Anti-smoking ads' effects surprising, 'truth' campaign creates best results

By: PEARMAN PARKER
10/29/07

Anti-smoking ads may be more of a nuisance than an effective tool to reduce smoking.

A University study explained why these ads deter smoking - or promote cigarette usage.

"Anti-smoking campaigns may not have a direct impact on adolescents' smoking. They may even have some unexpected impact," said Hye-Jin Paek, an assistant professor in the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication and co-author of a study published in the journal "Communication Research."

Unintended consequences of ads can heighten the rebellious and naturally curious nature of youth, increasing the inclination to smoke, according to the study.

Paek and co-author Albert Gunther from the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggested that peer perception of the ads have the greatest impact on adolescent smoking.

"They can [be effective], though, when they reinforce the perception that their close friends listen and respond to the campaigns," Paek said.

As cited in the study, Florida's 1998 "truth" campaign proved the most effective at decreasing smoking prevalence and developing antismoking attitudes.

Peer perception and truth ads may not be a deterrent.

"I already know smoking is unhealthy," said Anna Findley, a senior from Lawrenceville. "And the disgusting ads make you say 'ew,' but it doesn't change my behavior."

Findley has been smoking since 16 - four years - despite a nine-month hiatus.

"I was always around it," she said. "The feeling of wanting to smoke a cigarette never goes away."

As for the "truth" campaign, Findley suggested advertisers make changes to get the subjects addressed in the ads across better.

"Problems don't come until way down the road," she said.

Advertising smoking's immediate effects would make a lot of people want to quit, Findley said.

One student has a more critical view on the "truth" campaigns.

"The gun shop ad with a guy shopping for light bullets is [ridiculous]," said Andrew James, a senior from Watkinsville.

Cigarette companies have Web sites that are very clear on differences about light cigarettes, he said.

"Personally, ["truth" ads] have no effect on me whatsoever," he said. "I don't see why people should tell them to stop."

Tobacco is a legal substance, and Surgeon General warnings are displayed, he said.

With more than 1,600 participants from four middle schools in Wisconsin, the study may have future advertising implications, Paek said.

Paek said she hopes anti-smoking campaign practitioners combine ways to prevent smoking instead of relying on mass media messages.

They need to create messages that work for the target audiences, not for the practitioners, she said.

"Health communicators need to learn from commercial marketers and use more sophisticated appeals and take a long term approach," Paek said.
Read 
 
Full Study....
http://crx.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/4/407.pdf
 

---

'Truth' campaign is anything but truthful
October 12, 2007
Jordan Rothman
When you were in middle school, you probably had some lame, pathetic program that tried to convince you not to smoke tobacco. Though these initiatives come in various different names, some school official or perhaps a police officer probably told you about the horrific and dire consequences of smoking cigarettes. They probably portrayed the tobacco companies in a negative light, illustrated their use of half-truths and propaganda, and demonstrated the evilness of these companies. As I look back on these programs, I realize that they were really horrible themselves. The anti-tobacco supporters are the ones using lies as they hyperbolize the effects of smoking. These advocates cause more harm as they inundate young minds with misleading information and disrupt the capitalist system. Though the political correct position seems to support these valiant efforts to curtail underage smoking, I’d like to relate that they’re not all good. Their initiatives are unhealthy, their tactics are propagandistic, and the tobacco industry isn’t all that bad to begin with.
The strategies employed by the anti-smoking advocates are both unethical and wrong. These campaigns do not provide the straight up facts, but rather cloud the debate in half-truths. The “Truth” campaign is by far the worst perpetrator of this offense. They run commercials that say that tobacco, for instance, is dangerous because it contains a certain amount of arsenic. But seriously, it’s not like you are ingesting the stuff, just smoking it harmlessly away. I also love how they pull on your heartstrings when they have someone whose father died of smoking go outside the tobacco lobby and ask “why do you make products that kill people?” That’s funny, why doesn’t that same person go outside a Ford factory and ask them why they create products that lead to so many fatalities, when automobile accidents is one of the leading causes of death in America. Rather than give the straight up facts abut the ridiculous cost of smoking, these liars would rather provide half-truths that skew the facts, use propaganda, and otherwise show blatantly unethical advertisements.
The tobacco companies themselves are not the evil corporations that everyone tries to make them out to be. They are just like any other ordinary firm that is trying to compete and make a profit in the global economy. They employ thousands of people, add to the economic activity of our country, and have a number of positive effects on the nation. Some say that they use misleading and unethical advertising techniques. This assertion is wholly false. Just like any other product, the tobacco companies use exaggerated commercials and other devices to sell their goods. These companies aren’t even allowed to put advertisements on television, while those against the industry are free to utilize the airwaves.
Some say that these companies will do everything in their power to not pay compensation when a family member dies of tobacco related illnesses. Of course they are trying to do this! Like every other cooptation in America, these companies are trying to avoid expenditures, and why should they pay out compensation in the first place. Everyone knows the risks of smoking, it’s listed on the damn package for god sakes. If someone is irrational enough to smoke for thirty years even though there exist sizable evidence that this is dangerous, then let them pay the consequences. Do manufacturers of car companies pay the victims of crashes when the vehicle was performing under normal conditions? It seems politically correct to bash these companies, and this attitude is just plain wrong. They have done nothing unethical, and the attention should be drawn on the advocates of anti-smoking initiatives rather than these corporations.
I am a track star (yeah right) and have only smoked about two cigars in my entire life. Still, I hate seeing the propaganda and half-truths reigning supreme over the smoking debate. The groups against smoking are the ones that employ unethical tactics and lies to get their message across. The smoking companies are just doing what any other company does, and are being restricted from utilizing the full benefits of the capitalist system. So next time you see one of those “truth” advertisements on television or badmouth the tobacco corporations, just think about the whole debate differently. The anti-tobacco people are the ones using smoke and mirrors to convince gullible people of the apparent evils of the tobacco corporations.
Read