SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Advertisement

Advertisement

Skoal – img23602

by

Smokeless tobacco product use and promotions are on the rise in the United States. Several factors have contributed to the growth in the smokeless tobacco market including availability of flavors, attractive pricing and availability to use anywhere.1

Skoal, which is owned by US Smokeless Tobacco Co., is the third most popular smokeless tobacco product in the US with a market share of 19.8%. Skoal is available in several flavors apart from natural tobacco including mint, wintergreen, peach, vaniall, berry, apple, and cherry. Internal tobacco documents show that as early as 1968, Skoal representatives understood the appeal of flavors among adolescents. A meeting summary quotes a Skoal representative commenting on the addition of candy flavoring to skoal. “Cherry Skoal is for somebody who likes the taste of candy, if you know what I mean.” “Starter” products are the first step on the so-called “graduation” process from beginner-strength to stronger smokeless products.”2

Skoal ads commonly appealed to sociability, masculinity, and individuality. The ads were marketed towards males. Even when the ads included women, the female models were there to attract men. Examples of such ads include the 12 pages of advertising that Skoal purchased in Playboy that had scantily dressed female models lying on cans of skoal.

A content analysis of Skoal ads found that many of the ads emphasized pleasure and were targeted to young boys. These ads featured young men relaxing by a campfire or taking thrill rides on ATVs – themes and images likely to appeal to teenage boys. The message of these ads were that in order to have fun you need to chew skoal.2 The Skoal ads appeared in recent issues of publications popular among young men and teen boys, including Sports Illustrated, Car and Driver and Maxim.

1. Delnevo, Cristine D., et al. “Examining market trends in the United States smokeless tobacco use: 2005–2011.” Tobacco Control 23.2 (2014): 107-112.
Tobacco Free Kids.(1997) Tobacco-Free Kids Questions U.S. Tobacco Decision to Remove Skoal Name from Rock Concert Ads. Available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/id_0105

Copenhagen – ing5862

by

Copenhagen is a brand of smokeless tobacco owned by Altria. Similar to other brands of chewing tobacco, advertisements for Copenhagen are primarily aimed at rugged, outdoorsy men and young boys. The ads feature rural and outdoor settings, men in cowboy hats, or macho men taking on tough tasks. An example includes a Copenhagen ad featuring an image of a cowboy working in the rain. “Some men never compromise. They Cope.” Another ad features the rough hands of a man dipping into a can of Copenhagen. The text reads, “”Real men know you don't just count the years, but make the years count.”

Red Man – ing5835

by

The Red Man brand of chewing tobacco was first introduced to the US in 1904. Promotional activities tied-in with rural and outdoor sporting events was a main stay of Red Man’s marketing strategy. From 1952 to 1955, Red Man produced a series of baseball cards, the only tobacco company to do so after 1920. The sets are valuable due to the appearance of top players including Stan Musial, Yogi Berra and Willie Mays.1 Red Man also sponsored other sporting events such as Red Man All-American Pulling Series,” a tractor pulling competition and the “Red Man All-American Bass Championship”, a fishing competition.

1. Wikipedia. (2017). Red Man. Available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Man

Grizzly – ing19008

by

In 2015, 25.3% of high school students reported current use of any tobacco product and 6% reported use of smokeless tobacco. Among middle school students, 7.4% reported use of any tobacco product and 1.8% reported use of a smokeless tobacco.1

Grizzly, owned by Reynolds American Inc, has the largest market share of moist smokeless brands.2 It is the most popular brand of moist snuff among adolescents.3Grizzly products are available in natural, mint, and wintergreen flavors. The 1.2-ounce Grizzly Long-Cut Wintergreen rang up the most dollar and unit sales in large chain stores. 2

Most Grizzly ads are targeted at men. The ads refer to outdoor adventures such as hunting and fishing. Use of models are limited in these ads. The main focus of the ad is on the Grizzly cans and the accompanying slogan. In this section, you will find Grizzly ads targeted at teens that send the message that you can’t be a real man without chewing Grizzly. Example includes, “May cause the urge to act like a man,” and “Coasters are for people who put their drink down.”

Recently, Grizzly has run a series of advertisements with the tagline “tellin’ it like it is.” This series of ads uses sarcastic phrases as advice about how to be “manly” or “macho.” Examples of ads from this campaign include, “Out here, firewood does not come pre-bundled.” Another ad states, “Women have shoes. Men have miter saws.”

1. Singh T, Arrazola RA, Corey CG, et al. Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2016;65:361–367. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6514a1.
2. CSP daily. (2016). Where the gains are. Available at http://www.cspdailynews.com/category-data/cmh/tobacco/tobacco-smokeless-2016
3. Tobacco Free Kids. (2015). Still Seeking Replacements: How Big Tobacco Targets Kids Today. Available at http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/microsites/replacements/assets/2015_03_17_marketing_report.pdf

Papers – ing7840

by

The first commercial rolling papers were produced in 1660 by the Lacroix family after Frenchman Lacroix allegedly traded a bottle of Champagne for rolling papers that French soldiers were transporting from Spain; following that, in the year 1736, the Lacroix Rolling Paper company was founded.1

Today, rolling paper is made from a variety of materials, including wood pulp, rice-based paper, hemp (e.g. pure hemp papers by Joker), flax seed (e.g. white cigarette papers by Chesterfield), and other plant-based materials.2 These products are often advertised for possessing certain characteristics like “slow burning” (e.g. King size Joker), a wide selection of sizes (e.g. Mucha Job cigarette paper), and a “Do-it-yourself” capability (e.g. Job’s Adams Apple). Additionally, many of them employ similar marketing strategies as do cigarette packages, featuring celebrities like Bob Marley, sex appeal, elegant type print, and makeshift paintings. In fact, the evolution of these cigarette paper advertisements can be seen through several motifs including its artistic modes and use of female figures. For example, in the first two Mucha Job advertisements, the women painted are done so in the Classical Art Nouveau style popular of the 1890’s, a style of international art that employs decorative and architectural aspects; markedly, no written text is apparent on the prints. Overtime, however, the prints illustrate women in more dynamic colors, like in the 1897 Vintage print with a woman in yellow and white stripes; by the mid-to-late 1900’s, it became commonplace for cigarette paper ads to feature images of real female models posing with cigarettes and in sexually suggestive manners, instead of merely depicted them in hand drawings and paintings. Advertisements also focused on celebrities, a clean style, and other features like brand mascots.

1. The History of Rolling Papers. (2017). Rolling Paper Depot. Retrieved June 2, 2017, from https://www.rollingpaperdepot.com/pages/The-History-of-Rolling-Papers.
2. The Best Materials for Rolling Papers. (2017). Rolling Paper Depot. Retrieved June 2, 2017, from https://www.rollingpaperdepot.com/pages/The-Best-Materials-for-Rolling-Papers.

Growers – img33970

by

Regulation of marijuana farming varies by state and county, with some allowing a certain number of plants, some allowing as many as one needs for personal use, and individual counties banning growth altogether. The state with the largest amount of marijuana production is California, with over 3 times the amount of growing of the next largest states, Tennessee and Kentucky. To parallel this growth in interest, magazines such as “High Times” have turned their attention towards articles and ads that promote the cannabis growing subculture. In addition, hundreds of websites and books, like The Cannabis Grow Bible, are available with guides on how to start growing.

Advertisements targeted towards growers are generally either selling specific seeds so that users can grow their favorite strain at home or selling more general agriculture appliances, like fertilizers, lighting systems for indoor growth, hydroponics, and more. Marijuana seeds can be purchased at most dispensaries, and at seed banks. Buzzwords used in seed advertisements are different than those used in typical cannabis ads. Key words include “feminized, “autoflowering,” and “high yield,” which refer to the reliability and outcome of the seed growth rather than the quality of the cannabis.

https://www.cropkingseeds.com/why-not-buy-marijuana-seeds-from-your-local-dispensaries/
https://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/domstprod.html
https://www.royalqueenseeds.com/33-feminized-cannabis-seeds

Cigars – ing5714

by

Cigars are often advertised directly to men, and, indeed, are represented as highly masculinized and often genteel. An ad from the Cigar Institute of America in 1963, for example, lets men know that if they “wear a cigar,” they will “look smart.” Masculinity is sometimes approached through sexualization of the cigar, as in the Don Diegos ad from the 1990s featuring a woman sucking on a cigar or the Celesitino Vega ad from the same period, which features a Hawaiian surfer posing at the beach with a giant, phallic surfboard painted to resemble a cigar. Other times, masculinity is portrayed through a more reserved route, as in the 1950s ad from the Cigar Institute of America, which claims that “In the eyes of his own family, every father is a success. And the father who knows cigars knows a very special kind of success.” The family unit and the fatherly figure are referenced often in cigar ads.

In addition, cigars are seen as a means to celebrate. An ad for Antonio y Cleopatra cigars says, “When a moment is worth remembering enjoy a cigar that’s hard to forget.” In the same vein, pink or blue candy cigars are often given to a new father to celebrate the birth of a child.

Beyond these approaches, many cigar ads focus on throat ease, since unlike cigarette smoke, cigar smoke cannot be inhaled due to its high alkalinity. Though these ads advertise health benefits for cigar smoking – Girard says its smoke is mild, so doctors recommend it, and Mell-O-Well calls its smoke “the health cigar” — cigar smoking is associated with higher incidences of oral cancers than cigarette smoking, and nicotine is absorbed in higher levels as well. Still, and ad for White Owl cigars tells you to switch to cigars or pipes “when you can’t give up smoking.” The main reason? No need to inhale. Most misleading, perhaps, is a 1964 ad from the Cigar Institute of America, which proclaims, incorrectly, “Cigar smokers start young and stay young!”

Cigarillos – ing14496

by

The mid 1960’s saw an uptick in the little cigars market. These smaller cigars included flavors apart from tobacco(e.g., cherry, were milder than traditional cigars, and found a market among women. 1

Many of the advertisements in this section emphasize the mildness of the cigar and are targeted to women. In this section, you will come across a series of Tiparillo advertisements. In 1966, Tiparillo launched an advertising series “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a lady?” While these advertisements were targeted at women, the ads focused more on female acceptance of cigars than use of the product. None of the women in the advertisement are actually seen using the product. A decade later, Tiparillo ran another advertising campaign, this one focused on female use of the product. In this series of advertisements for Tiparillo, the text suggest that times have changed as women have started to enjoy smoking the mild tasting cigar. Another brand, Wolf Brother’s Cherry Little Cigar even had a line in its advertising copy, “She’ll like them too.”

In 1971, RJR introduced its first little cigar, Winchester, which quickly became the largest selling brand of little cigars. The cigars were of the size and shape of cigarettes and contained a “filter tip” that “could easily be inhaled.” In one of its advertisements, a woman with a cowboy hat, her hair pulled around her face to create a mustache, is holding a Winchester cigar. The advertising text suggests that smoking the mild cigar is masculine.

Tobacco industry documents show that tobacco companies used flavors to mask the harshness of natural tobacco and target adolescents. In 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration prohibited the use of characterizing flavors (e.g., cherry, honey) except for mint in cigarettes.2 However, the use of such flavors in cigars, cigarillos and little cigars were not banned by the FDA. The availability of flavors among little cigars and their attractive pricing are making these cigars attractive to teenagers. In 2014, 63.5% of middle and high school students surveyed reported smoking a flavored mini cigar.3

1. Kostygina G, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Tobacco industry use of flavours to recruit new users of little cigars and cigarillos. Tob Con. 2016; 5:66–74.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Press Announcement: Candy and Fruit Flavored Cigarettes Now Illegal in United States; Step is First Under New Tobacco Law. Published September 22, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm183211.htm.

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Smoking & Tobacco Use: Cigars. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/cigars/.

Sweet Cigars – ing11079

by

There are different types of cigars available in the US- large cigars, cigarillos, and little cigars. Cigarillos are short and narrow cigars that are manufactured in a plethora of flavors ( e.g., peach, mango, cherry, grape, blueberry, wine, & white wine) that are attractively packaged and named to appeal to youth.

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration banned the use of characterizing flavors, except for menthol, in cigarettes.1 However, the ban did not extend to other flavored tobacco products including mini cigars and cigarillos. Declines in cigarette consumption were undermined by increases in the use of flavored tobacco products.2

A recent study found alcohol flavors being marketed by 88 unique cigar & cigarillo brands. The major 5 tobacco companies (Imperial Tobacco, Philip Morris, Swedish Match, Scandinavian Tobacco Group and Swisher International) produce 15 brands of flavored cigars & cigarillos.2 The use of flavors increases the appeal of the tobacco product by decreasing the harsh taste of tobacco thereby making it easier for an individual to initiate with the product.3

Swisher, Inc., a leading manufacturer of cigarillos, offers a variety of chocolate, strawberry, peach, grape, and other flavored little cigars under the name “Swisher Sweets.” Phillies Cigarillos, another brand, also comes in a number of flavors. At one time, the brand even had a flavor called “Sugarillos” for “when sweet isn't sweet enough.” 4

With their colorful packages and store placement near candy, studies have shown that kids often mistake the shiny packages for candy. Apart from attractive flavors and names, cigar companies target youth through attractive pricing and packaging. Swisher Sweets often come in packages of two sticks for 99 cents, an attractive price for adolescents with limited discretionary funds. Among all flavored cigars, Swisher Sweets accounted for a preponderance of unit sales (52.6 million unit sales, 77.8% of total).4

References:

1. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Regulations restricting the sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to protect children and adolescents. Final Rule Fed Regist 2010;75:13225–3
2. Kostygina G, Glantz SA, Ling PM. Tobacco industry use of flavours to recruit new users of little cigars and cigarillos. Tob Con. 2016; 5:66–74.
3. Jackler RK, VanWinkle CK, Bumanlag IM, Ramamurthi D. (2017) Alcohol-Flavored Tobacco Products. Tob Con. [In print]
4. American Cancer Society.(2008) Big tobacco's guinea pigs: how an unregulated industry experiments on america's kids and consumers. Retrieved from https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/xkgm0222
5. CSP Daily News (April 15. 2016). Cigarette Convenience Store Sales Data from Year-End 2015. Retrieved from : http://www.cspdailynews.com/category-data/cmh/tobacco/tobacco-cigars-2016. Accessed on September 1, 2016.

Lady's Cigars – ing0785

by

When one thinks of a cigar, one doesn’t usually think of a woman. In fact, cigarettes were originally created as a woman’s version of a cigar, since cigars were considered completely unladylike. Tobacco companies stretched the boundaries of advertisements with this series of ads targeting women or using the feminine mystique in selling their cigar products. Cigar ads featuring women are usually highly sexualized or romanticized, or speak to women’s liberation movements. Generally, they objectify women in order to advertise cigars to men.

Pipes – ing19031

by

Pipes and loose pipe tobacco are often advertised directly to men, and, indeed, are represented as highly masculinized and often genteel. Yello-bole pipes, for example, advertises for “The All-Male taste,” and Flying Dutchman pipe tobacco claims that their tobacco will allow men to “lead women around by the nose.” Further, one ad for Tuxedo tobacco implies that smoking a pipe is a pleasure offered only to men, while a famous actress sighs, “The fragrance of pipe tobacco makes me wish I were a man.”

Beyond the masculinity approach, many pipe ads focus on throat ease, since unlike cigarette smoke, pipe smoke cannot be inhaled due to its high alkalinity. Though these ads advertise health benefits for pipe smoking – Kaywoodie claims that “pipe smokers live longer” and the Medico pipe claims it “gives you pleasure and peace of mind” – pipe smoking is associated with higher incidences of oral cancers than cigarette smoking, and nicotine is absorbed in higher levels as well.

Blunts & Wraps – ing42582

by

Blunts, which became popular in the 1800s, was named after the appearance of their “broad and rounded tip.” Originally manufactured in Philadelphia, the first blunt cigar was distinct from other cigars because it was rolled using only one leaf; other cigars were typically rolled with multiple leaves, and had characteristically “tapered and pointed tips.”

Over time, the term “blunt” has come to describe any cigar wrapped in a continuous wrap, whether or not it was using a whole leaf. Increasingly, blunts and blunt wraps have became popular with the “roll-your-own” crowd, spurring a host of different varieties in the industry; these included: platinum and double platinum layers, sweet and savory flavors (i.e. “Chicken and Waffle” by Royal Blunts, “Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough” by Juicy), colored and transparent paper, thin and thick wrappers, and artificial versus “natural leaf” materials (e.g. “Triple Master” by Blunt Master).

It is also apparent that blunt varieties have been targeted towards specific audiences, such as ice cream lovers and individuals who like convenience and portability. For instance, the brand Kings used common images of ice cream cones and their flavors (e.g. French Vanilla, Mint Chocolate Chip) to advertise their line of cigarillos; similarly, Royal Blunts advertised its “Baller’s Choice” perforated cigarillos for those who wanted to spend the least amount of effort rolling their own products.

1. History of Cigar Wraps. (2017). Rolling Paper Warehouse . Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://www.rollingpaperwarehouse.com/HISTORY-OF-CIGAR-WRAPS_ep_54.html.

Children – img35604

by

Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette advertisements reinforce the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life.

In an advertisement for Dutch Masters Cigars, the image is a warm one of a cheerful boy happy in the embrace of his father. The text of the advertisement reads, “A son’s hug… a daughter’s kiss… what is so dear to a father’s heart as his family’s love.” For Father’s Day, Dutch Masters also had cigar packs with the image of a father and son printed on it. In another advertisement for Dutch Masters, the image is of a young boy playing in the backyard of his suburban home. On one hand he is carrying a toy truck, while the other hand is carrying a string of empty Dutch Master cartons. In the background, you see his younger sister on the swing.
In yet another ad by the cigar maker, this one Christmas theme, a dad is sitting around smoking his cigar while his children (boy and girl) are setting up a toy city. Empty Dutch Master boxes are used to build the homes and garages. The text of the advertisement notes, “As soon as dad hands over another empty Dutch Masters box, one more house will start to rise. And this is a building boom that dad’s happy to help along-because he finds consistent pleasure in a full box of Dutch Masters.”

The images of youngsters tends to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Use of children are an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Sports – img35609

by

The relationship between cigars and sports was first introduced to the public more than 25 years ago when a national sports magazine featured a variety of advertisements on sports-related cigar boxes drawn from the National Cigar History Museum collection.

Increasingly in the decades that followed, prominent athletes began making public claims that correlated positive sportsmanship and winning titles to smoking cigars and cigarettes. This attracted tobacco companies like Philies to market products including their “Miracle Mild” cigars for the full range of sports fanatics: young, old, major league stars, and college basketball players alike; examples of this can be found in numerous Phillies advertisements that playoff of the 1960’s baseball culture. One of their advertisements strategically position “Miracle Milds” alongside statistics showing the top batting scores of the National League, suggesting a correlation between the nation’s top players and their cigar product. Furthermore, Phillies prided itself on being “America’s No. 1” for “Year ‘Round Sports Programs,” riding on the backs of popular news channels to elevate their message (e.g. National Broadcasting Company – NBC).

 Cigar companies used celebrity endorsements to promote their products. Michael Jordan, arguably the biggest star in basketball history, was pictured with a cigar in hand on the cover of Sports Illustrated in 1993. Similarly, former NBA Coach Red Auerbach, the powerful figure who guided the Boston Celtics to a nine out of ten championship win between 1949 and 1966, practiced a very public habit of smoking a cigar after each winning game that this image eventually evolved into a symbol of victory in the history of sports. Brands such as Te-amo in the past invited their fans to celebrate athletes’ victories with even a special free cigar offer (i.e. Dana Quigley’s 2001 SBC Senior Open and Te-Amo Cabinet Selection Cigar.

Healthy Cigars – img35623

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 doctor, with all his expertise, recommended a brand, then it must be safe.

In this theme, brands depict doctors hawking tobacco products in order to present the brand as healthful rather than harmful. An ad for Girard cigars has the image of a physician with a cigar in his hand accompanied by the following text, “Yes, I am a doctor. And I advise the smokers among my patients to smoke Girard cigars. In fact, I smoke them myself!..” The ad continues that the tobacco in Girard is “free from ill effects on the heart, the nerves or the digestion.” An ad by Thompson’s Mell-o-well has a physician recommending the brand of cigars to “any who are interested in regaining or keeping physical fitness.” 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.

Sex Appeal – img35637

by

The tobacco industry, including cigar companies, have for long used sex appeal to gain the attention of consumers.

In this section, you will see a lot of advertisements for Tiparillo cigars. The professional women in the advertisements (e.g., biologist, dentist, librarian etc) are presented as sexual objects. For instance, in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo to a violinist,” advertisement that appeared in Playboy magazine, the woman is seen intently gazing at the camera, with her silk shirt open and her cleavage exposed. The text that accompanies the advertisement is highly sexual in nature. A part of the advertisement reads, “Well, should you offer? After all, if she likes the offer, she might start to play. No strings attached.”

In another advertisement in the series, identical twins with pronounced cleavage are seen gazing at the camera. The green of their sweaters and the background is a subliminal nod to the menthol flavored Tiparillo. The open cigar pack with the phallic shaped cigar is pointed at the mouth of one of the twins. By portraying women in a sexual manner, the professionalism of the women is weakened and the women are nothing more than an object for male pleasure.

Although advertisements with sex appeal are primarily targeted at men, they also manipulate young women into believing that a certain brand of cigarette might make her sexier and more attractive to men.

African American – img38328

by

In 2013, of the 29.8% of African American adults who reported “current use” (i.e. smoking in the past month), 7.5% of African American adults reported use of cigars. In fact, while cigarette consumption in America is declining, snuff and cigar has increased, prompting researchers to specifically address concerns about youth perceptions and smoking behaviors particularly amongst minority populations.1

Historically, tobacco companies have targeted advertising and promotional activities in minority communities; census tracts with a higher proportion of African American families and individuals have significantly higher tobacco retailer density. Furthermore, researchers in recent years have found that illicit sales to minors are much more common in African American neighborhoods, and that stores in these neighborhoods are less likely to request age identification for the purchase of tobacco products; exterior advertising for little cigars and cigarillos are also higher in many of these neighborhoods.2

Advertisements in this theme feature prominent “the everyday Dad.” For instance, an ad for White Owl features a dad smoking his cigar and enjoying a book with his two children on either side of him. The ad’s slogan says , White Owl is, “the cigar that Daddy smokes!”Ads by El Producto include testimonials from everyday professionals on the natural mildness of the cigar.

1. Dauphinee, A, et al. (2013). “Racial differences in cigarette brand recognition and impact on youth smoking,” BMC Public Health, 13:170, Retrieved May 31, 2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3586353/

2. Rodriguez, D, et al. (2017). “Predictors of tobacco outlet density nationwide: a geographic analysis,” Tobacco Control, Retrieved May 31, 2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3431432/

3. Bach, L. (2017). Tobacco Company Marketing to African Americans .Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids . Retrieved May 31, 2017, from https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0208.pdf.

4. Yerger V, Pearson C, Malone RE. (2001). When is a cigar not a cigar? African American youths' understanding of “cigar” use. American Journal of Public Health , 91: 316-7.

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0029

by

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

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

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

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

20,679 Physicians – img0104

by

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

Most notable in this theme are the “20,679 Physicians” advertisements, which ran from 1928 to 1932 and claimed that physicians found Lucky Strike cigarettes “less irritating.” The campaign began with a smaller number of physicians listed, as our ads demonstrate: An ad from 1927 claims that 9,651 doctors answered “yes” to an arbitrary survey question released by the American Tobacco Company regarding protection of the throat. Another ad from 1927 lists 11,105 physicians as supporters. These “exact” numbers made the claim appear more reliable. Also included in this theme are two contemporaneous Chesterfield ads from 1931, one of which depicts a doctor actually prescribing Chesterfield cigarettes to a patient. These Chesterfield ads present no survey data. However, they attempt to trick careless consumers who quickly scan the ad by listing the total number of pharmacists (110,108) and the total number of physicians (152,503) in the U.S.A. These numbers have nothing to do with Chesterfield cigarettes, but at a quick glance they appear to reflect the numbers of pharmacists or physicians in support of Chesterfield cigarettes.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0134

by

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

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

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

Nurses – img0149

by

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

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

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

Dentist Recommends – img0164

by

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

Throat Doctors – img0614

by

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

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

Hospitalized Patients – img6774

by

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

Your Adam's Apple – img2675

by

This series of Lucky Strikes ads ran from May to October of 1931 and featured images of beautiful female starlets. The celebrities reached for their throats while claiming that Lucky Strike “expels harsh irritants.” The ads urged consumers to “consider your Adam’s Apple!!” which indicates that though women endorse the product, the ads may be targeting men; however, the ad defines “Adam’s Apple” as the larynx, containing the vocal cords, which indicates that Lucky Strike may consider this appeal to target both genders. An arrow pointing to the woman’s throat claims that Luckies are “always kind to your throat.” Most ridiculously of all, the copy text claims that the “harsh irritants” in cigarettes are somehow miraculously removed during the toasting process; when the irritants are removed, Lucky Strike supposedly sells the irritants to “manufacturers of chemical compounds.”

Famous Voices – img2687

by

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

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

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

Singers & Performers – img2706

by

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

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

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

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img2739

by

Philip Morris’ famous spokesperson of over 40 years, Johnny Roventini (1910-1998), began his career as, reportedly, “the smallest bellhop ever.” Coming in at under 4 feet tall, Roventini resembled a child in stature, later gaining him and Philip Morris popularity among children and adults alike. While working as a bellhop, Roventini was approached by two Philip Morris marketing executives who heard his voice and knew he was an advertising gold mine. They asked for him to “call for Philip Morris” for one dollar. Johnny, unaware that Philip Morris was a cigarette brand, called out loudly for him. Immediately, the marketing executives saw the promise in Johnny, and enlisted him as the first ever living trademark in their new advertisement campaign. He later appeared on the TV show “I Love Lucy” alongside stars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz, both of whom endorsed Philip Morris in 1959.

Throughout his career as spokesperson, “Little Johnny” made appearances at countless events, ranging from supermarket grand openings to public school fairs. He booked so many events in his first year touring that Philip Morris was forced to hire more actors to play the part of Johnny. There are rumored to have been at least ten Johnny Juniors who helped facilitate Johnny’s public appearances; however, Philip Morris kept quiet about these actors, preferring everyone to believe there was only one Johnny. The most well-known Johnny Junior was Albert Altieri (1916-2002), a 3-foot-7 inch bellhop. He was hired 2 years after Roventini at the age of 19. When Altieri passed away from a heart attack at the age of 86, CNN printed his obituary which read, “The second half of a duo famous in American advertising for yelling ‘Call for Philip Morris’ has died.” It appears that Philip Morris was successful in keeping quiet the existence of the other Juniors. Two of the other Johnny Juniors mentioned in the UCSF Tobacco Legacy Archives include Leon Polinsky and Buddy Douglas.

Throat Scratch – img2778

by

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

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

T-Zone – img2908

by

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

Why be Irritated? – img2930

by

From 1945 to 1946, Old Gold ran a humorous ad campaign featuring the slogan, “Why be Irritated? Light an Old Gold!” The ads depicted an irritating situation of everyday life as a metaphor for throat irritation; Both, according to the ad, could be relieved by smoking an Old Gold. In a pamphlet entitled “The Lorillard Story,” handed out to all P. Lorillard employees in 1947, the author explains that this campaign was designed to “keep many a disgruntled and disappointed smoker in good humor” during the wartime shortage on cigarettes, while also keeping “the product name before the public” (1).

The ads in this campaign tout apple “honey” as the humectant (the agent used to keep the tobacco leaves from drying out) for Old Gold’s tobacco. Apple honey – reportedly discovered through a partnership between Old Gold and the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1943 – was Old Gold’s solution to overcoming the wartime shortage of humidifying agents. Of course, the use of apple honey also allowed for the consumer to make the subconscious leap to Old Golds being “honey for the throat.” This effect, coupled with the slogan, “Why be Irritated?” contributed to Old Gold’s ability to present its brand as healthful without directly making false health claims.

1. Fox, Maxwell. The Lorillard Story. 1947:49

Not a Cough in a Carload – img2960

by

When P. Lorillard first introduced the Old Gold brand in 1926, the company advertised the brand under the slogan “Not a Cough in a Carload.” Our collection of Old Gold ads runs the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan in some capacity up until 1934. The slogan contends that in every train car full of Old Gold tobacco leaves (in every “carload”), not one cough could be found. Of course, the slogan can also be interpreted that in a carload of people – each smoking Old Golds – not a single person would be coughing. Either way, the ambiguous slogan undoubtedly served to reassure a worried public as to the healthfulness and safety of cigarettes, and in particular the healthfulness and safety of the Old Gold brand. This advertising technique is known as “problem-solution” advertising; it provides the problem (coughing due to smoking) and the solution (smoke Old Golds). Of course, the “solution” is deceptive. No cigarette is healthful, and no cigarette reduces throat irritation or coughing. False health claims such as this abound in tobacco advertisements throughout the decades, but “Not a Cough in a Carload” was one of the most pervasive.

Despite being one of the most recognizable advertisement slogans in the nation at the time, the “Not a Cough in a Carload” slogan was often intermingled with other themes, ranging from “They Gave a New Thrill” to “Old Gold Weather” in an attempt to provide consistency among ads. Many of the “Not a Cough in a Carload” advertisements include celebrity testimonials or take the form of cartoons. The comics included at the end of this theme collection were all illustrated by Clare Briggs between 1927 and 1928. The comics were already well-known in American culture, and when they began to be used toward cigarette advertising, they were a huge success for Old Gold, appearing in approximately 1,500 American newspapers nationwide. Briggs’ popularity within Lorillard was so vast that the company named another of its brands in honor of the illustrator: Briggs Smoking Tobacco.

Guard Your Throat – img13670

by

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

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

Print – img36885

by

JUUL has minimally used traditional channels used by tobacco advertisers such a magazines, newspapers, billboards, radio, and television. In 2015, JUUL chose a single magazine to launch their advertising campaign. It was VICE magazine, a glossy pop culture focused publication which markets itself to advertisers as “#1 youth media company.” Contrary to their stated purpose, JUUL chose VICE to launch its initial campaign to fulfill its mission of reaching “adult smokers.” The full page advertisements on the inside of the cover page were colorful and showed 20-something models in playful poses. Beginning in late summer of 2018 JUUL began to run full page newspaper advertisements on the switch theme.

Do you inhale? – img1317

by

To inhale or not to inhale? Is that the question? The ads in this theme certainly imply it is, but in an era when most adults smoked, those who didn’t inhale from their cigarettes were often ridiculed as “sissies.” According to Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “every smoker inhales— knowingly or unknowingly.” With this claim, Lucky does not mean to insist that smokers should quit; Rather, Lucky claims that its cigarettes are the only brand safe enough to inhale. Additionally, Lucky explains that the “purifying [toasting] process removes certain impurities” so as to “safeguard those delicate membranes!” While this Lucky Strike ad campaign was short-lived, lasting only one year from 1931 to 1932, it strongly influenced the cigarette industry.

Ten years later, in 1942, Philip Morris followed in Lucky’s footsteps. Using their beloved spokesperson, Little Johnny, Philip Morris printed ads with a variation on the “Do You Inhale” theme, featuring slogans ranging from “You can’t help but inhale” to “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do!” Some of the Philip Morris print advertisements and television commercials of the era went as far as to borrow the exact phrase used by Lucky Strike a decade earlier: “Do you inhale?” The inhalation theme would continue in Lorillard’s 1949 ad campaign for Embassy cigarettes, which touted a “milder smoke” that allowed smokers to “inhale to your heart’s content!”

It was untrue that either Lucky Strike or Philip Morris was “safe” to inhale, but both brands were right about one thing: the tobacco contained in American cigarettes is easily drawn into the lungs. The tobacco smoke in cigarettes has a relative low alkalinity (with a pH of about 5.3) compared to the high alkalinity of pipes and cigars (with a pH of about 8.5). The higher the smoke’s alkalinity, the more difficult it is for a smoker to inhale – the smoke becomes too irritating, and the lungs are unable to accept the smoke at all. With cigarettes, smokers are able to inhale the harmful smoke, which is still irritating, and absorb the carcinogens and nicotine at a higher level. Many of today’s proponents of anti-cigarette litigation call for alkalinity levels in cigarettes to be raised in order to lessen the amount of irritants inhaled.

To Your Heart's Content – img1342

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1352

by

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

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

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1421

by

Tobacco was long thought to hold medicinal properties, though the opposite is now known to be true: In 2008, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that tobacco “is the single most preventable cause of death in the world today” and noted that tobacco “is a risk factor for six of the eight leading causes of death in the world” (1). However, as early as 1492 when Columbus and his crew first encountered Native Americans smoking tobacco, the Europeans recorded tobacco’s use as a healing agent. From then on, the supposed medicinal powers of both tobacco and nicotine were included in most European and American pharmacopoeia (official lists of approved medications) until the twentieth century, when nicotine was deleted from the American Pharmacopoeia just in time for the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Tobacco soon became regulated, as it joined liquor and firearms as taxable by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Still, as late as the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, numerous companies advertised medicinal cigarettes. Some of these medicinal cigarettes contained tobacco, while others did not. Those used to treat asthma, “asthma cigarettes,” were sold well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

1. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization. 6-7:2008

Feel Your Best – img1482

by

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

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

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

Healthy Cigars and Pipes – img1501

by

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

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

British Health Claims – img1540

by

Patently false health claims were by no means restricted to American cigarette brands in the early 20th century. Indeed, popular British brands like Craven “A,” Kensitas, and Greys all sported advertisements which used shockingly similar approaches to their American counterparts. It is necessary to note that tobacco was not grown in Britain; Instead, the tobacco leaves were imported from America and advertised as “Virginian.” This probably contributed to the adoption of American tobacco ad techniques by British brands. For example, the Craven “A” ads of the late 1920s and early 1930s all professed false health claims which resembled those seen stateside – the ads claimed that Craven “A” cigarettes were easy on the throat, while, contemporaneously, American brand Old Gold was advertising their cigarettes as “Not a Cough in a Carload” and Lucky Strike was professing its toasting process as protective of throats. Similarly, a number of the 1933 Craven “A” ads mirrored 1930 Old Gold ads (“Old Gold Weather”) by advertising wintertime as the season to switch to Craven “A.” The British brand Kensitas was perhaps the most derivative of all. Because Kensitas was made by J. Wix & Son, which was an American Tobacco Company (ATC) subsidiary, it used the exact same campaigns as its fellow ATC brand Lucky Strike. These identical campaigns ranged from “The Future Shadow” in the 1920s to “Be Happy Go Lucky” in the 1950s. Despite employing the same campaigns, the ads themselves were slightly different. Sometimes, the British ads would be insufferably polite, employing phrases like, “I can hardly substantiate…” or “I can assure you that…” instead of what seems to be the more straight-forward American approach.

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5158

by

Towards the end of the era in which false medical claims were endemic (early 1950s) the Old Gold brand had a prolonged campaign – with more than 50 variations on this theme – in which they touted: “We Don’t Try to Scare You with Medical Claims.” Ironically, many of these ads in their fine print make outlandish statements that Old Golds were less irritating and thus safer than the competition. Somehow they calculated that the public would not see this obvious hypocrisy.

Note the white box strangely reminiscent of the Surgeon General’s warning introduced years later. In what can only be characterized as rank hypocrisy, they claim Old Gold’s are less irritating and easier on the throat.

Best For You – img9469

by

Chesterfield launched its “Best for You” campaign in 1950. The obvious message was that Chesterfields were the cigarette that was “best” for the smoker. It is unclear whether this slogan ironically implies that other cigarettes are bad for the smoker, and that Chesterfields are merely the lesser of the evils, or if the slogan is falsely claiming that all cigarettes are good for you, but that Chesterfields are best. Either way, the slogan was manipulative and misleading. Along with print advertisements, Chesterfield also featured the “Best for You” slogan on Perry Como’s Chesterfield radio show.

Despite the patently false and misleading health claims implicit in the slogan, the campaign lasted well into 1957. The campaign’s longevity may seem surprising in the face of the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC’s) 1955 advertising guidelines, which prohibited cigarette manufacturers from publishing claims regarding lower tar or lower nicotine without scientific proof. The guidelines proved to be relatively ineffective, with brands using dubious science to prove their figures. This continued until 1960 when the FTC and the tobacco manufacturers agreed to discontinue such tar and nicotine advertisements for good. However, everything reverted when, in 1966, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) reported that scientific evidence suggests that “the lower the tar and nicotine content of cigarette smoke, the less harmful would be the effect.” Though much later on, in 1994, this claim would be challenged and torn down by the FTC as false, it was widely accepted at the time. As a result, in 1966 the FTC discontinued its 1960 ruling which had banned tobacco companies from reporting tar and nicotine claims in advertising. This meant that misleading data on tar and nicotine content would continue in advertising well into the latter half of the twentieth century.

Pseudoscience – img1553

by

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

Medical Authority – img1596

by

In the first half of the twentieth century, tobacco companies wielded medical authority in their advertisements to attract customers and, later, to placate a worried public. In particular, popular faith in medicine was exploited by a series of tobacco industry-sponsored “research” and “surveys.” For example, in an ad from 1943, Philip Morris offered “full reports in medical journals from men high in their profession” upon request, and claimed that there was “scientific proof” that their brand was “far less irritating” than other leading brands. At the time, little of today’s cynicism existed concerning the abilities of science to overcome societal problems. Instead, the doctor was seen as the ultimate expert, and science was seen as the ultimate solution.

Not One Single Case – img1613

by

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

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

Factories, Labs, Machines – img1680

by

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

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

More Scientists Smoke – img11570

by

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

Doctor Ordered – img2004

by

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

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

Thinks for Himself – img2013

by

The Myth of the “Safe” Cigarette: Filters and “Health Reassurance” Cigarettes

Tobacco companies promoted filters through ads which promised health reassurance, although filters did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco! Nonetheless, Madison Avenue stepped up to the challenge of selling filters as the “intelligent choice” for smokers worried about their health. As early as 1942, Viceroy wielded a four-year-long campaign which claimed that “it’s smart to smoke Viceroy.” Later, in 1958 and ‘59, Viceroy followed up with “The Man Who Thinks for Himself Knows,” a campaign which dubbed the Viceroy filter to be “the thinking man’s filter.” Campaigns like these appealed to smokers who considered themselves upper-class and educated. The idea was that these smokers felt obliged to quit smoking due to overwhelming health concerns, so Big Tobacco would give them every excuse not to quit. “More scientists and educators smoke Kent” and “You’re so smart to smoke Parliament” demonstrate that many big brands hawked their cigarettes as the smart choice for intelligent smokers. Kent went as far as to claim that “it makes good sense to smoke Kent.” Filtered brands were a coup for the tobacco industry, growing in market share from 2% in 1950 to 50% in 1960 and 99% in 2005.

Voice of Wisdom – img2029

by

Tobacco companies promote filters through ads which promised health reassurance, although filters do little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco! Nonetheless, Madison Avenue stepped up to the challenge of selling filters as the “intelligent choice” for smokers worried about their health. Campaigns like these appealed to smokers who considered themselves upper-class and educated. The idea was that these smokers felt obliged to quit smoking due to overwhelming health concerns, so Big Tobacco would give them every excuse not to quit. Kent was a leader in this campaign strategy. In this theme, we reveal the 1955 Kent campaign, “Your voice of wisdom says to smoke Kent,” as well as L&M’s contemporaneous campaign, “It’s a Logical Move to Smoke L&M.” These Kent ads feature a dapper man or sophisticated woman lighting up a cigarette while his or her “voice of wisdom,” represented by a shadowy form of the model, whispers advice to smoke Kents. The L&M advertisements also represent a comfortable lifestyle in an effort to appeal to the concerned, educated smoker. Filtered brands were a coup for the tobacco industry, growing in market share from 2% in 1950 to 50% in 1960 and 99% in 2005.

Reduced Carcinogens – img2131

by

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

Despite many experts’ concerns that so-called “reduced risk” cigarettes would only serve to hinder future cigarette reform, prevent smokers from quitting, and encourage new smokers to pick up the habit, three major tobacco companies decided to release such cigarettes, boasting ludicrous, unsubstantiated health claims. Though tobacco companies had been secretly researching reduced risk cigarettes for decades, their first public approach only began in the late 1980s. In 1988, R.J. Reynolds released Premier, the predecessor to Eclipse cigarettes. Premier only remained on the market for one year and was pulled in 1989 due to its unpopularity. In 1995, R,J. Reynolds released a similar brand, Eclipse, in test markets, and eventually made the brand available in all markets in 2000. Also in 2000, Brown & Williamson released their answer in the form of Advance Lights. The next year, in 2001, Vector (related to Liggett Group), released Omni cigarettes. All three brands employed different technologies to present a cigarette that had the potential to create fewer health side effects, though none had scientific proof for such claims.

Out of the three brands, R.J. Reynolds’ Eclipse is the only one that remains in production today; the other two brands were discontinued after a few unsuccessful years at market. Eclipse is unique in that it uses a carbon tip which heats the tobacco, rather than burning it. This heating effect, which was also used by its R.J. Reynolds predecessor, Premier, releases a vapor, giving off less smoke than leading cigarettes. Thus, at a time when second-hand smoking was of increasing public concern and when smoking was beginning to be banned in more and more public places across the United States, R.J. Reynolds positioned its newest cigarette as friendlier for smokers who wanted to smoke inoffensively around non-smokers. Ultimately, Eclipse was advertised as emitting “nearly 90% less second hand smoke.” R.J. Reynolds also claimed health benefits for the smoker, asserting that Eclipse “may present less risk of cancer associated with smoking.” The Eclipse advertisement copy has come under attack for its misleading health claims. In particular, its claim that there exists a “next-best” choice to quitting has many up in arms: “The best choice for smokers who worry about their health is to quit. The next best choice is Eclipse,” the ads say.

Brown & Williamson’s Advance Lights claimed “all of the taste…less of the toxins” in their advertisements. They, too, implied that the ideal situation would be for a smoker to quit, but called Advance “a step in the right direction.” Advance’s three-part filter and special curing methods were said to reduce levels of nitrosamines (well-known causes of lung cancer) and reduce “toxic gases.” The Advance ads looked more like advertisements for contact lenses than cigarettes, with a blue and white color scheme, straightforward text and diagrams, and a close-up of a person’s eye looking directly at the viewer with a no-nonsense approach. Advance cigarettes were discontinued in 2004.

Vector’s Omni was perhaps the most shocking of the three risk reduction brands, claiming “reduced carcinogens” while maintaining “premium taste.” Discontinued in 2006, Omni promised to taste and burn like a premium cigarette, but to “significantly reduce carcinogens that are among the major causes of lung cancer,” in particular polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nitrosamines, and catechols. However, the amount of reduction was extremely unclear – the reported reduction in PAHs was between 15% and 60%, a huge margin of difference. It is also important to note that whereas Omni claims to reduce risks of lung cancer, it fails to even mention other common and fatal smoking-related illnesses like heart disease and emphysema.

High Tech Filters – img2144

by

Filter cigarette advertisements often tout modern technology and scientific advancement to convince consumers their filters are effective, though in most cases filters are no more effective in filtering smoke than the same length of tobacco. This theme reveals a collection of ads professing state of the art filters which appear to ensure the quality and safety of a product and the health of the consumer. American examples from the 1960s and 1970s for Lark and Doral are comparable with the Chilean advertisements for Kent from 2002. These Kent advertisements promote a filter made from charcoal which they name the ACF (Activated Charcoal Filter). The abbreviated name itself (ACF) is used to make the filter sound more scientific, and words like “innovación” (innovation) and “filtro de última generación” (latest generation filter) also present Kent’s filter as the safest and most advanced.

The Kent ads all use futuristic digital renderings of the cigarette which reveal the inner-workings of the filter chamber to the consumer. One of Lark’s ads from 1960 is shockingly similar. The inside of the cigarette is revealed so the consumer can see the charcoal filling the inner chamber, and words like “invented,” “amazing charcoal,” and “modern science” work together to further present Lark as the most advanced cigarette on the market. Also in the same category is Dorral, who, in 1972, used the same technique. The ad opens up the filter and shows consumers the “strange-looking polyethylene chamber with baffles and air channels.” Even a Viceroy ad from 1954 uses this method, pealing away the cigarette paper to expose the “20,000 filters” within. The hand-drawn diagram in the Viceroy ad is surprisingly similar to the digitally rendered diagrams used by Kent almost half a century later.

Clearly, little has changed in the marketing of filter cigarettes over the decades. It is most interesting to compare these ads for technologically advanced filters with those for cork filters. As early as the 1920s, Craven “A” was ensuring that its consumers knew the brand was made with an “absolutely natural cork” tip.

Miracle Tip – img7966

by

This theme features a variety of L&M ads from 1954 and 1955 professing health benefits for L&M’s “Miracle Tip,” although filters did little to truly reduce the hazards of smoking. Indeed, tobacco industry chemists were well aware that most filters actually removed no more tar and nicotine than would the same length of tobacco. However, a series of Reader’s Digest articles worked to publicize these dubious health claims for filters in the 1950s. L&M advertised its filter as “pure white inside, pure white outside for cleaner, better smoking” or “white…all white…pure white.” By implying that the pure whiteness of the filter equates to pure healthfulness, L&M unabashedly presented a logical fallacy which cons concerned consumers into choosing L&M as a “safe” cigarette. Additionally, the L&M filter was portrayed as futuristic and scientifically advanced through the “Live Modern” campaign – the Miracle Tip was thus tied in with modernity and dubbed a “modern miracle.” Further “miraculous” were L&M’s claims to flavor and protection, represented in another L&M ad campaign, “just what the doctor ordered.” This slogan can be found on a few of the advertisements in this theme as well. Not only did the doctor slogan imply that L&M cigarettes are satisfying in that they offer both flavor and protection, but it also implies that doctors approve of the brand, a testament to the brand’s supposed healthfulness.

Cork Tip – img7991

by

In the history section of R.J. Reynolds’ Web site (as of October 2011), the company claims that Brown & Williamson introduced Viceroy as “the industry’s first cork-tipped filter product” in 1936. However, as the ads in this theme prove heartily, Viceroy was far from the first-ever cork-tipped filter cigarette. Indeed, Carl Avery Werner outlined the manufacturing techniques of cork tip cigarettes as early as 1922 in his book Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation (1). This mention indicates that by 1922, “cork-tipping machines” had already been invented, and manufactured cork tip cigarettes were relatively common-place. The “Not a Cough in a Carload” ad collection supports this assertion, with brands such as Egyptienne Luxury (produced by S. Anargyros) advertising cork tips as early as 1911 and London Life (produced by P. Lorillard) touting cork tips by 1914.

There are many reasons that cork tips likely became popular. First, the cork acted as a method to prevent the smoker from accidentally getting loose tobacco in his mouth. A Viceroy ad from 1957 claims its new filter truly eliminates the necessity to “P-F-F-T tobacco.” Both cork tips and cotton tips were likely meant to stave off this problem. Additionally, the cork tip offered protection against lip, fingertip, and perhaps teeth staining. Beginning around 1926, still well before Viceroy’s release date of 1936, Carreras Limited put Craven “A,” also a cork tipped cigarette, on the market. In many of their ads, Carreras claimed that the Craven “A” cork tip provided beauty protection– “kind to your lips” or “do not readily cause finger stain or interfere with make-up” were claims to such effect. In this manner, cork tips could act in the same manner as the “beauty tips” popular among other cigarettes at the time. Finally, and more in line with the filter’s use today, cork tips were sometimes advertised as health protection. For example, in 1929, Craven “A” advertised its “cork-tipped cigarettes” as unique in their throat protection – “they never catch my throat” or “are always kind to my throat.” Certainly, Craven “A” was prophetic in its assertion that filters could be advertised as beneficial to health. Even in modern times, cigarette brands present filters as methods to reduce amounts of nicotine, “tar,” and carcinogens inhaled, though whether or not filters are effective to this end is dubious.

1. Werner, Carl Avery. Tobaccoland: a book about tobacco; its history, legends, literature, cultivation, social and hygienic influences, commercial development, industrial processes and governmental regulation. The Tobacco Leaf Publishing Company. New York. 1922.

Marlboro Men – img19322

by

With the rise of filter cigarettes in response to the increasing health concerns tied to smoking, Philip Morris decided to reposition its Marlboro brand for the filter market. What was originally a cigarette marketed as “Mild as May” to attract a primarily female audience, all at once gained a filter and became a man’s cigarette. No longer would Marlboro advertise “Ivory Tips to protect the lips” or “red beauty tips to match your lips and fingertips,” as it had done since the 1920s; Instead, Marlboro underwent a complete sex change in 1954. The brand’s new mascot, the “Marlboro Man,” would exude rugged manliness in an effort to position Marlboro as a filter with flavor. Previously, most filter cigarettes were considered to be “sissy” or effeminate, lacking in flavor and meant for those who couldn’t handle stronger brands. With the Marlboro Man campaign, Philip Morris worked to reverse this sentiment. The original Marlboro Men were excessive in their masculine virility. The models ranged from rough cowboys and sailors to alluring businessmen and academics. Whether the Marlboro Man was pictured preparing his gun or playing chess, he always sported a military-inspired tattoo on the back of his hand. In 1960, the tattoo was discontinued, but its message – that of intrigue and masculinity – remained vibrant in the Marlboro Men of the decades to follow.