Study Slams Philip Morris Ads Telling Teens Not to Smoke --- TV Spots With Clean-Cut Kids Attacking
Smoking Don't Work, Survey Shows; Company Disagrees
By Gordon Fairclough. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition).New York, N.Y.: May 29, 2002. pg. B.1
» Jump to full text
Subjects:
Studies, Children & youth, Prevention, Smoking, Public service advertising
Companies:
Philip Morris Cos Inc(Ticker:MO , NAICS: 312221 , 312120 , 312111 , 233110 , Duns:14-462-8310 )
Author(s):
By Gordon Fairclough
Article types:
News
Column Name:
Advertising
Publication title:
Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). New York, N.Y.: May 29, 2002. pg. B.1
Source Type:
Newspaper
ISSN/ISBN:
00999660
ProQuest document ID: 121839466
Text Word Count
1151
Article URL:
http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.882003&res_id=xri:pqd&rft_val_fmt=ori:fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=article&rft_id=xri:pqd:did=000000121839466&s
More Like This »Show Options for finding similar articles
Abstract (Article Summary)
In the forefront of the critics is the American Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit group created as part of the 1998
state tobacco settlement and the largest antismoking advertiser. A study funded by the foundation, to be
published today in the American Journal of Public Health, concludes that exposure to Philip Morris's
campaign didn't turn kids against cigarettes. Instead, researchers found that teenagers who had seen the
Philip Morris ads "were more likely to be open to the idea of smoking."
Tobacco executives, not surprisingly, say that industry bashing is wrong. "Demonizing, teaching kids to hate, is
not justified, no matter what the ends are," says Ellen Merlo, a senior vice president at Philip Morris's U.S.
cigarette unit. Philip Morris has written to the Florida Health Department asking it to pull some ads that the
company says inaccurately portray its marketing tactics abroad.
The American Legacy study is based on a statistical analysis of responses from teenagers in two national
telephone surveys that asked questions about its campaign and the Philip Morris spots. It found that exposure
to its ads was "associated with a marginally statistically significant decrease in the odds" that a nonsmoking
youth intends to start smoking in the next year. In contrast, exposure to the Philip Morris ads was associated
with an increase in the odds that a youth intends to smoke in the next year.
Full Text (1151 words)
Copyright Dow Jones & Company Inc May 29, 2002
WHO PRODUCES the second-biggest national television ad campaign urging kids not to smoke? The nation's
largest cigarette maker, Philip Morris Cos.
Philip Morris spends more than $100 million a year on measures to deter underage smoking. The most visible
is a series of high-gloss TV ads featuring soaring music, lush photography and diverse casts of kids talking
about why they don't use cigarettes.
The theme: "Think. Don't smoke."
Tobacco-control experts say they hate the spots, which they deride as a public-relations ploy. Worse, they say,
the ads don't work and may even undermine harder-hitting messages from public-health authorities.
In the forefront of the critics is the American Legacy Foundation, a nonprofit group created as part of the 1998
state tobacco settlement and the largest antismoking advertiser. A study funded by the foundation, to be
published today in the American Journal of Public Health, concludes that exposure to Philip Morris's campaign
didn't turn kids against cigarettes. Instead, researchers found that teenagers who had seen the Philip Morris
ads "were more likely to be open to the idea of smoking."
"It's time for Philip Morris and the rest of the tobacco industry to get out of the youth-prevention business," says
Cheryl G. Healton, American Legacy's chief executive officer and an author of the study. "They have a
profound conflict of interest that cannot be overcome."
Carolyn J. Levy, the Philip Morris executive who oversaw creation of the company's youth-smoking prevention
program, bridles at suggestions the ads are ineffective, saying they have been rigorously tested. "We are
confident that our ads convey the intended message to kids, that they shouldn't smoke cigarettes," she says.
Dr. Levy also says she has "serious questions" about the way the American Legacy study was conducted.
The release of the American Legacy study comes amid an escalating battle between the foundation and
cigarette makers. Lorillard Tobacco Co. is suing American Legacy, alleging that some of its ads "vilify" tobacco
companies -- something forbidden by the settlement agreement. American Legacy, which is based in
Washington, D.C., denies that its campaign unfairly attacks the tobacco companies and has filed a lawsuit of its
own against Lorillard, a unit of Loews Corp. The foundation says its ads are accomplishing their goal: stopping
teenagers from smoking.
Teen smoking has been falling in recent years. In a nationwide survey last year, 29% of high-school students
said they had smoked during the previous month, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, down from 36% in 1997. The rate is the lowest since 1991. The CDC attributes the drop to
increases in cigarette prices as well as antismoking ads and health-education programs.
The question now is what kind of ads, and what kind of programs, work best with teenagers. One cautionary
tale comes from the recent experience of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The new U.S. drug czar,
John P. Walters, says the government's massive antidrug ad campaign has failed to keep kids from using
drugs.
Cornelia Pechmann, a marketing professor at the University of California at Irvine, who studies the
effectiveness of various antismoking messages with teenagers, says simply telling rebellion-prone teenagers
not to smoke can make the practice more appealing. And, given teenagers' sense of immortality, lecturing them
about the long-term health consequences of cigarettes is also of little use.
Dr. Pechmann says that the most effective antismoking messages are those that directly counter the sexy, cool
image of smoking propagated by cigarette ads. Health messages also can work, she says, but only if they
emotionally and graphically convey immediate risks of serious harm. As an example, she points to
Massachusetts ads that tell the true story of a woman diagnosed with smoking-related emphysema at 24 who
died at 31.
Drawing on a strategy pioneered in a highly successful antismoking campaign waged by the state of Florida,
American Legacy's ads aim to redirect teenagers' natural rebelliousness against tobacco companies.
In one of the best-known TV spots, teenage activists pull hundreds of body bags out of trucks and stack them
on the sidewalks around Philip Morris's New York headquarters. A young man uses a megaphone to shout at
the offices above: "Do you know how many people tobacco kills every day?"
Tobacco executives, not surprisingly, say that industry bashing is wrong. "Demonizing, teaching kids to hate, is
not justified, no matter what the ends are," says Ellen Merlo, a senior vice president at Philip Morris's U.S.
cigarette unit. Philip Morris has written to the Florida Health Department asking it to pull some ads that the
company says inaccurately portray its marketing tactics abroad.
The American Legacy study is based on a statistical analysis of responses from teenagers in two national
telephone surveys that asked questions about its campaign and the Philip Morris spots. It found that exposure
to its ads was "associated with a marginally statistically significant decrease in the odds" that a nonsmoking
youth intends to start smoking in the next year. In contrast, exposure to the Philip Morris ads was associated
with an increase in the odds that a youth intends to smoke in the next year.
Philip Morris says its data show that its ads do work. More than 90% of the youths and adults on whom ads are
tested must say an ad clearly communicates a "no smoking" message before it gets on the air.
The ads also score high on other measures. One of the most important questions asked of youths in the
quantitative studies is: How much would watching this ad make a friend decide not to smoke? For all of the
company's ads, 70% to 80% of the children surveyed answered "most likely" or "definitely."
But critics say it is hard to believe that a company that is one of the best marketing organizations in the world
isn't showing better results.
"These companies know how to talk to kids when they want to," says Matthew L. Myers, president of the
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "Marlboro ads take advantage of kids' rebelliousness and attraction to cool
images."
Michael E. Szymanczyk, chairman of Philip Morris's U.S. cigarette unit, points out that since the state tobacco
settlement, the company has been barred from using billboards and merchandise to advertise its brands. It has
also sharply curtailed magazine advertising and has turned increasingly to direct-mail campaigns instead, steps
that he says should reduce youth exposure to cigarette ads.
Mr. Szymanczyk acknowledges that there is some contradiction on a philosophical level in advertising
cigarettes on the one hand and telling kids they shouldn't smoke on the other.
"There is a tension that exists between those two requirements," he says. "Compete today and make tomorrow
better -- whether by reducing underage smoking or developing reduced-risk products or finding other business
propositions. You've got to do both."
(See related article: "How a Market Researcher Who Dedicated Years to Cigarette Sales Came to Create
Antismoking Ads" -- WSJ May 29, 2002)