Thank you anti-smoking league for saving our movies

You said earlier "… but the spokesman interviewed that I saw claimed that cigarrettes are in movies because “Big tabacco companies pay filmakers to put them in to help sponsor their brands.”

I don’t think that the spokesman was referring to product placement in small indie movies that children probably won’t ever see. (hence my link mentioning big budget movies) You’re wrong in your claim that tobacco companies don’t pay film makers for product placement.

**

I don’t recall any anti smoking group claiming that they controlled film media, but that they have a strong influence on the media content…which in some cases it seems that they do. (BTW, the word is spelled “tobacco”)

**

Well you did say "…so where the hell do they get off thinking that all forms of television/movie/media are such a strong influence on children that the simplest mention of something “bad for them” should deem immediate censorship? "

Is the “mentioning of something bad for them” often a form of product placement?

So which is it…product placement never works on influencing consumer behavior, or product placement (including the “mentioning of something bad for them”) does significantly influence consumer behavior?

If you admit to the latter, you seem to be running contrary to your earlier statement.

Welcome to the insanity of Washington, DC.

There are, literally, thousands of these little one-issue groups in Washington (actually, most of the small one’s are located across the river in Alexandria, VA, seemingly).

By making these sort of press releases and demands they affect the discussion in ‘official’ Washington. They don’t actually expect their demands to come true, but they give their issue a bump in the Washington Post and get a little national play by being as inflammatory as possible.

You want something that WILL eventually work to bring down levels of smoking? Taxes. As cigarette taxes start spiraling upward (they have for several years, now) eventually smoking might become like cocaine in the early 80s. Only the rich will be able to smoke.

Hell, that would work with almost ANY sort of prohibition. Banning alcohol for moral purposes didn’t work, true. But making a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20 cost $30 sure would.

Don’t mess with my Mad Dog.

I don’t know if it’s just the fact I haen’t been to bed since yesturday morning, but beagledave, I have no idea how your posts are supposed to flow or fit into anything.

The rant is not about the effectiveness of product placement, it’s about how fucking stupid I think it is that some group feels that media is so impactful that the simple suggestion that a character smokes should be hidden away from society “for the children’s sake.”

You will find that, within the advertising world itself, many people feel the impact advertising has is nothing more than a prompt. It’s there to help give you an idea that “if you’re going to do something, you’ve got options, our’s is best,” but lacks the power to influence someone to do something they have no intention of trying. If you’re not hungry, it doesn’t matter how many times I throw images of a Big Mac in your face, you’re not going to buy one. So, although it does have the power to sway, showing characters on stage smoking is not going to suddenly make little children think “Hey, I’m going to go buy a pack of cigarrettes right now and start smoking.” For life impacting decisions like that, family, friends, and peers are the solid influences, and the media is no where there.

As for the product placement issue, the way these people made it sound, they seemed to believe Marlboro reads a script and tells a company “Hey, if you make this guy smoke, and only smoke our brands, we’ll give you money.” That’s horse shit. Paying a studio to have Superman thrown through a Camel billboard and paying them to change the script to promote your product are two completely different things. And paying to have specific cigs smoked on screen…well, honestly, when was the last time you noticed what brand of cigs someone smoked in a movie? Especially something like James Bond? The character has been smoking since he was conceived (anyone who has that much sex, it’d be blasphemy if he didn’t). He also smokes from a cigarrette case, if I’m not mistaken, as does everyone else who smokes in that film. I don’t recall them making any special notice that the missle cig was a Lucky Brand Missle Cig. Unless you’re a hardcore smoker and that’s your brand, I doubt anyone would notice or even care.

But again, this is all off topic. I’m just sick of people constantly trying to censor everything thinking that society has become so touchy about everything. It’s like Spielburgh editing out the guns in E.T.. How is it the children of today are so sensitive to violence, yet the children of the early 80’s could handle close ups of shotguns being cocked and aimed at little Eliot’s face? Pretty soon, someone’s going to lobby that any movie with alcohol in any form should be rated R, and then what? Any form of public affection could be misconstrued as telling our kids it’s okay to start fucking at age 12, so that obviously must be kept from their view. And anyone drinking coffee is obvously teaching our kids bad habits, because that much caffine isn’t good for young ones, so we’ll have to censor that as well.

It’s horseshit. It’s overreacting, and people need to realize that yes, whereas the media does help to set societal norms, it’s also a reflection of them and it’s impact on children is not so severe that we need to provide our children with nothing but “educational” programing, or shit so bad it makes our kids want to gougue out their eyes.

For smoking decisions, advertisement and product placement play a HUGE role in that choice. The vast majority of smokers begin before 18, and the tobacco companies know this. In the past, they have claimed that their ads are only designed to build brand loyalty, and NOT to increase smoking rates. Past internal company documents show that they have lied:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/tobacco/tobacco.html

Furthermore, research establishes a significant link between ad exposure and the rate of teen smoking

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cancer/research/tobacco/tobacco%20notes%20archive/tobacco_notes_10_639_1999.pdf

and

http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=09health.h15

and http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v279n7/abs/joc71624.html

Long story short, you’re wrong about your claim that tobacco ads play a small role in the decision of teens to smoke.

Like I said earlier, it’s legitimate to debate whether there should be further restrictions on ads or product placements. There is a legitimate question about how far government should push in the public health arena, in terms of mandating certain behaviors or becoming what some refer to as a “nanny state”. That is a different argument than pointing out that tobacco companies have traditionally marketed their products toward teens, and that product placement has been one of the tools (among many others, like the Joe Camel merchandise) used in that effort.

Yeah, but Vimes is a smoker! You see, it all ties together!

How, I’m not entirely sure…

Yeah, but Vimes is a smoker! You see, it all ties together!

How, I’m not entirely sure…

Okay, so these tests prove that “some” adolescents are influenced heavily by cig ads. What about those that aren’t influenced by the ads? And in those places where the ad to teen smoking rates are higher, what are the other influences in their lives in those regions? What’s the percentage on non-teen smoking? Look, you can throw any number of sites and tests out there, but like with anything, you can always find sites to prove what you’re trying to prove, and tests that do the same. If I gave enough of a shit about it, I’m sure I could find some contradictory sites, but I don’t care. I’ve been bombarded by the same signals and media as my smoking friends, and I haven’t been influenced to smoke, and thier decision to smoke comes from sources other than advertising through media. They started due to personal interractions. That’s my experience with the situation, and that’s the knowledge I carry with me. Instead of looking at tests developed to get desired results, ask the smokers around you why they decided to smoke and why they chose what brands they use. I’m pretty damn sure not one of them will tell you they picked it up because those Joe Camel billboards are just sooo damn cool.

Let me get this straight…

  1. You first claim tobacco advertising has little impact on teen decision choices about smoking.

  2. I provide several independent cites (out of many…do a google search on “tobacco advertising teens” ) that illustrate that advertising DOES correlate with increased teen smoking.

  3. You say…but umm yeah, what about the kids who don’t smoke because of the advertising…and ummm there are “probably” cites that disprove my point…and umm then you provide personal anecdotal evidence that smoking ads don’t work on you or your friends?

Oh…and that the research from JAMA et al consists of “tests developed to get desired results”

Wow.

Huh.

I really don’t know how to top “the knowledge I carry with me”.

:rolleyes:

R means that someone who is under 17 cannot see the movie without parents present. So this means that they can’t see someone smoke until they are 17? Should they ban people from smoking outside of a doorway unless they make sure no children might see them?

BS.

The bold quoted sections are from beagledave’s edweek article.

**Its authors say their findings challenge the claim by tobacco companies that marketing has far less of an impact on adolescent smoking than social factors. **

No doubt they challenge them. Why would they conduct the study if they didn’t want to challenge them?

**Key factors in that susceptibility, the researchers found, were peer pressure, advertising, and family influence. **

Shouldn’t anti-smoking zealots lobby for laws preventing kids from hanging out with bad-news friends, or watching Mom and Dad light up after dinner?

Exposure to at least one best friend who smoked, for example, increased susceptibility by 90 percent, the researchers found.

I would imagine that exposure to a best friend increases susceptibility to a great many things, from shooting up heroin to running for student council.

**To measure the effects of advertising, the researchers created an index of awareness based on such factors as whether youths could name a brand name of cigarettes. **

How much does brand awareness matter? As mentioned earlier, desires exist independently from advertisements. I could reel off cigarette brands at an early age, but this was merely from standing in line at the drugstore. Shouldn’t kids be banned from any store that sells cigarettes?

I find the anti-smoking measure proposed in the OP ridiculous. If a kid hates the idea of reeking of smoke and breathing dragon breath while effectively setting fire to money, then watching a movie character light up won’t sway them. If a kid considers the whole smoke-reek-dragon-breath-burning-money deal and says “OK!” then they’re beyond the point where keeping away pictures will help.

See, I told you someone with more intelligence than me would come along and find some information to the contrary, beagledave, and even from your own posts.

And here’s something else:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=142211

It’s a thread from MPSIMS. One person makes reference to being influenced by media in the fact that all characters from movies and books that they enjoyed smoked. But not from advertisements. Everyone else seems to be influenced by family and friends. See, I did a test all my own, and look what I found.

I’ve conducted the type of tests you posted about in college, I know how to phrase questions and annalyse the information to get the desired results. So yes, I can look at your sites and tell you “that information still really doesn’t prove anything.”

Ok, now that’s the kind of terrorism I can support.

:smiley:

I’ll bet beagledave is a non-smoker or a former smoker with an attitude. :;

As a former smoker, it was peer pressure (it was soooo :cool: ) that got me started. I coughed and hacked at first, but eventually got the hang of it. Been off the weed for 1.5 years now and glad of it. Managed to buy a new car with the money saved. Well, the down payment anyway. :slight_smile:

But Vimes is trying to quit :stuck_out_tongue:

How the study turns out is quite another matter.

Oh lovely. People who are against smoking are not zealots. On second thought, that means we won.

Red herring, anyone?

It does? Cite?

Where do you think they get the idea of “smoking is cool,” at least in part, from?

Geez…let’s recap, shall we ?

OP disputes the claim that "Again, I don’t have the quote verbatim, but the spokesman interviewed that I saw claimed that cigarrettes are in movies because “Big tabacco companies pay filmakers to put them in to help sponsor their brands.”

I provide cites to show that he is wrong. Does he admit he was wrong? Nope, instead he talks about independent films made by college students, as if those kind of films are the ones that would attract product placement moola. Giggle.

He further claims that …

I provide cites to disprove thatnotion as well (three different cites). I also provided cites via the Smoking Gun that show that (at least in the past) tobacco companies aggresively marketed cigs to teenagers. (Gee, are they THAT stupid to pay for advertising, that according to the OP, doesn’t work?)

Does he admit he was wrong then? Why no, he says that it didn’t work on he or his friends…and then later does a mini poll in MPSIMS where gosh-a-rootie, nobody admits to starting to smoke because of advertising. WOW. Was I shocked!!! I’ll be sure to forward the results of that fantastic study to JAMA for some peer review.

I’ll be sure to forward your astonishing results to the Journal of the National Cancer Institute …

http://www.smokefreekids.com/ads.htm

I’ll also pass on your wisdom to the folks at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/024413.htm

While I’m at it…I’ll forward your groundbreaking research to the good folks at the American Lung Association.

http://www.ritobaccocontrolnet.com/teengirl.htm
I also better pass on your results to Guy Smith, former public relations dude at Phillip Morris

http://www.louisville.edu/~tapfan01/Issue.htm

:rolleyes:
FTR, without knowing the specifics of the statements alluded to in the OP, I don’t have a specific response to the idea about resticting cig content in movies to adult viewing. In general, I think there are probably more effective avenues at lowering the rate of teen smoking. Teens are especially price sensitive to cigs, raising taxes is probably one of the more effective ways to reduce teen smoking rates.

http://www.inform.umd.edu/newsdesk/releases/1998/98077r.html

and

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/April98/smoking.taxes.ssl.html

I should have mentioned that the last link I provided was one that questioned the degree of smoking reduction in teens as a result of tax increase.

I do agree with Jonathan Chance, that tax increases are probably are a first step for those who want to curb the rate of teen smoking.

Well, I found the following links using Google search terms ‘anti smoking movies’:

http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/index.html

and this:

http://staging3.stoneground.com/smokefreemovies/solution/anti_tobacco_ads.html

The first is from the University of California at San Francisco, and the info ‘about us’ is here:

http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/about.html

I didn’t bother with the second, but it looks like a copycat as their ‘about us’ goes to the same link.

It appears to be some professor at UCSF with an agenda.

FTR they do have anti smoking ads in California and they are really stupid. If I were a kid viewing these ads, I would hardly be convinced. Heck the way I quit was through total willpower and a crutch (the patch).

Also FTR, beagledave, hate to burst your bubble about the American Lung Association, but I believe they are only there for the funding they receive. As I recall a few years ago (no, I don’t have a cite, sorry), they awarded the local Non-Polluter of the year award, or whatever they call it to a professor at Cal State, who actually (get this) “rode the bus once a week to work”. I guess the other four days he rode his Expedition or Escalade.

Also, don’t be too sure about taxes doing the job. You know what they say about necessity, don’t you. :slight_smile:

Began looking for some web links for cheap cigarettes, and wow!, there are a bunch.

http://www.indiansmokesonline.com/

http://www.budgetsmokers.com/

http://www.smokes-spirits.com/store/index.asp?source=findwhat

http://www.aasmokes.com/cgi-bin/ccp5/cp-app.cgi

http://web-cigarettes.com/

http://www.abaloneweb.com/stores/abwtobacco.html-ssi

http://www.buycigarettesatgoodprices.com/

http://www.cheap-discount.com/indian_reservation_cigarettes.html

And some news items about the web phenomena:

http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/01/10/onlinecig10.shtml

http://www.techtv.com/news/print/0,23102,3403001,00.html

But this is what you may experience if you try to start a cigarette web site:

http://www.hairyeyeball.net/blog/archives/000722.html

But, remember what I said about necessity?