For every cigarette you don't smoke, I'm going to smoke three.

[Marley23]

@Birdmonster

Benjamin: If I may, speaking from a producer-director standpoint, kids can relate to these guys, they’re not phonies. Kids can spot phonies, they’re very smart.

Noah: Kids know dick. I watch 'em in my arcades. They stand like lab rats hitting
the feeder bar to get food pellets. As long as they pump in quarters,
who gives a shit?

*If Birdmonster were an ice cream flavor… he’d be pralines… and *dick.

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

I am currently not smoking hundreds of thousands of cigarettes. You’d better light up and start puffing away!

[Birdmonster]

@CynicalGabe

Are you serious?

If that were the case, no kids would ever want cell phones or iPods.

Disagree. Listening to music & talking to friends has been a teenage hobby since before I was born. It has nothing to do with authority figures telling them that music and friends are cool. These ads try & say “hey, smoking isn’t cool but not smoking is” and they’re so transparent that I doubt too many kids are falling for them. Sure cell companies & computer companies could be considered “the man,” (as you seem to be saying—correct me if I’m wrong), but they provide something that kids actually want—namely connectivity & portable music.

[Birdmonster]

@Marley23

*If Birdmonster were an ice cream flavor… he’d be pralines… and *dick.

Well played Marley, well played. Also, I didn’t realize gazpacho had posted before my last post, which is basically an overly verbose version of his/hers/soupy’s.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Q.E.D.

I would almost seriously wager that these ads have caused more teens to take up smoking than, than not.

How much would you almost seriously wager?

The American Legacy Foundation’s “truth” campaign prevented about 300,000 youths from becoming smokers between 2000 and 2002, according to a study released yesterday in the March edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

I don’t think teenagers are stupid; I think they tend to have very different priorities than adults have. Consider that many of the things teens value (Boyz2Men) are things adults consider idiotic, and vice-versa (fixed-rate mortgages). The fact that y’all fuddy-duddies consider the ads idiotic is a pretty positive point in their favor.

Daniel

[Queen_Bruin]

Oh I love the one about the cow farts and how tobacco has sooo much methane in them! O noes!!! You’re smoking cow ass!

Christ, I probably put out more methane than a whole pack after a day at my local taqueria.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Lord Ashtar

What I find funny about most of these commercials is that they aren’t really attacking cigarettes at all. They’re pointing out how eeeeeeeevil the tobacco companiees are.

I thought that was the point. That cigarettes are bad is a given, that companies make billions off of peddling addictive substances to weak-minded people is what’s supposed to raise your ire.

I’m surprised at the reactions here, I though companies making billions were fair game. Hardly a week goes by that Microsoft doesn’t catch some flack here, Bill Gates (even though he is a lot more philanthropic than tobacco companies) is still criticized for having “too much”. Windows doesn’t have nearly the detrimental effects on your health as tobacco, but tobacco companies get a free pass? Not just Microsoft, fat cat CEOs get ripped fairly often. Here are commercials ripping fat cat CEOs and people side with the fat cats.

Kinda interesting from a life long non-smoker’s perspective.

[Q.E.D]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

How much would you almost seriously wager?

I might find that article more credible if it was said who actually conducted the study, and what methodology was used to arrive at the stated conclusion.

[Frank]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

How much would you almost seriously wager?

@LHoD's link

The public health journal study looked at surveys of eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders conducted annually between 1997 and 2002. It measured the students’ exposure to the campaign and accounted for factors such as race, gender and income to determine the effect of the ads, which often feature teens publicly questioning tobacco companies.

The surveys showed that 28 percent of teens smoked in 1997 but that just 18 percent did in 2002, and the study credits the campaign with 22 percent of that drop. Researchers found that the prevalence of teen smoking was falling before the campaign began but that the rate at which it fell increased dramatically after the “truth” ads began.

In other words, they pulled some numbers out of their ass to try and protect their funding. In other other words, they ignored the fact that this was a period when many states were passing laws, and actually enforcing them, cracking down on the ability of under-18s to acquire cigarettes.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Q.E.D.

I might find that article more credible if it was said who actually conducted the study, and what methodology was used to arrive at the stated conclusion.

As I said:

a study released yesterday in the March edition of the American Journal of Public Health.

Some googling later, and I find:

Matthew C. Farrelly, Kevin C. Davis, M. Lyndon Haviland, Peter Messeri, and Cheryl G. Healton
Evidence of a Dose—Response Relationship Between “truth” Antismoking Ads and Youth Smoking Prevalence

From the abstract:

Methods. We used data from the Monitoring the Future survey in a pre/post quasi-experimental design to relate trends in youth smoking prevalence to varied doses of the “truth” campaign in a national sample of approximately 50000 students in grades 8, 10, and 12, surveyed each spring from 1997 through 2002.

Results. Findings indicate that the campaign accounted for a significant portion of the recent decline in youth smoking prevalence. We found that smoking prevalence among all students declined from 25.3% to 18.0% between 1999 and 2002 and that the campaign accounted for approximately 22% of this decline.

Thanks for the coding fix, Frank. Your summary of the research or the researchers, however, appears to be wayyy off.

Daniel

[gazpacho]

@Duke of Rat

I’m surprised at the reactions here, I though companies making billions were fair game.

They are fair game. The fact that cigs are bad for you and the companies have acted in a way that most people find unethical is not the point. The point is these anti smoking ads are stupid and look like they were put together by a church group trying to get kids to give up trickortreating because it is evil.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Interesting discussion between the researchers and a physician regarding statistical interpretation of data.

@the researchers

Our results suggest that in very oversaturated markets, youth may have tired of the campaign, thus reducing its effectiveness. That result is not all together unsurprising as advertising experts warn of campaign “wear out” due to overexposure to campaign messages. Does this suggest as cumulative exposure grows, more and more youth will reside in markets where truth is no longer effective? This situation will only exist if the campaign strategy and the relationship between youth smoking and truth exposure remain constant over time.

…

Competing interests: Funding for the original study was funded by the American Legacy Foundation

That last bit there is in the interests of full disclosure: I tend to be skeptical of research funded by folks with a vested interest in a certain outcome, and I also said that Frank was mischaracterizing the researchers, when it appears he wasn’t. My apologies, Frank.

Nonetheless, the research does seem to establish a prima facie case that the ads are somewhat effective, whether or not you like them.

Daniel

[Duke_of_Rat]

@gazpacho

They are fair game. The fact that cigs are bad for you and the companies have acted in a way that most people find unethical is not the point. The point is these anti smoking ads are stupid and look like they were put together by a church group trying to get kids to give up trickortreating because it is evil.

As stupid as the ads may be, they have attracted enough attention to have their own Pit thread. That’s buzz, that’s what you want with your advertising dollars.

I’ve only seen a couple of them, I guess. One where they set up outside Corporate HQ with a bullhorn, and the one where they chase people around with captioned arrows.

Yeah, they are irritating. And noticed.

[Q.E.D]

Not good enough, Daniel. I want to know how they determined that the “Truth” ads accounted for 22% of the decline in youth smoking. I also want to know to what group do those reasearchers belong, and who funded this research. It all sounds too pat.

[Q.E.D]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I tend to be skeptical of research funded by folks with a vested interest in a certain outcome…

As do I. I’m not quite prepared to dismiss it entirely, but I’m now even more skeptical of the study’s validity.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Q.E.D.

Not good enough, Daniel. I want to know how they determined that the “Truth” ads accounted for 22% of the decline in youth smoking. I also want to know to what group do those reasearchers belong, and who funded this research. It all sounds too pat.

Well, you’ve now got all the information you need to head down to your local library and look it up. The study’s online, but I’m not paying for a journal subscription to see it.

Given the choice between believing a peer-reviewed study that finds correlations between adolescent awareness of the campaign and decreases in smoking, and believing an adult who hates the ads and is therefore convinced that they’re not effective, my money’s on the peer-reviewed research. I ain’t saying it’s a sure bet–the fact that the research was paid for by ALF is eyebrow-raising–but their motives in saying the stuff works are at least as pure as yours in saying they don’t work, and they’ve got like quadratic equations and shit on their side.

Daniel

[Frank]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Thanks for the coding fix, Frank.

I only fixed it 'cause I wanted to quote you. And thanks for the display of honesty; I wouldn’t have gone looking for the later info you posted.

I’m no poll expert, but the phrase “quasi-experimental design” raises my eyebrows.

Well, we’ve got some teens running around the SDMB. Perhaps some will them will wander in and give us the non-fuddy-duddy take on the ads.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Frank

I’m no poll expert, but the phrase “quasi-experimental design” raises my eyebrows.

I’ve encountered it in another sociological study. Here’s an explanation, which I’m only gonna skim:

A quasi-experimental design is one that looks a bit like an experimental design but lacks the key ingredient – random assignment. My mentor, Don Campbell, often referred to them as “queasy” experiments because they give the experimental purists a queasy feeling. With respect to internal validity, they often appear to be inferior to randomized experiments. But there is something compelling about these designs; taken as a group, they are easily more frequently implemented than their randomized cousins.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Frank

I’m no poll expert, but the phrase “quasi-experimental design” raises my eyebrows.

It’s also worth distinguishing between Quasiexperimental Design and Quasimodal design, which is basically just a hunch.

Daniel

[Sublight]

Personally, I think these ads are wonderful.

Then again, I’ve invested heavily in Reynolds and Altria (fka Phillip Morris).