DRAFT.
BACKGROUND BRIEFING PAPER
~iEarette advert sl- ctions do not have the
intended
_L aL restri
effects, and there is a dan-er of their becoming I
fctrm of
commercial censorship.
Consumer protection laws and the machinery for
their
enforcement, which provide a sensible protection
of the public
against false or misleading advertising claims,
are clearly
appropriate. No responsible industry would object
to them.
But the end result of advertising restrictions on
tobacco - or
any other legal product - can only be to limit
choice; to block
the free flow of information; to emasculate
competition,
cancelling its benefits; to penalise the
advertising media by
starving them of revenue; to inhibit commercial
investment and
employment; to jeopardise present invest6nt; and
to place
powers of censorship in the hands of
self-appointed pressure
groups or statutory committees who, lacking
commercial
experience and commerical responsibility alike,
have no right
to wield them.
This paper examines, under seven main headings,
the intended
effects of cigarette advertising restrictions,
their very
harmful side-products, and the unfounded
allegations against
co
cigarette advertising.
co
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


M/ 2
.1. Cigarette advertising has no sij~nificant
effect on total
~~on-ption
Advertising is riot aimed at increasing total
consumption. it
is, however, designed to influence brand
preference and to help
the consumer select a particular brand, once the
decision to
purchase the basic product has been made. There
are no
campaigns encouraging people to "smoke more
cigarettes", only
campaigns saying "smoke our cigarettes, not
theirs."
Nevertheless, the opponents of smoking, who wish
to ban
cigarette advertising, use as one of their two
main arguments
the claim that advertising increases total
consumption. Both
statistical and empirical evidence indicate that
this claim is
unfounded.
One of the most thorough statistical studies on
this subject
was carried out by the Metra Consulting Group on
the United
Kingdom cigarette market. This study, which
covered the years
1962 to 1969, was broadly accepted by the U.K.
Department of
Health and Social Security. It concluded that "No
evi dence has
been found of a significant association between
the total level
of media advertising and total cigarette sal*es."
Much empirical evidence is available. Professor
Reinhold
Bergler, head of the Institute of Psychology at
Bonn University
co
in his book "Advertising and Cigarette Smoking - a
Psychological Study", published in 1981, surveyed
two studies cc
X-1:-
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


embodying empirical evidence. The first, conducted
by
J.L. Hamilton in 1975, examines the effects of
bans on
broadcast advertising in 10 industrialised
countries outside
the iron curtain. Cormnenting on Hamilton's
finding, Bergler
says: "In the final analysis, therefore, the bans
on
advertising proved ineffective, and the theory
that there
e%ists a positive correlation between the volume
of advertising
and the volume of cigarette consumption must
accordingly be
dismissed as false." The second study, carried out
in 1977 by
Eugene Levitt, Director of Psychology at the
Indiana University
Medical School , considered the results of media
bans ir, 6 1
countries of the same category as those covered by
Hamilton.
Bergler's conclusions on this study are: "All the
available
data point to one conclusion and one
conclusion.only. Imposing
a ban on cigarette advertising - irrespective of
the media
forms to which it applies, and irrespective of the
time it
comes into force - is not an effective way of
slowing down the
rise in cigarette consumption, still less a means
of producing
a decline in consumption..
In countries operating total bans, consumption has
increased
more rapidly than in countries which have imposed
even limited
advertising restrictions. For example, tobacco
consumption is
growing faster in the Communist Eastern Bloc where
no cigarette
advertising at all has been permitted for years,
than in the
-
"Free World". where there is still advertising
albeit with
CX-)
certain media limitation in some countries. In the
Eastern -_j
1 ~0
Bloc, excluding the U.S.S.R. where supply problems
have almost C~O
r-
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


M/ 4
certainly depressed consumption, the increase in
cigarette
consumption was 43% between 1970 and 1980, as
against a 35%
increase in the "Free World" over the same period.
The most
-remarkable Eastern Bloc country increases, over
those 10 years,
were Bulgaria 74% (in the context of only a 5%
population
increase) Yugoslavia 71% and East Germany 58%
(despite a
marginal fall in population).
Similar examples are to be found in other
countries with total
bans on cigarette advertising. For example, in
Thailand, all
advertising was banned in 1969, but cigarette
consumption
during the 1970's grew at over twice the average
rate for the
whole "Free World".
2. CiZ.~~rette R~yertisiEg_.~2es not cause either
adults or young
pe2ple to start smoking
Almost invariably the second main argument used by
the
opponents of smoking against cigarette advertising
is that it
causes both adults and young people to start
smoking.
The industry regards smoking as an adult custom.
which adults
may decide to follow in the light of mature,
informed freedom
of choice, and the industry maintains that its
advertising is
not a factor in leading anyone to start smoking.
CZ:)
The facts support this view.
CX:)
-r-:.
rIJ
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


Ni/ 5
For example, studies carried out in 196718 and
1973 by the
National Health and Medical Research Council in
Australia
examined this allegation and the report on this
research
concluded: "No empirical research has been able to
show that
aggregate brand advertising leads to greater
tobacco
consumption. . Nor has anything been found to
suggest that
advertising entices non-smokers, young people in
particular,
into becoming smokers. It follows, therefore, that
there can be
no evidence showing that a ban on advertising
would result in
reduced tobacco consumption and fewer new
smokers."
A further comment on these lines was made by the
Director of
the United States Office of Smoking and Health
when he sa-id:
"It is quite correct, on one hand, not to make ads
the culprit
in terms of why teenagers, for example, take up
smoking.
Advertising is certainly not the culprit." A 1977
Gallup
survey undertaken to study smoking habits in
American teenagers
also found that advertising was not among the
reasons given for
beginning to smoke.
Indeed, all the research work so far done, much of
it by bodies
opposed to the tobacco industry, has failed to
prove that
advertising induces young people to smoke. Nor is
there proof
that advertising has the power to start people
smoking.
Co
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


NI/ 6
The reasons why peopie start smoking are complex,
and mostly
concerned with the individual's psychology,
background and
social context. lie or she starts to smoke because
of internal
and external factors which have to do with the
kind of person
he or she is, with the example of parents and
friends and with
social influences exerted by peer groups. All that
seems clear
from the research that has been done.
It is also clear that the conclusion of serious
responsible
researchers is that advertising plays no
significant role in
initiating the use of tobacco products.
3. Censorship, through advertising bans, denies
the principle
of free choice and full-product information
The principles of individual choice and individual
responsi-
bility for one's own actions are fundamental to
any free
society. Hand-in-hand with those principles go
freedom of
speech, freedom of action and freedom to select
one's own style
of living - providing that one stays within the
law.
Of these principles the freedom of individual
choice, as
related to the consumer, is of course particularly
threatened
by bans or restrictions on cigarette advertising.
Opponents of
cc
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


M/ 7
sm,oking have argued that a ban on advertising
would
convincingly express government disapproval of
smoking and that
this in itself would lead people not to do it. The
fallacy of
this argument is clearly shown by the evidence
quoted in the
first section of this paper, that advertising has
no
significant effect on total consumption. I t is
apparent
therefore, that people are determined to exercise
their right
to choose to smoke, despite advertising bans and
their alleged
implication of gover=ent disapproval. Indeed the
very fact
that "authority" disapproves of something is for
some people a
reason to try it.
Faced with this situation opponents of smoking
fall back at
times on the argument that smoking is not merely
an individual
responsibility, because it may lead to illness
which must be
treated at public expense. The argument is of
course totally
untenable because practically everything we eat,
drink or do
has been accused of causing disease which must be
treated at
public expense. Why teen should smokers be singled
out for
special discrimination? The argument also implies
that
populations are incapable of looking after
themselves and unfit
to make their own decisions, in consequence of
which they must
be subjected to a form of censorship.
(Writing in the American "Business and Society
Review" winter
1977-1978, Arthur Hettich, editor of Family Circle
in the
co
United States, surmed up the feelings of many on
the above X-
LF1
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


points when he said: "It is our feeling,
therefore, that
prohibiting cigarette advertising would be a
violation of the
rights of a legal segment of American business
and; more
important, a violation of our readers right to
choose. Should
we prohibit automobile advertising from our pages
because
hundreds of thousands of people are maimed or
killed each year
from car accidents? Do you feel that we should
prohibit liquor
advertising because alcoholism has reached
epidemic proportion
in this country? The reasonable answer is, I
think, that our
readers are highly intelligent people who are able
to make up
their own minds on these questions.")
For consumers, however resolved they may be to
preserve their
freedom of choice, advertising bans are a menace
because they
deny them the right to be informed of all the
factors which
might influence that choice. Smokers are thus
deprived of
information on available brands, new brands,
prices, tobacco
qualities and, perhaps most important o-f all, new
product
innovations and developments - and the main and
most efficient
means of imparting this information is
advertising.
The European Association of Advertising Agencies'
memorandum on
Cigarette Advertising in June 1978, made some
telling points on
the assistance to the smoker arising from the
provision of such
information in countries where cigarette
advertising exists, as
opposed to the lack of it - particularly
information on product
CC)
development - in Eastern Europe where cigarette
advertising is -4
I-0
totally banned. It said: "This resulted, for
example, in the CC)
-r-
Cr\
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


predominance of the filter-tipped type of
cigarette in most
countries where advertising is allowed. The market
share of
filter cigarettes in those countries is between
85% to 90%. In
Eastern Europe, however, it is well below 50%.
Moreover,
advertising has helped support consumer demand for
lighter
brands as shown, for instance, by the development
of the German
cigarette market. Within twenty years the contents
of
condensate and nicotine in the overall German
cigarrette
market was reduced by more than 50%."
Finally, the referendum held in Switzerland in
recent years on
the question of whether ot not cigarette and
alcohol
advertising should be banned, evoked the following
comment-from
Dr. Raymond Broger, Member of the Swiss Parliament
and
President of the Swiss Advertising Federation,
which summarises
admirably what has been said in this section on
the two
principles referred to in its title: "The*Swiss
Parliament'and
the Gevernment recommended the people of this
country to reject'.
the postulated ban on icivertising. Our people
followed this
advice and I consider this to be a wise decision.
Once again
the Swiss people have declared themselves as being
in favour of
self-responsibility and freedom for the
individual, and at the
same time in favour of the right of the people to
seek and
obtain information through the advertising media.
They have
therefore. in accordance with their tradition,
spoken out
against state interference in those matters where
such
interference is neither effective nor
appropriate."
C=)
Co
00
BATCo industries for Province of British ColuMbia
27 October 1999


M/10
4. Censorship,_~hr2uKh advertising bans, restricts
competition
and inflicts economic dam e
Advertising bans deprive society, individuals and
companies, of
benefits which they stand to enjoy under a
relatively -free and
unrestricted.economic system.
A system of many tobacco brands competing
vigorously through
advertising does bring with it distinct benefits.
These all
stem from the fact that a manufacturer, who is
free to
advertise, will always be energised by the
possibility of
winning more market share by developing new, more
acceptable
product types, to suit current tastes, preferences
and income
levels, which he can bring through advertising to
the attention
of the consumer.
Without advertising, however, there is li'ttle or
no incentive
for the manufacturer to invest in any product
innovation. The.
opponents of smoking: who advocate advertising
bans, seem
coaveniently to forget this when they favour the
swing to
filter cigarettes and advocate even greater
reduction in
deliveries of 'tar' and nicotine. They ignore the
fact that
brands of these types derived from product
innovation in
response to changing consumor preferences, and
that advertising
for these new products enabled consumers to become
aware of
them. From this awareness grew a trend towards
these types to CD
which manufacturers have responded around the
world. CO
CO
Zt.
CC)
BATCo industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


Nit 11
But such a trend, seen by many consumers to be
beneficial to
them, has to date made little progress in the
countries of the
Cor,nunist Eastern Bloc, where all advertising is
banned. In
those countries the filter penetration in 1980 of
the market
was estimated to average 43%, compared with an
equivalent
figure of 86% in the "Free World". In the same
countries low
delivery cigarettes - 15 mg of 'tar' or below -
have an
insignificant share of the market, whereas already
such
products account for over 20% of consumption in
the whole "Free
World". To take two notable examples, in the
U.S.A. the figure
is 48% to 50% and in West Germany it is nearer
70%.
A further benefit, which advertising bans
eliminate, is the
cost-lowering effect of advertising. As a
Netherlands study
conducted by tl~e Steering Group of the Dutch
Advertising
Association pointed out:-
"In all, advertising has a cost lowering effect,
which, if
competition is adequate. is passed on to the
consumer as a
price advantage. Advertising forces companies to
make
competitive offers which the consumer can verify.
Advertising
therefore acts both on lowering prices and
increasing quality."
In short, competition provides the incentive;
advertising
provides the means; consumers derive the benefits.
Take out
advertising, and both incentive and benefits
disappear.
00
CO
BATCO industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999


M/ 12
5. Ci.Uarette advertising has not created and does
not create a
climate of acceptability for smoking
Smoking is seen as acceptable for. two primary
reasons.
Firstly, is is part of the established social
fabric and people
have been smoking for centuries, since long before
advertising
began. Secondly, smoking products are widely and
legaily
offered for sale. Limiting or banning advertising
would not
change either of those facts and only anti-smoking
zealots
would suggest that smokers should be ostracised or
that smoking
should be made illegal. Smoking is acceptable
because it has
been accepted by many individuals as an enjoyable
activity
Tobacco advertising is a result, not a cause, of
that
acceptance.
6. Advertising does not manipulate the consumer
Critics of advertising, including the opponents of
smoking,
often view it as a manipulative force, used by
advertisers to
create consumer wants. This is incorrect, h6wever,
as the'
decision-making power lies not with the advertiser
but with the
consumer. Consumer purchasing choices are
decisions
purposefully made by the individual, rather than
involuntary
responses to a manipulative force.
C=)
Those who believe advertising to be manipulative
take a rather 1~0
r-O
unflatterin- view of the consumer as being
weak-%-:illed and ___J
without a mind of his own.. The well-known United
States Social
C:)
BATCo industries for Province of British COIUMbia
27 October 1999


NI/ 13
Observer and newspaper columnist, George Will,
suggests that
this view is maintained by "those intellectuals
who regard the
masses as sheep and themselves as shepherds."
Consumers are not sheep, as some researchers have
reminded
advertisers. For example in his book "The
Intellectual and the
Market Place" Professor Georg Stigler contended:-
"The advertising industry has no sovereign power
to bend men's
will - we are not children who blindly follow the
last
announcer's instructions to rush to the store for
soap.
Moreover, advertising itself is a completely
neutral
instrument, and lends itself to the dissemination
of highl y
contradictory desires."
Advertising is not therefore a manipulative force.
as evidenced
by the views of experts quoted above, which are
supported by
many other distinguished writers in this field.
Septeribe.r, 1982
CZ)
1--0
BATCO industries for Province of British Columbia
27 October 1999