Tobacco Documents Online

' 4, ~ ;.. ~ 4L TEENS, SMOKING AND CIGARETTE ADVERTISING J Among those who claim that cigarette brand advertising lures youngsters to become smokers is the present secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, Joseph Califano. His view is not shared, however, by independent students of teen smoking. Nor is it shared by the manufacturers of cigarettes who, nevertheless, taking nothing for granted, have taken specific steps to avoid youth appeal in their brand advertising. Nor is it shared by former smoker John Pinney, newly appointed director of Mr. Califano's Office on Smoking and Health, who stated in a television appearance, "It is quite correct... not to make ads the culprit in terms of why teenagers...take up smoking. Advertising certainly is not the culprit. If we can~ understand why they take it up then we can do a more effective job of trying to change that decision" (Emphasis his) (1). Understanding of this question involves a further look at the claims made by advertising critics such as Mr. Califano, at the known facts about teen tobacco smoking, studies which ha e attempted to identify teen motivations, andithe role of the tobacco industry itself. What does Mr. Califano say, specifically? In a speech January 11, 1978, attacking tobacco smoking, he declared that W ~ One of the most alarming developments since 1964 [when the U1 famous Surgeon General's Report was issued] has been the N ~

C C dramatic increase in smoking by young women between 13 and 19 -- the percentage of teenage girls who smoke has almost doubled. The difference in smoking rates between teenage boys and girls has disappeared; girls are now as likely as boys to smoke. And the pre-teen situation is even more frightening. In a major urban area on the west coast, 1 out of 20 children is smoking by age 11. Just one year older, at age 12, this figure skyrockets to 1 out of 5. He went on to place the responsibility on cigarette brand advertising, declaring that it is a pernicious fact that tens of thousands of young people are being influenced to smoke, at grave risk to their health, by half a billion dollars' worth of advertising advertising designed to convince them that smoking is glamorous, adult, and sexually attractive. In the same speech~, however, he did state that "more complete information" is needed andintimated that his department will undertake research into "What factors lead people to decide to smoke" (2). Considerable efforts in this fieldhave already been made. For example, there have been numerous surveys of the incidence of teen smoking. Presumably, Mr. Califano's assertion about pre-teen smoking incidence in "a major urban area on the west coast" derives from such a study. Efforts to identify it, c,a ~ however, have been unsuccessful. Upon inquiry, the staff of V N HEjJ's Office on Smoking and Health said they did not know and 04 would try to find out (3).

., l -3- C Most such surveys have been conducted in random sample interviews with persons who identify themselves as youngsters. ~ The accuracy with which such survey results can be extrapolated to the whole population is open to discussion. In one major urban area on the west coast, however, a ten-year study, highly regarded because of its persistence and thoroughness, has just beencompleted under grants froml the U.S. Public Health Service in Mr. Califano's department (4). The locale is San Mateo County, just outside San Francisco. All public and parochial school children from 7th through 12th grades were involved. Once each year, all were given cards on which they indicated -- anonymously -- their frequency of usage, if any during the past year, of alcoholic beverages, amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, LSD, marijuana and tobacco. The results, in this context, are startling to the point of suggesting that a far sharper focus is required than that provided by Mr. Califano in order to properly examine the question of teen tobacco smoking. The published San Mateo findings include the following: • Among 11th grade students, selected because this is the year preceding substantial student drop-outs which would skew the picture, 57 percent of the boys and of the girls smoked tobacco at some time in~1968. Among the llth graders of 1977, the boys' level had fallen to 54 percent and the girls' had risen slightly to 62 percent. w ~ . . .a cn. N ~ ~

• Smoking of marijuana among the 11th grade boys shot up from 36 percent in 1968 to more than 65 percent in 1977, while 32 percent of the girls reported smoking marijuanain 1968 compared with 63 percent in 19771 • The size of the group drinking alcoholic beverages was 71 percent of the boys and 67 percent of the girls in 1968, figures which "skyrocketed" to 90 percent in 1977. Thus, of the three substances, any-time use of tobacco ranked third. Opinions vary, of course, as to which of these customs might be dangerous, or more dangerous than the others. Regard- less, one fact stands out: One of these substances is not advertised at all and, in the case, of another, cigarettes, advertising was sharply curtailed when broadcast commercials were discontinued in early 1971. Studies about any role of alcoholic beverage advertising in relation to teen drinking are beyond the scope of this paper. As noted, however, serious efforts have been made to identify what factors lead some teenagers to smoke tobacco. A review of publicly reported efforts of this kind~over the past twenty years is revealing: Aparently no study has been made regarding teen reactions to cigarette brand advertising or of its possible effects on their behavior with respect to tobacco smoking. This may indicate that unless Secretary Califano and cq ~ others who share his view have access to unpublished data, his N statement that "it is a pernicious fact that tens of thousands.,] of young people are being influenced to smoke"'by'such advertising is entirely speculative.

-5- C Indeed, much evidence emerges that such a statement is incorrect. Characteristic examples include: • A survey of nearly 19,000 6th, 9th and 12th graders by school authorities in the state of Washington in 1969' (5). Among them, over 13,000 nonsmokers reported their opinions as to why other youngsters smoked tobacco. In descending order, both sexes in all three grades reported "feel grown up," "imitate friends," "it's relaxing" and "like taste" as the principal reasons. Only about one in ten offered "other" reasons, which~were not identified in the survey report. • The journal Connecticut Medicine the same year reported results of a survey of some 5,200 junior and senior high students in New Haven, asking those who smoked, "Why did you start?" (6). The commonest given reason was, "trying a cigarette and liking it" (46 percent) followed by the influence of friends (14). An additional 14 percent gave no reason. The report said"the influence of advertising" and other factors "were unimportant." • The same year, the American Cancer Society commissioned and received a report from Lieberman Research, Inc., based on a national sample of nearly 1,600 teens (7). "Persons in the environment are clearly very important in shaping smoking habits," it said. It stated that almost all teens were aware of cigarette commercials and cigarette warnings on television, and that the former "may serve"'to reinforce or instigate teen smoking. Two years later, of course, such commercials disappeared from the air. The study made no reference to printed cigatette brand advertising.

-6- C C • In 1976, in another study commissioned by the Cancer Society, Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., reported that "cigarette advertising helps to reinforce and enhance the image of the teen-age smoker as young, attractive, healthy and sexy" (8). Surprisingly, however, the report as published by the Society provided no data relevant to this observation nor did it give any indication of any effort to assess the point in interviews with teen respondents. •. In January, 1977, the Boston Globe reported that "The answers coming from researchers and those close to the teenage scene are identical" with respect to the question of why teens "are smoking more these days"' (9). "They agree," the article reported, "that peer pressures, antismoking education too late, smoking in the home, newfound assertiveness and rebellious- ness, and rejection of authority are some of the most obvious factors." One individual, the proprietor of a profit-making antismoking organization, was quoted as saying that in her opinion cigarette advertising was a factor, particularly for girl teens. That was the only reference to advertising. • A Houston psychologist, Richard Evans, was interviewed on the subject on the "Today" television program in July, 1977 (10). He discussed his efforts to discourage youngsters from smoking tobacco, including trying "to show them how in fact they can cope with the seductiveness of these ads." He didnot elaborate. Though these references are representative, the whole of w' ~ the published work on teen smoking provides little, if any, 4 N ~ CD

c _,_ ad'ditional insight regarding motivation, and no factual basis for any claim of advertising influence. A further point should be made in the area of sheer logic. The avowed purpose of cigarette brand advertising is to hold and increase brand loyalties among smokers. In this respect it is very much akin to soap brand advertising. No serious observer would argue that soap advertisements enlarge the overall soap market. Ori the same point, the same.observers would agree that the most pervasive form of cigarette brand advertising, particularly among youth audiences, was the television medium of the 1950s and 60s. In its absence, then, if one assumed it motivated people who did not smoke to do so, there should now be fewer rather than more cigarettes being purchased, again, particularly among young age groups. Finally, those who find advertising responsible for an asserted increase in teen~tobacco smoking are assuming that the youngsters are substantially exposed to such advertising. No such exposure data has been published, as noted above. But logic would suggest a vast difference between television viewing in~the setting of family members of all ages, and newspaper and magazine reading by younger family members; more particularly, there must be a serious question whether there is any really measurable degree of examination of cigarette brand advertisements f by the limited number of youthful readers of such publications w Q where such advertisements now focus. 4h ~ N C!i O

This paper wouldnot be complete without a word about the relevant actions of the cigarette manufacturing companies ~ who advertise their brands. Fifteen years ago, before publication of the well-known Surgeon General's report on smoking and health, The Tobacco Institute issued the following statement on behalf of its member companies, all of the principal manufacturers of cigarettes in the U.S.: The industry's position has always been that smoking is an adult custom. To avoid any confusion or misconception in the public mind' as to this position, a number of member companies of The Tobacco Institute have each~decided to discontinue college advertising and promotional activity (11). The action was both specific and symbolic. While cigarette advertisements had not been published in media whose audiences were predominantly teens, the discontinuation of advertising in college newspapers and other college publications, and the discontinuation of other brand promotional activities among college-age audiences, nevertheless indicated a raising of the minimum age for the focus of such ad'vertising and promotion. This was reinforced the following year, in 1964, when the manufacturers established a strict advertising code (12). During its early years, they maintained an enforcement office which required clearance of brand advertising before its publication or broadcast, to help assure compliance. w ~ ~ U. G1 N

C C Among other things, the code required cigarette manu- facturers to avoid advertising directed to young people; to abstain from campus advertising and promotion; to avoid use of testimonials from athletes or other celebrities who might have special youth appeal; not to use material which would represent cigarette smoking as essential to social prominence, success or sexual attraction and to refrain from depicting smokers engaged in sports or other activities which might require more stamina than would be involved in normal recreation. And the code prohibited the use of models who were -- or even appeared to be -- less than 25 years old. Those stipulations were in force (and still are by comznon practice) in 1969'when the cigarette companies took their next and most significant step to avoid youth audiences with their brand advertising -- their voluntary offer to discontinue all broadcast couIInercials. In seeking Congressional approval for that step -- one which could expose the manufacturers to suits for restraint of trade under the an~ti-trust laws -- the industry's spokesman, Chairman Joseph F. Cullman, 3rd, of the executive committee of The Tobacco Institute, said: "Young people are exposedto broadcast advertising differently than they are to print advertising. It is well known that young people spend a great deal of time viewing television and listening to radio; it takes an

-10- C affirmative act on the part of the viewer or listener to avoid broadcast advertising. By contrast, much less time is spent by young people in reading,newspapers and magazines andan affirmative act is required by the reader to see and comprehend such advertising. Objections to cigarette advertising on the broadcast media based on appeal to youth do not apply to cigarette advertising in newspapers and magazines. (13). In a wider context -- the effect of cigarette advertising bans on cigarette consvmption -- James L. Hamilton of the department of economics at Wayne State University presented a paper at the 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975 (14). His study had been supported in part by a grant from the American Cancer Society which, he said, did not necessarily share his conclusions. "Economists generally have concluded," he said, "that cigarette advertising in the U1.S. has been a competitive weapon that companies have used to divide the cigarette market: it has not been used as a means for expanding the cigarette market." Hamilton concludedthat "the arguments for banning advertising seem based largely on assumptions andianecdotes about advertising and on undocwmented assertions about the effects of advertising..." Apparently the "pernicious fact" asserted by Secretary Califano is but another such anecdote,yanother undocumented assertion. W. ~ ~ N THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE ~ April 1978 W

q C FOOTNOTE REFERENCES_ ` 1. Pinney, John, Director, Office on Smoking and Health, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, appearing on "The Bottom Line," WMAR-TV, Baltimore, Md. May 28, 1978. 2. Califano, Joseph A., Jr., Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, address to National Interagency Council on Smoking and Health, Washington, D.C., 1/11/78. 3. Private communication, Daniel Horn, Ph.D., Director, National Clearinghouse for Smoking and Health, U. S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to The Tobacco Institute, 4/24/78. 4. Summary Report, Surveys of Student Drug Use, San Mateo County, California, San Mateo County Department of Public Health and Welfare. 5. Smoking and Health, A Report on the Study of Smoking Behavior, Attitudes and Knowledge of Public School Children in the State of Washington, Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2/69. 6. Goldenberg, Iras S., M.D. and Stoll, Bernard, Ph.D., Teen-age Smoking in New Haven, I. Results of an In-Depth Survey, Connecticut Medicine 33:10, 10/69, pp. 629-34. 7. The Teenager Looks at Cigarette Smoking, Report of a study conducted for the American Cancer Society by Lieberman Research, Inc., 11/69. 8. Teen-Age Boys and~Girls and Cigarette Smoking, A Supplemental Study, prepared for The Education Department, American Cancer Society, by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc., 2/76. 9. Boston Evening Globe, 1/14/77. • 10. "Today," NBC - TV, 7/14/77. 11. New York Times, West Coast edition, 6/20/63. 12. News release from Hill and Knowlton, Inc., 150 East 42nd Street New York, N.Y. 10017, for nine U.S. cigarette manufacturing companies, 4/27/64. 13. U. S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Consumer Subcommittee, hearing on Cigarette Advertising and Labeling, 7/22/69, p.79. 14. Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, w U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Part II, %J 1975, pp. 830 and 839. . ~ ~ G1 ~A