Killing the wrong enemy
June 28, 2003 | 12:00am
I remember it like it was yesterday, but of course it was around 22 years ago. It was a slow day at the advertising agency where I worked until my boss, George Balagtas, came bounding into our area brimming with excitement. "US cigarette manufacturers just agreed to voluntarily stop cigarette advertising on broadcast media," he said. Even if I was already in middle management, I didn’t know exactly what this meant. Advertising is a field premised on experience. You don’t really know what will happen until it happens so you have to be very observant and analytical. See, advertising works off human behavior and one never really knows how humans will behave. "So?" I asked, wondering if I should panic or what, though I wasn’t then handling a cigarette account.
"So, ad agencies will lose billings and people will keep smoking. That’s all," he said in his inimitable cocky George style.
Twelve years later, I took over the reins of an ad agency that relied heavily on billings from cigarette advertising. It became my job to defend cigarette advertising especially after my client bluntly told me, "Cigarette advertising is your business. Our business is selling cigarettes. People will continue to smoke even without your advertising." There are moments in life when the handwriting on the wall is so big you don’t need your glasses. You just wonder: Why don’t people out there understand this?
Look at the facts. In the US, advertising on the broadcast media stopped more than 20 years ago, tapering off yearly until it was finally reduced only to billboard advertising, farther and farther away from schools where the youth are. Yet, smoking incidence among the youth is on the upswing. What does this say? It says that even without advertising, smoking is on the rise among the young. Look at the figures. American children today light up at age 10-12. Cigarette advertising on American broadcast media, strongest with the youth, stopped 22 years ago. The children who are lighting up today have never seen a cigarette ad on TV. Doesn’t that tell you that clearly the initiating influence is not cigarette advertising?
What then makes these children smoke? I think the outcry against smoking has turned it into such a terrific symbol for rebellion that young people who are wanting to assert their independence – usually by doing what they’re not supposed to do or engaging in behavior society hates – smoke because it has become such a symbol for telling society to go to hell. Who turned it into a terrific symbol of rebellion? The wonderful folks who advocate against it. Scolding never works. Nagging always backfires. To change behavior, you must first understand it.
A smoker begins by teaching himself or herself to smoke and enjoy it. The first drag on a cigarette is not immediately pleasurable. You gag, you cough, you choke, you get dizzy, you have headaches. But if you want to smoke, you surmount that. I did because I wanted to be as naughty as the girls I went to school with (in Europe, at a school where smoking was forbidden). Once you’ve taught yourself to enjoy a cigarette, you’re addicted and it’s difficult to give up. You stay loyal to smoking because you got yourself addicted. You did it. If you want to stop, you have to get out of it yourself. You make the decision yourself. This is what bothers me about the anti-smoking stance. They don’t make the individual responsible for his choice. They make the cigarette manufacturer responsible for it. That to me is patently wrong. It breeds people who don’t take responsibility for their actions. It breeds people without character.
Why do they do that? This all started in America where there is a jury system in place. A jury system is more vulnerable to popular notion than sound reason. And in America, as we have seen since, you can get big damages from the tobacco companies. There’s Big Money to be made suing Big Tobacco. There are other causes of lung cancer where the link is stronger. There seems to be a high incidence of lung cancer in people who take care of birds, for example. Who knows this? People like me who, while handling cigarette advertising, received scientific data from the lung cancer information loop. We kept ourselves well-informed but when we tried to tell other people, they would not believe us because we were associated with cigarettes. Besides, you can’t sue an entity called People Who Take Care of Birds. They aren’t even organized. What money or damages could you get from them?
Ten years after my client told me the bitter truth – cigarette advertising was my business and not his – I am also out of the business. I’m not even a smoker anymore. Now I read that in five years cigarette advertising will be banned in the Philippines. I find that strangely funny. A part of me rolls on the floor splitting her sides with laughter. Since last year, almost all cigarette manufacturers pulled out product advertising. Only one continues to advertise but they have many brands. They’re only doing it to keep their friends in business. Passing this law to take effect in five years is like saying we’ll close the stable door in five years when all the horses bolted last year. What is this story? The Emperor’s New Clothes? Much Ado About Nothing?
The final test in this whole business is to check if the desired behavior change has happened. This I know is true: Restrictions on cigarette advertising, smoking in public, whatever, haven’t worked because people are still smoking. Once again from the top, ladies and gentlemen, present methods don’t work. You won’t stop people from smoking but you’ll put some advertising agencies out of business. The irony is: They don’t make cigarettes. You should believe me now because I’m no longer affiliated with any cigarette entity.
As it was 22 years ago, so it is today. People don’t want to see that it’s not cigarette advertising that makes young people smoke. So cigarette advertising is crucified and young people – getting younger and younger from the statistics – still smoke. The story doesn’t change, does it? We still crucify victims instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.
"So, ad agencies will lose billings and people will keep smoking. That’s all," he said in his inimitable cocky George style.
Twelve years later, I took over the reins of an ad agency that relied heavily on billings from cigarette advertising. It became my job to defend cigarette advertising especially after my client bluntly told me, "Cigarette advertising is your business. Our business is selling cigarettes. People will continue to smoke even without your advertising." There are moments in life when the handwriting on the wall is so big you don’t need your glasses. You just wonder: Why don’t people out there understand this?
Look at the facts. In the US, advertising on the broadcast media stopped more than 20 years ago, tapering off yearly until it was finally reduced only to billboard advertising, farther and farther away from schools where the youth are. Yet, smoking incidence among the youth is on the upswing. What does this say? It says that even without advertising, smoking is on the rise among the young. Look at the figures. American children today light up at age 10-12. Cigarette advertising on American broadcast media, strongest with the youth, stopped 22 years ago. The children who are lighting up today have never seen a cigarette ad on TV. Doesn’t that tell you that clearly the initiating influence is not cigarette advertising?
What then makes these children smoke? I think the outcry against smoking has turned it into such a terrific symbol for rebellion that young people who are wanting to assert their independence – usually by doing what they’re not supposed to do or engaging in behavior society hates – smoke because it has become such a symbol for telling society to go to hell. Who turned it into a terrific symbol of rebellion? The wonderful folks who advocate against it. Scolding never works. Nagging always backfires. To change behavior, you must first understand it.
A smoker begins by teaching himself or herself to smoke and enjoy it. The first drag on a cigarette is not immediately pleasurable. You gag, you cough, you choke, you get dizzy, you have headaches. But if you want to smoke, you surmount that. I did because I wanted to be as naughty as the girls I went to school with (in Europe, at a school where smoking was forbidden). Once you’ve taught yourself to enjoy a cigarette, you’re addicted and it’s difficult to give up. You stay loyal to smoking because you got yourself addicted. You did it. If you want to stop, you have to get out of it yourself. You make the decision yourself. This is what bothers me about the anti-smoking stance. They don’t make the individual responsible for his choice. They make the cigarette manufacturer responsible for it. That to me is patently wrong. It breeds people who don’t take responsibility for their actions. It breeds people without character.
Why do they do that? This all started in America where there is a jury system in place. A jury system is more vulnerable to popular notion than sound reason. And in America, as we have seen since, you can get big damages from the tobacco companies. There’s Big Money to be made suing Big Tobacco. There are other causes of lung cancer where the link is stronger. There seems to be a high incidence of lung cancer in people who take care of birds, for example. Who knows this? People like me who, while handling cigarette advertising, received scientific data from the lung cancer information loop. We kept ourselves well-informed but when we tried to tell other people, they would not believe us because we were associated with cigarettes. Besides, you can’t sue an entity called People Who Take Care of Birds. They aren’t even organized. What money or damages could you get from them?
Ten years after my client told me the bitter truth – cigarette advertising was my business and not his – I am also out of the business. I’m not even a smoker anymore. Now I read that in five years cigarette advertising will be banned in the Philippines. I find that strangely funny. A part of me rolls on the floor splitting her sides with laughter. Since last year, almost all cigarette manufacturers pulled out product advertising. Only one continues to advertise but they have many brands. They’re only doing it to keep their friends in business. Passing this law to take effect in five years is like saying we’ll close the stable door in five years when all the horses bolted last year. What is this story? The Emperor’s New Clothes? Much Ado About Nothing?
The final test in this whole business is to check if the desired behavior change has happened. This I know is true: Restrictions on cigarette advertising, smoking in public, whatever, haven’t worked because people are still smoking. Once again from the top, ladies and gentlemen, present methods don’t work. You won’t stop people from smoking but you’ll put some advertising agencies out of business. The irony is: They don’t make cigarettes. You should believe me now because I’m no longer affiliated with any cigarette entity.
As it was 22 years ago, so it is today. People don’t want to see that it’s not cigarette advertising that makes young people smoke. So cigarette advertising is crucified and young people – getting younger and younger from the statistics – still smoke. The story doesn’t change, does it? We still crucify victims instead of taking responsibility for ourselves.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
