Media and Ethics
Heather Ferguson
Media & Ethics
Term Paper
 
     In the United States, cigarette smoking and smokeless tobacco together are the single leading preventable cause of death.  Each year, more than 400,000 Americans die prematurely of diseases linked to smoking (1).  That's as many Americans as have been killed in all the wars fought in this century and more than the annual combined death tolls from AIDS, alcohol, traffic accidents, fires, illegal drugs, suicides and homicides.
 Smoking causes approximately thirty percent of all cancers, including cancer of the lungs, mouth, pharynx, esophagus, bladder and pancreas.  It is also a major cause of heart disease, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis.
 Although smoking continues to drop among all major age, race and sex groups, teenage smoking has not declined.  In fact, the smoking rate for teenage girls has risen over the past few years while the teenage boy statistics remain the same.    Almost one million young people yearly, or nearly 3,000 young people daily, become regular smokers (2).  The average for these young people to first use tobacco products is about twelve years old.  As a result, approximately one out of every three young people will die prematurely from diseases related to tobacco.  Smoking is responsible for an estimated one in five U.S. deaths and costs the U.S. at least $97.2 billion each year in health care costs and lost productivity (3).
 Cigarette advertising has concerned the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) since the 1930's, when it sought to prevent companies from claiming health benefits from smoking.  But, there was little evidence to counter these health benefit claims by tobacco manufacturers until 1938.  Even during the subsequent fifteen year period, the agency issued only seven cease-and-desist orders to eliminate various false claims. (The FTC has general authority to regulate deceptive or unfair business practices.  The responsibility is shared with the Department of the Treasury in regard to alcohol advertising and the Food and Drug Administration in the area of drug advertising.)
 Following the 1964 Report on Smoking and Health by the Advisory Committee to the U.S. Surgeon General and after a long campaign by health education and consumer activists, the FTC concluded that the cigarette advertising that failed to disclose the health risks of smoking was "unfair and deceptive."  It proposed requiring clear and prominent disclosure of cancer and other health hazards on cigarette packs as well as advertisements.
 The tobacco industry put its first advertising disclosures in place, but appealed to Congress for lower restrictions. In 1965, Congress preempted the FTC by enacting legislation that called for a milder and less prominent warning. This enraged consumer activists who then employed the "fairness doctrine" of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to force broadcasters to carry anti-smoking "countercommercials."  As cigarette sales began to slide, the tobacco industry, in the words of the chair of the Tobacco Institute, "offered to discontinue all advertising on radio and television."  Congress "accepted that offer" in 1970, and tobacco advertisements were banned from the airwaves starting on January 2, 1971.
 In August 1995, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a set of regulations designed to limit the appeal of and reduce the access to tobacco products.  These proposed rules came after a year long intensive FDA investigation of the role that nicotine plays in young people's lives.  The FDA found that cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products are addictive drugs, which led them to conclude --  for the first time -- that it had jurisdiction over tobacco products.  These regulations prompted more public commentary than ever before; and after reviewing public comments,  the FDA made several changes in the regulations to focus their efforts exclusively to minors.
 Within the past couple years, more and more people have jumped on the bandwagon and are now supporting the anti-smoking campaign efforts.  People believe that it is time to fight back against the tobacco industry who believes that if you're going to hook new smokers, you have to catch them young.  While there is no concrete proof that anti-smoking advertising reduces the number of smokers, states like California, which has taken an especially aggressive approach, claim a sharp dip.  It may be too soon to actually get the real statistics yet, but it is a step in the right direction.
 Recently, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona have pledged to spend $53 million this year on anti-tobacco advertising (4).  That may seem like pennies compared with the tobacco industry's $5 billion in annual profits, but the other states are joining in the campaign as well.  At the beginning of the year, Arizona ran an anti-smoking advertising campaign that ran the message, "Tobacco is a tumor-causing, teeth-staining, smelly, puking habit."  This campaign targeted Arizona's youth and pregnant women.  The campaign cost the state $5.5 million which was funded by a voter-approved tobacco tax increase (5).  The campaign was a combination of  a commercial, radio ads, and posters put up at twenty malls around the state.  They decided to air the commercial during shows that are popular with young people, like Beverly Hills 90210, the Simpsons, MTV Top 20, and Ren and Stimpy.  The anti-smoking campaign targets mostly ten to seventeen year olds because they are most likely to try smoking or chewing tobacco.  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics show that nearly 90 percent of all smokers start using tobacco before they turn nineteen.
 Another campaign is currently underway on the rooftops of cabs in New York City.  For years, tobacco companies have had signs advertising their products placed at eye level on the roofs of cabs.  Every time someone climbs into a cab, they would get a close-up view of this miniature rolling billboard, or "killboard," and then only have to see it again as they climbed out of the vehicle.  The Coalition for a Smoke-Free City, an alliance comprised of approximately forty health organizations, coordinated this attack against tobacco ads (6).  They have created their own advertisements that opened fire on certain ads like Virginia Slims that they countered with "Virginia Slimes."  The Coalition's "Cancer Country" invaded "Marlboro Country."  After this movement, Philip Morris decided to pull its Virginia Slims ads from the cabs.
 Now, we must address the issue as to why so many people are willing to spend all this money to fight tobacco advertisements.  Are adolescents really affected by the ads they see?  Do these tobacco ads really create the desire to smoke?  If so, will using anti-smoking advertisements have any effect on them and curb their desires?  These are all questions that need to be answered, yet some are impossible to answer at this point in time.
 As for why we are spending this money to fight tobacco ads, we should refer to a study completed by the National Cancer Institute.  They reported that the uptake of smoking is primarily an adolescent pursuit.  "Awareness of tobacco advertising and promotion is high, and evidence suggests that it plays a role in adolescent smoking uptake" (7)  In their study, they evaluated the influence of tobacco advertising and exposure to smokers on never-smoking adolescents and their susceptibility to smoking.  They used data on 3,536 adolescents who have never smoked (those who never even puffed on a cigarette) from the 1993 California Tobacco Survey which questioned adolescents their smoking history and inclinations.  For their analysis, they devised two indices: 1) a 5-point index of an individual's receptivity to tobacco advertising as determined by the number of positive responses to five survey items (recognition of advertising messages, having a favorite advertisement, naming a brand he/she might buy, owning a tobacco-related promotional item, and willingness to use a tobacco-related item) and 2) an index classifying an individual's reported exposure to family and peer smoking into one of four levels (7).
 Their results were that receptivity to tobacco advertising and exposure to smokers were independently associated with susceptibility to smoking which is what one would expect, but they did find that the relationship appeared stronger for the receptivity to advertising.  Adolescents exposed to family members and peers who smoked were 1.89 times as likely to be susceptible, whereas adolescents  who scored 4 or more on the Index of Receptivity to Tobacco Marketing were 3.91 times as likely to be susceptible.  Their results supported their hypothesis that tobacco marketing is "a stronger current influence in encouraging adolescents to initiate the smoking uptake process that exposure to peer or family smokers" (7).
 Admittedly, there is no single or simple explanation as to why so many children take up the smoking habit.  It is understood that adolescents develop a smoking habit relationship with external, but immediate sources of information and socialization such as, parents, peers, schools, siblings, and even mass media.  According to Hastings, "children are more likely to smoke if they are encouraged to do so by wider social or cultural pressures out with the immediate circle of family and friends"(8).  Advertising is a part of this wider social influence.  The tobacco industry  has to target young people because, as we already stated, very few people start smoking after their early twenties, so it is crucial for them to focus their advertising on the young.
 Children are very receptive to cigarette promotion, they are good at recalling, recognizing, and identifying things and images exposed to them.  Studies have found that thirty percent of three year olds and ninety percent of six year olds correctly identified "Old Joe " the cartoon character promoting Camel cigarettes.  They found that by the age of six, Old Joe was as well recognized as Mickey Mouse (9).  A study done by the UK states that adolescent smokers who had a favorite cigarette advertisement are more likely to believe that smoking has benefits such as, making you look tough and rebellious just like the Marlboro Man (9).  Tobacco advertisements create an image that is desirable to young people and put their warnings in small print in the corner of the ads in a place so as not to distract the readers of the ads.
 Not only do the tobacco companies use advertisements to promote their cigarettes, but they also use special promotions and giveaways to get people to start buying  their brand or to just reinforce their behavior.  Year after year, they bring back  different sweepstakes where the winner can receive a thousand dollars and a five day trip on a luxurious train to somewhere.  Obviously, smoking is required to win; that, or someone who really wants to win can just buy tons of boxes of cigarettes to give away to the homeless.  Another way the tobacco industry sneaks into our lives is through sporting events, mainly race car events.  At any major racing event that one might attend, they are sure to see a tent set up by a major tobacco company in which they are giving out free samples of their product or hats and T-shirts with their logo on it.  Sure the age to get in is eighteen, but what about all they young children whose mothers or fathers take them into the tent because it is too dangerous to leave them anywhere else.  Most of the time, the children will even get something for themselves while they are in there, perhaps a toy race car with a Marlboro on the side of it.
 As we have learned, advertising has the power of creating false needs for individuals.  Companies use advertising to make the general public believe that their product is something we need and cannot live without.  They also persuade us that of the different brands of the particular product, their product is the best.  This is why advertising exists - to create a demand among consumers.  "Consumer demand is manipulated not only by subtle technologies but also by the obvious content of commercial messages, which show people how to use the commodities.  In this connection, advertising has been criticized for the arbitrary manner in which goods are linked to various attribute presented as being socially desirable" (10)  For example, many cigarette ads have a thin, beautiful girl (approximately 25 years old) being carefree and happy usually with one or two good-looking men nearby.  Or, there is a picture of a seductive and sultry women again of a mere 25 years old sitting provocatively in a nightclub type seen.  The ads geared towards men idealize the more rugged mountain man with the Marlboro advertisements or the rough and rebellious man with the Joe Camel ads.
 Now, we have discussed that people are spending the money because our youth are the targets of the tobacco industry's main goal, and studies have shown that adolescents really are affected by these advertisements.  Does it create the desire for them to smoke?  Well, it does tempt them and give them the idea that it is socially acceptable and desirable to smoke.  That is why several groups have come together to create anti-smoking campaigns that are producing anti-tobacco advertisements.  These are needed so that today's children can be informed on the dangers of smoking.  It is too soon to know the benefits or downfalls of the anti-smoking advertisements.  They have not been around long enough to do studies that have statistical evidence to prove their effectiveness.   We can assume, however, that they are doing some good because at least they are educating the youth.
 With all that is amidst, we might have a deja vu to the 1970's when the consumer activists put "countercommercials" and the radio.  Now, coalitions are creating anti-smoking ads that make a mockery of the tobacco industry.  Will they again see their sales fall?   If so, will they "voluntarily" give up again?
 On June 20, 1997, a landmark agreement between state attorney general and the tobacco industry signaled the end of such cigarette icons as Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man.  The government will now start placing limits on the way cigarettes are advertised and sold, and cigarette manufacturers will pay $368 billion to offset the effects of smoking.  The money they pay will also be used to discourage young people from starting to smoke (11).  This agreement still needs to be passed through Congress which might take until May of 1998, but if it passes it would mean several things.
 The agreement would require the tobacco industry to:
* Drop all billboard advertising and sponsorship of sporting events and concerts.
* Pay a $60 billion lump sum to compensate people who sue tobacco companies.
*    Add stark warnings to cigarette packages, such as "WARNING:  Smoking Can Kill You."
* Pay for anti-smoking education and counter-smoking advertising.
* Submit to full regulation by the Food and Drug Administration.
* Prohibit free sampling of cigarettes.
* Use black-and-white text-only advertising in publications with significant youth readership (under 18).  (Significant readership is defined as more than fifteen percent or more than two million.  No restriction print advertising below these thresholds.)
* Prohibit the sale or giveaway of tobacco products like caps, jackets, ar gym bags that carry cigarette or smokeless tobacco product brand names or logos (12).
 
 There are still several other conditions  of the agreement the majority of the important
rules are listed above.  There is just one other that should be discussed that should not be
grouped with the rest.  The main purpose of this new agreement is to reduce the easy
access of tobacco products to children and to reduce the appeal of them to children.
President Clinton wants a provision that if the goal of reducing the consumption of
tobacco products by adolescents by fifty percent in the next seven years is not met then the
tobacco industry again must pay a severe fine.
 Now, on a more personal note, I agree that something needs to be done about how
cigarettes are advertised, and I agree that an attempt should be made to restrict the access
of tobacco advertisements to children.  I don't necessarily agree that it is ethical to force
the tobacco industry to pay excessive amount of money to stop kids from smoking  or get
a severe fine if the numbers of adolescent smokers is not reduced by fifty percent in seven
years.  I don't agree with the approach that the tobacco manufacturers have taken to
advertise to the youth, but I don't think that it would be right to make them pay the
consequences if the proposed plan is not effective.  If this actually goes through, what
will Congress try next?  Will they make producers of alcohol pay every time a person
under twenty-one is caught with any blood alcohol level?  Or, will they be required to
compensate the loved on of victims in drunk driving accidents?
 The manufacturers and advertisers of potentially harmful products must be held
accountable, but they should not necessarily be held responsible if attempts to reduce
adolescent consumption or use fail.  That is when other methods such as parental guidance
or tougher penalties by the court systems should be implemented.  It isn't just the
advertisements that cause all the problems, so all the responsibilities should not be swept
into their court.  A concerted effort must be made by all.
Works Cited
 
1.  U.S. Food and Drug Administration (1996).  Executive Summary:  The Regulations
  Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to
  Protect Children and Adolescents.  Rockville, MD:  U.S. FDA.
2.  Department of Health and Human Services (1996).  Press Release:  President Clinton
  Announces Historic Steps to Reduce Children's Use of Tobacco.  Washington,
  D.C.:  Department of Health and Human Services.
3.  Department of News and Information (1994).  Fact Sheet:  Tobacco Use and Advertising.  Chicago, IL.
4.  Shrum, Robert (1997, May).  Joe Camel's Kids:  FDA Rule.  National Center for
  Tobacco-Free Kids.  Washington, D.C.:  Smith and Harroff, Inc.
5.  Corella, Hipolito R. (1997, Jan).  "A Message to Kids:  Smoking is, well, yucky."
  Arizona Star Daily. (downloaded from:  NicNet, The Arizona Nicotine and
  Tobacco Network:  Kids and Smoking Issues).
6.  Chouinard, Michael (1997, Summer).  Adbusters:  Journal of the Mental Environment.
  Vancouver, BC:  Media Foundation.
7.  Journal of the NAtional Cancer Institute (1995).  87:1538-45.
8.  Hastings, G. (1995, December).  Tobacco Advertising and Children's Smoking:  A
  Review of the Evidence.  European Journal of Marketing, 1.
9.  Dunn, William (1973).   Smoking Behaiors:  Motives and Incentives.  Wiley:  Halsted
  Press Division.
10.  Leiss, William (1986). Social Communication in Advertising:  persons, products, and
  images of well-being.  NY:  Metheun Publications.
11.  Pope, Charles (1997, June).  Agreement Faces Congressional Scrutiny, Likely Court
  Challenge.  Washington:  Pioneer Press.
12.  U.S. FDA (1996).  op. cit