Cigarette Advertising Restrictions
04/30/2007 10:54 pm
I was flipping though one of the magazines we get looking for something interesting to kill some time, you know, bathroom time. Anyway, as I was flipping through the magazine something stopped me cold. An advertisement for cigarettes. There was nothing particularly eye catching about it either. I realized that this wasn't the first time that happened to me either, and a thought occurred to me. By passing laws that restrict where "Big Tobacco" can advertise (a policy that's open to debate to begin with) have we accomplished what we set out to do?
Advertisements are everywhere and are so easily glossed over. It's gotten to the point where seeing a cigarette ad is really a "woah" moment, because they are so rare. (Not to mention are so often advertised against.)
So the question I pose to the masses is this. If we diminish the number of ads 10 fold, but in turn increase the impact of the ads 10 fold, have we accomplished anything? Or am I alone on the "impact" increase anyway?
|Alex - Refactor Mercilessly|
|Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!?|
|Seriously? You're never taken aback by them, at least more so than other ads? They're the white whales of the advertising world.|
|Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts|
My eyes don't really see advertisements anymore- and if they do, it's a particular thing IN the add, and not necessarily the ADD itself.
People need to stop assigning blame where it doesn't belong. Cigarette adds may be effective, but so was the prospect of getting a good butt-whooping from my Dad (if he ever caught me smoking). It worked until I realized I could whoop HIS butt...
|Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.|
Well as I said the policy itself is open to debate, and not really the focus here. However since no one seems to give a damn about the "focus" let's start said debate.
I hate cigarettes with a holy passion. I can't stand being in the same room as someone who's smoking. I also don't get how smokers don't get how much it bothers non smokers.
That being said I think we've gone wholly overboard when it come to the whole anti-smoking thing. For selfish reasons I like the smoking bans in public and private places. I don't necessarily think though that the government should have the right to tell those private places what to do. I guess though the government can tell those places they cant sell marijuana or be brothels, so I guess in principal it's a similar thing. (And yes I know those two things I mentioned are illegal, but it's still the same principle. They are still telling places what they can and can't do, it just so happens that in those cases the government is saying "no" because they have arbitrarily decided those things are illegal, as opposed to another arbitrary reason)
As for advertising I find it somewhat perplexing why we chose this one industry to say "not only can you not advertise in 99% of the places you did, but you have to pay to advertise AGAINST yourself". It's not like the tobacco companies are all that is wrong with the world, or even the corporate world.
To a certain extent wouldn't the "ban" be carried out by the free market anyway? Nickelodeon isn't going to OK a Winston ad just because it now has the right to. It will still stick to its 'kids come first' ethics and stick to advertising cereals, beverages, candy, and junk food that are 99.999% sugar. Billboard companies should decide for themselves if they want the ad or not. Anyone would still have the right to refuse the tobacco company's money.
I think a lot of the scare around tobacco is well intentioned. However, it's another arm of the "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children" branch of government that has gotten wildly out of control in the name of protecting kids from the "big bad world".
Oh, and yes, Matt, I know who's responsible for it.
|Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts|
|Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet|
|I think Matt would prefer the Nazis, but no, another group.|
|Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts|
|Matt - 3443 Posts|
Jeremy Wrote - 05/01/2007 @ 04:14:32 PM
I think Matt would prefer the Nazis, but no, another group.
Inaccurate, and uncalled for.
|Alex - 3619 Posts|
I'm in the same boat as Carl here. I got a couple of months Sports Illustrated subscription for Christmas and I could probably name 10's of articles that I read but not a single ad. If I turn the page and it's not predominately text I just keep turning.
And yes, the whole anti-smoking thing is somewhat out of hand. But from an advertising perspective I think the restrictions are mostly for show. Everyone knows about cigarettes, they're still on movies and at convenience stores and smoked in some public places. So I doubt whether cigarette companies even care that much about it.
|Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"|
Everyone knows about McDonalds and Pepsi too, that doesn't stop them from advertising. I can assure you any company forced to spend money against themselves would care.
Again my point wasn't that you I take 10 minutes to analyze the ads. The point was that I could flip through a magazine and 1 second later not tell you what a single ad was, but that for whatever reason it registers with me when it's a cigarette ad. That's all.
|Micah - 584 Posts|
|There's a huge ad campaign in NY right now trying to get movies with smoking in them an automatic R rating. I pretty much want to burn every one of them I see|
|Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts|
In regards to Jeremy's last- the Cig companies are spending money advertising against themselves... true, but you're not in their target audience (anymore). Part of me says that because they are continually admitting how bad their product is, that some kids (12-16 year olds) are taking up the habit in order to be cool because they "don't care."
Bad publicity is in fact, publicity. Hollywood does it too- anything to get your name on the TV, billboard, Rag Mags, etc.
|Jeremy - 9040 Posts|
It's true that in some sense it might be a "loop hole" of sorts. Still, for whatever reason, people seem to think of the tobacco industry as one entity when they are not.
Sure Pepsi's ads might be aimed at creating new cola drinkers, but it's much more likely their aim is to get some Coke drinkers to switch brands.
There are more reasons to advertise than for the purpose of getting a person who doesn't use your, or any competitor's, product to start just using someone's product.
|Carlos44ec - Tag This|
|Jon - 2934 Posts|
Micah Wrote - 05/02/2007 @ 08:17:57 AM
There's a huge ad campaign in NY right now trying to get movies with smoking in them an automatic R rating. I pretty much want to burn every one of them I see
What do you want to burn? The cigarettes?
And then you want to place the burning cigarettes in kids' mouths?
Seriously though, I don't think we've talked about this on here, so let me tell you all something about me.
I'm all for getting kids not to smoke. And I'm not big into smoking in general, especially the secondhand kind.
But you know what just annoys the crap out of me? Those anti-smoking, anti-"big tobacco" ads. I mean, they've got good info and stuff and it's a good cause but I hate those ads. (that just sounded like a Head On commercial) You know why I hate them? Because they act all pompous and know it all-y. And I don't feel this way in a "hey don't tell me how to live my life" kind of way, because that argument always seems pretty hollow to me. This is different. Those anti-smoking kids are going above and beyond to be annoying about how they're cleverly sticking it to "big tobacco" which, by the way, is an annoying term on top of it all.
I can't even imagine how annoying they would be if I was a smoker. I would probably want to keep smoking just to spite them.
Anybody feel the same?
|Scott - 6225 Posts|
I know what you mean. "Big tobacco" kind of died in the 90s after the Congressional testimony that "Nicotine is not addictive" and the huge influx of lawsuits that came out of the decade. What I do see about those commercials that Jon is talking about is simply making the general public more aware of the dangers of smoking. They could probably cut down on the "blame game" type of thing and just emphasize that smoking is bad. I mean, no one is disagreeing with the fact that the tobacco companies were pretty corrupt and probably still are a bit. No one really needs to be reminded of that. Although I'm all for removing smoking from the public arena. What's worse, discriminating against a smoker or discriminating against a non-smoker who can't watch a movie near his/her home because that person is allergic to cigarette smoke.
A person has every right to smoke. But once my right to breathe clean air is infringed upon, your right goes out the window. That's my stance on it.
|Jeremy - 9040 Posts|
Yeah, smoking is different from other "personal choices in public" issues because in many ways it really isn't a personal choice at all. You're deciding for the entire room "we're all having a smoke." Though I don't doubt the bad effects of 2nd hand smoke have been trumped up by "anti-tobacco" as a scare tactic it's not like that is the only bad outcome of being around smoke.
Kind of like if you live in a really smelly house you can't tell if something is off, smokers just don't notice the smell of smoke. To non smokers it's one of the stronger and more clingy smells out there. I wonder if you wore a shirt into a bar and then didn't wash it how long you could smell smoke on it.
If you walked into a crowded bar and just started lightly misting harmless water in all directions you'd probably make it about 5 minutes before you got tossed.
|Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich|
I agree with you three on this issue- I'm all for YOUR rights, and will defend your right to make your own choices. Where the line is drawn (in my opinion anyway) is when YOUR rights infringe on MY rights. (lable me a libertarian if you want)
Therefor, YOU can smoke, but I don't want to have to deal with it.