Ben Berkman

CAS 137H
Paradigm Shift Paper
A Paradigm Shift: Tobacco Advertising, Then and Now

Not one single case of throat infection: Camel Cigarettes slogan, 1933
SMOKING KILLS: Mandatorily displayed on cigarette packages in Europe, 2013

1948 was a successful year for Jeanne Wilson. Chicagos mermaid, as she was so
affectionately called, starred for the American swim team at the summer Olympic games
in London, which she led to a seventh place finish in the womens 200-meter breaststroke
(Jeanne Wilson). She was, in many ways, at top physical condition, competing against
international competition. That same year, however, Jeanne Wilson endorsed Camel
cigarettes (Camel Cigarettes). Had the year been 2013, and had the Olympic swim star
recommending a brand of cigarettes been Michael Phelps, the American public would be
angered, if not down right confused.
Clearly, the way in which Americans view tobacco use has changed. To say that
we have come from a society that accepts cigarette smokers to one that discourages them
is too widely agreed upon to warrant significant discussion. Instead, this paper suggests
that tobacco use amongst Americans has not decreased because of the realizations by
smokers that smoking kills, but has dwindled specifically because advertising has told
them so. More specifically, two distinct events caused this shift, altering the rhetorical
appeals instilled by tobacco companies. Morton Levins 1950 study suggesting cigarettes
Berkman 2
caused cancer forced companies to alter their appeals to ethos from ignoring health risks
to targeting other companies for producing an unhealthy smoke. And after 1965s Federal
Cigarette and Labeling Act which required cigarette producers to warn consumers of
the dangers of their product on the package Big Tobaccos rhetorical appeals shifted
once more, this time from one of ethos, pushing the health benefits of their specific
brand, to one of pathos, essentially ignoring the health issue all together and honing in on
the tough guy mystique of smoking. By examining tobacco advertisements throughout
the last century, this paper traces this paradigm shift.

The 1920s: The first hesitations, and the first response
Tobacco use and American history go hand in hand. From plantations, to the
quintessential farmer on the great frontier smoking a cigarette after a long days work, the
plant is engrained in our nations history. And for most of its history, smoking tobacco
was the norm: if not necessarily encouraged by society, it was certainly never shunned.
However, come the roaring twenties, terms like smoker's cough and coffin nails
(referring to cigarettes) began to appear in the popular vernacular, according to an
expansive Stanford School of Medicine study into the impact of tobacco advertising
(Using this Database). And with these initial qualms, the tobacco industry responded in
an effort to calm these fears. In a speech regarding tobacco advertising, Dr. Robert
Jackler, an otorhinolaryngologist (the study of the throat, nose and mouth), argued, The
industry thought what better way to counter this in the minds of the American public than
to show the wise and humane physician in their community [who] chose to smoke Lucky
Strikes, [made people think] then they must be really okay (Jackler).
Berkman 3
And with stride, they did. In 1930, Lucky Strike produced an iconic poster
claiming, 20,679 Physicians say Luckies are less irritating Its toasted, your throat
protection against irritation against cough (Lucky Strike Cigarettes). This is significant
for two reasons. First, its a blatant lie. Sampling 20,679 doctors, as the advertisement
states, would be next to impossible, but it sure sounds more believable than, say, an even
20,000. Secondly, it demonstrates the early appeals to ethos cigarette industries assumed.
Before any conclusive studies examining the health risks of smoking were released, it
was truly up to Big Tobacco to deem something healthy or unhealthy. They were the
authority. And with that authority, they pushed a healthy product, even if it caused
irritation, cancer, and ultimately death.

1950: Public Opinion Swayed, Big Tobacco Responds
For the thirty years preceding 1950, tobacco companies and consumers stood
locked in a stalemate. Cigarettes still caused smokers cough, tobacco industries
continued to advertise against it, and nothing much changed (Using this Database). In
1950, however, Dr. Morton Levin ambitiously released the first definitive proof that
smoking was directly linked to lung cancer. In it, he wrote, Excessive and prolonged use
of tobacco, especially cigarettes, seems to be an important factor in the induction of
bronchogenic carcinoma (Levin). In an effort to save face, Big Tobacco had to respond,
quickly covering up this study with a new wave of manipulative advertisements.
Still, the industry maintained its appeal to ethos. However, it shifted slightly.
Instead of suggesting that its cigarette was a healthy, harmless product, they instead
acknowledged minor health risks, but promoted a comparably healthy smoke. For
Berkman 4
example, in 1959, Kent cigarettes released an advertisement stating, You get less tars
and nicotine in Kent (Kent Cigarettes). The poster displays a pretty, seemingly healthy
young woman with shining white teeth holding a cigarette. Here we see an attempt by the
tobacco industry to placate the health risks if you buy this brand of cigarettes you wont
get as sick. While this is still an unashamed lie filters havent been proven to
significantly improve health effects thirty years prior, such admittance would never
grace the glorified posters of a cigarette ad (Filters May be Killers). However, after
Levins game-changing paper, the business had to counter with such provisions.
Some companies, on the other hand, chose to ignore the issue of health all
together, demonstrating sheer ignorance by suggesting that the taste made up for the
increasingly severe health hazards. An Old Gold advertisement from 1951 proudly
boasted, We dont try to scare you with medical claimsOld Gold just cares about one
thingThe Worlds Best Tobacco (Old Gold Cigarettes). If anything, this example of
irresponsibility by the tobacco companies hints at its unwillingness to provide consumers
with the truth. Further, it foreshadows the upcoming shift from appeals to ethos towards
appeals to pathos: who cares about health benefits, youre cool if you smoke Golds; we
have the greatest tobacco. By 1951, cigarettes were known to be killers. Big Tobacco,
however, wouldnt let you believe it. So by mid-century, while the truths concerning the
perils of cigarettes entered the mainstream, tobacco companies trudged on, producing
increasingly drastic propaganda and manipulation of facts. And as a result, millions of
Americans continued to smoke.

1960-1990: With Truth Leaked, Paradigm Shifts
Berkman 5
As Lyndon B. Johnson assumed the presidency in 1963 and ushered with him the
Great Society, the reign of Big Tobaccos induced ignorance began its decline. By this
point, a decade after Levins study had permeated the American public, it was common
knowledge that cigarettes were disadvantageous to ones health. It was at last time for
Johnsons grand liberalism to bring the hammer down on the industry. The 1965 Federal
Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act forced cigarette companies to put cautions on
their products, forewarning purchasers about their dangers. The act legislated that it
would be illegal to fail to include SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking
Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy or a
close variant on packaging (Federal Cigarette and Labeling Act of 1965). Ultimately, in
1997, the advertisements themselves were subject to federal restrictions: Joe Camel ads
were prohibited as they inherently promoted tobacco use amongst children (Coughlin).
So how did our friends in Big Tobacco once again reassure and persuade us to
buy its product? With its appeals to ethos decimated a federal warning on the box easily
rebutted health related claims the tobacco industry instead slyly shifted its rhetorical
appeals to pathos. Take, for example, a 1983 Camel advertisement. Its much simpler
than the others examined in this discussion. A rugged man carrying a dirty tire is taking a
long drag on a Camel. The poster reads, simply, Camel, where a man belongs
(Cigarettes, Camel). In the bottom corner is the federally required warning label. Here we
see that advertisements have seemingly moved on from suggesting that cigarettes arent
unhealthy. Big Tobacco could no longer cover up the health effects of its deadly product.
While they can, and do, continue to lie, its big secret is out, and its not going away.

Berkman 6
Where are we now, and where are we going?
The paradigm shifted years ago. With 1965s Labeling Act, tobacco companies
appeals to ethos were exhausted. Slowly, cigarette smokers became a minority, and
increasingly more measures were enacted against smoking. According to Gallups annual
Consumption Habits survey, 44 percent of Americans smoked in the decade preceding
the Labeling Act, while only 40 percent smoked in the decade immediately after. By
2008, only 21 percent of Americans habitually puffed tobacco products (Saad). Because
tobacco advertisements could no longer tell consumers that cigarettes were not unhealthy,
fewer people were fooled into smoking. No longer did citizens fall victim to the lies
spewed by the industry.
But are we in the midst of another paradigm shift? In the past decade, electronic
cigarettes, or e-cigs, have entered the mainstream. Technologically more complex than a
conventional cigarette, an e-cig vaporizes a nicotine-induced liquid that mimics the effect
of a regular smoke (Durning). Advertising for e-cigs has focused on the perceived health
advantages they have over cigarettes, yet a decisive study does not exist. For example,
blu, an electronic cigarette maker, released a poster in 2012 stating, Why quit? Switch to
blublu is the smart choice for smokers wanting a change (Blu Cigarettes). But will
switching to blu reverse our paradigm back into a society in which we validate smoking,
yet now in a healthier way? Clive Bates, the director of the Counterfactual Consulting
and Advocacy group, argues, advertising of e-cigarettes is not something to worry about
or ban, rather it should be embraced. It is how smokers will find their way to these new
products and it is how new brands will push the cigarette brands aside (Bates). As such,
Berkman 7
though it appears too early to tell, the cycle may start again, and smoking, or more
accurately vaporizing, tobacco will once more become the norm.

We have come a long way since Olympic swimmer Jeanne Wilson starred in a
commercial which depicted her completing a workout then exiting the pool to
immediately smoke a cigarette. In fact, the paradigm in which we view cigarettes has
completely shifted. No longer do we accept smokers as the norm, nor do we the
American public cajole our neighbors to use tobacco. This change, however, is not the
result of users individually realizing that smoking is bad, and thus determining that the
habit should be kicked. It is, in fact, the consequence of dramatic shifts in advertising by
Big Tobacco from 1920 to the present. As the dangers of smoking and tobacco became
commonly accepted, and as labeling acts were created, advertisers had to alter their
rhetorical appeals and avoid certain claims. As a result, fewer Americans continued to
smoke as the century beat on, and the stigma related to smoking radically changed. By
looking into the past we can see this is true: Jeanne Wilson would not be considered a
sports star today.

Berkman 8

Works Referenced
Bates, Clive. "BMJ Group blogs." E-cigarettes and the marketing push that surprised
everyone. TC News and Views Online, 29 Sept. 2013. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.
Blu Cigarettes. Advertisement. 2013. Print.
Camel Cigarettes. Advertisement. 1948. Television.
Cigarettes, Camel. Advertisement. 1983. Print.
Coughlin PJ, Janacek F Jr. 1997. A Review of R. J. Reynolds' Internal Documents
Produced in Mangini vs. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Civil Number
939359: The Case that Rid California and the American Landscape of "Joe
Camel".
Durning, Marijke Vroomen. "What Are Electronic Cigarettes And How Safe Are They?"
Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 06 Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
Federal Cigarette and Labeling Act of 1965, Pub. L, no. 113-131, 1965. Print.
"Filters May Be Killers." Weblog post. New York State Smokers Quitline. NY State
Department of Health Tobacco Control Program, n.d. Web.
Jackler, Robert. ""Get 'em Young and Train 'em Right"." Conference. Stanford School of
Medicine. Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Palo Alto, California. 25 Apr.
2012. Lecture.
"Jeanne Wilson." Sports Reference/Olympic Sports. USA Today Sports, n.d. Web. 07
Nov. 2013.
Kent Cigarettes. Advertisement. 1959. Print.
Lucky Strike Cigarettes. Advertisement. 1930. Print.
Berkman 9
Morton L. Levin, Hyman Goldstein and Paul R. Gerhardt, Cancer and Tobacco
Smoking, Journal of the American Mediacal Assoication (JAMA), May 27, 1950,
pp. 336-338.
Old Gold Cigarettes. Advertisement. 1951. Print.
Saad, Lydia. "U.S. Smoking Rate Still Coming Down." U.S. Smoking Rate Still Coming
Down. Gallup, 24 July 2008. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
"Using this Database." Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising.
Stanford School of Medicine, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013.