SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Movie

Movie

Never a Rough Puff – img3282

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Movie Stars – Women – img2154

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Broadway Stars – img2611

by

Like Opera singers, Broadway stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in a Broadway star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Broadway performers were particularly convincing, because if the star entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous. Lucky Strike and Camel made the most use of Broadway performers in their ads. In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite. It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.

Doctor Ordered – img2002

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Never a Rough Puff – img3283

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Doctor Ordered – img2003

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Mogul – img6375

by

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

Not One Single Case – img1611

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.

Targeting Teens – img20124

by

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

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

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

Doctor Ordered – img7953

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Not One Single Case – img1612

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.

Pseudoscience – img1553

by

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

Directors and Producers – img2566

by

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

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

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

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

Never a Rough Puff – img3285

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Low Tar – img3210

by

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

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

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

Doctor Ordered – img2004

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Never a Rough Puff – img3286

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Doctor Ordered – img2005

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Couples & Cast – img2467

by

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

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

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

Doctor Ordered – img2006

by

This theme features a variety of ads which profess filter cigarettes to be “just what the doctor ordered!” In these L&M advertisements from the early 1950s, “just what the doctor ordered” has a double-meaning. Not only does it imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s healthfulness. Similar contemporaneous advertisements from Viceroy claim that their filter cigarettes are healthy because doctors recommend Viceroys to patients. Obviously, these ads claim health benefits for filters, though filters actually did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s.

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

Couples & Cast – img2468

by

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

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

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

Mogul – img6378

by

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

Never a Rough Puff – img3288

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Movie Stars – Men – img2379

by

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

Famous voices, in this case male movie stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the actor’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actor entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see a few ads and muse, “If Perry Como and Big Crosby trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me!” In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.

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

Directors and Producers – img2572

by

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

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

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

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

Directors and Producers – img2573

by

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

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

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

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

Famous Voices – img2695

by

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

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

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

Light – img3058

by

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

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

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

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

Movie Stars – Women – img14077

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Couples & Cast – img2478

by

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

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

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

Movie Stars – Women – img2151

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pure & Clean – img3586

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.

Mild as May – img3259

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers. To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for one’s health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

In the 1930s, Philip Morris used “mildness” in an attempt to attract women, classifying Marlboros as “Mild as May.” Similarly, the American Tobacco Company, always struggling to maintain Lucky Strike’s female consumer base due to the brand’s inherently unfashionable packaging, employed the slogan, “Mildness and Character” along with images of beautiful, sophisticated, rich women. But a cigarette advertised as “mild” was by no means restricted to a female audience. Indeed, in the 1940s and ‘50s, Liggett & Myers drove home the “mildness” message in many of its Chesterfield ads that featured males. A good portion of these Chesterfield ads even included celebrity endorsements from famous men, including Ronald Reagan.

The deception continued and became increasingly prevalent as low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes gained ground in the 1970s. At this time, Brown & Williamson released Kool Milds in an attempt to attract the health-conscious smoker. B&W continued advertising Kool Milds heavily until 2010, when FDA regulations prohibited tobacco companies from using misleading monikers such as “low” and “mild.” Since this new regulation, Kool has followed other brands in color-coding its cigarettes to indicate “mild” or “low-tar.” It has now repositioned Kool Milds as Kool Blue.

Movie Stars – Women – img2152

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not One Single Case – img1628

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.

Mild as May – img3262

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers. To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for one’s health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

In the 1930s, Philip Morris used “mildness” in an attempt to attract women, classifying Marlboros as “Mild as May.” Similarly, the American Tobacco Company, always struggling to maintain Lucky Strike’s female consumer base due to the brand’s inherently unfashionable packaging, employed the slogan, “Mildness and Character” along with images of beautiful, sophisticated, rich women. But a cigarette advertised as “mild” was by no means restricted to a female audience. Indeed, in the 1940s and ‘50s, Liggett & Myers drove home the “mildness” message in many of its Chesterfield ads that featured males. A good portion of these Chesterfield ads even included celebrity endorsements from famous men, including Ronald Reagan.

The deception continued and became increasingly prevalent as low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes gained ground in the 1970s. At this time, Brown & Williamson released Kool Milds in an attempt to attract the health-conscious smoker. B&W continued advertising Kool Milds heavily until 2010, when FDA regulations prohibited tobacco companies from using misleading monikers such as “low” and “mild.” Since this new regulation, Kool has followed other brands in color-coding its cigarettes to indicate “mild” or “low-tar.” It has now repositioned Kool Milds as Kool Blue.

Mild as May – img3263

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers. To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for one’s health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

In the 1930s, Philip Morris used “mildness” in an attempt to attract women, classifying Marlboros as “Mild as May.” Similarly, the American Tobacco Company, always struggling to maintain Lucky Strike’s female consumer base due to the brand’s inherently unfashionable packaging, employed the slogan, “Mildness and Character” along with images of beautiful, sophisticated, rich women. But a cigarette advertised as “mild” was by no means restricted to a female audience. Indeed, in the 1940s and ‘50s, Liggett & Myers drove home the “mildness” message in many of its Chesterfield ads that featured males. A good portion of these Chesterfield ads even included celebrity endorsements from famous men, including Ronald Reagan.

The deception continued and became increasingly prevalent as low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes gained ground in the 1970s. At this time, Brown & Williamson released Kool Milds in an attempt to attract the health-conscious smoker. B&W continued advertising Kool Milds heavily until 2010, when FDA regulations prohibited tobacco companies from using misleading monikers such as “low” and “mild.” Since this new regulation, Kool has followed other brands in color-coding its cigarettes to indicate “mild” or “low-tar.” It has now repositioned Kool Milds as Kool Blue.

Movie Stars – Women – img2156

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mild as May – img3264

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers. To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for one’s health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

In the 1930s, Philip Morris used “mildness” in an attempt to attract women, classifying Marlboros as “Mild as May.” Similarly, the American Tobacco Company, always struggling to maintain Lucky Strike’s female consumer base due to the brand’s inherently unfashionable packaging, employed the slogan, “Mildness and Character” along with images of beautiful, sophisticated, rich women. But a cigarette advertised as “mild” was by no means restricted to a female audience. Indeed, in the 1940s and ‘50s, Liggett & Myers drove home the “mildness” message in many of its Chesterfield ads that featured males. A good portion of these Chesterfield ads even included celebrity endorsements from famous men, including Ronald Reagan.

The deception continued and became increasingly prevalent as low-tar and low-nicotine cigarettes gained ground in the 1970s. At this time, Brown & Williamson released Kool Milds in an attempt to attract the health-conscious smoker. B&W continued advertising Kool Milds heavily until 2010, when FDA regulations prohibited tobacco companies from using misleading monikers such as “low” and “mild.” Since this new regulation, Kool has followed other brands in color-coding its cigarettes to indicate “mild” or “low-tar.” It has now repositioned Kool Milds as Kool Blue.

Couples & Cast – img2481

by

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

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

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

Couples & Cast – img2482

by

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

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

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

Couples & Cast – img2483

by

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

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

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

Couples & Cast – img2484

by

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

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

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

Couples & Cast – img2485

by

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

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

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

Less Nicotine – img3201

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

Movie Stars – Women – img14083

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Stars – Women – img2236

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movie Stars – Women – img2303

by

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

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

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

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

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

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