Follow @raider5854
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
Big Tobacco's anti-smoking ads begin after decade of delay
WASHINGTON (AP) — Decades after they were banned from the airwaves,
Big Tobacco companies return to prime-time television this weekend — but
not by choice.
Under court order, the tobacco industry for the first
time will be forced to advertise the deadly, addictive effects of
smoking, more than 11 years after a judge ruled that the companies had
misled the public about the dangers of cigarettes.
But years of legal pushback by the industry over
every detail means the ads will be less hard-hitting than what was
proposed. Tobacco control experts say the campaign — built around
network TV and newspapers — will not reach people when they are young
and most likely to start smoking.
"Their legal strategy is always obstruct, delay,
create confusion and buy more time," said Ruth Malone, of the University
of California, San Francisco, who has studied the industry for 20
years. "So by the time this was finally settled, newspapers have a much
smaller readership, and nowadays, who watches network TV?"
The new spots, which begin Sunday, lay out the toll
of smoking in blunt text and voiceover statements: "More people die
every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car
crashes and alcohol, combined."
Smoking remains the nation's leading preventable
cause of death and illness, causing more than 480,000 deaths each year,
even though smoking rates have been declining for decades. Last year,
the adult smoking rate hit a new low of 15 percent, according to
government figures. That's down from the 42 percent of adults who smoked
in the mid-1960s.
Experts attribute the decline to smoking bans,
cigarette taxes and anti-smoking campaigns by both nonprofit groups like
the American Cancer Society and the federal government.
The new ads are the result of a 1999 lawsuit filed by
the Justice Department under President Bill Clinton which sought to
recover some of the billions the federal government spent caring for
people with smoking-related illnesses.
A federal judge ultimately sided with the government
in 2006, ruling that Big Tobacco had "lied, misrepresented and deceived
the American public" about the effects of smoking for more than 50
years. The decision came nearly a decade after U.S. states reached legal
settlements with the industry worth $246 billion.
But under the racketeering laws used to prosecute the
federal case, the judge said she could not make the companies pay,
instead ordering them to publish "corrective statements" in
advertisements, as well as on their websites, cigarette packs and store
displays.
The campaign will be paid for by Altria
Group, owner of Philip Morris USA, and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a
division of British American Tobacco.
Altria, maker of Marlboros, referred
inquiries to a statement it issued last month: "We remain committed to
aligning our business practices with society's expectations of a
responsible company. This includes communicating openly about the health
effects of our products."
Reynolds, which sells Camel cigarettes, did not respond to a request for comment.
Originally the U.S. government wanted
companies to state that they had lied about smoking risks. But the
companies successfully challenged that proposal, arguing that it was
"designed solely to shame and humiliate." An appeals court ruled the ads
could only be factual and forward-looking.
Even the phrase "here's the truth," was
disputed and blocked. "Here's the truth: Smoking is very addictive. And
it's not easy to quit," read one proposed message.
"This was a classic case of a very wealthy
set of defendants willing to appeal every conceivable issue time and
time again," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids,
one of several anti-tobacco groups who intervened in the court case.
More than half a century ago, American media
was saturated with tobacco advertising. Cigarettes were the most
advertised product on TV and tobacco companies sponsored hundreds of
shows, including "I Love Lucy," ''The Flintstones" and "Perry Mason."
People smoked almost everywhere, in restaurants, airplanes and doctor's
offices.
Congress banned cigarette advertising from
radio and TV in 1970 and subsequent restrictions have barred the
industry from billboards and public transportation. Yet companies still
spend more than $8 billion annually on marketing, including print
advertising, mailed coupons and store displays.
Anti-tobacco advocates estimate the upcoming
TV advertisements will cost companies a tiny fraction of that, about $30
million. The broadcast ads will air five times per week for one year
and the newspaper ads will run five times over several months in about
50 national daily papers.
Robin Koval, president of Truth Initiative, has seen mock-ups of the TV ads in court and says they are not very engaging.
"It's black type scrolling on a white screen
with the most uninteresting voice in the background," said Koval, whose
group runs educational anti-tobacco ads targeting youngsters.
Nine of
10 smokers begin smoking before age 18, which is why most prevention
efforts focus on teenagers. Yet less than 5 percent of today's network
TV viewers are under 25, according to Nielsen TV data cited by Koval's
group. While lawyers were hammering out the details of the TV
advertisements, consumers increasingly switched to online social media
sites and streaming services like Facebook, YouTube and Netflix.
A former smoker who was shown the mock-up ads called them terrible.
"They weren't very compelling ads, "said
Ellie Mixter-Keller, 62, of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, who smoked a pack a
day for 30 years before quitting 12 years ago. "I just don't know if I
would have cared about any of that."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments Are Moderated And Saved