SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Cigarette

Cigarette

World War II – img5565

by

A unique quality of both WWI and WWII armies was that a majority of their combatants were not professional soldiers but rather citizen conscripts1. Thus, habits the common soldiers picked up on the battlefield, such as smoking, were brought home after the war’s end3. WWII soldiers used cigarettes similarly to their WWI forbearers, smoking to escape the stress of battle and steady their nerves1. Soldiers had been rationed 4 cigarettes a day during WWI. In WWII authorities also saw tobacco as a necessity to the maintenance of fighting men, and actually added cigarettes into their daily K-ration before toilet paper2. K-rations provided a four pack per meal, meaning soldiers were issues a total of 12 cigarettes per day. Soldiers could also buy discounted twenty-packs at the army post exchange (PX) stations2. Hence, cigarettes were made readily available to men in the armed forces.
The army didn’t necessarily use one brand for rations, instead cigarettes came in sample packs of different brands, with the most common being Chesterfields2. Tobacco companies specifically targeted the troops stating that they used “personalities associated with the war” such as test pilot “Red” Hulse4. They also sent “cigarettes by millions to GI’s overseas” claiming that the Camel brand was “First in the Service.”4 WWII cigarette adverts focused on themes of smoking as patriotic, promoting solidarity between armed forces, relieving stress, increasing battle performance, encouraging romantic fidelity, and a connection to home. Even after the war was over, WWII continued to be used as an advertising strategy due to its role as a common relatable event among the cigarette consumers of the time.

1. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/240820.php
2. http://www.kration.info/cigarettes-and-matches.html
3. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034360
4. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/tobacco/docs/#id=ksfy0061

World War I – img20790

by

WWI was the major event of the twentieth century that brought cigarette use to the forefront of tobacco use. Before WWI there were many popular anti-tobacco movements led by progressive religious organizations such as National Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) who advocated for policies banning tobacco sales1. Cigarette prohibition laws were even passed in several states such as Indiana, Nebraska, and Idaho1. This was all changed with the advent of WWI1.
Fighting in WWI was static, with soldiers switching between long waiting periods to battling through day-long artillery barrages in trenches filled with death and carnage2. For fighting soldiers smoking became a coping mechanism to handle both times of stress and boredom2. Leaders such as General John Pershing saw cigarettes as necessary to troop morale with Pershing claiming that the importance of tobacco to the war was equal to that of bullets2.
Pipe smoking had been more popular at the onset of the war as it was seen as more masculine with many armies even rationing loose-leaf pipe tobacco3. However, pipes were easily broken during battle and loose-leaf tobacco near impossible to keep dry in the trenches3. Thus, the convenient transportable design of the pocket cigarette made it the signature tobacco product of WWI soldiers3.
The American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) were at first supplied with cigarettes through canteens2. Canteens were stations that sold non-rationed goods and were manned by civilian organizations2. Cigarette companies soon developed ads in both newspapers and magazines to convince soldiers to buy their brand.1 Such advertisements often included patriotic themes to suit wartime customers1. These include portraying cigarette brands as strengthening bond between Allied troops, individual soldiers, and their families and sweethearts back home.
It was General March who would put canteens back under army control and create the official policy of rationing soldiers four ready-made cigarettes per day2. This ration would increase over time and by the Second World War soldiers had access to 12 to 28 army-provided cigarettes per day2. As men returned from army service once the Great War was over they brought their smoking habit with them1. The anti-tobacco movement lost following with the return of these veterans who were known to argue, “If cigaret[te]s were good enough for us while we were fighting in France, why aren’t they good enough for us in our own homes?”1 This initial popularity of the cigarette with the WWI generation would continue throughout the decades, further catalyzed during WWII before culminating into the smoking epidemics of the 1950s and 60s1.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2000/complete_report/pdfs/chapter2.pdf
2. Bius, Joel. “The Damn Y Man in WWI: Service, Perception, and Cigarettes.” The YMCA at War: Collaboration and Conflict during the World Wars, Lexington Books 2018.
3. https://pointsadhsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/wwi-part-5-tobacco-in-the-trenches/

Space – img20892

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.

Kamel Modern – img5938

by

Marlboro has historically been the leading cigarette brand among youth, while Camel consistently pushes forward creative advertising concepts to gain youth market share from Marlboro and hook teens and young adults. The Red Kamel campaign of 1996 is just one of Camel’s many advertising techniques employed to target the previously uninitiated or new smoker. RJR’s “marketing objectives” with Red Kamel revolved around “adding new cutting edge associations to the Camel brand family” (1).

The Red Kamel brand slogan clearly targeted youth irreverence: “Back After 80 Years For No Good Reason Except They Taste Good” (2). The Kamel brand was first introduced in 1913 and existed until 1936 when R.J. Reynolds replaced it with today’s Camel brand. The limited time “reintroduction” of Red Kamel in 1996 provided a retro-vintage appeal to the brand, and RJR designed the ads to be “innovative—new and old at the same time” (3). An RJR spokesperson explained that the characters portrayed in Red Kamel ads were presented as “interesting, independent people,” indicating that “the type of person who smoked Kamels in the early 1900s would still smoke them today.” The Red Kamel campaign offered RJR a new youth marketing technique to replace the Old Joe Camel campaign which had just been “voluntarily” withdrawn.

One internal document explains that the brand positioning was “lust for living,” and that the product was meant to appear “lustier” as well as “rebellious, adventurous, authentic,” with a “hip, unexpected” style clearly targeting youth markets (4).

 

1. “Red Kamel & Kamel Menthe (Men-Th) Factbook.” 07 Jan 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqm72d00

2. “RJR Re-Establishes Red Kamel Brand February 1, 1996 (960201) Statement and Q&A for Response Only.” RJ Reynolds. 01 Feb 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oml13d00

3. “Red Kamel Is Back!” Caravan. 08 Apr 1996. http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s1/TI56580057.html

4. “1997 (19970000) Business Planning Meeting.” RJ Reynolds. 17 Sept 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xyi72d00

Camel Pleasure to Burn – img5982

by

In 1999, R.J. Reynolds developed the Camel “Pleasure to Burn” campaign to target young consumers. The campaign used a cheeky humorous approach to alert consumers of Camel’s modern appeal as well as its long history: The ads featured a painting of a model dressed in “iconic” clothing from a famous decade past, but with a modern twist, like the addition of nose rings for women or stud earrings for men, tattoos, advanced modern technology like headsets and remote controls, and other strange anachronisms. An internal RJR document reveals that this approach “juxtaposes the classic with the contemporary” in the hope of portraying the brand’s “heritage and history as well as the brand’s contemporary relevance and popularity” (1). The technique followed up on the Red Kamel campaign introduced in 1996 which used a similar retro-vintage technique to target youth.

1. “Camel ‘Pleasure to Burn’ Campaign.” RJ Reynolds. Aug 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/aqs97c00

Lucky Strike Modern – img6098

by

When Brown & Williamson took over the Lucky Strike brand in 1995, they sought to reposition the brand toward a younger demographic by introducing the “Spotlight” campaign. The new campaign featured the classic Lucky Strike roundel in full-color super-imposed onto the floor or wall of a scene, while the rest of the environment was depicted in low-saturation colors or even black and white to convey a sense of the classic(1). The campaign incorporated the slogan “An American Original” to convey the product’s authenticity, but juxtaposed this sentiment with modern scenes and models to provide the ads with a sense of timelessness. The campaign targeted “urban, hip, individualistic free-thinking” young males (2) and used models who evoked a “cool, laid back, even arrogant” personality (3).

1. B&W. 13 May 1999. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dvt12d00

2. Cheyne, S. 4 Nov 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wgo02d00

3. B&W. 24 Apr 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/reb77a00

Kool Modern – img6119

by

Recent Kool ads are clearly marketed toward a younger, urban demographic. Many of the ads feature models of a variety of ethnicities, and African Americans are particularly targeted. Kool’s advertisements from 2005 used the slogan “Be True,” which urged consumers “be true” to themselves and to “be true” and loyal to the brand. The “Be True” slogan was accompanied by variety of phrases such as “Be Passionate,” “Be Original,” “Be Smooth,” and “Be Bold,” all of which appeal to adolescents and young adults trying to “find themselves” and develop a sense of self. The “Be True” ads largely feature musicians, ranging from guitar players to disc jockeys, and their ethnicities are also noticeably diverse; Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians are all represented in the campaign. Other Kool campaigns from the 2000s, like “House of Menthol,” are more transparently urban-oriented, featuring boom boxes, speaker systems, microphones, graffiti, or skyscrapers. A subset of these ads features the “Kool Mixx” which claims to “celebrate the soundtrack to the streets” through limited edition cigarette packs. Urban youth were clearly a priority.

Kool utilized music in general (particularly jazz music in the 1980s and hip hop in the 2000s) as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (1). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach as “not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics,” but rather as “advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music?” The exec goes on to explain, “Black smokers are very important to Kool, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (2).

1. Cunningham & Walsh Advertising Agency. “Kool: The Revitalization of an Image.” B&W. 1 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/leb91d00

2. Lewis, LR. “Speech for National Sales Meeting.” B&W. Oct 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/crj40f00

Silk Cut Modern – img6181

by

In 1984, the Gallaher Group hired Charles Saatchi’s ad agency to design an innovative ad campaign which would obey U.K. cigarette advertising restrictions while still promoting the Silk Cut product. The new ads, which circulated for over a decade, created a visual pun by utilizing purple silk in the ads, representing the royal purple silk ribbon which seals each Silk Cut cigarette box. (1). The ads flip around the product name and literally Cut through the purple Silk, often in a manner with sexual undertones. For example, the spout of a tin oil can penetrates a hole through a piece of silk, or a trio of open scissors slice through the fabric, the blades like the open legs of can-can dancers. Many of the ads have a surreal effect, and cause the viewer to pause and ponder over them. The viewer puzzles over the image, and when he figures out the joke, he feels rewarded – directly correlating a positive feeling with the brand (2). The viewer also develops an association between the color purple and Silk Cut cigarettes, much like the association between red and Marlboro (3). The ads particularly allow Silk Cut to continue marketing its product in a brutal advertising environment which prohibits such classic methods as using attractive models. Some sources have indicated Silk Cut’s behavior as a warning or lesson to other countries who may attempt restrictions on cigarette advertising in the future; The U.K. restrictions definitely “triggered a burst of creativity that has produced a new genre of subtle, sophisticated ads” and stimulated “unconventional approaches” to advertising (4).

Warner, F. Brandweek. 28 June 1993. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/toy70e00

Bates, A. 30 Jan 1997. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/owm70g00

Statement by Ronald Davis. 30 Sept 1997. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/woo16c00

Parker-Pope, T. 9 Oct 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jlq08d00

Bizarre Modern – img6254

by

New tobacco advertising rules were established in the United Kingdom in 1975. Soon after, multiple British cigarette brands began issuing creative solutions to skirt the restrictions (1). In 1977, Gallaher created a surrealist campaign for its B&H brand in the UK (2). The ads offered a strange, enigmatic image coupled with the Tar Banding and Health Warning baseline that the UK mandated for cigarette ads. These ads were meant to demonstrate the industry’s longevity, due to its intense creativity, even in the face of government restrictions. Soon after B&H’s creative solution, Silk Cut and Marlboro took a similar approach in the UK, eliminating the image of cigarettes from the ads altogether, making tenuous connections to the cigarette brand through “visual puns and color” (3). In 1983, the popular UK brand Rothmans also created 2-page spread ads which relied upon the health warning to demonstrate the advertising was for cigarettes, and included the brand’s classic slogan, “Rothman’s – The greatest name in cigarettes” to communicate branding. The images in the Rothmans ads featured futuristic structures of little apparent connection to the product (4).

In 1994, Benson & Hedges made fun of clean air laws and no-smoking rules with an absurd, tongue-in-cheek campaign. The slogan created a play-on-words between “the length you go to for pleasure” and the extra length of its 100mm cigarette. Print ads for the campaign depicted smokers solving no-smoking rules, such as those existing on airplanes and in museums, with utterly ridiculous or literal interpretations of the laws. For example, one ad asks, “Have you noticed all your smoking flights have been cancelled? For a great smoke, just wing it.” The models are shown sitting on the wing of a plane, enjoying their cigarettes. Philip Morris VP of Corporate Affairs, Ellen Merlo, explained, “We understand the pressures and constraints placed on smokers today, and the length they must go to in order to exercise their right to smoke. Because of the absurdity of some of the situations, we hope everyone will understand that accommodation of smokers and non-smokers alike is a much better alternative” (5). This logic bases itself in the fabricated tobacco industry mantra that smoking is a choice and that there are smoker’s rights. Cigarettes are the only product that when used as directed results in fatal illness. Additionally, there are many factors, especially manipulative advertising, which complicate the meaning of “choice” in starting to smoke.

1. Parker-Pope, T. The Wall Street Journal. 9 Oct 1996. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sdk93c00

2. BATCo. Aug 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syt01a99

3. Beatt, A. 1994. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vib31a99

4. BATCo. May 1983. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/shl11a99

5. Philip Morris. 29 March 1995. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/udm40b00

Salem Modern – img17480

by

Recent Salam ads blatantly target youth. Earlier Salem ads (“Salem Spirit”) from the 1980s used a technique largely reminiscent of Newport’s long-lived “Pleasure” campaign, spotlighting groups of young friends having fun in athletic, outdoorsy settings. The 1990s saw Salem’s “Refreshest” campaign, which targeted teens and adolescents with mind-boggling images like a woman relaxing on a pool floatie inside of a grand piano filled with water, or, similarly, a couple lounging in the pick-up of a truck, also filled with water. Some Salem ads from the 2000s feature the slogan, “Stir the senses,” and each ad depicts a model smoking in green, mentholated ecstasy. These scenes appear drug-induced, and even RJR’s description of the ads brings into question recreational drug-inspiration: “One ad pictures a woman extending her arm to interact with two dragonflies that are swirling around a burst of light. Another execution features a man gazing at a swirling green galaxy, with the reflection of the galaxy appearing in his sunglasses”.

Other Salem ads from the 2000s reveal clear youth targeting through a risk-taking appeal with the slogan, “Step Inside. It’s Not What You Expected,” or “There’s More To It.” This slogan invites uninitiated youth to try smoking. For example, one of the ads presents an “underground” party, another presents a couple with an intertwining, extreme tattoo, and a third presents a scantily clad woman riding on the back of a man’s motorcycle – all in urban settings. The ads are complex and difficult to capture in 1-dimensional scans on our Web site, as they often consisted of 4-page spreads. The front cover of the spread would show a “familiar image” with a cutout window revealing a small part of the next page. When the front cover is flipped over, the full spread originally indicated by the cutout is revealed to be “an entirely different design, unexpected by the reader” (2). This type of innovative print advertising is even more appealing to youth.

1. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gkc87h00

2. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofi60d00

Winston Modern – img17508

by

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.

Overseas, particularly in Russia, Winston is owned by Japan Tobacco Inc. (JTI). The product “Winston XS” is a superslim cigarette (as in extra-small). Winston XS uses the slogan “Xsence of me,” a word-play on “essence.” The ads for Winston XS are futuristic.

American Spirit Modern – img45685

by

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company’s advertising strategy targets the young, progressive and environmentally conscious, by promoting the “organic” and “additive free” nature of its tobacco products. Most of the ads for the tobacco company, contain a combination of these key phrases: “100% additive free”, “made with 100% organic tobacco”, “natural tobacco”, and “natural tastes better.”

The Natural American Spirit ads are designed to communicate to the viewer that there is nothing synthetic or artificial about their cigarettes thereby encouraging tobacco users to believe that the cigarette is superior to others. In reality, there is nothing natural or pure about how the tobacco is processed in cigarettes. The ads rely on a palette of mild, pastel shades that are meant to resemble natural dyes. Most ads display one or more cigarette packs surrounded by a rural setting. For example, several of the ads are of a farm where everything, from the roots and soil to a field of bright sunflowers, is crafted from colored tobacco leaves. Others show green pastures or barren farms with a few tobacco sprouts pushing out of the dirt. In one dramatic version, the cigarette packs themselves are sprouting like crops. These pictures draw nostalgia for the once simple way of life.

The tobacco company also heavily advertises itself to environmentalists through buzz word such as “eco-friendly” and “sustainable.” For instance, ad copy for a Natural American Spirit ad says, “”We grow our premium natural tobacco in a responsible, sustainable way through our earth-friendly and organic growing programs…. Protecting the earth is as important to us as it is to you.”

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco company has faced legal action a few times over its advertising claims. In 2000, the Federal Trade Commission filed a deceptive advertising campaign arguing that through their advertisements, “Santa Fe represented that because Natural American Spirit cigarettes contain no additives, smoking them is less hazardous to a smoker's health than smoking otherwise comparable cigarettes that contain additives.” This led to Santa Fe adding the following disclaimer on its packets, “No additives in our tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” A decade later, attorneys general from 33 states and the District of Columbia, reached an agreement requiring Santa Fe to add a disclaimer stating, “Organic tobacco does NOT mean a safer cigarette.” The hope was that this warning would alert consumers that natural tobacco does not mean safer tobacco.

However, If popular culture is any clue to how persuasive these disclaimers really are, 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.

Marlboro Modern – img46199

by

Marlboro’s latest campaign, “Be Marlboro” is replete with youth-oriented images and themes that strongly suggest to young people that they should smoke Marlboro cigarettes.

The “Be Marlboro” campaign was launched in Germany in 2011 and has now spread to more than 50 countries including Brazil, Indonesia, China, Japan, Israel, Russia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. In 2013, it was banned from Germany on the grounds that the advertisements were “designed to encourage children as young as 14 years of age to smoke.”

The advertising campaign is filled with images of attractive people taking risks, asserting their freedom, exploring their limits and defying authority. The central message of the ads is that individuals need to shake off their inhibitions to achieve their goals. A good way to do is to “Be Marlboro.” For instance, an ad has the image of a person high on his motorbike (Maybe I will take the challenge”), a profile of a macho man lighting his cigarette (Maybe never lights up the night), an old lady with a raised fist (A Maybe never made history… Don’t be a Maybe), a young woman pressing against a man in an alley (“Maybe never fell in love”), and a guy hopping a chain link fence (“Maybe never found a way”).

Other marketing tactics used by the Be Marlboro campaign include sponsorship of parties and concerts, online promotional videos, exciting point of sale displays and interactive promotional booths.

The use of aspirational imagery and values has been a tactic often used by the tobacco industry to market to youth. Internal tobacco documents by Philip Morris itself describes smoking as an activity that can be “linked to adult initiation, risk taking, bonding with peers and the need for youth to feel like they belong to a group that can partake in an ‘adult activity’.”1,2

In a report by Philip Morris, referred to by the tobacco company as the Archetype Project, it stresses that in advertising the product, the marketing department should stress that “smoking is for people who like to take risks and are not afraid of taboos, using images of an American identity and emphasizing the ritualistic elements of smoking.” It is clear that many ads of the Be Marlboro campaign are reflective of the guidance provided in the Archetype Project.

1. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “Maybe You’re The Target.” New Global Marlboro Campaign Found to Target Teens. Retrieved from http://global.tobaccofreekids.org/content/what_we_do/industry_watch/yourethetarget_report.pdf?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=youre-the-target-new-global-marlboro-campaign-found-to-target-teens-pdf-2
2. Levy C. Archetype project summary (internal industry document.) 1991. Bates No. 3990758331/3990758346. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid//zra21j00/pdf.

Murad – img6293

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. The New York-based Greek tobacconist Soterios Anargyros produced the hand-rolled Murad cigarettes, made of pure Turkish tobacco. P. Lorillard acquired the Murad brand in 1911 through the dissolution of the Cigarette Trust, explaining the high quality of the Murad advertisements in the following years.

Murad, along with other Turkish cigarette brands referenced the “Oriental” roots of their Turkish tobacco blends through pack art and advertising images. They also capitalized on the Eastern-inspired fashion trends of the time, which were inspired by the Ballets Russes (1909-1929) and its performance of “Scherazade.” The vibrant colors, luxurious jewels, exoticism and suggestive nature of the images in these advertisements contributed greatly to their appeal.

Women drenched in pearls, jewels and feathers, wearing harem pants or flowing dresses, were paired in the ads with men in expensive suits or in exotic turbans. The Orientalism, exoticism and luxury are evoked through Eastern-inspired garb accentuated the Turkish origins of the tobacco and presented it in an alluring, modern light. Indeed, the women in these ads, in particular, is seen as less of a reflection on Victorian femininity than a fantasy of an exotic enchantress from a foreign land or a modern woman shedding the shackles of Victorian propriety.

Helmar – img6372

by

Helmar cigarettes were part of the Turkish and Egyptian cigarette movement of the early 1900s. First produced in 1902 by the Egyptian Ideal Cigarette and Tobacco Works, Helmar was originally named Ramleh. In 1907 when the brand was taken up by S. Anargyros, a subsidiary of The American Tobacco Company, the name was changed in order to avoid confusion with Ramly, a similar cigarette produced by the smaller Mentor Co. in Boston. The name was changed to Helmar, which is simply Ramleh spelled backwards. Unlike most straight-Turkish tobacco cigarettes, Helmar experienced a long life on the market until it was finally discontinued in the mid-1960s.

Omar – img12447

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. In 1911, The American Tobacco Company introduced Omar, a premium Turkish blend cigarette, in order to compete with other leading Turkish brands like Murad. The cigarette was named after the medieval Persian poet Omar Khayyám, who experienced a resurgence of popularity from 1900-1930 during an “Omariana” fad. Ads for Omar cigarettes referenced Khayyám’s famous poem, The Rubáiyát , and focused on themes of pleasure, leisure, and luxury. Early Omar cigarette ads featured an older, rotund sultan figure, who appears to indulge in a range of life’s pleasures, and a beautiful maiden, referred to as Angel Shape. In some ways, the ads border on stereotypical parodies of Eastern life and culture, yet they speak to the luxurious aspect of Omar cigarettes all the same. Later ads for Omar revealed that “Omar spells Aroma” when Omar is repeated twice: omAR OMAr. This pun speaks to the American Tobacco Company’s desire to extend the relevancy of Omar cigarettes beyond Omariana as the fad slowly died out. Clearly, tobacco companies and their advertising agents are able to create extreme elasticity with their products in order to attract consumers.

Fatima – img12462

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. Liggett & Myers’ Fatima cigarettes, named after the common first name for Arabic women, was one of many cigarettes developed at this time which received wide success. The pack art featured a veiled woman, the Turkish crescent moon with stars, and the iron cross, the symbol of the Ottoman empire. Advertising for Fatima was discontinued during the Great Depression. The cigarette received a modern makeover after WWII, becoming a King Size cigarette to compete with other popular brands of the era. It was phased out in the 1980s.

Other Early Ads – img14568

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian style cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands, inspiring the invention of many new brands, including Camel. These brands often referenced the “Oriental” roots of their Turkish tobacco blends through pack art and advertising images. They also capitalized on the Eastern-inspired fashion trends of the time, which were inspired by the Ballets Russes (1909-1929) and its performance of “Scherazade.” The vibrant colors, luxurious jewels, exoticism and suggestive nature of the images in these advertisements contributed greatly to their appeal. Women drenched in pearls, jewels and feathers, wearing harem pants or flowing dresses, were paired in the ads with men in expensive suits or in exotic turbans. The Orientalism, exoticism and luxury are evoked through Eastern-inspired garb accentuated the Turkish origins of the tobacco and presented it in an alluring, modern light. Indeed, the women in these ads, in particular, is seen as less of a reflection on Victorian femininity than a fantasy of an exotic enchantress from a foreign land or a modern woman shedding the shackles of Victorian propriety.

Other brands of the time, like London Life and Herbert Tareyton shirked the new-fangled Eastern trends in favor of the Victorian propriety of yesteryear. Gentlemen and proper ladies were featured prominently in these ads, and provided an heir of luxury and affluency without the bawdy pleasures of “Orientalism.” Still, most cigarette ads at the time, regardless of approach, involved an overarching theme of glamour and enjoying the finer things in life.

Mogul – img14641

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. One of the earlier straight-Turkish tobacco cigarettes, Mogul was introduced in 1892 by the New York-based Greek tobacconist Soterios Anargyros. After the dissolution of the Cigarette Trust, P. Lorillard took over the production of Mogul cigarettes. Though likely made of a Turkish blend, Moguls were advertised as “Egyptian Cigarettes.” Many of the Mogul ads presented upper-crust models in Western apparel, positioning the cigarette as a luxury good, while some of the ads incorporated Egyptian motifs or models dressed in Middle Eastern garb.

Deities – img23395

by

In the early 1900s, manufactures of Turkish and Egyptian cigarettes tripled their sales and became legitimate competitors to leading brands. The New York-based Greek tobacconist Soterios Anargyros produced the hand-rolled Egyptian Deities cigarettes, and claimed that the higher price was due to the expensive center leaves of the Turkish tobacco plant, known as “Ghyubek.” P. Lorillard acquired the Murad brand in 1911 through the dissolution of the Cigarette Trust, explaining the high quality of the Murad advertisements in the following years. Interestingly, most Egyptian Deities ads did not evoke Eastern exoticism, but rather focused on American and European fashions and luxury. The brand’s slogan also appealed to the high-brow: “People of culture, refinement and education invariably prefer Deities to any other cigarette.” Some ads for the brand did indeed reference Egyptian antiquities and splendor.

Rameses – img44456

by

In 1895, the Stephano Bros. of Philadelphia introduced Rameses II cigarettes, named after the great ancient Egyptian pharaoh. Most of the ads for Rameses II featured Egyptian themes, from images of scarab beetles to depictions of Rameses’ actual temple in Abu Simbel. Other ads for Rameses depicted luxurious vacationing in order to market the large “week-end tins” ideal for short trips. The brand capitalized on aristocracy, glamour and luxury in its advertising. Rameses appear to have been discontinued in the late 1990s.

Abdullas – img45769

by

Though certainly capitalizing on the Eastern allure of their name and the popular Turkish and Egyptian cigarette trend, Abdulla cigarettes were available in Egyptian, Turkish, or Virginian blends. They were first produced in London in 1902 by Abdulla & Co., Ltd.. The company was later quietly taken over by Godfrey Phillips in 1927, which was subsequently purchased by Philip Morris International in 1968. Abdulla advertisements focus on glamour and luxury rather than exoticism. This approach allowed them to successfully market all three of their blend varieties, especially the Virginian in later decades. That said, ads like “Abdulla in Arcadia,” which features a veiled woman wearing a turban and excessive jewelry, utilized the stereotypical Eastern fashions to heavily market the Egyptian and Turkish varieties.

More Doctors Smoke Camels – img0061

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 – img0109

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.

Dentist Recommends – img0169

by

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

Throat Doctors – img11320

by

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

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

Guard Your Throat – img2631

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.

Your Adam's Apple – img2679

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 – img2692

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 – img2708

by

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

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

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

Throat Scratch – img2783

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 – img2913

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? – img2935

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 – img2962

by

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

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

Johnny Calls for Philip Morris – img8823

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.

Do you inhale? – img1322

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 – img1346

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 – img1357

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 – img1423

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 – img1469

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 – img1487

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 – img1545

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 – img5163

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 – img1556

by

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

Medical Authority – img1605

by

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

Not One Single Case – img1618

by

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

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

Factories, Labs, Machines – img1685

by

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

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

Protects Your Health – img1939

by

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

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

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

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

Doctor Ordered – img2008

by

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

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

Thinks for Himself – img2018

by

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

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

Miracle Tip – img2051

by

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

Marlboro Men – img2063

by

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

Reduced Carcinogens – img2132

by

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

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

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

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

Cork Tip – img7997

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

High Tech Filters – img8953

by

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

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

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