The Promotion of Unhealthy Habits through Smoking - Essay Example

The Promotion of Unhealthy Habits (Smoking) through Advertizing Section Number of The Promotion of Unhealthy Habits through Smoking Three of the models1 who appeared as the Marlboro Man ultimately died of lung cancer. All of them were smokers. Yet, for almost half a decade from 1954 to 1999, the Marlboro Man was the epitome of the tough, hard smoking guy – an image that Phillip Morris & Co. had deliberately projected to promote their particular brand of cigarettes. Only God knows how many unsuspecting men and women the Marlboro Man had led to their untimely deaths. The Marlboro Man was responsible, albeit indirectly, for the deaths and sufferings that smoking tobacco can cause. The tobacco companies which conjure up alluring and enticing advertisements to sell their products on the other hand do so deliberately and intentionally, and can therefore be held directly responsible for all health hazards related to tobacco usage, specifically smoking. As one of the five ‘sin’ products amongst alcohol, pornography, firearms and gambling (Venger & Wolburg, 2008, pp. 49), tobacco, in the form of cigarettes and cigar, has been the subject of some of the most intensive, creative and enduring advertising campaigns in the history of the modern world. In fact, the tobacco industry has used every trick in the book to make people take up smoking, and once they did so, to ensure that they keep at it, Starting from what can be taken as he early period of 1920s when the harmful effects of smoking were yet to be established, to present times when the ill effects of smoking have been established beyond doubt, tobacco companies have persisted with their high profile but misleading advertisements finding one excuse or the other whenever they came up against any opposition to their intense desire to make high profits at the cost of their customers or users. Till as late as the 1970s tobacco companies had an almost unobstructed ride with their freewheeling advertisements. However, as more and more irrefutable scientific evidence pointed towards smoking-related health hazards, governments of more advanced nations and various other social and medical groups took up cudgels against irresponsible cigarette advertisements that could mislead people. In the United States such resistance culminated in the Master Settlement Act (MSA) signed on November 1998 between 46 states and five territories and he major tobacco companies viz. Phillip Morris Companies (now known as Altria), RJ Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, and Brown and Williamson. The MSA came into effect in 1999 and curbed outdoor cigarette advertising, transit advertising, cigarette-related cartoon characters, product placement in the media and tobacco merchandizing (Krugman et al, 2006, pp. 197). Simultaneously, it had been made mandatory that all tobacco products carry health hazard warnings, and even more stringent laws have been enacted in states such as California to ban tobacco advertisements in youth magazines and sale of tobacco to young people. In spite of all such anti-smoking measures, tobacco companies still managed to come up with novel ways of circumventing the law and rules and use advertisements to promote sales. Malafide Intentions The motto of the tobacco industry has always been to ‘catch them young’, but at the same time deny such intentions vehemently. Adolescents and youths are targeted by tobacco advertisements in order to initiate them into the habit of smoking. This fact is borne out by studies1 which have examined tobacco advertisement spendings in youth magazines as compared to such spendings in adult magazines, and have tried to gauge the extent of exposure of youths to tobacco advertisements in popular magazines with high youth readership. In their study, Krugman et al (2006) examined 28 youth magazines and 25 adult magazines over a period of 10 years from 1993 to 2002 to determine and compare the extent of tobacco advertising in the sample magazines for three major cigarette brands: Marlboro, Newport and Camel. The study also attempted to measure the extent of exposure to youths in the age range of 12 to 17 years in terms of reach and frequency in the case of youth, adult-based or other magazines. The study also attempted to compare the difference in exposure before and after the implementation of MSA in the US. The study found that the total expenditure on cigarette advertisements was considerably higher in youth-classified magazines. In fact 62% of both total expenditure and pages of cigarette advertisements figured in youth classified titles (Krugman et al, 2006, pp. 204). The immediate effect of the implementation of the MSA in 1998 was reflected in 1999-2000 by a jump in the advertisement spending levels of the three brands in youth classified magazines. 1999, the year immediately after MSA same into effect, recorded the highest advertisement expenditures and the second highest number of pages of cigarette advertisements in the 10 years of the study (Krugman et al, 2006, pp. 204). In terms of frequency1 and reach2 also, exposure of youths to cigarette advertisements in youth-oriented magazines was found to be very high. The highest level of exposure was recorded in the year 1993 with more than 93% of teenagers being exposed to advertisements of at least one of the brands under consideration in youth-oriented magazines. Comparatively, however, exposure of youths to cigarette advertisements in adult-oriented magazines was much lower (Krugman et al, 2006, pp. 204). The data collated in the study also showed a tapering off of the reach and frequency of cigarette advertisements in magazines in 2001 and the eventual sharp drop in 2002 mirroring the rise in awareness to the harmful effects of smoking and consequent application of restrictions on cigarette advertisements in the United States and other countries of the world (Krugman et al, 2006, pp. 207). It is therefore established beyond any doubt that tobacco companies deliberately target adolescents and youths in their advertisements and are also largely successful in reaching them. This has also been proved my internal documents of tobacco companies made public in the course of litigations related to the MSA. “One industry market research report noted that young smokers will become brand loyal if they smoke a brand 200 times (10 packs) and emphasized that retail value-added incentives (e.g. promotional items) can encourage the purchase of the required number of packs.” (Gilpin et al, 2007, pp, 1489). The questions that arise at this juncture is: what effects do exposure to cigarette advertisements have on adolescents and youths? Do these advertisements actually initiate smoking among the young? How do youngsters react to these advertisements? The answers are not far to find. Effects of Tobacco Advertisements Tobacco advertisements have been found to work in two ways on those who are exposed to them, especially adolescents. First, these advertisements create a positive image of smokers, and secondly, they serve to reinforce the effect of peer influence to smoke on adolescents. Studies have found that the impact of cigarette advertisements is more on adolescents than on adults because of the typical identity crisis that most adolescents face at their age (Aloise-Young et al, 2006, pp. 281). Adolescents are therefore more susceptible to adopt the positive persona of the smoker depicted in cigarette advertisements. When a positive image of the smoker is impressed on the mind of the adolescent, it acts as the mediator between attention to the advertisement and the actual act of smoking in the adolescent. Exposures to cigarette advertisements also make adolescents feel that smoking is the norm rather than the exception among peers. This feeling exerts peer pressure and acts as a moderator for the adolescent to take up smoking. The adolescent takes up smoking because he or she feels that it is the in thing to do. The study conducted by Aloise-Young et al (2006) took up 242 middle and high school students as the sample. The study attempted to find out what kind of smoker image was conveyed by cigarette advertisements and to what extent exposures created peer pressure to smoke, after first establishing the extent of exposure of adolescents to cigarette advertisements in various magazines. The study came to the conclusion that regardless of how cigarette advertisements are measured, they are always related to smoking in adolescents. It was found that both exposure to cigarette advertisements as also recognition of such advertisements augmented passive peer pressure on adolescents (Aloise-Young et al, 2006, pp. 294). This indicates that both close attention and casual attention to cigarette smoking acts in much the same way on the adolescent mind. Cigarette advertisements portray a very positive image of the smoker associating characteristics such as popularity, coolness and attractiveness with the smoker. The image of the smoker becomes a role model for the adolescents who takes up smoking to project the same attributes in her or his own persona. In a study conducted by Freeman, et al (2009) it was found that the sample group of 271 youths in the age group of 7-12 years, a majority of the respondents primarily identified the product and not the brand, thus negating the claim of the tobacco industry that their advertising was for brand switching and not for initiating. When youths sense the products and not the brands in advertisements they are more likely to take up smoking initially on a experimental basis. The study also revealed that for the respondents who understood or could identify brands in cigarette advertisements, susceptibility to smoking increased by about 182% (Freeman, et al 2009, pp. 36). Other studies have tried to estimate the receptivity of adolescents and youths to cigarette advertisements not only in magazines but also in other forms. Gilpin et al (2007) tried to find out the effect cigarette advertisements in all forms had on adolescents and youths in the course of six years. They studied two batches of teenagers in the age group of 12-15 years for the periods 1993 – 1996 – 1999 and 1996 – 1999 – 2002 to assess a six year impact keeping the MSA as a marker in between. They came to the worrying conclusion that receptivity to tobacco advertisements could make smokers in young adulthood. This implied that impressions created during adolescence could eventually manifest themselves in later stages of life. The study categorized receptivity from highest through moderate to minimal or low levels, the highest receptivity being defined as having or being prepared to use a tobacco promotional item. Low receptivity equates to a total lack of awareness of tobacco advertising (Gilpin et al, 2007, pp, 1491). The study found that those with high receptivity increased their odds of taking up smoking by a factor of 1.84; and those with moderate1 receptivity increased their odds by a factor of 1.46 (Gilpin et al, 2007, pp, 1492). The impact of the MSA was demonstrated when the study found much higher receptivity in youths in 1996 than in 1999. There was also no interaction between receptivity and baseline smoking experience implying that the adolescent remained open to both negative and even positive influences such as anti-smoking awareness. However, there was also “no significant interaction between young adolescent’s smoking experience and their receptivity to tobacco advertising and promotion, suggesting that the effects of tobacco advertising and promotion were relatively uniform across all (3) levels of smoking experience” or status (Gilpin et al, 2007, pp, 1493). We therefore know that tobacco companies deliberately target adolescents and youths through their advertisings, that they are largely successful in reaching their target audience, and that the advertisements have the desired effects on the young people. In order words, tobacco advertisements effectively reach young people and make them take up smoking. Yet the tobacco industry plays the proverbial ostrich, refusing to accept the facts as they are, or more deceitfully trying to distort reality for financial gains. Their approach to product promotion smacks of hypocrisy. Double Standards of the Tobacco Industry Going by the rate of increase in criticism and litigation against it, the tobacco industry has been at the receiving end for the last decade. People all over the world are now aware of the harmful effect of smoking and its costs to the individual as well as to national exchequers. The tobacco companies had long since realized that damage control exercises would be required to keep their public images intact. They therefore tried to act the part of good corporate citizenship through the enactment of the self-proclaimed Cigarette Advertising and Promotion Code which was initially announced in 1964, and further updated in 1982 and 1990. The central theme of this Code is that the industry would not target youths in their advertisements and initiate them to smoking. Important provisions of the Code deserve to be quoted: “The cigarette manufacturers have adopted the following Code to emphasize their policy that smoking is solely for adults.” “No one depicted in cigarette advertising shall be or appear to be under 25 years of age.” “Cigarette advertising shall not suggest that smoking is essential to … success or sexual attraction.” “Cigarette advertising shall not … show any smoker participating in, or obviously just having participated in, a physical activity requiring stamina or athletic condition beyond that of normal recreation.” (Arnett, 2005, pp. 419) Other provisions of the Code ban featuring cigarettes in youth-popular venues and events such as movies, sports or celebrity testimonials, and significantly prohibit advertising directly to those below 21 years of age. High ideals indeed, but sadly enough, they stem from the knowledge that all the wrongs that they address have been and are to a certain degree still being deliberately committed. A number of studies have revealed that tobacco companies in general do not adhere to the Code. Surveys have revealed that models in cigarette advertisings are judged to be below 25 years in age by a considerable percentage of respondents. A sizeable number of respondents were also of the view that the ads depicted people participating in activities that would require stamina or a physical condition above what is required for normal recreational activities. Finally, these studies also found that the models depicted were on an average found to be ‘cool, popular, successful, sexy and athletic’ (Arnett, 2005, pp. 421), images that go directly against the norms laid out in the Code. Arnett (2005, pp. 429) found that young models are used in youth brands of cigarettes not simply because they are more attractive than older models, but more because they are representative of the target population. Models for adults brands are usually older in age and also look older. A majority of respondents of the study found that the ads depicted smoking to enhance sexual attraction and as an indicator of success. Tobacco companies therefore do not practice what they preach. They preach only for the sake of their public image. Exploiting Strengths and Weaknesses of others Cigarette advertising down the years has tended to exploit both the strengths and weaknesses of others to the hilt. The case of physicians in cigarette promotion is a prime example. During the 1930s and 1940s there was an unprecedented rise in cigarette smoking both amongst men and women in America. What is more, a majority of physicians had also taken up smoking. Medical science is a profession that commands trust and respect. The tobacco industry took full advantage of this. The Reynolds tobacco company launched a very popular advertising campaign centered on physicians for their brand Camel. Using the slogan “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarettes”, the company wanted to assure people that since doctors themselves smoked their brand, it must be safe enough for the common man to smoke (Gardner & Brandt, 2006, pp. 222). Doctors were in fact presented with free samples of Camels and made to deceptively accept that they indeed smoked the brand. Reynolds was not the only tobacco company to exploit the exalted position of physicians, all the major tobacco companies used physicians to either certify that their specific brands were safer, medically sound or offered some health advantage to steal over the competition. The big money involved in cigarette advertisements lured many physicians and even reputed medical organizations such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the New England Journal of Medicine to tacitly accept tobacco company claims that were insidious and not based on sound scientific or medical evidence (Gardner & Brandt, 2006, pp. 225). However as more and more medical evidence proved that cigarette smoking was injurious to health, doctors started to vehemently protest against such ad campaigns by tobacco companies, and the trend petered out by the late fifties. Just as tobacco ads exploited the advantageous position of physicians, they have also attempted to take advantage of weaknesses of people. Knowing that adolescent students are prone to alcohol use, tobacco companies have tailored their ads to tie cigarette smoking together with smoking so that people who drink get an impetus to smoke too. This, with the full knowledge that alcohol consumption appears to induce nicotine urges and vice versa (Belstock et al, 2008, pp. 386). The tobacco industry has also traditionally sponsored promotional events at bars and nightclubs. Zeroing in on Gender, Race and Cultural preferences Tobacco industry advertising have also successfully zeroed in on gender, race and cultural traits and preferences to promote smoking. Ads targeting women were first used in 1920. Exclusive brands for women such as Virginia Slims were linked to women issues such as thinness, independence and glamour, unlike male brands the ads on which focused more on virility, strength and flavor. Thanks to such women-oriented ads, the sales of the brand Lucky Strikes, example increased by a phenomenal 312% in the year 1920 (Fernandez, et al, 2005, pp.142). Cigarette ads also differentially targeted racial groups such as Latinas, Blacks And Whites according to their preferences. Ads for menthol cigarettes were targeted more at Latinas and Blacks, while Whites were targeted for non-mentholated cigarettes, especially in the case of women, in keeping with their preferences (Fernandez, et al, 2005, pp.143). Tobacco ads were more gender-specific for Latinos and Blacks than for Whites because of the presumption that white women believed more on gender equality than Blacks or Latinas (Fernandez, et al, 2005, pp.150). In a study conducted by DiRocco & Shadel (2007), it was found that tobacco ads attributed relaxing and de-stressing properties to smoking because “females displayed increased intention to smoke in response to ads that displayed themes that were highly relaxing. Males did not show any such preferential response.” Advertising for cigarettes have also used themes according to the cultural differences in various countries and also on the basis of the level of regulatory measure in force on tobacco usage in these countries. Ads have promoted smoking more aggressively in less heavily regulated countries such as Ukraine, and less aggressively in highly regulated countries such as the United States (Venger & Wolburg, 2008, pp. 52). Cigarette ads have addressed cultural differences such as those between individualistic and collective societies, by incorporating cultural or ideological meanings (Venger & Wolburg, 2008, pp. 53) so that they are specific to the culture or ideology. Conclusion It is therefore evident that advertisement is primarily responsible for the promotion of an unhealthy habit such as smoking. The tobacco industry has used all conceivable advertizing strategy to make youths specifically and the entire population in general to take to smoking. They have exploited all possible avenues of promotion very innovatively and creatively but also unscrupulously to a great extent. Developed nations of the world have woken up to the dangers and costs of smoking, but there is still a lot to be done to rid the world of the menace. The impact, receptivity and modus operandi of cigarette advertising have to be understood in their entirety in order to be able to come up with effective anti-smoking policies and measures. All the loopholes need to be plugged so that not a single whiff of smoke can escape and pollute the world. References -01 DiRocco, Danae N., Shadel, William G. "Gender differences in adolescents responses tothemes of relaxation in cigarette advertising: Relationship to intentions to smoke." Addictive Behaviors; Feb2007, Vol. 32 Issue 2, p205-213, 9p. Freeman, Dan, Brucks, Merrie, Wallendorf, Melanie, Boland, Wendy,. "Youths understandings of cigarette advertisements." Addictive Behaviors; Jan2009, Vol. 34 Issue 1, p36-42, 7p. Gardner, Martha N., Brandt, Allan M. "The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930-1953." American Journal of Public Health; Feb2006, Vol. 96 Issue 2, p222-232, 11p, 4 color, 2 bw. Gilpin, Elizabeth A., White, Martha M., Messer, Karen, Pierce, John P. “Receptivity to Tobacco Advertising and Promotions Among Young Adolescents as a Predictor of Established Smoking in Young Adulthood.” American Journal of Public Health; Aug2007, Vol. 97 Issue 8, p1489-1495, 7p, 2 charts, 2 graphs. Belstock, Sarah A., Connolly, Gregory N., Carpenter, Carrie M., Tucker, Lindsey. “Using Alcohol to Sell Cigarettes to Young Adults: A Content Analysis of Cigarette Advertisements.” Journal of American College Health; Jan/Feb2008, Vol. 56 Issue 4, p383-389, 7p, 3 charts. Fernandez, Senaida, Hickman, Norval, Klonoff, Elizabeth A., Landrine, Hope, Kashima, Kennon, Parekh, Bina, Brouillard, Catherine, Zolezzi, Michelle, Jensen, Jennifer, Weslowski, Zorahna. "CIGARETTE ADVERTISING IN MAGAZINES FOR LATINAS, WHITE WOMEN, AND MEN, 1998-2002: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION." Journal of Community Health; Apr2005, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p141-151, 11p, 4 charts. OK, but I would like to see a focus on one group. For example, you could look just at teens. Venger, Olesya, Wolburg, Joyce M. "Selling Sin" in a Hostile Environment: A Comparison of Ukrainian and American Tobacco Advertising Strategies in Magazines. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising; Fall2008, Vol. 30 Issue 2, p49-63, 15p Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen1. "Talk is Cheap: The Tobacco Companies Violations of Their Own Cigarette Advertising Code." Journal of Health Communication; Jul/Aug2005, Vol. 10 Issue 5, p419-431, 13p, 5 charts. OK, but again, I would like to see a focus on one demographic group. Aloise-Young, Patricia A., Slater, Michael D., Cruickshank, Courtney C. "Mediators and Moderators of Magazine Advertisement Effects on Adolescent Cigarette Smoking." Journal of Health Communication; Apr/May2006, Vol. 11 Issue 3, p281-300, 20p, 3 charts, 2 graphs. Yongjun Sung1, Hennink-Kaminski, Heidi I.2. "THE MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ND VISUAL IMAGERY OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING IN TWO POPULAR YOUTH MAGAZINES." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly; Summer2008, Vol. 85 Issue 2 p331-352, 22p. Krugman, Dean M, Morrison, Margaret A, Sung, Yongjun. "Cigarette Advertising in Popular Youth and Adult Magazines: A Ten-Year Perspective." Journal of Public Policy & Marketing; Fall2006, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p197-211, 15p Read More