Advertising's Wild West

Advertising’s Wild West

There’s just something about smoking.  It’s ingrained in our culture.  Old John Wayne movies romanticize the notion of rugged men—real men, it would seem—smoking cigarettes, the same way Audrey Hepburn can make them sexy.  Even nowadays, the hit television show Mad Men portrays smoking in a natural light.  On-screen heroes have more often than not had a cigarette in their hand.  Actors make emphases with a cigarette, they light one up after some drama is introduced, or they simply look contemplatively into the distance with one.  Any way that the cigarette is shown, the character looks cool.  The ideal of “cool” has been used to sell cigarettes for decades.  Public figures such as actors and athletes had been used by tobacco companies for decades because their image is one that many aspire to.  After a forty year hiatus from broadcast advertising, big tobacco companies are back in our living rooms armed with a new product to circumvent the laws that got them banned: the electronic cigarette.

In 1924, Philip Morris introduced Marlboro cigarettes to the mainstream culture with ads depicting a classy and modern woman; a brand identity that would stick for the next thirty years (Wallace).  The “lady’s cigarette” tag stuck with the Marlboro brand until health concerns made filtered cigarettes popular.  Philip Morris added a filter, strengthened the flavor, and invented the flip-top hard pack for Marlboro, which was to be advertised with hyper-masculine imagery (Wallace).  The sexy woman and the rugged man became the faces of cigarette advertising until April 1, 1970 when Richard Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act into law (Byellin).  From that day on, cigarette advertising on radio and television was effectively banned.  Now in 2013, the advertisements for Marlboro, Camel, and all tobacco products remain stuck in other media, but the rugged man and sexy woman have been brought back.  Actors Stephen Dorff and Jenny McCarthy have adopted these roles to sell blu electronic cigarettes: a product with no advertising regulation yet. 

Electronic cigarettes are in unchartered waters in terms of legality and pure definition.  They are tobacco-free devices that electronically heat a liquid nicotine solution to produce a vapor (Nasaw).  Since they do not actually produce smoke, users technically are not smoking, but are instead “vaping”.  Public implications regarding this distinction are most evident at bars and restaurants.  “A typical battery-operated electronic cigarette does not fall within the ambit of The Health Act 2006, which prohibits smoking indoors” (Willock).  Blu e-cigarettes have made a point to capitalize on this fact through their advertisements narrated by Jenny McCarthy.  In her sixty-second advertisement “Freedom,” McCarthy says “no going outside in the rain or freezing my butt off just to take a puff” (blu).  The copy used in the ad takes measures to avoid the term “smoking” to avoid comparisons with traditional incendiary cigarettes.  The ad also highlights how the blu e-cig vapor is odorless, and helps consumers avoid “getting the stink eye from others” and might make you feel better about yourself as a smoker.  Essentially, the ad positions blu e-cigs as a satisfying nicotine experience that won’t alienate the immediate company of consumers.  For targeting women, this ad attacks the self-consciousness that smokers might have while offering a new and sexy solution.  The core message behind this advertisement uses the same idea behind Virgina Slims’ advertisement “You’ve Come a Long Way Baby!” which was aired by Philip Morris in 1968.  The similarities between past and present are also reflected in the male-oriented advertising for blu, with Immortals actor Stephen Dorff.  His narration is a very straightforward solicitation of males: “come on guys, rise from the ashes” (blu).  Even his print ads are almost challenging in tone—“C’mon guys, we’re all adults” (blu)—while the imagery maintains a ruggedness.  Dorff is seen in three different print ads: one in black and white, dressed in denim (see left); another sitting on a car from the fifties; another in a shirt and vest.  This imagery is obviously styled after the cowboys, action heroes, and Rat Pack style that had sold cigarettes for decades.

The celebrity endorsement angle has been used in advertising tobacco products by nearly every major brand.  John Wayne was the face of Camel for the 1950s, as Stephen Dorff is now for blu.  Dorff introduces himself by saying “I’m Stephen Dorff, and I’ve been a smoker for twenty years” (blu).  This line is eerily similar to Wayne’s endorsement of Camel: “Mild and good tasting pack after pack.  And I know, I’ve been smokin’ em for twenty years” (Doyle).  These two actors portray the same rugged macho-man as the voice for a cigarette product, despite the ads being made sixty years apart.  Dorff and McCarthy are joined by Courtney Love for Njoy and Katherine Heigl for CanadaVapes as easily recognized celebrities and now endorsers of their respective electronic cigarette brand.  In all of these advertisements, there is an underlying theme of anti-establishment.  While Dorff and McCarthy are attacking the drawbacks of mainstream cigarettes [yellow teeth, offensive odor, being forced outside (blu)] Courtney Love stars in Njoy’s advertisement very plainly telling someone “relax, it’s a f**king Njoy” (Grant) when told she can’t smoke inside.  This sense of rebellion is also encapsulated by the Fin E-cig advertising campaign entitled “Rewrite the Rules.”  This ad shows young, sexy individuals who are dressed in a modern adaptation of 1950s and 60s garb.  The ad says, “There was a time when no one was offended by it.  That time has come again,” (Fin).  This repeated theme of shaking up the status quo has helped the brands make their mark on this new market.  But are these electronic cigarettes really such an amazing alternative to tobacco as they are made out to be?

Electronic cigarettes—a self-proclaimed “smarter alternative” (blu) to incendiary cigarettes—are using the same strategy that tobacco companies had used for years, but are they actually safer?  Smoke-free laws had been put in place to discourage people from smoking and hopefully quit altogether.  Electronic cigarettes bring nicotine consumption back into the public sphere without any form of widespread regulation to deter people from inhaling the addictive vapors.  Although the tobacco has been removed from these devices, they remain dangerous.  One study found that the amount of nicotine contained in some devices and cartridges could be up to twice as much as what is actually labeled (Garnier).  Nicotine—the key chemical reaction in smoking—is lethal in certain doses.  Other than nicotine, an FDA analysis of e-cigarettes found carcinogens and some other hazardous chemicals such as diethylene glycol; a chemical found in antifreeze (Winograd).  Since these products are currently unregulated, there is nothing to force the companies to change anything yet. 

Beyond the immediate dangers of the chemicals themselves, these products have the potential of getting a whole new generation hooked on nicotine products.  Smokers are hooked early on, with more than 2/3 starting before the age of 18 (Morrish).  Electronic cigarettes will be a more attractive option to begin smoking with celebrity endorsers and implied promises of safety.  In addition to these points, E-cig companies are producing products with a variety of flavors from coconut to peach (Morrish).  These fruity flavors are unlikely targeting the seasoned smoker, and are more likely going after individuals under the age of eighteen.  While traditional cigarettes require consumers to be at least eighteen, the lack of regulation over the electronic cigarette industry allows anyone to purchase them.  Moreover, this lack of regulation allows these devices to be sold without the same taxation that incendiary cigarettes undergo.  Not only are the youth being targeted, but minors are able to make these purchases while the government receives no compensation from their newly forming habit.  This lack of regulation is a very attractive feature for the Big Tobacco companies, who have begun venturing into the electronic cigarette market.

The term Big Tobacco is widely used and understood, but lacks specifity.  The three major tobacco companies are Lorillard, Altria Group, and Reynolds American.  Lorillard—parent company of Newport, Maverick, Old Gold, Kent, and True—bought out blu E-cigs in 2012 (Montopoli) and immediately became the industry leader.  Altria Group Inc.—owners of Marlboro, Parliament, Virgina Slims, L&M, and Merit—is working on the release of their own electronic cigarette, the “MarkTen” (Montopoli).  Reynolds American, the second largest U.S. tobacco company, just released its “VUSE” electronic cigarette this past July.  The owner of Camel and Pall Mall products claims to be “committed to ‘transforming tobacco’ as part of an effort to make the product less harmful” (Montopoli).  These companies—the aforementioned “Big Tobacco”—are recognizing the decline of one industry and the rise of another. According to a Citibank report, “the e-cigarette market is projected to roughly double in size to an approximately $1 billion market in 2013 from $500 million in 2012, and to grow at a 50% compound annual rate over the next few years” (Sebastian). This emerging market is drawing attention from the Big Tobacco companies and their advertising starategies.  Lorrilard allocated $40 million this year for marketing the blu E-cig, which doubled the budget from the year prior (Sebastian).  Without any bars on its advertising media, Big Tobacco has made a return to the small screen, bringing with it a new age of an old strategy.  The question now is where the industry is headed, and what this new market means for society.

Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance states that “justice emerges when negotiating without social differentiations” (Christians).  According to this moral philosophy, there should be no distinction between these two types of cigarette.  The way the market is set up now is that incendiary cigarettes are banned from broadcast advertising while electronic cigarette advertisements are free to be aired.  Both products are addictive, both are nictoine delivery products, but only one is subjected to regulation.  The “Veil of Ignorance” emphasizes the morally appropriate action, not one which benefits the most people (Christians).  In that case, the ban on cigarette advertising ought to be reevaluated.  If the argument is made that cigarettes can kill people and target the youth with flavors, so they should not be advertised, then the alcohol advertising industry needs to be examined and regulated in the same manner. If the addicting nature of nicotine is the main cause for concern, then how could it be moral to advertise for coffee or other caffeine-laden products?  The social differentiations regarding tobacco keep the industry from airing advertisements, while other products which are detrimental to one’s health are untouched.  Tobacco advertising is back on the air, so why has there been a distinction made between the traditional and electronic methods of consumption?  The argument can be made for banning electronic cigarettes, but until that time comes, the argument for allowing incendiary tobacco products to advertise on TV and radio may be a stronger one.  Though our society has a predisposition against cigarettes ever since the late 1960s, the fact that a nicotine product has been allowed to advertise on broadcast media weakens the argument for the ban.  How is it that society can say justice has been upheld when this distinction has been made?

Combating this argument is the belief that no nicotine delivering products should be allowed to broadcast their advertisements.  Regulating the marketing and sales of electronic cigarettes could help prevent an influx of nicotine-addicted youths into society.  In terms of a capitalist society, a perpetuating consumer is a great commodity.  Maybe it is for this reason that the E-cig market is blooming unregulated.  In terms of the society as a whole however, this strategy goes against the good of the people.  To achieve the highest level of common good, a moral standing must be made for regulation.  While companies benefit from the profits they accumulate, the society is weakened as a whole when its members are dependant upon chemicals and substances.  To appeal to the common good, neither form of cigarette should be legally advertised on any media.  This type of argument, albeit rational, could ever truly be implemented.  Companies have the right to advertise its products in hopes of financial success, after all. 

The situation surrounding the advertising of electronic cigarettes is complicated.  Are the laws of another market to be applied to a similar but entirely new invention?  Or is this new device exempt from the restrictions that had been placed upon traditional cigarette advertising because it doesn’t use the same means of delivery?  The European Union decided not to interfere with E-cig sales due to the difficulty in performing an ample argument against it (Sullum).  The confusion stems from how there are differing values which address the two sides of the argument.  Companies are entitled to advertising their products in any way that they see fit, so long as there are no lines being crossed.  But as a whole, doesn’t society have an obligation to protect the youth from life threatening addictions?  There are the two previously mentioned ethical principles at play in this debate: the ethical guidelines based on rights (the Veil of Ignorance), and those based on appealing to the common good.  These differing arguments are reflected when one decides which side to be loyal to.  This analysis of the situation—known as the Potter Box model—leaves the subject to be debated from either side with relatively equal strength.

A capitalist society, such as the United States, allows companies to make profits through marketing activities.  It is in the best interest of this sort of society—and all socieites, for that matter—to protect the interests of the consumers.  In this case, however, restricting electronic cigarette brands from advertising over broadcast media would be an injustice.  Though the regulation of electronic cigarettes morally ought to keep the products out of the hands of minors, the advertising itself needn’t be targeted.  In fact, despite all the issues surrounding the tobacco industry as a whole, these “vaping” devices are just another part of the capitalist system.  There was an opening in the marketplace for smokers who were sick of going outside for smoke breaks, the cigarette odor, etc.  This market was filled once the advancements of technology allowed it to be.  Although the Big Tobacco companies have taken their stake in this new market, there should not be a serious decision made regarding it until more conclusive health risks are assessed.  Until that time, the advertisements are completely justifiable on TV and radio.  Yes, the advertisements are extremely similar to the Big Tobacco hayday of advertising.  No, it is not good to target minors with marketing activities when it comes to addicting products.  But no matter what the regulation—or lack thereof—of electronic cigarettes is, people will use them.  Despite all the moral and ethical arguments that can be made on this issue, Big Tobacco will make money and teenagers will want to smoke.  Until serious decisions are made, the electronic cigarette is free.  The lone ranger in advertising’s new wild west. 

Works Cited

Blu Electronic Cigarettes. Advertisement. Marie Claire Mar., Jan. 2013: n. pag. Print. 

Byellin, Jeremy. "Today in 1970: Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act Is Signed into Law." Legal Solutions Blog Blog Posts RSS. N.p., 1 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.

Christians, Clifford G., Kim B. Rotzoll, and Mark Fackler. Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning. 9th ed. New York: Longman, 2011. Print

Doyle, Jack.  “Wayne For Camels, 1950s,” PopHistoryDig.com, January 29, 2010

"Electronic Cigarettes & E-Cig Products from FIN E-Cigarettes." Finiti ECigarettes RSS. N.p., 25 May 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Garnier, R., V. Gazin, P. Saviuc, and AF Villa. "Electronic Cigarettes: Risk Assessment." Abstracts of the 2012 International Congress of the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists 50.4 (2012): 273-366. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. 

Grant, Drew. "The New York Observer” The New York Observer Courtney Loves ECig Commercial Relax Its a FkingNJOY Comments. N.p., 2 Apr. 2013. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Montopoli, Brian. "Tobacco Companies Bet on Electronic Cigarettes." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11 June 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. 

Morrish, Vickie. "E-Cigarette Ads Should Discourage Tobacco Use, Not Promote It." New Republic. The New Republic, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. 

Nasaw, Daniel. "Electronic Cigarettes Challenge Anti-smoking Efforts." BBC News. BBC, 12 June 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. 

Sebastian, Michael, and John McDermott. "Big Tobacco Gets Another Shot at Being a Big Spender." EBSCO Host. Advertising Age, 10 June 2013. Web. 2 Nov. 2013

Sullum, Jacob. "E.U. Decides Not To Interfere with E-Cigarette Sales; Will The FDA Follow Suit?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 9 Oct. 2013. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. 

Wallace, Benjamin. "Smoke Without Fire." New York Magazine 28 Apr. 2013: n. pag. Print. 

Ed. Willock, Rob. "Electronic cigarettes." The Publican's Morning Advertiser 16 Aug. 2012: 25. General OneFile. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Winograd, David. "9 Terribly Disturbing Things About Electronic Cigarettes." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.