SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Advertisement

Advertisement

Calms your Nerves – img3635

by

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

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

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

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

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

Get a Lift – img3728

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sex Sells – img3776

by

Tobacco companies know as much as anybody that “sex sells,” and they have no qualms with making use of phallic symbols or with objectifying women to sell their products.

Beginning in the 1880s and lasting well into the 20th century, cigarette manufacturers placed a piece of cardstock inside every pack of cigarettes so the packs would maintain their shape. They soon began including pictures of provocative women in lingerie on the cardstock (as well as images of baseball players, the precursor to collectable baseball cards) in order to attract more men into purchasing the cigarettes. Eroticism continued to play a large role in cigarette advertisements, and by the late 1930s, pin-up girls were frequently used in cigarette advertisements to appeal further to male audiences.

As the advertising business matured over time, so too did its foray into selling products through sex, at times blatantly obvious, and in other moments alluringly subtle. The 1968 Tiparillo advertisements, in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo” campaign, are shameless in their objectification of women, featuring scantily clad or nearly nude models baring absurd amounts of cleavage. Other tobacco ads exploit the “sex sells” market through innuendo and subliminal messaging. Many ads use phallic imagery to associate tobacco products with masculinity and virility. A 1997 ad for Celestino cigars, for example, features a man holding a giant surfboard, which on the surface resembles a giant cigar; closer inspection reveals that the surfboard/cigar duo is also a phallic symbol, allying the cigar brand with extreme masculinity. Similarly subtle, an ad for Greys cigarettes, from the late 1930s, displays a depiction of a man with a drooping cigarette “before smoking Greys,” and then with an erect cigarette “after smoking greys.” Additionally, the man, who had previously been bald, has managed to grow a full head of hair after smoking the cigarette! An L&M ad from 1962 follows the same tactics; a man’s cigarette sticks straight up as he glances over at a woman, who eyes his cigarette as she sensuously takes one of her own. The slogan below the image reads, “When a cigarette means a lot…”

Perhaps the most recognizable recent campaign to use such techniques is the Joe Camel campaign, which lasted up until 1999; Joe Camel’s face is drawn to resemble a scrotum. More recently still, 21st century Silk Cut admen were masters of subliminal messaging. One Silk Cut ad, for example, features a piece of silk with a hole cut out, a can with a sharp point aimed directly at the hole, and a torn piece of silk hanging off the can’s point to indicate insertion has been made.

This theme merely grazes the surface of the extent to which tobacco advertisements rely on sex to sell their products.

It's Fun to be Fooled – img3813

by

In 1933, R. J. Reynolds released an ad campaign for Camel cigarettes which directly attacked Lucky Strikes’ popular “It’s Toasted” campaign. Without mentioning Lucky Strikes by name, the Camel ads insinuated that Lucky Strike’s ads “fool” consumers with “illusions,” while Camel provides its consumers with “no tricks, just costlier tobaccos” (a claim which was itself later contested by the Federal Trade Commission [FTC] as “inaccurate, false, and misleading”).

In this Camel campaign, each ad reveals a magician’s secret, describing both the illusion and the explanation behind the illusion. Then, the ad compares this magician’s illusion to a “trick of cigarette advertising.” Some of the advertising tricks that Camel mentions include “the illusion of ‘coolness’” and, alluding more directly to the “It’s Toasted” campaign, “the illusion that mildness in a cigarette comes from mysterious processes of manufacture.”

Of course, Camel’s accusation is true to a degree: cigarette advertising does employ many tricks; however, this campaign runs the risk of bringing Camels’ own tricks out from behind the curtain. Indeed, this is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.” Over the next decade and beyond, the FTC charged the majority of popular cigarette makers with cease-and-desist orders for false and misleading advertising, including R.J. Reynolds. By 1942, the FTC cited a slurry of Camel’s claims as “inaccurate, false, and misleading,” including the following: “smoking of Camels aid digestion, fortifies good health, and has been discovered by a famous research laboratory to restore body energy, […] to keep in athletic condition one should smoke as many Camels as he likes, that Camels helped a racing car driver win a race and golf champion a grueling contest, that Camels would not shorten the wind or irritate the throat but would protect against nerve strain, and asserted that only the choicest tobaccos were used to make Camels” (1). The latter is the most interesting in this case, when the FTC labels false the very claim Camel had boasted as containing “no tricks.”

“FTC complaint hits cigarette claims” 8 Aug 1942. The New York Times

No Cigarette Hangover – img3824

by

In these ads for Philip Morris cigarettes, Philip Morris claims that smokers can avoid “cigarette hangover” when smoking the PM brand. By creating this benign side effect of smoking, and offering a simple solution, Philip Morris evades more serious health concerns.

Ten years prior, Old Gold had dabbled with the “cigarette hangover” concept, claiming “no more smoking hangover” in a 1937 advertisement. A testimonial in the ad explained, “Now that I smoke fresh Old Golds I don’t wake up with that ‘cottony’ feeling in my mouth.” Philip Morris described the symptoms as “that stale, smoked-out taste in your mouth – that dry, tight feeling in your throat.”

Many ads of the campaign read: “…so smooth and mellow you can smoke them in any number without cigarette hangover” (1938).

Your Disposition – img9714

by

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

In these ads from the mid-1950s, Camel claims that their cigarettes will improve a smoker’s “disposition.” The majority of the ads in this campaign feature testimonials from celebrities, like actor Rock Hudson ot Pulitzer Prize winning correspondent Marguerite Higgins, each claiming that Camels offered them relaxation or pleasure. Additionally, each ad includes a funny cartoon portraying a man or a woman with the head of an animal, bringing to life metaphors like “as mad as a wet hen” or “feeling badgered.” By comparing human feelings of annoyance to those felt by animals, Camel is able to drive home how “natural” these feelings are, and insinuate that by smoking a cigarette, humans can rise above their animal counterparts and become productive members of human society.

The ads employ faulty logic to convince readers of Camels’ relaxing attributes. First, the ads claim that Camels provide smokers with pleasure. Then, they claim that “it’s a psychological fact” that “pleasure helps your disposition.” Thus, the reader infers that in order to improve his or her disposition, he or she must smoke Camels.

A decade later, Camel rehashed the same campaign in a new format: The new ads claimed. “Camel Time is pleasure time,” whereas the slogan from the 1950s had been, “For more pure pleasure – have a Camel.” The new campaign also hinted toward an improved “disposition,” claiming that “moments seem to brighten up every time you light one up.”

Early Years – img0500

by

In the early 1900s, it was not considered socially acceptable for women to smoke in public, but according to a newspaper article from Aug 9, 1919, “Smoking in public by women has ceased to shock for ten years past.” One New York Times article from October 7, 1919, cited British women as having a “large share in doubling cigarette sales since 1914.” The article claims that some women “can’t even hang out the washing unless they have a cigarette in their mouths.” As early as 1915, Cambridge University was polling parents as to whether its female students should be allowed to smoke on campus. At the time, women were clearly interested in smoking, but it was not accepted by the entirety of the general public.

It was becoming clear that women were beginning to make up quite a bit of the market share for many cigarette brands, and it was only a matter of time before the brands started targeting women directly with advertising. Another 1919 article, this one written by a woman in the Daily Mirror, states that “most women smoke for effect: merely to be up-to-date” and to avoid the “horror of being thought to harbour old-fashioned ideas nowadays.” If it was a look women were after, the tobacco companies capitalized on this trend, featuring beautiful, glamorous, “up-to-date” women smoking cigarettes in their print advertisements, furthering the prevalence of the image of the modern smoking woman and making it seem more and more like smoking was “something that everybody does.”

The 1920s saw a boom in advertisements marketing cigarettes to women, though the tobacco companies feared the prohibition activists who were prominent from 1920-1933. Indeed, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) was displeased when women began smoking in public, and in 1920 the WCTU stated that it would work to prevent women and youth from smoking. In 1921, prohibition groups were appealing to state governments to pass anti-tobacco legislation, hoping for an ultimate constitutional amendment banning tobacco. It wasn’t until after these prohibition activists became less of a threat that the major mass marketing efforts by tobacco companies targeting women would begin. However, well before these major mass marketing efforts, tobacco ads targeting women were present – though more subtle – marketing cigarette smoking as a method of evoking femininity or of providing an alluring fragrance for women.

Mass Marketing Begins – img0525

by

As the threat of tobacco prohibition from temperance unions settled down in the late 1920s, tobacco companies became bolder with their approach to targeting women through advertisements, openly targeting women in an attempt to broaden their market and increase sales. The late 1920s saw the beginnings of major mass marketing campaigns designed specifically to target women. “Cigarette manufacturers have for a long time subtly suggested in some of their advertising that women smoked,” a New York Times article from 1927 reveals. But Chesterfield’s 1927 “Blow some my way” campaign was transparent to the public even at the time of printing, and soon after, the campaigns became less and less subtle. In 1928, Lucky Strike introduced its “Cream of the Crop” campaign, featuring celebrity testimonials from female smokers, and then followed with “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet” in 1929, designed to prey on female insecurities about weight and diet. As the decade turned, many cigarette brands came out of the woodwork and joined in on unabashedly targeting women by illustrating women smoking, rather than hinting at it.

Let's Smoke Girls – img0551

by

Before the First World War, smoking was associated with the “loose morals” of prostitutes and wayward women. Clever marketers managed to turn this around in the 1920s and 1930s, latching onto women’s liberation movements and transforming cigarettes into symbols of women’s independence. In 1929, as part of this effort, the American Tobacco Company organized marches of women carrying “Torches of Freedom” (i.e., cigarettes) down New York’s 5th Avenue to emphasize their emancipation. The tobacco industry also sponsored training sessions to teach women how to smoke, and competitions for most delicate smoker. Many of the advertisements targeting women throughout the decades have concentrated on women’s empowerment. Early examples include “I wish I were a man” so I could smoke (Velvet, 1912), while later examples like “You’ve come a long way baby” (Virginia Slims) were more clearly exploitive of the Women’s Liberation Movement. It is interesting to note that the Marlboro brand, famous for its macho “Marlboro Man,” was for decades a woman’s cigarette (“Mild as May” with “Ivory tips to protect the lips”) before it underwent an abrupt sex change in 1954. Only 5 percent of American women smoked in 1923 versus 12 percent in 1932 and 33 percent in 1965 (the peak year). Lung cancer was still a rare disease for women in the 1950s, though by the year 2000 it was killing nearly 70,000 women per year. Cancer of the lung surpassed breast cancer as the leading cause of cancer death among women in 1987.

Brides with Butts – img0654

by

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

Couples in Love – img0684

by

Love and cigarettes, marriage and cigarettes, sex and cigarettes? Nothing is off limits in these tobacco advertisements which feature couples in love. The advertisements work cigarettes into the everyday lives of couples, seemingly bringing couples closer together or enhancing their sexual connection. In the 1920s and 1930s, women were pictured as part of a couple so as to lessen the shock value of women smoking. However, as times changed and women smoking became widely acknowledged, men and women continued to show up together in cigarette advertisements in romantic scenarios. These advertisements were particularly effective at targeting women, capitalizing on the stereotypical female desire to find a husband or be taken care of by a man. Often, however, these ads were also effective for men, who would imagine, after seeing one of the ads, that a woman sensuously falls into a man’s arms with just the whiff of a cigarette or the mingling of fumes.

Keep Kissable – img0737

by

The ads In Old Gold’s “Keep Kissable” campaign claim that Old Gold cigarettes lack “breath-tainting” and teeth-staining properties, making them the perfect choice for a kiss. Many of the ads in this campaign targeted women who were concerned that cigarettes would cause yellowed teeth and bad breath. The ads attempted to dispel these fears in women by urging them to “keep kissable” with Old Golds. P. Lorillard employed pseudoscience in the copy text, claiming that the “greasy artificial flavorings” in most cigarettes are the cause of yellowed teeth, rather than the actual source – nicotine. Old Gold claims that their “100% natural” flavors allow their cigarettes to prevent the teeth-staining associated with smoking, though this claim is entirely false. Additionally, Old Gold cigarettes are described in this ad as comparable to “honey to your throat,” and “not a cough in a carload,” indicating that the “natural flavors” are also supposed to suppress the damage smoking has on your throat – another entirely false claim.

Objectifying Women – img0750

by

Tobacco companies know as much as the next guy – sex sells – and they have no qualms with objectifying women to sell their product. As early as the 1930s, cigarette advertisements featured sexy women to lure men to the brand, and by the late 1930s, pin-up girls were frequently used on cigarette advertisements to appeal to male audiences. The Tiparillo advertisements in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo…: campaign (1968) are shameless in their objectification of women, with the models showing cleavage (plus) as well as intense eye contact. As expected, recent advertisements of the 1990s and 2000s are no better, as such images become more commonplace in modern times. These ads target youth explicitly. Though they primarily attract young men, they also manipulate young women into believing that a certain brand of cigarette might make her sexier and more attractive to men.

Tobacco companies know as much as the next guy – sex sells – and they have no qualms with objectifying women to sell their product. As early as the 1930s, cigarette advertisements featured sexy women to lure men to the brand, and by the late 1930s, pin-up girls were frequently used on cigarette advertisements to appeal to male audiences. The Tiparillo advertisements in the “Should a gentleman offer a Tiparillo…: campaign (1968) are shameless in their objectification of women, with the models showing cleavage (plus) as well as intense eye contact. As expected, recent advertisements of the 1990s and 2000s are no better, as such images become more commonplace in modern times. These ads target youth explicitly. Though they primarily attract young men, they also manipulate young women into believing that a certain brand of cigarette might make her sexier and more attractive to men.

Women's Liberation – img0801

by

One of the most common techniques tobacco companies employ in order to target women is women’s liberation. Specifically, these advertisements show a woman in a position of power over a man, while being careful to keep the power-play light, carefree, and a bit flirtatious. The ads are prudent, hoping not to offend anyone while appearing to “take sides,” so to speak, with women. Often, these ads distract from the position of power Big Tobacco itself holds over both sexes, by pitting women against men instead of against Big Tobacco.

Women in Sports – img7328

by

Tobacco companies often solicited endorsements from athletes to emphasize healthy, active lifestyles and tie these lifestyles in with their cigarettes. Additionally, well-known athletes could give the same kind of celebrity appeal as singers and actors, especially for teens and young adults. Sometimes, tobacco companies showed every-day people playing sports to create a connection among health, energy, athleticism, and cigarettes. Female athletes were highlighted as early as the 1920s (in this collection, a 1927 advertisement from Lucky Strike features a woman playing tennis with a man). Many of the female athletes who were selected to endorse cigarette brands played sports that could be considered feminine: tennis and table tennis, ice skating, swimming and diving, golf, and skiing. Some of the modern ads feature women playing more “manly” sports, like basketball or football, with their boyfriends, or show a woman playing billiards in an attempt to entice young men to the brand.

High Fashion – img7658

by

Throughout the decades, tobacco companies have capitalized on fashion, glamour and beauty to market their products to women. Most notably, in 1934, Lucky Strike staged a “Green Ball” at New York City’s Waldorf-Astoria, with every intention of making green, the then-color of a Lucky Strike pack, more fashionable for women so they would buy Luckies; fashion designers, reporters, socialites and many other influential people in the fashion world were in attendance at the Green Ball, while everyone thought some mysterious benefactor hosted the event. The 1920s saw the fashionable yet daring woman emerge in cigarette ads, while the 1930s saw a glamorous beauty, dripping in luxury. The Great Depression was the impetus for this latter type of woman, dressed in a ball gown, fur and gloves and jewels. The everyday woman could live vicariously, or might feel that she could adopt some of that luxury for herself by smoking the brand of cigarette advertised. Often, tobacco companies turned to chic celebrities to hawk their products, relying on their trendsetting ways to make the sell. Fashion trends change, but tobacco companies’ addiction to manipulating women through these trends has not changed. The models in Virginia Slims advertisements of the 1980s wore fashions which scream ‘80s, and the women in the ads of today can be seen in anything from trendy resort wear in a tropical setting to skin-revealing club wear. Whatever the case, tobacco companies know that if a woman sees a model in an ad who looks attractive, she will want to emulate her.

You're So Smart – img9750

by

The “You’re so smart to smoke Parliaments” campaign works on at least three levels. By using the words “so smart,” the ad (1) works to appeal to a buyer’s intelligence, (2) refers to Parliaments as the “smart,” safe choice, and (3) plays on the double-meaning of “smart” as also fashionable and chic. This all-encompassing word leant the campaign staying power. The health claims which come across through the “smart” campaign are reflective of the advertised recessed filter unique to Parliaments, which the aid claims to ensure that “only the flavor touches your lips,” rather than any harsh chemicals. By appealing to the buyer’s intelligence and fashion sense, the ad goes further than health claims, dabbling in the realms of self esteem and appearance, well-known techniques used by advertisements to manipulate women.

Pretty in Pink – img10259

by

Tobacco companies are often extremely creative in their advertising techniques; however, sometimes the techniques they employ are excruciatingly obvious. In targeting women, for example, many cigarette brands turn to the classic feminine shade of pink in order to clearly communicate a certain cigarette is intended for women’s use. Pink cigarettes and ads which incorporate the color pink target a younger demographic of females. Camel No. 9, for example, uses a hot pink color palette, which accents the cigarette pack, the pack’s interior foil, the cigarettes themselves, and all of the print advertisements for the product. The ads in this theme all demonstrate the prevalence of pink in ads marketing women’s cigarettes. From Russian “Glamour” ads to American “Misty” ads, pink is everywhere. One Virginia Slims ad from 1995 works to reclaim pink as a color of power for women, with the phrase “Pretty in Pink doesn’t make you a pushover” printed next to a woman in a pink mini-dress preparing to hop on her motorcycle.

Eve – img0988

by

Liggett & Myers created Eve cigarettes in 1971 as a direct competitor of Philip Morris’ Virginia Slims, which had been introduced three years prior in 1968. However, advertising for Eve took a different approach than Virginia Slims. Whereas Virginia Slims were marketed as the cigarette for the empowered, liberated woman, Eve was marketed as the cigarette for the feminine woman. In the 20th century, both the Eve cigarettes themselves and the packages containing them featured a floral design, prompting some ads to describe the cigarette as having “Flowers on the outside. Flavor on the inside.” As of 2002, the floral pattern has been replaced by butterflies, an updated graphic that appears less old fashioned and would appeal to younger audiences.

Advertising for Eve urges women to embrace their femininity. Like Virginia Slims, Eve hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many print advertisements across the decades portray women in fashionable, ladylike outfits, notably more conservative than their Virginia Slims counterparts. Some Eve slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Farewell to the ugly cigarette pack” (1970s), and “Eves of the world you are beautiful” (1970s). Both slogans tell women that they will be beautiful if they smoke a beautiful cigarette. Like Virginia Slims, Eve cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, a clear reference to a woman’s figure. A slim, slender figure is often presented as more desirable in women’s fashion magazines and by models in the fashion industry. Thus Eve joins Virginia Slims in providing a subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure. Eve also takes advantage of its extra length (commonly 120 mm as opposed to the 85 mm of an average cigarette); a 1980s slogan, “every inch a lady,” drives home the connection between long cigarettes and sophisticated, ladylike women.

More – img1083

by

R.J. Reynolds introduced More in 1974 to take advantage of growing trends in “king size” cigarettes, especially among women. More was one of the first 120 mm cigarette brands on the market, featuring 20 mm of extra length beyond the 100 mm “king size” (which is already significantly longer than the 85 mm of a traditional cigarette). More advertisements heavily targeted women, making use of fashion-forward models and statements like “Experience the captivating color, the glamour, the excitement!” (1984).

The brand name itself, “More,” is not only representative of the fact that there is “more” length to the cigarette, but it also provides psychological associations for consumers as well, as is evidenced by ad slogans. For example, slogans like “Why be satisfied with less?” and “Never settle for less” (1987) appeal to the consumer’s sense of self worth, much like L’Oreal’s various “Because I’m worth it” slogans. Other More slogans actually work to convince consumers that they will improve by smoking More, through statements such as “I’m More satisfied” (1991) and “Dare to be More” (1986).

Another More slogan hits on the most common advertising technique among women-targeted cigarette brands: slimness. The cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, and the advertisements mean to imply that women who smoke a thin cigarette will obtain or maintain a thin figure as well. As one slogan explains: “It’s More you. It’s beige. It’s slender. It’s special” (1983).

Capri – img9939

by

Brown & Williamson launched Capri as the first ever “super slim” cigarette in 1987, targeting young women. Traditional cigarettes have a circumference of 25 mm, slim cigarettes 23 mm, and Capri Super Slims only 17 mm. Advertisements for Capri follow the logic that slimmer is better, apparently influenced by the assumption that women prefer to be physically slim, since a slender figure is often presented as more desirable in women’s fashion magazines and by models in the fashion industry. Slogans such as “The slimmest slim in town” (1988) and “There is no slimmer way to smoke” (1994) provides a not-so-subliminal message that by smoking Capri cigarettes, consumers can count on obtaining or maintaining a slimmer figure than everyone else.

Max – img9961

by

Max, a cigarette brand for women featuring cigarettes 120 mm in length, was introduced in 1975 by Lorillard on the heels of Liggett & Myers’ Eve 120s (1973) and R.J. Reynolds’ More cigarettes (1974). Featuring 20 mm of extra length beyond the 100 mm “king size” (which is already significantly longer than the 85 mm of a traditional cigarette), Max advertised a fashionable, sexy, “healthier” cigarette.

Ads from the 1970s featured stylish women who explained, “The longer they are, the fewer I smoke.” Because the statement is completely false, the woman goes on to say, “It’s wacky, but it works. Max 120’s take longer to smoke so you don’t light up as often.” The truth of the matter is that the human body will seek a certain amount of nicotine to feed addiction, regardless of the length of the cigarette.

Other Max ads marketed the brand as sexy, comparing Max cigarettes to an attractive man named Max: “Say hello to Max,” ads from 1975 read. “Hello long, lean and delicious.” Another ad urges the consumer to “Make friends with Max.” Still, other ads concentrated on the fashionable aspect of the cigarette, much like most women’s cigarettes. These ads, which reached into the 1980s, presented the cigarette as an accessory for any outfit, featuring fashion-forward models under a slogan advising consumers to “Wear a Max today.” Further, these “Wear a Max” ads spoke to feminine concerns with beauty, claiming that the cigarette is “long, lean” and “great looking,” insinuating that by smoking an attractive cigarette, the smoker will be attractive, too.

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0066

by

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

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

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

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

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0141

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 – img0159

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. .

20,679 Physicians – img11319

by

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

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

Throat Doctors – img11323

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.

Guard Your Throat – img2636

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.

Famous Voices – img2697

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 – img2711

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.

Throat Scratch – img2788

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 – img2918

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? – img2940

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 – img2967

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.

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img22501

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.

Print – img38416

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? – img1327

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.

For Digestion Sake – img1362

by

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

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

Best For You – img1474

by

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

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

Feel Your Best – img1490

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 – img1510

by

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

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

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5168

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.

Pseudoscience – img1561

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 – img1602

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 – img1622

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 – img1688

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

Thinks for Himself – img2023

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.

Reduced Carcinogens – img2137

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.

High Tech Filters – img2145

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.

Protects Your Health – img7942

by

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

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

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

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

Cork Tip – img8002

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 – img19324

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.

Miracle Tip – img24031

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.

Kool Your Throat – img1756

by

In 1933, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette. Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as specialty cigarettes to be smoked on occasion, aside from a smoker’s regular, unmentholated cigarette. Because menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat, advertisers often touted menthols’ coolness as a contrast to the hotness of ordinary tobacco smoke. Implicit in this advertising technique are the harmful effects of smoking, sometimes referred to as “smoker’s hack” in Kools ads.

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

Kools’ penguin mascot was used from the first days of the brand’s release. His cartoonish appearance, like Joe Camel’s, makes him an attractive figure to kids and young adults. The penguin was named Willie in 1947 to increase sales which had fallen after the war. However, Kools were still seen as a specialty product at the time, appealing only to those smokers hoping to avoid throat dryness or the irritating effects of their regular smokes. It wasn’t until the late 1950s, when Salem entered the scene as the first menthol filter in 1956, that menthols began to make up a large part of the market share. Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (1).

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

Newport Pleasure – img1849

by

The ads in this theme reveal Newport’s most recent marketing techniques targeting teens and young adults. Newport has employed some form of these “Pleasure” advertisements since 1972. The Newport ads in this theme range from 1980 to present day and feature the “Newport Pleasure” or “Alive with Pleasure” campaign slogans. The latter slogan, “Alive with Pleasure,” provides the viewer with a subconscious health claim – the viewer immediately relates life and living with smoking, which pushes thoughts of death and tobacco-related disease away from the forefront of the viewer’s thoughts. Additionally, the “pleasure” aspect of this campaign is an important part of youth targeting, portraying Newports as fun and enjoyable and, subconsciously, sexy and sexual.

The models featured in the advertisements are often young, carefree, and attractive. Many of the ads contain happy couples either spending one-on-one time with each other or enjoying the company of another young couple. Additionally, these couples are usually taking part in some active scenario, like camping, or playing football, biking, or surfing. These activities again portray smoking as healthful, as the models in the advertisements are clearly healthy enough to lead an active lifestyle even though they smoke. Other activities include party or nightlife atmospheres, like sitting in a hot tub, singing karaoke, dancing in a nightclub, or watching a game at a sports bar. These scenarios work to target adolescents specifically. The social dynamics represented in these Newport ads, including groups of friends and couples, seek to normalize smoking among youth; the ads make smoking appear more pervasive and provide a perceived social approval and acceptance of the behavior. These advertisements are key in establishing a new smoker base for a tobacco company needing to replace smokers it has already lost due to smoking-related disease.

As of 2011, almost half of all 12- to 17-year-old smokers prefer menthols, while the total market share of menthols claims only 30% of all smokers (1). Additionally, according to one study conducted in 2006, 62.4% of middle school students who had smoked for less than a year tended to smoke menthols (2). Data like this has lead many experts, including the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), to believe that the presence of menthols on the market increase the rate of smoking initiation. Confidential industry documents, since leaked to the public, reveal Newport’s comprehension of its target audience through its “pleasure” campaign, which is still used today. In particular, a 1978 memo identifies Newport’s success as a direct result of its consumer profile, which “shows this brand being purchased by black people (all ages), young adults (usually college age), but the base of our business is the high school student” (3). Just as the campaign itself has changed very little over the years, so has the company’s lack of remorse over the age of its consumers. In fact, a 1993 internal document identifies Newport as “the brand with the youngest adult smoker profile” (4).

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

2. Hersey J.C. et al. “Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth?” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. June 2006. 8:3;403-413. .

3. Achev, T.L. “Product Information.” 30 Aug 1978. .

4. “Newport 1993 Strategic Marketing Plan.” 25 Sept 1992. .

Salem Classics – img7785

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Salem Classics – img7786

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Alpine-Artic – img8071

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Kool Classics – img8843

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Lady Be Kool – img9509

by

The ads in this theme reveal modern menthol marketing techniques which target young women. As with most tobacco campaigns targeting women, many of these ads use words like “slim,” “mild,” and “light” in order to attract a female audience. Earlier ads within this theme from the 1980s and ’90s prominently feature smiling and carefree young women, whereas more recent ads from Kool and Salem in 1999 and the 2000s portray a sexier, more seductive young woman. Across the board, however, the women in these menthol ads are shown to be confident, satisfied, and attractive. Phrases like “smooth and delicate” (Newport Stripes) or “one beautiful menthol” (Salem Slim Lights) work to appeal to women preoccupied by their femininity, while “slim ‘n sassy” (Misty) and “for more of a woman, more of a Salem” (Salem Premium Length) embrace women’s empowerment and liberation. As of 2007, studies found that 32% of female smokers smoked menthol cigarettes compared to 22% of male smokers who smoke menthols (1).

1. U.S. Department of Commerce Census Bureau, Menthol Cigarette Use by Sociodemographics Among Current Adult Smokers Ages 18+, Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey 2006/07. 2008, National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Co-sponsored Tobacco Use Supplement to the Current Population Survey (2006-07). .

Newport Classics – img11257

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Switch When Sick – img11579

by

Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as special-purpose cigarettes. Menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat. Advertisers for these brands often touted menthols’ coolness as a contrast to the hotness of ordinary tobacco smoke. Implicit in this advertising technique are the harmful effects of smoking, sometimes referred to as “smoker’s hack” in Kools ads or “smoker’s cough” in Spuds ads. Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these early ads for Spuds and Kools from the 1930s and 1940s urged smokers to switch to a menthol brand when sick or suffering from the ill effects of smoking. While menthol cigarettes are not actually cures for sore throats or the common cold, the menthol additive does act to temporarily reduce the irritating properties of nicotine and other cigarette byproducts inhaled through cigarette smoke, providing a smoker with the illusion that menthols contain curative powers (1). Indeed, the history of the invention of menthol cigarettes finds its roots in sore throat treatments: When Lloyd “Spud” Hughes stored his cigarettes in the tin already containing the menthol crystals meant to cure his sore throat, he stumbled upon a tobacco recipe which struck him rich – and which still makes the industry millions of dollars to this day – mentholated cigarettes.

After his chance discovery in the 1920s, Hughes began marketing his mentholated cigarettes as “Spuds” and patented the process of treating tobacco with menthol in 1925. In the summer of 1926, the Axton-Fisher Tobacco Company began manufacturing Spuds for Hughes. Some of these early menthol advertisements list the following 5 reasons, among others, to switch to Spuds: “when your throat is dry,” “when you have a cold,” “when your taste craves a change,” “when your voice is hoarse,” and, most tellingly, “when you develop smoker’s cough.” These ads presented menthols as a medicinal cigarette to smoke when sick, or as a cigarette to smoke when others were too harsh. In 1933, when Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company released Kools as its answer to the mentholated cigarette, ads urged smokers to “switch from Hots to Kools” (1940) or “in between others, smoke Kools” (1938-1940). However, unlike Spuds, Kools was marketed as a cigarette to stick to “all the time” in the hopes of increasing market share. The ads in this theme represent the beginning of the menthol empire. Today, tobacco companies market menthols as cigarettes to smoke daily, rather than as occasional-use cigarettes as in their original release; Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

1. Benowitz, N. and Samet, J. “The Threat of Menthol Cigarettes to U.S. Public Health.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011.

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

Belair Classics – img11586

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Modern Menthol – img19235

by

This theme contains ads which represent a variety of the leading menthol brands, particularly Salem and Kool. A few recent ads for the mentholated versions of Winstons, Vantage, Marlboro, and Camel are also included. These ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Additionally, many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. The ads reveal the ludicrous targeting techniques employed by menthol brands and the lengths to which they will go in order to gain a stronger market share over youths and African Americans, the leading consumers of menthol cigarettes.

Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings. The 1990s saw Salem’s “Refreshest” campaign, which targeted teens and adolescents with mind-boggling images like a woman relaxing on a pool floatie inside of a grand piano filled with water, or, similarly, a couple lounging in the pick-up of a truck, also filled with water. Earlier Salem ads (“Salem Spirit”) from the 1980s used a technique largely reminiscent of Newport’s long-lived “Pleasure” campaign, spotlighting groups of young friends having fun in athletic, outdoorsy settings. All of these ads blatantly target youth.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

As of 2011, almost half of all 12- to 17-year-old smokers prefer menthols, while the total market share of menthols claims only 30% of all smokers (1). Additionally, according to one study conducted in 2006, 62.4% of middle school students who had smoked for less than a year tended to smoke menthols (2). Data like this has lead many experts, including the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), to believe that the presence of menthols on the market increase the rate of smoking initiation. Additionally, government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (1).

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

Hersey J.C. et al. “Are menthol cigarettes a starter product for youth?” Nicotine & Tobacco Research. June 2006. 8:3;403-413. .

Mouth Happy – img43143

by

Menthol cigarettes were introduced in the 1930s as special-purpose cigarettes. Menthol is a mint extract which triggers a sensation of coolness when it comes in contact with the mouth and throat. Advertisers for these brands often touted menthols’ coolness as a contrast to the hotness of ordinary tobacco smoke. Implicit in this advertising technique are the harmful effects of smoking. The small print on of the Spud ads in this theme reads, “Your mouth will keep as fresh as a May morning. They have a way all their own of cooling smoke . . . Sifting out irritants . . . Giving you dewy-fresh flavor.” This text implies that other cigarette smoke is too hot and contains harsh irritants. Instead of advising smokers to quit, however, these 1930s ads urged smokers to switch to Spuds. One such advertisement advises consumers to smoke Spuds so as not to “let heavy smoking make your mouth ‘quit’ the party.” Other ads in the theme liken smoking Spuds to eating foods that require an acquired taste, like Roquefort cheese, mushrooms, olives, or caviar. Still another ad alerts young smokers that they can keep their mouths fresh and cool with Spuds for a “heavy date.” Though only some of the ads are part of the “Be ‘Mouth-Happy’” campaign, all of these ads concentrate on the mouth – from taste, to breath, to throat irritation.

While menthol cigarettes are not actually cures for sore throats or the common cold, the menthol additive does act to temporarily reduce the irritating properties of nicotine and other cigarette byproducts inhaled through cigarette smoke, providing a smoker with the illusion that menthols contain curative powers (1). Indeed, the history of the invention of menthol cigarettes finds its roots in sore throat treatments: When Lloyd “Spud” Hughes stored his cigarettes in the tin already containing the menthol crystals meant to cure his sore throat, he stumbled upon a tobacco recipe which struck him rich – and which still makes the industry millions of dollars to this day – mentholated cigarettes. After his chance discovery in the 1920s, Hughes began marketing his mentholated cigarettes as “Spuds” and patented the process of treating tobacco with menthol in 1925. In the summer of 1926, the Axton-Fisher Tobacco Company began manufacturing Spuds for Hughes.

1. Benowitz, N. and Samet, J. “The Threat of Menthol Cigarettes to U.S. Public Health.” The New England Journal of Medicine. 2011.

Other Menthol Classics – img43374

by

When menthol cigarettes were first brought to market, they were advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough. However, the 1960s brought along the beginnings of a different image for the menthol cigarette. In 1969 alone, Lorillard increased its “Negro market budget” by 87% over 1968 due to increased efforts marketing its menthol cigarette, Newport, to the African American market. Likewise, British American Tobacco doubled their budget from 1968 to 1969 in order to increase African-American radio station coverage for its menthol cigarette, Kool (1). Government surveys in 2011 revealed that menthol cigarettes dominate 30% of the overall market, and over 80% of black smokers prefer menthol as opposed to 22% of non-Hispanic white smokers (2).

Recent menthol ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings.

Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers to not only be true to themselves, but also to be true and loyal to the brand. Accompanying the “Be True” slogan was a variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse. In our collection, Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the “Be True” ad campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

1. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00

2. Wilson, Duff. “Advisory Panel urges F.D.A. to re-examine menthol in cigarettes.” The New York Times. 18 March 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/business/19tobacco.html

Light – img3058

by

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

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

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

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

Super Light – img3140

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Super Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which are supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Common among these ads is futuristic imagery presenting Super Lights as scientifically advanced and thus engineered to be healthier and safer. However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “Light” cigarettes are no safer than regular cigarettes. In fact, internal industry documents reveal that from the very beginning, tobacco companies were well aware that smokers compensated for the low-nicotine draw from light cigarettes by changing their smoking behaviors.

“Light” cigarettes were marketed at varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light,” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories which extended across cigarette brands. The “Super Light” designation seems to have been more fluid and less extensive in its reach, though a variety of brands have used the designation over the past few decades.

In the late 1970s, Kool manufactured a “Super Light” category of cigarettes at 9 mg of tar (later 7 mg). Then, in 1981, Brown & Williamson switched this designation from ” Kool Super Lights” to ”Kool Milds.” In the late 1980s, the category came back when Philip Morris adopted the “Super Light” designation for its Philip Morris brand in European countries. Then, in the mid-1990s, Lorillard marketed Kent Super Lights (6 mg tar) in foreign markets as their lowest tar-delivery cigarette, alongside Kent Milds KS (11mg) and Kent Special Milds (8 mg). Merit also had a “SuperLight” cigarette, which its makers claimed “tastes as good as the leading ultra lights but has half the tar.”

Super Light cigarettes, like Lights and Ultra Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation. Now, they rely on color-coding: red indicates regular; dark green indicates menthol; light green, blue, or gold indicate previously “light” cigarettes; and silver or orange indicate previously “ultra light” cigarettes.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Less Nicotine – img3188

by

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

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

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

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

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

Low Tar – img3219

by

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

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

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

Ultra Light – img9575

by

The ads in this theme outline the deceptive advertisement campaigns for “Ultra Light” cigarettes, a sub-category of so-called “light” cigarettes which is supposed to contain even less tar and nicotine. Sometimes referred to simply as “Ultra” cigarettes, Ultra Lights came into popularity in the early 1980s, and generally reported about half the tar and nicotine content of ordinary Light cigarettes. Many of the ads within this theme present ultra lights as carefree, However, the FDA has determined that all categories of previously-deemed “Light” cigarettes are no safer than regular cigarettes. In fact, internal industry documents reveal that from the very beginning, tobacco companies were well aware that smokers compensated for the low-nicotine draw from light cigarettes by changing their smoking behaviors.

“Light” cigarettes came in varying degrees of reported “tar” delivery levels. According to a Philip Morris Inter-office memo from 1987, those cigarettes which have tar delivery levels of less than 14 mg are considered “Light” and those with levels under 6 mg are considered “Ultra Light” (1). These designations were generic categories that extended across cigarette brands.

Ultra Light cigarettes, like Lights, are no safer than other cigarettes, but have been misleadingly portrayed as such by tobacco companies. Since the FDA was granted regulatory authority over tobacco products in 2009, it has begun to crack down on these designations, banning tobacco companies from using words such as “mild,” “low,” or “light” as of July, 2010. Unsurprisingly, tobacco manufacturers have figured out a creative way to escape this regulation: Now, they rely on color-coding: red indicates regular; dark green indicates menthol; light green, blue, or gold indicate previously “light” cigarettes; and silver or orange indicate previously “ultra light” cigarettes. A 2007 ad for Pall Mall, featured in this theme, reveals that the tobacco companies were prepared for this change: “BRIGHT NOW. Introducing Orange Box for Ultra Light.” The other designations and their corresponding pack colors are also featured so that consumers could figure out which color indicated which “health” designation for future purchases.

1. Weintraub, Jeff. “Identification Based on ‘Tar’ Deliveries.’ 9 Nov 1987. Philip Morris. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jcj16e00

Freshness – img3514

by

Tobacco ads are notorious for broadcasting what can only be called the “Big Lie” – how else could the inhalation of smoke of any kind be compared to breathing in “mountain air?” In these advertisements, smoke is presented to consumers as “fresh” and “clean,” and particular brands are advertised as “springtime fresh” or even “the refreshest.” Ads offering freshness continued well beyond the 1950s, portraying verbal or visual themes of outdoor recreation, mountain air, clean rushing streams, and more.

Early on, the freshness theme became grist for the industry’s “tit for tat” advertising. Indeed, while The American Tobacco Company advertised that Lucky Strikes were better because they were “toasted,” R.J. Reynolds countered that their Camels were superior because they were “naturally fresh: never parched, never toasted!” Camel also offered an alternative meaning of the word “fresh” by heavily promoting its cellophane wrapper, intended to keep cigarettes from going stale on store shelves.

Freshness was also commonly used as a kind of code-word for healthfulness. Slogans used in tobacco ads called to mind the “cool” of ice or the fresh healing virtues of springtime mountain pastures. “Kool” and other menthol brands were also supposed to deliver a kind of hospital-like sense of sanitary safety, and one company implied cleanliness in its very name. “Sano” cigarettes didn’t last very long: they didn’t deliver as much in the way of tar or nicotine as more popular brands and their marketing skill lagged behind that of the bigger players. By contrast, menthol brands grew in popularity after the postwar “health scare,” and many other forms of “health reassurance” were offered (space-age filters of myriad sorts, promises of low-tar and/or nicotine deliveries, eventually “lights,” etc.).

Fresh as Mountain Air – img3552

by

In the 1930s and 1940s, Old Gold ran a series of campaigns touting “freshness” in their cigarettes. In these ads, “freshness” has a double-meaning, appearing on the surface to relate solely to whether or not the cigarettes become stale while sitting on the shelves; However, the word “fresh” is also a not-so-subliminal metaphor for healthfulness, purity, and refreshment. Ads claiming Old Golds were “Fresh as mountain air” or “Fresh as a spring crocus” (a type of flower), most clearly betray Lorillard’s true intentions. Indeed, Old Gold’s claim to “freshness” was a dangerous and misleading health claim, working to convince consumers that Old Golds were safe, and perhaps even beneficial, to their health.

Two “innovations” for the brand provided Lorillard with the opportunity to advertise its cigarettes as fresh. First, a “double-jacket” of cellophane – that is, two layers of cellophane – was wrapped around each pack, keeping Old Golds “factory-fresh,” and allowing Lorillard to advertise its cigarettes as such. The second innovation was the addition of apple “honey” as the humectant (the agent used to keep the tobacco leaves from drying out) in 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 inference that “freshness” meant healthfulness, contributed to Old Gold’s ability to present its brand as healthful without directly making false health claims.