Tobacco and PR: Adventures in Deception or Prime PR Case Study?
An article published all the way back in 1994 but posted online by PR Watch.org, "Smoke and Mirrors: How Tobacco and PR Grew up Together," chronicles the side-by-side evolution of the cigarette and PR industries.
It is really no secret to us that tobacco counteracted the negative reports published about its effects. As far back as a Reader's Digest article in 1952 titled "Cancer by the Carton," the industry knew it was in trouble. What may come as a surprise, however, is the role of influential PR trailblazers in dusting of the image of smoking.
As the article points out:
"Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and John Hill today are legends within the PR profession. Bernays in particular is often referred to as the "father of PR." All three worked on PR for tobacco, pioneering techniques that today remain the PR industry's stock in trade: third party advocacy, subliminal message reinforcement, junk science, phony front groups, advocacy advertising, and buying favorable news reporting with advertising dollars."
The article goes on tell of the continued success of cigarettes especially after capturing the elusive female market. Lucky Strikes and eventually Viginina Slims helped to draw in a body conscious consumer. The industry didn't lose momentum there, moving right on to the impressionable teen market and even switching up tactics and implanting PR when countered by health concerns.
If anything is drawn from the movie "Thank You for Smoking," it is that, while cigarettes are, without a doubt, a health risk attacked constantly from advocacy groups, cancer victims and Capitol Hill pundits, the battle is not as straightforward as it looks. There are those on the other side of the battle- tobacco farmers, factory workers, even, arguably, lung doctors and cancer specialitsts, all who benefit from tobacco's continued sales- and success.
Has Big Tobacco taken part in the most deceptive PR campaign since the dawn of the profession, or are they simply protecting an industry whose health effects are seemingly common knowledge? Who are the winners and losers in this battle? What should their punishment be? Finally, what about free choice?
Tobacco claims a sick amount of lives each year, has been shown to actively seek out youth as consumers, and has fought- arguably with success- to retain a presence in society. While the answers to the above questions are not as clear cut as they seem, tobacco is an important case study. With the explosion of PR and of reasearch into products- from food and medicine to lead-painted toys and tire-imploding cars- there is no doubt that products are in the market today that will harm us, and PR professionals paid to spin the situation.
It is really no secret to us that tobacco counteracted the negative reports published about its effects. As far back as a Reader's Digest article in 1952 titled "Cancer by the Carton," the industry knew it was in trouble. What may come as a surprise, however, is the role of influential PR trailblazers in dusting of the image of smoking.
As the article points out:
"Edward Bernays, Ivy Lee and John Hill today are legends within the PR profession. Bernays in particular is often referred to as the "father of PR." All three worked on PR for tobacco, pioneering techniques that today remain the PR industry's stock in trade: third party advocacy, subliminal message reinforcement, junk science, phony front groups, advocacy advertising, and buying favorable news reporting with advertising dollars."
The article goes on tell of the continued success of cigarettes especially after capturing the elusive female market. Lucky Strikes and eventually Viginina Slims helped to draw in a body conscious consumer. The industry didn't lose momentum there, moving right on to the impressionable teen market and even switching up tactics and implanting PR when countered by health concerns.
If anything is drawn from the movie "Thank You for Smoking," it is that, while cigarettes are, without a doubt, a health risk attacked constantly from advocacy groups, cancer victims and Capitol Hill pundits, the battle is not as straightforward as it looks. There are those on the other side of the battle- tobacco farmers, factory workers, even, arguably, lung doctors and cancer specialitsts, all who benefit from tobacco's continued sales- and success.
Has Big Tobacco taken part in the most deceptive PR campaign since the dawn of the profession, or are they simply protecting an industry whose health effects are seemingly common knowledge? Who are the winners and losers in this battle? What should their punishment be? Finally, what about free choice?
Tobacco claims a sick amount of lives each year, has been shown to actively seek out youth as consumers, and has fought- arguably with success- to retain a presence in society. While the answers to the above questions are not as clear cut as they seem, tobacco is an important case study. With the explosion of PR and of reasearch into products- from food and medicine to lead-painted toys and tire-imploding cars- there is no doubt that products are in the market today that will harm us, and PR professionals paid to spin the situation.
posted by Andrea K at 13.1.08
.jpg)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home