myriad of subjects judged pertinent to the lifestyle of young adults.”

Emerge: “EMERGE covers issues, ideas and events from a Black perspective.”

1. Advertising Experti. “Benson & Hedges African American Magazine Synopsis.” Philip Morris. 16 Jan 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oug59h00:

Famous Voices – img2687

by

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

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

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

Guard Your Throat – img13670

by

When the general public began to grow more concerned about the ill effects of smoking in the first half of the twentieth century, the tobacco industry worked intensively on its advertising copy in order to reassure smokers as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes. The audacity of the industry was such that industry powerhouses weren’t satisfied with simply denying health concerns. Instead, they actually claimed health benefits. Brand X, Y, or Z claimed its cigarettes were “good for the throat,” provided “extra protection,” or could be smoked as a “prevention” against throat illness. Across the board, tobacco brands touted these ludicrous, false health claims.

The primary health concerns presented in the advertisements in the first half of the twentieth century revolved around non-fatal conditions like coughing and throat irritation. This approach served to lessen any fear regarding serious health concerns by choosing to instead concentrate on the less frightening side effects of smoking. For these ads, Big Tobacco employed an advertising technique known as “problem-solution” advertising; the advertisement provides the problem (coughing due to smoking, for example), as well as the solution (smoke brand X). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive, and many companies were ordered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to discontinue printing certain advertisements. However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was officially granted the power to regulate advertising that was “unfair or deceptive” to consumers. Before that time, the FTC regulated advertisements insofar as they would harm competitors rather than consumers . The 1940s and 1950s saw great strides in regulation on health claims, but it also saw quick-witted tobacco companies able to alter a word here or there in order to avoid regulation. Tobacco companies claimed throat protection well into the 1950s.

Super Light – img3131

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3210

by

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.

Light – img8026

by

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

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

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

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

Misty – img0996

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Famous Voices – img2688

by

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

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

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

Guard Your Throat – img13671

by

When the general public began to grow more concerned about the ill effects of smoking in the first half of the twentieth century, the tobacco industry worked intensively on its advertising copy in order to reassure smokers as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes. The audacity of the industry was such that industry powerhouses weren’t satisfied with simply denying health concerns. Instead, they actually claimed health benefits. Brand X, Y, or Z claimed its cigarettes were “good for the throat,” provided “extra protection,” or could be smoked as a “prevention” against throat illness. Across the board, tobacco brands touted these ludicrous, false health claims.

The primary health concerns presented in the advertisements in the first half of the twentieth century revolved around non-fatal conditions like coughing and throat irritation. This approach served to lessen any fear regarding serious health concerns by choosing to instead concentrate on the less frightening side effects of smoking. For these ads, Big Tobacco employed an advertising technique known as “problem-solution” advertising; the advertisement provides the problem (coughing due to smoking, for example), as well as the solution (smoke brand X). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive, and many companies were ordered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to discontinue printing certain advertisements. However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was officially granted the power to regulate advertising that was “unfair or deceptive” to consumers. Before that time, the FTC regulated advertisements insofar as they would harm competitors rather than consumers . The 1940s and 1950s saw great strides in regulation on health claims, but it also saw quick-witted tobacco companies able to alter a word here or there in order to avoid regulation. Tobacco companies claimed throat protection well into the 1950s.

Super Light – img3132

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3147

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3211

by

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.

Misty – img0997

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Famous Voices – img2689

by

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

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

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

Guard Your Throat – img13672

by

When the general public began to grow more concerned about the ill effects of smoking in the first half of the twentieth century, the tobacco industry worked intensively on its advertising copy in order to reassure smokers as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes. The audacity of the industry was such that industry powerhouses weren’t satisfied with simply denying health concerns. Instead, they actually claimed health benefits. Brand X, Y, or Z claimed its cigarettes were “good for the throat,” provided “extra protection,” or could be smoked as a “prevention” against throat illness. Across the board, tobacco brands touted these ludicrous, false health claims.

The primary health concerns presented in the advertisements in the first half of the twentieth century revolved around non-fatal conditions like coughing and throat irritation. This approach served to lessen any fear regarding serious health concerns by choosing to instead concentrate on the less frightening side effects of smoking. For these ads, Big Tobacco employed an advertising technique known as “problem-solution” advertising; the advertisement provides the problem (coughing due to smoking, for example), as well as the solution (smoke brand X). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive, and many companies were ordered by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to discontinue printing certain advertisements. However, it wasn’t until 1938 that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was officially granted the power to regulate advertising that was “unfair or deceptive” to consumers. Before that time, the FTC regulated advertisements insofar as they would harm competitors rather than consumers . The 1940s and 1950s saw great strides in regulation on health claims, but it also saw quick-witted tobacco companies able to alter a word here or there in order to avoid regulation. Tobacco companies claimed throat protection well into the 1950s.

Super Light – img3133

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3148

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3212

by

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.

Misty – img0998

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Famous Voices – img2690

by

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

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

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

Light – img3075

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

Super Light – img3134

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: 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.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Ultra Light – img3149

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “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.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: 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. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Low Tar – img3213

by

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.

Misty – img1000

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, 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. Thus Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.