Bliley TI
Cigarette Advertising and Promotion -- The Free-Speech Perspective
Abstract
Includes report headings: "Executive summary; Introduction; Chapter I: Why do young people begin smoking?; Chapter II: How advertising works - Competition in a 'mature' market; Chapter III: International experience with cigarette advertising bans; Chapter IV: Cigarette advertising and 'targeting'; Chapter V: Promotional activity by cigarette manufacturers; [and] Conclusion.
Fields
- Company
- Tobacco Institute
- Named Organization
- Advertising Age
- American Council on Science and Health
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Childrens Research Unit of London
- Congress
- CRU
- CSPI
- Ernest & Juio Gallo
- Fabbrien D'Ami Pietro Beretta
- Federal Trade Commission
- Federal Trade Commission (Enforcement agency for laws against deceptive advertising)
Enforces laws against false and deceptive advertising, including ads for tobacco products. Ensures proper display of health warnings in ads and on tobacco products;collects and reports to Congress information concerning cigarette and smokeless tobacco advertising, sales expenditures, and the tar, nicotine, and carbon monoxide content of cigarettes.- General Motors
- Gillette
- Institute for Social Research
- Michigan Distributors and Vendors Association
- Minister of National Health and Welfare
- NAACP
- National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
- National Automatic Merchandising Association
- National Bureau of Economic Research
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
- National Institutes of Health
- National Smoking and Health Association
- New Jersey Medical School
- NIH
- Ohio State University
- Ontario Task Force on Smoking
- President's Council of Economic Advisors
- Ragu
- Surgeon General
- Swedish Export Council
- The Wharton School
- Tobacco Products Unit
- Toxic Substances Board of New Zealand
- United States Supreme Court
- University of Michigan
- University of Pennsylvania
- University of Toronto
- Wayne State University
- World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)
International organization concered with public health worldwide- World Health Organization
- American Council on Science and Health
- Named Person
- Ashley, M.J. Dr.
- Begin, M.
- Blackwell, R.D. Dr.
- Gallo, E.
- Gallo, J
- Hamilton, J.L. Dr.
- Hooks, B.L., Dr.
- Lipsett, M. Dr.
- M.Lewit, E.M. Dr.
- Moschis
- Pertschuk, M.
- Schudson,
- Ward, S. Dr.
- Warnberg, K.
- Whelan, E.
- Young
- Begin, M.
- Keyword
- CRU
- Juvenile Smoking Initiation & Advertising
- Taste Cultures
- Tobacco or Health: An End To Tobacco Advertising or Promotion
- TSB Report
- Juvenile Smoking Initiation & Advertising
- Region
- Denmark
- Finland
- Hong Kong
- Iceland
- Italy
- Japan
- Kenya
- Korea, Democratic People's Republic of
- Korea, Republic of
- Kuwait
- Netherlands
- New Zealand
- Norway
- Philippines
- Portugal
- Spain
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan, Province of China
- Australia
- Austria
- Canada
- China
- Finland
- Type
- Report
- Youth
- Subject
- Advertising regulations
- Cigarettes
- Consumption rates
- demographics
- epidemiology
- Federal level
- Government agencies
- industry sponsored research
- International level
- marketing
- Men
- Regulations
- Research studies
- sales
- Sampling
- Vending machines
- Women
- Adults
- Cigarettes
Document Images
• CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
AND PROMOTION --
~ F~RR-SPEECH PERSPECTIVE
THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE
July 12, 1990
CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
AND PROMOTION --
THE F~R~.-SPRF.CH PERSPECTIVE
INTRODUCTION
~ YO~ P~PLE B~IN ~OKING?
C~T~ II:
HOW ~TISING WO~S --
~P~ITION IN A "~~" ~T
CHAPTER III:
~TERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE WITH
CIGARETTE ADVERTISING BANS
CHAPTER IV:
CIGAR~TTEADVERTISINGAND "TARGETING"
CHAPTER V:
PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY
CIGARETTE MANUFACTURERS
CONCLUSION
TIMN 0033232
~" ~ i~ ~ AND PROMOTION --
NO on~ really pretends that advertising is a
~jo= ~eterminant of smoking in this country or
any otler."
Michael Pertschuk
Former Chairman
l/
Federal Trade Co~ission--
Each y~ar since 1986, legislation has been intro-
duced in Congres~ to ban cigarette advertising or to impose
controls on the .=ontent of cigarette advertising that would
be tantamount to a total advertising ban. The premise of
this legislation is that cigarette advertising is a signifi-
cant determinant of smoking by young people and adults and
that banning cig;~rette advertising would redube smoking.
Antismo~ing advocates have issued a number of manifestos
attempting to ju:~tify legislation banning cigarette adver-
tising on this b;~sis.~/
i/ Tobacco Iss1~es, Institute of Politics, Harvard
University, Apri 27, 1983, Tr. 8-9.
2/ E.g., Tobac,:o Use in America Conference, Final Report
(Jan. 1989).
TIMN ,0033233
INTRO-2 Co~ .~% e~ "rFs~
This p~per considers whether banning cigarette
advertising in foct would advance the goal of
reducing
smoking. Relyin9 principally on data reported by
government
agencies and by antismoking advocates themselves,
the paper
concludes that a cigarette advertising ban would
not signi-
ficantly affect tobaccoproduct consumption.
However, an
advertising ban would violate the First
Amendment, reduce
the information available to consumers, stifle
competition
among the cigarette manufacturers, and trigger
"major
cutbacks" in advertising, publishing and other industries.~/
Antismo~ing advocates only recently have begun to
proclaim that cigarette advertising is a major influence on
the decision by young people to start smoking. Before
banning cigarette advertising became one of their principal
political goals, .~ntismoking advocates (in agreement with
governmen~ offici.~is and other experts) emphasized family
and peer influences as the key determinants of smoking,
while advertising played little or no demonstrable role.
The contention that tobacco advertising influences
people to smoke a.so overlooks or ignores the function of
advertising in a "mature" product market such as the market
for cigarettes. ~in a mature product market, where the
3/ Policy Economics Group, Peat Marwick Main & Co., The
Economic Conseque~:ces for Supplier Industries of a ~am on
Cigarette Advertiaing and Promotion, p. 1 (Dec. 1988).
TIMN 0033234
product category is long-established and awareness of the
product category is universal, advertising gene/ally does
not operate to ii~creaseoverali~demand. Advertising instead
operates to main~:ain or expand market share within the
product category -- to maintain the loyalty of consumers who
already use the })rand being advertised and to convert con-
sumers who use other brands. In a market where a single
market-share point is worth $358 million (and where the
market itself is shrinking), i~ should come as no surprise
that cigarette m~nufacturers are prepared to spend large
s~s to maintain their market share or to expand their
market share by ~ven a small increment.
To be ~.uccessful, however, brand advertising must
overcome two hurc.les: it must attract the viewer's
attention and it must distinguish the advertised bran~ from
the multitude of others on the market. To break through the
"clutter" that e~ists in the advertising marketplace,
.advertisers must frequently employ eye-catching settings and
employ bold graphic designs and arresting brand slogans. To
separate the advertised brand from its competitors, an
advertiser must create a distinct "personality" for the
brand. Enforced foreclosure of imagery, themes and slogans
in cigarette advertising, as some proposed legislation would
do, would be tantamount to no advertising at all since it
would not attract the attention of smokers or distinguish
one brand from another. - ~--
0033235
eta :
~_.
produc~ eaŁegory is long-established and awareness of the
product caŁegory is universal, advertising generally does
not operate to increase overall demand. Advertising instead
operates to ~intain or expand market share within the
product category -- to maintain ~he loyalty of consumers who
already use the brand being advertised and to convert con-
market itself is shrinking), it should ....
that cigarette m-~nufacturers are prepa~
sums to ~intain their market share or
~&
market share by even a small ~ncrement~~~
To be :~uccessful, however, brand advertising must
overcome two hurdles: it must attract the viewer's
attention and it must distinguish the advertised brand from
the multitude of others on the market. ~o break through the
"clutter" that e:~ists in the advertising marketplace,
advertisers must frequently employ eye-catching settings and
employ bold graphic designs and arresting brand slogans.
separate the adv:~rtised brand from its competitors, an
advertiser must .:reate a distinct "personality" for the
brand. Enforced foreclosure of imagery, themes and slogans
in cigarette advertising, as some proposed legislation would
do, would be tan:amount to no advertising at all since it
would not attrac~ the attention of smokers or distinguish
one 5ran~ ~om a~other. • ............
0035256
If cig˘.rette advertising were a significant factor
in smoking, one ~˘ould expect to find more smoking in those
countries that a~low such advertising than in those coun-
tries that do not. In general, however, one finds just the
opposite. Whethqr considered" from the standpoinŁ of per
capita cons~pticn or the number of smokers, the level of
smoking appears to be highest in those countries where
advertising is fcrbidden and lowest in those countries where
advertising is allowed. Even more significant, tobacco
product consumption -- including consumption by young
people -- is declining in many countries where advertising
is permitted and increasing in many countries where adver~
rising is prohibited.
In addition to advertising, some antismokers have
advocated bans on "promotional" activities such as
sponsorship of cultural and athletic events, distribution of
tobacco product sBmples, the use of tobacco product
trade~rks on nontobacco products and payments to have the
brand name of a tDbacco product appear in a movie or play.
Ther~ is no evidence that such activities stimulate smoking.
Consequently, ban~ing them would be unjustified.
Adverti:~ing bans or content controls would not
reduce smoking among young people or adults. They are
premised -- as are all government attempts to suppress
information -- on the dangerous assumption that ordinary
citizens cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.
0033237
INTRO-5
Such a premise is antithetical to the principles of both a
free market economy and an open, democratic society. For
this reason, the First Amendment condemns paternalistic
efforts by government to advance our welfare by keeping us
in the dark. As the United States Supreme Court has stated,
"[i]t is precisely this kind of choice, between the dangers
of suppressing i~formation, and the dangers of its misuse if
it is freely avaLlable, that the First Amendment makes for
us o~/
pRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
l~oduced as required by the Court's March 7,1998
State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Monks, ei
Court File No.: C1-94-8565
4/ Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 770 (1976). ~ .............
TIMN 0033238
CHAPTER I
DO YOUNG PEOPLE BEGIN SMOKING?
"The most forceful determinants of smoking
[by young people] are parents, peers, and
older :~iblings."
Mortimer B. Lipsett, M.D.
Director
National Institute of
,. ~ Child Health and Human
Development!/
Before banning cigarette advertising became one of
its major politi,~al goals, the antismoking lobby here and
abroad candidly ~cknowledged something it now steadfastly"
denies: Cigaret;:e advertising does not make people start
smoking and b~m,lng cigarette advertising would not make
them stop.
Michael. Pertschuk, the former Chairman of the
Federal Trade Co,,~ission who now helps direct the
antismoking lobby, stated in 1983 that "[n]o one really
i/ Smoking Prevention Act: Hearings on H.R. 1824 before
the Subcomm. on health and the Environment of the House
Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 98th Cong., ist Sess. 53
(1983) . .
..............
TIMN 0033239
,pretends advertising is a major determinant of smoking
~ that
in this country or any other.''2/
Similarly, the Ontario Task Force on Smoking
acknowledged in L982 that "[n]o persuasive empirical evi-
dence exists" to support the contention that advertising is
a significant de~:erminant of smoking.~/
Likewi:~e, Elizabeth Whelan of the American Council
on Science and Health stated in 1985 that an advertising ban
would "probably not" reduce cigarette consumption in this
country.~/
AS ear~.y as 1975, Karl W~rnberg of the Swedish
Export Council t,~ld the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and
Health:
"'~o summarfze, there is no evidence to
suppor~ the view that a ban on advertising
would }~ave a positive effect on smoking
habits. No empirical research has been
able t~. show that aggregate brand adver-
tising leads to greater total tobacco con-
sumpti<.n. Nor has anything been found to
sugges~ that advertising entices non-
smoker~, young people in particular, into
becomi[g smokers. It follows, therefore,
that t~ere can be no evidence showing that
a ban cn advertising would result in 're-
2/ Tobacco Issnes, Institute of Politics, Harvard
University, April 27, 1983, Tr. 8-9.
3/ Task Force cn Smoking, Smoking and Health in Ontario: A
Need for 9alance 104 (1982) (emphasis in original).
4/ "Second Thoughts on a Cigarette-Ad Ban," Wall St., J.
Dec. 18, 1985, at 28, col. 6 ..........
