Tobacco Documents Online

equity is likely to harm both the advertisers and the public. Brand advertising attempts to differentiate the brand from other brands, attempts to break through the clutter in today's cluttered commercial information environment, and attempts to instill in consumers loyalty to the brand, and helps consumers efficiently locate the desired brand. • • Developing brand identity through the use of unique symbols, packaging and color aids both consumers and manufacturers in several ways. From the consumer viewpoint, the ability to quickly and easily recognize desired brands with the desired attributes allows consumers to save time in shopping for desired products, provides a reminder cue about preferred brands, and provides a mnemonic device to aid in brand recall and information processing of relevant brand information (Hine, 1995). In the cluttered environment of today's media, many people do not stop to read ads. Instead, they very briefly process the elements as they casually flip the pages of a magazine. Well known colors, packages and visuals 'are more likely to be noticed and recognized by consumers who use the brand being advertised in this type of rapid processing. For current users this provides a reminder for this brand and helps to maintain brand loyalty. Cigarette advertising is brand advertising -- nothing more, nothing less. Color and imagery are essential to brand advertising. FDA's proposal to restrict and ban imagery and color in cigarette advertising is tantamount to an outright ban on advertising for 11

0 • • • • • • cigarettes. Given the total absence of any evidence that color, visual imagery or any other brand attributes in cigarette brand advertising play any role in stimulating primary demand for the product category (as opposed to demand for specific brands among users of the product category), FDA's proposed restrictions on cigarette advertising will be a burden on consumers by reducing consumers' access to important information, and of course, a burden on the cigarette manufacturers. II. FDA's Proposal To Ban Imagery And Color In Outdoor Advertising For Cigarettes Is Unsupported By The Record And Is Tantamount To A Ban On Outdoor Advertisin~ FDA's proposal would ban the use of color and imagery on billboard advertising for cigarettes. Billboards that are not banned outright under FDA's "1000 foot" rule will be restricted to black and white text-only format. FDA's proposal to ban imagery and color in billboard advertising for cigarettes is unsupported by the record and is tantamount to a ban on billboard advertising for cigarettes. FDA's rationale for banning color and imagery in cigarette advertisements appearing on billboards is that: (1) based on the media selected FDA "cannot say" - -- o - -- cl~ 12 W Gt - W - - ~+~A

! • • • • • • • whether it is advertising directed at young people;4 and, (2) "billboards are always visible to young people."5 First, as discussed in more detail below, it is well-established in the field of marketing and advertising that billboards are not a "youth vehicle" for advertising messages: outdoor advertising is a vehicle for reaching commuters traveling to and from their jobs on a daily basis.6 The mere fact that billboards "are visible" to young people does not make billboards a youth vehicle for advertising messages. Second, FDA itself recognizes that billboards are not, relatively speaking, an effective medium for reaching teens and children. That is why FDA is mandating that the majority (80%) of the "corrective" educational program be on television -- "the usual medium of information for children and adolescents" (60 Fed. Reg. 41332), -- and that the remaining funds be spread out over a variety of other media, including, among other things, billboards. ` '"jT]he agency has been unable to define the subset of advertising and labeling directed to young people based upon the media selected or the location of the • advertising." 60 Fed. Reg. 41336. 5 Id. ~ ~ Cocheo, Steve. "The Inside Story On Outdoor," ABA Banking Journal, Marketing CP Report, December, 1987, p.64. -1I ~ 13 W C32 C.~? -- CR

0 ! ! ! ! • • Finally, restricting outdoor advertising for cigarettes to black and white text-only format is tantamount to a complete ban. It is well-established in the field of marketing and advertising that, because the audience is moving and does not have the luxury of time, billboard messages should be simple and "text" in billboard advertising be kept to a bare minimum: Under FDA's proposed regulations, billboard advertising for cigarettes would be loaded with text. Therefore, as a practical matter, restricting outdoor advertising for cigarettes to text-only format is tantamount to a ban on outdoor advertising for cigarettes. For example, under FDA's proposal, billboard advertising might look something like this: Real good flavor, real good taste 100's, 16 mg. "tari,1.Z mg. nicotine av. per dgares te by FTC method. ! SURGEON GENERAL'S 1t+iARlWG: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, lie, Disease, EtY>phyema, And May Compicate Pregnancy. ' See, e.g., statements by creative directors for outdoor advertising companies, quoted in Cocheo, Steve. "T'he Inside Story On Outdoor," ABA Banking Journal, ! Marketing Report, December, 1987 -- "You don't have the luxury of time"; "[y]ou have to consider what people can digest in one go-by"; "[g]enerally, experts find that an outdoor ad should contain no more than seven to ten words -- 'Given the opportunity, I'd use even fewer"'; "a common mistake...is trying to cram too many words and ideas onto a single board; "[c]reative directors turn their thumbs down on the all-type board." 14 O ~

0 • • • • • • • • The consensus among advertising professionals is that outdoor advertising is of virtually no use in reaching children and teens. Billboards are directed primarily at adults. Primarily products and services used by adults are advertised on billboards. A recent study conducted by Taylor and Taylor which identified the content of billboards demonstrated that products advertised on billboards are directed primarily at adults. This study analyzed the content of over 700 billboards appearing along 690 miles of state and interstate highways in both rural and urban areas. The researchers reported the following categories of products and services advertised on billboards: restaurants, hotels, gas stations, tourism, entertainment, auto dealers, department stores, specialty retailers, supermarkets, alcohol beverages, tobacco products, insurance, health care, real estate, banks, telecommunications, political, public service.$ If billboards were an effective vehicle for reaching children and teens, one would expect to see manufacturers of children's and teens' products advertising their brands on billboards - particularly since billboard advertising is widely regarded as a relatively inexpensive advertising vehicle. In fact, however, looking at five of the biggest advertisers of children's and teens products -- not a single penny is spent on billboard advertising. $ Taylor, Charles R. and John C. Taylor, "Regulatory Issues In Outdoor Advertising: ~ A Content Analysis Of Billboards," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 13 (1), W7 • p. 101, Spring 1994. o CID 15 W Grt W ~

0 • • • 0 • • Popular Teen Products/Brands 1994 Media Spending9 PRODUCT/BRAND TOTAL MEDIA EXPENDITURE EXPENDITURE ON BILLBOARD S Sega Genesis Game Software $31,376,900 $0 Covergirl Ultimate Finish Liquid Powder Makeup $13,630,300 $0 Oxy 10 Acne Medication $4,209,700 $0 Arrid Teen Anti-Perspirant and Deodorant $1,284,100 $0 General Cinema Theaters $5,289,200 $0 In fact, professional marketing companies whose job it is to measure and document "audience exposure" to advertising vehicles for purposes of "selling" advertising space -- and who therefore have every incentive to find and document audience exposure -- do not even bother to collect data on children's and adolescents' exposure to billboard advertising.lo 9 Data is from LNA/Mediawatch Multi-Media Service, January-December 1994. . lo The outdoor industry changed its audience measurement base to adults 18 and over in January 1992. Hennessey, Larry. "A View from the Road," Traffic Audit Bureau Convention, Colorado Springs, Colorado, April 11, 1994, p. 10. The Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA) collects extensive data regarding adult (18 and over) exposure to billboard messages but does not even collect data on youth exposure. Major ~ research firms, including both Simmons Market Research Bureau and MediaMark Research, collect extensive data on adults' exposure to billboards, but do not measure teens' or children's exposure to outdoor advertising. These facts suggest that the children and teen markets are not worth measuring with respect outdoor advertising. This is because people under the age of 18 do not represent a viable target audience for ~ O ~ billboards. ~ ~ © 16 ~ W --W • 00

• • • • • i In addition, although FDA asserts that it has been unable to identify advertising directed at young people based on the media selected, it is clear that FDA is aware that today marketing experts agree that the primary way to reach young people is through television. In fact, it is for this very reason that FDA insists that the overwhelming majority (80%) of the expenditures on its proposed "corrective" educational program which is "specifically directed at adolescents" must be spent on television -- the medium that is heavily used by young people. If FDA truly believed that billboards were an important "youth vehicle" and that billboards were an effective way to reach "youth," FDA would not relegate billboard advertising to the "other" category of media on which the remaining 20% of the funds may be spent. III. FDA Cites No Evidence Of Any Causal Connection Between Exposure To Cigarette Advertising And The Decision To Smoke • The FDA maintains that regulation of cigarefte advertising is necessary in order to reduce underage smoking because underage youth can "recognize" and "recall" at least some tobacco advertising/promotion and because some minors choose to smoke. The • FDA relies on studies which show high levels of recognition for heavily advertised cigarette brands among smokers and non-smokers and a correlation between ad ,• recognition and smoking behavior. None of the research cited by FDA demonstrates a ~ 0 cause and effect relationship between cigarette ad or logo awareness and the decision to ~rt ~ start smoking. The inferences drawn by the FDA regarding the connection between ad 17 w CG

0 • • • • recognition and smoking initiation are unsupported and their proposed regulations restricting (in effect, banning) tobacco advertising and promotion are unjustified. The FDA (as well as some of the research on which it relies) wrongly interprets a statistically significant correlation as evidence of cause-and-effect. Even the most elementary textbooks on research design and statistical analysis inform the reader that a correlation -- even a "statistically significant" correlation -- is not evidence of a cause-and- effect relationship (e.g., Babbie, 1992). Correlation evidence does not support cause-and- effect argument, because the presence of a correlation says nothing about which of the variables is the cause and/or the effect. Indeed, the existence of a correlation does not even mean that either variable is a cause or effect at all. While two variables may be related, both may be caused by an unidentified or unmeasured third variable, or both may be the cause of unidentified or unmeasured effects. In the case of cigarette ads/promotion recognition and the decision to start smoking, higher levels of ad recognition among smokers may well be the result of the fact that these people smoke. In fact, the studies FDA cites discuss the likelihood that smokers are more attentive to cigarette ads than are nonsmokers. Common sense too, tells us that smokers would be more likely to pay attention to, and remember, cigarette ads, since these ads logically would be more relevant to smokers (who make brand choices) than nonsmokers for whom the product advertised is irrelevant. Cause-and-effect relationships simply cannot be inferred from correlational analyses. 18

0 0 0 Proving causality in social science requires evidence of "necessary or sufficient causes" for any given effect (See Babbie, 1992). Labeling something a"contnbutory factor" is not a substitute for proof of a causal relationship. Without proof of causality, any connections or inferences made between two factors are based on pure conjecture and speculation. Ideally, both conditions of necessity and sufficiency are met. To support FDA's position, FDA would need necessity evidence that would have to show that smoking would only be initiated by someone if there was at least some cigarette advertising present. This is clearly not true -- many people decide to smoke in the total absence of cigarette advertising. Sufficiency evidence would require that cigarette advertising and promotion alone would cause people to start smoking; again this condition has never been and cannot be demonstrated because there are literally hundreds of factors other than advertising that are always operating (e.g., presence and influence of parents, peers, older siblings who smoke). It is clear, therefore, that FDA has failed to demonstrate that either of the conditions of necessity or sufficiency are met in the case of cigarette advertising and the initiation=of smoking. The FDA's proposal completely ignores the entire field of consumer behavior -- and the fact that commercial brand advertising is only one factor among countless hundreds in the complex array of interrelated processes implicated in consumer decisions and consumer behavior. FDA has proposed a simplistic solution to alter a behavior that research has shown is influenced by a variety of factors. FDA has chosen to ignore the host of factors -- over which marketers have absolutely no control -- that influence 19

• • • • • • • • • consumer decision-making and purchase behavior -- most notably, the influence of parents, friends, peers and culture. As I noted at the outset, FDA's proposal to address the issue of underage smoking by restricting cigarette advertising is unwarranted and unjustified, it will not be effective in reducing underage smoking, and it is tantamount to an outright ban on cigarette advertising. Professor Timothy P: Meyer !a z z S.J' Dated i.~ O 20 tst ~ 2~