Women's Collection from Marketing to Counter-Marketing
Secondary Smoke Advertisements
Abstract
This 1987 marketing document reveals an ad agency testing various themes about secondhand smoke on behalf of the Philip Morris Tobacco Company (PM). The ads themselves show how PM intended to respond to the public health threat caused by secondhand smoke from their products, and how the company intended to manipulate the public's understanding of health information. PM's ad agency described its mission this way:
"The purpose of the overall [ad] project was to look for a way to stem the ever increasing tide of legal restrictions on smoking. Philip Morris is looking for a way to avoid further legislation to restrict where people can smoke...It was hoped that disarming the issue of secondary smoke would be a strong device to slow anti-smoking legislation."
A major theme of the ads was that "the case isn't proven" that secondhand tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, ironically the same theme that the tobacco industry used for years to reassure smokers about primary smoking and keep them smoking.
The people who viewed these ads were surprisingly savvy about the tobacco industry's intent and methods. The first ad, entitled "Scientist," featured a woman pharmacologist dressed in a white lab coat telling the audience that the case hasn't been proven that secondhand smoke is harmful. Participants questioned the credibility of the woman, pointed out that she was a pharmacologist and not a doctor, and that the purpose of her wearing a white lab coat was to manipulate the audience into believing she was a legitimate authority figure.
Another ad, "Black Man/White Man," equated smoking restrictions with racism. Participants had a strong negative reaction to this analogy, and pointed out its absurdity:
"...most disagreed that smokers suffer from discrimination. Non-smokers were quick to voice the fact that smokers can go anywhere, they just may not be able to smoke: 'How have his rights been violated? He can go anywhere. That's a bunch of garbage... ' '...it was ridiculous, because they can go into a restaurant.' Although some credence was given to the rights of the smoker, non-smokers were not about to give up their own rights. '...one smoker in this room would infringe on the rights of seven people.' 'The way I feel about it, my sitting here and not smoking is not bothering anybody, but if I was sitting here smoking, I'd be bothering somebody. So, he (smoker) is the one who is infringing on the rights.'
General comments by the focus group leader indicate the participants' cynical attitude about secondhand smoke ads in general:
"From listening to all six groups, several points were brought up that seemed universal across smokers and non-smokers: 1. The use of the Phillip Morris name as a sponsor for the advertisements was a definite negative. Smokers and non-smokers alike tended to not believe the ads based on the use of the Philip Morris name. One respondent stated: "...I wouldn't trust it because it came from the manufacturer and it almost constitutes an ad for smoking... I don't trust what a cigarette manufacturer would tell me about it (second-hand smoke)."
The tester reported that some participants felt "all of the ads were thinly veiled attempts to get advertising for cigarette companies back on the air." He commented that many of the smokers tested were "guilty" smokers who wanted to quit smoking because they knew they were hurting themselves. The tester pointed out that "For this reason, smokers were not anxious to jump on the bandwagon that says secondhand smoke isn't harmful to non-smokers."
Handwritten comments on the document, ostensibly by cigarette company representative or proponent, trivialize the public health knowledge held by the participants and request a toning down of adjectives like "all" and "many" in describing the universality of feeling among them. An interesting example is at the bottom of Page 2041096511, where the tester wrote that "There was a basic DISBELIEF across all groups that secondhand smoke is not harmful." The handwritten comment next to this statement dismisses this important obervation out of hand, saying merely
"Tone down. Bothersome."
Fields
- Quotes
BACKGROUND
Cabot Advertising asked Decision Analyst, Inc. to participate in one phase of research for Philip Morris. The purpose of the overall project was to look for a way to stem the ever increasing tide of legal restrictions on smoking. Philip Morris is looking for a way to avoid further legislation to restrict where people can smoke. The advertisements tested by Decision Analyst, Inc. approached the issue from the point of view that secondary smoke has not been proven to be harmful. It was hoped that disarming the issue of secondary smoke would be a strong device to slow anti-smoking legislation. Ultimately, Ph Morris appears to be looking for a way to support smoking sections instead of smoking being banned.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this phase of the research was tTo determine which of four TV campaigns would be the most accepted and persuasive to the public.
METHODS
A total of six focus groups were conducted. Three groups were held in Boston and three in Philadelphia. The groups consisted of men and women who were: (1) smokers, (2) non-smokers, and (3) a mixed group of smokers and non-smokers.
GENERAL COMMENTS
From listening to all six groups, several points were brought up that seemed universal across smokers and non-smokers: 1. The use of the Phillip Morris name as a sponsor for the advertisements was a definite negative. Smokers and non-smokers alike tended to not believe the ads based on the use of the Philip Morris name. One respondent stated: "...I wouldn't trust it because it came from the manufacturer and it almost constitutes an ad for smoking... I don't trust what a cigarette manufacturer would tell me about it (second-hand smoke)."
2. Many of the advertisements were seen as condoning smoking. For example, the "Real Things" ad gave many the impression smokers might as well smoke because so many other things were going to kill them. The "Scientist" ad led some people to feel the main idea was to say its secondary smoke is okay now because we do not have proof it will not hurt you. There was the implication that when there is proof second-hand smoke is dangerous, then we should do something about it. Others felt that all of the ads were thinly veiled attempts to get advertising for cigarette companies back on the air...
...The argument of smokers" versus non-smokers' rights was brought up frequently in discussions of the ads. No real consensus was arrived at except that smokers feel non-smokers deprive them of their rights and vice-versa. The groups were composed of people who appeared to bend over backwards to be polite and understanding of each others' rights. Whether in smoker, non-smoker or in a mixed group, participants were polite to each other and about the subject. They claimed to understand and allow everyone their rights (often at their own expense). From the discussions of the one-on-one interviews conducted by Philip Morris, it may be that people in a group setting are very intimidated by the issue. 5. Many of the smokers were "guilty" smokers. They either wanted to quit, knew they were hurting themselves, or were intimidated by the current discrimination and "persecution" they were beginning to encounter in public, at work and at home. For this reason, smokers were not anxious to jump on the bandwagon that says secondhand smoke isn't harmful to non-smokers. There was a basic DISBELIEF across all groups that secondhand smoke is not harmful. JSmokers and non-smokers felt secondhand smoke is likely to be harmful to non-smokers, smokers admitted that if they believed smoking was harmful to their own health, it must be harmful to others (non-smokers).
[Description of TV ad:]
BLACK MAN/WHITE MAN"
These two men are not equal. One of them cannot get into certain public restaurants. He cannot sit in certain areas. He is looked at with scorn by many Americans. His community has turned against him. He's a smoker. And although there's no conclusive proof that the smoke from his cigarette does any harm to those who don't smoke, his rights have been violated. Get the real facts on second-hand smoke. We've come too far to let ignorance set us all back again.
Black Man/White Man" Smokers: The main idea perceived in this ad was that smokers have rights too. Participants repeatedly identified the discrimination of smokers (even though some did not immediately catch on to the black/white analogy). Smokers were pleased to see something that portrayed how it feels to be in the "minority" that smokes. This ad instigated some very strong negative emotional reactions about the racial analogy. This was especially true in all-white groups. For some reason the all-white groups reacted and verbalized an anger and feeling of "unfairness" by using racial discrimination to make a point. One racially mixed group did not react as strongly to the racial issue. This may be due to embarrassment to discuss racism in front of blacks or they just may not have been offended by the ad. The racial issues were often addressed halfway through the discussions of the ad. First, participants discussed discrimination of smokers and then eventually began to discuss how they felt about the racial issues. The tone of the ad was very strong (probably due to racial issues). Many respondents felt it was too strong for them, however, they admitted it was powerful.
Smokers were able to identify with the spot and appreciated the opportunity to make their non-smoking friends understand the smoker's rights. Smokers discussed how they are discriminated against. One man (a black man) discussed how he, as a smoker, feels persecuted: "Persecution. I think they were actually persecuting the smoker...and the comparison of racism. Now all of a sudden we are persecuting the smoker as we have persecuted in the past a black person." Respondents liked the "human" approach as well as the creativeness of the execution. Smokers were especially pleased with the spot's ability to identify a situation they deal with frequently. 6. The spot was disliked due to the racial issue used to dramatize discrimination against smokers. As mentioned, the racial issue angered many and they felt it would be insulting to blacks. White participants were the most verbal about this issue when blacks were present. Smokers did not feel the spot would change opinions of non-smokers.
"Black Man/White Man" Non-Smokers The main idea perceived by non-smokers was discrimination of smokers, however, most disagreed that smokers suffer from discrimination. Non-smokers were quick to voice the fact that smokers can go anywhere, they just may not be able to smoke: "How have his rights been violated? He can go anywhere. That's a bunch of garbage." "...it was ridiculous, because they can go into a restaurant." Although some credence was given to the rights of the smoker, non-smokers were not about to give up their own rights. "...one smoker in this room would infringe on the rights of seven people." "The way I feel about it, my sitting here and not smoking is not bothering anybody, but if I was sitting here smoking, I'd be bothering somebody. So, he (smoker) is the one who is infringing on the rights." With such a strong, hard-hitting execution, the ad made participants stop, pay attention and think about the message. "I liked the piece...it makes me think, which is a miracle for any sort of ad. It does make me uncomfortable as a non-smoker who would prefer that people not smoke around me." Several non-smokers related similar feelings as depicted in the above quote. It was identified as guilt by some; guilt that they discriminated against smokers.
Although some non-smoking respondents did experience some "guilt," others expressed no concern for the smoker. One respondent was glad to see smokers discriminated against. He stated "...it is about time the smoker got his, I am glad he is discriminated against, I am glad they don't let him in. He has never thought about me, and now he is going to get it stuck to him."
"REAL THINGS" [ad]:
AIDS is something to worry about... And meltdown... And terrorists. and kids on drugs. There's accidental nuclear war. And acid rain. That's something to worry about. But second-hand smoke? There is absolutely no conclusive proof that second hand smoke is harmful to adult non-smokers. Second-hand cigarette smoke. Wow...in today's world, don't you have enough real things to worry about?
"Real Things" Smokers
1. Smokers perceived the main idea as second-hand smoke is not as important as AIDS, nuclear war, terrorists, etc. Unfortunately, an equally strong message was that Philip Morris is trying to avoid the issue of second-hand smoke. One respondent stated "...people are over-reacting to the second-hand smoke, but the message also came across as 'Please leave us alone.'" Another respondent said it harsher: "It is like Philip Morris is saying who cares about the non-smoker anyway, we've got AIDS and ..." Emotionally, respondents were insulted and felt the spot was ridiculous in its comparison. They did not like the issue of second-hand smoke being trivialized. A few respondents liked the impact of the spot. However, most were insulted by the weak comparison of AIDS, etc. to second-hand smoke. One respondent stated that second-hand smoke is an individual problem while AIDS is a problem of society. 3. Smokers perceived this ad as insulting to non-smokers. One stated that it was like him hitting someone with his car, breaking their legs and saying, "Well, be glad I didn't kill you." This also led to smokers admitting second-hand smoke is probably harmful. Smokers also stated that if they believe cigarette smoke is bad for them, then the jump to second-hand smoke being harmful isn't a difficult one to make...
"Real Things"
Non-Smokers
1. Non-smokers got the main idea as second-hand smoke not being important. This insulted non-smokers. It made them feel they were being told secondhand smoke isn't important or even irritating. The spot evoked strong emotions in that non-smokers do feel secondhand smoke is important. Some stated that second hand smoke will probably kill them before AIDS, meltdown or terrorists will. "Oddly enough, the cigarette smoking to me seems like more of a threat than the other things they mentioned." Some saw this as encouraging smokers to keep on smoking from two directions: (1) smoking isn't all that bad, (2) with all these awful things going on, you might as well smoke because you are going to die anyway. None of the respondents agreed that the comparison between AIDS and second-hand smoke was warranted. This comparison confused the issue for some making them think second-hand smoke is as important as AIDS, etc. Some participants felt second-hand smoke was an individual issue while AIDS, nuclear war, etc. are societal issues. Participants stated that second-hand smoke was something that could be controlled, something could be done about it, while AIDS, etc. were beyond the individual's control. "There is so much that can be done about smoking, that we can do easily ourselves, but not any of the other stuff."
...OVERALL
Most participants, smokers and non-smokers, did not believe that second-hand smoke was not harmful. This damanged the credibility of each ad...
The "Black Man/White Man" ad, however, stirred up the strongest emotional response. For this reason it would probably be the best remembered of the five ads. Unfortunately, the racism issue was so distasteful for some that even though the ad was strong and impactful, it would be likely to incite much criticism and smokers and non-smokers.
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Decision Analyst, Inc. Marketing and Advertising Research
- Recipient
- Presumed corporate recipient Philip Morris
Document Images
