SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Male

Male

Young Smokers – img3862

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be Happy, Go Lucky – img3895

by

This theme features Lucky Strike ads from the “Be Happy – Go Lucky!” campaign of the early 1950s and ads from British brand Kensitas, which followed with its “Kensitas – that’s good!” campaign a year later. These ads are appealing to people of all ages, especially teens and young adults, with their vibrant colors, youthful models, fun fonts and carefree messages.

From 1935 to 1959, Lucky Strike sponsored a popular radio show and subsequent TV show, “Your Hit Parade,” which associated Lucky Strike cigarettes and smoking with fun, music, dancing, and friends. “Your Hit Parade” featured popular songs and musicians of the day alongside copious advertisements for the cigarette brand. When the show first aired on television, the program opened up with the following Lucky Strike jingle composed by Raymond Scott:

“Be happy, go Lucky,

Be happy, go Lucky Strike,

Be happy, go Lucky,

Go Luck-y Strike to-DAY!”

At the same time, Lucky Strike began rolling out print advertisements in popular magazines bearing the “Be Happy – Go Lucky” slogan. This followed on the heels of the 1949 campaign, “Smoke a Lucky to Feel your Level Best!” Both slogans suggested that smoking Luckies resulted in emotional and physical benefits, and both campaigns were colorful and youthful, featuring young, predominantly female models having the times of their lives. These ads presented Lucky smokers as young, attractive, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike portrayed its brand as healthy and enticing through these campaigns.

Today's Youth – img4031

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Salem Shows Spirit – img4306

by

In 1982, Salem rebranded their product toward a younger demographic and launched a new campaign, “Salem Spirit.” The new campaign served to rival Newport’s ongoing efforts targeting youth and attempted to steal Kool’s declining young customer base. In “Salem Spirit,” groups of young men and women bond together over fun, youthful activities, ranging from sledding and hot air ballooning to picnicking and frolicking in the ocean.

Internal R.J. Reynolds documents described the Salem smoker as “self-confident, up-to-date,” and as “younger adult smokers (18-23) who are characterized as social leaders/catalysts since they uniquely possess that sense of humor/wit, spontaneity, warmth and unpretentious style that makes them fun and exciting to be with” (1, 2).

The ads were constructed carefully in order to target this very specific demographic in many ways. One way was the use of what R.J. Reynolds referred to as “refreshment communicators.” Used to reflect the potentially unknown sensations of menthol to new smokers, refreshment communicators included “greenery, water, snow, and outdoor situations” (2).

Another method for attracting youth was through the campaign’s use of young, fun-loving models: “Model attitudes should continue to advance the campaign’s imagery through a warmth/caring focus as a vehicle to reflect a sense of group belonging and peer group acceptance,” one document explains, citing the equivalent of peer pressure as a primary method for hooking youth. “This is an important element differentiating the Spirit campaign from Newport’s exclusive ‘coupling.’ Model closeness will be emphasized to gain social smoking acceptability” (2). Another result of “model closeness” is that the activities all feel younger and almost child-like. Indeed, sharing a big drink at a picnic, sledding together, swinging on a tree swing, or playing “chicken” at the beach are all childish activities which contrast strikingly with any claims that the ads target solely adult audiences.

Young people have been (and remain today) a key marketing target for Salem cigarettes. In the 1980s, R.J.R. placed a strong emphasis on the necessity of hooking teens early, claiming that “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (3). Later in this same document, the company literally refers to its smokers as if they assets, claiming that a young smoker “appreciates in value over time because of increased consumption.” Decades later, the sentiment that youth must be targeted remains prevalent. A more recent R.J. Reynolds document from 1998 explains that because only 31% of smokers begin smoking after age 18, and only 5% after age 24, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once adult smokers pass away (4).

1. Neher, WK. “Refined Positioning Statement for Salem.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 July 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qoe95d00/pdf

2. Hatheway, GM; William Esty. “Salem Spirit DAR Research Perspective.” R.J. Reynolds. 19 July 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/koe95d00/pdf

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

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

School Days – img8662

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Children – img4342

by

Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Particularly in the Baby Boomer era, depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of children were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Children Smoking – img4379

by

Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Particularly in the Baby Boomer era, depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of children were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Joe Camel Cartoons – img17800

by

In a transparent effort to greatly increase their market share of young smokers, R.J. Reynolds initiated the now infamous Old Joe Camel campaign for the Camel brand in 1988. The campaign, which ran continuously for 9 years until 1997, featured a cool dromedary cartoon character and faced almost immediate criticism from the public for influencing children to smoke.

From the campaign’s inception, young people were primary targets. The first Joe Camel ad in the United States was released to celebrate Camel’s 75th “birthday” and was based on a French advertisement for Camel filters from 1974 (1). The original French Joe Camel was reported to be a “smash” because “it’s about as young as you can get, and aims right at the young adult smoker Camel needs to attract” (2). (The term “young adult smoker” is industry jargon for the youngest spectrum of customers legally targeted through cigarette ads.)

Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) confirmed that Joe Camel is attractive to children. Indeed, a 1991 article published in JAMA reveals that the Old Joe Camel advertisements “are far more successful at marketing Camel cigarettes to children than to adults” based on kids’ ability to recall the character and find him appealing (3). More shocking still is another JAMA publication from 1991 which revealed that 91.3% of 6-year-old children were able to correctly match Old Joe with a picture of a cigarette, nearly the same number of children as were able to match Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel logo (4).

Internal documents reveal that young people were further targeted with the ads through appropriation of youth slang. The “smooth character” slogan associated with the Old Joe campaign was reportedly intended to impart a “dual meaning,” indicating that the product itself was literally a smooth, non-irritating smoke, and, in youth slang terms, that the smoker himself had a “smooth (slick or cool) personality” (5).

Additionally, in order to attract young males, Joe was intended to be hyper-masculine, as is evidenced by his face, which closely resembles male reproductive organs. “Reinforcement of masculinity is an important want among a large percentage of males,” another internal document says, “and this is particularly true among less educated and younger adult males (i.e., Camel’s prime prospect)” (6).

Indeed, R.J. Reynolds goes on to reveal the exact target demographic for Camel: “Increasing RJRT’s share among younger adult smokers is a key corporate objective. Within the established RJRT product line, the highest priority has been placed behind Camel as the best short and long-term opportunity to penetrate younger adult smokers … Younger adult smokers are critically important to RJRT long term: They have been critical factor in growth/decline of every major brand/company in past 50 years. They will continue to be important in future, as market renewal stems almost entirely from 18 year old smokers“ (6).

By 1994, many groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Surgeon General, 27 state attorneys general, and more had urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take action against R.J.R.’s Joe Camel campaign. At the time, the FTC decided there was not enough evidence to ban the campaign, but it reopened the case in 1997, when R.J.R. pulled the Joe Camel campaign, seemingly voluntarily. Though the smooth camel eventually left the scene, his 9-year stint in magazines, phone booths, and billboards guaranteed that he was repeatedly introduced to children, adolescents and young adults for almost a decade. Additionally, Old Joe freebies and prizes, ranging from boxer briefs and baseball caps to fishing lures and card games guarantee that Joe remains immortalized.

1. “Regional News from Art Direction: The Magazine of Visual Communication, June 1975.” RJ Reynolds. June 1975. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mmx62d00/pdf

2. Blackmer, Dana. “Memo to Rich McReynolds from Dana Blackmer Re: French Camel Filter Ad.” RJ Reynolds. 7 Feb 1974. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eve76b00/pdf

3. DiFranza, Joseph R., MD, et al. “RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children.” JAMA 1991;266:33149-3153.

4. Fischer, Paul M., MD, et al. “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 years.” JAMA 1991;266:3145-3148.

5. “Camel General Market Campaign Focus Group Research. French Camel.” RJ Reynolds. 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtf44d00/pdf

6. Caufield, R.T. “Camel New Advertising Campaign Development.” 12 March 1986. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vkm76b00/pdf

Singers – img17052

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.

Couples & Cast – img2470

by

They say that two is always better than one, and this mentality was certainly true for the celebrity testimonials represented in this theme. When tobacco companies could land a celebrity couple in one ad, it could advertise its cigarettes to both males and females in a single blow. Oftentimes, the leading female and male stars of a movie would sit for a single tobacco ad in order to promote their upcoming production. For example, Patricia Morison and Cole Porter both praise Camels in one ad to debut their production “Kiss Me, Kate.” Other times, celebrity couples could promote their motion picture studio in general, rather than a specific film. For example, an ad for Robt. Burns Cigarillos features Humphrey Bogart and his wife, Lauren Bacall, and highlights their co-star positions at Santana Pictures.

Famous voices, in this case actors and actresses, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the celebrity’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actor entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.

It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.

Radio Stars – img10149

by

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

Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!

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.

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

Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!

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.

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

Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!

It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.

TV Stars – img14165

by

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

Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.

It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.

Don't get your wind – img4503

by

“They Don’t Get Your Wind” This marketing campaign from the mid 1930’s include quotes like, “A Cigarette so mild you can smoke all you want”, and “that’s what athletes say about Camels. And when a champion talks about condition, wind and healthy nerves, and real tobacco mildness, he knows what he’s talking about.” In the 1930’s it was popular for athletes and celebrities to endorse cigarettes. There was little research or regulation on the health effects from smoking.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was in a direct competition to be the top cigarette advertising company. Their competition was the well-known American Tobacco Company who manufactured its top brand, Lucky Strike. The move to have athletes endorse Camel cigarettes launched Camel to top. Lucky strike then moved their tactics to challenge the candy industry and introduced the, “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet” Campaign. Camel had baseball players; football players and Olympic athletes endorse their products from 1930s to the late 1950s.

Ad: “Get a Lift With a Camel!,” Popular Science, October 1934, from, ModernMechanix.com, August 6, 2007.

Newport Pleasures – img4942

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

Mixed Races – img5034

by

Although tobacco companies had been marketing their products to specific ethnic groups for decades, it wasn’t until late in the 20th century that they began “integrationist” advertising. Previously, tobacco ads placed in African American magazines featured strictly African American models, and those in mainstream magazines featured primarily white models. However, beginning in the 1980s and gaining ground in the early 2000s, tobacco companies began featuring groups of mixed ethnicities in both minority and mainstream (“general audience”) publications.

In 1979, in an internal document researching market strategies for More cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds generalized about “the new generation of blacks,” claiming that more than previous generations, “they are more comfortable with the notion of co-existing and working side-by-side with Whites” (1). Furthermore, the document reveals RJR’s primary marketing concern at the time: “A balance must be arrived at,” the document says, “between providing depicted situations and people reflective of Black self-pride and ethnocentrism – and at the same time, confirming the extent to which Blacks have become integrated into the ‘Establishment.’”

Lorillard came to the same conclusion in 2001 for their Newport brand, which has since used models of different ethnicities in single ads. The 2001 Lorillard document makes the following conclusion: “Newport should seek to incorporate more multi-ethnic visuals in the creative mix. Smokers reacted positively to visuals that included people from mixed ethnic groups. They indicated that they have diverse circles of friends and mixed ethnicity situations are their reality. The idea of mixed ethnicity couples however, was not as readily accepted. The multi-ethnic scenarios should include settings where multi-ethnic groups would naturally come together, such as parties or group events” (2). Thus, many of the couples in recent Newport ads are of the same ethnicity, but the larger “friend” groups are mixed.

Brown & Williamson similarly moved away from segregated advertising in the 1980s for its KOOL brand, but instead of using mixed race groups in ads, it utilized jazz music and music in general as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (3). In one internal document, B&W’s advertising agency explains, “The print media, due to segmentation, provide the option of 'segregated' brand communication (for example, see Salem campaigns). However, this approach was avoided since it encouraged a split personality, or dual image, for the brand. It was concluded that a split personality was not viable in an image-sensitive category. Further, we believe that Black smokers increasingly will 'see through' this approach and possibly resent what essentially amounts to a 'separate but equal' dual campaign strategy” (3). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach: “That’s not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics, that’s advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music? […] Black smokers are very important to KOOL, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (4).

“General Background – Black Consumer Market Demographic Trend & Marketing Implications.” RJR. 31 Dec 1979. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sup76b00

2. “Jacksonville and Pittsburgh one-on-one research findings/recommendations.” Lorillard. April 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sqa42i00

3. Cunningham & Walsh Advertising Agency. “Kool: The Revitalization of an Image.” B&W. 1 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/leb91d00

4. Lewis, LR. “Speech for National Sales Meeting.” B&W. Oct 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/crj40f00

Winston Blaxsploitation – img8224

by

As World War II came to a close, tobacco companies needed to expand to “new” markets in order to maintain prosperity. At this point, they began issuing mass marketing efforts targeting African Americans. Whereas there was minor advertising in weekly African Americans newspapers prior to the war, scholars cite a number of post-war changes as the sources for the surge in market expansion, mainly the growth in urban migration and the steadily increasing incomes of African Americans in the 1940s (1). One scholar explains that “between 1920 and 1943, the annual income of African Americans increased threefold, from $3 billion to more than $10 billion,” making the population an increasingly appealing demographic for the tobacco industry (2). Indeed, advertising and marketing magazines published many articles at the time describing the profitable “emerging Negro market.” One such article from 1944, for example, was titled, “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home” (3). A subsequent article printed a year later provided a table depicting “How Negroes Spent Their Incomes, 1920-1943 (4). The table revealed that the amount of money African Americans spent on tobacco products increased six-fold from 1920 to 1943.

Perhaps the catalyzing force in the tobacco industry’s foray into African American targeting came in the form of emerging advertising avenues that could be used to target African American populations without alienating whites; the 1940s saw the introduction of a number of glossy monthly magazines including Negro Digest (1942, renamed Black World), Ebony (1945) and Negro Achievements (1947, renamed Sepia). These mass-media publications were much more attractive to advertisers than the African American daily newspapers of the pre-war era, with glossy pages and a larger national distribution. The magazines, because they were intended for a purely African American audience, also provided advertisers with an opportunity to run ads featuring African American models away from the eyes of white consumers.

African American Athletes – img12236

by

As civil rights efforts took hold in the U.S., blacks gained a foothold in national sports leagues, most notably Jackie Robinson entered the MLB in the late 1940s. At the same time, as noted in our collection's “Targeting African Americans” theme, tobacco companies began targeting black markets primarily through print advertisements in African American publications. Many of these ads used testimonials from famous black athletes to hone in on the black demographic. Indeed, Chesterfield used Jackie Robinson himself in a 1950 ad. Athletes were particularly desirable endorsers for cigarettes because they implied healthfulness, a concern for cigarette companies as smoking became widely associated with lung cancer in the 1950s.

Richard Pollay and colleagues compared the prevalence of endorsements from athletes in Ebony (a magazine with primarily black readership) to that in Life (a magazine with primarily white readership) from 1950-1965. Pollay noted that during this time frame, Ebony contained 5 times more endorsements from athletes than Life (1). He also noted that cigarette advertisements in Ebony during these years used exclusively black models, while the ads in Life used exclusively white models, which Pollay cites as “evidence of fully segmented and segregated advertising programs.”

1. Pollay, Richard W., Jug S. Lee and David Carter-Whitney. “Separate, but Not Equal: Racial Segmentation in Cigarette Advertising.” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21, No. 1. March 1992: 45-57.

Smoking Guns – img12148

by

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

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

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

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

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

World War II – img5564

by

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

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

Kamel Modern – img5937

by

Marlboro has historically been the leading cigarette brand among youth, while Camel consistently pushes forward creative advertising concepts to gain youth market share from Marlboro and hook teens and young adults. The Red Kamel campaign of 1996 is just one of Camel’s many advertising techniques employed to target the previously uninitiated or new smoker. RJR’s “marketing objectives” with Red Kamel revolved around “adding new cutting edge associations to the Camel brand family” (1).

The Red Kamel brand slogan clearly targeted youth irreverence: “Back After 80 Years For No Good Reason Except They Taste Good” (2). The Kamel brand was first introduced in 1913 and existed until 1936 when R.J. Reynolds replaced it with today’s Camel brand. The limited time “reintroduction” of Red Kamel in 1996 provided a retro-vintage appeal to the brand, and RJR designed the ads to be “innovative—new and old at the same time” (3). An RJR spokesperson explained that the characters portrayed in Red Kamel ads were presented as “interesting, independent people,” indicating that “the type of person who smoked Kamels in the early 1900s would still smoke them today.” The Red Kamel campaign offered RJR a new youth marketing technique to replace the Old Joe Camel campaign which had just been “voluntarily” withdrawn.

One internal document explains that the brand positioning was “lust for living,” and that the product was meant to appear “lustier” as well as “rebellious, adventurous, authentic,” with a “hip, unexpected” style clearly targeting youth markets (4).

 

1. “Red Kamel & Kamel Menthe (Men-Th) Factbook.” 07 Jan 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqm72d00

2. “RJR Re-Establishes Red Kamel Brand February 1, 1996 (960201) Statement and Q&A for Response Only.” RJ Reynolds. 01 Feb 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oml13d00

3. “Red Kamel Is Back!” Caravan. 08 Apr 1996. http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s1/TI56580057.html

4. “1997 (19970000) Business Planning Meeting.” RJ Reynolds. 17 Sept 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xyi72d00

Murad – img6292

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. The New York-based Greek tobacconist Soterios Anargyros produced the hand-rolled Murad cigarettes, made of pure Turkish tobacco. P. Lorillard acquired the Murad brand in 1911 through the dissolution of the Cigarette Trust, explaining the high quality of the Murad advertisements in the following years.

Murad, along with other Turkish cigarette brands referenced the “Oriental” roots of their Turkish tobacco blends through pack art and advertising images. They also capitalized on the Eastern-inspired fashion trends of the time, which were inspired by the Ballets Russes (1909-1929) and its performance of “Scherazade.” The vibrant colors, luxurious jewels, exoticism and suggestive nature of the images in these advertisements contributed greatly to their appeal.

Women drenched in pearls, jewels and feathers, wearing harem pants or flowing dresses, were paired in the ads with men in expensive suits or in exotic turbans. The Orientalism, exoticism and luxury are evoked through Eastern-inspired garb accentuated the Turkish origins of the tobacco and presented it in an alluring, modern light. Indeed, the women in these ads, in particular, is seen as less of a reflection on Victorian femininity than a fantasy of an exotic enchantress from a foreign land or a modern woman shedding the shackles of Victorian propriety.

Omar – img6362

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. In 1911, The American Tobacco Company introduced Omar, a premium Turkish blend cigarette, in order to compete with other leading Turkish brands like Murad. The cigarette was named after the medieval Persian poet Omar Khayyám, who experienced a resurgence of popularity from 1900-1930 during an “Omariana” fad. Ads for Omar cigarettes referenced Khayyám’s famous poem, The Rubáiyát , and focused on themes of pleasure, leisure, and luxury. Early Omar cigarette ads featured an older, rotund sultan figure, who appears to indulge in a range of life’s pleasures, and a beautiful maiden, referred to as Angel Shape. In some ways, the ads border on stereotypical parodies of Eastern life and culture, yet they speak to the luxurious aspect of Omar cigarettes all the same. Later ads for Omar revealed that “Omar spells Aroma” when Omar is repeated twice: omAR OMAr. This pun speaks to the American Tobacco Company’s desire to extend the relevancy of Omar cigarettes beyond Omariana as the fad slowly died out. Clearly, tobacco companies and their advertising agents are able to create extreme elasticity with their products in order to attract consumers.

Mogul – img12459

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. One of the earlier straight-Turkish tobacco cigarettes, Mogul was introduced in 1892 by the New York-based Greek tobacconist Soterios Anargyros. After the dissolution of the Cigarette Trust, P. Lorillard took over the production of Mogul cigarettes. Though likely made of a Turkish blend, Moguls were advertised as “Egyptian Cigarettes.” Many of the Mogul ads presented upper-crust models in Western apparel, positioning the cigarette as a luxury good, while some of the ads incorporated Egyptian motifs or models dressed in Middle Eastern garb.

Celebrity Vapors – img22865

by

The growing popularity of e-cigarettes has led its manufacturers to leave no stone unturned in marketing to consumers. Taking a page out of the tobacco advertising playbook used in the mid 20th century, e-cigarette (e-cig) manufacturers are using celebrity endorsements to drum up enthusiasm for their products and hook teenagers. With celebrities endorsing e-cigs, billed as the “healthier alternative to traditional cigarettes,” smoking or in this case vaping of e-cigs has become a fashion statement once again.

As there are no marketing restrictions on e-cigs, slick television ads of celebrities puffing away on their personal vaporizers frequently bombard the airwaves. In Blu’s campaign, Stephen Dorff and Jenny McCarthy urge people to take back their independence with the slogan “Rise from the Ashes.” The Blu ads featuring Dorff are so popular that he has become synonymous with the brand. In a recent interview, he said that people come up to him all the time and ask about the Blu e-cigarette. “I’m like the Blu man group,” Dorff said in the interview. In the ad featuring McCarthy, black and white shots of her exhaling smoke, highlight the blue tip of Blu e-cigs and make the entire experience look cool. In the ad, she goes on to say the best part of her e-cigarette is that she can use it ‘‘without scaring that special someone away’’ and can avoid kisses that ‘‘taste like an ashtray’’ when she’s out at her favorite club. Ads for e-cig manufacturer NJOY feature rocker Courtney Love, in an expletive-laced ad, in which supporters of indoor smoking bans are portrayed as “stuffy” and “stuck-up,” while
the rocker is portrayed as free-spirited and independent. e-cig companies have even photoshopped yesteryear celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, John Lennon using their products in ads.

Apart from direct endorsements by celebrities, there have also been subtle attempts by celebrities to promote e-cigs in movies and television shows. In an appearance on the David Letterman show, Katherine Heigl was seen vaping a Smokestik and proclaiming that she was addicted to the product, but it “wasn’t bad for you”. When CBS’s Two Broke Girls accosted their new, noisy upstairs neighbor, they were greeted at the door by Jennifer Coolidge with an e-cig in hand. Sean Penn was seen vaping an Njoy while talking about his work at Haiti at the Clinton Global Initiative.

Much like big tobacco in the past, e-cig companies are exploiting their association with Hollywood. e-cig manufacturers waste no opportunity in posting pictures of celebrities and films that use their products through their social media channels and websites. For instance, Blu e-cig’s Facebook page has a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio smoking what they claim is a Blu e-cig while filming Django Unchained. Blu e-cig’s website asks its customers to take a look at a film called “Plurality” because of the use of their e-cig in the film and provide a web link to the film’s trailer as well as a synopsis.

The insidious practice by big tobacco companies to use celebrity endorsements and testimonials for hawking their products was the norm during the 1920s to 1960s. The practice ended only in 1964 when the FDA banned it.

1. Eliott, S. (2013, August 29). E-Cigarette Makers’ Ads Echo Tobacco’s Heyday. New York Times.
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/business/media/e-cigarette-makers-ads-
echo-tobaccos-heyday.html.

2. Johnson, G.A. (2013, October 16). Stephen Dorff: Actor a hot commodity in ads, films. San
Francisco Chronicle. Available at http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Stephen-Dorff-Actor-a-
hot-commodity-in-ads-films-4901477.php

Valentine's Day – img22718

by

The electronic cigarette (e-cig) industry has taken every opportunity to associate itself with holidays and cultural symbols, which bring to mind happy times and celebration. Cherished patriotic and cultural icons can be found in a number of e-cig ads. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, Santa Claus, and even the beloved family pet.

Events such as Valentine’s Day, Mother’s and Father’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, Thanksgiving, and Christmas are all promoted through discounts and contests. An ad by Green Smoke for Valentine’s Day has an e-cig positioned behind chocolate dipped strawberries. The slogan for the ad reads, “Give your Lover The Valentine’s Day Gift of a Lifetime.” Many ads celebrating Father’s Day and Mother’s Day contain messages of the healthfulness of the product and seek to encourage users to switch from traditional cigarettes to the electronic device. An NJOY ad, timed for Father's Day, contains the image of a father and son sitting beside each other on a paddleboat. The text of the ad read “some traditions shouldn't be passed down. Switch today.”

Our collection also includes several advertisements of Santa Claus enjoying an e-cig. E-cigs have also been displayed as stocking stuffers, Christmas ornaments, and as reindeers.

Games – img23311

by

As the Internet becomes the primary source of information and entertainment to most adolescents, electronic cigarette (e-cig) companies are cleverly exploiting their online presence to appeal to teen consumers. Aside from their websites, the majority of e-cig companies are also heavily invested in social media sites that allow them to interact with potential consumers, create brand evangelists, and shape consumers views of their brands.

White Cloud Cigarettes, a leading brand, leads the way in consumer engagement for brand promotion as well as consumer engagement. One of the unique ways in which White Cloud Cigarettes promotes its product is through a free online game, that is highly engaging and interactive.

The game, which is heavily promoted in the brands ads as well as social media posts, is called “Fling A Friend.” It comprises of two characters- a large strongman and a smaller diminutive person. A person gains points that can be used towards a free e-cig, discounts, or merchandise by having the strongman “fling” the smaller person as far as possible. The animation is very cartoon-like, imitating a Saturday morning television show.

While White Cloud contends that its game is aimed at adults, specifically office workers seeking a “mental break”, one has to note that video games almost defines today’s teenager. A study by Pew Research and Internet Project noted that 97 percent of American teenagers play video games, and of those, 73 percent of them play video games on their computers and online. (1) With so many teenagers playing video games, it becomes apparent that White Cloud’s advertisement heavily targets young people.

1. Pew Research and Internet Project. Teens Video Games and civics. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2008/09/16/teens-video-games-and-civics/ on August 29,2014.

Targeting Teens – img25696

by

Sponsorship of music and sporting events and the free distribution of cigarette products to lure teenagers to try the product was a technique often used by cigarette companies till tobacco branded sponsorship and the associated distribution of free samples were banned by the Tobacco Control Act. However, in the absence of regulation, electronic cigarette (e-cig) companies are adopting this ploy to target teens. For instance, the top 6 e-cig companies in 2012 to 2013, provided free samples at 348 events, many of which appear geared toward youth.

In order to lure youth to try the product, samples are distributed at popular music concerts, outside stores that are obviously teen-oriented, and even during the Superbowl. Various props are used to make the sampling more appealing. For instance, Vita Cigs offered free samples to passersby outside a store of the retail apparel giant “Forever 21.” The roadshow van closely resembled an ice-cream truck. Logic offered free samples along with free macaroons, and NJOY had a slew of sexy, well-toned, beach boys handing out their samples. The offer of free samples is well promoted through e-cig brands’ social media channels. Photos of the sampling events are posted on the various social media channels.

The deeming regulations proposed by the FDA in early 2014, proposed a ban on the distribution of free samples. However, given that the regulations may not come into effect for at least a year or two, it gives e-cig companies several opportunities to continue to get yet another generation of teens nicotine addicted.

Red Man – ing11142

by

The Red Man brand of chewing tobacco was first introduced to the US in 1904. Promotional activities tied-in with rural and outdoor sporting events was a main stay of Red Man’s marketing strategy. From 1952 to 1955, Red Man produced a series of baseball cards, the only tobacco company to do so after 1920. The sets are valuable due to the appearance of top players including Stan Musial, Yogi Berra and Willie Mays.1 Red Man also sponsored other sporting events such as Red Man All-American Pulling Series,” a tractor pulling competition and the “Red Man All-American Bass Championship”, a fishing competition.

1. Wikipedia. (2017). Red Man. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Man

Lady's Cigars – ing0790

by

When one thinks of a cigar, one doesn’t usually think of a woman. In fact, cigarettes were originally created as a woman’s version of a cigar, since cigars were considered completely unladylike. Tobacco companies stretched the boundaries of advertisements with this series of ads targeting women or using the feminine mystique in selling their cigar products. Cigar ads featuring women are usually highly sexualized or romanticized, or speak to women’s liberation movements. Generally, they objectify women in order to advertise cigars to men.

Hideous – img12941

by

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0061

by

One common technique used by the tobacco industry to reassure a worried public was to incorporate images of physicians in their ads. The none-too-subtle message was that if the doctor, with all of his expertise, chose to smoke a particular brand, then it must be safe. Unlike with celebrity and athlete endorsers, the doctors depicted were never specific individuals, because physicians who engaged in advertising would risk losing their license. (It was contrary to accepted medical ethics at the time for doctors to advertise.) Instead, the images always presented an idealized physician – wise, noble, and caring – who enthusiastically partook of the smoking habit. All of the “doctors” in these ads came out of central casting from among actors dressed up to look like doctors. Little protest was heard from the medical community or organized medicine, perhaps because the images showed the profession in a highly favorable light. This genre of ads regularly appeared in medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, an organization which for decades collaborated closely with the industry. The big push to document health hazards also did not arrive until later.

The ads in this particular theme are all from a single R. J. Reynolds campaign which ran from 1940 to 1949 and claimed that “More Doctors smoke Camels.” In the majority of these advertisements, the “More Doctors” campaign slogan was included alongside other popular Camel campaigns such as “T-Zone (‘T for Throat, T for Taste’),” “More people are smoking Camels than ever before,” and “Experience is the Best Teacher.” In this way, Camel was able to maintain consistency across its advertisements.

Within the “More Doctors” campaign, a story can be told through a series of advertisements. The story documents a young boy’s journey following in his father’s footsteps into the field of medicine. In the first ad of this series, an obstetrician tells his little boy, “Now Daddy has to go to another ‘birthday party,’ son” as he leaves his son’s party to deliver a baby. Next, a doctor tells his grown-up boy, “It’s all up to you, son,” as the young man decides whether or not to follow a career in medicine. Then, the young medical student, class of ’46, is joined by his father, class of ’06 during a lecture. Later, the young man is an “interne,” not quite on his own yet. Finally, he is seen opening up his very own private practice in the company of his adoring wife. This storyline, though not explicit, works to further portray the doctor as a family man and a determined, committed, self-sacrificing individual.

In an attempt to substantiate the “More Doctors” claim, R.J. Reynolds paid for surveys to be conducted during medical conventions using two survey methods: Doctors were gifted free packs of Camel cigarettes at tobacco company booths and them upon exiting the exhibit hall, were then immediately asked to indicate their favorite brand or were asked which cigarette they carried in their pocket.

20,679 Physicians – img0109

by

As the “More Doctors Smoke Camels” campaign theme demonstrates, one common technique wielded by the tobacco industry to reassure a worried public was to incorporate images of physicians in their ads. The none-too-subtle message was that if the doctor, with all of his expertise, chose to smoke a particular brand, then it must be safe. Unlike with celebrity and athlete endorsers, the doctors depicted were never specific individuals, because physicians who engaged in advertising would risk losing their license. (It was contrary to accepted medical ethics at the time for doctors to advertise.) Instead, the images always presented an idealized physician – wise, noble, and caring – who enthusiastically partook of the smoking habit. All of the “doctors” in these ads came out of central casting and were simply actors dressed up to look like doctors. Little protest was heard from the medical community or organized medicine, perhaps because the images showed the profession in a highly favorable light. This genre of ads regularly appeared in medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, an organization which for decades collaborated closely with the industry. The big push to document health hazards also did not arrive until later.

Most notable in this theme are the “20,679 Physicians” advertisements, which ran from 1928 to 1932 and claimed that physicians found Lucky Strike cigarettes “less irritating.” The campaign began with a smaller number of physicians listed, as our ads demonstrate: An ad from 1927 claims that 9,651 doctors answered “yes” to an arbitrary survey question released by the American Tobacco Company regarding protection of the throat. Another ad from 1927 lists 11,105 physicians as supporters. These “exact” numbers made the claim appear more reliable. Also included in this theme are two contemporaneous Chesterfield ads from 1931, one of which depicts a doctor actually prescribing Chesterfield cigarettes to a patient. These Chesterfield ads present no survey data. However, they attempt to trick careless consumers who quickly scan the ad by listing the total number of pharmacists (110,108) and the total number of physicians (152,503) in the U.S.A. These numbers have nothing to do with Chesterfield cigarettes, but at a quick glance they appear to reflect the numbers of pharmacists or physicians in support of Chesterfield cigarettes.

Nurses – img0154

by

Along with doctors and dentists, nurses presented yet another health professional that had the potential to reassure consumers worried about the ill health effects of smoking. The none-too-subtle message was that if the nurse, with all of her expertise and her dedication to helping patients, chose to smoke a particular brand of cigarettes or even recommended a particular brand, then it must be safe.

As women began taking up the habit of smoking during the early 20th century, so did nurses in large numbers. It is interesting to note, however, that whereas the number of doctors who smoked plummeted drastically in the 1950s and 1960s when conclusive data linked smoking to lung cancer, smoking remained common among nurses. To this day, smoking is more prevalent among nurses than doctors in the United States. The Nurses’ Health Study shows that 8.4% of nurses smoked in 2003, whereas comparable data from 2005 from the Association of Medical Colleges reveals that only 1% of doctors smoke (1).

1. “Nurses’ Health Study shows nurses smoke more than doctors.” Nursing Times. 26 Nov 2008. .

Dentist Recommends – img0169

by

Along with doctors and nurses, dentists presented yet another health professional that had the potential to reassure consumers worried about the ill health effects of smoking. Whereas otolaryngologists (ear, nose, and throat doctors) could assure “mildness” for throats, the recommendation from a dentist might indicate fewer cosmetic mouth side effects for the advertised brands. The none-too-subtle message was that if the dentist, with all of his expertise in oral care, chose to smoke a particular brand or recommended a particular brand, then it must be safe. Dentists were seen as experts not only in suffering throats, but also in such side effects as yellowed teeth, bad breath, and oral cancer. Well-known early victims of oral cancer include Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), who developed cancer of the palate after years of smoking 20 cigars a day; U.S. President Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885), who passed away from tongue cancer; and U.S. President Grover Cleveland (1837-1908), who suffered from cancer of the palate in 1893. Though President Cleveland successfully had the cancer surgically removed, he ultimately died of a heart attack 15 years later.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0616

by

In the first half of the 20th century, tobacco companies were forthright with their health claims, featuring doctors hawking cigarettes or cigars in many of their ads. Consumers who saw these ads were made to feel that they would be following the doctor’s orders to achieve health or fitness if they were to smoke the cigarettes advertised. Today, these nefarious health claims in tobacco ads are no longer so obvious; now, often words like “pleasure” or “alive” are keywords which indicate healthfulness. Doctors are no longer represented hawking cigarettes in ads, but the past audacity of tobacco companies is just as relevant in modern times.

At the time when many of these ads were printed, the public was worried about throat irritation due to smoking, and tobacco companies hoped that support from physicians would ease general concern. The none-too-subtle message was that if the throat doctor, with all of his expertise, recommended a particular brand, then it must be safe. Unlike with celebrity and athlete endorsers, the doctors depicted were almost never specific individuals, because physicians who engaged in advertising would risk losing their license. It was contrary to accepted medical ethics at the time for doctors to advertise, but that did not deter tobacco companies from hiring handsome talent, dressing them up to look like doctors, and printing their photographs alongside recommendations. These images always presented an idealized physician – wise, noble, and caring. This genre of ads regularly appeared in medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, an organization which for decades collaborated closely with the industry. The big push to document health hazards also did not appear until later.

In this theme, countless brands depict doctors hawking tobacco products in order to present the brand as healthful rather than harmful – An early Old Gold ad shows a doctor lighting a woman’s cigarette as a “prescription for pleasure” (1938), Viceroy depicts doctors recommending the Viceroy brand (1950, 1953), and countless depictions of doctors recommend Ricoro, Gerard, or other brands of cigars. It is ironic that in the process, they all manage to reveal the negative potential of tobacco by providing the consumer with the concept of an unhealthy cigarette or cigar in the first place.

Throat Doctors – img11320

by

It was common in the late 1920s and early 1930s for tobacco companies to enlist “throat specialists” as endorsers of their products. The public was worried about throat irritation due to smoking, and tobacco companies hoped that support from physicians, especially otolaryngologists (ear, nose, and throat doctors) would ease general concern. The none-too-subtle message was that if the throat doctor, with all of his expertise, chose to smoke a particular brand or to recommended a particular brand, then it must be safe. Unlike with celebrity and athlete endorsers, the doctors depicted were never specific individuals, because physicians who engaged in advertising would risk losing their license. It was contrary to accepted medical ethics at the time for doctors to advertise, but that did not deter tobacco companies from hiring handsome talent, dressing them up to look like throat specialists, and printing their photographs alongside health claims or spurious doctor survey results. These images always presented an idealized physician – wise, noble, and caring. This genre of ads regularly appeared in medical journals such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, an organization which for decades collaborated closely with the industry. The big push to document health hazards also did not appear until later.

In this theme, otolaryngologists urge consumers to “give your throat a vacation” with Camels in 1931, and as late as 1950, the throat specialists are pictured examining a smoker for her “Camel 30-day mildness test.” In a 1930 advertisement, Robert Ripley, of “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” fame, performs a cigarette test on “a group of throat specialists” and digs up “certified proof” that they prefer Old Golds. From 1948 to 1952, a number of actors dressed as otolaryngologists, identified by the head mirror, recommend De-Nicotea filters for a “less irritating” smoke. Chesterfield jumps on the band wagon in 1952, and even Kool’s Willie the Penguin dresses up in otolaryngologist garb and poses in front of a diploma awarded to “Doctor Kool” in 1938. All of these brands used the specialized field of otolaryngology to present their cigarettes as healthful rather than harmful. It is ironic that they all manage to reveal the negative potential of cigarettes in the process by admitting, through their use of doctors and medical claims, that there are health concerns surrounding cigarettes to begin with.

Guard Your Throat – img2631

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.

Famous Voices – img2692

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.

Throat Scratch – img2783

by

In the 1950s, like many cigarette brands, Pall Mall released a campaign intended to ease public concern over the health risks of smoking. This extensive campaign, released in newspapers in June of 1949 and later in magazines, ran until 1954. Its ads featured the slogan “Guard Against Throat Scratch” and advertised a “smooth” cigarette which “filters the smoke and makes it mild.” The term “mild” was a code word meant to indicate a “healthier” cigarette (“mild” was seen as the opposite of “harsh”). The simplicity of these ads, printed in black, red, and white, not only saved Pall Mall on printing charges, but also provided the ads with an authoritative command; they have no frills and appear very straightforward. Additionally, the hues provided a spotlight for the red Pall Mall package. The meaningless diagram included in the advertisement, “The Puff Chart,” compares the longer Pall Mall cigarette to a leading regular-length cigarette. The Puff Chart was meant to be a “scientific” diagram that claimed that the longer length of the Pall Mall cigarette allowed Pall Mall to filter out more smoke. In 1950, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) began cracking down on the false health claims in cigarette advertising, issuing cease-and-desist orders for many cigarette advertisement campaigns. As of 1950, it was investigating Pall Mall’s “Throat Scratch” campaign; at the time, the FTC investigators had decided that king-size cigarettes, like Pall Mall, contained “more tobacco and therefore more harmful substances” than are found in an ordinary cigarette. “Throat Scratch” disappeared in 1954, along with many other brands’ health tactics. Many scholars attribute the cessation of false health claims in cigarette advertising to be a direct result of a collusion among tobacco companies, rather than resultant of FTC mandate, though the FTC did release a draft of its Cigarette Advertising Guide in 1954 (1).

1. Solow, John. “Exorcising the Ghost of Cigarette Advertising Past: Collusion, Regulation, and Fear Advertising.” Journal of Macromarketing. 2001. 21:135.

T-Zone – img2913

by

From 1943 to 1952, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company ran a series of advertisements for Camel cigarettes which encouraged consumers to try Camels for great taste and throat comfort. These untruthful claims presented Camels as the most healthful cigarette while admitting that most cigarettes would cause throat irritation – just not Camels! This assertion was outright deceptive. They dubbed the inhaling area the “T-Zone.” Their slogan? “T for Taste, T for Throat. Camels will suit you to a ‘T.’” The majority of the T-Zone ads include an image of a beautiful, young woman (sometimes a man) smiling a white-toothed grin (as opposed to the yellow teeth which result from smoking), with a block-letter “T” traced over her mouth and throat area. The ”T-Zone” campaign was often combined with the “More Doctors Smoke Camels” campaign and the “30-day taste test” campaign, a trifecta of manipulative ad techniques.

Why be Irritated? – img2935

by

From 1945 to 1946, Old Gold ran a humorous ad campaign featuring the slogan, “Why be Irritated? Light an Old Gold!” The ads depicted an irritating situation of everyday life as a metaphor for throat irritation; Both, according to the ad, could be relieved by smoking an Old Gold. In a pamphlet entitled “The Lorillard Story,” handed out to all P. Lorillard employees in 1947, the author explains that this campaign was designed to “keep many a disgruntled and disappointed smoker in good humor” during the wartime shortage on cigarettes, while also keeping “the product name before the public” (1).

The ads in this campaign tout apple “honey” as the humectant (the agent used to keep the tobacco leaves from drying out) for Old Gold’s tobacco. Apple honey – reportedly discovered through a partnership between Old Gold and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1943 – was Old Gold’s solution to overcoming the wartime shortage of humidifying agents. Of course, the use of apple honey also allowed for the consumer to make the subconscious leap to Old Golds being “honey for the throat.” This effect, coupled with the slogan, “Why be Irritated?” contributed to Old Gold’s ability to present its brand as healthful without directly making false health claims.

1. Fox, Maxwell. The Lorillard Story. 1947:49

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img8823

by

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

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

Do you inhale? – img1322

by

To inhale or not to inhale? Is that the question? The ads in this theme certainly imply it is, but in an era when most adults smoked, those who didn’t inhale from their cigarettes were often ridiculed as “sissies.” According to Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “every smoker inhales— knowingly or unknowingly.” With this claim, Lucky does not mean to insist that smokers should quit; Rather, Lucky claims that its cigarettes are the only brand safe enough to inhale. Additionally, Lucky explains that the “purifying [toasting] process removes certain impurities” so as to “safeguard those delicate membranes!” While this Lucky Strike ad campaign was short-lived, lasting only one year from 1931 to 1932, it strongly influenced the cigarette industry.

Ten years later, in 1942, Philip Morris followed in Lucky’s footsteps. Using their beloved spokesperson, Little Johnny, Philip Morris printed ads with a variation on the “Do You Inhale” theme, featuring slogans ranging from “You can’t help but inhale” to “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do!” Some of the Philip Morris print advertisements and television commercials of the era went as far as to borrow the exact phrase used by Lucky Strike a decade earlier: “Do you inhale?” The inhalation theme would continue in Lorillard’s 1949 ad campaign for Embassy cigarettes, which touted a “milder smoke” that allowed smokers to “inhale to your heart’s content!”

It was untrue that either Lucky Strike or Philip Morris was “safe” to inhale, but both brands were right about one thing: the tobacco contained in American cigarettes is easily drawn into the lungs. The tobacco smoke in cigarettes has a relative low alkalinity (with a pH of about 5.3) compared to the high alkalinity of pipes and cigars (with a pH of about 8.5). The higher the smoke’s alkalinity, the more difficult it is for a smoker to inhale – the smoke becomes too irritating, and the lungs are unable to accept the smoke at all. With cigarettes, smokers are able to inhale the harmful smoke, which is still irritating, and absorb the carcinogens and nicotine at a higher level. Many of today’s proponents of anti-cigarette litigation call for alkalinity levels in cigarettes to be raised in order to lessen the amount of irritants inhaled.

For Digestion Sake – img1357

by

From 1936-1937, and then occasionally in 1938 and in 1939, Camel ran the “For your digestion’s sake, smoke Camels” campaign, which insisted that Camels helped speed digestion by increasing alkalinity – perhaps the strangest health claim in all of tobacco advertising history. The digestion advertisements employed an array of techniques, ranging from celebrity and athlete testimonial to youth appeal through a claim to “modernity.” Claims like “They never get on your nerves” and “They are gentle on your throat” implied that other cigarettes produced these negative side effects, but that Camels were different. Camel claimed to have based its digestion “facts” on studies conducted by Dr. A.L. Winsor of the Graduate School of Education at Cornell University. By 1951, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a cease-and-desist order prohibiting R.J. Reynolds from portraying Camels as aiding “digestion in any respect” (1). In the same FTC report, the FTC ruled that “smoking cannot be considered under any circumstances as beneficial to any of the bodily systems.” Considering that the digestion advertisements hadn’t run for over a decade, the FTC mandate might be seen as too little too late.

1. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FTC, 192 F.2d 535 7th Cir. 1951

Best For You – img1469

by

Chesterfield launched its “Best for You” campaign in 1950. The obvious message was that Chesterfields were the cigarette that was “best” for the smoker. It is unclear whether this slogan ironically implies that other cigarettes are bad for the smoker, and that Chesterfields are merely the lesser of the evils, or if the slogan is falsely claiming that all cigarettes are good for you, but that Chesterfields are best. Either way, the slogan was manipulative and misleading. Along with print advertisements, Chesterfield also featured the “Best for You” slogan on Perry Como’s Chesterfield radio show.

Despite the patently false and misleading health claims implicit in the slogan, the campaign lasted well into 1957. The campaign’s longevity may seem surprising in the face of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC’s) 1955 advertising guidelines, which prohibited cigarette manufacturers from publishing claims regarding lower tar or lower nicotine without scientific proof. The guidelines proved to be relatively ineffective, with brands using dubious science to prove their figures. This continued until 1960 when the FTC and the tobacco manufacturers agreed to discontinue such tar and nicotine advertisements for good. However, everything reverted when, in 1966, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) reported that scientific evidence suggests that “the lower the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful would be the effect.” Though much later on, in 1994, this claim would be challenged and torn down by the FTC as false, it was widely accepted at the time. As a result, in 1966 the FTC discontinued its 1960 ruling which had banned tobacco companies from reporting tar and nicotine claims in advertising. This meant that misleading data on tar and nicotine content would continue in advertising well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

British Health Claims – img1545

by

Patently false health claims were by no means restricted to American cigarette brands in the early 20th century. Indeed, popular British brands like Craven “A,” Kensitas, and Greys all sported advertisements which used shockingly similar approaches to their American counterparts. It is necessary to note that tobacco was not grown in Britain; Instead, the tobacco leaves were imported from America and advertised as “Virginian.” This probably contributed to the adoption of American tobacco ad techniques by British brands. For example, the Craven “A” ads of the late 1920s and early 1930s all professed false health claims which resembled those seen stateside – the ads claimed that Craven “A” cigarettes were easy on the throat, while, contemporaneously, American brand Old Gold was advertising their cigarettes as “Not a Cough in a Carload” and Lucky Strike was professing its toasting process as protective of throats. Similarly, a number of the 1933 Craven “A” ads mirrored 1930 Old Gold ads (“Old Gold Weather”) by advertising wintertime as the season to switch to Craven “A.” The British brand Kensitas was perhaps the most derivative of all. Because Kensitas was made by J. Wix & Son, which was an American Tobacco Company (ATC) subsidiary, it used the exact same campaigns as its fellow ATC brand Lucky Strike. These identical campaigns ranged from “The Future Shadow” in the 1920s to “Be Happy Go Lucky” in the 1950s. Despite employing the same campaigns, the ads themselves were slightly different. Sometimes, the British ads would be insufferably polite, employing phrases like, “I can hardly substantiate…” or “I can assure you that…” instead of what seems to be the more straight-forward American approach.

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5163

by

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

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

Medical Authority – img1605

by

In the first half of the twentieth century, tobacco companies wielded medical authority in their advertisements to attract customers and, later, to placate a worried public. In particular, popular faith in medicine was exploited by a series of tobacco industry-sponsored “research” and “surveys.” For example, in an ad from 1943, Philip Morris offered “full reports in medical journals from men high in their profession” upon request, and claimed that there was “scientific proof” that their brand was “far less irritating” than other leading brands. At the time, little of today’s cynicism existed concerning the abilities of science to overcome societal problems. Instead, the doctor was seen as the ultimate expert, and science was seen as the ultimate solution.

Not One Single Case – img1618

by

To supplement Camel’s “More Doctors Smoke Camels” campaign, the brand added “Not One Single Case of Throat Irritation due to smoking Camels” to its repertoire. The latter slogan laced Camel advertisements from 1947 to 1952, contributing to the brand’s push toward marketing Camels as “healthy” or harmless. The statement was attributed to “noted throat specialists,” but urged consumers to test the results for themselves as well. The medical authority provided the statement with a vote of confidence, and eased the worried public’s concerns over adverse health effects related to smoking.

To supplement Camel’s “More Doctors Smoke Camels” campaign, the brand added “Not One Single Case of Throat Irritation due to smoking Camels” to its repertoire. The latter slogan laced Camel advertisements from 1947 to 1952, contributing to the brand’s push toward marketing Camels as “healthy” or harmless. The statement was attributed to “noted throat specialists,” but urged consumers to test the results for themselves as well. The medical authority provided the statement with a vote of confidence, and eased the worried public’s concerns over adverse health effects related to smoking.

Protects Your Health – img1939

by

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

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

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

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

Thinks for Himself – img2018

by

The Myth of the “Safe” Cigarette: Filters and “Health Reassurance” Cigarettes

Tobacco companies promoted filters through ads which promised health reassurance, although filters did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco! Nonetheless, Madison Avenue stepped up to the challenge of selling filters as the “intelligent choice” for smokers worried about their health. As early as 1942, Viceroy wielded a four-year-long campaign which claimed that “it’s smart to smoke Viceroy.” Later, in 1958 and ‘59, Viceroy followed up with “The Man Who Thinks for Himself Knows,” a campaign which dubbed the Viceroy filter to be “the thinking man’s filter.” Campaigns like these appealed to smokers who considered themselves upper-class and educated. The idea was that these smokers felt obliged to quit smoking due to overwhelming health concerns, so Big Tobacco would give them every excuse not to quit. “More scientists and educators smoke Kent” and “You’re so smart to smoke Parliament” demonstrate that many big brands hawked their cigarettes as the smart choice for intelligent smokers. Kent went as far as to claim that “it makes good sense to smoke Kent.” Filtered brands were a coup for the tobacco industry, growing in market share from 2% in 1950 to 50% in 1960 and 99% in 2005.

Marlboro Men – img2063

by

With the rise of filter cigarettes in response to the increasing health concerns tied to smoking, Philip Morris decided to reposition its Marlboro brand for the filter market. What was originally a cigarette marketed as “Mild as May” to attract a primarily female audience, all at once gained a filter and became a man’s cigarette. No longer would Marlboro advertise “Ivory Tips to protect the lips” or “red beauty tips to match your lips and fingertips,” as it had done since the 1920s; Instead, Marlboro underwent a complete sex change in 1954. The brand’s new mascot, the “Marlboro Man,” would exude rugged manliness in an effort to position Marlboro as a filter with flavor. Previously, most filter cigarettes were considered to be “sissy” or effeminate, lacking in flavor and meant for those who couldn’t handle stronger brands. With the Marlboro Man campaign, Philip Morris worked to reverse this sentiment. The original Marlboro Men were excessive in their masculine virility. The models ranged from rough cowboys and sailors to alluring businessmen and academics. Whether the Marlboro Man was pictured preparing his gun or playing chess, he always sported a military-inspired tattoo on the back of his hand. In 1960, the tattoo was discontinued, but its message – that of intrigue and masculinity – remained vibrant in the Marlboro Men of the decades to follow.

Cork Tip – img7997

by

vIn the history section of R.J. Reynolds’ Web site (as of October 2011), the company claims that Brown & Williamson introduced Viceroy as “the industry’s first cork-tipped filter product” in 1936. However, as the ads in this theme prove heartily, Viceroy was far from the first-ever cork-tipped filter cigarette. Indeed, Carl Avery Werner outlined the manufacturing techniques of cork tip cigarettes as early as 1922 in his book Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation (1). This mention indicates that by 1922, “cork-tipping machines” had already been invented, and manufactured cork tip cigarettes were relatively common-place. The “Not a Cough in a Carload” ad collection supports this assertion, with brands such as Egyptienne Luxury (produced by S. Anargyros) advertising cork tips as early as 1911 and London Life (produced by P. Lorillard) touting cork tips by 1914.

There are many reasons that cork tips likely became popular. First, the cork acted as a method to prevent the smoker from accidentally getting loose tobacco in his mouth. A Viceroy ad from 1957 claims its new filter truly eliminates the necessity to “P-F-F-T tobacco.” Both cork tips and cotton tips were likely meant to stave off this problem. Additionally, the cork tip offered protection against lip, fingertip, and perhaps teeth staining. Beginning around 1926, still well before Viceroy’s release date of 1936, Carreras Limited put Craven “A,” also a cork tipped cigarette, on the market. In many of their ads, Carreras claimed that the Craven “A” cork tip provided beauty protection– “kind to your lips” or “do not readily cause finger stain or interfere with make-up” were claims to such effect. In this manner, cork tips could act in the same manner as the “beauty tips” popular among other cigarettes at the time. Finally, and more in line with the filter’s use today, cork tips were sometimes advertised as health protection. For example, in 1929, Craven “A” advertised its “cork-tipped cigarettes” as unique in their throat protection – “they never catch my throat” or “are always kind to my throat.” Certainly, Craven “A” was prophetic in its assertion that filters could be advertised as beneficial to health. Even in modern times, cigarette brands present filters as methods to reduce amounts of nicotine, “tar,” and carcinogens inhaled, though whether or not filters are effective to this end is dubious.

1. Werner, Carl Avery. Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation. The Tobacco Leaf Publishing Company. New York. 1922.

In the history section of R.J. Reynolds’ Web site (as of October 2011), the company claims that Brown & Williamson introduced Viceroy as “the industry’s first cork-tipped filter product” in 1936. However, as the ads in this theme prove heartily, Viceroy was far from the first-ever cork-tipped filter cigarette. Indeed, Carl Avery Werner outlined the manufacturing techniques of cork tip cigarettes as early as 1922 in his book Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation (1). This mention indicates that by 1922, “cork-tipping machines” had already been invented, and manufactured cork tip cigarettes were relatively common-place. The “Not a Cough in a Carload” ad collection supports this assertion, with brands such as Egyptienne Luxury (produced by S. Anargyros) advertising cork tips as early as 1911 and London Life (produced by P. Lorillard) touting cork tips by 1914.

There are many reasons that cork tips likely became popular. First, the cork acted as a method to prevent the smoker from accidentally getting loose tobacco in his mouth. A Viceroy ad from 1957 claims its new filter truly eliminates the necessity to “P-F-F-T tobacco.” Both cork tips and cotton tips were likely meant to stave off this problem. Additionally, the cork tip offered protection against lip, fingertip, and perhaps teeth staining. Beginning around 1926, still well before Viceroy’s release date of 1936, Carreras Limited put Craven “A,” also a cork tipped cigarette, on the market. In many of their ads, Carreras claimed that the Craven “A” cork tip provided beauty protection– “kind to your lips” or “do not readily cause finger stain or interfere with make-up” were claims to such effect. In this manner, cork tips could act in the same manner as the “beauty tips” popular among other cigarettes at the time. Finally, and more in line with the filter’s use today, cork tips were sometimes advertised as health protection. For example, in 1929, Craven “A” advertised its “cork-tipped cigarettes” as unique in their throat protection – “they never catch my throat” or “are always kind to my throat.” Certainly, Craven “A” was prophetic in its assertion that filters could be advertised as beneficial to health. Even in modern times, cigarette brands present filters as methods to reduce amounts of nicotine, “tar,” and carcinogens inhaled, though whether or not filters are effective to this end is dubious.

1. Werner, Carl Avery. Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation. The Tobacco Leaf Publishing Company. New York. 1922.

In the history section of R.J. Reynolds’ Web site (as of October 2011), the company claims that Brown & Williamson introduced Viceroy as “the industry’s first cork-tipped filter product” in 1936. However, as the ads in this theme prove heartily, Viceroy was far from the first-ever cork-tipped filter cigarette. Indeed, Carl Avery Werner outlined the manufacturing techniques of cork tip cigarettes as early as 1922 in his book Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation (1). This mention indicates that by 1922, “cork-tipping machines” had already been invented, and manufactured cork tip cigarettes were relatively common-place. The “Not a Cough in a Carload” ad collection supports this assertion, with brands such as Egyptienne Luxury (produced by S. Anargyros) advertising cork tips as early as 1911 and London Life (produced by P. Lorillard) touting cork tips by 1914.

There are many reasons that cork tips likely became popular. First, the cork acted as a method to prevent the smoker from accidentally getting loose tobacco in his mouth. A Viceroy ad from 1957 claims its new filter truly eliminates the necessity to “P-F-F-T tobacco.” Both cork tips and cotton tips were likely meant to stave off this problem. Additionally, the cork tip offered protection against lip, fingertip, and perhaps teeth staining. Beginning around 1926, still well before Viceroy’s release date of 1936, Carreras Limited put Craven “A,” also a cork tipped cigarette, on the market. In many of their ads, Carreras claimed that the Craven “A” cork tip provided beauty protection– “kind to your lips” or “do not readily cause finger stain or interfere with make-up” were claims to such effect. In this manner, cork tips could act in the same manner as the “beauty tips” popular among other cigarettes at the time. Finally, and more in line with the filter’s use today, cork tips were sometimes advertised as health protection. For example, in 1929, Craven “A” advertised its “cork-tipped cigarettes” as unique in their throat protection – “they never catch my throat” or “are always kind to my throat.” Certainly, Craven “A” was prophetic in its assertion that filters could be advertised as beneficial to health. Even in modern times, cigarette brands present filters as methods to reduce amounts of nicotine, “tar,” and carcinogens inhaled, though whether or not filters are effective to this end is dubious.

1. Werner, Carl Avery. Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation. The Tobacco Leaf Publishing Company. New York. 1922.

Mouth Happy – img1814

by

Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as special-purpose cigarettes. Menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat. Advertisers for these brands often touted menthols’ coolness as a contrast to the hotness of ordinary tobacco smoke. Implicit in this advertising technique are the harmful effects of smoking. The small print on of the Spud ads in this theme reads, “Your mouth will keep as fresh as a May morning. They have a way all their own of cooling smoke . . . Sifting out irritants . . . Giving you dewy-fresh flavor.” This text implies that other cigarette smoke is too hot and contains harsh irritants. Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these 1930s ads urged smokers to switch to Spuds. One such advertisement advises consumers to smoke Spuds so as not to “let heavy smoking make your mouth ‘quit’ the party.” Other ads in the theme liken smoking Spuds to eating foods that require an acquired taste, like Roquefort cheese, mushrooms, olives, or caviar. Still another ad alerts young smokers that they can keep their mouths fresh and cool with Spuds for a “heavy date.” Though only some of the ads are part of the “Be ‘Mouth-Happy’” campaign, all of these ads concentrate on the mouth – from taste, to breath, to throat irritation.

While menthol cigarettes are not actually cures for sore throats or the common cold, the menthol additive does act to temporarily reduce the irritating properties of nicotine and other cigarette byproducts inhaled through cigarette smoke, providing a smoker with the illusion that menthols contain curative powers (1). Indeed, the history of the invention of menthol cigarettes finds its roots in sore throat treatments: When Lloyd “Spud” Hughes stored his cigarettes in the tin already containing the menthol crystals meant to cure his sore throat, he stumbled upon a tobacco recipe which struck him rich – and which still makes the industry millions of dollars to this day – mentholated cigarettes. After his chance discovery in the 1920s, Hughes began marketing his mentholated cigarettes as “Spuds” and patented the process of treating tobacco with menthol in 1925. In the summer of 1926, the Axton-Fisher Tobacco Company began manufacturing Spuds for Hughes.

1. Benowitz, N. and Samet, J. “The Threat of Menthol Cigarettes to U.S. Public Health.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011.

Newport Pleasure – img1844

by

The ads in this theme reveal Newport’s most recent marketing techniques targeting teens and young adults. Newport has employed some form of these “Pleasure” advertisements since 1972. The Newport ads in this theme range from 1980 to present day and feature the “Newport Pleasure” or “Alive with Pleasure” campaign slogans. The latter slogan, “Alive with Pleasure,” provides the viewer with a subconscious health claim – the viewer immediately relates life and living with smoking, which pushes thoughts of death and tobacco-related disease away from the forefront of the viewer’s thoughts. Additionally, the “pleasure” aspect of this campaign is an important part of youth targeting, portraying Newports as fun and enjoyable and, subconsciously, sexy and sexual.

The models featured in the advertisements are often young, carefree, and attractive. Many of the ads contain happy couples either spending one-on-one time with each other or enjoying the company of another young couple. Additionally, these couples are usually taking part in some active scenario, like camping, or playing football, biking, or surfing. These activities again portray smoking as healthful, as the models in the advertisements are clearly healthy enough to lead an active lifestyle even though they smoke. Other activities include party or nightlife atmospheres, like sitting in a hot tub, singing karaoke, dancing in a nightclub, or watching a game at a sports bar. These scenarios work to target adolescents specifically. The social dynamics represented in these Newport ads, including groups of friends and couples, seek to normalize smoking among youth; the ads make smoking appear more pervasive and provide a perceived social approval and acceptance of the behavior. These advertisements are key in establishing a new smoker base for a tobacco company needing to replace smokers it has already lost due to smoking-related disease.

As of 2011, almost half of all 12- to 17-year-old smokers prefer menthols, while the total market share of menthols claims only 30% of all smokers (1). Additionally, according to one study conducted in 2006, 62.4% of middle school students who had smoked for less than a year tended to smoke menthols (2). Data like this has lead many experts, including the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), to believe that the presence of menthols on the market increase the rate of smoking initiation. Confidential industry documents, since leaked to the public, reveal Newport’s comprehension of its target audience through its “pleasure” campaign, which is still used today. In particular, a 1978 memo identifies Newport’s success as a direct result of its consumer profile, which “shows this brand being purchased by black people (all ages), young adults (usually college age), but the base of our business is the high school student” (3). Just as the campaign itself has changed very little over the years, so has the company’s lack of remorse over the age of its consumers. In fact, a 1993 internal document identifies Newport as “the brand with the youngest adult smoker profile” (4).

1. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. .

2. Hersey J.C. et al. “Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth?” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. June 2006. 8:3;403-413. .

3. Achev, T.L. “Product Information.” 30 Aug 1978. .

4. “Newport 1993 Strategic Marketing Plan.” 25 Sept 1992. .

Kool Classics – img8064

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

Newport Classics – img12671

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 – img3102

by

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

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

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

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

Less Nicotine – img11739

by

Camel’s “28% Less Nicotine” campaign ran from 1940-1944, most predominantly in 1941 and 1942. The campaign claimed that Camels had “extra mildness, extra coolness, extra flavor“ as well as “extra freedom from nicotine in the smoke.” It was clear that Camel was tying nicotine content to mildness, and thereby healthfulness, but no direct health claims were made. Rather, it was implied that cigarettes containing less nicotine were inherently better for you than other cigarettes. Of course, it has since been proven that if a brand of cigarettes does indeed contain less nicotine, smokers will merely smoke more cigarettes in order to get the same nicotine “kick” they would normally receive, thereby negating any possible health benefits.

The ads in the “28% Less” campaign cite “independent scientific tests” as the source for their facts and figures. Along with the claim of 28% less nicotine, R.J. Reynolds also claimed Camels burned 25% slower “than the average of the 4 other largest-selling brands tested.” The other brands tested were Lucky Strike, Chesterfield, Philip Morris, and Old Gold. The scientific report, conducted by New York Testing Labs, Inc., can be found in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives, and is documented specifically as a “report made for William Etsy & Company,” R.J. Reynolds’ advertisement agency (1). The experiment was clearly sponsored by R.J. Reynolds with the intent of promoting Camel cigarettes. Toward the end of the report, the figures in question are reported specifically to facilitate ad copy writing: “Camel % less than average of 4 other brands by – 28.1%” and “Camel cigarettes burned slower than the average of other brands by a percentage of 25.5.”

The scientific report discloses that its methods were experimental in nature, and, in fact, a subsequent follow-up report from 1942 demonstrates much different results, with Camel coming in at only 4.9% slower-burning and 11.9% less nicotine. Clearly, the methods used were not reliable. As we now know, because this experiment was conducted on a smoking machine, its results are inconsequential; smoking machines are incapable of mimicking the variety of smoking patterns and the “smoking topography” of human smokers.

Also of note, particularly relevant to one advertisement, is a photograph of two technicians operating the “standardized automatic smoking apparatus” used for the experiment. The first ad of this theme contains the photograph. It is indeed the same machine used from the experiment, as it accurately matches the diagram provided in the scientific report accessible through the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives (1). The inclusion of the photograph in the advertisements is a clear indicator that the tests were hardly “independent” in nature, and that they were indeed sponsored generously by William Etsy & Company, and thus by R.J. Reynolds.

NY Testing Laboratories, Prvitz GJ, Jack GB JR. “An Investigation of the Ultimate Components, Nicotine in Smoke, and Burning Time of 5 Popular Brands of Cigarettes.” 31 July 1940. RJ Reynolds. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zic19d00

Freshness – img3509

by

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

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

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

Springtime – img3567

by

In the 1960s and ’70s, Salem advertised its cigarettes as “Springtime Fresh.” Not only did this comparison to springtime provide Salem with the perfect excuse to apply green landscapes to its advertisements (reflecting minty green menthol flavor), but, more importantly, it also served as a means of subliminally aligning Salem cigarettes with vitality.

Many of the ads pair blooming flowers and lush fields with smiling women or fun-loving couples. Both the bursting greenery and the vivacious models are tied to Salem cigarettes in the ads, instilling the brand with an apparently healthful aura by association. The same affiliation with springtime was used in 1956 by Camel, in an ad depicting a young woman with rosy cheeks ready to attend her high school prom.

Across the board, freshness was used in tobacco advertisements as a code-word for healthfulness. Kool harnessed an entirely different season in its “Snow Fresh” ads of 1958 and 1959 for a surprisingly similar effect as Salem’s “Springtime Fresh” ads of later years. But even these snowy ads capitalized on the vitality intoned by greenery, including imagery of new saplings emerging from the snow or golden autumn leaves whispering behind a young couple in love.

Menthol brands grew in popularity after the postwar “health scare,” and many other forms of “health reassurance” were offered (space-age filters of myriad sorts, promises of low-tar and/or nicotine deliveries, eventually “lights,” etc.).

No Additives – img3620

by

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

Sex Sells – img3772

by

Tobacco companies know as much as anybody that “sex sells,” and they have no qualms with making use of phallic symbols or with objectifying women to sell their products.

Beginning in the 1880s and lasting well into the 20th century, cigarette manufacturers placed a piece of cardstock inside every pack of cigarettes so the packs would maintain their shape. They soon began including pictures of provocative women in lingerie on the cardstock (as well as images of baseball players, the precursor to collectable baseball cards) in order to attract more men into purchasing the cigarettes. Eroticism continued to play a large role in cigarette advertisements, and by the late 1930s, pin-up girls were frequently used in cigarette advertisements to appeal further to male audiences.

As the advertising business matured over time, so too did its foray into selling products through sex, at times blatantly obvious, and in other moments alluringly subtle. The 1968 Tiparillo advertisements, in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo” campaign, are shameless in their objectification of women, featuring scantily clad or nearly nude models baring absurd amounts of cleavage. Other tobacco ads exploit the “sex sells” market through innuendo and subliminal messaging. Many ads use phallic imagery to associate tobacco products with masculinity and virility. A 1997 ad for Celestino cigars, for example, features a man holding a giant surfboard, which on the surface resembles a giant cigar; closer inspection reveals that the surfboard/cigar duo is also a phallic symbol, allying the cigar brand with extreme masculinity. Similarly subtle, an ad for Greys cigarettes, from the late 1930s, displays a depiction of a man with a drooping cigarette “before smoking Greys,” and then with an erect cigarette “after smoking greys.” Additionally, the man, who had previously been bald, has managed to grow a full head of hair after smoking the cigarette! An L&M ad from 1962 follows the same tactics; a man’s cigarette sticks straight up as he glances over at a woman, who eyes his cigarette as she sensuously takes one of her own. The slogan below the image reads, “When a cigarette means a lot…”

Perhaps the most recognizable recent campaign to use such techniques is the Joe Camel campaign, which lasted up until 1999; Joe Camel’s face is drawn to resemble a scrotum. More recently still, 21st century Silk Cut admen were masters of subliminal messaging. One Silk Cut ad, for example, features a piece of silk with a hole cut out, a can with a sharp point aimed directly at the hole, and a torn piece of silk hanging off the can’s point to indicate insertion has been made.

This theme merely grazes the surface of the extent to which tobacco advertisements rely on sex to sell their products.

It's Fun to be Fooled – img3809

by

In 1933, R. J. Reynolds released an ad campaign for Camel cigarettes which directly attacked Lucky Strikes’ popular “It’s Toasted” campaign. Without mentioning Lucky Strikes by name, the Camel ads insinuated that Lucky Strike’s ads “fool” consumers with “illusions,” while Camel provides its consumers with “no tricks, just costlier tobaccos” (a claim which was itself later contested by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] as “inaccurate, false, and misleading”).

In this Camel campaign, each ad reveals a magician’s secret, describing both the illusion and the explanation behind the illusion. Then, the ad compares this magician’s illusion to a “trick of cigarette advertising.” Some of the advertising tricks that Camel mentions include “the illusion of ‘coolness’” and, alluding more directly to the “It’s Toasted” campaign, “the illusion that mildness in a cigarette comes from mysterious processes of manufacture.”

Of course, Camel’s accusation is true to a degree: cigarette advertising does employ many tricks; however, this campaign runs the risk of bringing Camels’ own tricks out from behind the curtain. Indeed, this is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.” Over the next decade and beyond, the FTC charged the majority of popular cigarette makers with cease-and-desist orders for false and misleading advertising, including R.J. Reynolds. By 1942, the FTC cited a slurry of Camel’s claims as “inaccurate, false, and misleading,” including the following: “smoking of Camels aid digestion, fortifies good health, and has been discovered by a famous research laboratory to restore body energy, […] to keep in athletic condition one should smoke as many Camels as he likes, that Camels helped a racing car driver win a race and golf champion a grueling contest, that Camels would not shorten the wind or irritate the throat but would protect against nerve strain, and asserted that only the choicest tobaccos were used to make Camels” (1). The latter is the most interesting in this case, when the FTC labels false the very claim Camel had boasted as containing “no tricks.”

“FTC complaint hits cigarette claims” 8 Aug 1942. The New York Times

No Cigarette Hangover – img3820

by

In these ads for Philip Morris cigarettes, Philip Morris claims that smokers can avoid “cigarette hangover” when smoking the PM brand. By creating this benign side effect of smoking, and offering a simple solution, Philip Morris evades more serious health concerns.

Ten years prior, Old Gold had dabbled with the “cigarette hangover” concept, claiming “no more smoking hangover” in a 1937 advertisement. A testimonial in the ad explained, “Now that I smoke fresh Old Golds I don’t wake up with that ‘cottony’ feeling in my mouth.” Philip Morris described the symptoms as “that stale, smoked-out taste in your mouth – that dry, tight feeling in your throat.”

Many ads of the campaign read: “…so smooth and mellow you can smoke them in any number without cigarette hangover” (1938).

Early Years – img0498

by

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

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

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

You're So Smart – img0638

by

The “You’re so smart to smoke Parliaments” campaign works on at least three levels. By using the words “so smart,” the ad (1) works to appeal to a buyer’s intelligence, (2) refers to Parliaments as the “smart,” safe choice, and (3) plays on the double-meaning of “smart” as also fashionable and chic. This all-encompassing word leant the campaign staying power. The health claims which come across through the “smart” campaign are reflective of the advertised recessed filter unique to Parliaments, which the aid claims to ensure that “only the flavor touches your lips,” rather than any harsh chemicals. By appealing to the buyer’s intelligence and fashion sense, the ad goes further than health claims, dabbling in the realms of self esteem and appearance, well-known techniques used by advertisements to manipulate women.

Couples in Love – img0681

by

Love and cigarettes, marriage and cigarettes, sex and cigarettes? Nothing is off limits in these tobacco advertisements which feature couples in love. The advertisements work cigarettes into the everyday lives of couples, seemingly bringing couples closer together or enhancing their sexual connection. In the 1920s and 1930s, women were pictured as part of a couple so as to lessen the shock value of women smoking. However, as times changed and women smoking became widely acknowledged, men and women continued to show up together in cigarette advertisements in romantic scenarios. These advertisements were particularly effective at targeting women, capitalizing on the stereotypical female desire to find a husband or be taken care of by a man. Often, however, these ads were also effective for men, who would imagine, after seeing one of the ads, that a woman sensuously falls into a man’s arms with just the whiff of a cigarette or the mingling of fumes.

Keep Kissable – img0733

by

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

Lady's Cigars – img0790

by

When one thinks of a cigar, one doesn’t usually think of a woman. In fact, cigarettes were originally created as a woman’s version of a cigar, since cigars were considered completely unladylike. Tobacco companies stretched the boundaries of advertisements with this series of ads targeting women or using the feminine mystique in selling their cigar products. Cigar ads featuring women are usually highly sexualized or romanticized, or speak to women’s liberation movements. Generally, they objectify women in order to advertise cigars to men.

Future Shadow Faces – img1146

by

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

Avoid the Future Shadow Campaign:

 

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

(appears on most ads)

 

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

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

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

“Condemning shadows” (Shakespeare 1564-1616)

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

Be Happy, Go Lucky – img3896

by

This theme features Lucky Strike ads from the “Be Happy – Go Lucky!” campaign of the early 1950s and ads from British brand Kensitas, which followed with its “Kensitas – that’s good!” campaign a year later. These ads are appealing to people of all ages, especially teens and young adults, with their vibrant colors, youthful models, fun fonts and carefree messages.

From 1935 to 1959, Lucky Strike sponsored a popular radio show and subsequent TV show, “Your Hit Parade,” which associated Lucky Strike cigarettes and smoking with fun, music, dancing, and friends. “Your Hit Parade” featured popular songs and musicians of the day alongside copious advertisements for the cigarette brand. When the show first aired on television, the program opened up with the following Lucky Strike jingle composed by Raymond Scott:

“Be happy, go Lucky,

Be happy, go Lucky Strike,

Be happy, go Lucky,

Go Luck-y Strike to-DAY!”

At the same time, Lucky Strike began rolling out print advertisements in popular magazines bearing the “Be Happy – Go Lucky” slogan. This followed on the heels of the 1949 campaign, “Smoke a Lucky to Feel your Level Best!” Both slogans suggested that smoking Luckies resulted in emotional and physical benefits, and both campaigns were colorful and youthful, featuring young, predominantly female models having the times of their lives. These ads presented Lucky smokers as young, attractive, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike portrayed its brand as healthy and enticing through these campaigns.

Today's Youth – img4032

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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