A blog about beer and/or advertising.

Let's call it "beervertising" for short.

That's not really all that short, but it's better than beer and/or advertising.

Friday, March 25, 2011

Anti-Smoking Campaigns*

I don't smoke. In my entire lifetime, I've only ever smoked anything once: It was flavored tobacco in a hookah lamp during 2006. In my opinion, smoking is a gross, disgusting habit that I will never be able to understand. For a while, I was extremely bitter toward smokers because they were ruining a perfectly good set of lungs while I had to constantly deal with asthma (and my asthma isn't even that bad). I later realized that I didn't have much ground to maintain that bitterness because I ruin a perfectly good liver every time I drink beer. And I'm not about to give that up.

The point is, I very much would like to see the number of smokers in the world decrease, especially when it comes to the people I care about. I don't like smoking. And yet, with every new anti-smoking campaign that comes out, especially the ones put out by the State of New York, I find myself more and more alienated and irritated. To the point that looking at the ads makes me want to buy a pack of cigarettes, light one, and then put it out in someone's eye. Or at least use it to burn holes in the terrible ads. I really began to consider why someone such as myself, who used to be so adamantly anti-smoking, could become so anti- anti-smoking campaigns. My reasoning is as follows:

1) Personal change:

While I am rather annoyed when people smoke around me because they are damaging my health as well as theirs, there isn't much I can do about it outside of taking the cigarette out of their mouth or hand and putting it out. I did that once to a friend. I thought she was going to kill me. (She probably should've. Them shits is expensive.) Also, ultimately, deciding to smoke is a personal choice. We all have to die from something, and we're all well aware of the health risks. If you really want to smoke knowing what it does to your insides, you're going to do it and there won't be much that will change that. I've accepted it.

2) Related to the above, everyone is well aware that smoking does horrible things to your body and your health. Everyone is well aware of how much your life expectancy can become much shorter if you smoke. Everyone is well aware of how much it makes you smell, how it yellows your teeth and nails and how many people are turned off by it. Knowing all of that, if people still decide to smoke, they're going to smoke. And no amount of advertising is going to deter them. The strategies are out-dated. People know they should quit. Many people try and fail every year. Other succeed. What we should be doing with anti-smoking campaigns rather than guilting people into quitting or grossing them out with pictures of diseased lungs, is offering them support. Let them know they're doing a great job. Nicorette had a great campaign with different characters attached to a "Suck-o-meter" that registered how much it sucked to quit smoking. Then, they popped a piece of Nicorette and the Suck-o-meter went down because quitting sucked less. That's the tone anti-smoking campaigns should have. I don't even smoke and I'm sick of the condescending tone and disease-infested organs plastered everywhere. And I'm sick of the guilt- and shame-inducing headlines I see on TV and in the subway. It's enough. It's not working.** Get it out of everyone's face.

*Full disclosure: I own stock in a holding company whose main business is cigarette production, distribution and sales
**In fact, studies have shown that anti-smoking ads INCREASE usage among current smokers.

4 comments:

  1. While I would give a hearty "hear hear" to nearly your entire post, I would like to point out that not "everyone is well aware of how much your life expectancy can become much shorter if you smoke." I don't know how reliable these are, but the American Heart Association website cites the US Dept. of Health & Human Services with the following stats:
    -90 percent of smokers begin tobacco use before age 20
    -50 percent of smokers begin tobacco use by age 14
    -25 percent begin their smoking addiction by age 12 (the 6th grade)
    -since 1991, past-month smoking has increased by 35 percent among eighth graders and 43 percent among 10th graders, while smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high
    (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=11226)

    So while I would agree that *most* adults know about all of the negative effects of smoking, kids are in a tough position. Many may not know how bad it is, and those that have heard all of the horror stories may not be truly processing the reality of it. (Sorry, it's the teacher in me that makes me think about it this way.)

    If I were to think about the ads you hate so much as targeting a wider audience than just your typical adult smoker, but to be actually aimed at those under, say, 16 or 18 years of age, then I think they're sending the right type of message.

    Agree to disagree?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Disagree. (Will explain later) It may be a case of budget (which seems ridiculous because the anti-smoking campaigns are funded by revenues from the smoking conglomerates), but on the possibility you are correct and that is true, they should run two different campaigns - one at underage smokers or at-risk kids, the other for adults who are already smoking.

    Now, why I disagree: My biggest beef with anti-smoking is the extremely divisive, intense and condescending nature of the advertising. While I do agree that public shame is an excellent way to change the behavior of a large number of people and should be used more often, the direction the advertising has taken isn't just toeing the line of offensive or divisive, it's hacked up a yucky mucous ball all over it.

    No one is disputing the numbers. But therein lies my my point. Look at how easy it was for you to find that information. Most people know they're going to die from lung cancer, stroke or emphysema if they smoke. And all of those things suck. You don't need a diseased lung or androgynous, creepy looking old thing drooling on itself with a breathing tube shoved up its nose to get that message across. In fact, doing so is incredibly easy and lacks any sort of creativity. And perhaps that's my beef more than anything else. Even still, other directions taken in the past haven't worked either. The "truth" campaign (which actually increased smoking among current users), was a great direction, excellent creative work that was a different from the "guilt-and-gross-out" norm. And it didn't work to encourage people to quit smoking. (I don't remember off-hand if it decreased the number of underage smokers. I feel like it might have, but I could be wrong). So, the question now becomes, is it the message or the method? And what I'm saying in that post is, its both. The anti-smoking people need to go back to square one and start over. Or just stop all-together.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Two things.

    One, I don't have the advertising background to really make a statement about what advertising has or has not done to affect smoking numbers. But did the "truth" campaign is responsible for increasing smoking among current users, or did the two things simply happen concurrently?

    Two, to play devil's advocate, because that can be fun... You're using some very wide, sweeping generalizations in terms of who does and does not know about the effects of smoking. I'm not going to argue with your opinions there, but I will argue with your use of the words "all" and "most." They leave out a significant portion of the population that has neither the access to the website I went to to find the stats, nor the maturity level to truly comprehend the ramifications thereof.

    Ready... Set... Rebut!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow, holy bad grammar. I meant, "But is the 'truth' campaign responsible for..." Yikes.

    ReplyDelete