SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Cigarette

Cigarette

Super Light – img3131

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 – img3180

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 – img3210

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.

Never a Rough Puff – img3285

by

Tobacco companies have been advertising their particular brands as “mild” since the first half of the 20th century. From the start, smokers were aware that smoking irritated the throat, causing discomfort or “smoker’s hack.” Though serious health effects of smoking, like lung cancer, emphysema, and heart attack, were not yet identified in the first half of the 20th century, the seemingly benign side effects such as sore throat and cough were certainly bothersome to smokers.

To counteract the sentiment that certain cigarettes were “harsh” and thereby worse for your health, cigarette companies began touting “mildness,” a ploy that has lasted well into the 21st century. By reassuring smokers that a particular brand was “mild,” tobacco companies succeeded in hooking consumers and preventing them from quitting.

After appealing to smokers’ desires for throat ease for years, the American Tobacco Company issued the penultimate mild campaign in 1950: “There’s never a rough puff in a Lucky.” The campaign included celebrity testimonials – an advertising technique Lucky Strike perfected – but also urged consumers to “let your own taste and throat be the judge.” Like many of Lucky’s advertisements at the time, this campaign claimed that Lucky Strikes were “free and easy on the draw,” clearly a synonym for mild.

Light – img8026

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

Ultra Light – img21410

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 – img3506

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 – img3542

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.

Springtime – img3562

by

In the 1960s and ’70s, Salem advertised its cigarettes as “Springtime Fresh.” Not only did this comparison to springtime provide Salem with the perfect excuse to apply green landscapes to its advertisements (reflecting minty green menthol flavor), but, more importantly, it also served as a means of subliminally aligning Salem cigarettes with vitality.

Many of the ads pair blooming flowers and lush fields with smiling women or fun-loving couples. Both the bursting greenery and the vivacious models are tied to Salem cigarettes in the ads, instilling the brand with an apparently healthful aura by association. The same affiliation with springtime was used in 1956 by Camel, in an ad depicting a young woman with rosy cheeks ready to attend her high school prom.

Across the board, freshness was used in tobacco advertisements as a code-word for healthfulness. Kool harnessed an entirely different season in its “Snow Fresh” ads of 1958 and 1959 for a surprisingly similar effect as Salem’s “Springtime Fresh” ads of later years. But even these snowy ads capitalized on the vitality intoned by greenery, including imagery of new saplings emerging from the snow or golden autumn leaves whispering behind a young couple in love.

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.).

Pure & Clean – img3574

by

Tobacco companies have claimed that their cigarettes are “pure” or “clean” for decades. In the 1930s, the question of purity was more about sanitation during production and manufacture, as was the case for Chesterfields, or about additives in tobacco, as was the case for Old Golds. Later, after the “health scare,” purity referred to how “clean” a cigarette’s smoke could become after filtration.

In the early 1930s, Chesterfield began advertising its cigarettes as “PURE,” touting the “cleanest ‘bill of health’ any cigarette could rate.” Ad copy compared Chesterfield cigarettes to “pure food, pure milk, pure water,” thereby aligning cigarettes with these everyday necessities for living and for maintaining health. One of these ads claims that Chesterfield cigarettes are “scientifically purer” in every way. It claimed that the paper wrapped around Chesterfield tobaccos is “so pure it burns without any taste or odor,” and cites a “highly scientific process” which allows Chesterfield to reach “a state of purity unmatched” by other cigarette brands. Another ad hones in on the paper-making process, and includes an illustration and an explanation of how Chesterfield’s paper is made: “the linen pulp of the flax plant is washed over and over again in water as pure as a mountain stream.” In addition, Chesterfield claims that “every ingredient” in its cigarettes and “every method” used in their manufacture is checked by scientists; “Even the factory air is washed, and changed every 4 ½ minutes. More purity!” a number of ads exclaim.

Also in the early 1930s, Old Gold used the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” as a method for claiming less throat irritation. It is interesting to note that recently, the health focus has again shifted toward additive-free cigarettes, as is the case with Natural American Spirit.

Later, after the introduction of the “health scare” and the influx of filter cigarettes on the market, many tobacco brands began describing the smoke inhaled through their filters as “pure” or “clean.” In 1959, for example, King Sano boasted “America’s purest tobacco taste.” (King Sano’s name alone harkens back to the Chesterfield ads of the 1930s and their preoccupation with sanitation.) Other filter brands also hopped on the pure and clean bandwagon. Fleetwood cigarettes advertised “a cleaner, finer smoke.” One Fleetwood ad from 1943 depicts a kitten licking its paw above the caption, “Every puff of Fleetwood smoke Cleans Itself!” In the 1960s, Parliament ads reached out to women with the slogan, “if you like things neat and clean, you’ll like Parliament,” referring to the smoke filtered through Parliament’s recessed, hi/fi filter.

These claims of purity present pure tobacco as safe, and distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form is deadly.

No Additives – img3615

by

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

For decades, tobacco companies have been advertising particular cigarette brands as additive-free in an effort to present the brands as less injurious to health. In the early 1930s, the slogan “Pure tobacco… no artificial flavors” graced the advertisements for Old Gold cigarettes. Ad copy claimed that because Old Golds lacked artificial flavors, they would not cause throat irritation. At the time, the largest health concern for consumers concerning cigarettes was “smoker’s cough” and throat irritation. Now, with more serious health implications such as greater risk of lung cancer, emphysema and heart attack associated with smoking, it is interesting to note that this additive-free advertising technique is still be used in recent decades.

In 1997, Winston adopted the slogan “No Additives – No Bull,” and claimed that laboratory tests revealed that the top ten non-menthol U.S. brands of cigarettes contain 6% additives, and only 94% tobacco, whereas Winstons are 100% tobacco. This ad technique is surprisingly reminiscent of those used during the infamous “tar derby,” in which cigarette brands competed with one another for the lowest tar and nicotine levels. However, the benefits behind 100% tobacco as opposed to 94% are unclear in this case. Consumers are meant to infer that they somehow benefit from the lack of additives, though a warning box clarifies that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” In Winston’s case, smoking 100% tobacco is meant to make the smoker feel more “hardcore” or serious – a true smoker – “No Bull.” Other Winston ads from the late ’90s render Winstons as a “Real Cigarette,” presumably as opposed to a sissy cigarette, and some use the simple slogan, “Straight up” a slang term connoting both honest, straight-talk and something that isn’t watered down (as in an alcoholic beverage with no ice). Later Winston ads from 2003 take a similar approach, advising young people to “Leave the Bull Behind” and opt for a “naturally smooth” Winston.

Though Winston advertised its additive-free cigarette to a straight talking, no-nonsense smoker, Natural American Spirit targets a more health-conscious audience. Imagery on the cigarette pack features a figure wearing a headdress and smoking a traditional peace pipe, harkening back to Native American smoking traditions in an effort to position Natural American Spirit cigarettes as spiritually healing and therapeutic. Though its ads also include the same warning that “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette,” the ads themselves work to counteract this small message. One recent ad from 2007 claims in a large, powerful font that “NATURAL TASTES BETTER,” and depicts a warm, sun-drenched tobacco field and a tobacco warehouse emblazoned with presumably Native American symbols. Ads from 2006 position Natural American Spirit drive home the clear health message: “The fact is the tobacco in most cigarettes contains additives drawn from a list of 464 chemicals commonly used in tobacco products. In addition, other tobacco companies use processed stems, reconstituted sheet tobacco and add other inexpensive, lower grade compounds. We add none of these.” Despite the small box warning consumers otherwise, consumers are meant to infer that Natural American Spirits are preferable and healthier than other cigarettes because they exclude these 464 chemicals and cheap compounds.

These claims to pure tobacco and additive-free cigarettes distract consumers from what should be the real concern: tobacco in its purest form remains deadly.

Natural – img9669

by

This theme highlights cigarette ads, which deceptively commandeer the term “natural” in order to normalize smoking and to present their product as superior and even healthier than other brands. The intended message of the term has changed over the decades while the term has become a dominant marketing theme in the new millennium.

In the 1970s, Salem used the term “natural” in a series of ads promoting natural menthol flavor. It was a smart tactic to begin the decade, which followed on the heels of the birth of the flower child. Indeed, by the early 1970s, hippie culture had arguably been integrated into the mainstream culture, and a heavy emphasis was placed on the earth and its environment, with the first ever Earth Day held in 1970.
The intended message of Salem's natural campaign was that because Salem used natural menthol rather than artificial menthol like most brands, their cigarettes were superior. Ads for the campaign were strongly green in color, reflecting the longstanding tradition of green used in menthol advertising. However, the green was largely portrayed through woodsy landscapes, featuring rugged outdoorsmen or adventurous, nature-loving couples. Fishermen, rock climbers, and horseback riders feature prominently in these ads in order to target a wide variety of audiences, ranging from older “macho” men to younger, daring, men and women. The majority of these ads display the slogan, “It's only natural” — a slogan which is rife with multiple meanings and implications. On the surface, the slogan is simply alerting consumers that the menthol is solely natural, not a bit artificial. However, it is initially unclear to the consumer that the antecedent to “natural” is menthol; instead, “natural” appears to refer to the cigarette or perhaps to the act of smoking. This means the slogan could also be interpreted as indicating that Salem is an all-natural cigarette, or, of more concern, that smoking is a perfectly natural pastime. Both latter options are completely false and deceptive, yet Salem was able to make these claims by alluding to them subtly.

Decades later, this marketing technique was still appealing to tobacco companies; In 1999, Kool followed Salem's lead with Kool Naturals, claiming that the cigarettes were “made with all natural menthol” and, in small print, that “no artificial flavors [are] added to the tobaccos.” The ad is simple, with a background resembling recycled paper or a brown grocery bag in order to present the cigarette as somehow more in line with environmentalist views. The take-home message of the ad is an all-natural cigarette, with the word NATURAL taking up the majority of the visual space.

But an all-natural cigarette is not always simply implied. It has also been advertised explicitly by brands such as Nat Sherman Naturals and, most notably, Natural American Spirit. Needless to say, whether or not cigarettes have chemicals added during production, they will produce carcinogens when smoked. Nat Sherman has claimed to produce cigars and cigarettes made from “100% pure and natural tobacco” since 1930. Nat Sherman cigarettes were often considered stronger, and more similar to a cigar, and their claim to “100% natural tobacco” was meant to bolster this claim to strength. However, by 1982, when Natural American Spirit was founded, “all-natural” had certainly taken on a different meaning.

Natural American Spirit goes the extra mile to target the recent wave of eco-friendly, progressive, environmentalists, who as a general rule, happen to be young and alternative – the classic target audience for cigarette manufacturers. They manage to hit all of the happening buzz words in their quest to promote themselves as virtuous and well-intentioned, masking the fact that they sell a harmful product, whether or not they do so in a “sustainable” way. Ad copy demonstrates the prolific use of buzz words: “We grow our premium natural tobacco in a responsible, sustainable way through our earth-friendly and organic growing programs. We also strive to reduce our footprint on the earth by using recycled materials and renewable energy sources like wind power. Protecting the earth is as important to us as it is to you.”

An Internal tobacco industry document shows that the Natural American spirit brand was marketed as a “healthier alternative” to traditional cigarettes. The document states Natural American Spirit is a choice for those who want to smoke “the purest cigarettes” available(1). The early Natural American Spirit packs contained the following message, “Guaranteed pure ingredients: 100% additive-free Virginia tobaccos and nothing else.” However, after 2000, the Federal Trade Commission mandated that all advertisements for the product contain the following message “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette” in addition to the standard Surgeon General’s message (2). The hope was that this warning would alert consumers that natural tobacco does not mean safer tobacco. The question is, did this perceived health benefit change after the FTC warning label mandate in 2000? If popular culture is any clue, the answer is no; As recently as 2008, the female protagonist, April (Isla Fisher), in the romantic comedy “Definitely, Maybe” discusses the health benefits she feels she receives when smoking Natural American Spirit cigarettes over Marlboros, the choice of the male protagonist, Will (Ryan Reynolds). When Will asks incredulously why she is willing to pay so much for a pack of cigarettes, April responds that “They don't put as many chemicals in them.” He pushes, “So those are healthy cigarettes,” and she says, “Something like that.” She also tells him, as he holds a pack of Marlboros tightly, “They put saltpeter in your cigarettes, which make them burn faster, which make you smoke more.” Clearly, perceived health benefits of natural cigarettes are still rampant in mainstream popular culture, a dangerous misconception.

1. Santa Fe Natural American Tobacco Company. Answers to your questions oabout American Spirit Cigarettes. Available at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/the56a00/pdf?search=%22natural%20american%20spirits%22

2. Pitofsky, Robert et al. “In the Matter of Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc,, a corporation. Docket No. C-3952. Decision and Order.” United States of America Before Federal Trade Commission. 12 June 2000. http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/06/santafe.do.htm

It's Toasted – img13043

by

The American Tobacco Company began using the slogan “It’s Toasted” for Lucky Strike cigarettes in 1917. “It’s toasted” referred to the process of heat curing tobacco leaf as opposed to simply sun drying. Purported to “remove harmful corrosive acids (pungent irritants)” and to “sterilize” tobacco, this process of curing tobacco did not in fact differ widely from methods of other manufacturers.

The slogan, still included in small text on Lucky Strike cartons today, has been included in a variety of Lucky Strike campaigns over the decades, ranging from “Cream of the Crop” (1928-1934) to “Fat Shadow” (1929-1930) to throat referrals (1927-1937). The meaning of the message was elastic — it was at some times used to indicate better taste, while at others to indicate less throat irritation.

First used in 1917 on an ad entitled, “Do you like good toast?” the slogan was meant to intone delicious flavor: “Toasting Burley holds the flavor, and helps it… Remember– it’s toasted! Like hot buttered toast.” Perhaps this comparison to toasting and coked food allowed Lucky Strike to position itself as a sterilized cigarette, free of disease such as tuberculosis.

The following year, Lucky Strike continued with the comparison to delicious cuisine, capitalizing on the American public’s preoccupation with the WWI shortage on food; indeed, in 1918, Lucky introduced its “food conservation series” of ads, which provided consumers with advice such as “More Vegetables Less Meat,” “Eat More Corn,” and “Cheese OK’d by Food Administration.” These guidelines followed FDA recommendations on the wartime food shortage in order to legitimize the purchase of Lucky Strike cigarettes.

While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan to throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough.” But by 1955 they were back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” In 1970, Lucky Strike was again considering ad copy which would compare its toasted cigarettes to delicious toast. An internal industry document reveals a mock-up ad featuring two boxes of Lucky Strike popping out of a toaster under the header “Bon Appetit: It’s Toasted to Taste Better” (2).

Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which has allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial. The slogan is included on the side of the current packing of the Lucky Strike carton, which reads, “manufacture includes the Lucky Strike process, It's Toasted.”

1. Heimann, Robert K. “Bon Appetit.” American Tobacco. 11 Nov 1970. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dmv60a00

Nature in the Raw – img13052

by

This cigarette campaign is one of the few which presents the term “natural” as a negative; in recent decades, tobacco companies, such as Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, have steered toward campaigns hawking their brands as additive-free and all-natural. In the 1930s, however, Lucky Strike took a different approach, claiming that the natural state of cigarettes was the dangerous state, while the toasting process would rid the tobacco of “black, bitingly harsh irritant chemicals” (see Lucky Strike’s “Sheep Dip” campaign). Though the tactic seems different, the goal was the same: to convince consumers that a particular brand of cigarettes is healthier and safer.

This advertising campaign, claiming that “nature in the raw is seldom mild,” was an attempt to sell consumers on the Lucky Strike “toasting” process. Most of the advertisements from this campaign featured an ad artist’s rendition of a savage act of history, and many of the illustrations condemned Native Americans, presenting them as primitive.

The events depicted in the ads range from “The Fort Dearborn Massacre,” illustrated by N.C. Wyeth, to “The Raid on the Sabine Women,” illustrated by Saul Tepper. Other ads from this series featured depictions of perceived savage beasts, including lions and tigers. One of the ads in our collection identifies the lion as “the king of beasts” and the “ruler of the African jungle” due to his “brute force and savage cunning.” All of these ads are meant to exemplify the campaign slogan, “nature in the raw is seldom mild.” The ad copy compares these brutal acts, people, and animals to tobacco – harsh and deadly when plucked directly from nature, and in desperate need of intervention in order to become safe. Logically, the consumer is led to believe that the tobacco would otherwise be deadly, but due to the toasting process, the brand is no longer harsh or harmful – a complete falsehood, of course.

Sheep Dip – img13058

by

In 1931, Lucky Strike experimented with a campaign which referenced “sheep dip” in an attempt to prove the superiority of the “toasting” process. The campaign purported that the toasting process removed “harsh irritant chemicals naturally present in every tobacco leaf,” which were then sent on to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Animal Industry, to manufacture sheep dip, a chemical substance used to rid sheep of scabies. Interestingly, the key ingredient used in tobacco sheep dip was simply nicotine, rather than the “black, bitingly harsh irritant chemicals” the ads claimed. The ads attempted to convince consumers that the chemicals are “out so they can’t be in,” faulty logic at best.

Lucky Strike cigarettes did provide the base for sheep dip, though the resulting ad campaign was deceptive and a bit difficult for the everyday American to understand. It is no surprise that the campaign was short-lived, with just a handful (around 10) sheep-dip ads printed in total. It is important to note that these Lucky Strike ads are deceptive in two key ways; First, the ads claim that the byproduct sold to sheep-dip manufacturers is “black, biting, harsh irritant chemicals,” when in fact the byproduct is simply nicotine, never mentioned by name in the ads. Second, the ads employ a logical fallacy: “They’re out– so they can’t be in!” Two options are provided – the chemicals are either “out” or “in” the cigarettes. Because the chemicals are seemingly “out” in the sheep dip, then they must not be “in” the cigarettes. Of course, this fallacy can be broken down by stating the obvious: some chemicals may be “out,” while others certainly remain “in.”

Because most consumers were unaware of what sheep dip was, Lucky Strike dedicated a portion of its radio broadcast time to explaining the process to city dwellers. One internal industry memo documents the scripts for all 13 recordings of the NBC Studios radio show “The Lucky Strike Program with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra” for the month of August in 1931 (1). Eight of the 13 recordings expound on the sheep dip campaign. The programming for Saturday, August 22, for example, described an East Coast man to whom many listeners could relate: “Frank Leslie, whose only knowledge of sheep concerns boiled mutton and lamb chops, hasn’t the slightest notion what we mean when we speak of ‘sheep dip.’ No doubt he thinks it’s some kind of gravy for roast spring lamb.” The radio host then explains how farmers use sheep dip to treat livestock, and how this benefits smokers of Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Also on file among the internal industry documents are letters which indicate that solely the nicotine byproduct of Lucky Strike cigarettes was used in the manufacture of sheep dip. Though the American Tobacco Company had been siphoning off nicotine to sheep-dip manufacturers since at least 1915 (2), correspondence between the Vice President of the Tobacco By-Products and Chemical Corporation of Louisville, Kentucky, and the Vice President of the American Tobacco Company reveals that the nicotine from Lucky Strike cigarettes, in particular, was indeed sold in 1931. The VP of the Chemical Corporation found “improvement in the recovery of Nicotine that has been driven off by your ‘Lucky Strike process,” reporting that the nicotine could dip 1,500,000 sheep (3), or alternatively treat 2,700,000 poultry or create 765,000 gallons of spray for fruit trees (4).

1. “The Lucky Strike Program, with B.A. Rolfe and his Lucky Strike Dance Orchestra.” American Tobacco. August 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cpx75f00

2. Ramsay, RA, United States Department of Agriculture. No Title. American Tobacco. 2 March 1915. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jix70a00

3. Robinson, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 7 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iix70a00

4. Robinosn, AG, Tobacco By-Products And Chemical Corporation. No Title. American Tobacco. 12 July 1931. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kix70a00

Sunshine Mellows – img13062

by

Lucky Strike’s “Sunshine Mellows” campaign (1931) claimed that the brand used Ultra Violet Rays in its “toasting” process because “everyone knows that sunshine mellows.” The ads featured models tanning on the beach, soaking up the sun’s rays in bathing suits while appearing healthy with flushed cheeks and sun-kissed skin.

The photo captions explain the health benefits of sunshine – “The advice of your physician is: keep out of doors, in the open air, breathe deeply; take plenty of exercise in the mellow sunshine, and have a periodic check-up on the health of your body.” This medical advice mirrors that employed in sanatoriums, tuberculosis treatment centers which advocated heliotherapy and sunbathing as methods to treat tuberculosis patients prior to the mass production of penicillin in the 1940s.

The secondary slogan for these ads, listed after “Sunshine Mellows,” is “Heat Purifies.” This slogan suggests that the toasting process also provides a sanitization and purification of the tobacco leaf. A Lucky strike pamphlet claimed that “As it [the tobacco] tosses and turns in this huge chamber every shred is irradiated . . . every golden strand is mellowed, toned up” (1).

Both slogans, “Sunshine Mellows” and “Heat Purifies” are health claims attributed to the “It’s Toasted” campaign. While the earliest “It’s toasted” ads from 1917 and 1918 had boasted great taste, by 1927, Lucky had changed the meaning of the slogan from indicating great taste to indicating throat protection: “It’s toasted. Your throat protection – against irritation – against cough” and health benefits such as those purported by “Sunshine Mellows.” But by 1955 Lucky Strike was back in the flavor realm, with “It’s toasted to taste better!” Clearly, the slogan has an elasticity of message which allowed Lucky Strike to make health claims whenever convenient or beneficial.

1. “’Sold American’, ‘It’s Toasted’, ‘Sunshine Mellows’, Judge This Evidence For Yourself, Luckies Finer Tobaccos Means Natural Mildness.” American Tobacco. 1940. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pdx15f00

Calms your Nerves – img3631

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 – img3719

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.

Your Disposition – img3755

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.”

Sex Sells – img3767

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 – img3802

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 – img23238

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).

Mass Marketing Begins – img0520

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 – img0542

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.

High Fashion – img0577

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 – img0633

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.

Brides with Butts – img0645

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 – img0677

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 – img0730

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.

Women's Liberation – img0795

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 – img7319

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.

Early Years – img7525

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.

Pretty in Pink – img10250

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 – img0980

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.

Misty – img0996

by

Misty was introduced in the 1990s as the only bargain brand offering 120 mm length cigarettes. It strives to be the leading value-priced slims brand for women, working to attract price-conscious women who would otherwise be attracted to brands such as Virginia Slims, Eve, or Max. Like Eve, Misty used feminine graphics on its packs to attract young women to their brand; rainbows adorned Misty packs, while flowers and butterflies could be found on Eve packs. In 1999, the slogan “Find your rainbow” postured the brand as an opportunity for women to find individuality and freedom, a common tactic in cigarette advertising targeted at young people.

Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty hopes to attract women by harnessing the power of fashion. Many Misty print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits with tons of accessories, including a long cigarette. The slogans made direct reference to physical appearance, such as “Light ‘N Sassy with a Light price, too” or even “Slim ‘N Sassy.” Both slogans tell women that they will be slender if they smoke a “slender” cigarette, and that it won’t have to cost them a fortune, either. Like Virginia Slims and Eve, Misty 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 Misty provides a not-so-subliminal, indirect message that their brand will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

Marlboro – img1056

by

This is an example of one of the earlier Marlboro ads, which marketed Marlboro cigarettes as being “Mild as May” to attract a female audience. This advertisement takes the next step by actually illustrating a fashionable woman smoking elegantly. In large letters, this ad mentions that Marlboros have “Ivory Tips” to “protect the lips,” targeting women who are concerned with protecting their lipstick. The woman pictured wears very dark lipstick, but her absurdly large cigarette is clean from any lipstick stains. Marlboro, the brand associated today with the rugged manliness of the “Marlboro Man” cowboy of later decades, was actually introduced to the market in 1927 as a woman’s cigarette. It wasn’t until 1954, after the war, that Marlboro underwent a sex change to compete with the three other top cigarette manufacturers.

Debs – img1092

by

Women’s cigarettes from the first half of the 20th century often emphasized femininity. Perhaps the logic was that if a woman wasn’t interested in femininity, then presumably she would be fine with a cigarette targeting men. For example, early Marlboros featured “red beauty tips to match your lips and fingertips” and “ivory tips to protect the lips.” Similarly, Benson & Hedges released Debs Rose Tips, which included a red tip to avoid lipstick smudging and to avoid “unsightly” lipstick stains on cigarette butts which, supposedly, disturb “masculine sensibilities.” Quotes from the ads, such as “Men like women to smoke Debs” reveal the centrality of sex appeal and sexual attraction in cigarette advertising, even as early as the 1940s. The ads claim that “men like women to smoke Debs for nearly all men have an innate dislike of a cigarette with a lipstick-smeared end and lips with half-erased color.” If this statement sounds ridiculous to women, the ads poo-poo these doubts by explaining that “A woman would have to be a man to know how intensely he dislikes a smeared cigarette and messy lips—for he never will tell her.”

Though the ads do claim Debs are mild, they also claim that the cigarettes contain a “mannish tobacco blend that does not steal from taste to achieve mildness.” In fact, the ads clam that this “mannish blend” goes “straight to the spot of smoking pleasure.” The cigarette claims to have it all – allowing a woman to present an outward appearance of femininity and gentleness, while secretly enjoying the pleasures of a man.

Women’s cigarettes from the first half of the 20th century often emphasized femininity. Perhaps the logic was that if a woman wasn’t interested in femininity, then presumably she would be fine with a cigarette targeting men. For example, early Marlboros featured “red beauty tips to match your lips and fingertips” and “ivory tips to protect the lips.” Similarly, Benson & Hedges released Debs Rose Tips, which included a red tip to avoid lipstick smudging and to avoid “unsightly” lipstick stains on cigarette butts which, supposedly, disturb “masculine sensibilities.” Quotes from the ads, such as “Men like women to smoke Debs” reveal the centrality of sex appeal and sexual attraction in cigarette advertising, even as early as the 1940s. The ads claim that “men like women to smoke Debs for nearly all men have an innate dislike of a cigarette with a lipstick-smeared end and lips with half-erased color.” If this statement sounds ridiculous to women, the ads poo-poo these doubts by explaining that “A woman would have to be a man to know how intensely he dislikes a smeared cigarette and messy lips—for he never will tell her.”

Though the ads do claim Debs are mild, they also claim that the cigarettes contain a “mannish tobacco blend that does not steal from taste to achieve mildness.” In fact, the ads clam that this “mannish blend” goes “straight to the spot of smoking pleasure.” The cigarette claims to have it all – allowing a woman to present an outward appearance of femininity and gentleness, while secretly enjoying the pleasures of a man.

Capri – img9932

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 – img9966

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 – img9993

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).

You've Come A
Long Way, Baby – img10467

by

Virginia Slims is a cigarette brand developed by Philip Morris in 1968 and marketed exclusively to women. Its early advertising campaigns exploited civil rights movements of the ‘60s with the slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby,” a slogan which has lasted into modern times. The brand’s advertising methods continue to present Virginia Slims as the choice for strong, independent, liberated women. The 1990s slogan “It’s a woman thing” and the slogan of the 2000s, “Find Your Voice,” both signify that empowerment and feminism remain key leveraging mechanisms for the brand. An ad from 1995, for example, features a man wearing an apron and preparing a meal in the kitchen as a woman hugs him, cigarette in hand; the text reads, “Equality comes with no apron strings attached.” Often, these ads distract from the position of power Big Tobacco itself holds over both sexes, by pitting women against society instead of against the tobacco industry.

Additionally, marketing for Virginia Slims harnesses the power of fashion. Many print advertisements portray women in fashion-forward outfits and make references to fashion: “I’m a skyhigh pair of platforms in a closet full of flats,” an ad from 2001 boasts. The cigarettes themselves are longer and narrower than average cigarettes, reflected by the name “Slims.” This adoption of the word “slim” and indeed, sometimes even “superslim,” is 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. The Virginia Slims brand portrays a subliminal, indirect message that Virginia Slims cigarettes will result in its smokers obtaining or maintaining a slim figure.

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0030

by

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

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

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

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

20,679 Physicians – img0105

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 – img0114

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.

Doctors Hawk Cigarettes – img0135

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 – img0150

by

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

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

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

Dentist Recommends – img0165

by

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

Your Adam's Apple – img2676

by

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

Famous Voices – img2688

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 – img2707

by

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

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

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

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img2740

by

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2779

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 – img2909

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? – img2931

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 – img2961

by

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

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

Guard Your Throat – img13671

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.

Do you inhale? – img1318

by

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

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

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

To Your Heart's Content – img1343

by

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

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

For Digestion Sake – img1353

by

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

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

Medicinal Cigarettes – img1422

by

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

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

Best For You – img1465

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 – img1483

by

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

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

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

British Health Claims – img1541

by

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

We Don't Make Medical Claims – img5159

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 – img1554

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.