SRITA

Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising

Home / Archives for Cigarette

Cigarette

Sisterhood – img7401

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.

Sisterhood – img7402

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.

Sisterhood – img7403

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.

Sisterhood – img7404

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.

Sisterhood – img7405

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.

Sisterhood – img7406

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.

Sisterhood – img7407

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.

Sisterhood – img7408

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.

Sisterhood – img7409

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.

Sisterhood – img7410

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.

Sisterhood – img7411

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.

Sisterhood – img7412

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.

Sisterhood – img7413

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.

Sisterhood – img7414

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.

Sisterhood – img7415

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.

Sisterhood – img7416

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.

Sisterhood – img7417

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.

Sisterhood – img7418

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.

Sisterhood – img7419

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.

Sisterhood – img7420

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.

Sisterhood – img7421

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.

Black Musicians – img16948

by

Although tobacco companies repeatedly exploit music in brand advertising and promotion to appeal to youth, perhaps the KOOL brand has been most relentless in its adoption of music, and jazz in particular, in its advertising and promotional techniques. In 1975, KOOL began sponsoring jazz festivals to target African American consumers. By 1980, KOOL industry documents described KOOL Jazz Festivals as “the premier events in Black soul music,” and cites the attending audience as “90% Black” (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofn14f00). The series grew to 22 cities when in 1986 B&W decided to downsize to 3 cities and focus on other musical avenues like “KOOL Country Shindig” due to “growing concern that the more successful the [Jazz] Festivals became, the blacker the [Kool brand] image would become” (1).

Although B&W may have been primarily “using the events to offset Black media availability deficiencies” (1), the company also realized that jazz music and music in general could appeal to other demographics as well, as a sort of added bonus. Internal documents from 1981 cited music as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (2). In describing a new print ad technique depicting solo musicians of varying ethnicities, B&W’s advertising agency explains, “The print media, due to segmentation, provide the option of 'segregated' brand communication (for example, see Salem campaigns). However, this approach was avoided since it encouraged a split personality, or dual image, for the brand […] Further, we believe that Black smokers increasingly will 'see through' this approach and possibly resent what essentially amounts to a 'separate but equal' dual campaign strategy” (2). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach: “That’s not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics, that’s advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music? […] Black smokers are very important to KOOL, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (3).

Still, KOOL continues its targeting of young black consumers through the exploitation of popular music. B&W’s “B KOOL” campaign of 1998 included a series of “House of Menthol” promotions, reminiscent of the famous “House of Blues.” The House of Menthol series included KOOL MIXX, nightclub events featuring Disc Jockey (DJ) and Emcee (MC) freestyle rap competitions. In advertising KOOL Milds, B&W positioned the brand as “Groovin’: High Notes, Tasty Beats, and a Smooth Vibe. You’re right, that sounds just like the flavor of KOOL Milds” (4).

By 2004, the KOOL MIXX promotion included limited edition cigarette pack art, meant to “Celebrate the Soundtrack to the Streets.” One advertisement for the special limited edition packs claimed that “DJs are the Masters of Hip Hop like KOOL is the Master of Menthol. KOOL MIXX Special Edition Packs are our mark of respect for these Hip Hop Players.” This national release of limited edition KOOL MIXX packs caught the attention of regulators, who filed lawsuits against B&W asserting that the KOOL MIXX campaign was in violation of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) because it explicitly targeted black youth. The lawsuit was picked up by R.J. Reynolds when they acquired B&W, and RJR agreed to a settlement which limited (but did not forbid) future KOOL MIXX promotions and required B&W to shell out $1.46 million toward youth smoking prevention and cessation in minority communities previously targeted by the campaign (5). Thereafter, B&W maintained the KOOL MIXX promotion in its limited form and skirted the intent of the regulation by formulating an entirely new music promotion with similar appeal. In 2004, B&W released the KOOL Nu Jazz Festival which toured in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit, and was “meant to communicate the evolution of music” (5). An internal document explains that the Festival was “not just about jazz – it’s about R&B, Neo-Soul, Funk, Jazz, and how each genre of music led to the next” (6). The series included 27 concert events and 20 after parties. KOOL Nu Jazz artists included contemporary hip-hop, R&B, and soul artists including Erykah Badu, The Roots, and Big Boi of Outkast. This expanded in 2005 and 2006 to be “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour,” including John Legend, Common, De La Soul, Busta Rhymes and Blackalicious (7,8).

1. Broecker, BL. “Umbrella Music Strategy.” B&W. 16 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tir40f00

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

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

4. “KOOL. TPUSA UPDATE.” RJ Reynolds. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00

5. “Company News; Reynolds Settles Suits in 3 States Over Cigarette Ads.” The New York Times. 7 Oct. 2004. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D9173BF934A35753C1A9629C8B63

6. RJR. “The Kool Nu Jazz Festival Adult Smoker Engagement Training Program.” RJR. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wdd87h00

7. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2005” RJ Reynolds. 16 June 2005. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wwr27a00

8. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2006” RJ Reynolds. 2006. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00

Black Musicians – img16955

by

Although tobacco companies repeatedly exploit music in brand advertising and promotion to appeal to youth, perhaps the KOOL brand has been most relentless in its adoption of music, and jazz in particular, in its advertising and promotional techniques. In 1975, KOOL began sponsoring jazz festivals to target African American consumers. By 1980, KOOL industry documents described KOOL Jazz Festivals as “the premier events in Black soul music,” and cites the attending audience as “90% Black” (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ofn14f00). The series grew to 22 cities when in 1986 B&W decided to downsize to 3 cities and focus on other musical avenues like “KOOL Country Shindig” due to “growing concern that the more successful the [Jazz] Festivals became, the blacker the [Kool brand] image would become” (1).

Although B&W may have been primarily “using the events to offset Black media availability deficiencies” (1), the company also realized that jazz music and music in general could appeal to other demographics as well, as a sort of added bonus. Internal documents from 1981 cited music as “an idea or symbol that was truly Pan-Racial… an idea that transcended the color of a smoker’s skin” (2). In describing a new print ad technique depicting solo musicians of varying ethnicities, B&W’s advertising agency explains, “The print media, due to segmentation, provide the option of 'segregated' brand communication (for example, see Salem campaigns). However, this approach was avoided since it encouraged a split personality, or dual image, for the brand […] Further, we believe that Black smokers increasingly will 'see through' this approach and possibly resent what essentially amounts to a 'separate but equal' dual campaign strategy” (2). In a National Sales Meeting speech, a B&W exec explained their music-oriented approach: “That’s not advertising for Blacks or Whites or Hispanics, that’s advertising for everyone who likes music. And how many people do you know who don’t like music? […] Black smokers are very important to KOOL, as you well know, and we could, like Salem, create a separate ad campaign to run in Black publications… with Black models only. But why should we? We don’t have to do that, we’re going to own the world of music, where the subject of Black and White don’t matter because the only real issue is one of pleasure. Musical enjoyment…linked to smoking satisfaction” (3).

Still, KOOL continues its targeting of young black consumers through the exploitation of popular music. B&W’s “B KOOL” campaign of 1998 included a series of “House of Menthol” promotions, reminiscent of the famous “House of Blues.” The House of Menthol series included KOOL MIXX, nightclub events featuring Disc Jockey (DJ) and Emcee (MC) freestyle rap competitions. In advertising KOOL Milds, B&W positioned the brand as “Groovin’: High Notes, Tasty Beats, and a Smooth Vibe. You’re right, that sounds just like the flavor of KOOL Milds” (4).

By 2004, the KOOL MIXX promotion included limited edition cigarette pack art, meant to “Celebrate the Soundtrack to the Streets.” One advertisement for the special limited edition packs claimed that “DJs are the Masters of Hip Hop like KOOL is the Master of Menthol. KOOL MIXX Special Edition Packs are our mark of respect for these Hip Hop Players.” This national release of limited edition KOOL MIXX packs caught the attention of regulators, who filed lawsuits against B&W asserting that the KOOL MIXX campaign was in violation of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) because it explicitly targeted black youth. The lawsuit was picked up by R.J. Reynolds when they acquired B&W, and RJR agreed to a settlement which limited (but did not forbid) future KOOL MIXX promotions and required B&W to shell out $1.46 million toward youth smoking prevention and cessation in minority communities previously targeted by the campaign (5). Thereafter, B&W maintained the KOOL MIXX promotion in its limited form and skirted the intent of the regulation by formulating an entirely new music promotion with similar appeal. In 2004, B&W released the KOOL Nu Jazz Festival which toured in Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Detroit, and was “meant to communicate the evolution of music” (5). An internal document explains that the Festival was “not just about jazz – it’s about R&B, Neo-Soul, Funk, Jazz, and how each genre of music led to the next” (6). The series included 27 concert events and 20 after parties. KOOL Nu Jazz artists included contemporary hip-hop, R&B, and soul artists including Erykah Badu, The Roots, and Big Boi of Outkast. This expanded in 2005 and 2006 to be “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour,” including John Legend, Common, De La Soul, Busta Rhymes and Blackalicious (7,8).

1. Broecker, BL. “Umbrella Music Strategy.” B&W. 16 July 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tir40f00

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

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

4. “KOOL. TPUSA UPDATE.” RJ Reynolds. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00

5. “Company News; Reynolds Settles Suits in 3 States Over Cigarette Ads.” The New York Times. 7 Oct. 2004. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0DE1D9173BF934A35753C1A9629C8B63

6. RJR. “The Kool Nu Jazz Festival Adult Smoker Engagement Training Program.” RJR. 2004. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wdd87h00

7. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2005” RJ Reynolds. 16 June 2005. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wwr27a00

8. “The New Jazz Philosophy Tour 2006” RJ Reynolds. 2006. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zpl77a00

Virginia Slims Modern Ads – img19766

by

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

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

Marlboro – img42976

by

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

You've Come A
Long Way, Baby – img45413

by

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

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

Future Shadow Faces – img1138

by

Modified to remove the word sweet in response to threats of litigation from the confection industry.

The firm which marketed Lydia Pinkham’s (1819 – 1883) Vegetable Compound perhaps has received too little credit as a pioneer in marketing to women. They coined such unforgettable slogans as “a baby in every bottle.” As indicated, the 1891 Pinkham slogan “Reach for a Vegetable Instead of a Sweet” has been cited as the inspiration for the Hill/Lasker 1928 slogan “Reach for a Lucky Instead of a Sweet.”

 

What I could not find mentioned in the literature was that Pinkham also originated the key slogan of Luckies follow on campaign “Coming events cast their shadows before” in 1891. Using this quote from Thomas Campbell 1777 – 1844, Pinkham’s Vegetable compound alleged their product would “dispense all of those shadows.”

 

Earlier, I has assumed that Lasker’s team, in response to the candy industry’s protests, had cleverly created this follow on campaign as a new means of communicating the weight loss theme without explicitly mentioning “sweets.” It now seems that Pinkham’s inspiration of Lasker was more extensive previously thought.

 

Hill claimed to have created the “Reach for a Lucky instead of a sweet” idea seeing a heavy women next to a slender women smoking on a street corner. However, as both campaigns so explicated borrowed from the Pinkham company slogans of some 40 years earlier, it seems clear that his stories were apocryphal.

 

It also raises the possibility that the “Reach for a Lucky” and “The coming shadows” we part of a planed campaign from the outset. Someone in the Lasker shop, recognizing the great success of Pinkham’s marketing, decided that ripping off their proven method was more expedient that writing new copy of their own.

 

In the tobacco archives, I also came across a 1949 Lucky Strike proposal, by the MH Hackett Company, to resurrect the weight loss theme using the slogan “When tempted to nibble, remember your middle” and “Be smart/Be slender.” Evidently, nothing came of it.

(http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fkf41a00/pdf)

 

 

Avoid the Future Shadow Campaign:

 

“Coming events cast their shadows before” (Thomas Campbell 1777 – 1844)

(appears on most ads)

 

“The shadow which pursues us all” (John Greenleaf Whittier, 1807-1892)

“And O’er his heart a shadow fell.” Edgar Allen Poe (1809-1849)

“Shadows huger than the shapes that cast them” (Alfred Lord Tennyson 1809-1892)

“Condemning shadows” (Shakespeare 1564-1616)

“First a shadow, then a sorrow” (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 1807 – 1882)

School Days – img3834

by

The ads in this theme target young people by featuring high school or university students hawking cigarettes. Graduates in cap and gown, holding cigarettes (as in an ad for Chesterfield from 1940), were used none too subtly to portray smoking as a proud badge of adulthood. All of the leading cigarette brands, including Old Gold, Chesterfield, Cavalier, Winston, Camel, and Lucky Strike, took part in advertising to students. To this day, tobacco companies place point-of-sale advertisements in and around corner stores near high schools, where 3/4 of students reportedly stop by every day.

Ads for Old Gold from the 1920s claim that Yale and Princeton students found Old Golds to be the best of four leading cigarette brands in a blind taste test and that Harvard students liked Old Golds second-best. Decades later, in 1953, Cavalier ran a similar campaign, claiming that “87% of college women” and “83% of Princeton Seniors who were interviewed said ‘Cavaliers are Milder than the brand I had been smoking!’”

Some Chesterfield ads in the 1940s printed college football schedules, one included a smiling young college man with two books tucked under his arm and a caption reading, “the largest selling cigarette in America’s colleges,” and another Chesterfield ad from the period featured a young female model wearing “Chesterfield’s own graduation cap.” Old Gold continued targeting college students in the 1940s with its “Something New Has Been Added” campaign; one of these ads depicted a college man whistling as he walks by a group of co-eds, a shining “G” for Gold on his letterman’s sweater. Winston jumped on the bandwagon in the ’40s, too – an ad depicts two college students sitting on school steps amidst stacks of books as their professor walks by to correct their English, but not their smoking habits. Camel was by no means exempt, featuring a model holding up a college pennant which reads “CAMELS” instead of the name of the alma mater in 1942. In 1959, Lucky Strike was sponsoring and advertising “Campus Jazz Festivals.”

Tobacco companies, which continue to target vulnerable young people today, have a long-standing investment in hooking the teen market. As one R.J. Reynolds internal industry document from 1984 explains, “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (1). Young smokers are crucial for tobacco industry success for two reasons: First, the vast majority of smokers begin smoking between the ages of 13 and 21, and almost nobody picks up the habit over the age of 24, thus, as another RJR document explains, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once older adult smokers pass away (2).

Even after harsh criticism from activists and policy makers, tobacco companies continue to advertise to the youth market. While they claim they target only “informed adults” of at least 21 years of age, recent ad campaigns tell a different story. Take a look at some of our other themes, including “Flavored Tobacco,” “Joe Camel,” “Newport Teases Teens,” and “Recent Menthol” to discover Big Tobacco’s ongoing teen marketing campaigns.

1. Teague, Claude E. “Research Planning Memorandum on Some Thoughts About New Brands of Cigarettes for the Youth Market.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 Feb 1973. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqu46b00/pdf

2. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf

Be Happy, Go Lucky – img3888

by

This theme features Lucky Strike ads from the “Be Happy – Go Lucky!” campaign of the early 1950s and ads from British brand Kensitas, which followed with its “Kensitas – that’s good!” campaign a year later. These ads are appealing to people of all ages, especially teens and young adults, with their vibrant colors, youthful models, fun fonts and carefree messages.

From 1935 to 1959, Lucky Strike sponsored a popular radio show and subsequent TV show, “Your Hit Parade,” which associated Lucky Strike cigarettes and smoking with fun, music, dancing, and friends. “Your Hit Parade” featured popular songs and musicians of the day alongside copious advertisements for the cigarette brand. When the show first aired on television, the program opened up with the following Lucky Strike jingle composed by Raymond Scott:

“Be happy, go Lucky,

Be happy, go Lucky Strike,

Be happy, go Lucky,

Go Luck-y Strike to-DAY!”

At the same time, Lucky Strike began rolling out print advertisements in popular magazines bearing the “Be Happy – Go Lucky” slogan. This followed on the heels of the 1949 campaign, “Smoke a Lucky to Feel your Level Best!” Both slogans suggested that smoking Luckies resulted in emotional and physical benefits, and both campaigns were colorful and youthful, featuring young, predominantly female models having the times of their lives. These ads presented Lucky smokers as young, attractive, vibrant, athletic, happy, and full of vitality. Without claiming health benefits outright, Lucky Strike portrayed its brand as healthy and enticing through these campaigns.

Today's Youth – img4024

by

Young people have been (and remain today) a key marketing target for tobacco companies. It is easy to assume that tobacco companies have discontinued advertising to teens in recent decades, as tobacco companies vehemently claim that they target adult audiences and do not market to people under the age of 21. Though we have many ads from decades past which clearly target teens, children, students, and young adults, we also have a wide selection from recent decades which target youth in more subtle ways.

In particular, older models are featured in ads behaving like children – in this way, the ads appear to target older audiences because the models are older, but their actions speak to younger audiences. For example, a group of friends plays together on a swing or sleds down a snowy slope (Salem), friends eat ice cream sundaes or practice hand stands on the beach (Newport). More extreme cases still can be seen in ads from overseas, which face less stringent regulations than those in the U.S. Ads from Russian brand Kiss, for example, feature young female models dressed in pink, enjoying lollipops and ice cream cones like little girls.

Tobacco companies also use the opposite technique to attract youth, featuring young adults in “adult-only” scenarios. For example, young men and women mingle in a nightclub, meet at a bar, or play billiards (Kool). Teens who see these ads see smoking as a gateway to mature actions which are normally off-limits but desirable.

Most smokers do not begin smoking as adults. Almost all new smokers, the lifeblood of the industry, are teens and young adults aged 13 to 21. An R.J. Reynolds document from 1973 reveals the long-seeded emphasis on targeting teens with cigarette ads: “Realistically, if our Company is to survive and prosper, over the long term, we must get our share of the youth market” (1). In the 1980s, RJR places a stronger emphasis on the necessity of hooking teens early, claiming that “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (2). Later in this same document, the company literally refers to its smokers as if they assets, claiming that a young smoker “appreciates in value over time because of increased consumption.” Decades later, the sentiment that youth must be targeted remains prevalent. A more recent R.J. Reynolds document from 1998 explains that because only 31% of smokers begin smoking after age 18, and only 5% after age 24, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once adult smokers pass away (3).

The emphasis on targeting teens was by no means restricted to R.J. Reynolds. An internal Philip Morris document from 1981 explains that the teen market is “particularly important,” because “today’s teenager is tomorrow’s potential regular customer, and the overwhelming majority of smokers first begin to smoke while still in their teens” (4). Even after harsh criticism from activists and policy makers, tobacco companies continue to advertise to the youth market. While they claim they target only “informed adults” of at least 21 years, recent ad campaigns tell a different story. Take a look at some of our other themes, including “Flavored Tobacco,” “Joe Camel,” “Newport Teases Teens,” and “Recent Menthol” to discover Big Tobacco’s ongoing teen marketing campaigns.

1. Teague, Claude E. “Research Planning Memorandum on Some Thoughts About New Brands of Cigarettes for the Youth Market.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 Feb 1973. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mqu46b00/pdf

2. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf PERFORMING ARTS PAGE 36

3. “The Importance of Younger Adults.” R.J. Reynolds. 27 Feb 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eyn18c00/pdf

4. Johnston, M.E. “Young Smokers Prevalence, Trends, Implications and Related Demographic Trends.” Philip Morris. 31 March 1981. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fts84a00/pdf

Flavored Tobacco – img4050

by

Flavored cigarettes and flavored tobacco have long been held to be gateway products for children, teens, and young adults. Sweet flavors like Camel’s limited edition “Warm Winter Toffee” or Kool’s “Midnight Berry” mask the harsh, unusual flavors of tobacco by overpowering the tobacco flavor with taste sensations that first-time users would find more predictable. Flavored cigarettes continued to be sold well into the 2000s, and didn’t leave U.S. shelves until 2009, when President Obama granted the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. Finally, the FDA was able to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes, citing studies which showed “that 17-year-old smokers are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes as smokers over the age of 25” (1).

Unfortunately, the 2009 ban on flavored cigarettes did not extend to menthols, the most popular flavor added to cigarettes, nor did it extend to cigars, cigarillos, or smokeless tobacco products. And here is where the tobacco companies have been making their biggest marketing pushes recently. Chewing and dipping tobacco brands like Skoal and Klondike continue to sell tobacco flavored with apple, berry, peppermint, and more, while Camel makes serious inroads on smokeless tobacco products as well as menthol cigarettes. The Camel Crush line clearly targets youth as a flavored cigarette, which allows the user to release a refreshing “burst” of menthol flavor with just a pinch of the cigarette, while Camel Snus, a smokeless tobacco “pouch” provides an alternative to smoking with little packets of sweetened tobacco that can be tucked discreetly under the lip during class or in front of parents.

The FDA does have the power to instill further bans on menthol cigarettes and/or flavored smokeless tobacco. It remains to be seen what actions will be taken in the future.

Salem Shows Spirit – img8713

by

In 1982, Salem rebranded their product toward a younger demographic and launched a new campaign, “Salem Spirit.” The new campaign served to rival Newport’s ongoing efforts targeting youth and attempted to steal Kool’s declining young customer base. In “Salem Spirit,” groups of young men and women bond together over fun, youthful activities, ranging from sledding and hot air ballooning to picnicking and frolicking in the ocean.

Internal R.J. Reynolds documents described the Salem smoker as “self-confident, up-to-date,” and as “younger adult smokers (18-23) who are characterized as social leaders/catalysts since they uniquely possess that sense of humor/wit, spontaneity, warmth and unpretentious style that makes them fun and exciting to be with” (1, 2).

The ads were constructed carefully in order to target this very specific demographic in many ways. One way was the use of what R.J. Reynolds referred to as “refreshment communicators.” Used to reflect the potentially unknown sensations of menthol to new smokers, refreshment communicators included “greenery, water, snow, and outdoor situations” (2).

Another method for attracting youth was through the campaign’s use of young, fun-loving models: “Model attitudes should continue to advance the campaign’s imagery through a warmth/caring focus as a vehicle to reflect a sense of group belonging and peer group acceptance,” one document explains, citing the equivalent of peer pressure as a primary method for hooking youth. “This is an important element differentiating the Spirit campaign from Newport’s exclusive ‘coupling.’ Model closeness will be emphasized to gain social smoking acceptability” (2). Another result of “model closeness” is that the activities all feel younger and almost child-like. Indeed, sharing a big drink at a picnic, sledding together, swinging on a tree swing, or playing “chicken” at the beach are all childish activities which contrast strikingly with any claims that the ads target solely adult audiences.

Young people have been (and remain today) a key marketing target for Salem cigarettes. In the 1980s, R.J.R. placed a strong emphasis on the necessity of hooking teens early, claiming that “younger adult smokers have been the critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will continue to be just as important to brands/companies in the future…” (3). Later in this same document, the company literally refers to its smokers as if they assets, claiming that a young smoker “appreciates in value over time because of increased consumption.” Decades later, the sentiment that youth must be targeted remains prevalent. A more recent R.J. Reynolds document from 1998 explains that because only 31% of smokers begin smoking after age 18, and only 5% after age 24, “younger adults are the only source of replacement smokers” once adult smokers pass away (4).

1. Neher, WK. “Refined Positioning Statement for Salem.” R.J. Reynolds. 2 July 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qoe95d00/pdf

2. Hatheway, GM; William Esty. “Salem Spirit DAR Research Perspective.” R.J. Reynolds. 19 July 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/koe95d00/pdf

3. Burrows, D.S. “Younger Adult Smokers: Strategies and Opportunities.” R.J. Reynolds. 29 February 1984. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqq46b00/pdf

4. “The Importance of Younger Adults.” R.J. Reynolds. 27 Feb 1998. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eyn18c00/pdf

Babies – img4318

by

It is shocking to see the plethora of tobacco brands which incorporated images of infants in their advertisements, but these images had multiple values to tobacco advertisers. For one, depictions of babies in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product. Babies, especially, represent purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of infants were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Children – img4333

by

Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Particularly in the Baby Boomer era, depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of children were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Santa Puffing – img4437

by

Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, particularly Santa Claus; Our collection includes numerable examples of ads featuring jolly old Saint Nick puffing away with obvious pleasure on a cigarette, cigar or pipe.

Christmas – img4468

by

Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, particularly Santa Claus; Our collection includes numerable examples of ads featuring jolly old Saint Nick puffing away with obvious pleasure on a cigarette, cigar or pipe.

Clowns – img4478

by

Cherished Icons can be found in a number of Tobacco Ads. Indeed, the tobacco industry has made every effort to associate itself with noble institutions, patriotic themes, and cultural icons that connote respectability. Among the innumerable examples are George Washington, Mt. Rushmore, British royalty, the US flag, the Statue of Liberty, soldiers, astronauts, and even the beloved family pet. Even more prevalent were cultural symbols which brought to mind happy times and celebration, especially Santa Claus. Interestingly, the figure of the clown continues to crop up in tobacco ads over the decades. Simultaneously scary, funny, and perhaps cool, clowns creatively represent cigarettes in a desirable light, and may work particularly well in attracting children.

Children Smoking – img10098

by

Children have played a huge role in tobacco advertising over the decades, and images of children fulfill multiple purposes for tobacco advertisers. Particularly in the Baby Boomer era, depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads reinforced the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life, a perception often promulgated by the tobacco industry. Further, the images of youngsters tended to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, representing purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. Finally, these depictions of children were an obvious ploy to attract females to smoking as part of the industry’s campaign to expand the pool of women smokers.

Gift for Daddy – img10115

by

Depictions of children with their mothers or fathers in cigarette ads have the enormous ability to reinforce the respectability of smoking as a part of normal family life. Because this perception is often promulgated by the tobacco industry, it is no surprise that many tobacco advertisements took advantage of Father’s Day. Indeed, many print ads, particularly from the Baby Boomer era, depict children gifting cigarette cartons to their fathers. The images of youngsters worked to send a reassuring message to consumers about the healthfulness of the product, as youngsters represent purity, vibrancy, and life – concepts which can be dangerous when tied to tobacco products. An R.J. Reynolds ad from 1953, for example, depicts a woman and her two children ready to surprise Dad with Cavaliers. The accompanying text speaks directly to children, essentially selling the tobacco products to kids: “Make your Dad’s eyes light up…as he lights up his favorite smoke…with love from you to him on Father’s Day” 1953

Joe Camel Cartoons – img17784

by

In a transparent effort to greatly increase their market share of young smokers, R.J. Reynolds initiated the now infamous Old Joe Camel campaign for the Camel brand in 1988. The campaign, which ran continuously for 9 years until 1997, featured a cool dromedary cartoon character and faced almost immediate criticism from the public for influencing children to smoke.

From the campaign’s inception, young people were primary targets. The first Joe Camel ad in the United States was released to celebrate Camel’s 75th “birthday” and was based on a French advertisement for Camel filters from 1974 (1). The original French Joe Camel was reported to be a “smash” because “it’s about as young as you can get, and aims right at the young adult smoker Camel needs to attract” (2). (The term “young adult smoker” is industry jargon for the youngest spectrum of customers legally targeted through cigarette ads.)

Studies published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) confirmed that Joe Camel is attractive to children. Indeed, a 1991 article published in JAMA reveals that the Old Joe Camel advertisements “are far more successful at marketing Camel cigarettes to children than to adults” based on kids’ ability to recall the character and find him appealing (3). More shocking still is another JAMA publication from 1991 which revealed that 91.3% of 6-year-old children were able to correctly match Old Joe with a picture of a cigarette, nearly the same number of children as were able to match Mickey Mouse with the Disney Channel logo (4).

Internal documents reveal that young people were further targeted with the ads through appropriation of youth slang. The “smooth character” slogan associated with the Old Joe campaign was reportedly intended to impart a “dual meaning,” indicating that the product itself was literally a smooth, non-irritating smoke, and, in youth slang terms, that the smoker himself had a “smooth (slick or cool) personality” (5).

Additionally, in order to attract young males, Joe was intended to be hyper-masculine, as is evidenced by his face, which closely resembles male reproductive organs. “Reinforcement of masculinity is an important want among a large percentage of males,” another internal document says, “and this is particularly true among less educated and younger adult males (i.e., Camel’s prime prospect)” (6).

Indeed, R.J. Reynolds goes on to reveal the exact target demographic for Camel: “Increasing RJRT’s share among younger adult smokers is a key corporate objective. Within the established RJRT product line, the highest priority has been placed behind Camel as the best short and long-term opportunity to penetrate younger adult smokers … Younger adult smokers are critically important to RJRT long term: They have been critical factor in growth/decline of every major brand/company in past 50 years. They will continue to be important in future, as market renewal stems almost entirely from 18 year old smokers“ (6).

By 1994, many groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, the Surgeon General, 27 state attorneys general, and more had urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to take action against R.J.R.’s Joe Camel campaign. At the time, the FTC decided there was not enough evidence to ban the campaign, but it reopened the case in 1997, when R.J.R. pulled the Joe Camel campaign, seemingly voluntarily. Though the smooth camel eventually left the scene, his 9-year stint in magazines, phone booths, and billboards guaranteed that he was repeatedly introduced to children, adolescents and young adults for almost a decade. Additionally, Old Joe freebies and prizes, ranging from boxer briefs and baseball caps to fishing lures and card games guarantee that Joe remains immortalized.

1. “Regional News from Art Direction: The Magazine of Visual Communication, June 1975.” RJ Reynolds. June 1975. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mmx62d00/pdf

2. Blackmer, Dana. “Memo to Rich McReynolds from Dana Blackmer Re: French Camel Filter Ad.” RJ Reynolds. 7 Feb 1974. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/eve76b00/pdf

3. DiFranza, Joseph R., MD, et al. “RJR Nabisco’s Cartoon Camel Promotes Camel Cigarettes to Children.” JAMA 1991;266:33149-3153.

4. Fischer, Paul M., MD, et al. “Brand Logo Recognition by Children Aged 3 to 6 years.” JAMA 1991;266:3145-3148.

5. “Camel General Market Campaign Focus Group Research. French Camel.” RJ Reynolds. 1987. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dtf44d00/pdf

6. Caufield, R.T. “Camel New Advertising Campaign Development.” 12 March 1986. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vkm76b00/pdf