Communications Analysis in Tobacco Advertising

Communications Analysis in Tobacco Advertising

The history of tobacco product advertising does not provide a particularly flattering image of corporate America. Early in the 20th century, the primary methodology of tobacco product advertisers was Aristotle's Rhetorical Model in which product manufacturers used famous sports heroes and motion picture stars to promote their products in addition to physicians or actors portraying physicians who made health claims about cigarettes being beneficial for one's health (Pollay, 2007).

By the second half of the century, the medical community determined that tobacco products were extremely dangerous to consumer health and government legislators imposed restrictions on their use, such as in connection with their sale to minors and advertising tobacco products on television. In many respects, this marked a fundamental shift in the way that tobacco companies marketed their products. Instead of relying on the power of positive association with celebrities or on supposed health benefits of smoking, they began focusing on ways to use the growing awareness of the dangers of smoking to their advantage (Pollay, 2007). Specifically, tobacco companies began competing for the business of consumers who hoped to reduce the health risks associated of smoking without necessarily giving up the habit (Anderson, Ling, & Pollay, 2006). Generally, this also relied on Aristotle's Rhetorical Model, although emphasizing a different approach within that framework.

Initially, the tactic of promoting smoking by depicting famous celebrities and (especially) physicians recommending particular cigarette brands was designed to persuade consumers to use their products. The promotion of association of the product with their heroes was an example of Aristotle's ethos in which the intent was to persuade consumers to trust the famous individuals on the basis of their reputations. The use of physicians in that regard combines Aristotle's ethos and logos approaches, the latter represented by the presumed medical knowledge of the physician.

During the later phase of cigarette advertising, tobacco companies engaged in carefully orchestrated marketing subterfuge to satisfy the letter of the law while not only violating its spirit and intent but actually using legislation for their advantage that was intended to protect consumers from the dangers of their products (Pollay, 2007). One of the worst examples was the very deliberate placement of aeration holes in cigarette filters where they knew that smokers typically cover with their fingers (Anderson, Ling, & Pollay, 2006).

They had discovered the perfect placement where the holes reduced tar and nicotine levels when the cigarettes were inserted in the laboratory equipment used to test-smoke cigarettes but where they were covered up by smokers' fingers. They purposely marketed "low-tar" and "low-yield" cigarettes based on the lab tests knowing that tests of smokers indicated they would be put off by the reduced satisfaction of cigarettes that were, in fact, lower yield (Anderson, Ling, & Pollay, 2006) with the use of Aristotle's logos rhetoric through the logic of the informational argument that lower-yield tobacco products were obviously less dangerous to human health.

The first phase of tobacco product advertising was no different, ethically, than the common advertising of consumer goods and services. However, since the tobacco companies became aware that their products are tremendously dangerous to human health, they have had an ethical duty to comply with formal restrictions in good faith. Their record has been diametrically opposite, unfortunately.