Tobacco Documents Online

( C CIGARETTE ADVERTISING AND CONSUMPTION Draft April, 1978 1. Cigarette manufacturers use competitive advertising to main- tain their share of the total, cigarette market by promoting ~ bran&identification and preferences among individual cus- tomers. As a result, competitive advertising does not increas, the total tobacco market, but serves only to divide anialready existing market. Cigarette advertising has been aimedialways at preserving brand preference while at the same time endeavouring to persuade smokers of another brand to switch from that brand to the one being advertised rather than being designed to create new smokers. [1] Economists generall~y have concluded that ciga- rette advertising in the U.S. has been a compet- itive weapon that companies have used to divide the national cigarette market among themselves; it has not been used as a means for expanding that market. Certainly, each company advertised in the hope of expanding the market for its own brands, and hence its own profits. Since all the companies advertised, however, their competi- ti~ve advertising has been offsetting. No partic- usiar company was able to get any large competitive advantage from its advertising. [2] . the cigarette industry does not need adver- tising to maintain its level of consumption. It needs it only for the purposes of competition. The beneficiaries of that competition ultimately are the consumers. If advertising were banned the strong brands would grow stronger andithe weak weaker. The weaker brands would fall out of distribution and die. It would be virtually impossible to succeed with new brands. [3] - 1 - O r

( 2. Advertising bans or restrictions appear to have little or no effect on the overall trend'of cigarette consumption. This is illustrated by the experience of those countries which found that proh~ibition of advertising did not reduce consump- tion or that somewhat slower rates of sales growth immediately after prohibition were only ternporary." Even comparisons of marketing results between countries with competitive adver- tising and countries in which competitive advertising has been prohibited for substantial periods of time have shown little difference in trends of per capita consumption. It was clear [after examining the per capita: consumption of 11 developed countries before and after advertising ban~s were instituted] that broadcast advertising bans have not reduced consumption. In these countries, the long-term trend~in per capita consumption has been upward. In some of these countries the government ban on advertising did initially reduce consumption, but the reductions were strictly temporary. ... In other countries, however, the advertising bans did not reduce consumption even temporarily; the long-term upward trendwas not even inter- rupted~by the bans. Furthermore, several countries never have had any broadcast advertising of ciga- rettes. Even so, the long-term trend in those countries also has been upward. No particular differences were noticeable between the trend in countries that had cigarette advertising and'the trend in countries that did not. [4] t 2

r C C ,.* in countries where cigarette advertising has been banned for years, like . . . Eastern Europe, there has been no reduction, comparative to other countries, in the volume of cigarette sales, such as would justify that argument. ... In Hungary, Poland'~and Bulgaria in the years 1970-73 the percentage increase in cigarette smoking was three to five times the increase in the UK or United States. There may be economic and other statistical factors which make these figures inconclusive but there is assuredly no evidence of advertising being a significant factor in increasing cigarette consumption. Certainly the Norwegian evidence [where sales of cigarettes and pipe and roll- your-own tobacco increased after an advertising ban went into effect] does not suggest that any new trend has developed there since the advertising ban. [5] 3. Cigarette advertising has not been shown to cause people to smoke. Instead, studies which have examined the motivations of people who begin smoking point to such psychological factors as curiosity, group adaptation~ and peer pressure. This conclusion is supported by a study which was conducted in the United States before cigarette advertising was banned on television. Although television is considered to be the most influential media, the study showed that broadcast advertising was not an important factor in an individual's decision to begin smoking. ..g there have been a number of surveys in whichiyoung people have been asked why they smoked cigarettes. We asked such a question in a study of cigarette smoking behavior in the Indianapolis Public Schools a year and a half O ago. Fifty thousand school children from the ~ fifth to the twelfth grades constituted our ~, total sample. Almost nine thousand youngsters N who smoked gave us their reasons. ... A C.J tJ -3-

majority stated that they smoked for pleasure, for emotional improvement, or because of the influence of their friends. I cannot recall a single respondent who suggested that he had~ been~influenced by television advertising. This is generally in accord with earlier findings. .., it must [be] admitted that the available surveys furnish no evidence that television cigarette commercials influence smoking behavior among young people. [6] About 20,000 children aged between nine and sixteen years were questioned'on their smoking habits during a survey carried out recently by a sub-committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. . . . It is interesting now to turn to the reasons given most frequently by these children for smoking regularly. These were as follows: Boys Girls Relaxing 22 35 Something to do when bored or lonely 34'. 23 Enjoyment 13 14 Most of friends smoke, or to keep in~with friends 34 42 [7] Why do young people start smoking? The reason given most often~by the teenagers themselves is to act grown~ up (about 45 per cent). Or, they give reasons that could be classified as peer pressure (38'per cent). Indicative of peer pressure are survey results that show that 85per cent of smokers compared to only 30 per cent of nonsmokers say that more than half of their close friends smoke. Another key reason given by teenagers for smoking is to emulate parents (21 per cent)~. All other reasons are cited'by 4 per cent or less. ...

r C The,survey results were based on a representa- tive sample of 1,035 teenagers from across the nation, interviewed by telephone during, the periodJune 22 to July 8. [8] There is no evidence to suggest that advertis- ing itself is a significant factor nowadays in encouraging youngsters to take up smoking or smokers to smoke more. It may be that in the distant past, before the health risks became a matter of concern, some advertising did indeed promote smoking; but not the present limited type of factual advertisements. . . . The truth is that in relation to the encouragement to smoke, advertisements are of negligible influence compared with other influences such as the example of parents and friends and the por- trayal on films, television and elsewhere of admired personalities smoking,with evident pleasure and social distinction. [9] 4. Bans on cigarette advertising prevent customers from receiving the product information they need to make purchasing decisions. Advertising has been shown to be useful in informing the public about product changes such as filter cigarettes and the "lighter" cigarettes. A total ban would make it difficult for the cigarette industry to inform the public about later product developments. I do not believe that advertising has much influ- ence. Advertising does not influence people to smoke, but it helps them to choose one or another brand. Above all, I am against an advertising ban because the 'lighter' and less harmful ciga- rettes manufactured.nowadays, wouldnot be wide- spread enough without advertising. [10]i 5

... there is no evidence from any country that properly controlled advertising increases the consumption of cigarettes or is a significant factor in encouraging,young people to start smoking. . . given this fact, there is no justificationlin principle or in practice for denying to the millions of men and women who choose to smoke the most cost effective service of the information they need about what brands to choose, and the other marketing!benefits of publi~cised [sic] brand identity. [11!] . advertisZng which deals with price or objective standards of performance--such as the cigaret ads which~stress low tar and nico- tine yieLds--can stimulate price and quality information with tangible benefit to consumers. [12] 5~ The failure of anti-smoking forces to establish a case for the total abolition of advertising was recently demonstrated by the British government's rejection of demands to ban advertising except at the point of sale. ~ Before the Government could support a policy of outright ba.zning,of cigarette advertising, the merits of doing,so would need:to be con- firmed beyond doubt. ... a ban would detract from that part of the Government's strategy which encourages smokers, who cannot or wi~ll not give up smoking:, to smoke cigarettes in the relatively less harmful lower-tar groups; and it would remove an important vehicle for the healith warning which~, by agreement, is now appearing for the first time in advertisements. The Government believes it shoul&keep an open mind on the question of a total ban on cigarette advertising. [13] r - 6 - Prepared by: Shook, Hardy & Bacon April, 1978

C REFERENCES I [1] Australian Cigarette Manufacturers Submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welifare, April, 1977, p. 43. [2] Hamilton, J., "The Effect of Cigarette Advertising Bans on, Cigarette Consumpti~on," Smoking an6Health. IDI. Health Consequences, Education, Cessation Activities and'Governmental Action, pp. - . [3] Van Rossum, Rex, "Cigarettes an6the Right to Advertise,," Campaign, March,17, 1978, pp. 31-32. [4] HamiLton, supra, p. 831. [5] "Restrictions on Cigarette Advertising," speech given by John. Hobson at anti-smoking conference in London, transcript issued by European Association of Advertising Agencies, October 25, 1976, p. 2. [6]i Levitt, E., Testimony, Hearings Before the Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives, April 30, 1969, p. 1272. [7] Australian Department of Health, "Smoking Habits of School Children," Health 19(3): 18, 1969. [8] "Gallup/Teens Know the Dangers of Smoking," Newsday, Septem- ber 14, 1977. [9] Hobson, supra, pp. 1-2. [10] [11] [12] "Wenn schon-dann lieber harmlios Rauchen!," Face to Face, Schweizer ILlustrierte, October 25, 1976. Hobson, supra, p. 3. Anonymous, "Pertschuk Wi1L Push for Ad!s that Give Info of Ben- efit to Public," Advertising Age, 1977. [13] Department of Health and Social Security,, Department of Educa- ti~on and Science, Scottish and Welsh Offices, Prevention and Health, London, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, December, 1977, p. 22. 0)