The regulation of cigarette advertising has gotten tighter over the years, but that doesn’t prevent Big Tobacco from finding ways to reach current and prospective smokers. Of the many creative avenues pursued is that of placing their products in motion pictures and TV shows, which is arguably a far more effective means of advertising their products than a commercial spot. After all, Brad Pitt puffing on a cigarette in Fight Club makes smoking cool - but why does this have to be an acceptable standard? Has society [on the whole] really given all its trust to Hollywood to decide what works and what doesn’t?
Sadly, the answer is a resounding "yes."
This is why the public needs exposure to more powerful anti-smoking ads - ones that focus [a little] more on image and [a little] less on science. The science is important, but would-be and current smokers have not been responsive to ads that merely list the statistics or side effects of smoking.
Recent FDA (Real Cost) and CDC (Tips From Former Smokers) ad campaigns do a good job of putting science in perspective:
(Search for more ads on Youtube using "FDA Real Cost" and CDC Tips From Former Smokers")
Sadly, the answer is a resounding "yes."
This is why the public needs exposure to more powerful anti-smoking ads - ones that focus [a little] more on image and [a little] less on science. The science is important, but would-be and current smokers have not been responsive to ads that merely list the statistics or side effects of smoking.
Recent FDA (Real Cost) and CDC (Tips From Former Smokers) ad campaigns do a good job of putting science in perspective:
(Search for more ads on Youtube using "FDA Real Cost" and CDC Tips From Former Smokers")
| | |
| | |
...and here are 2 of the better anti-smoking ads from outside the U.S.:
| | |
RSS Feed