|
 |
|
E Cards
Send a tobacco-free message.
 |
|
|
 |
|
Message Boards
Share stories and opinions.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Undo tobacco industry marketing by questioning the true intentions behind everything you see
from the tobacco industry. Knowing the truth helps to identify and reject their marketing ploys.
Tobacco advertising has been deceiving the public for close to a century. And while the tobacco industry runs ads to tell us that they have corrected their behavior, they still deceive us. They have repeatedly made misleading health claims about cigarettes. They continue to use false imagery to sell cigarettes, and their marketing still appeals to youth.
False Imagery
Misleading Health Claims
Filters
Lights
Attracting Youth
Studying Adolescence
Reaching Youth Through Magazines
Convenience Stores
Candy Cigarettes
Sponsorships
Movies
Decade after decade, cigarette ads have promoted smoking as an expression of independence and part of a healthy lifestyle. And while the industry claims that banning their ads would be an infringement upon "free speech," they fail to acknowledge that many cigarette ads are misleading. Consider just one quote from a tobacco industry document: "The problem is how do you sell death? How do you sell a poison that kills…1,000 people a day? You do it with the great open spaces ... the mountains, the open places, the lakes coming up to the shore… with healthy young people…with athletes. How could a whiff of a cigarette be of any harm in a situation like that? It couldn't be—there's too much fresh air, too much health—too much absolute exuding of youth and vitality."
Pick any cigarette ad and look at the image. Chances are you'll see healthy young people with white teeth and glowing skin, athletes at peak performance, masculine heroes or individuals extolling independence. These images do not reflect the ultimate reality of smoking. Cigarettes are a complex drug-delivery system, proven to cause an addictive reaction—one that renders users dependent. In fact, nicotine addiction has been found to be as strong as heroin and cocaine addiction.
And smoking can lead to yellow teeth, premature aging, impaired breathing, impotence and a long list of deadly diseases. Cigarettes kill 440,000 people every year. And for every smoker who dies, 20 more people live with a serious illness from smoking. Despite this, many cigarette ads are as misleading today as they were in the past. In some cases, the ad campaigns are the same as they were in the 1950s—consider these examples from Marlboro and Virginia Slims. Even tobacco ads that appear to have good intentions are later found to be deceptive—consider this example from Youth Smoking Prevention Ads.
The tobacco industry has long been aware of the harmful effects of smoking. Despite this, many cigarette ads promoted health assurances they knew to be false. Early ads claimed actual benefits, like menthols are a "tonic, for hot tired throats." When the public first became aware of health consequences, ads glossed over the harms: "Many prominent athletes smoke Luckies all day long with no harmful effects to wind or physical condition," "Don't let inhaling worry you," and "More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette." In 1950, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission declared R.J. Reynolds' ads to be false and deceptive. But, the deception continued.
 In response to health news in the 1950s, the industry introduced "Filter" cigarettes and promoted them as a break-through scientific invention with dramatic claims: "scientific micronite filters," "20,000 filter traps," "double-barreled health protection," and "inhale to your heart's content." Reassured by the implied health benefits, the public made a dramatic switch to filter cigarettes. While they smoked with more confidence, the tobacco industry was aware that the filters did not reduce the harm from smoking. In 1958, the U.S. House Government Operations Committee discovered the truth,
and found that the industry again deceived the public with false health claims. The Committee's assessment: "The filter cigarette smoker is, in most cases, getting as much or more nicotine and tar from the filter than he would get from the regular cigarette the advertisers have persuaded him to abandon—for his health's sake." Almost a decade later, the tobacco industry applied similar tactics to the introduction of "Light" cigarettes.
In the 1970s, rising concern over the long-term health effects of smoking caused smokers to consider quitting. Concerned over losing customers, the tobacco industry began marketing Lights claiming "milder" effects and "lower" tar. Their goal was to "provide smokers with….a reason not to quit." One ad claimed: "All the fuss about smoking got me thinking I'd either quit or smoke True. I smoke True. The low tar low nicotine cigarette." However, rather than reducing tar & nicotine levels, the tobacco industry took advantage of government testing machines. Knowing that the machines only hold the very end of the filter, tobacco companies poked microscopic holes in the filters to allow toxins to escape before reaching the machine, resulting in lower readings. The tobacco industry did this knowing that smokers naturally block the holes with their fingers or lips, therefore preventing the toxins from escaping before they inhale. The industry also knew that the filters cause smokers to drag harder and hold the smoke in longer, likely resulting in increased health risks—"the effect of switching to low tar cigarettes may be to increase, not decrease, the risks of smoking." Finally, in March 2003, in Madison County, Illinois, Philip Morris was found guilty of defrauding "Lights" smokers for over 30 years with claims that Marlboro and Cambridge Lights were less hazardous than their regular brands.
With the truth about Lights hitting the news and smoking rates declining, the industry is now promoting cigarettes with "reduced carcinogens," "reduced nicotine," or "reduced secondhand smoke." These products are so new that limited information is available about their impact on health, or about the testing systems that measure their "reduced" ratings. Considering the tobacco industry's history with health claims, we should remain cautious about believing their current promises.
While the tobacco industry claims they no longer target kids, they still use 1950s and 1960s communication tactics developed to attract youth. They still advertise in magazines that reach youth, and sponsor cars in auto races that appeal to young fans. Walk into your local convenience store and look at the placement of cigarette posters. Many posters are hung at kids' eye level either below the register or next to the candy display. You can still buy candy cigarettes that look surprisingly similar to actual cigarette brands—even though they are not made by tobacco companies. And while the tobacco industry agreed to stop paying to have cigarettes in movies, cigarettes still appear in the majority of G-, PG-, and PG-13 movies.
88% of all people who have ever smoked started by the age of 18, and the situation continues. Every day 4,800 kids aged 11–17 try their first cigarette and 2,000 become regular smokers.
For decades, the tobacco industry has studied and exploited one of the most vulnerable stages of human development—adolescence. During this time, youth feel insecure and awkward. They grapple to disconnect from authority and develop their own identity. And, they anxiously seek symbols of adulthood and bravado. It is this vulnerability and psychological need that compel many youth to try smoking and to endure their first cigarette, despite often feeling sick from it. This same psychological need is what the tobacco industry has exploited in cigarette marketing. Consider this quote from a top research executive at R.J. Reynolds in 1973, "The fragile, developing self-image of the young person needs all of the support and enhancement it can get…this self-image enhancement has traditionally been a strong promotional theme for cigarette brands and should continue to be emphasized…a careful study of current youth jargon, together with a review of currently used high school American history books…might be a good start at finding a good…image theme."
Cigarette ads attract youth because they promote smoking as a symbol of independence, maturity and rebellion. Even recent tobacco sponsored youth smoking prevention ads reinforce that the reason kids shouldn't smoke is because "smoking is for adults."
In 1998, the tobacco industry signed an agreement (the Master Settlement Agreement) with the Attorney's General in 46 states vowing to stop targeting youth. In 1999, despite this agreement, Marlboro, Camel and Newport all increased their advertising in youth-oriented magazines. Ads for these three brands were seen by over 80% of youth an average of 17 times a year. That same year, the National Association of Attorney's General charged the tobacco industry for violating the agreement. After this, cigarette ads in youth magazines declined, but they did not stop. In 2002, R.J. Reynolds was charged and fined $20 million by the court for continuing to market to kids through magazines. Though found guilty, R.J. Reynolds brands like Camel and Salem can still be seen in many of the same magazines. And it doesn't end there. In 2003, Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson and U.S. Smokeless Tobacco were caught running ads in school editions of Time, Newsweek and US News & World Report. In total, over 100 tobacco ads were placed in the 3 magazines between 2002 and 2003.
Tobacco documents from the 1990s show that the tobacco industry targeted cigarette promotions in local stores close to high schools and other areas where large numbers of youth congregate. Convenience stores are an effective medium for reaching youth. Almost 90% of teens shop at convenience stores at least once a month. Just three years after the Master Settlement Agreement, which prohibited marketing to kids, the tobacco industry increased their marketing budget by 66% to $11.2 billion. In-store promotions accounted for most of the spending increase.
A 2001 Stanford University study found that nearly half of the stores monitored had cigarette ads placed at kids' eye level—3 feet high or lower. 23% of the stores had cigarettes placed within 6 inches of candy.
Candy cigarettes, once called "Kiddie cigarettes," have been around since the early 1900s. In the 1930s, tobacco companies actually granted candy manufacturers permission to mimic their cigarette brand logos, or "trademarks." When the public became concerned over youth smoking in the 1960s, tobacco companies were warned to withdraw the permission they gave to candy manufacturers and told to take action to prevent "unauthorized" copying of cigarette trademarks in candy products. Tobacco companies publicly disassociated from candy manufacturers and sent letters to the candy makers asking them to stop copying their cigarette trademarks.
Today, tobacco companies maintain that they don't allow candy manufacturers to copy their cigarette trademarks. Yet, you can still buy candy cigarettes that look surprisingly similar to current cigarette brands. Many public health advocates consider candy cigarettes a dangerous example of how cigarettes and smoking are promoted directly to youth.
While the connection between tobacco companies and candy manufacturers has often been debated, the result of these products is clear—children who use candy cigarettes are more likely to become smokers.
Whether it's a rodeo or a car race, sport sponsorships align smoking with the masculine and inspirational qualities of each sport's heroes. And sport sponsorships attract families—40% of NASCAR fans have kids. Cigarette-branded racecars appear in 2-hour televised events. A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that during the 1989 Marlboro Grand Prix, the Marlboro logo was seen or mentioned 5,933 times—almost 50% of the race's air-time. And sports sponsorships influence kids to smoke. The Cancer Research Campaign found that boys are twice as likely to become regular smokers if they are racing fans.
The tobacco industry has long used movies to reinforce the glamorous image of smoking. Historically, the industry spent millions to have on-screen heroes and sex symbols smoke their brands. Philip Morris paid $42,000 to have Marlboro in Superman II, and they paid $350,000 to have one of their new brands, Lark, smoked in "James Bond License to Kill."
And even though the tobacco industry was banned in 1998 from paying to have cigarettes in movies, smoking in movies has increased. In fact, just two years after the ban, smoking in youth-rated films increased by 50%. In 2002, 68.5% of youth-rated movies (G, PG, PG-13) had smoking, and 83% of R-rated movies contained smoking. A study published in June 2003 by Dartmouth Medical School found that over 52% of smoking initiation among teens can be attributed to exposure to smoking in movies.
|
|
|
