Abstract
This report on the effects of cigarette advertising on consumer behavior was commissioned by Imperial Tobacco and RJR-Macdonald of Canada. It was written by Joel B. Cohen, Ph.D. (Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing, Adjunct Professor of Anthropology and Director, Center for Consumer Research) of the University of Florida. In the report, Dr. Cohen disputes the industry's oft-repeated claim that its advertising is aimed only at getting existing adult smokers to switch brands. Cohen says,
"The need to replace smokers who either quit or are casualties of smoking has led many to question cigarette industry claims that their advertising is intended primarily to encourage brand switching...the U.S. evidence indicates that the tobacco industry spends about $9 per person per day for advertising and promotion, and only 10% of smokers switch brands in an average year...Accordingly, such expenditure--purely for brand switching--would seem to be difficult to justify economically...."
[Pages 3-4]
In Section 1.40 Cohen poses the question, "Couldn't the advertising only make the particular cigarette attractive for existing smokers?" Response: "The answer is essentially 'No,'" and explains why this is the case.
Cohen ridicules the industry's claim that cigarette advertising would only appeal to adults who already smoke, saying,
"Nonsmokers, and particularly adolescents, cannot be made immune to advertising effects...[the industry's argument] is as if a magic curtain could be put in place to shield children, teenagers and others from the impact of these appeals. No convincing theoretical argument or empirical evidence has yet been introduced by the cigarette industry to demonstrate that otherwise effective advertising is mysteriously ineffective for adolescents who have yet to become smokers. Until such evidence is provided, this proposition cannot be taken seriously." [Page 8]
Thus it appears that RJR-Macdonald and Imperial hired an advertising expert who concluded that the companies' most common arguments about the reach and effects of their advertising cannot not possibly be true.
Fields
- Notes
Notes
Cohen appears to have referred to this report in his 1981 testimony before the National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health (about a bill to require rotating health warnings on cigarette packs). In his statement he said he prepared a report about attitudes within the context of cigarette advertising at the request of R.J. Reynolds. Cohen favored the rotating health warnings, saying he believed they would be more effective than a single warning. His statement can be seen at
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=zag41f00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
- Quotes
[From Page 3]:
The need to replace smokers who either quit smoking or are casualties of smoking has led many to question cigarette industry claims that their advertising is intended primarily to encourage brand switching. Some defend the economic value of brand switching by underscoring the profitability of cigarettes. However, the U.S. evidence indicates that the tobacco industry spends about $9 per person per day for advertising and promotion, and only 10% of smokers switch brands in an average year (Warner, 1986; 1989 Surgeon General's Report page 503). Most consumers merely switch among brands of the same company...or move back and forth among the three companies that control 99% of the market. Accordingly, such expenditures -- purely for brand switching -- would seem to be difficult to justify economically...
[From Page 9]:
In truth, there is no such thing as "only brand switching advertising." Any advertising effective enough to entice consumers to switch brands has, by definition, made a particular cigarette more appealing. While it is possible to debate how much more appealing a particular cigarette brand has become as a result of advertising...if the advertising did not add significantly to the appeal of the brand it would be changed... It may be relevant here to respond to the question, "Couldn't the advertising only make the particular cigarette attractive for existing smokers?" Though the reasons for this will be clearer a little later in our discussion, the answer is essentially, "No."
[From Page 8]:
1.50 Nonsmokers Cannot Be Shielded From Advertising
Nonsmokers, and particularly adolescents, cannot be made immune to advertising effects -- even if the primary goal of such advertising were to attract smokers of other brands....[C]onsider the argument that cigarette advertising functions primarily to motivate brand switching. In order to accept this idea we would need to believe that the attractive and heavily researched images and symbols connected to cigarette smoking and the various brands only "work" on people who already smoke. It is as if a magic curtain could be put in place to shield children, teenagers and other from the impact of these appeals. No convincing theoretical argument or empirical evidence has yet been introduced by the cigarette industry to demonstrate that otherwise effective advertising is mysteriously ineffective for adolescents who have yet to become sokers. Until such evidence is provided, this proposition cannot be taken seriously.
New Smokers Are Being Added
In the Canadian cigarette market, the "code term" for new, replacement smokers appears to be "starters." They are also referred to as "new smokers" and "first time smokers." Whether by intent or not, cigarette industry advertising and promotion are bringing new smokers into the market:
"Nearly half of those who have switched to duMaurier in the past two years are new smokers" (Imperial Tobacco Document #163a: DuMaurier Red Marketing Plans, 1972).
"Approximately 50% of Player's Filter new smokers are starters or from Export A" (Imperial Tobacco Document #172: Player's Filter Mini Marketing Plan, 197A).
"Starters have been added to the mix as they play a very important role in the dynamics of the market. As can be seen, 84% of starting is absorbed by the three major segments, with the bulk going to the young popular brands of duMaurier Red and Player's Light" (Imperial Tobacco Document #160b: Project Sting, September 13, 1985, p.9).
Further, in numerous documents tobacco companies have outlined their strategies against such target groups:
"Continue media emphasis against the younger smoker segments (18-30) to eventually become more of starter's brand in Quebec" (Imperial Tobacco Document #172: Player's Filter Mini Marketing Plans, 1974).
"At the same time, we will also endeavor to obtain for Player's Filter a greater share of the first time smokers" (Imperial Tobacco Document #8: Player's Filter Advertising Plan 1971, P.3)....
The thrust of RJR-Macdonald's late 1970's marketing plan for Export "A" Lights is to "new smokers" who are termed prime prospects. The advertising plan featured "extended coverage against youth market" (Document #64: 1978 Annual Business Plan).
- Company
- R. J. Reynolds
- Author
- *Cohen, Joel B. (Use Cohen, Joel Benjamin, Ph.D.) (Center for Consumer Research)
Joel Cohen can be located at Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing and Adjunct Professor of Anthropology, Director, Center for Consumer Research, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611. Cohen is the Director of Center for Consumer Research at the University of Florida (1988) (Newsday 6/20/88).
- Recipient
- Imperial Tobacco Limited & RJR MacDonald, Inc.
RegionCanada
United States
Named OrganizationChildrens Research Unit (Created studies for the tobacco industry)Chidrens Research Unit, run by Glen Smith, created studies in multiple countries around the world, all of which concluded that advertising of cigarettes had no influence on youth smoking initiation. The industry paid Smith to conduct these studies and marketed the results throughout the world.
United States Congress
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.
Imperial Tobacco (Canada)
International Advertising Assn
Leo Burnett (Advertising/PR)Defense
New Zealand Toxic Substances Board
PMI, Philip Morris International
RJR Macdonald Project Eagle Focus Group
RJR Macdonald Vantage Advertising Research
Roper Organization (Consumer Research/Public Relations Org.)Interested in finding out what drives consumer behavior; surveys consumers on their prime areas of concern; assists corporations with reputation-building and public image based on its findings.
Tobacco Institute (Industry Trade Association)The purpose of the Institute was to defeat legislation unfavorable to the industry, put a positive spin on the tobacco industry, bolster the industry's credibility with legislators and the public, and help maintain the controversy over "the primary issue" (the health issue).
Washington Post
World Health Organization (Concerned with global public health)International organization concered with public health worldwide
Associaion of National Advertisers
Beaumont Organization (Marketing Research org. used by RJR-Macdonald, Canada)
Center for Consumer Research (Located at Florida State University)
LitigationStmn/Produced
Named PersonAaker
Areni, C.S.
Bagozzi
Bodenhausen
Breckler
Butterfield
Cacioppo
Cleary
Cohen, J.B.
Colley, R.H.
Conway
Corty
Dunn
Dunn, Wljr
Greenwald
Isen, B.B.
Jarvik
Kahneman
Kassarjian, H.H.
Katz
Kotler
Lachman
Leventhal
Lutz
Moore, B.S.
Myers
Ogilvy, D.
Percy
Petty
Puto
Ray
Robertson, T.S.
Ross
Rossiter
Rothschild
Sherman
Srull
Strube
Surgeon General
Tversky
Warner
Wells
Wilkie
Wyer
Xxdagmar
TypeREPT, REPORT, OTHER
BIBL, BIBLIOGRAPHY
Subjectadvertising
advertising effectiveness
advertising expenditure
advertising to youth
Document Images
Page 1: izk19e00
EFFECTS OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
JOEL B. COHEN, Ph.D.*
University of Florida
Y ~ ~i.
(!//,l
Imperial Tobacco Limited & RJR-Macdonald, Inc.
C.
Le Procurer General du Canada
Requete pour Judgement Declaratoire
*Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing, Adjunct Professor of
Anthropology and Director, Center for Consumer Research, University of Florida
N
CA
0
a
a
co
~
~
0
~
Page 2: izk19e00
.
EFFECTS OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
1.00 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ADVERTISING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.10 Market Expansion and Brand Switching Effects 3
1.20 Econometric Studies of Advertising Effects 4
1.30 Experiences in Other Countries 5
1.40 Advertising Effects Can't Be Limited To Brand Switching 7
1.50 Nonsmokers Cannot Be Shielded From Advertising 8
1.60 New Smokers Are Being Added 9
2.00 EFFECTS OF ADVERTISING ON CONSUMER BEHAVIOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.10 Advertising and Communications Goals 11
2.20 Asking People to Assess Advertising Effects on Themselves 14
3.00 ADVERTISING AND ITS EFFECTS ON CONSUMER ATTITUDES .......... 16
3.10 What is Emphasized in Advertising 17
3.11 Product attribute claims 18
3.12 Brand image strategies 19
3.20 Executional Strategies 22
3.30 Motivational Processes Affecting Cigarette Ad Effectiveness 24
3.31 Instrumental needs 24
3.32 Value-expressive needs 25
3.33 Ego defensive needs 26
3.34 Cognitive consistency needs 28
3.40 High vs. Low Involvement Cognitive Processes 29
3.50 Persuasion by Association _ ~ 31
4.00 A STAGE OF SMOKING ANALYSIS OF CIGARETTE ADVERTISING .........32
4.10 The Initiation Stage 33
4.11 Risk assessment issues 34
4.12 Advertising distorts heal`'- consequences 35
4.20 The Regular Use Stage 36
4.21 Deception by implication 36
4.22 Advertising provides reminders to smoke 38
4.30 The Withdrawal Stage 39
4.31 Freedom of choice is illusory 39
4.32 Quitting vs. brand switching 41
5.00 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
5.10 A Summary of Key Points 44
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7
Page 3: izk19e00
.
Cigarette advertising, whether by one company or another, for one brand
or another, or one advertising campaign or another, needs to be first
understood as, simply, advertising. It is not necessary to examine the
differences in approach and style of execution to understand the essence
of
what advertising does. As Rossiter and Percy (1987) note, "advertising" comes
from the latin word "advertere," meaning to turn toward: "Advertising aims at
turning the buyer or consumer's mind toward purchase" (page 4).
A further analysis of differing advertising philosophies, various
advertising agency recipes for successful advertising, how communications
goals are turned into concrete executions, how such executions are understood
by consumers and why consumers respond more favorably to certain executions
can be quite useful. Such analyses tell us how particular types of ads affect
perceptions, beliefs, attitudes and ultimately purchase behavior. '
This report will focus initially on the broader and mor.e,basic question
of what effects advertising has so that its role in consumers' purchase and
use of cigarettes can be better understood. It will then examine how
cigarette advertising influences consumer behavior.
1.00 ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ADVERTISING
Firms think about advertising as both an expense item and an investment.
As an expense item, advertising represents an allocation of resources to a
particular use -- a use that is justified against alternative uses of company
resources. Instead of spending a certain amount of money on advertising, the
firm could lower its price, provide added profit margins to retailers, and, in
short, do any number of things to produce sales and profits. Thus advertising
is viewed as one component of the marketing mix.
N
r.n
If expenditures for o
~
a
co
N
O
~A
Page 4: izk19e00
.
advertising could not be justified economically, firms would either spend the
money on more productive activities or they would simply reduce expenses. Put
simply, advertising is expected to produce sales revenues, or the money would
not be spent (Rossiter and Percy, 1987, page 20; Rothschild, 1988, pages 625-
626).
When advertising is thought of as an investment there is a more long-
term view of its effects. A number of studies have indicated that some firms
spend more on advertising than can be justified in terms of immediate sales
since they know it has a carryover effect in subsequent years (Rothschild,
1988, pages 622-623; Kotler, 1988, page 621). Advertising is thought to build
a consumer franchise in the sense of creating a favorable disposition toward
both the company and its products. This favorable disposition represents a
potential for purchase which is activated over time whenever needs for the
product become salient or product/company cues are strong enoQgh. As with any
other investment, companies have certain return-on-investment criteria. If
resources are used for advertising this creates an opportunity cost, since the
funds are not invested elsewhere. Hence, the investment in advertising is
expected to "pay off" over time. This comes about primarily through increased
sales, but so-called "institutional advertising" can also support personnel
(e.g., executive hiring) and financial (e.g., public investment) activities.
Regardless of whether the firm views advertising as an expense or an
investment, advertising's economic role is the same. There is no way to
produce sales revenues without convincing people to purchase the product. So,
unlike other marketing expenditures which strictly push the product through
the sales channel by making it more attractive for middlemen to sell the ~
c5
0
0
N
2 ~
Page 5: izk19e00
product, advertising is used to pull the product through the sales channel by
directly affecting consumers' demand for the product.
1.10 Market Expansion and Brand Switching Effects
When the analysis of economic effects is expanded to an industry level,
distinctions are sometimes made between advertising that "expands the market"
and advertising that "promotes brand switching/defends against brand
switching." Such an analysis obscures a very important point. Even though
the market in total may not be expanding (or may even be shrinking) customers
who leave the market still are being replaced. Describing the competitive
conditions of the cigarette industry as a'°mature market" is more useful for
marketing managers -- who must decide which elements of their marketing mix to
emphasize -- than it is for understanding advertising effects in this market.
Even assuming a lack of aggregate industry growth, cigarette.Industry
advertising and promotional programs must be strong enough to replace the
approximately 5% of cigarette users who leave the market each year merely to
maintain sales at existing levels. Advertising plays an important role in
attracting new replacement customers. Without replacing people who no longer
use the product, stable markets would be in decline and declining markets
would be in ruin.
The need to replace smokers who either quit smoking or are casualties of
smoking has led many to question cigarette industry claims that their
advertising is intended primarily to encourage brand switching. Some defend
the economic value of brand switching by underscoring the profitability of
cigarettes. However, the U.S. evidence indicates that the tobacco industry
spends about $9 per person per day for advertising and promotion, and only 102
3
Page 6: izk19e00
1%
of smokers switch brands in an average year (Warner, 1986; 1989 Surgeon
General's Report page 503). Most consumers merely switch among brands of the
same company (e.g., Imperial has approximately 547% of the market) or move back
and forth among the three companies that control 99% of the market.
Accordingly, such expenditures -- purely for brand switching -- would seem to
be difficult to justify economically. By drastically reducing their
advertising and promotion expenditures the industry would appear to be better
off financially. If the relative share of such expenditures were maintained,
company shares of brand switchers would be about the same, hence profits
should be higher. Perhaps cigarette companies have estimated the likelihood
of people discontinuing smoking at such reduced levels and have decided that
the additional expenditures are justified economically on that basis. We will
have much more to say about advertising's important additional role in the initiation phase of
smoking behavior. - --
1.10 Econometric Studies of Advertising Effects
There have been frequent attempts to estimate the effects of industry-
wide advertising on cigarette consumption. However, no statistical analysis
can be safely generalized beyond the scope and sensitivity of the data on
which it is based. Econometric studies essentially examine the effect of
incremental year-to-year changes in advertising on sales. Such data are
lacking in scope: there is no way to extrapolate from them to a ban on
cigarette advertising and promotion and the cumulative effects such a ban is
likely to have over time. It took many years to develop the cigarette market
and to cultivate particular segments of the market (e.g., women). If analysts
are really talking about the effects of advertising -- or the effects of a ban
4
Page 7: izk19e00
1%
on advertising -- on cigarette sales, the scope of the analysis can not be
limited to short duration effects. Bagozzi (1986) makes a similar point in
his analysis of the facilitating role of advertising on the smoking behavior
of women (pages 405-406).
Also, new smokers are a small proportion of total smokers. We know that
incremental changes in advertising expenditures are unlikely to alter the
amount smoked for existing smokers (e.g., someone smoking a pack a day is not
likely to move to one and a half packs a day). So, even substantial effects
on smoking initiation would be swamped by the absence of effects on the larger
group of existing smokers. This could lead such statistical analyses to
conclude that advertising effects in expanding the market for cigarettes were
weak. Unless tobacco companies were willing to provide data which allowed
statisticians to isolate the effects of advertising and promotion on first-
time smokers and particular population subgroups (e.g., adoleicents), mo§t
econometric studies will be insensitive to the otherwise masked effects on
smoking initiation. Despite the difficulty of isolating advertising effects
on sales, a recent assessment of 14 econometric studies (which took
advertising expenditures, tobacco price and personal income into account)
concluded that 11 showed that, "advertising significantly affected national
cigarette sales" (New Zealand Toxic Substances Board, 1989, page 33).
1.30 Experiences in Other Countries
While industry-level effects have been estimated in other countries,
based on their experiences with different types of advertising bans, the
"experiments" on which such analyses are based are confounded by circumstances
unique to each country (e.g., demographic and economic changes, related
5
Page 8: izk19e00
i*
government anti-smoking policies) and the absence of appropriate comparison
groups. For example many such "bans" are only partial (i.e., leaving large
loopholes for effective tobacco promotion through sponsorship of sporting
events and other activities, providing few restrictions on package design and
the use of nontraditional forms of advertising) or poorly enforced. Italy is
generally considered to be a classic example in which fines for illegal
advertising are simply viewed as a routine cost of doing business, even
assuming the violation is "noticed." More basically, each country is to some
extent unique.
Comparing changes in smoking rates across countries requires careful
consideration of cultural and attitudinal factors affecting the use of
cigarettes. As a general rule, comparisons between individual countries are
not likely to be meaningful unless such factors have been taken into account.'
The previously cited report of the New Zealand Toxic Substances Board joins
with the World Health Organization in criticizing a 16-country study carried
out under the auspices of the Children's Research Unit and presented through
the International Advertising Association, using the following strong
language, "In short, the data in the IAA brochure were deficient and the
conclusions simplistic, unjustified, erroneous and misleading" (New Zealand
Toxic Substances Board, 1989, p. 61). Owing to such weaknesses, New Zealand
commissioned its own 33-country study and reported that, "When countries were
grouped according to the degree of governmental restriction of tobacco
promotion, the greater the degree of restriction the greater the average
annual fall in tobacco consumption. This was also true for the rate of
decrease in the percentage of adults and young people who smoke" (New Zealand
Toxic Substances Board, 1989 p. 64).
6
Page 9: izk19e00
1.40 Advertising Effects Can't Be Limited To Brand Switching
In truth, there is no such thing as "only brand switching advertising."
Any advertising effective enough to entice consumers to switch brands has, by
definition, made a particular cigarette more appealing. While it is possible
to debate how much more appealing a particular cigarette brand has become as a
result of advertising (and more will be said about how firms examine this
question later on), if the advertising did not add significantly to the appeal
of the brand it would be changed. If no advertising could be found that would
add significantly to the appeal of the brand then the money would not be
spent.
It may be relevant here to respond to the question, "Couldn't the
advertising only make the particular cigarette attractive for existing
smokers?" Though the reasons for this will be clearer a little later in our'
discussion, the answer is essentially, "No." There are many_.products ranging
all the way from home electronics to garden tools for which the answer would
be somewhat different. In those cases, the product itself meets the relevant
set of needs and wants. The secondary choice of brand, model and store is
made on the basis of a tradeoff among performance features and terms of sale.
The brand, then, does not have the drawing power to bring people into the
market for these products. Such brand advertising and promotion primarily
affect choice once a consumer has decided to purchase the product. This is
not the case for cigarettes and a number of products for which the different
brand images draw consumers uniquely to them. As the legendary advertising
executive, David Ogilvy, put it:
"The greater the similarity between brands, the less part reason
N
cn
plays in brand selection. There isn't any significant difference ~
0
m
0
Page 10: izk19e00
between the various brands of whiskey, or cigarettes, or beer.
They are all about the same. And so are the cake mixes and the
detergents, and the margarines. The manufacturer who dedicates
his advertising to building the most sharply defined personality
for his brand will get the largest share of the market at the
highest profit." (as cited in Bagozzi, 1986, page 386.)
Though cigarettes may also differ among themselves in appearance and
performance aspects, an adolescent becomes a Marlboro smoker, a Virginia Slims
smoker or an Export "A" smoker, not just a cigarette smoker. Thus, not only
is cigarette smoking itself given a boost each time a brand of cigarettes is
presented in an attractive manner, but the brand acquires additional value as
a means of supporting or he:ping to establish a desirable personal identity..
1.50 Nonsmokers Cannot Be Shielded From Advertising
Nonsmokers, and particularly adolescents, cannot be made immune to
advertising effects -- even if the primary goal of such advertising were to
attract smokers of other brands. We will shortly take up the question of the
cigarette industry's stated lack of intention to attract new smokers. For now
it is only necessary to consider the argument that cigarette advertising
functions primarily to motivate brand switching. In order to accept this idea
we would need to believe that the attractive and heavily researched images and
symbols connected to cigarette smoking and the various brands only "work" on
people who already smoke. It is as if a magic curtain could be put in place
to shield children, teenagers and others from the impact of these appeals. No
convincing theoretical argument or empirical evidence has yet been introduced
8
N
ttt
0
0
0
w
tj
NJ
~
~
