From Anti-smoking ads rejected, study finds,
Oh, come on. Now, why would advertising supposedly designed to keep children off tobacco be ineffective when designed by people with a vested interest in getting them on tobacco? That’s like having the Big Bad Wolf choose where Grandma’s going to sleep tonight.
No shit. Those “truth” ads make me want to light up just out of spite, and I quit two years ago.
How much control do tobacco companie have over the content of those ads? The govt. pays for anti-drug ads but those don’t seem to be doing all that much to prevent people from doing drugs. Is it possible that advertisement is only so effective?
I did actually find one Truth advertisement I liked. It was the one with the singing cowboy with his artifical voice box. I really liked that one.
Marc
I have altered the title. Monty, please make sure that your thread titles are descriptive.
Cite?
Not saying you’re wrong, but that was not my understanding.
I just saw this commercial the other day…it fucking rocks.
It’s the first truth ad I didn’t watch and immediately go out and light up after. Hell, it might even be an effective ad campaign, who knows.
Sam
On Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me, one of the panelists commented on this, saying (paraphrased): “So we have a War on Drugs that causes more drug use, a War on Terror that causes more terrorism… maybe we can set these guys loose on an endangered woodpecker or something.”
Sounds good. Is it better thanthis one? It caused the whole country to go ‘ick’ when they started showing it over here…
Philip Morris had been sponsoring anti-youth-smoking ads beginning in 1999, but I believe the judgment only required them to so until 2003.
From: http://no-smoking.org/may02/05-31-02-3.html
Also, from here: http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=819
we get-
So it turns out that Big Tobacco was also sponsoring the Truth campaign itself.
Right, but Monty’s OP suggested that the tobacco companies also play a role in the design of the ads. That is, they don’t just fund them, but determine what sort of message they will convey. I’m not sure whether or not this is the case, but it seems rather unlikely.
I’m not disputing the fact that they were ordered to provide funds. As far as I can tell, that is a well-known fact. I just want to know if, as Monty says, the campaigns were “designed” by the tobacco companies. In other words, how much of a hand did they have in the actual message.
Sorry, mhendo.
This article certainly indicates that the Philip-Morris people think they have control over advertisement contents.
That article only mentioned some obscure book covers. I thought you were talking about TV ads in your OP.
I was. So, is it your assertion that particular company does have control over its non-television ads but no control over its television ads?
Okay, here we go. Apparently, there are two separate campaigns: one run by Philip Morris, one by Legacy. The latter is responsible for the “truth” campaign, though I couldn’t see if they were funded by any tobacco companies. I was under the imoression that they were.
Additionally, I couldn’t find a cite regarding Philip Morris’ influence on the messages contained within their “Think. Don’t Smoke” campaign.
Anyhow, here is an interesting link.
Um, where did I make any kind of assertion?
Am I in the right thread?
Anyway, yes, there was some talk that Philip Morris is forced, as part of the settlement, to donate a certain amount of money to NFPs who are dedicated to the reduction of teen smokers.
The question, though, is whether these ads are the company’s ads.
My impression was that, while the tobacco industry is obliged, by the terms of the agreements between the industry and various states’ attorneys general, to fund anti-smoking ads, this does not mean that the tobacco companies get to dictate what the content of the ads will be.
I know that there are certain limits on the contents of the ads, which dictate that the ads cannot rag too hard on the tobacco companies, but again, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the companies get to dictate ad content.
If you can demonstrate that my understanding is in error, i will happily concede the point.
Should have previewed.
Based on The Swan’s post, it seems that the situation might be different for different campaigns. The Legacy (Truth) campaign is funded by the tobacco companies, but the content is not determined by those companies.
This is separate from Philip Morris’s own “Think. Don’t Smoke” campaign, which appears to be entirely under the control of PM and its advertising agency/ies.
Here is a link to an interesting blog. It looks as though Legacy was under fire for the means by which they secured the Philip Morris funds, and for later creating ads that attacked the tobacco companies.
The 3rd point of contention seemed to be the validity of the study that Monty referenced. It was conducted in 2002, though the one in the OP’s link may have been a separate & later one.