SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Social image

Social image

Hideous – img12505

by

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

Celebrities – img12365

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Hideous – img12935

by

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

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

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

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

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

REFERENCES:

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

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

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

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

Kool Knockoffs – img12254

by

Tobacco brand advertisements are among the most spoofed in advertising history, particularly for anti-smoking campaigns (7). Perhaps this is because the success of cigarette advertising has been immense. RJ Reynold’s Joe Camel was extremely successful at establishing itself as a household name. By age 6, an equal number of children were able to recognize Joe Camel and its association with cigarettes as Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel, even though cigarette ads had been banned from television before their lifetime(6). Though Joe Camel’s campaign only ran from 1987 to 1997, this era saw an increase in Camel’s market share of cigarettes among children from 0.5% to 32.8%, with estimated sales of $476 million per year (4). If such brands are so successful at bringing positive attention to a harmful product through advertisements, then the same advertisements, altered to present a different message, can be used to ruin the product’s image as well. This is the basis of using knock-offs or spoofs as a form of anti-smoking advertisement.

Spoof ads are considered subvertisements, and have been dubbed a type of “culture jamming” by Adbusters, an anti-consumerism organization that created “Joe Chemo” ads(1). Whereas advertisements are meant to enhance the image of a product , subvertising uses irony and sarcasm to criticize and mock the product.

The research that has been done on other anti-tobacco campaign strategies may apply to these spoofs and give us an idea of their effectiveness. One study evaluated the reactions to spoofs by evaluating Youtube comments on ad spoofs, and it seems that most of the ads invoke humor, rather than fear, empathy, or anger (8). It is uncertain whether humor enhances the effectiveness of the ads. In focus groups, humor seems to increase the likeability of an ad, which aids in recall (2). However, likability doesn’t necessarily translate into altered behaviors, and there is a possibility that humor distracts viewers from the intended message (8).

Another study showed that children were more likely to pay attention to a message that featured familiar characters (3). Using recognizable icons like Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man, two of the more popular choices for knock-off ads, will draw more attention to the ad and make people stop and look twice. But again, more attention doesn’t necessarily mean the ads are more effective in reducing smoking, especially if the ads generate negative responses. The smoking status of the viewer influences how the viewer will respond. Someone who doesn’t smoke and does not find smoking appealing with have a positive reaction to the ad and be more likely to recall the ad, while someone who smokes will be less accepting of the anti-smoking information. This may mean that spoofs may not be very effective at changing smoker’s beliefs and reducing intentions to smoke (8).

Though the persuasiveness of these ads has not been confirmed by research, the industries targeted by subvertisements feel threatened. Tobacco industry perception of potential damage may be an indicator of the power of the spoof ads. Legal action in Canada has been taken against Adbusters to prevent the group from airing their other spoofs on television. TV stations believe that subvertisements are influential enough to eliminate the rest of their sponsors (1). The resistance is towards subvertisements targeting other consumer products like fast food and alcohol, because previous anti-tobacco campaigns have already resulted in the restriction of tobacco ads on TV, so those sponsors are not a concern for the TV industry.

 

REFERENCES:

Adbusters. “Kalle Lasn: Clearing the Mindscape.” Adbusters Medial Foundation, 4 March 2009. Web. 20 June 2013. https://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters_blog/kalle_lasn_clearing_mindscape.html

Agostinelli G, Grube JW. Tobacco Counter-Advertising: A Review of the Literature and a Conceptual Model for Understanding Effects. Journal of Health and Communication 2003; 8: 107-127.

Blum A. Medicine vs Madison Avenue: Fighting Smoke With Smoke. JAMA 1980; 243(8): 739-740.

Brody JE. “Smoking Among Children is Linked to Cartoon Camel in Advertisements.” New York Times, 11 Dec 1991. Web. 20 June 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/11/us/smoking-among-children-is-linked-to-cartoon-camel-in-advertisements.html

DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, Wolf-Gillespie N, Fletcher C, Jaffe RD, Murray D. RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children. JAMA 1991: 266(22): 3149-3153.

Fischer PM, Meyer PS, Richards JW Jr., Goldsten AO, Rojas TH. Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 Years: Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA 1991; 266(22): 3145-3148.

Harvest Communications LLC. Fwd: this made me laugh. How viral ad parodies impact your brand. Harvest Communications LLC 2002.

Parguel B, Lunardo R, Chebat JC. When activism may prove counterproductive: An exploratory study of anti-brand spoof advertising effects in the tobacco industry. Première Journée Interantionale du Marketing Santé, France (2010).

Celebrities – img12368

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.

Celebrities – img12369

by

If recognized, celebrities tend to attract attention. People get excited in their presence and flock to them for an opportunity to connect with them, either with an autograph, a photo, or just a chance to say “hello.” Thus it has become popular belief that advertisements with celebrity endorsements will generate similar levels of attention and enthusiasm (2). The tobacco industry has been actively utilizing this strategy by recruiting big names from across disciplines, including TV, movies, sports, science, and politics. Lucille Ball from “I Love Lucy” was the face of Philip Morris in the 50s, Ronald Reagan claimed Chesterfield was a favorite, and numerous Olympic athletes apparently smoked Camels “for its mildness.” Antismoking campaigns must counter the tobacco industry’s moves, and so they use celebrities to enhance the delivery of their anti-smoking messages as well.

Anti-smoking campaigns use celebrities from a variety of fields to connect with a wide audience and deliver many different anti-smoking messages, from secondhand smoke to social acceptance to diseases. Beautiful models and actresses are often photo-shopped or made to look ridiculous to prove that smoking can taint the appeal of even the most beautiful people. In other ads, celebrities embrace that they are smoke-free and encourage their audience to follow their lead. They are proof that one can be successful and attractive without the influence of cigarettes. There are also the personal testimonials, in which celebrities who used to smoke have now quit for various reasons, such as the death of a loved one or for personal health reasons. Some of these themes have been shown to be effective on their own, and some not quite. The big question, however, is whether the message has a larger impact when a prominent person is presenting it.

The CDC advises using celebrities with caution in anti-smoking campaigns, but a recent study by Ace Metrix indicates that products actually do not benefit from celebrity endorsements (1), and often they even have a negative impact (4). An obvious advantage to the use of celebrities is that they draws attention, which can raise awareness for the campaign. By putting a face to the name, an ad should be more easily recalled. However, the type of attention and the reactions to the celebrity aren’t always positive, which then affects the reception of the message. Businesses run a high risk by investing their product in an individual because the consumer’s opinion of the celebrity can overshadow their opinion of the actual product. In Ace Metrix’s study, the most common reasons celebrity ads were unsuccessful are because there was confusion about what product the celebrity was endorsing, the ad was not interesting, or a person might harbor negative attitudes towards the celebrity (1).

Successful ads need to focus on delivering their message in a creative and clear way, and then, like any other element (such as humor or special effects), celebrity endorsements can be powerful in the right context.. Personal testimonials seem to be the most effective use of celebrities among teens (4). Many teens have not personally experienced the negative impacts of smoking, but the message is made more real and relatable by having a celebrity, or someone they respect or want to feel connected to, describe their own experiences. Teens are also responsive to the emotional appeal of personal stories (3).

Choosing the right celebrity is also an important factor to consider. A celebrity must support something that is relevant to the celebrity or that the celebrity is likely to use. Teens realize celebrities are paid to say things, and if they are advertising something that is not believable, the ad will lose its credibility. It is also important to realize that the likeability of a celebrity is entirely objective. Some people may enjoy the celebrity, while others find the individual annoying; these opinions are taken into account when an ad is processed. The credibility of the ad is also linked to the reputation of the celebrity. A celebrity who has recently quit smoking but later regresses or picks up another drug can severely undermine a campaign (2, 4). There are many factors to consider when creating an effective anti-smoking campaign, and the power of an advertisement comes down to the power of the message rather than who delivers it.

REFERENCES:
1) Ace Metrix. Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing A Myth of Advertising Effectiveness. Ace Metrix, Inc. Proprietary: 2012.
2) Daboll P. “Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money.” Ad Age. Crain Communications, 12 January 2011. Web. 5 June 2013. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/celebrities-ads-lead-greater-sales/148174/
3) Goldman LK, Glantz SA. Evaluation of Antismoking Advertising Campaigns. JAMA 1998; 279: 772-777.
4) Schar E, Gutierrez K, Murphy-Hoefer R, Nelson DE. Tobacco Use Prevention Media Campaigns: Lessons Learned from Youth in Nine Countries. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on smoking and Health; 2006.