Up in Smoke: Tobacco Advertising in the United States

INTRODUCTION

In 1952, Edward R. Murrow sat in front of the camera at CBS Studios, broadcasting his program, See It Now. He spoke of world events and national news to the Americans seated in front of their televisions, accompanied, as all newscasters were in those days, by a lit cigarette; smoke seemed to emanate from his hand as he talked. During Mr. Murrow's program, Kent Cigarettes would be advertised. The spokesman took a long puff on a cigarette, reminding the audience that smart people would choose Kent over any other brand. The media delivered the tobacco company's message: smoking is harmless, perhaps even healthy.

Today, many Americans might have a hard time believing that such a carefree period existed in our history. Televised cigarette advertisements do not exist. Print advertisements are accompanied by block-letter health warnings. Few characters on television programs smoke, and certainly no newscaster smokes on the air. Anti-smoking propaganda seems to outweigh that which promotes smoking. Smokers are constantly berated for their habits, both by fellow citizens and by lawmakers, who are slowly revoking one's right to smoke in public.

In the intervening fifty years, science would alter public perception of cigarette smoking. Advertising and sales regulations would change over time, and more people would believe that all forms of tobacco use did more harm than good. How have the regulation of tobacco sales and advertising changed over the last half-century?

THE EVOLUTION OF ADVERTISING

The point of any advertising is to sway public opinion into the advertiser's favor. The sway of tobacco advertising, in particular, changed significantly over the last fifty years. In the 1950s, it was common to see advertisements of beautiful women and handsome gentlemen sharing a slender cigarette on a peaceful moonlit evening. Today, smoking-related ads feature an old cowboy with a voice box singing a little ditty about having a hole in his lung, with his tongue sliced out as a result of his tobacco use. This dramatic change happened not overnight, but instead thanks to a series of legislative rulings over several decades, altering the portrayal of tobacco from glamorous to grotesque.

In the 1950s, no one thought anything unusual of promoting cigarettes and tobaccos use in television, on the radio, on billboards, or in magazines. As noted, it was a casual, common practice. Newscasters could be seen delivering the news while smoking a cigarette, and the following commercial would also be for cigarettes. These ads used young, healthy, thin, attractive people to promote the great things that a cigarette could bring to the viewer's life. Another promotional tactic used in the 1950s was cigarette cards. These cards were not unlike baseball cards or collecting stamps; however, they could only be found in packs of cigarettes. They featured cigarette-related pictures and facts. To keep collecting the cards, one would have to keep smoking cigarettes.

Still, it was slowly becoming clear that cigarettes might actually be causing health problems, not improving the quality of health. In the 1950s, the Journal of the American Medical Association definitively linked smoking to lung cancer and certain pulmonary diseases, such as bronchitis. Subsequent studies credited heart disease to smoking, as well as fetal abnormalities due to the smoking habit of a pregnant woman. Thanks to such studies, in 1966, the Surgeon General would require all cigarette packages to be stamped with warning labels (WRAMC 19).

In 1967, the Fairness Doctrine was passed by the United States Federal Communications Commission. The doctrine ruled that broadcasters must use fair and equal advertising for controversial issues that are important to society (Moyers). At that time, tobacco advertising was considered too controversial an issue, and was completely banned from radio and television advertising. The aim of such bans and limitations is to limit promotion aimed at youths, limit locations where tobacco advertising is allowed, such as billboards, and limit tobacco promotions, such as free samples (Levy 341). These limitations came one after another, and at that point, there were almost no outlets left for tobacco advertising in the US. In spite of this restriction, the US is actually far behind many European nations that banned tobacco advertising in the 1990s.

Studies show that these limitations on advertising and promotions have a positive effect on reducing the number of people smoking cigarettes. In a study conducted from 1993 to 1996 to determine "whether tobacco advertising ad promotion increases the likelihood that youths will begin smoking has important public policy implications" (Pierce 511), a total of 1752 adolescents in California were twice surveyed, at the beginning and end of a three-year period, to see their initial susceptibility to smoking and to see their progress after the three-year period, along with any change in susceptibility. The results of the study showed that smoking promotions and advertisements contribute to the decision of 34% of youths who chose to smoke for the first time. On a national level, 34% of youth smokers is equal to approximately 700,000 young individuals who are likely to begin smoking because of promotions and advertisements.

The prevalence and power of smoking promotions, however, almost rivals that of their antismoking counterparts. Most recently, the 'truth' antismoking ad campaign has overpowered the nation. The campaign's catchy ads, directed towards adolescents, are both powerful and memorable. One of the more recent television ads features the old cowboy with a voice box, as previously mentioned.

A study was performed to determine the power of these antismoking ad campaigns. This study was carried out by surveying students in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades to see how their habits changed over the three-year period between 1999 and 2002, as a result of being exposed to antismoking ads on television, radio, and in magazines. Evidently, the 'truth' campaign made a large impact on youth smoking prevalence. The results showed that between 1999 and 2002, smoking among the students surveyed declined by approximately 5.7% to 19.6% of youths smoking due to non-'truth' campaigns, while the 'truth' campaign helped smoking in youths decline by 7.3% to 18% (Farrelly 428). The author of the study, Matthew Farrelly, explains the success of their study, saying, "We found that by 2002, smoking rates overall were 1.5% points lower than they would have been in the absence of the campaign, which translates to roughly 300,000 fewer youth smokers based on 2002 US census population statistics" (429). Summarily, the 'truth' antismoking ad campaign was not quite as successful as tobacco ads of past decades; however, they clearly make an impact on the youth of the nation.

Comparing the results of the Levy and Farrelly studies shows that the power of advertisement can drive both societal and legal policy. Since the 1950s, tobacco industries have lost the power of advertisement, which has the potential to lead to the end of the tobacco industry, given a long enough window of time. Ironically, it is often the tobacco tax revenue that fuels antismoking campaigns such as the 'truth' campaign. This is where the power of advertising lies now: if the trends continue in the same direction that they have in recent years, the tobacco industry could again be completely different in another fifty years.

SALES REGULATION BY THE GOVERNMENT

Today, knowing that the use of tobacco is harmful, the government has attempted to regulate and reduce the habitual use of tobacco products. Methods of reducing the number of smokers include increasing advertising restrictions, placing health warning labels on tobacco products, and the increase of taxes on tobacco products. The results of these methods vary in rates of success.

In general, an increase in cigarette taxation leads to a reduction in smoking. Not only do fewer people choose to smoke, the taxation increases state revenues, and the public typically supports the increase. In 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a nationwide health care system, funding for which would come from the increased cigarette taxes (Reynolds 2). Younger people tend to be affected most by tax increase, likely because they do not have a steady source of income, and are unable to afford tobacco products (Levy 339). Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that tax increases are an effective tool to yield an increase in smokers is the sole fact that they are strongly frowned upon by tobacco manufacturers, who obviously have a financial stake in the number of tobacco products sold annually. The tobacco conglomerate Phillip Morris has spent millions of dollars to oppose potential tax hikes (Reynolds 2).

Advertising restrictions play a key role in reducing the number of cigarette users. Advertising and promotion are tools that companies use to increase the attractiveness of smoking (Levy 341). However, the companies must be truthful, and their products and advertisements are labeled with health warnings. The government is able to place surgeon general health warnings on tobacco packaging, billboard ads, and other print media. This method of restriction is less effective on consumers, stating that users "ignored the messages" (Levy 342). More graphic warnings, however, do prove to be slightly more effective, instilling a fear in the consumer. When health warning were first placed on cigarette packaging in 1966, they were more subtle, but today, the warnings are much bolder. Older warnings used "caution" and "may be," words that lead the user to believe that he or she may not be at risk for any sort of health problem. Current warnings include "causes heart disease" and "serious risks to your health," definite words that lead the user to believe that the risk is high and may happen to anyone (WRAMC, par. 18). Over time, perhaps due to the more graphic warnings, the percentage of smokers among American adults has decreased (Levy 343).

Tobacco prevention programs are another government method to keep people from developing a smoking habit. Education programs funded by the government, such as DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), are often used in schools to inform young people about the health risks that tobacco poses. Studies on whether or not this method of prevention is particularly useful have proven inconclusive; nevertheless, state and nationwide grants continue to fund the programs (Levy 343).

LEGISLATION OF PUBLIC TOBACCO USE

In addition to changes in advertising regulations, there have also been vast changes in laws regarding smoking in public. As scientific research has developed the public mindset on smoking, lawmakers have taken action. In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, it is illegal to smoke in any restaurant or bar - much different than in the past, when there would be different sections for smokers and non-smokers. In Rhode Island, it is illegal to smoke inside or beside any public building. In fact, one must stand fifty feet away from a building in order to smoke. One reason for this is fire safety, but a much more prevalent reason is a public hatred of smoking.

As science marches on and discovers the effects of smoking on one's health, the public increasingly believes that smoking is a dirty habit. Children are taught the health risks of smoking beginning at an early age, when parents tell them not to touch cigarettes. The striking reality of it is that many people in our society still pick up smoking habits.

The differences between public smoking policy today and fifteen years ago are rather vast. (Farley 22). When tobacco restrictions first came out, they were small steps, and people felt that they were radical. For example, when smoking was banned from all major league baseball parks in 1994, there was a national debate over whether or not the American Medical Association had gone too far, perhaps eradicating basic civil liberties of the American people. Today, one has a hard time comprehending that people were ever allowed to smoke in public ballparks (Farley 24).

Today, one cannot smoke in bars or restaurants in many states. One cannot smoke in national parks or in government buildings. In Massachusetts, it is illegal to advertise tobacco within 1000 feet of a school (Kline, par. 5). At some point, one must wonder when enough is enough. Will the regulations ever end, or will tobacco use in America become so suffocated that it will eventually just die out?

There is currently a bill in Congress that, if passed, would nationally ban the advertising of tobacco near schools, would restrict self-service tobacco machines to adult-only locations, would force all tobacco advertising in magazines to be in black and white, and would stop all tobacco brand-name sponsoring of professional sports (Kline, par. 7). This FDA Tobacco Rule has been in Congress since the late 1990s, and it is unlikely to become actual law, but it shows the extent to which some people want to see cigarette use restricted (Kline, par. 4).

Whatever the reason behind America's crusade against the tobacco industry, it seems clear that it is an issue which will not go away in the near future. The activists seem like they will not be happy until smoking is not allowed anywhere in the country, and smokers are unlikely to allow this to happen. What will ensue is a long battle which will bring up an enormous question: to each his own, or do we have a societal obligation to look out for everyone?

CONCLUSION

Measures, effective or not, exist today in an effort to curb the societal smoking habit. The government raises taxes on tobacco, so that those with lower incomes may be discouraged from buying good tobacco products, if any at all. Children are taught in school to avoid tobacco products, while adults may see posters for smoking cessation classes all over their workplaces. Every advertisement and every piece of tobacco is accompanied by a health warning, as if the modern user is not aware of what it is he or she is consuming.

It is a world very different from fifty years ago, when smoking in public was just as commonplace as public eating, and people thought it was just as necessary to health and happiness. Those Americans might think our modern restrictions to be oppressive. Certainly, Edward R. Murrow might be uncomfortable on the air without his cigarette. Today, Americans look back in amazement, wondering how our predecessors could be so ignorant. It is not that they were ignoring health warnings - it is that there were no health warnings. Mr. Murrow, and others like him, would figure it out on his own late in his life. He died of lung cancer attributed to his smoking habit in 1965, two days after his fifty-seventh birthday (American Masters).

What smokers see as the eradication of their civil liberties is seen by others as a necessary means of protecting public health. The debate between the groups will likely continue for a very long time. With the scientific knowledge we have amassed, however, we are unlikely to see any sort of reversal in popular opinion. These new warnings will stick, new advertising campaigns will attempt to stop youths from smoking, and taxes will continue to increase. In another fifty years, we will be looking at yet another very different public and legislative opinion on tobacco.

WORKS CITED

Brief History of Tobacco Use and Abuse. 13 September 2004. Walter Reed Army Medical Center. 26 October 2006. <http://www.wramc.amedd.army.mil/education/tobaccohistory.htm>

Clooney, George, and Grant Heslov. Good Night, and Good Luck: The Screenplay and History Behind the Landmark Movie. New York: Newmarket Press, 2006.

"Edward R. Murrow: This Reporter." American Masters. Exec. Prod. Susan Lacy. Prod. Susan Steinberg. PBS. WGBH, Boston. 1988.

Farley, Christopher John. "The Butt Stops Here." Time Magazine 24 April 1994: 22-28

Farrelly, Matthew C., et al. "Evidence of a Dose-Response Relationship Between 'truth' Antismoking Ads and Youth Smoking Prevalence." American Journal of Public Health 95.3 (2005): 425-431

Good Night, and Good Luck. Dir. Grant Heslov. Perf. David Strathairn, Robert Downey Jr., Patricia Clarkson, and Frank Langella. DVD. Warner Independent, 2005.

Kline, Robert, et al. "The AG Settlement: Short on Time and Money, Long on Loopholes." 18 November 1998. Northeastern University 26 October 2006. <http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/tobacco_control/resources/msa/analysis_of_MSA .htm>

Levy, David T., et al. "The Effects of Tobacco Control Policies on Smoking Rates: A Tobacco Control Scorecard." Journal of Public Health Management Practice 10 (2004): 338-353

Pierce, John P., et al. "Tobacco Industry Promotion of Cigarettes and Adolescent Smoking." Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (1998): 511-515

"Politics and Economy: What Happened to Fairness?" NOW with Bill Moyers. Exec. Prod. Felice Firestone. Prod. William Brangham. PBS. WGBH, Boston. 2004.

RJ Reynolds. "Health Care Excesses Issue Action Plan: Background." 7 October 1992. <http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/512689055-9057.html>

November 1, 2006
Co-written with Kristin Malakorn, Loren Eckardt, and Matt Summit.