It is shocking to see the plethora of tobacco brands which incorporated images of infants in their advertisements, but these images had multiple values to tobacco advertisers. For one, depictions of babies in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product. Babies, especially, represent purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of infants were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.
Advertisement
Newport Teases Teen
Newport Teases Teen
After 2000 – img41925
Babies – img4318
Children – img4333
Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Particularly in the Baby Boomer era, depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of children were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.
Santa Puffing – img4437
Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, particularly Santa Claus; Our collection includes numerable examples of ads featuring jolly old Saint Nick puffing away with obvious pleasure on a cigarette, cigar or pipe.
Christmas – img4468
Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, particularly Santa Claus; Our collection includes numerable examples of ads featuring jolly old Saint Nick puffing away with obvious pleasure on a cigarette, cigar or pipe.
Clowns – img4478
Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, especially Santa Claus. Interestingly, the figure of the clown continues to crop up in tobacco ads over the decades. Simultaneously scary, funny, and perhaps cool, clowns creatively represent cigarettes in a desirable light, and may work particularly well in attracting children.
Gift for Daddy – img10115
Depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads have the enormous ability to reinforce the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life. Because this perception is often promulgated by the tobacco industry, it is no surprise that many tobacco advertisements took advantage of Father’s Day. Indeed, many print ads, particularly from the Baby Boomer era, depict children gifting cigarette cartons to their fathers. The images of youngsters worked to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, as youngsters represent purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. An R.J. Reynolds ad from 1953, for example, depicts a woman and her two children ready to surprise Dad with Cavaliers. The accompanying text speaks directly to children, essentially selling the tobacco products to kids: “Make your Dad’s eyes light up…as he lights up his favorite smoke…with love from you to him on Father’s Day” 1953
Children Cards – img41612
Joe Camel Cartoons – img17784
In a transparent effort to greatly increase their market share of young smokers, R.J. Reynolds initiated the now infamous Old Joe Camel campaign for the Camel brand in 1988. The campaign, which ran continuously for 9 years until 1997, featured a cool dromedary cartoon character and faced almost immediate criticism from the public for influencing children to smoke.
From the campaign’s inception, young people were primary targets. The first Joe Camel ad in the United States was released to celebrate Camel’s 75th “birthday” and was based on a French advertisement for Camel filters from 1974 (1). The original French Joe Camel was reported to be a “smash” because “it’s about as young as you can get, and aims right at the young adult smoker Camel needs to attract” (2). (The term “young adult smoker” is industry jargon for the youngest spectrum of customers legally targeted through cigarette ads.)
Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) confirmed that Joe Camel is attractive to children. Indeed, a 1991 article published in JAMA reveals that the Old Joe Camel advertisements “are far more successful at marketing Camel cigarettes to children than to adults” based on kids’ ability to recall the character and find him appealing (3). More shocking still is another JAMA publication from 1991 which revealed that 91.3% of 6-year-old children were able to correctly match Old Joe with a picture of a cigarette, nearly the same number of children as were able to match Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel logo (4).
Internal documents reveal that young people were further targeted with the ads through appropriation of youth slang. The “smooth character” slogan associated with the Old Joe campaign was reportedly intended to impart a “dual meaning,” indicating that the product itself was literally a smooth, non-irritating smoke, and, in youth slang terms, that the smoker himself had a “smooth (slick or cool) personality” (5).
Additionally, in order to attract young males, Joe was intended to be hyper-masculine, as is evidenced by his face, which closely resembles male reproductive organs. “Reinforcement of masculinity is an important want among a large percentage of males,” another internal document says, “and this is particularly true among less educated and younger adult males (i.e., Camel’s prime prospect)” (6).
Indeed, R.J. Reynolds goes on to reveal the exact target demographic for Camel: “Increasing RJRT’s share among younger adult smokers is a key corporate objective. Within the established RJRT product line, the highest priority has been placed behind Camel as the best short and long-term opportunity to penetrate younger adult smokers … Younger adult smokers are critically important to RJRT long term: They have been critical factor in growth/decline of every major brand/company in past 50 years. They will continue to be important in future, as market renewal stems almost entirely from 18 year old smokers“ (6).
By 1994, many groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Surgeon General, 27 state attorneys general, and more had urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take action against R.J.R.’s Joe Camel campaign. At the time, the FTC decided there was not enough evidence to ban the campaign, but it reopened the case in 1997, when R.J.R. pulled the Joe Camel campaign, seemingly voluntarily. Though the smooth camel eventually left the scene, his 9-year stint in magazines, phone booths, and billboards guaranteed that he was repeatedly introduced to children, adolescents and young adults for almost a decade. Additionally, Old Joe freebies and prizes, ranging from boxer briefs and baseball caps to fishing lures and card games guarantee that Joe remains immortalized.
1. “Regional News from Art Direction: The Magazine of Visual Communication, June 1975.” RJ Reynolds. June 1975. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mmx62d00/pdf
2. Blackmer, Dana. “Memo to Rich McReynolds from Dana Blackmer Re: French Camel Filter Ad.” RJ Reynolds. 7 Feb 1974. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eve76b00/pdf
3. DiFranza, Joseph R., MD, et al. “RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children.” JAMA 1991;266:33149-3153.
4. Fischer, Paul M., MD, et al. “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 years.” JAMA 1991;266:3145-3148.
5. “Camel General Market Campaign Focus Group Research. French Camel.” RJ Reynolds. 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtf44d00/pdf
6. Caufield, R.T. “Camel New Advertising Campaign Development.” 12 March 1986. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vkm76b00/pdf
Celebrity Cartoons – img17815
Stunts – img17818
Warriors – img17819
Lucky Strike Cartoons – img17820
Old Gold Cartoons – img17821
Winston Cartoons – img17822
Philip Morris Cartoons – img17823
Kool Cartoons – img17824
Doral Cartoons – img17826
Other Cartoons – img17827
Sports Cartoons – img24424
Health Cartoons – img24555
All That Jazz – img13027
Classical Music – img13030
Country Music – img13031
Pin Up Art – img13032
Leaf Art – img13033
Artist at Work – img13035
Art Knock offs – img13036
Big Band – img13123
Rock Music – img13194
Signed Art – img13450
Opera Stars – img16949
Opera stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on an opera star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Opera stars were particularly convincing, because if an opera singer entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous.
Our earliest endorsement from an opera star is for Tuxedo tobacco in 1915, followed by a generic endorsement from an “opera singer” for Helmar cigarettes in 1916. Old Gold enlisted a few opera singers in the early 1930s, but Lucky Strike dominated the arena in second half of the decade, with a series on stars of the Metropolitan Opera Company. By the late ‘40s and early ‘50s, Camel was on the scene enlisting handfuls of opera singers to endorse their product.
Singers – img16951
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.
Movie Stars – Women – img2154
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, movie stars, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case female movie stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the movie star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball trusts Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, movie stars, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case female movie stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the movie star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball trusts Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Movie Stars – Men – img2337
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, movie stars, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case male movie stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the actor’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actor entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see a few ads and muse, “If Perry Como and Big Crosby trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me!” In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Couples & Cast – img2463
They say that two is always better than one, and this mentality was certainly true for the celebrity testimonials represented in this theme. When tobacco companies could land a celebrity couple in one ad, it could advertise its cigarettes to both males and females in a single blow. Oftentimes, the leading female and male stars of a movie would sit for a single tobacco ad in order to promote their upcoming production. For example, Patricia Morison and Cole Porter both praise Camels in one ad to debut their production “Kiss Me, Kate.” Other times, celebrity couples could promote their motion picture studio in general, rather than a specific film. For example, an ad for Robt. Burns Cigarillos features Humphrey Bogart and his wife, Lauren Bacall, and highlights their co-star positions at Santana Pictures.
Famous voices, in this case actors and actresses, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the celebrity’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actor entrusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Champion Endorses – img2489
Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products from the 1920s well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, movie stars, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country. It is interesting to note that a few of these celebrities cropped up in multiple tobacco advertisements, usually for a variety of companies.
In our collection, for example, we see Joan Crawford in ad for Old Gold (1930), Raleigh (1947), Chesterfield (1949), two for Camel (1951), two for Lucky Strike (1951), and even featured on a Raleigh matchbook! Similarly, Claudette Colbert endorsed Player’s Cigarettes (1924), Old Gold (1934, 1935), Lucky Strike (1937, 1938), and Chesterfield (1942, 1943, 1946, 1948). Other “champion” endorsers include Jack Web with three different brands, Barbara Stanquck with four brands, Carole Lombard with two, and Gary Cooper with three. Usually, the endorsements were decided by the actor’s movie studios, not by the actor’s preferences, explaining the seemingly fickle choices of these stars.
Famous voices, in this case female movie stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the movie star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
TV Stars – img2530
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Directors and Producers – img2565
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Popular directors and producers did not escape the grasp of the tobacco companies. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, famous Broadway producers Florenz Ziegfeld, and George M. Cohan endorsing Lucky Strikes, along with popular Hollywood directors King Victor and Cecil B. de Mille. In the late 1940s, Philip Morris capitalized on the appeal of the director, while Winston jumped on the bandwagon in 1956 with its ads featuring photographers. The image of the handsome, seductive director persists in modern tobacco advertising, including the depiction of a director in a 2004 Camel ad.
Famous voices, in this case television stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the TV star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous actress entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad! For example, a consumer might see an ad and muse, “If Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez trust Chesterfield, then it’s good enough for me.” In addition to providing health claims, television stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the Hollywood elite.
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Radio Stars – img2576
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case radio stars, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the radio star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. The concept was that if a famous sportscaster, broadcast journalist, commentator, announcer or recording star trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it must not be so bad!
It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Broadway Stars – img2611
Like Opera singers, Broadway stars had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in a Broadway star’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. Broadway performers were particularly convincing, because if the star entrusted her voice and throat – her source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems impossible for the smoke to be irritating or dangerous. Lucky Strike and Camel made the most use of Broadway performers in their ads. In addition to providing health claims, movie stars were also glamorous and represented a walk of life attractive to consumers who were already invested in tabloids and the lives of the show business elite. It wasn’t until 1964 that tobacco companies were banned from using testimonials from athletes, entertainers, and other famous personalities who might be appealing to consumers under 21 years of age.
Newsman – img2623
The 1920s and 1930s saw the heyday of celebrity endorsement, with celebrities hawking everything from soap and pantyhose to canned beans and cars. Tobacco companies were especially fond of celebrity testimonials, enlisting hundreds upon hundreds of celebrities to endorse their tobacco products well into the 1960s. In these advertisements, actors, famous singers, athletes, and even socialites graced the pages of popular magazines, editorials, and newspapers printed across the country.
Famous voices, in this case newsmen, had a particular appeal for cigarette advertisers. The emphasis on a healthy, clear voice in the broadcast journalist’s line of work was an ideal avenue for portraying cigarettes as healthful, rather than harmful. If Walter Winchell, for example, trusted his voice and throat – his source of revenue – to a cigarette brand, then it seems less irritating and dangerous. Newsmen also represent a more serious side of the celebrity industry, appealing to hardworking businessmen who may be less swayed by other celebrity endorsements.
Comedians – img41365
Cameramen & Stuntmen – img41400
Don't get your wind – img4496
“They Don’t Get Your Wind” This marketing campaign from the mid 1930’s include quotes like, “A Cigarette so mild you can smoke all you want”, and “that’s what athletes say about Camels. And when a champion talks about condition, wind and healthy nerves, and real tobacco mildness, he knows what he’s talking about.” In the 1930’s it was popular for athletes and celebrities to endorse cigarettes. There was little research or regulation on the health effects from smoking.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company was in a direct competition to be the top cigarette advertising company. Their competition was the well-known American Tobacco Company who manufactured its top brand, Lucky Strike. The move to have athletes endorse Camel cigarettes launched Camel to top. Lucky strike then moved their tactics to challenge the candy industry and introduced the, “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet” Campaign. Camel had baseball players; football players and Olympic athletes endorse their products from 1930s to the late 1950s.
Ad: “Get a Lift With a Camel!,” Popular Science, October 1934, from, ModernMechanix.com, August 6, 2007.
Baseball – img4521
The marriage of tobacco and baseball dates back to some of the sport’s earliest days. Before 1900, professional baseball was a sea of leagues popping up and then disappearing and dispute over disregarded player contracts. By the turn of the century professional baseball as we know today began to take shape, and tobacco had already entered the scene. Cigarette companies used cards with images of baseball players to stiffen their packs of loosely packed tobacco and thin paper wrappings as early as 1888. In a time when chewing tobacco was widely popular in the U.S., many players indulged in the same habit. While players and ball clubs would go on to advertise many forms of combustible tobacco, cigarettes and chewing tobacco stayed connected most closely with baseball.
In the 1910s, tobacco’s solidification in baseball grew greatly. Bull Durham smoking tobacco launched a revolutionary campaign in 1912, installing large bull bill-boards at almost every major league ballpark. Their promotion ran that any player to bat a ball to the bull would receive $50, or roughly $1200 in today’s money. The prominence of the bull signage and its association with what was becoming America’s pastime led to enormous profits for the company and perhaps the origin of the term “bullpen” to refer to the warm-up area for pitchers. Some of the baseball figures to take a stand against tobacco included Honus Wagner, a legendary player for the Pittsburg Pirates, Ty Cobb, Connie Mack, and Walter Johnson. Wagner, for his part, refused to have his image associated with tobacco-promoting baseball cards. Today, some historians question whether his intent was to help curb young children’s chances of smoking or more to punish the company for improperly compensating him for his image. His decision, nonetheless, made some 1911 Americans question tobacco, while others only more attracted due to the surrounding controversy. In addition, Cobb, Mack, and Johnson all spoke out against cigarettes or allowed their names to be used as part of testimonies collected in Henry Ford’s Case Against the Little White Slaver, published 1914. Cobb and Johnson were both raised to refrain from all forms of mind-altering substances. For their early years in the leagues, right around the time Ford’s book came out, they held true to these ideals and yet still appeared in tobacco ads. Cobb, outside what his ball club may have required of him, even appeared for a self-named brand of tobacco. Clearly, baseball and tobacco were early slated for a complicated and deep relationship.
As baseball’s popularity exploded at the advent of the live-ball era—around 1920—players like Babe Ruth became the idols of millions. Ruth, a hearty man of strength and precision, publicly smoked and drank while living an extravagant, expensive lifestyle. The image of a homerun-belting giant such as Ruth safely smoking cigar after cigar and appearing in numerous ads helped people feel more comfortable with smoking. If such a healthy and lovable character included tobacco in his public portrait, the risk of smoking appeared greatly mitigated. Shocked fans saw Ruth, gaunt and dying of throat cancer, when he returned to Yankee Stadium in 1947, a year before his death at age 53. Despite this clear sign of tobacco’s danger, ads continued to run. Ruth’s former teammate, Joe DiMaggio, appeared in Chesterfield ads a year later. DiMaggio—another public figure who shamelessly smoked cigarettes for millions to see—played a major role in American culture, too. (DiMaggio, also, later died of tobacco-related cancer.) With icons living large and dying painfully from these products, the advertising kept on.
In the mid-1950s, foreboding studies began to warn of the true effects of smoking tobacco. The scare surrounding these products led to tighter restrictions on advertising, such as the 1971 ban on television commercials for tobacco. Tobacco advertising executives needed an avenue to fall back on—a way to separate tobacco from the dark health effects spreading about their products. Advertisements that specifically spoke against the dangers tested poorly, as prospective buyers were simply reminded of the controversy. Instead, advertisers had to turn to focus on a subject that had nothing to do with the growing body of scientific evidence against them. In numbers, R.J. Reynolds and Phillip Morris bought up ad space in ballparks around the country: Houston’s Astrodome, the Phillies’ Veterans Stadium, the Mariner’s Kingdome, and the Angel’s Anaheim Stadium, to name a few. Fans’ typical experience involved seeing a giant Marlboro or Winston sign, conveniently placed above the scoreboard or exits. Without technically advertising on television, cigarette companies received significant ad time on television through these bill boards.
The cigarette scare also influenced baseball in another way—the second rise of smokeless tobacco (ST). ST, as cigarettes do, also poses serious health risks. The act of spitting the tobacco back out and the lack of smoke, however, made users feel safer. ST was so popular among some baseball players that they would keep a dip in when posing for baseball card pictures (signified by a bulge under the cheek or lower lip). Bill Tuttle, a ballplayer, almost always had a dip in on his cards. In 1993, he was diagnosed with oral cancer, and his disfiguring facial surgeries provided living proof of the effect of ST for players and fans to see. That same year, Minor League Baseball banned ST outright; Tuttle spent the next five years of his life campaigning against its use. The 90s also saw the fall of the Winston and Marlboro ads that had grown into the atmosphere of their respective stadiums for, in some cases, over two decades. The tide was turning for baseball to separate from tobacco.
Today, smoking and ST are waning in the public eye and in baseball. Smoking has been banned or heavily restricted in most major league ballparks. Ones with particularly loose restrictions include Marlins Park, the Mets’ Citi Field, and the Rangers’ Globe Life Park, though policies here will likely change in the next few years. The Tigers’ Comerica Park, for its part, has a cigar bar (aptly named the “Asylum Cigar Bar”), but strongly prohibits all other types of smoking, even inside the bar. On the other end of the tobacco spectrum, while Minor League Baseball has moved on from ST, the Majors lag behind. In 2014, Hall-of-Famer Tony Gwynn died of ST-related cancer at 54. This tragic event adds to the numerous chapters of baseball players plagued by tobacco, but may accelerate cause for a ban. Major League Baseball (MLB) has banned spitting and the visible sign of a tin of chew in uniforms when fans are present or during press interviews. One third of players, however, still chew tobacco, either straight, or by mixing it with gum, sunflower seeds, or other products to spit with less suspicion.
The collective bargaining of the players’ union currently blocks the MLB from a ban on ST, however some cities are making the decision themselves. San Francisco enacted a ban effective January 1st, 2016 that prohibits the use of ST anywhere in the city, including the Giants’ AT&T Park. Some players claim this ban will not prevent them from chewing; however, even if only a symbolic gesture, this measure carries great weight. Efforts such as these demonstrate a step toward the wellbeing of the millions of young fans, among others, who idolize ballplayers. On August 6th, 2015, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh called for a similar ban. Curt Schilling, a former Red Sox pitcher who used ST and survived the resultant mouth cancer, currently aids Walsh in the effort. With 15 percent of high-school males using ST, the nation waits to see who will bring what change to America’s game.
Golf – img4665
Tennis – img4698
Boxing – img4725
Ice Hockey – img4732
Bowling – img4742
Winter Sports – img4751
Water Sports – img4799
Bicycle – img4820
Sponsorships – img4832
Be a Sport – img4845
Olympics – img7725
The Olympic Games are touted as the premiere international sporting event for amateur athletes. Founded in 1894, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) wanted to keep corporate advertisements from associating with the Games in the name of maintaining the spirit of amateurism. Despite this, companies found ways to create financial links with the Olympics.
The tobacco advertisement in the Games first appeared in the 1920 Olympics.1 Tobacco companies placed advertisements in the official program and would often feature Olympic athletes in advertising campaigns. The advertising campaigns promoted the idea that their brand of cigarettes allowed athletes to lead healthy lives. Tobacco advertising in the Olympic Games reached its peak in the 1970’s and ‘80’s.
Cigarette companies paid for advertisements in popular magazines leading up and following Olympic Games. The advertisements would feature popular athletes such as swimmer Buster Crabbe, tennis player Lester Stoefen, hurdler Forrest Towns. Some of these ads were in the form of comic strips, and cigarette companies would often include quotes from the athletes about one of their Olympic races or copy explaining how the athletes used cigarettes to be successful.
In the 1980’s, the U.S. Tobacco Company was the official sponsor for the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid. Along with their sponsorship, attendees were given company branded memorabilia and giveaways, in the hopes of building a larger brand following. Tobacco companies maintained close relationships with the Games up until the Canadian National Olympic committee banned tobacco marketing in the 1988 Winter Olympics. The Games were now smoke-free, a movement stemming from the idea that products associated with the Games and promoted by Olympic athletes heavily influenced children.1
However, cigarette companies found ways to circumvent the ban. During the 1996 Games in Atlanta, tobacco marketing surrounded the Olympics despite being prohibited from sponsorship and access to the venue itself. Philip Morris ensured that it was one of the first to greet tourists entering Atlanta for the Centennial Olympic Games by funding the construction of eight glass-enclosed smoking rooms at the Atlanta airport.
Although the tobacco industry has since been generally absent from direct or indirect affiliation with the Olympic Games, there have still been instances in which tobacco advertising seeps in. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics, there was much controversy regarding Chinese cigarette companies and Olympics themed special-edition products.1 Some athletes have also taken on their own corporate sponsorship with tobacco companies. Policies regarding maintaining a tobacco-free Games throughout has been an area of scrutiny among independent research groups.
In preparation for its 2020 Summer Olympics, Japan has passed legislation hoping to transform its public smoking policy. In a plan released in January 2018, the Japanese government pledged to ban smoking indoors in the hopes to align themselves with the Tobacco Free Initiative from the World Health Organization (WHO) and IOC. Japan is among the last countries to ban smoking in places like hospitals and restaurants.
However, controversy has followed the Japan Olympic Committee, concerning sports ties with Japan Tobacco Incorporated, one of the largest tobacco conglomerates in the world. Many teams in Japan sport the Japan Tobacco JTI logo, and the company runs the volleyball world cup and owns the men’s volleyball team JT Thunders. The World Health organization recommends that tobacco advertising, especially that with exposure to youth, be banned. The WHO notes the heavy correlation between youth oriented tobacco advertising and tobacco usage.2 Japan Tobacco spends about ¥20 billion a year on its marketing and public relations, so there exists continual worry that the tobacco giant has influence over newspapers, government policies, and international sports competition sponsorships.3
1. Lee, Kelly, et al. “Smoke Rings: Towards a Comprehensive Tobacco Free Policy for the Olympic Games.” PLOS ONE, 7 Aug. 2015, journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0130091. Accessed 8 Aug. 2018.
2. WHO wants total ban on tobacco advertising.” World Health Organization, 30 May 2008, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr17/en/. Accessed 20 Aug. 2018.
3. Brasor, Philip. “Media sidesteps calling Japan Tobacco out on advertising conflicts.” Japan Times [Tokyo]. Japantimes.co.jp, www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/01/14/national/media-national/media-sidesteps-calling-japan-tobacco-advertising-conflicts/#.W3xDkNhKjOQ. Accessed 21 Aug. 2018.
Track and Field – img10170
Football – img10198
Basketball – img14255
Early Black Ads – img4876
As World War II came to a close, tobacco companies needed to expand to “new” markets in order to maintain prosperity. At this point, they began issuing mass marketing efforts targeting African Americans. Whereas there was minor advertising in weekly African Americans newspapers prior to the war, scholars cite a number of post-war changes as the sources for the surge in market expansion, mainly the growth in urban migration and the steadily increasing incomes of African Americans in the 1940s (1). One scholar explains that “between 1920 and 1943, the annual income of African Americans increased threefold, from $3 billion to more than $10 billion,” making the population an increasingly appealing demographic for the tobacco industry (2). Indeed, advertising and marketing magazines published many articles at the time describing the profitable “emerging Negro market.” One such article from 1944, for example, was titled, “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home” (3). A subsequent article printed a year later provided a table depicting “How Negroes Spent Their Incomes, 1920-1943 (4). The table revealed that the amount of money African Americans spent on tobacco products increased six-fold from 1920 to 1943.
Perhaps the catalyzing force in the tobacco industry’s foray into African American targeting came in the form of emerging advertising avenues that could be used to target African American populations without alienating whites; the 1940s saw the introduction of a number of glossy monthly magazines including Negro Digest (1942, renamed Black World), Ebony (1945) and Negro Achievements (1947, renamed Sepia). These mass-media publications were much more attractive to advertisers than the African American daily newspapers of the pre-war era, with glossy pages and a larger national distribution. The magazines, because they were intended for a purely African American audience, also provided advertisers with an opportunity to run ads featuring African American models away from the eyes of white consumers.
Internal tobacco industry documents reveal the massive development of the African American market in the 1940s and its impact on the tobacco industry. Public Relations firms specializing in targeting African American populations sent materials to the major tobacco companies hoping to secure business partnerships. One PR firm, in correspondence with RJ Reynolds in 1949, reminded the company that, “The negro market is a big one. I sincerely hope that I may have the opportunity [sic] of helping to further cultivate it for you” (5).
The major tobacco companies all made inroads on the “Negro market” in the ‘40s and ‘50s. Indeed, before the invent of such avenues, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the only ads featuring African Americans were racist advertisements using black caricatures, a striking contrast to the depictions seen in African American publications from the late 1940s to early 1950s, which featured African American models as professionals, students, and famous athletes. An advertising trade magazine, Printer’s Ink, described how, in 1947, the American Tobacco Company “entered the Negro market with a series of Famous Firsts about Negroes that were eye-openers to many in advertising” (6). The article describes the campaign content as telling “the history of some of the outstanding achievements of the Negroes,” most of which, according to the article, “were little known to students of the race.” Examples of these spotlights included Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, and “some of the modern Negro notables.” The Printer’s Ink article explains that the campaign intends to market cigarettes to African Americans by demonstrating “to the Negro that his race has accomplished many things.”
Tobacco advertising methods targeting African Americans shifted in the late 1950s, 60s, and 70s with the rise of the Civil Rights movement, and just as there was economic and market pressure in the 1940s to increase marketing efforts to African Americans, the 1970s and 1980s sparked resurgence in these efforts. An R.J. Reynolds document from 1969, for example, marks an increase in “Negro purchasing power” from 3 billion in 1940 to 32 billion in 1970. At this point, in order to refocus attention on the African American population and strengthen their ties to the community, tobacco companies worked on promotional campaigns, which funded key organizations such as the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the United Negro College Fund. An internal Brown & Williamson document declares that the “relatively small and often tight knit community can work to B&W’s marketing advantage if exploited properly. Peer pressure plays a more important role in many phases of life in the minority community. Therefore, dominance of the market place and the community environment is necessary to successfully increase sales there” (7).
As the industry began sponsoring African American institutions and charities, they also shifted their print advertising techniques to reflect the changing political climate. Increasingly, models wearing “naturals” or Afros began popping up in ads for Newport, L&M, Kent, Kool, and many more. A Kent ad from 1971 shows a man and a woman, both wearing Afros, talking on the phone together and smoking cigarettes, the slogan “Rap’n Kent” underneath.
One scholar describes advertisements from the early 1960s as portraying a “racially desegregated society in which the discerning tastes and values of black consumers were highlighted” (3). But she notes a shift with the emergence of Black Power, in which ads were able to latch onto the Black Nationalism movement while completely avoiding the political ideology therein. Instead, the ads worked at “selling soul,” and “invoked themes of black pride, solidarity, and “soul style.” Indeed, a Viceroy ad campaign from 1970 demonstrates a carefully crafted combination of both approaches. One ad from the campaign shows a stylish couple – the man in a suit and the woman in a yellow mod mini-dress – shopping at an outdoor art boutique while smoking. The caption reads, “Their collection? It’s fun to build on. Their apartment looks like a gallery. With everything from Neo-Afro realism to their child’s finger painting. Their cigarettes? Viceroy. They won’t settle for anything less. It’s a matter of taste.” This ad exemplifies the industry’s blatant attempts at exploiting Black Nationalism. An internal Brown & Williamson document from 1969 reveals that tobacco companies were indeed using this theme to market cigarettes: “The desire for blackness, or soul, as part of solving their identity crisis is something that must be understood. A sense of identity is being accentuated because today, as never before, Negroes are taking pride in themselves” (8). Viceroy, like many of the other leading brands, also capitalized on this “soul” movement. Another ad from the same series features four African Americans at a nightclub enjoying drinks and cigarettes while listening to a musician. White people sit in the background enjoying the same music. The caption for this ad reads, “Their sounds? They like ‘em heavy. And with soul. The music not only has to say something. It has to move.”
At this time, menthols also emerged as a cigarette targeting African-Americans. Whereas in the past, menthol cigarettes had been advertised to the general population as an occasional cigarette to smoke when sick or suffering from smoker’s cough, 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 the introduction of 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, as well as for Viceroy, which targeted African American stations (8). Today, over 70% of African-American smokers smoke menthols as opposed to only 35% of white smokers (9).
1. Walker, Susannah. “Black Dollar Power:” Susannah Walker. (University of Chicago Press, Jul 15, 2009 )
2. Walker, Susannah. “Style & Status: Selling Beauty to African American Women, 1920-1975”
3. Sullivan, David J. “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home!” Printer’s Ink; 208:3. 21 July 1944:90.
4 Sullivan, David J. “How Negroes Spent Their Incomes, 1920-1943.” Sales Management. 15 June 1945.
5. “Thank You Very Much For Your Letter of the 23rd.” RJ Reynolds. 31 March 1949. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bwz79d00
6. “—No Title—.” American Tobacco. 26 Nov 1948. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vaj41a00
7. “Discussion Paper: Total Minority Marketing Plan,” 7 Sept 1984. Http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dmf41f00
8. “A Study of Ethnic Markets.” R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. Sept 1969. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/paq76b00
9. Gardiner, Phillip S. “The African Americanization of menthol cigarette use in the United States.” Nicotine & Tobacco Research Vol.6 Supp. 1. Feb 2004.
Newport Pleasures – img4919
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
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
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
Targeting Black Women – img4983
In targeting black women, tobacco companies often portray an image of a strong, independent black woman. Increasingly, in the 1960s and 1970s, models wearing “naturals” or Afros began popping up in ads for Newport, L&M, Kent, Kool, and many more. A Kent ad from 1968 features a glamorous black woman wearing an Afro and luxurious jewelry next to the slogan, “Kent smokes… and that’s where it’s at.” Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a sexy black woman smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. A Camel ad from 2001 portrays a beautiful black woman singing in a nightclub in the “diva” tradition of Whitney Houston and Beyoncé Knowles. A Virginia Slims campaign from roughly the same time used the slogan “Find Your Voice” coupled with images of strong African women. For example, an ad from the campaign in 2000 features a woman in traditional clothing, balancing bolts of fabric on her head. The text beside her, half in Swahili, reads,”Kila mtu ana uzuri wake – No single institution owns the copyright for BEAUTY.” In this way, Virginia Slims portrays an image of accepting diverse standards of beauty.
African American Athletes – img5011
As civil rights efforts took hold in the U.S., blacks gained a foothold in national sports leagues, most notably Jackie Robinson entered the MLB in the late 1940s. At the same time, as noted in our collection's “Targeting African Americans” theme, tobacco companies began targeting black markets primarily through print advertisements in African American publications. Many of these ads used testimonials from famous black athletes to hone in on the black demographic. Indeed, Chesterfield used Jackie Robinson himself in a 1950 ad. Athletes were particularly desirable endorsers for cigarettes because they implied healthfulness, a concern for cigarette companies as smoking became widely associated with lung cancer in the 1950s.
Richard Pollay and colleagues compared the prevalence of endorsements from athletes in Ebony (a magazine with primarily black readership) to that in Life (a magazine with primarily white readership) from 1950-1965. Pollay noted that during this time frame, Ebony contained 5 times more endorsements from athletes than Life (1). He also noted that cigarette advertisements in Ebony during these years used exclusively black models, while the ads in Life used exclusively white models, which Pollay cites as “evidence of fully segmented and segregated advertising programs.”
1. Pollay, Richard W., Jug S. Lee and David Carter-Whitney. “Separate, but Not Equal: Racial Segmentation in Cigarette Advertising.” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 21, No. 1. March 1992: 45-57.
Racist Ads – img5043
As World War II came to a close, tobacco companies needed to expand to “new” markets in order to maintain prosperity. At this point, they began issuing mass marketing efforts targeting African Americans as the demographic became urban-centric and earned more wages. Before this mass market expansion in the 1940s and 50s, however, tobacco companies sang a very different tune. Indeed, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the only ads featuring African Americans were racist advertisements that used black caricatures to advertise to white consumers.
An historian of African American history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Professor Robert E. Weems, Jr., explains that “when African Americans were perceived to be a group with very limited spending power, many companies employed the derogatory term ‘nigger’ in naming products” (1). Indeed, our collection includes ads for “Nigger Hair Tobacco,” among other racist advertisements.
When advertisers began to realize that the African American market was untapped and potentially lucrative, countless articles were printed offering businessmen and admen advice on how to attract African American consumers. One article from 1943, written by the “Negro market expert,” David J. Sullivan, actually alerted advertisers of racist techniques which should be avoided in order to prevent pushing away African American consumers. The essay, entitled “Don’t Do This—If You Want to Sell Your Products to Negroes!,” urged advertisements to avoid racist caricatures, such as “buxom, broad-faced, grinning mammies and Aunt Jemimas” or “the ‘Uncle Mose’ type … characterized by kinky hair and as a stooped, tall, lean and grayed sharecropper, always in rags.” (2)
1. Weems, Jr., Robert E. “African American Consumers since World War II.” Kusmer, Kenneth L. and Koe W. Trotter, eds. “African American Urban History Since World War II.” Chicago:The Univeristy of Chicago Press. 2009:359-375.
2. Sullivan, David J. “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home!” Printer’s Ink; 208:3. 21 July 1944:90.
Recent Black Ads – img5055
While print advertising for tobacco products is now seen in few mainstream magazines in recent years, it is still very prevalent in Black magazines. Particularly, the Johnson Publishing Company, Inc., publishers of Ebony and Jet, has continued to be been a consistent partner with tobacco advertising, particularly for Lorillard’s Newport. An internal document prepared by Advertising Experti for Philip Morris in 1996 outlines the major Black magazines ideal for tobacco advertisements (1):
Ebony: “EBONY Magazine is a Black-oriented lifestyle general interest publication, dealing with contemporary topics.”
Essence: “ESSENCE is a magazine editorially geared to the upwardly mobile Black woman, described as being professional, well-educated, and affluent.”
Black Elegance: “BLACK ELEGANCE (BE) is a national lifestyle magazine for the contemporary, upscale Black woman 25-44 years of age. Its readership is depicted as achievers who seek quality in their careers and lifestyles. Jet: “As a newsweekly, JET provides the latest domestic and international information concerning newsmakers and news events.”
Upscale: “This magazine emerged as a publishing entity in August 1989. Its editorial fare combines celebrity profiles with articles that explores issues effecting the empowerment of African Americans.
Black Enterprise: ”BLACK ENTERPRISE Magazine is the premier business news source for African Americans.
Ebony Man: “It was created […] to serve the lifestyle needs of upwardly mobile Black men”
Class: “CLASS Magazine began publication in September 1979, servicing the Caribbean-American population segment, a Black consumer group not specifically addressed by other Black-oriented national magazines.”
Vibe: “VIBE magazine speaks to a generation of young men and women whose lifestyles resists categorization along conventional lines of race, class or gender. From an inclusive, multicultural prospective. VIBE covers a myriad of subjects judged pertinent to the lifestyle of young adults.”
Emerge: “EMERGE covers issues, ideas and events from a Black perspective.”
1. Advertising Experti. “Benson & Hedges African American Magazine Synopsis.” Philip Morris. 16 Jan 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oug59h00:
Virginia Slims Black – img8155
In targeting black women, tobacco companies often portray an image of a strong, independent black woman. Increasingly, in the 1960s and 1970s, models wearing “naturals” or Afros began popping up in ads for Newport, L&M, Kent, Kool, and many more. A Kent ad from 1968 features a glamorous black woman wearing an Afro and luxurious jewelry next to the slogan, “Kent smokes… and that’s where it’s at.” Recent Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a sexy black woman smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. A Camel ad from 2001 portrays a beautiful black woman singing in a nightclub in the “diva” tradition of Whitney Houston and Beyoncé Knowles. A Virginia Slims campaign from roughly the same time used the slogan “Find Your Voice” coupled with images of strong African women. For example, an ad from the campaign in 2000 features a woman in traditional clothing, balancing bolts of fabric on her head. The text beside her, half in Swahili, reads,”Kila mtu ana uzuri wake – No single institution owns the copyright for BEAUTY.” In this way, Virginia Slims portrays an image of accepting diverse standards of beauty.
Other Brands – img8156
Salem Smokes Easy – img8157
Winston Blaxsploitation – img8158
As World War II came to a close, tobacco companies needed to expand to “new” markets in order to maintain prosperity. At this point, they began issuing mass marketing efforts targeting African Americans. Whereas there was minor advertising in weekly African Americans newspapers prior to the war, scholars cite a number of post-war changes as the sources for the surge in market expansion, mainly the growth in urban migration and the steadily increasing incomes of African Americans in the 1940s (1). One scholar explains that “between 1920 and 1943, the annual income of African Americans increased threefold, from $3 billion to more than $10 billion,” making the population an increasingly appealing demographic for the tobacco industry (2). Indeed, advertising and marketing magazines published many articles at the time describing the profitable “emerging Negro market.” One such article from 1944, for example, was titled, “The American Negro—An ‘Export’ Market at Home” (3). A subsequent article printed a year later provided a table depicting “How Negroes Spent Their Incomes, 1920-1943 (4). The table revealed that the amount of money African Americans spent on tobacco products increased six-fold from 1920 to 1943.
Perhaps the catalyzing force in the tobacco industry’s foray into African American targeting came in the form of emerging advertising avenues that could be used to target African American populations without alienating whites; the 1940s saw the introduction of a number of glossy monthly magazines including Negro Digest (1942, renamed Black World), Ebony (1945) and Negro Achievements (1947, renamed Sepia). These mass-media publications were much more attractive to advertisers than the African American daily newspapers of the pre-war era, with glossy pages and a larger national distribution. The magazines, because they were intended for a purely African American audience, also provided advertisers with an opportunity to run ads featuring African American models away from the eyes of white consumers.
Black Cigar Ads – img8159
Black Propaganda – img9229
Mixed Races – img9466
Although tobacco companies had been marketing their products to specific ethnic groups for decades, it wasn’t until late in the 20th century that they began “integrationist” advertising. Previously, tobacco ads placed in African American magazines featured strictly African American models, and those in mainstream magazines featured primarily white models. However, beginning in the 1980s and gaining ground in the early 2000s, tobacco companies began featuring groups of mixed ethnicities in both minority and mainstream (“general audience”) publications.
In 1979, in an internal document researching market strategies for More cigarettes, R.J. Reynolds generalized about “the new generation of blacks,” claiming that more than previous generations, “they are more comfortable with the notion of co-existing and working side-by-side with Whites” (1). Furthermore, the document reveals RJR’s primary marketing concern at the time: “A balance must be arrived at,” the document says, “between providing depicted situations and people reflective of Black self-pride and ethnocentrism – and at the same time, confirming the extent to which Blacks have become integrated into the ‘Establishment.’”
Lorillard came to the same conclusion in 2001 for their Newport brand, which has since used models of different ethnicities in single ads. The 2001 Lorillard document makes the following conclusion: “Newport should seek to incorporate more multi-ethnic visuals in the creative mix. Smokers reacted positively to visuals that included people from mixed ethnic groups. They indicated that they have diverse circles of friends and mixed ethnicity situations are their reality. The idea of mixed ethnicity couples however, was not as readily accepted. The multi-ethnic scenarios should include settings where multi-ethnic groups would naturally come together, such as parties or group events” (2). Thus, many of the couples in recent Newport ads are of the same ethnicity, but the larger “friend” groups are mixed.
Brown & Williamson similarly moved away from segregated advertising in the 1980s for its KOOL brand, but instead of using mixed race groups in ads, it utilized jazz music and music in general as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (3). In one internal document, B&W’s advertising agency explains, “The print media, due to segmentation, provide the option of 'segregated' brand communication (for example, see Salem campaigns). However, this approach was avoided since it encouraged a split personality, or dual image, for the brand. It was concluded that a split personality was not viable in an image-sensitive category. Further, we believe that Black smokers increasingly will 'see through' this approach and possibly resent what essentially amounts to a 'separate but equal' dual campaign strategy” (3). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach: “That’s not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics, that’s advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music? […] Black smokers are very important to KOOL, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (4).
“General Background – Black Consumer Market Demographic Trend & Marketing Implications.” RJR. 31 Dec 1979. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sup76b00
2. “Jacksonville and Pittsburgh one-on-one research findings/recommendations.” Lorillard. April 2001. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sqa42i00
3. Cunningham & Walsh Advertising Agency. “Kool: The Revitalization of an Image.” B&W. 1 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/leb91d00
4. Lewis, LR. “Speech for National Sales Meeting.” B&W. Oct 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/crj40f00
Kool is Hot – img10978
Black Musicians – img12233
Although tobacco companies repeatedly exploit music in brand advertising and promotion to appeal to youth, perhaps the KOOL brand has been most relentless in its adoption of music, and jazz in particular, in its advertising and promotional techniques. In 1975, KOOL began sponsoring jazz festivals to target African American consumers. By 1980, KOOL industry documents described KOOL Jazz Festivals as “the premier events in Black soul music,” and cites the attending audience as “90% Black” (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofn14f00). The series grew to 22 cities when in 1986 B&W decided to downsize to 3 cities and focus on other musical avenues like “KOOL Country Shindig” due to “growing concern that the more successful the [Jazz] Festivals became, the blacker the [Kool brand] image would become” (1).
Although B&W may have been primarily “using the events to offset Black media availability deficiencies” (1), the company also realized that jazz music and music in general could appeal to other demographics as well, as a sort of added bonus. Internal documents from 1981 cited music as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (2). In describing a new print ad technique depicting solo musicians of varying ethnicities, B&W’s advertising agency explains, “The print media, due to segmentation, provide the option of 'segregated' brand communication (for example, see Salem campaigns). However, this approach was avoided since it encouraged a split personality, or dual image, for the brand […] Further, we believe that Black smokers increasingly will 'see through' this approach and possibly resent what essentially amounts to a 'separate but equal' dual campaign strategy” (2). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach: “That’s not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics, that’s advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music? […] Black smokers are very important to KOOL, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (3).
Still, KOOL continues its targeting of young black consumers through the exploitation of popular music. B&W’s “B KOOL” campaign of 1998 included a series of “House of Menthol” promotions, reminiscent of the famous “House of Blues.” The House of Menthol series included KOOL MIXX, nightclub events featuring Disc Jockey (DJ) and Emcee (MC) freestyle rap competitions. In advertising KOOL Milds, B&W positioned the brand as “Groovin’: High Notes, Tasty Beats, and a Smooth Vibe. You’re right, that sounds just like the flavor of KOOL Milds” (4).
By 2004, the KOOL MIXX promotion included limited edition cigarette pack art, meant to “Celebrate the Soundtrack to the Streets.” One advertisement for the special limited edition packs claimed that “DJs are the Masters of Hip Hop like KOOL is the Master of Menthol. KOOL MIXX Special Edition Packs are our mark of respect for these Hip Hop Players.” This national release of limited edition KOOL MIXX packs caught the attention of regulators, who filed lawsuits against B&W asserting that the KOOL MIXX campaign was in violation of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) because it explicitly targeted black youth. The lawsuit was picked up by R.J. Reynolds when they acquired B&W, and RJR agreed to a settlement which limited (but did not forbid) future KOOL MIXX promotions and required B&W to shell out $1.46 million toward youth smoking prevention and cessation in minority communities previously targeted by the campaign (5). Thereafter, B&W maintained the KOOL MIXX promotion in its limited form and skirted the intent of the regulation by formulating an entirely new music promotion with similar appeal. In 2004, B&W released the KOOL Nu Jazz Festival which toured in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit, and was “meant to communicate the evolution of music” (5). An internal document explains that the Festival was “not just about jazz – it’s about R&B, Neo-Soul, Funk, Jazz, and how each genre of music led to the next” (6). The series included 27 concert events and 20 after parties. KOOL Nu Jazz artists included contemporary hip-hop, R&B, and soul artists including Erykah Badu, The Roots, and Big Boi of Outkast. This expanded in 2005 and 2006 to be “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour,” including John Legend, Common, De La Soul, Busta Rhymes and Blackalicious (7,8).
1. Broecker, BL. “Umbrella Music Strategy.” B&W. 16 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tir40f00
2. Cunningham & Walsh Advertising Agency. “Kool: The Revitalization of an Image.” B&W. 1 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/leb91d00
3. Lewis, LR. “Speech for National Sales Meeting.” B&W. Oct 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/crj40f00
4. “KOOL. TPUSA UPDATE.” RJ Reynolds. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00
5. “Company News; Reynolds Settles Suits in 3 States Over Cigarette Ads.” The New York Times. 7 Oct. 2004. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D9173BF934A35753C1A9629C8B63
6. RJR. “The Kool Nu Jazz Festival Adult Smoker Engagement Training Program.” RJR. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wdd87h00
7. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2005” RJ Reynolds. 16 June 2005. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wwr27a00
8. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2006” RJ Reynolds. 2006. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00
Black Couples – img18559
Canadian – img6796
Latin American Classic – img6797
Latin American Recent – img6798
British Recent – img6800
In 1949, on the heels of Lucky Strike’s 1931 ad campaign, “Do You Inhale?” and Philip Morris’ 1942 campaign, “Inhale? Sure, all smokers do,” P. Lorillard released a campaign for Embassy urging smokers to “Inhale [Embassy] to your heart’s content!” Lorillard claimed that Embassy’s extra length provides “extra protection.” The faulty concept was that because the cigarette was longer, it was able to better filter out toxins, since it took more time for the smoke to reach the smoker’s throat due to the long length through which it had to travel. In 1950, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigators had decided that king-size cigarettes, like Embassy, contained “more tobacco and therefore more harmful substances” than are found in an ordinary cigarette.
Lorillard’s particular choice of cliché, “to your heart’s content,” was misleading at best . The phrase was meant to impart a sense of happiness and healthfulness. Of course, inhaling would not have made anyone’s heart content; Instead, smoking has been recognized as a major cause of coronary artery disease, responsible for an estimated 20% of deaths from heart disease in the United States. Most ironically in the context of this advertisement campaign, a smokers’ risk of developing heart disease is thought to greatly increase as his or her cigarette intake increases.
Asian Classics – img6801
Russian – img6802
European – img6803
British Classics – img6982
French – img18456
Arabic – img23858
Chinese Modern – img40943
Politics & Law – img5234
Landmarks – img5348
Religious Symbols – img5381
Domestic Life – img5424
Luxury Cigarettes – img5498
Snobbish Cigarettes – img5517
Gay – img5541
Family Pets – img8895
Motorcycles & Racing – img9083
Billiards – img9084
Gambling – img11565
Smoking Guns – img12145
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.
