SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Mild

Mild

Famous Voices – img2688

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2779

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 – img2909

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.

Guard Your Throat – img13671

by

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

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

To Your Heart's Content – img1343

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.

Best For You – img1465

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.

Feel Your Best – img1483

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. .

Not One Single Case – img1614

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.

Pure & Clean – img3575

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 – img13053

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.

Sunshine Mellows – img13063

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00

Brides with Butts – img0646

by

In their advertisements, tobacco companies have long featured brides, marriage, and the myriad symbols associated thereof. Brides and their white wedding gowns represent purity, one of the adjectives with which cigarettes love to associate themselves; filters, low tar, and purity are all marketing ploys tobacco companies utilize to make cigarettes appear safer and healthier. Femininity, elegance, and luxury are also highlighted in these ads. Additionally, cigarette advertisements which utilize the marriage angle attempt to imbue their products with a sense of tradition, custom, and sometimes even rite of passage.

Marlboro – img1071

by

This is an example of one of the earlier Marlboro ads, which marketed Marlboro cigarettes as being “Mild as May” to attract a female audience. This advertisement takes the next step by actually illustrating a fashionable woman smoking elegantly. In large letters, this ad mentions that Marlboros have “Ivory Tips” to “protect the lips,” targeting women who are concerned with protecting their lipstick. The woman pictured wears very dark lipstick, but her absurdly large cigarette is clean from any lipstick stains. Marlboro, the brand associated today with the rugged manliness of the “Marlboro Man” cowboy of later decades, was actually introduced to the market in 1927 as a woman’s cigarette. It wasn’t until 1954, after the war, that Marlboro underwent a sex change to compete with the three other top cigarette manufacturers.

Mixed Races – img5031

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

Smoking Guns – img13981

by

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

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

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

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

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

World War II – img5561

by

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

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

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0058

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 – img0106

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.

Throat Doctors – img0115

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.

Nurses – img0151

by

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

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

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

Dentist Recommends – img0166

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.

Famous Voices – img2689

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2780

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 – img2910

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.

Guard Your Throat – img13672

by

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

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

To Your Heart's Content – img1344

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.

Protects Your Health – img7951

by

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

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

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

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

Kool Your Throat – img1748

by

In 1933, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette. Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as specialty cigarettes to be smoked on occasion, aside from a smoker’s regular, unmentholated cigarette. Because menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat, advertisers 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.

Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these early ads for Kools from the 1930s to 1950s urged smokers to switch to a menthol brand to ease throat irritation. Early slogans for Kools covered by this theme include “Your throat will not get dry” (1933), “Throat comfort” (1934), and “In between others, rest your throat with KOOLS” (1938-1940). By 1940, the slogan was “Switch from Hots to Kools,” and in 1951 and 1952, a Sunday comics campaign was released. Across the board, the message was the same – Kools were soothing, comfortable, and relaxing.

Kools’ penguin mascot was used from the first days of the brand’s release. His cartoonish appearance, like Joe Camel’s, makes him an attractive figure to kids and young adults. The penguin was named Willie in 1947 to increase sales which had fallen after the war. However, Kools were still seen as a specialty product at the time, appealing only to those smokers hoping to avoid throat dryness or the irritating effects of their regular smokes. It wasn’t until the late 1950s, when Salem entered the scene as the first menthol filter in 1956, that menthols began to make up a large part of the market share. 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 (1).

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

Pure & Clean – img3576

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 – img13054

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.

Sunshine Mellows – img13064

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00

Brides with Butts – img0647

by

In their advertisements, tobacco companies have long featured brides, marriage, and the myriad symbols associated thereof. Brides and their white wedding gowns represent purity, one of the adjectives with which cigarettes love to associate themselves; filters, low tar, and purity are all marketing ploys tobacco companies utilize to make cigarettes appear safer and healthier. Femininity, elegance, and luxury are also highlighted in these ads. Additionally, cigarette advertisements which utilize the marriage angle attempt to imbue their products with a sense of tradition, custom, and sometimes even rite of passage.

Mass Marketing Begins – img7548

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.

Marlboro – img1070

by

This is an example of one of the earlier Marlboro ads, which marketed Marlboro cigarettes as being “Mild as May” to attract a female audience. This advertisement takes the next step by actually illustrating a fashionable woman smoking elegantly. In large letters, this ad mentions that Marlboros have “Ivory Tips” to “protect the lips,” targeting women who are concerned with protecting their lipstick. The woman pictured wears very dark lipstick, but her absurdly large cigarette is clean from any lipstick stains. Marlboro, the brand associated today with the rugged manliness of the “Marlboro Man” cowboy of later decades, was actually introduced to the market in 1927 as a woman’s cigarette. It wasn’t until 1954, after the war, that Marlboro underwent a sex change to compete with the three other top cigarette manufacturers.

Singers – img17050

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.

Mixed Races – img5032

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

Smoking Guns – img13982

by

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

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

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

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

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

World War II – img5562

by

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

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

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0059

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 – img0107

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.

Throat Doctors – img0116

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.

Nurses – img0152

by

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

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

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

Dentist Recommends – img0167

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.

Famous Voices – img2690

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2781

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 – img2911

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.

Not One Single Case – img1616

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.

Low Tar – img3213

by

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

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

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

Pure & Clean – img3577

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 – img13055

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.

Sunshine Mellows – img13065

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00

Brides with Butts – img0648

by

In their advertisements, tobacco companies have long featured brides, marriage, and the myriad symbols associated thereof. Brides and their white wedding gowns represent purity, one of the adjectives with which cigarettes love to associate themselves; filters, low tar, and purity are all marketing ploys tobacco companies utilize to make cigarettes appear safer and healthier. Femininity, elegance, and luxury are also highlighted in these ads. Additionally, cigarette advertisements which utilize the marriage angle attempt to imbue their products with a sense of tradition, custom, and sometimes even rite of passage.

Mass Marketing Begins – img7549

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.

Mixed Races – img5033

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

World War II – img5563

by

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

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

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0060

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.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0142

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 – img0168

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 – img9453

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.

Famous Voices – img2691

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2782

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 – img2912

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.

Guard Your Throat – img9458

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.

To Your Heart's Content – img1345

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.

Not One Single Case – img1617

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.

Kool Your Throat – img1750

by

In 1933, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette. Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as specialty cigarettes to be smoked on occasion, aside from a smoker’s regular, unmentholated cigarette. Because menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat, advertisers 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.

Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these early ads for Kools from the 1930s to 1950s urged smokers to switch to a menthol brand to ease throat irritation. Early slogans for Kools covered by this theme include “Your throat will not get dry” (1933), “Throat comfort” (1934), and “In between others, rest your throat with KOOLS” (1938-1940). By 1940, the slogan was “Switch from Hots to Kools,” and in 1951 and 1952, a Sunday comics campaign was released. Across the board, the message was the same – Kools were soothing, comfortable, and relaxing.

Kools’ penguin mascot was used from the first days of the brand’s release. His cartoonish appearance, like Joe Camel’s, makes him an attractive figure to kids and young adults. The penguin was named Willie in 1947 to increase sales which had fallen after the war. However, Kools were still seen as a specialty product at the time, appealing only to those smokers hoping to avoid throat dryness or the irritating effects of their regular smokes. It wasn’t until the late 1950s, when Salem entered the scene as the first menthol filter in 1956, that menthols began to make up a large part of the market share. 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 (1).

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

Pure & Clean – img3578

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.

Sunshine Mellows – img13066

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00

Mass Marketing Begins – img0521

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.

Brides with Butts – img0649

by

In their advertisements, tobacco companies have long featured brides, marriage, and the myriad symbols associated thereof. Brides and their white wedding gowns represent purity, one of the adjectives with which cigarettes love to associate themselves; filters, low tar, and purity are all marketing ploys tobacco companies utilize to make cigarettes appear safer and healthier. Femininity, elegance, and luxury are also highlighted in these ads. Additionally, cigarette advertisements which utilize the marriage angle attempt to imbue their products with a sense of tradition, custom, and sometimes even rite of passage.

Mixed Races – img5034

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War II – img5564

by

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

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

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0061

by

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

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

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

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

Dentist Recommends – img0169

by

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

Throat Doctors – img11320

by

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

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

Famous Voices – img2692

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2783

by

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

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

T-Zone – img2913

by

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

To Your Heart's Content – img1346

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.

Not One Single Case – img1618

by

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

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

Kool Your Throat – img1751

by

In 1933, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette. Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as specialty cigarettes to be smoked on occasion, aside from a smoker’s regular, unmentholated cigarette. Because menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat, advertisers 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.

Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these early ads for Kools from the 1930s to 1950s urged smokers to switch to a menthol brand to ease throat irritation. Early slogans for Kools covered by this theme include “Your throat will not get dry” (1933), “Throat comfort” (1934), and “In between others, rest your throat with KOOLS” (1938-1940). By 1940, the slogan was “Switch from Hots to Kools,” and in 1951 and 1952, a Sunday comics campaign was released. Across the board, the message was the same – Kools were soothing, comfortable, and relaxing.

Kools’ penguin mascot was used from the first days of the brand’s release. His cartoonish appearance, like Joe Camel’s, makes him an attractive figure to kids and young adults. The penguin was named Willie in 1947 to increase sales which had fallen after the war. However, Kools were still seen as a specialty product at the time, appealing only to those smokers hoping to avoid throat dryness or the irritating effects of their regular smokes. It wasn’t until the late 1950s, when Salem entered the scene as the first menthol filter in 1956, that menthols began to make up a large part of the market share. 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 (1).

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

Less Nicotine – img11739

by

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

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

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

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

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

Pure & Clean – img3579

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.

Sunshine Mellows – img13067

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00