Tobacco.org

The Rise and Fall of Tobacco Control Media Campaigns, 1967 -2006  

Extensive research has demonstrated that public education through media campaigns is an effective means to reduce smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. Aggressive media campaigns that confront the tobacco industry’s deceptive practices are most effective and are therefore a prime target for attack. The tobacco industry has attacked public tobacco control media campaigns since 1967, when the first public tobacco control media advertisements ran.

Through studying tobacco control media campaigns in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon, and of the American Legacy Foundation, we identified industry strategies to prevent a campaign’s creation, limit the target audience and the content of the messages, limit or eliminate the campaign’s funding, and pursue litigation against the campaigns.

Tobacco control advocates must learn from the past and continue to confront the tobacco industry and its third-party allies to defend antitobacco media campaigns or, despite evidence of their effectiveness, they will be eliminated. . . .

The tobacco industry also worked to divert states’ MSA funds to ineffective programs.62 Philip Morris and Brown and Williamson endorsed prevention programs that focused on "positive youth development" instead of the deceptive practices of the tobacco industry.63(p3) In particular, the tobacco companies were working to secure states’ commitment of MSA dollars to the life skills training program, which used a broad school-based drug prevention approach despite the fact that extensive research funded by the industry indicated that the program was not effective in preventing youth smoking.62 . . .

Rather than learning from the Florida experience, the attorneys general who negotiated the MSA agreed to include a vilification clause83 in the MSA stating that the educational program created by the MSA "shall be used only for public education and advertising regarding the addictiveness, health effects, and social costs related to the use of tobacco products and shall not be used for any personal attack on, or vilification of, any person (whether by name or business affiliation), company, or governmental agency, whether individually or collectively."45(p37–38) Although the vilification clause did not restrict the messages of the American Legacy Foundation’s media campaign, it did result in significant legal battles.83 . . .

During the past 4 decades, the evolution of the messages conveyed to the public through tobacco control media campaigns to focus less on the health dangers of smoking and more on revealing the deceptive practices of the tobacco industry was matched with more aggressive tactics by the tobacco industry to weaken or eliminate these campaigns. There have been 2 significant changes over time. First, the tobacco industry has become more experienced and sophisticated in its efforts to stop these campaigns or, failing that, push them into providing ineffective messages. Second, there is strong empirical evidence that these media campaigns can substantially contribute to a reduction in smoking rates.98 Media campaigns that are aggressive and directly confront the lies and deceptive practices of the tobacco industry are effective; however, that which makes them effective also makes them a target for the tobacco industry.49 The efforts put forth by California and the American Legacy Foundation as they pursued legal battles with the tobacco companies provide a good example of the tenacity needed to successfully defend and promote tobacco control media campaigns.

Jump to full article »