It is pretty common knowledge
nowadays that smoking and other tobacco products have direct links to respiratory
diseases, cancer, and other serious health issues. We have all been told about the dangers
associated with tobacco, from lessons in class to the graphic advertisements
show on television. Smoking is heavily
stigmatized in society nowadays despite being seen almost as the norm just a
few decades ago. How did a product that
was so popular and had such a wide base of consumers fall in popularity so
quickly? A lot of it had to do with the
advertising.
First, how did tobacco
products gain such a large consumer base?
Their use of advertising allowed companies to target several different
groups very effectively. AdAge provides
a comprehensive breakdown of tobacco companies’ use of advertising. To start with, many tobacco companies
advertised their cigarettes by placing money or cards with celebrities printed
on them in cigarette packs. This practice
of using celebrities to endorse a product was (and still is) highly effective. Methods like these utilize the peripheral
route to persuasion in order to sell their product. According to Kassin, Fein, and Markus (2017)
define the peripheral route to persuasion as "the process by which a
person does not think carefully about a communication and is influenced instead
by superficial cues". These superficial
cues can take the form of celebrity endorsers, flashy images and music, or
advertisements that sell a lifestyle. Cigarette
advertisements are full of superficial cues that attempt to sell consumers a certain
feeling, from independent women to hardworking men.
Advertisements targeting
women were designed to empower. Back
when cigarettes were first starting to come onto the market, it was taboo for a
woman to smoke or even be associated with cigarettes. With this untapped market in mind, tobacco
companies focused on breaking down the stigma surrounding women and cigarettes
through different advertising strategies.
Some companies advertised their cigarettes in connection with weight
loss, as the image below from a Lucky Strike advertisement shows. Advertisements directed at women usually
featured slim and attractive models and emphasized notions of independence and
empowerment. Instead of advertising the
contents of the cigarette or other facts, tobacco companies sold their products
using catchy slogans and associations with desirable traits, such as slim figures.
 |
| Image from tobacco.stanford.edu |
Once the market towards
women was established, there was a stigma around the idea that filtered cigarettes
are for women and not men. To counteract
this, cigarette companies put money into advertising to men using peripheral
cues in the form of traits men deemed desirable. One of the biggest examples of this was the
Marlboro Man. Marlboro had a series of
advertisements that depicted a rugged, hardworking cowboy to sell the lifestyle
of this tough, honest man through Marlboro cigarettes. These same filtered cigarettes had previously
been advertised as “Mild as May” in order to target women. The complete rebranding was highly effective
in appealing to new audiences. Not only
was this selling a lifestyle, but it was providing a role model that people
could associate with by buying Marlboro cigarettes. By selling men the idea that hardworking guys
smoke Marlboro, tobacco companies utilized the peripheral route to persuasion.
 |
| Image from tobacco.stanford.edu |
In response to initial
research findings showing the health risks associated with smoking, tobacco
companies began competing with one another to advertise the healthiest cigarette
on the market. Facts-based anti-smoking advertisements
were on the rise and tobacco companies were starting see a decline in
sales. Tobacco companies purposefully
avoided using the central route to persuasion so as to ignore the health risks associated
with tobacco. Kassin, Fein, and Markus
(2017) define the central route to persuasion as “the process by which a person
thinks carefully about a communication and is influenced by the strength of its
arguments". In attempts to avoid
facts that would appeal to the central route of persuasion, tobacco companies
instead used positive words to sell their products.
Filtered cigarettes were
one way that tobacco companies advertised cigarettes as not unhealthy by using
seemingly medical statements and positive words. The advertisement below from du Maurier claims
the filter tip “holds throat irritants in check” and tells consumers that they
will “smoke clean smoke” with this brand.
Tobacco companies routinely used words like “clean”, “natural”, “light”,
“mild”, and “fresh” to give the illusion that they were not unhealthy. Some companies went as far as to imply that
doctors would approve of their brand; one example comes from Liggett &
Myers who advertised their filter as "just what the doctor ordered". These tactics can appeal to people by giving
the illusion that their advertisements and claims are based on facts.
 |
| Image from tobacco.stanford.edu |
Smoking prevalence
reached a peak in 1964 with over 40% of the US adult population smoking. Tobacco companies’ successes can be partially
attributed to their use of appealing to the peripheral route to persuasion in
their advertisements. Selling a feeling
or a lifestyle can be very effective. By
partnering with celebrities, athletes, doctors, and movie stars, tobacco
companies placed themselves into a position where they could appeal to
virtually every group in America. However,
warnings from the Surgeon General in 1964 linking smoking with heart and lung
diseases and cancer drastically reduced sales.
Following the warning, restrictions were placed on tobacco
advertisements, anti-smoking advertisements were mandated, and health warnings
were printed on cigarette packages. By
1970 cigarette advertising was banned from both television and radio. Since the Surgeon General’s warning about
smoking, the prevalence of smoking has declined in the United States. In 1965, approximately 42% of US adults were
smokers, which fell to below 20% by 2011 (Cummings & Proctor, 2014). This is trend is still occurring. The Center for Disease Control reports that smoking has declined from 20.9% in 2005 to 14% in 2017, with the
proportion of smokers who have quit increasing from 50.8% in 2005 to 59% in
2016.
What caused this dramatic
fall in smoking prevalence? Research
findings and health warnings were at the root cause of the decline in smoking,
but anti-smoking advertisements really drove the message home to consumers
using the same techniques that made tobacco advertisements so successful.
We have all seen the
graphic anti-smoking advertisements on television. These advertisements use shock factors and graphic
images to show the health risks of smoking as well as giving fact-based
information about smoking related diseases.
These advertisements use elements that appeal to both the peripheral and
central routes to persuasion. On the
peripheral side, these advertisements can use flashy images and music to catch
your attention, and then show you a graphic image of someone who has suffered
as a result of their smoking. Watch the
following video to see a classic example of this type of commercial:
This video uses the
flashy peripheral cues that cigarette advertisements relied on and flips them
around to show what is behind the scenes. Commercials like this one may then combine this
with information and statistics regarding diseases and can include a quit line
number. These statistics and facts-based
advertisements appeal to the central route to persuasion by providing an
argument for the viewer to think about and consider. Other public service announcements show
graphic images of real people and use fear as a tactic. However, it has been shown that fear is only
effective if a solution is also provided.
For anti-smoking advertisements this can come in the form of a link to
find out more information or a quit line number. This video from the CDC uses this technique
to draw attention at the beginning using shock factor, and then providing more
information at the end:
The use of attention-grabbing advertisements has been utilized very effectively by both cigarette companies and anti-smoking adverts. While still using some peripheral cues, anti-smoking adverts go a step further and tend to include facts and statistics that act as central cues. Do you think this makes these advertisements more effective than cigarette commercials? Or maybe people respond more to peripheral cues in advertisements. Let me know your thoughts!
References
Cummings, K. M., & Proctor, R. N. (2014). The changing public image of smoking in the united states: 1964-2014. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention : A Publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, Cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 23(1), 32-36. doi:http://services.lib.mtu.edu:2080/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0798
Cigarettes. (2003, September 15). Retrieved from https://adage.com/article/adage-encyclopedia/cigarettes/98391/
Kassin, S. M., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2017). Social psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Smoking is down, but almost 38 million American adults still smoke | CDC Online Newsroom | CDC. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0118-smoking-rates-declining.html
This is a very interesting blog post and was informational as well as entertaining to read. I really liked the part about how companies use the persuasion of celebrities in their ads. I think that this is an extremely good way of persuading people. As a kid growing up I know that a lot of my friends idolized celebrities and and the things they did in and outside of the movies or athletics. I think that by using these famous people, people tend to overlook the detrimental effects that smoking can cause to the body and the mind. I like how you mentioned the superficial cues of flashy advertisements that really grab the audiences attention. Pairing the superficial cues with celebrities must have been an extremely important part of cigarette advertisements and endorsements.
ReplyDeleteVery good points! These advertisements can really effect the attitudes of youth. Here's a good article I found when writing this post about how e-cigarette advertisements can actually desensitize attitudes towards tobacco products: https://services.lib.mtu.edu:5003/docview/1914763050/D9394A272D7B4E84PQ/1?accountid=28041
DeleteWhat's interesting is that a lot of the new vaping companies are taking similar routes, but instead of targeting celebrity lifestyles or adult audiences, they're gearing their products told young adults or even young teens. This has been a huge issue in the news recently with Juul pulling their line of fruit flavored pods due to backlash. The thing with Juul is it was designed by former Apple employees (if I remember correctly) and was essentially hand-crafted to feel like a cool tech gadget, despite being a device that delivers more nicotine than an average cigarette.
DeleteRose, that is a super interesting article and there are some extremely good points and information throughout, and what Caden said I believe ties into the article as well. My mom is a middle school teacher and she said even in the 6th and 7th grade they are finding juuls and other forms of e-cigs in the hallways and bathrooms. It is pretty crazy how easily accessible these e-cigs are for such young age people.
DeleteIt's a serious problem because even though these products aren't formally advertised to youth, children and teens make up a fair amount of their consumer base.
DeleteCaden, I really liked your point about how Juuls are crafted to be cool tech gadgets and how that is changing the consumer market, I hadn't thought about that before.
The focus on the peripheral route of persuasion was really a sight to behold in these ads. I think you’re right in that these commercials try to be as flashy as possible to hook people in. One thing I didn’t notice was how these ads also play off of established stereotypes, like how they fought the “women shouldn’t smoke” stigma, but also reinforced the “hard-working man” stereotype with their marlboro ad.
DeleteNice post! I think the thing that jumped out the most to me was the significance of all the peripheral cues in advertisements. I guess I had just never really stopped to think about how the subtle things in ads are trying to hook you in just as much as the central route parts. But after thinking it through now, I am leaning toward peripheral cues perhaps being some of the most important parts of an advertisement. I feel like those are the things that really grab a viewer, and help the ad stick in their memory, for example, funny Super Bowl commercials. I can also totally see how peripheral cues in anti smoking ads could be very effective. Just something as simple as the music, background noise, or even silence in an ad can make a huge difference in how we perceive the message.
ReplyDeleteReally good points! These peripheral cues can very easily catch your attention without you even realizing, and then stay in head and influence your thoughts later on. I think it's interesting how these same cues can be used for opposite messages (cigarette ads and anti-smoking PSAs). The message itself doesn't matter that much, it's the techniques companies use to advertise that do.
DeleteThis was really well put together by the time I had a question to ask you, you were able to answer it in the following lines. I would definitely say that the Central Route of Persuasian is more effective especially when introducing the fear tactic, otherwise the same tactics for the 1960's would still be used today and you would not see the significant decline you mentioned, "In 1965, approximately 42% of US adults were smokers, which fell to below 20% by 2011." I wonder how much culture played a role in this as well I know you talked about it a little but did you look further into this? Such as the smoking ban that was introduced do you think this could have influenced people as well the fact that they didn't want you smoking inside of a building, etc.
ReplyDeleteGood point! Yes I think the culture surrounding smoking has influenced the decline immensely. A big part of that was the different bans on smoking (where you can and cannot smoke, taxes on cigarettes), but I think that attitudes towards smoking have also played a role. Just as peer pressure played a large role in getting teens addicted to nicotine, I think that the push back from society against smoking has also helped to lead to this decline overall. Lots of people nowadays are disgusted by smoking and there is some pressure in society to not smoke.
DeleteReally good point especially when considering other examples. Such as young children and the advertisements used on unhealthy cereal boxes (Fun characters, toys, colors, etc.) Yeah there definitely is a shift in attitude on smoking for sure.
DeleteI really enjoyed reading this post, you did a really good job on it Rose! In my opinion, I do believe that using a combination of peripheral and central route cues does make an advertisement more effective. I think this because, the peripheral cues are the attention grabbers to most. The flashy music, the well-known celebrities, etc., it all pulls in the recipient of the message. The central route cues is the information that comes after all the attention grabbings things. Like you had mentioned above, using the fear tactic is only effective in some situations, if there is a solution provided along with it. For me being a non-smoker, the fear tactic by itself sends me the message. Seeing the anti-smoking commercials of people pulling out their teeth, or not having half their jaw really sticks in my mind to stay clear from any type of smoking/tobacco. I still remember to this day seeing an anti-smoking advertisement back in elementary school talking about how your tongue grows "hair" on it if you smoke...talk about grossing a kid out. Bouncing off of this though, I can see why there needs to be information on a way to solve an individuals smoking habit other than just showing them these fear tactic commercials. As smokers watch these commercials, they are probably slightly phased by it, but actually seeing the information and statistics that come after might hit them a little harder.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your point about how you still remember an advertisement from elementary school. The main factor with these ads is that they are trying to get you to remember them, and they are very effective in that respect. A lot of young children wouldn't understand the severity of some of the different health consequences associated with smoking, but they will definitely understand an advertisement showing a person without teeth or a message saying hair will grow on your tongue, and they will remember it.
DeleteYou make a really good point about how advertisers need to use both central and peripheral persuasion tactics but not necessarily aimed at the same audiences within the broader audience of everyone who will see their ad.
DeleteKirstin, really good point about how different cues can target different audiences in the same ad. A lot of the peripheral cues in cigarette ads can make cigarettes and smoking seem appealing to children even though the ads are targeted towards adults (these cues being ads that depict smoking as cool or popular for example).
DeleteI also remember anti-smoking ads from elementary school, but the thing that stuck with me the most was when we had a group of nurses come in to the school and show us two sets of lungs (pig lungs). One set had been healthy and were pink and large, and the other set was a set that was made to be similar to a person who smoked for 10 years lungs. They were black, about 2/3rds the size of the healthy lungs. I remember getting to put on gloves and go touch it and the healthy lungs were soft and inflated fully, while the black lungs were hard and didn't expand all the way. Seeing something like that when you're young tends to stick with you. I know that ever since I was small we've been told smoking is bad, and seen ads against smoking, but some kids just get desensitized to it and think that they are over exaggerations.
DeleteIn response to your point about kids thinking that these warnings are exaggerations, I think it is extremely important to give kids these up close and personal interactions with lungs for example, just so that they can see for themselves the risks of smoking.
DeleteIt's crazy to think that one point, doctors were recommending them as a health benefit. But, its also easy to look back at that time period and criticize our old habits. But with new technology we have come to discover the problems that smoking causes. It's impressive how advertising was able to convince such a large population to smoke.
ReplyDeleteAs many people have already mentioned, vaping is the new habit that smokers have turned to as well as younger adults and even kids unfortunately. Initially the harm from vaping was unknown and now we are learning what the long term effects are causing. However, if you just imagine what vaping is, which is essentially oils and water, it makes you think how vaping isn't just as harmful as smoking from direct inhalation of the "juice". overall we now know that vaping causes Bronchiolitis obliterans which is an inflammation and obstruction of the bronchioles. Nevertheless, its crazy how advertises can persuade so many people.
David, I agree that it is shocking just how much these advertisements can persuade people to start smoking or vaping. Cigarette advertisements for example can desensitize children to the harms of smoking (some research has shown that children exposed to glamorous cigarette commercials rate smoking one or two cigarettes as less harmful than children who viewed other commercials). This can turn into a problem because most children who start smoking do become addicted. That first cigarette doesn't seem like a bad idea because of advertisements and then they can become addicted, or they may be more likely to start vaping. Tobacco advertisements can heavily impact perception of both tobacco products and e-cigarettes.
DeleteHere is a link to that article:
Deletehttps://services.lib.mtu.edu:5003/docview/1914763050/D9394A272D7B4E84PQ/1?accountid=28041
Do you guys think that e-cigarettes and vaping commercials or advertisements follow the same campaign structure that cigarettes have over the years? The only advertising I have ever seen for vaping devices are in mall kiosks or in front of hookah lounges.
DeleteAbby I don't think that e-cigarettes follow the same campaign structure, since its a much stricter advertisement game. They don't have the freedom to advertise as cigarettes originally did. I know that it was (at my school at least) a cool thing to do, that the cool kids vaped because it wasn't as bad a smoking cigarettes. They liked that they could get fruit flavors or cotton candy and didn't even look to see if they contain menthol or nicotine. I watched several kids in my high school get addicted to vaping, because they don't realize that its addictive. There aren't advertisements to warn kids of the dangers of vaping, they think that they are just inhaling water vapor not chemicals.
DeleteSmoking advertisements have changed quite a bit as there is now counter ads to prevent and help stop smokers from the difficult habit. The problem is that people find the nicotine to be an anti depressant making the quitting process that much more difficult as they have become dependent on smoking each time their anxious/stressed.
DeleteThank you Emma for clarifying. I also heard that some people make their own vaping liquid even though it may break their vape pen or device.
DeleteLike David stated, smoking is sold as an attractive lifestyle, whether it be cigarettes or vaping. It is costly and addictive and prevention is crucial especially for children. Is the prevention more effective with parents talking to their kids about this issue, or peers conversing about the effects? What are some possible solutions to limiting the effects of advertising? I've been trying to things of some and haven't come up with a relatable idea.
Abby -
DeleteI think a big factor in limiting the effectiveness of advertising on children is to just keep pushing the message that smoking is harmful. This message could come from school, parents, or peers, but I think the important part is that it is presented often in order to drive the message home. Children will hopefully remember a message that they've heard a million times, even if they do not necessarily care where it came from. This way the message is in their minds, and even a nagging conscience may be enough to keep them from trying a cigarette.
Adding to David's comment about the difficulty of quitting smoking have you seen the old ad talking saying "I'm a Thinner Silva Thins 100s" basically saying you can get a slim figure if you smoke their brand. I've heard people talk about gaining weight after smoking and that's why they've started again luckily now they have ads to combat this idea but this also shows how persuasive these ads can be.
DeleteIt amazes me that doctors endorsed cigarettes saying that they were healthy, when many of them knew that they weren’t healthy. I watched a family member smoke themselves to death, because he started smoking when he was 13 because his parents encouraged him to. He smoked up until the day he died. He was diagnosed with black lung, had to wear oxygen just to breathe, but just kept smoking. It’s an extremely addictive thing, and with the new age of e-cigarettes and vapes it will be a whole new generation becoming addicted to a substance that kills them. There aren’t as many ads on anti-vaping as there are on anti-smoking, kids don’t see any indication that it’s a bad thing to do. Kids just see the fun fruity flavors of vape juice and the cool design of the pens and want them. When I was in my senior year of high school, I watched a kid pass out in the hall after vaping for 30 minutes in the bathroom, he was diagnosed with popcorn lung, which is when the tissue in your lungs traps little bubbles of air inside the top layer of tissue and it hardens, causing decreased lung capacity. He was also diagnosed with a severe nicotine addiction. He venimently denied it, saying he never smoked cigarettes so how could he have a nicotine addiction, only to find out that the vape juice he was using had high levels of nicotine in them.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a terrifying thing to think about a whole new generation of cigarettes have arrived to cause such damage to a whole new generation of people.
I think one of the misconceptions that youth fall prey to is the idea that e-cigarettes are not harmful. We have all grown up with this mantra about how smoking is bad and cigarettes and tobacco are harmful, so when children see e-cigarettes and vapes nowadays they think it's something completely different. They do not see the harm in the chemicals or the nicotine because it is not smoking.
DeleteSorry for the late response Rose and Emma but after reading Emma's comment it made me curious. Do you think that this perpetual nature of "I do it because it isn't as bad for me as what 'you' did when you were younger" is always going to persist? How can we as citizens of the World, help the younger generation step away from these addictive substances? I think this post and the habits one would have very unique spin. Great post Rose!
DeleteIt is funny how things change. It makes you think: What were we thinking? I think the talk about cigarette advertising morphing into the vaping trend is interesting. There are no formal ads on TV telling teenagers and young adults to vape because it's cool. However, there are a huge amount of teens that part take in vaping. Social media, exclusively Snapchat, in my opinion have taken the place of persuasive advertising for something that is knowingly unhealthy. Teens and social media users watch videos and follow trends of people vaping and view it as cool. The influence has been drawn away from formal advertising and into social media trends. Vaping companies have even released ads discouraging underage and young adults to stop vaping. Yet, social media and friend to friend influence has taken over.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting how e-cigarettes haven't had the same media coverage as cigarettes used to have, but they seem just as popular. In my personal experience I can't think of an e-cigarette commercial or advertisement. Yet I see people using them all the time, I see and hear people exclaiming how much better they are for you than tobacco, and it seems like people are doing the advertising themselves.
DeleteI think this is interesting as well. I did not even really realize that vaping and juuls do not have a lot of ads. I can think of tons of cigarette advertising, but not the same for the newest trend of e-cigarettes. Growing up in today's generation and being a college student, I see so many students and teenagers using these vapes and juuls. I believe these are used as more of a way to fit in and be cool, which is how these got so popular without tons of ads using the different routes of persuasion. The persuasion used for these could just be social influences and could even tie into the topic we are talking about now: conformity. I asked people why they vape and a lot of the responses I got deals with "well everyone else is doing it". It is interesting to see how ads and the use of persuasion has evolved over time and is starting to take over our social media sites.
DeleteYou did an amazing job on this post. I knew that in past decades that many people smoked because they did not know the health risks associated with them but I had no idea that that many Americans smoked, that shocks me. In conjunction with that I am also amazed that doctors at one point were promoting cigarettes. I definitely agree with you on that I think the ads had the most affect on people on why they smoked so much. Between celebrities and especially doctors promoting them in ads I can see why the stats on how many people smoked were so high. I am happy that negative ads about cigarettes finally started to come out. I was unable to watch the two videos you posted but from the ads on TV I have seen against cigarettes, for me personally I think that ads that scare you are more affective. I think it does more to really scare you not to smoke if you see what happens to you if you do. I remember watching TV and seeing people that are now unable to talk because they use to smoke and people that can barley talk or others with cancer and thinking that I never want to be one of those people, those type of ads I at least believe make people not want to smoke as much.
ReplyDeleteCelebrity endorsers do a really good job at promoting a product because people want to be like them, and I think that anti-smoking ads do a similar thing. People see the actors/actresses or real-life individuals and they DON'T want to be like them. We get a lot of information just by watching what the people on TV do, no matter which side the advertisement is aimed at.
DeleteI totally agree with you. I wonder though, what if advertisers used people that you did not like if that would change anything? Would that make people consider not doing it then? Also I know that people in lower income families and areas are more likely to smoke so I am very curious as to how advertisers make commercials that attract all types of people?
DeleteYou absolutely picked the right industry to discuss advertising. The tobacco industry has been successfully marketing their products for decades, ultimately turning it into a billion dollar industry. These companies will stop at nothing to reach new audiences as you had mentioned by rebranding it to women. Cigarette companies were also trying to get children to buy their products for a while. They used to put baseball cards in the cartons in an attempt to sell their products to children. This type of promotion adds to an advertisement that might have otherwise been ineffective when targeted at children.
ReplyDeleteTobacco companies were highly effective in marketing the same exact products to all different groups and it's a little scary to think about just how effective they were. They used something as simple as using celebrities or a cowboy to sell such harmful products quite easily.
DeleteI completely agree. I would argue that this industry has done this more successfully than any other. They were able to change and challenge attitudes toward their products through advertising. They did it with amazing success as well.
DeleteIt's pretty interesting to see all the different tricks that these companies used to make their product so successful. And then to see all the tricks they used to prevent their product from failing. It really is a testament to advertising that a product found to literally cause cancer is still being used in such huge quantities. There are so many other products that are much less risky than cigarettes, yet have come and gone due to the possible heath concerns, yet cigarettes still remain. It's funny how both sides end up having to resort to propaganda to convince people, even when your just trying to warn people for their own good, you still have to manipulate them.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your prompt at the end of your blog, I do think that including stats and facts makes the argument for not smoking a more compelling. I would also say that the inclusion of the central route of persuasion makes these much more effective than cigarette commercials. In fact, it was so effective that the cons of smoking are now common knowledge, even amongst smokers. I think it was this spreading of knowledge that caused the rapid decline of smoking, because no amount of flashy peripheral cues is going change the fact the smoking kills people.
ReplyDeleteIt's obviously a good thing that the U.S banned smoking ads from both radio and television, but I have to wonder what the current social climate and stigma around the habit would be like if this had never happened. If anti Smoking ads had to compete with pro smoking ads on the modern air waves? If that would change the general preventative approach that most modern smoking ads take with their peripheral route where they use fear tactics to keep people from ever starting, to a more central route attacking tobacco companies and getting people to quit. The other thing that many people have mentioned is of course vaping and I wonder how advertisers are working on both sides to combat the fact that neither side has any solid data for or against the product. How much vaping related advertisement dis you come across in your research of the subject?
ReplyDeleteCigarettes are definitely a great case study of persuasion methods. I saw a documentary that covered this, and the efforts made by big tobacco to put to rest any allegations that cigarettes are harmful, not by lying (as such would be illegal), but by 'casting doubt' to this fact, saying effectively that they're unsure, or questioning the evidence.
ReplyDeleteI'm definitely glad to be living in an era where tobacco use has dropped off significantly, though it is interesting to see how e-cigarettes have taken hold as "hip" and "not as harmful"