SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Nerves

Nerves

Feel Your Best – img1480

by

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

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

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

Smoking Guns – img12145

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1350

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1351

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1352

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1482

by

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

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

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

Mint Julep – img1802

by

In the early 1940s, Julep cigarettes were advertised as the solution to an addiction to cigarettes: “If you really enjoy smoking,” one ad explains, “you don’t have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others – switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over smoking!” Ironically, the advertisement reveals many of the negative side effects of smoking, such as a “raw ‘burned out’ throat” or “tobacco breath.” However, the ad does not urge smokers to quit. Instead, it insists that with Julep cigarettes, you can “smoke all you want.” This technique mirrors contemporaneous advertising copy for menthol cigarettes at the time, but presents mint as a “miracle” flavorant which should not be confused with “menthol-tasting cigarettes.” Additionally, the name “julep” evokes images of the alcoholic cocktail, the mint julep. This association has the power to accomplish many effects on the subconscious of the consumer – the cigarette can be equated with the forbidden for young smokers or with pleasure and refreshment for older smokers.

According to a November, 1932, article in Fortune Magazine, after Lloyd “Spud” Hughes found success from his mentholated Spuds cigarettes, sold his company, and reportedly frivolled away his profits, he came up with this new flavored tobacco recipe in the hopes of earning a few extra bucks. In 1928, the article explains, Hughes patented “Julep” cigarettes, a cigarette flavored with spearmint rather than menthol. Then, in 1932, he made his way to Hahira, Georgia, with his new blend in tow. Julep cigarettes were indeed first manufactured by Julep Cigarette Company of Boston and Hahira, Georgia, later by Penn Tobacco Company, and finally by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The ads in our collection date from 1942, when the brand was under the purview of Penn.

For Digestion Sake – img1353

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1483

by

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

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

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

Mint Julep – img1803

by

In the early 1940s, Julep cigarettes were advertised as the solution to an addiction to cigarettes: “If you really enjoy smoking,” one ad explains, “you don’t have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others – switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over smoking!” Ironically, the advertisement reveals many of the negative side effects of smoking, such as a “raw ‘burned out’ throat” or “tobacco breath.” However, the ad does not urge smokers to quit. Instead, it insists that with Julep cigarettes, you can “smoke all you want.” This technique mirrors contemporaneous advertising copy for menthol cigarettes at the time, but presents mint as a “miracle” flavorant which should not be confused with “menthol-tasting cigarettes.” Additionally, the name “julep” evokes images of the alcoholic cocktail, the mint julep. This association has the power to accomplish many effects on the subconscious of the consumer – the cigarette can be equated with the forbidden for young smokers or with pleasure and refreshment for older smokers.

According to a November, 1932, article in Fortune Magazine, after Lloyd “Spud” Hughes found success from his mentholated Spuds cigarettes, sold his company, and reportedly frivolled away his profits, he came up with this new flavored tobacco recipe in the hopes of earning a few extra bucks. In 1928, the article explains, Hughes patented “Julep” cigarettes, a cigarette flavored with spearmint rather than menthol. Then, in 1932, he made his way to Hahira, Georgia, with his new blend in tow. Julep cigarettes were indeed first manufactured by Julep Cigarette Company of Boston and Hahira, Georgia, later by Penn Tobacco Company, and finally by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The ads in our collection date from 1942, when the brand was under the purview of Penn.

For Digestion Sake – img1354

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1484

by

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

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

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

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1503

by

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

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

Mint Julep – img9498

by

In the early 1940s, Julep cigarettes were advertised as the solution to an addiction to cigarettes: “If you really enjoy smoking,” one ad explains, “you don’t have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others – switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over smoking!” Ironically, the advertisement reveals many of the negative side effects of smoking, such as a “raw ‘burned out’ throat” or “tobacco breath.” However, the ad does not urge smokers to quit. Instead, it insists that with Julep cigarettes, you can “smoke all you want.” This technique mirrors contemporaneous advertising copy for menthol cigarettes at the time, but presents mint as a “miracle” flavorant which should not be confused with “menthol-tasting cigarettes.” Additionally, the name “julep” evokes images of the alcoholic cocktail, the mint julep. This association has the power to accomplish many effects on the subconscious of the consumer – the cigarette can be equated with the forbidden for young smokers or with pleasure and refreshment for older smokers.

According to a November, 1932, article in Fortune Magazine, after Lloyd “Spud” Hughes found success from his mentholated Spuds cigarettes, sold his company, and reportedly frivolled away his profits, he came up with this new flavored tobacco recipe in the hopes of earning a few extra bucks. In 1928, the article explains, Hughes patented “Julep” cigarettes, a cigarette flavored with spearmint rather than menthol. Then, in 1932, he made his way to Hahira, Georgia, with his new blend in tow. Julep cigarettes were indeed first manufactured by Julep Cigarette Company of Boston and Hahira, Georgia, later by Penn Tobacco Company, and finally by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The ads in our collection date from 1942, when the brand was under the purview of Penn.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0137

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1355

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1485

by

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

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

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

Mint Julep – img11267

by

In the early 1940s, Julep cigarettes were advertised as the solution to an addiction to cigarettes: “If you really enjoy smoking,” one ad explains, “you don’t have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others – switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over smoking!” Ironically, the advertisement reveals many of the negative side effects of smoking, such as a “raw ‘burned out’ throat” or “tobacco breath.” However, the ad does not urge smokers to quit. Instead, it insists that with Julep cigarettes, you can “smoke all you want.” This technique mirrors contemporaneous advertising copy for menthol cigarettes at the time, but presents mint as a “miracle” flavorant which should not be confused with “menthol-tasting cigarettes.” Additionally, the name “julep” evokes images of the alcoholic cocktail, the mint julep. This association has the power to accomplish many effects on the subconscious of the consumer – the cigarette can be equated with the forbidden for young smokers or with pleasure and refreshment for older smokers.

According to a November, 1932, article in Fortune Magazine, after Lloyd “Spud” Hughes found success from his mentholated Spuds cigarettes, sold his company, and reportedly frivolled away his profits, he came up with this new flavored tobacco recipe in the hopes of earning a few extra bucks. In 1928, the article explains, Hughes patented “Julep” cigarettes, a cigarette flavored with spearmint rather than menthol. Then, in 1932, he made his way to Hahira, Georgia, with his new blend in tow. Julep cigarettes were indeed first manufactured by Julep Cigarette Company of Boston and Hahira, Georgia, later by Penn Tobacco Company, and finally by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The ads in our collection date from 1942, when the brand was under the purview of Penn.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0142

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1356

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1486

by

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

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

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

Mint Julep – img11268

by

In the early 1940s, Julep cigarettes were advertised as the solution to an addiction to cigarettes: “If you really enjoy smoking,” one ad explains, “you don’t have to cut down and deprive yourself of smoking pleasure! Follow the lead of thousands of others – switch to new Julep Cigarettes. Smoke all you want without unpleasant symptoms of over smoking!” Ironically, the advertisement reveals many of the negative side effects of smoking, such as a “raw ‘burned out’ throat” or “tobacco breath.” However, the ad does not urge smokers to quit. Instead, it insists that with Julep cigarettes, you can “smoke all you want.” This technique mirrors contemporaneous advertising copy for menthol cigarettes at the time, but presents mint as a “miracle” flavorant which should not be confused with “menthol-tasting cigarettes.” Additionally, the name “julep” evokes images of the alcoholic cocktail, the mint julep. This association has the power to accomplish many effects on the subconscious of the consumer – the cigarette can be equated with the forbidden for young smokers or with pleasure and refreshment for older smokers.

According to a November, 1932, article in Fortune Magazine, after Lloyd “Spud” Hughes found success from his mentholated Spuds cigarettes, sold his company, and reportedly frivolled away his profits, he came up with this new flavored tobacco recipe in the hopes of earning a few extra bucks. In 1928, the article explains, Hughes patented “Julep” cigarettes, a cigarette flavored with spearmint rather than menthol. Then, in 1932, he made his way to Hahira, Georgia, with his new blend in tow. Julep cigarettes were indeed first manufactured by Julep Cigarette Company of Boston and Hahira, Georgia, later by Penn Tobacco Company, and finally by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company. The ads in our collection date from 1942, when the brand was under the purview of Penn.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0616

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1357

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1487

by

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

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

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

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0617

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1358

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img13681

by

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

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

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

Famous Voices – img2694

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.

For Digestion Sake – img1359

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1488

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1360

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1489

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1361

by

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

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

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1509

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img13682

by

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

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

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

Smoke Anywhere – img16997

by

Freedom is possibly America’s most treasured value. Protected in the “Bill of Rights,” it is a deeply held core belief that to many Americans was a birthright and to some a hard fought victory. Given its hold on the American psyche, it has been used as a powerful marketing tool to hawk products as diverse as airplane tickets for Southwest Airlines, which calls itself “A Symbol of Freedom,” to getting a good night’s sleep with Dacron pillows, which is “America’s Freedom Fabric,” to the freedom to discover the road ahead with Chevrolet’s “Find New Roads,” and the freedom to “Just Do it” with Nike products.

E-cigarette (e-cig) companies have jumped on the freedom bandwagon and promise many kinds of freedom to vapers. A key selling point touted by e-cig companies is that their products can be used in places where smoking of traditional cigarettes is banned, like bars, restaurants, on flights, and in entertainment and sporting venues. An ad for Vapestick shows a woman vaping her e-cig in bed. The slogan of the ad reads, “Looks, Feels, and Tastes like a Real Cigarette That You Can Smoke Anywhere!”. A Cannastick ad shows people enjoying a concert under the caption “The Freedom to Vape Anywhere.” An ad for Cigana has the image of an airplane and is accompanied by the following text, “Smoke without the smoke…. Smoke like no one is watching.” A Vega Vapor ad tells consumers that many “local establishments are vapor friendly.”

The Smoke Anywhere theme is also widely publicized on brand websites. For instance, Blu e-cigs, says on its website, “blu e-cigs® electronic cigarettes are not traditional cigarettes and do not burn tobacco, so they can be smoked in bars, restaurants, offices and other places where normal smoking bans are in effect.” Fin e-cigs on its website says the brand is for individuals “…who want the freedom to smoke in places where traditional cigarettes are not permitted.

While e-cigs offer many freedoms to its users, a freedom that it cannot offer but it often promises is the freedom to smoke anywhere. Despite ads, eg. Blu and Vapestick, that show individuals vape on airplanes, the US Department of Transportation has issued guidelines restricting the use of e-cigs on flights. More restaurants are also coming forward to ban vaping on their premises. For instance, fast food giant Taco Bell has banned vaping in its premises.

For Digestion Sake – img1362

by

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

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

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1510

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1363

by

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

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

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1511

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1364

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1492

by

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1365

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1493

by

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

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1494

by

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

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

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

Get a Lift – img9709

by

In a prime example of marketing wizardry, tobacco advertisements have simultaneously presented cigarettes as both sedatives and stimulants. Ads worked to convince consumers that cigarettes would calm the smoker when he felt nervous, or pep him up when he felt sluggish. This theme features ad campaigns from that proclaim cigarettes to be stimulants.

In these ads from the early 1930s, Camel provides readers with “personal experiences that point the way to increased energy.” Each ad features a few testimonials from folks of varying professions, explaining how in their line of work, it is important to “Get a LIFT with a CAMEL.” This slogan is at odds with Camel’s other contemporaneous slogan, “It takes healthy nerves,” which claimed that far from being energy-boosting, Camel actually relaxed smokers on the job.

“Tired?” the Camel ads ask. “No matter! Here’s a delightful way to restore your flow of energy … as now revealed by Science.” Most disturbingly of all, the ad falsely claims that the energy boost from Camels “occurs in a harmless and utterly delightful manner.”

The ads target a wide variety of audiences. In particular, one 1937 Camel ad explicitly targets young people with an ad featuring a sporty debutante, calling her “typical of the younger set who go in for vigorous outdoor sports.” Other ads feature older men in distinguished careers in order to target an older set of smokers. Men are also shown in a variety of high-energy jobs; from football quarterbacks to deep sea divers, from rail engineers to pilots, from newspaper men to architects, no one is left out. The ads take a similar approach with women, featuring air hostesses, business women, champion mountain climbers, and even non-working women. One ad from 1934 claims that Olympic Diving Champion Georgia Coleman was “tired out from diving – and then she smoked a Camel!” while another from 1935 says the same for a woman out shopping: “I don’t know any task as exhausting as shopping,” says the unnamed woman. “I often slip away for a Camel when I’m getting tired. A camel restores my energy.”

Indeed, careful attention is paid to non-working women in order to ensure they don’t feel alienated by the plethora of testimonials featuring men and women at work. “A crowded store is tiring,” reiterates Mrs. Van Brunt Timpson in 1935, who also claims that smoking a Camel helps her tackle her shopping. In an ad from the previous year, housewife Mrs. Charles Day says, “Camels pick up my energy,” and in yet another ad from 1935, “college girl” Marguerite Osmun is also quoted as feeling “refreshed” after smoking a Camel “when tired.”

It is shocking to compare these ads to those which claim certain brands calm the nerves, revealing the sheer adaptability of the cigarette and its wide-reaching appeal.

For Digestion Sake – img1366

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1367

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1368

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1369

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1370

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1371

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1372

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1373

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1374

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1375

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img8744

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img8745

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1416

by

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

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

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img3650

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img8743

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1376

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1377

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1378

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1379

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1380

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1381

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1382

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1383

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1384

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img3664

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1385

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img3665

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img8826

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1387

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img9717

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1388

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1389

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img3668

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1390

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1391

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img9721

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1392

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img9722

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img8825

by

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img9723

by

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

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

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

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img19595

by

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

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

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

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img19596

by

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

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

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

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

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

Calms your Nerves – img19597

by

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

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

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

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1393

by

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

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