Purely anecdotal here, but I’m going to say that they are effective; just not in the way that is being discussed.
I don’t believe that they deter many teenagers from smoking; I don’t know if anything could do that. Peer pressure can make ugly diamonds out of beautiful coal.
But I do think that the PS ads plant the seeds early that smoking is harmful, and that many people find the habit to be distasteful. Even if the teenagers ignore that during their youthful immortality, they will still keep this knowledge with them into their twenties. That’s when I quit smoking, always aware of their effect upon my health. And in college and in the workplace, peer pressure was brought to bear, but this time in reproach of smoking. Look at the increasing number of towns and cities enacting smoking bans. And look at the market for stop-smoking products.
It’s a long war. I wouldn’t look for immediate results from these ads, but rather whether they are raising the awareness of people in general.
Purely anecdotal, and not even strictly related to these commercials, but I walk by the local high school every morning, and there are tons of kids smoking out front. I can’t imagine why. Hell, I can’t imagine how. Where do they get the money?
Advertising is a science. Part of it is knowing your target audience and realizing different tactics work for different people.
So the ad company takes the series of ads to the Surgeon General and anti-smoking groups.
“Here’s our ad campaign. As you can see we’ve taken a group of kids that will be seen as role models by their peers and we’re having them present the facts about the dangers of smoking in a clear and logical manner.”
“Wow, great ad, this will really get the message out.”
Then the commercials are broadcast and seen by a bunch of actual teenagers.
“Look at those dorks talking about numbers and stuff. How lame is that? I sure wouldn’t want to hang out with those anti-smoker losers.”
Cute, and totally fictional. Don’t you think that if the ads actually weren’t effective, the tobacco companies would have published some research to that effect? After all, they’ve sued ALG, they’ve stopped funding them, and there are moves to force them to go back to funding them.
Again, all you’ve got on your side are a few anecdotes, a hatred of the ads, and an overactive imagination. I’ve got peer-reviewed research, more than a dozen of our nation’s top health leaders, and (just for some more fun) The President of the American Lung Association.
And why exactly would they want to publish research that they benefit by keeping quiet?
I’m taking a shot in the dark here, but let me guess that none of the people you just mentioned is an actual teenager. So we’re going to put them in the Group A that I referred to in my previous post. I’m sure they’re all pleased with the ads and think they’re great. If we were trying to convince a bunch of middle-aged scientists to quit smoking, we’d be on the right trail.
Meanwhile, this thread, from the title on, has been filled with actual teenagers saying that these ads haven’t convinced them to stop smoking and, if anything, have made them consider smoking more. So a few anecdotes may not be conclusive evidence but it is more evidence than you’ve brought to the table so far.
Why would they want to send lawsuits against the company producing ads they like, and withdraw funding from them? Your conspiracy theory involves some pretty weird, twisted, and abstract conspiracy behavior.
Of course they’re not: instead, they’re adults who conducted (or read) scientifically valid surveys of thousands of teenagers, collected and analyzed the data from the surveys, gave it to other scientists to review, and published the results in scientific journals.
Lots more teenagers are involved in their conclusion than the few who’ve popped into this thread. Let me ask you:
What is the plural of anecdote?
Is the scientific method a useful method?
Assuming you answer “yes” to the previous question, what specific objections do you have to the specific research findings I’ve cited above? “Advertising surveys aren’t always accurate!” is not specific. “They were funded by ALG!” is not about the findings.
