SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Male

Male

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0029

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 – img0104

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.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0134

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.

Dentist Recommends – img0164

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.

Throat Doctors – img0614

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.

Hospitalized Patients – img6774

by

Many tobacco ads featured injured, hospitalized patients receiving tobacco products which supposedly cured them, healed them, or provided them with relief. Though this association between cigarettes and healing was not always stated explicitly, it was always implied through thoughtful strategy. When a doctor or nurse provided the patient with the product, it was given even more of a medicinal connotation.

Famous Voices – img2687

by

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

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

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

Singers & Performers – img2706

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.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img2739

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.

Throat Scratch – img2778

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 – img2908

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? – img2930

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

Guard Your Throat – img13670

by

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

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

Do you inhale? – img1317

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.

To Your Heart's Content – img1342

by

In 1949, on the heels of Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “Do You Inhale?” and Philip Morris’ 1942 campaign, “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do,” P. Lorillard released a campaign for Embassy urging smokers to “Inhale [Embassy] to your heart’s content!” Lorillard claimed that Embassy’s extra length provides “extra protection.” The faulty concept was that because the cigarette was longer, it was able to better filter out toxins, since it took more time for the smoke to reach the smoker’s throat due to the long length through which it had to travel. In 1950, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigators had decided that king-size cigarettes, like Embassy, contained “more tobacco and therefore more harmful substances” than are found in an ordinary cigarette.

Lorillard’s particular choice of cliché, “to your heart’s content,” was misleading at best . The phrase was meant to impart a sense of happiness and healthfulness. Of course, inhaling would not have made anyone’s heart content; Instead, smoking has been recognized as a major cause of coronary artery disease, responsible for an estimated 20% of deaths from heart disease in the United States. Most ironically in the context of this advertisement campaign, a smokers’ risk of developing heart disease is thought to greatly increase as his or her cigarette intake increases.

For Digestion Sake – img1352

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

Feel Your Best – img1482

by

In 1949, Lucky launched the first of its “cute” campaigns – “Smoke a Lucky to Feel your Level Best!” This campaign, along with the subsequent “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky” and “Be Happy – Go Lucky!” are all lumped together into this “cute” category, featuring very young, smiling ladies beside striking copy text. Most noticeably, the ads portray models smoking in the most improbable, ridiculous situations: while skiing down a slope, while balancing on a man’s shoulders in the ocean, while steering a toboggan. The “Feel your Level Best” campaign presented Lucky smokers as young, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike managed to portray its brand as healthy and enticing through the campaign. However, the “Level Best” slogan poses incongruities, as well. Does it imply that other cigarettes made a smoker feel bad, whereas Luckies made the smoker feel best, but still not as good as if the smoker refrained from smoking? Or does the slogan work to propel the myth that cigarettes are healthy, claiming that Luckies are even healthier? Either way, the message appears to falsely indicate that Luckies will make a person feel the best they possibly could.

One of the young models hired for this campaign, Janet Sackman, has recently spoken out against smoking. Sackman had posed for a number of the Lucky ads in this theme. A 1993 New York Times article features a story on the model which reveals that Sackman was just 17 at the time of shooting the Lucky Strike advertisements. She explains that during one of her shoots, “a middle-aged tobacco executive was there,” and that he urged her to pick up smoking so that she would “know how to hold a cigarette, or puff on a cigarette” for future advertisements (1). She claims that from that point on, as a 17 year-old, she began smoking and was hooked. Then, in 1983 at age 51, she was diagnosed with throat cancer and had her larynx (“voice box”) removed. Ironic, of course, for the model for a campaign which touted health and happiness.

1. Herbert, Bob. “In America; ‘If I had Known’ New York Times. 21 Nov 1993. .

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1501

by

“Healthy” cigars and pipes were blatantly advertised well into the first half of the 20th century alongside their cigarette counterparts. Many of these advertisements claimed that if the consumer smoked the pipe or cigar in question, he would live longer or be healthier. A turn-of-the-century pipe, “the Harmless Smoker,” was advertised under the slogan, “Don’t Kill Yourself Smoking – Use the Harmless Smoker.” As late as 1931, Thompson’s Mell-O-Well Cigars claimed that physicians referred to their brand as “a health cigar.”

It is important to note that the tobacco smoke in pipes and cigars has a much higher alkalinity (with a pH of about 8.5) when compared to that of cigarettes (with a pH of about 5.3). The higher the smoke’s alkalinity, the more difficult it is for a smoker to inhale, as the smoke becomes too irritating, causing the lungs to reject the smoke. However, this does not mean that pipes or cigars are safe. In fact, studies have revealed a high rate of mouth cancer – especially cancer of the lip – associated with pipe smoking. Studies have also shown that cigars pose a higher amount of secondhand smoke exposure than cigarettes because they contain more tobacco that burns for a longer period of time. Today, hookah, a water pipe also known as shisha, is finding increasing popularity among youth as a “safe alternative” to smoking cigarettes – a misconception. Smoking hookah is strongly linked to oral and lung cancer, heart disease, and other tobacco-related illnesses, and studies have shown that more carbon monoxide is inhaled through hookah than through cigarettes.

Best For You – img9469

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.

Pseudoscience – img1553

by

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

Medical Authority – img1596

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 – img1613

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.

Factories, Labs, Machines – img1680

by

This theme refers to ads which show the testing labs and production factories for tobacco manufacturers. The 1930s and 1940s saw a huge dependence on modern technology in tobacco advertisements. Whereas some tobacco companies touted state of the art factories (and guided tours!), still others boasted superior laboratories. Emphasis on modern advancements and scientific discoveries appealed to an American public vested in modernity. In this era, before the coming of the atomic bomb, little of today’s cynicism existed concerning the abilities of science to overcome societal problems. By showing these facilities, the manufacturers sought to associate their brands with the technology as the most modern, clean, and healthful. Labs, in particular, appear to be in existence to ensure the quality and safety of a product and thus the health of the consumer. An increasing dependence on science and medicine in the advertising of cigarettes continued well into the 1950s.

Today, Big Tobacco takes the opposite approach. The tobacco industry wants consumers to believe that cigarettes just appear out of thin air – it doesn’t want consumers to realize how much goes into the production of cigarettes. No photographs of modern cigarette factories exist today. The Cigarette Citadels project at Stanford University is working to undo the industry’s deception by mapping cigarette factories using Google Maps. More information on the Cigarette Citadels project and a link to the project’s Google Map can be found here: http://tobaccoresearch.stanford.edu

Doctor Ordered – img2004

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually 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.

Thinks for Himself – img2013

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.

Voice of Wisdom – img2029

by

Tobacco companies promote filters through ads which promised health reassurance, although filters do 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. 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. Kent was a leader in this campaign strategy. In this theme, we reveal the 1955 Kent campaign, “Your voice of wisdom says to smoke Kent,” as well as L&M’s contemporaneous campaign, “It’s a Logical Move to Smoke L&M.” These Kent ads feature a dapper man or sophisticated woman lighting up a cigarette while his or her “voice of wisdom,” represented by a shadowy form of the model, whispers advice to smoke Kents. The L&M advertisements also represent a comfortable lifestyle in an effort to appeal to the concerned, educated smoker. 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.

Miracle Tip – img7966

by

This theme features a variety of L&M ads from 1954 and 1955 professing health benefits for L&M’s “Miracle Tip,” 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. L&M advertised its filter as “pure white inside, pure white outside for cleaner, better smoking” or “white…all white…pure white.” By implying that the pure whiteness of the filter equates to pure healthfulness, L&M unabashedly presented a logical fallacy which cons concerned consumers into choosing L&M as a “safe” cigarette. Additionally, the L&M filter was portrayed as futuristic and scientifically advanced through the “Live Modern” campaign – the Miracle Tip was thus tied in with modernity and dubbed a “modern miracle.” Further “miraculous” were L&M’s claims to flavor and protection, represented in another L&M ad campaign, “just what the doctor ordered.” This slogan can be found on a few of the advertisements in this theme as well. Not only did the doctor slogan imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s supposed healthfulness.

Cork Tip – img7991

by

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.

Switch When Sick – img1703

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, sometimes referred to as “smoker’s hack” in Kools ads or “smoker’s cough” in Spuds ads. Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these early ads for Spuds and Kools from the 1930s and 1940s urged smokers to switch to a menthol brand when sick or suffering from the ill effects of smoking. 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. Some of these early menthol advertisements list the following 5 reasons, among others, to switch to Spuds: “when your throat is dry,” “when you have a cold,” “when your taste craves a change,” “when your voice is hoarse,” and, most tellingly, “when you develop smoker’s cough.” These ads presented menthols as a medicinal cigarette to smoke when sick, or as a cigarette to smoke when others were too harsh. In 1933, when Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette, ads urged smokers to “switch from Hots to Kools” (1940) or “in between others, smoke Kools” (1938-1940). However, unlike Spuds, Kools was marketed as a cigarette to stick to “all the time” in the hopes of increasing market share. The ads in this theme represent the beginning of the menthol empire. Today, tobacco companies market menthols as cigarettes to smoke daily, rather than as occasional-use cigarettes as in their original release; 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).

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

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

Newport Pleasure – img1839

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. .

Newport Classics – img8847

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

Less Nicotine – img3180

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

Low Tar – img3210

by

Claims of low ‘tar,’ less ‘tar,’ or even lowest ‘tar’ have been circulating in cigarette advertisements for decades. This theme features ads which revolve around deceptive low tar claims which try to out-do each other, some going as far as to claim less than 1 mg of tar per cigarette. By ‘tar,’ tobacco companies are referring to the brown, sticky accumulation of chemicals amassed when tobacco is burned. This residue is considered to be one of the most damaging components of smoking, as it contains a multitude of identified carcinogens and causes harmful build-up in the lungs. It is therefore no surprise that, early on, tobacco companies began to make their cigarettes appear less harmful by advertising reduced tar levels. Low tar cigarettes are intended to keep concerned smokers from quitting by providing these smokers with what appears to be a healthy alternative. Unfortunately, lower tar ratings have no bearing on the safety of the brand in question. As internal tobacco documents have revealed, tobacco companies have been fully knowledgeable that lower tar cigarettes were not actually safer or healthier.

It was not until quite recently that any action was taken in the United States to address the deceptive and dangerous mislabeling. However, when the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, these concerns came to the forefront of regulation. As of July 2010, the words “mild,” “low,” or “light” are not to be used on tobacco products, as these words cause consumers to underestimate their health risks. This new regulation means that brands previously marketed as “light” or “low-tar” can no longer include these words on their packaging or advertising.

Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on different colored packages to indicate whether a certain product is light, ultra-light, or full-flavor. The colors vary slightly among brands, but generally adhere to the following standards: red indicates regular; dark green indicates menthol; light green, blue, or gold indicate previously “light” cigarettes; and silver or orange indicate previously “ultra light” cigarettes. Camel, for example, replaced their “Camel Lights” product with “Camel Blue.” Philip Morris stuck with the idea that lighter shades indicate a “lighter” cigarette, and thus Marlboro Lights became Marlboro Gold, and Marlboro Ultra-Lights became Marlboro Silver. Likewise, R.J. Reynolds’ Salem Ultra-Lights became “Salem Silver Box.” The FDA has regulatory authority to demand that tobacco companies discontinue their color branding techniques in the future.

Light – img8026

by

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

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

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

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

Springtime – img3562

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.).

Pure & Clean – img3574

by

Tobacco companies have claimed that their cigarettes are “pure” or “clean” for decades. In the 1930s, the question of purity was more about sanitation during production and manufacture, as was the case for Chesterfields, or about additives in tobacco, as was the case for Old Golds. Later, after the “health scare,” purity referred to how “clean” a cigarette’s smoke could become after filtration.

In the early 1930s, Chesterfield began advertising its cigarettes as “PURE,” touting the “cleanest ‘bill of health’ any cigarette could rate.” Ad copy compared Chesterfield cigarettes to “pure food, pure milk, pure water,” thereby aligning cigarettes with these everyday necessities for living and for maintaining health. One of these ads claims that Chesterfield cigarettes are “scientifically purer” in every way. It claimed that the paper wrapped around Chesterfield tobaccos is “so pure it burns without any taste or odor,” and cites a “highly scientific process” which allows Chesterfield to reach “a state of purity unmatched” by other cigarette brands. Another ad hones in on the paper-making process, and includes an illustration and an explanation of how Chesterfield’s paper is made: “the linen pulp of the flax plant is washed over and over again in water as pure as a mountain stream.” In addition, Chesterfield claims that “every ingredient” in its cigarettes and “every method” used in their manufacture is checked by scientists; “Even the factory air is washed, and changed every 4 ½ minutes. More purity!” a number of ads exclaim.

Also in the early 1930s, Old Gold used the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” as a method for claiming less throat irritation. It is interesting to note that recently, the health focus has again shifted toward additive-free cigarettes, as is the case with Natural American Spirit.

Later, after the introduction of the “health scare” and the influx of filter cigarettes on the market, many tobacco brands began describing the smoke inhaled through their filters as “pure” or “clean.” In 1959, for example, King Sano boasted “America’s purest tobacco taste.” (King Sano’s name alone harkens back to the Chesterfield ads of the 1930s and their preoccupation with sanitation.) Other filter brands also hopped on the pure and clean bandwagon. Fleetwood cigarettes advertised “a cleaner, finer smoke.” One Fleetwood ad from 1943 depicts a kitten licking its paw above the caption, “Every puff of Fleetwood smoke Cleans Itself!” In the 1960s, Parliament ads reached out to women with the slogan, “if you like things neat and clean, you’ll like Parliament,” referring to the smoke filtered through Parliament’s recessed, hi/fi filter.

These claims of purity present pure tobacco as safe, and distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form is deadly.

Nature in the Raw – img13052

by

This cigarette campaign is one of the few which presents the term “natural” as a negative; in recent decades, tobacco companies, such as Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, have steered toward campaigns hawking their brands as additive-free and all-natural. In the 1930s, however, Lucky Strike took a different approach, claiming that the natural state of cigarettes was the dangerous state, while the toasting process would rid the tobacco of “black, bitingly harsh irritant chemicals” (see Lucky Strike’s “Sheep Dip” campaign). Though the tactic seems different, the goal was the same: to convince consumers that a particular brand of cigarettes is healthier and safer.

This advertising campaign, claiming that “nature in the raw is seldom mild,” was an attempt to sell consumers on the Lucky Strike “toasting” process. Most of the advertisements from this campaign featured an ad artist’s rendition of a savage act of history, and many of the illustrations condemned Native Americans, presenting them as primitive.

The events depicted in the ads range from “The Fort Dearborn Massacre,” illustrated by N.C. Wyeth, to “The Raid on the Sabine Women,” illustrated by Saul Tepper. Other ads from this series featured depictions of perceived savage beasts, including lions and tigers. One of the ads in our collection identifies the lion as “the king of beasts” and the “ruler of the African jungle” due to his “brute force and savage cunning.” All of these ads are meant to exemplify the campaign slogan, “nature in the raw is seldom mild.” The ad copy compares these brutal acts, people, and animals to tobacco – harsh and deadly when plucked directly from nature, and in desperate need of intervention in order to become safe. Logically, the consumer is led to believe that the tobacco would otherwise be deadly, but due to the toasting process, the brand is no longer harsh or harmful – a complete falsehood, of course.

Sheep Dip – img13058

by

In 1931, Lucky Strike experimented with a campaign which referenced “sheep dip” in an attempt to prove the superiority of the “toasting” process. The campaign purported that the toasting process removed “harsh irritant chemicals naturally present in every tobacco leaf,” which were then sent on to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, to manufacture sheep dip, a chemical substance used to rid sheep of scabies. Interestingly, the key ingredient used in tobacco sheep dip was simply nicotine, rather than the “black, bitingly harsh irritant chemicals” the ads claimed. The ads attempted to convince consumers that the chemicals are “out so they can’t be in,” faulty logic at best.

Lucky Strike cigarettes did provide the base for sheep dip, though the resulting ad campaign was deceptive and a bit difficult for the everyday American to understand. It is no surprise that the campaign was short-lived, with just a handful (around 10) sheep-dip ads printed in total. It is important to note that these Lucky Strike ads are deceptive in two key ways; First, the ads claim that the byproduct sold to sheep-dip manufacturers is “black, biting, harsh irritant chemicals,” when in fact the byproduct is simply nicotine, never mentioned by name in the ads. Second, the ads employ a logical fallacy: “They’re out– so they can’t be in!” Two options are provided – the chemicals are either “out” or “in” the cigarettes. Because the chemicals are seemingly “out” in the sheep dip, then they must not be “in” the cigarettes. Of course, this fallacy can be broken down by stating the obvious: some chemicals may be “out,” while others certainly remain “in.”

Because most consumers were unaware of what sheep dip was, Lucky Strike dedicated a portion of its radio broadcast time to explaining the process to city dwellers. One internal industry memo documents the scripts for all 13 recordings of the NBC Studios radio show “The Lucky Strike Program with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra” for the month of August in 1931 (1). Eight of the 13 recordings expound on the sheep dip campaign. The programming for Saturday, August 22, for example, described an East Coast man to whom many listeners could relate: “Frank Leslie, whose only knowledge of sheep concerns boiled mutton and lamb chops, hasn’t the slightest notion what we mean when we speak of ‘sheep dip.’ No doubt he thinks it’s some kind of gravy for roast spring lamb.” The radio host then explains how farmers use sheep dip to treat livestock, and how this benefits smokers of Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Also on file among the internal industry documents are letters which indicate that solely the nicotine byproduct of Lucky Strike cigarettes was used in the manufacture of sheep dip. Though the American Tobacco Company had been siphoning off nicotine to sheep-dip manufacturers since at least 1915 (2), correspondence between the Vice President of the Tobacco By-Products and Chemical Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky, and the Vice President of the American Tobacco Company reveals that the nicotine from Lucky Strike cigarettes, in particular, was indeed sold in 1931. The VP of the Chemical Corporation found “improvement in the recovery of Nicotine that has been driven off by your ‘Lucky Strike process,” reporting that the nicotine could dip 1,500,000 sheep (3), or alternatively treat 2,700,000 poultry or create 765,000 gallons of spray for fruit trees (4).

1. “The Lucky Strike Program, with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra.” American Tobacco. August 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cpx75f00

2. Ramsay, RA, United States Department of Agriculture. No Title. American Tobacco. 2 March 1915. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jix70a00

3. Robinson, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 7 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iix70a00

4. Robinosn, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 12 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kix70a00

Calms your Nerves – img3631

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.

Sex Sells – img3767

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 – img3802

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

Mass Marketing Begins – img0520

by

As the threat of tobacco prohibition from temperance unions settled down in the late 1920s, tobacco companies became bolder with their approach to targeting women through advertisements, openly targeting women in an attempt to broaden their market and increase sales. The late 1920s saw the beginnings of major mass marketing campaigns designed specifically to target women. “Cigarette manufacturers have for a long time subtly suggested in some of their advertising that women smoked,” a New York Times article from 1927 reveals. But Chesterfield’s 1927 “Blow some my way” campaign was transparent to the public even at the time of printing, and soon after, the campaigns became less and less subtle. In 1928, Lucky Strike introduced its “Cream of the Crop” campaign, featuring celebrity testimonials from female smokers, and then followed with “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet” in 1929, designed to prey on female insecurities about weight and diet. As the decade turned, many cigarette brands came out of the woodwork and joined in on unabashedly targeting women by illustrating women smoking, rather than hinting at it.

You're So Smart – img0633

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 – img0677

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 – img0730

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 – img0785

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.

Women's Liberation – img0795

by

One of the most common techniques tobacco companies employ in order to target women is women’s liberation. Specifically, these advertisements show a woman in a position of power over a man, while being careful to keep the power-play light, carefree, and a bit flirtatious. The ads are prudent, hoping not to offend anyone while appearing to “take sides,” so to speak, with women. Often, these ads distract from the position of power Big Tobacco itself holds over both sexes, by pitting women against men instead of against Big Tobacco.

Be Happy, Go Lucky – img3891

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 – img4027

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 – img4302

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

Children – img4338

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.

Gift for Daddy – img4383

by

Depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads have the enormous ability to reinforce the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life. Because this perception is often promulgated by the tobacco industry, it is no surprise that many tobacco advertisements took advantage of Father’s Day. Indeed, many print ads, particularly from the Baby Boomer era, depict children gifting cigarette cartons to their fathers. The images of youngsters worked to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, as youngsters represent purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. An R.J. Reynolds ad from 1953, for example, depicts a woman and her two children ready to surprise Dad with Cavaliers. The accompanying text speaks directly to children, essentially selling the tobacco products to kids: “Make your Dad’s eyes light up…as he lights up his favorite smoke…with love from you to him on Father’s Day” 1953

Children Smoking – img8725

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 – img17796

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

Couples & Cast – img2466

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.

Directors and Producers – img2566

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.

Popular directors and producers did not escape the grasp of the tobacco companies. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, famous Broadway producers Florenz Ziegfeld, and George M. Cohan endorsing Lucky Strikes, along with popular Hollywood directors King Victor and Cecil B. de Mille. In the late 1940s, Philip Morris capitalized on the appeal of the director, while Winston jumped on the bandwagon in 1956 with its ads featuring photographers. The image of the handsome, seductive director persists in modern tobacco advertising, including the depiction of a director in a 2004 Camel ad.

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.

Radio Stars – img2579

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.

Broadway Stars – img2614

by

Like Opera singers, Broadway stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in a Broadway star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Broadway performers were particularly convincing, because if the star entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous. Lucky Strike and Camel made the most use of Broadway performers in their ads. 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.

Newsman – img2626

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 newsmen, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the broadcast journalist’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. If Walter Winchell, for example, trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems less irritating and dangerous. Newsmen also represent a more serious side of the celebrity industry, appealing to hardworking businessmen who may be less swayed by other celebrity endorsements.

TV Stars – img10144

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 – img4499

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.

Baseball – img4524

by

The marriage of tobacco and baseball dates back to some of the sport’s earliest days. Before 1900, professional baseball was a sea of leagues popping up and then disappearing and dispute over disregarded player contracts. By the turn of the century professional baseball as we know today began to take shape, and tobacco had already entered the scene. Cigarette companies used cards with images of baseball players to stiffen their packs of loosely packed tobacco and thin paper wrappings as early as 1888. In a time when chewing tobacco was widely popular in the U.S., many players indulged in the same habit. While players and ball clubs would go on to advertise many forms of combustible tobacco, cigarettes and chewing tobacco stayed connected most closely with baseball.

In the 1910s, tobacco’s solidification in baseball grew greatly. Bull Durham smoking tobacco launched a revolutionary campaign in 1912, installing large bull bill-boards at almost every major league ballpark. Their promotion ran that any player to bat a ball to the bull would receive $50, or roughly $1200 in today’s money. The prominence of the bull signage and its association with what was becoming America’s pastime led to enormous profits for the company and perhaps the origin of the term “bullpen” to refer to the warm-up area for pitchers. Some of the baseball figures to take a stand against tobacco included Honus Wagner, a legendary player for the Pittsburg Pirates, Ty Cobb, Connie Mack, and Walter Johnson. Wagner, for his part, refused to have his image associated with tobacco-promoting baseball cards. Today, some historians question whether his intent was to help curb young children’s chances of smoking or more to punish the company for improperly compensating him for his image. His decision, nonetheless, made some 1911 Americans question tobacco, while others only more attracted due to the surrounding controversy. In addition, Cobb, Mack, and Johnson all spoke out against cigarettes or allowed their names to be used as part of testimonies collected in Henry Ford’s Case Against the Little White Slaver, published 1914. Cobb and Johnson were both raised to refrain from all forms of mind-altering substances. For their early years in the leagues, right around the time Ford’s book came out, they held true to these ideals and yet still appeared in tobacco ads. Cobb, outside what his ball club may have required of him, even appeared for a self-named brand of tobacco. Clearly, baseball and tobacco were early slated for a complicated and deep relationship.

As baseball’s popularity exploded at the advent of the live-ball era—around 1920—players like Babe Ruth became the idols of millions. Ruth, a hearty man of strength and precision, publicly smoked and drank while living an extravagant, expensive lifestyle. The image of a homerun-belting giant such as Ruth safely smoking cigar after cigar and appearing in numerous ads helped people feel more comfortable with smoking. If such a healthy and lovable character included tobacco in his public portrait, the risk of smoking appeared greatly mitigated. Shocked fans saw Ruth, gaunt and dying of throat cancer, when he returned to Yankee Stadium in 1947, a year before his death at age 53. Despite this clear sign of tobacco’s danger, ads continued to run. Ruth’s former teammate, Joe DiMaggio, appeared in Chesterfield ads a year later. DiMaggio—another public figure who shamelessly smoked cigarettes for millions to see—played a major role in American culture, too. (DiMaggio, also, later died of tobacco-related cancer.) With icons living large and dying painfully from these products, the advertising kept on.

In the mid-1950s, foreboding studies began to warn of the true effects of smoking tobacco. The scare surrounding these products led to tighter restrictions on advertising, such as the 1971 ban on television commercials for tobacco. Tobacco advertising executives needed an avenue to fall back on—a way to separate tobacco from the dark health effects spreading about their products. Advertisements that specifically spoke against the dangers tested poorly, as prospective buyers were simply reminded of the controversy. Instead, advertisers had to turn to focus on a subject that had nothing to do with the growing body of scientific evidence against them. In numbers, R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris bought up ad space in ballparks around the country: Houston’s Astrodome, the Phillies’ Veterans Stadium, the Mariner’s Kingdome, and the Angel’s Anaheim Stadium, to name a few. Fans’ typical experience involved seeing a giant Marlboro or Winston sign, conveniently placed above the scoreboard or exits. Without technically advertising on television, cigarette companies received significant ad time on television through these bill boards.

The cigarette scare also influenced baseball in another way—the second rise of smokeless tobacco (ST). ST, as cigarettes do, also poses serious health risks. The act of spitting the tobacco back out and the lack of smoke, however, made users feel safer. ST was so popular among some baseball players that they would keep a dip in when posing for baseball card pictures (signified by a bulge under the cheek or lower lip). Bill Tuttle, a ballplayer, almost always had a dip in on his cards. In 1993, he was diagnosed with oral cancer, and his disfiguring facial surgeries provided living proof of the effect of ST for players and fans to see. That same year, Minor League Baseball banned ST outright; Tuttle spent the next five years of his life campaigning against its use. The 90s also saw the fall of the Winston and Marlboro ads that had grown into the atmosphere of their respective stadiums for, in some cases, over two decades. The tide was turning for baseball to separate from tobacco.

Today, smoking and ST are waning in the public eye and in baseball. Smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in most major league ballparks. Ones with particularly loose restrictions include Marlins Park, the Mets’ Citi Field, and the Rangers’ Globe Life Park, though policies here will likely change in the next few years. The Tigers’ Comerica Park, for its part, has a cigar bar (aptly named the “Asylum Cigar Bar”), but strongly prohibits all other types of smoking, even inside the bar. On the other end of the tobacco spectrum, while Minor League Baseball has moved on from ST, the Majors lag behind. In 2014, Hall-of-Famer Tony Gwynn died of ST-related cancer at 54. This tragic event adds to the numerous chapters of baseball players plagued by tobacco, but may accelerate cause for a ban. Major League Baseball (MLB) has banned spitting and the visible sign of a tin of chew in uniforms when fans are present or during press interviews. One third of players, however, still chew tobacco, either straight, or by mixing it with gum, sunflower seeds, or other products to spit with less suspicion.

The collective bargaining of the players’ union currently blocks the MLB from a ban on ST, however some cities are making the decision themselves. San Francisco enacted a ban effective January 1st, 2016 that prohibits the use of ST anywhere in the city, including the Giants’ AT&T Park. Some players claim this ban will not prevent them from chewing; however, even if only a symbolic gesture, this measure carries great weight. Efforts such as these demonstrate a step toward the wellbeing of the millions of young fans, among others, who idolize ballplayers. On August 6th, 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called for a similar ban. Curt Schilling, a former Red Sox pitcher who used ST and survived the resultant mouth cancer, currently aids Walsh in the effort. With 15 percent of high-school males using ST, the nation waits to see who will bring what change to America’s game.

Olympics – img7859

by

The Olympic Games are touted as the premiere international sporting event for amateur athletes. Founded in 1894, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) wanted to keep corporate advertisements from associating with the Games in the name of maintaining the spirit of amateurism. Despite this, companies found ways to create financial links with the Olympics.

The tobacco advertisement in the Games first appeared in the 1920 Olympics.1 Tobacco companies placed advertisements in the official program and would often feature Olympic athletes in advertising campaigns. The advertising campaigns promoted the idea that their brand of cigarettes allowed athletes to lead healthy lives. Tobacco advertising in the Olympic Games reached its peak in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

Cigarette companies paid for advertisements in popular magazines leading up and following Olympic Games. The advertisements would feature popular athletes such as swimmer Buster Crabbe, tennis player Lester Stoefen, hurdler Forrest Towns. Some of these ads were in the form of comic strips, and cigarette companies would often include quotes from the athletes about one of their Olympic races or copy explaining how the athletes used cigarettes to be successful.

In the 1980’s, the U.S. Tobacco Company was the official sponsor for the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid. Along with their sponsorship, attendees were given company branded memorabilia and giveaways, in the hopes of building a larger brand following. Tobacco companies maintained close relationships with the Games up until the Canadian National Olympic committee banned tobacco marketing in the 1988 Winter Olympics. The Games were now smoke-free, a movement stemming from the idea that products associated with the Games and promoted by Olympic athletes heavily influenced children.1

However, cigarette companies found ways to circumvent the ban. During the 1996 Games in Atlanta, tobacco marketing surrounded the Olympics despite being prohibited from sponsorship and access to the venue itself. Philip Morris ensured that it was one of the first to greet tourists entering Atlanta for the Centennial Olympic Games by funding the construction of eight glass-enclosed smoking rooms at the Atlanta airport.

Although the tobacco industry has since been generally absent from direct or indirect affiliation with the Olympic Games, there have still been instances in which tobacco advertising seeps in. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, there was much controversy regarding Chinese cigarette companies and Olympics themed special-edition products.1 Some athletes have also taken on their own corporate sponsorship with tobacco companies. Policies regarding maintaining a tobacco-free Games throughout has been an area of scrutiny among independent research groups.

In preparation for its 2020 Summer Olympics, Japan has passed legislation hoping to transform its public smoking policy. In a plan released in January 2018, the Japanese government pledged to ban smoking indoors in the hopes to align themselves with the Tobacco Free Initiative from the World Health Organization (WHO) and IOC. Japan is among the last countries to ban smoking in places like hospitals and restaurants.

However, controversy has followed the Japan Olympic Committee, concerning sports ties with Japan Tobacco Incorporated, one of the largest tobacco conglomerates in the world. Many teams in Japan sport the Japan Tobacco JTI logo, and the company runs the volleyball world cup and owns the men’s volleyball team JT Thunders. The World Health organization recommends that tobacco advertising, especially that with exposure to youth, be banned. The WHO notes the heavy correlation between youth oriented tobacco advertising and tobacco usage.2 Japan Tobacco spends about ¥20 billion a year on its marketing and public relations, so there exists continual worry that the tobacco giant has influence over newspapers, government policies, and international sports competition sponsorships.3

1. Lee, Kelly, et al. “Smoke Rings: Towards a Comprehensive Tobacco Free Policy for the Olympic Games.” PLOS ONE, 7 Aug. 2015, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130091. Accessed 8 Aug. 2018.

2. WHO wants total ban on tobacco advertising.” World Health Organization, 30 May 2008, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr17/en/. Accessed 20 Aug. 2018.

3. Brasor, Philip. “Media sidesteps calling Japan Tobacco out on advertising conflicts.” Japan Times [Tokyo]. Japantimes.co.jp, www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/14/national/media-national/media-sidesteps-calling-japan-tobacco-advertising-conflicts/#.W3xDkNhKjOQ. Accessed 21 Aug. 2018.

African American Athletes – img5013

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.

Mixed Races – img5030

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

Early Black Ads – img8146

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.

Internal tobacco industry documents reveal the massive development of the African American market in the 1940s and its impact on the tobacco industry. Public Relations firms specializing in targeting African American populations sent materials to the major tobacco companies hoping to secure business partnerships. One PR firm, in correspondence with RJ Reynolds in 1949, reminded the company that, “The negro market is a big one. I sincerely hope that I may have the opportunity [sic] of helping to further cultivate it for you” (5).

The major tobacco companies all made inroads on the “Negro market” in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Indeed, before the invent of such avenues, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the only ads featuring African Americans were racist advertisements using black caricatures, a striking contrast to the depictions seen in African American publications from the late 1940s to early 1950s, which featured African American models as professionals, students, and famous athletes. An advertising trade magazine, Printer’s Ink, described how, in 1947, the American Tobacco Company “entered the Negro market with a series of Famous Firsts about Negroes that were eye-openers to many in advertising” (6). The article describes the campaign content as telling “the history of some of the outstanding achievements of the Negroes,” most of which, according to the article, “were little known to students of the race.” Examples of these spotlights included Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, and “some of the modern Negro notables.” The Printer’s Ink article explains that the campaign intends to market cigarettes to African Americans by demonstrating “to the Negro that his race has accomplished many things.”

Tobacco advertising methods targeting African Americans shifted in the late 1950s, 60s, and 70s with the rise of the Civil Rights movement, and just as there was economic and market pressure in the 1940s to increase marketing efforts to African Americans, the 1970s and 1980s sparked resurgence in these efforts. An R.J. Reynolds document from 1969, for example, marks an increase in “Negro purchasing power” from 3 billion in 1940 to 32 billion in 1970. At this point, in order to refocus attention on the African American population and strengthen their ties to the community, tobacco companies worked on promotional campaigns, which funded key organizations such as the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the United Negro College Fund. An internal Brown & Williamson document declares that the “relatively small and often tight knit community can work to B&W’s marketing advantage if exploited properly. Peer pressure plays a more important role in many phases of life in the minority community. Therefore, dominance of the market place and the community environment is necessary to successfully increase sales there” (7).

As the industry began sponsoring African American institutions and charities, they also shifted their print advertising techniques to reflect the changing political climate. Increasingly, models wearing “naturals” or Afros began popping up in ads for Newport, L&M, Kent, Kool, and many more. A Kent ad from 1971 shows a man and a woman, both wearing Afros, talking on the phone together and smoking cigarettes, the slogan “Rap’n Kent” underneath.

One scholar describes advertisements from the early 1960s as portraying a “racially desegregated society in which the discerning tastes and values of black consumers were highlighted” (3). But she notes a shift with the emergence of Black Power, in which ads were able to latch onto the Black Nationalism movement while completely avoiding the political ideology therein. Instead, the ads worked at “selling soul,” and “invoked themes of black pride, solidarity, and “soul style.” Indeed, a Viceroy ad campaign from 1970 demonstrates a carefully crafted combination of both approaches. One ad from the campaign shows a stylish couple – the man in a suit and the woman in a yellow mod mini-dress – shopping at an outdoor art boutique while smoking. The caption reads, “Their collection? It’s fun to build on. Their apartment looks like a gallery. With everything from Neo-Afro realism to their child’s finger painting. Their cigarettes? Viceroy. They won’t settle for anything less. It’s a matter of taste.” This ad exemplifies the industry’s blatant attempts at exploiting Black Nationalism. An internal Brown & Williamson document from 1969 reveals that tobacco companies were indeed using this theme to market cigarettes: “The desire for blackness, or soul, as part of solving their identity crisis is something that must be understood. A sense of identity is being accentuated because today, as never before, Negroes are taking pride in themselves” (8). Viceroy, like many of the other leading brands, also capitalized on this “soul” movement. Another ad from the same series features four African Americans at a nightclub enjoying drinks and cigarettes while listening to a musician. White people sit in the background enjoying the same music. The caption for this ad reads, “Their sounds? They like ‘em heavy. And with soul. The music not only has to say something. It has to move.”

At this time, menthols also emerged as a cigarette targeting African-Americans. Whereas in the past, menthol cigarettes had been advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough, 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 the introduction of 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, as well as for Viceroy, which targeted African American stations (8). Today, over 70% of African-American smokers smoke menthols as opposed to only 35% of white smokers (9).

1. Walker, Susannah. “Black Dollar Power:” Susannah Walker. (University of Chicago Press, Jul 15, 2009 )

2. Walker, Susannah. “Style & Status: Selling Beauty to African American Women, 1920-1975”

3. Sullivan, David J. “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home!” Printer’s Ink; 208:3. 21 July 1944:90.

4 Sullivan, David J. “How Negroes Spent Their Incomes, 1920-1943.” Sales Management. 15 June 1945.

5. “Thank You Very Much For Your Letter of the 23rd.” RJ Reynolds. 31 March 1949. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bwz79d00

6. “—No Title—.” American Tobacco. 26 Nov 1948. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vaj41a00

7. “Discussion Paper: Total Minority Marketing Plan,” 7 Sept 1984. Http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dmf41f00

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

9. Gardiner, Phillip S. “The African Americanization of menthol cigarette use in the United States.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research Vol.6 Supp. 1. Feb 2004.

Winston Blaxsploitation – img8228

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.

British Recent – img6993

by

In 1949, on the heels of Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “Do You Inhale?” and Philip Morris’ 1942 campaign, “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do,” P. Lorillard released a campaign for Embassy urging smokers to “Inhale [Embassy] to your heart’s content!” Lorillard claimed that Embassy’s extra length provides “extra protection.” The faulty concept was that because the cigarette was longer, it was able to better filter out toxins, since it took more time for the smoke to reach the smoker’s throat due to the long length through which it had to travel. In 1950, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigators had decided that king-size cigarettes, like Embassy, contained “more tobacco and therefore more harmful substances” than are found in an ordinary cigarette.

Lorillard’s particular choice of cliché, “to your heart’s content,” was misleading at best . The phrase was meant to impart a sense of happiness and healthfulness. Of course, inhaling would not have made anyone’s heart content; Instead, smoking has been recognized as a major cause of coronary artery disease, responsible for an estimated 20% of deaths from heart disease in the United States. Most ironically in the context of this advertisement campaign, a smokers’ risk of developing heart disease is thought to greatly increase as his or her cigarette intake increases.