Cigarette Advertising Tll-~.e F,~CILS CD N.) U4 LA N.) Co BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 ........ ... ....... . ..... .............. I .......... CONTENTS Executive Summary page I 0 Introduction page 2 How Advertising Works Competition in a'Mature' Market page 4 International Experience with Cigarette Advertising Bans page ;j r-~j CD BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October.1 999 .. .... ........... ..... Executive Summary A cigarette adve-Tisirz ban would not affect tobacco product consumption by either adults or young PCOPM - According to government health officials, the most forceful determinants of smoking by young people are parents. peers and older siblings. - Anci-smoking advocates until recently acknowledged that advertising is nor a significant determinant of smoking by young people or anyone else- a Smoking generally appears -to be highest in those countries where advertising is forbidden and lowest in those countries where advertising is allowed. Tobacco product consumption by young people s -eclining in many countries where advertising is permitted and increasing in many countries where advertising is prohibited. 0 Advertising 3 *rnacur:' produc: like cigarettes or laundry detergent does nor operate to increase overai, demand ;or the product- Advertising instead operates to maintain or expand company rnna:ke: s~a.-t within the industry. * The successfu: 'Drar:C adve::;ser must break through the commercial clutter that exists in the advertising This can be done most effectively by employing eye-catching settines and bv a -~:-.nct personalin. -or -,~i adver-cised brand. * Smokers. iike :ons-L:=.-:-s ci ocher products. are nor an undifferentiated mass. Rather, individual consur--.:z ---nc -o cluster in distinc:ive 'taste cultures'. Cigarette M3nu- facturers. like in other highlv COM'etltiVC M21"kers, railor their brand messages -,a rhos- wnc zor.<-.:-ne their prod-L:crs. conrrols are premised on an assumption an-itherical to democratic vai--ts - ::-.-a: o.-~;nary cirizens shouid not be informed about the producrs they use or. ~; inionme-~. zZ.-.no: '-e rrusred to make then- own decisions. N) CD BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 Introduction "No one really pretends that advertising is a major determinant of smoking in this country or any other". Michael Pertschuk Former Chatrm4n FederaiTrade Commission In many countries around the world. governments have been under pressure from anti- smoking activists to introduce legislation To ban cigarette adverrising or to impose controls on the content of cigarette advertising that would be Tantamount to a total advertising ban. The premise oi this legislation is That cigarette advertising is a significant determinant of smoking by young people and adults and zhat banning cigarette advertising would reduce smoking. Anti-smoking advocates have issued a number of manifestoes attempting to JUSrLty legislation banning cigarette advertising or This basis. This paper considers whether baraing cizareuc advertising in fact would advance the goal o-' reducing smoking. Relying prinzpally on cara reported by government agencies and by anti-smoking advocates themSC:VC5. -.,c paper demonstrates that a cigarette adverrisine ban would not affect, tobacco prod--z- consumption. Moreover, the paper demonstrates Thai an advertising ban wouid run contrary to all concepts of freedom oi commercial speech, reduce the inior-nation availab.: to consumers. stifle competition among the cigarette manufacturers, and trigger -:--.aio7 :-.:z . backs . in advernsiag~. publishing and other industries.' Anti-smoking advocates only t'tntl~ . :~ave I negun rc proclaim That cigarette advertising is a major influence on the dcz:sion ~oung peop . ie to star-, smoking. Before banning ZiZ31`eTte adverzising becarne 3,-.t oi ri=_7 -:),.rc;Dal po;i-;cal goals. anti-smoking advocates -in acreemenr with covernmen: c-.'iciaiis and . orner experts) emphasised family and peer ~n tuences as the kev aeterminan-s c: smo.<:nz. wnii- advernsing plaved Ituie or no d-:rnonsz-a,-ie role. - ne contention Far robacco, ad% e77151111Z PeOr"ie to smoke overlooks the iuncrion of advertising in a 'marrure' nrod--:- marz- such as The -narker for cigarettes. In a mature produc: market. where the produc- zaregc-_. !s lonC-e5tabiished and awareness of the u, product category is niversal. advertisinz does not operate to increase overall demand. Advertising insread operates to -nain-.a!n or expand market share within the produc- category - to maintain the loyalzv of cc)ns-.mers who already use the brand being advertised and to switch consumers who use other brands. In a marker such as the United It E F t RE NCE S T.b ... isi-l.t, ~i Pola... H,i .... d U--.- A,.-- _-;~ Z-om- Group. #EAT MIRWICK 11.1 Co.. Th, "'h. 1 Z' " C,nseq c. I., Siippi- Ind.-- A Hi. .. 'is ~. -" X.. Ad-- ..d P1 -D" I.qx . L-4 BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 ......... ........... . ..... ............................... . Stares, for example. where a single market-share point may be worth as much as $400 million in sales iand where the market itself is shrinking), and one out of every four customers may switch among brands in any given year, it should come as no surprise that cigarette manufacturers are prepared to spend large sums to maintain their market share or to expand their market share by even a small increment. To be successful, however, brand advertising must overcome two hurdles: it must attract the viewer's attention and it must distinguish the advertised brand from the multitude of others on the market. To break through the 'clutter' that exists in The advertising marketplace, advertisers must frequently employ vivid settings and employ bold graphic designs and memorable brand slogans. TO separate the advertised brand from its competitors, an advertiser must create a distinct 'personality' for the brand. -Manufacturers typically commit significant resources to sustain brand identification and lovalry to the brand personality. Preventing the use of imagery, themes and slogans in cizarerre advertising, as some proposed legislation would do, would be equivalent to no advertising at all. Such advertisements would not attract the attention of smokers or distinguish one brand from another. If cigarette advertising were a significant factor in smoking, one would expect to find more smoking in those countries that allow such advertising than in those countries that do nor. In general. however, one finds just the opposite. Whether considered from the standpoint of per capita consumption or the proporrion of smokers. the level of smoking appears to be highest in -hose countries where adver-isinz is forrbidden and :owest in those countries where advertising is 211owed. Even more significant. zobacco produc-, consumption including consumprion by young people - is declining in manr counrries xniere advertising is permit-ed. and increasine where adve.-ising, is prohibited. Adverrisinz bans or content controls would nor reduce smoking among young people or adults. They are premised - as are all governnn!nr artem-Drs to suppress mrormarion - on the danzerous assum-,cion that ordinar, cir:zen~ canno- be :r-usred to make -h to the or born a 'ree marKe: _ eir own decisions. Such a premise is antirherica'. economy and an open. dernocratic 5ociery. 10 CD BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 .... ...... - . ...... ~ - - I How advertising works: Competition in a'Mature' market "There is little evidence that advertising results in additional smoking. As with many products. (cigarette) advertising mainly shifts consumers among brands." President's Council of Economic Advisors' Introduction The contention that tobacco adverrising influences people to smoke overlooks the function of advertising in a 'mature' product marker such as the mar . ver tor cigarettes. In a mature product market, where the product category is long-esrablished and awareness ci the product category is universal, advertising generally does not operate to increase overall demand. Adverrising instead operates to maintain or expand market share within the product category - to Maintain the joyalry or consumers who already use the brand being advertised and to switch consumers who use o-,,e7 brands. It should come as no surprise -,bar cigarette manu. - acrurers are prepared to spend large sums to maintain their market. In the US. a single m2.-ke~-share point May be wor:h as much as S400 million in sales. and one out of every four customers may swirch among brands in an~ . given year. In Germany. one markt--5hare pont is estimated to be approx;mareiy DNI 312 million for 1~91 - over S550 rz-::1;on at June 1991 exchange ra-,es. In Japan. one marker-share point was worth Y35.-I bm;'.o- or S-2-3 million in 1990 1S1 To *-t successful. brand advernsine must overcome -wo hurdles: it must arrracr zh- Viewer . s arention and it Must distinguish the advernsec zrand ',om rne muintude of others on ti~e marke-. To break :hrough -he -ciu-zter' -,~3, e.%:s:z :r -he advertismz marketpiact. adver-.:sers nnust irecuentiv em-jio,- vivid serrings an~ e~:-.-piov boici araph:c designs anc memorabie brand slogans. To separate rhe adverriseZ ---rand from its competitors. ap. advernser must create a distinct 'personaliTy' for The bran_ Manuiac-,urers typically commit signiiizan- resources to sustain brand identification an~' iovain- to the brand personalin. Eniorzt-d ioreclosure of imagery, themes and siogans :n cigarette adVer'~Mnz. as some proposed lezisla:ion would do. would be rantamoun- -o no adve-.tisinc a-, all. Suc.1 advertisements would not attract the attention of smok!rs or disnnguish one brand from. another. Ft E F E RE N CES E--. R~",, .0 1h, PI-d-, 1,~ , !-F- ~ BAT Industries'docurnent for Legal Services: Health Canada 19 October 1999 a. The distinction between 'New' and 'Mature' product markets Certainly all companies, cigarette companies included, use advertising to promote their products. Proposals to ban cigarette advertising, however, reflect a basic misunderstanding of how advertising works. Much advertising, including cigarette advertising, neither is intended to, nor has The effect of increasing the number of people who use the 'product category.' Instead, advertising is used to serve a variety of disparate objectives depending on whether the product category is 'new' or 'mature,' and depending on whether the product category is in competition with other product categories.' In the case of a 'new' product category like compact disc players or cellular telephones, advertising attempts to inform people about general product artribures and benefits. Because the product category is new, advertising functions as a means by which consumers learn That the product category exists and how it might be usefuL to them. At This stage. advertising promotes demand for the product Category in the course of promoting demand for particular brands - although all advertisers ultimately are interested in promoEin g Their brands against competing brands. As awareness of the product category spreads, advcr-,ising matters less and less in stimulating aggregate demand. In fact, demand flattens because :here are fewer people who a have not either Tried The product (and become settled users or non-usersi or decided That they have no interest in the product category. Consumers no longer need advertising to appreciate the existence of Television, soft drinks, laundry dertgent or tooEhpasre. These i)rodu--:s have become a part of everyday life for those consumers who are Hkely to want them. The aim and effect of advertising for such 'mature' product categories is TO promote particular brands oi the product, not to promote The product category irselE Many studies have found rhar advertising in such markets - including -,he cigarette marker - is not significantly related to aggregate product demand.' There is an exception to this rule. Even afre. a produc: category has 'marured* and adver-isinz is no lon2er necessary to create awareness of the -D:oducT. The product caiegorx may be in direct competition with other product categories. comre:es it. some countries wi-n narual gas. Milk competes with soir-drinks and other beverages. In such cases. ir is not uncommon to see advertisements that promote a product category rather :han a particular produc: brand. But cigarettes, like soap. are no~ in competition with other. product zarecories. and one never sees an advertisement promo::nc cigarettes or soap as sticn. Instead. one sees only advertisements promoting particular brands of cigarerzes or soap. a reltetacts For d -on ., me t -p-- la, tc~,: and he -ved. But h- w., -,.- I.ch -re . the rad. er .1 1., -I, W I., na-, P,.d.c, c-go"es. - pod.a*, 'Itir mic., Gg.,M. .- one .3 th. C wASSON. Dva.- Cornotnt- Strategy and Product Life product carego- r; ~hich "mar, around - #-4 to be C~11- - 1 -94 - ~Ow COO,. ~ akd- of - P,.d.,, We -rimd to i L-m9-.'Ad-.& C M or. no C-1,.' J-n.; of .0,, 1969.: . D.ZZILL. M.-, C.nJ-,.' . Ohgoplv 0- T- , 1 ~76,. S,, Un " -Per-1- 111h.1-ol a P1.0.11 U1, .. N.- Id - L~ & - Gmu-~, 'An &-coner- .1 the F-here, for S i.1 M.rk-P. j W,.,h, & j G.1d,,u.k,, dt,. or G c Advernt,tta on the Dentand ror 7- n the UK,' Bet- ! *W; k "A"EK"ESW A & ~LK. 'H,. to Compete n Stator., Journal of -j. 4 119691: . Th. M ,_1 I.d.--.' H.,,.,d liu-- R-. ;SIp,.O. !9-91, of Cu.W.-c Ad-centon, Effect, ; 1964'. '. -TLUR. 'Act-t-9 j S A 0 M.--t S,Fatex~ to V.-rit .. a jou- w P.I.-I art-. -1. -0 (1%- ,,. Product La, Cr-C li-ries, H.r-o, J-F,h 198-':; and tacellent rev- a! :hc,c and other studies mjv bi iound to -C. Product Polt- Cn.I,p,, %4,thPd. and 0 -04 4 1 C~- 'All You 0-1 A Rr- 99-,:. Adl--.X-5.1~ 5--' J.o-.1 ~, Ad-n, R,ararrr. - * For --Pil. - 19-6 - .1 - p-d- .it d ZZ. 4 Aug- SIP, icu, tresm. n -h-,h d-.,.n& and pr- dernand urre r~j CD U-4 BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 . - ........... . I ..... ............................ Those who claim that cigarettes are -nor a 'mature' market so far as young people are concerned misunderstand what it means for a product category to be 'mature.' Even a mature' market will have first-time buyers. Consumers who never before purchased a home. a'This does nor mean. however, that the product category is not 'mature.' 'Young people are car. a television, a washing machine, laundry detergent or a cigarette will decide to do so. aware of laundry detergent and cigarettes long before they reach maturity because older people around them use those products. Awareness of cigarettes is in fact so widespread that they are the very model of a 'mature' product category. b. The primary objectives of advertising in 'Mature' product markets Even though advertising will not influence the absolute size of the market, the incentive to advertise particular brands of a mature product is substantial. The US cigarette market has annual sales of about $40 billion, the marker in Germany has sales of $55 billion jar June 1991 exchange rates), and the market in Japan had sales of S24.3 billion in 1990. Gaining a single market-sharc point means garnering S400 million in US sales, S550 million in German sales. and S243 million in Japanese sales. Equaily important, preserving a singie market- share point means keeping nearly SAIDD miHion. SSSO million or S243 million in sales. Moreover, as many as one out of even- four smokers - 1-5 per cent - may switch among brands in any given year.' Even if reiatively few smokers permanently switch brands eac4 year. the amount spent per smoker to pr.-ven-, -,rand switching - that is, to encou.-age branc.' loyah~- - is relativelY low.' Successiul brar-ol promotbor, in. a mna-.=.- -:,,odluct r-narket. however. mus: overcome two hurdles, First. -he advertising rrus: anrac: :he viewer's artention. Second. and no less Important, the advernsing must disrincuish the adver-ised brand from the multitude of oth-,- brands or. the market. The long-term success oi E. brand deoends on 'building the mosZ sharply defined Personality for (the: L-rand.- In. Short, both the advertisement itself and the advertised brand nnus-, stand out from. me crowc. Cigarerz_- manuiacrurers ract a ur,.q-.;z iet oi limitations in this regard in rne,.7 brand adverrisinc. '-~irst. in rhe UniEcc: SEares -nere are more than 350 cigarette brands ar_~ brand styles on -,he market.' There are 30~ _-.ands on -he market in Germany and 2(:5 brands in Japan. Second. the media -,o whzn z:zarerte advertising is restricted in man%. countries - the prant media - are --nefficient vehicles for adverris-mg. Third. advertisements for cigarettes. in the print mea"a -4raw even less attention than print medi- advertisements for other product carecones. 4.s Young &: Moschis have observed: REFFRENCES R n, US sti-, .d hat .- -n '5 pe, ten, : ..i M, -, d, -k- - 1-1 Th . . n.: s-ke,, - -- .-& .. he ~-- .1 -,. A 1--11 29 p . --h hund, each m. -r- tl~ In, AWU OftGa.11,aTION ..U.d .at per z- ~, Th hr, -sade, . be p-,-e o.- --- -h. et A, o., cipr . s.all, tit, be., .. -4 III= 'he --lil IP- -- 11PI-1 --un, . - t , bland. R.p,, R,p.r, 90-Z. 58, page F- T, h,~ US. I- .,-- fei, 1- in Z' I- -, ., - ..d.- h., 23 pe,. -! --h h-d, -,h -- 1 - -1, d,-t,,.g e.mduto- 1. 1909. he op- ndtigrj ati.,, 54 per -i f 0- --d ed in., in- . i. - ,, 15th tn I pr.dtrilt I., d.--i; and -.- t, - L:5 --11 h-d J In, -,, had - - .. he,, - Ir-4. Id. - behind rood. -letries. monnobiles. dron. and-Dit drinas 4-o- 59. page 351~ A 1939 -- ., -'.000 ~ -, t~ --d -d. 1. a- . i- Ad- no Alt, -Stp, 26. 1"01. ~~ S Pf"t 0 K^kT ik~itcw aU001M. c-d i- the Wa): S--et -WP% -C 'C- d- Thmk.ng' Kill Embinned B,.nd,!'-. J-1 n an anicit dated 0-mr IQ. 1494. rep-0 Ina: Ad.-k (D~ 8. 1986, -ph-, - N . - York T- 1)- 12. 1999). ., DI. r%J Q)4 (.A BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 ......... .......... , . ..... ... ........... "It is generally acknowledged that in a typical magazine environment an 'average, advertisement receives approximately three second of viewing time " is ". Cigarette advertisements receive the least amount of viewing time of any major print advertising category. This is because the r~pical cigarette advertisement is a quintessential 'reminder' advertisement - it grabs your artenrion, you see the picture and you go on to the next page. It is extremely rare for a CigarCUC advertisement to hold a viewer's artenrion for more than a couple of seconds."' c. Atti at ing Viewer Attention Advertisers typically use at-Eracave models in arriactive serrings to promote their produc-.s. Attractive men and womer. are used to sell brands of everything from floor polish to hwash. In using attractive models in artractive settings, advertisers are not attempring mout to persuade consumers that scrubbing floors or gargling is arcracrive. The goal is to catch [he viewer's attention for the adve-r,*se~ Orand. Consumers are exposed -o countless advertisements each dav in a varierv of media. On television. as manv as 20 =inuzes of each broadcast hour mav be consumed bv commercials. and advernseme=cs account for more pages than text in most newspapers and rnagazines. The result is 'commerci-al ciu=r.' As one advertising executive has stated: "Hardly anyone in the advertising business would disagree that clutter is a problem. As consumers are bombarded by more and more advertising messages, it becomes more and more difficult for adverrising messages to get through."' US research shows -;,a- *about 13 per cent of magazine ads are totally missed by eader. largeiv because o' a~c ciu-.rer.' and char 'readers are totally ignoring 40 pe: cent it also ~_as been reported that 'Wome 85 per cent of magazine advertised names. :tacic:s do no: remember sec=, --;-e average advertisement."' According to George Gaiiun. nvo aciverrised producrs in -he saint commodity group, using the same size space, can Iiiier at much as 122 to one in aicliiry to command attention and register the pro u,:'s :.rar_~ rlame~_- Numerous studies that various measures of advertising effectiveness - sz;c'- as recall and positive ar-_r.;-~ts - decrease as the amount of 'clurrer- increases n rh- mc,~;a environment. Viewer arzen::-on is a limited resource, and advertisers compete inre-seiv ror The ability to gain corsu.-tr an-crition, other things being equal, often is weakest ir. -::-.ar-u,,-' product markers ~ezause consumers are so familiar with the advertised prc,~Juz:. Thus. adver-,,.sing expenditures must be higher in mature markers than in 'ne%` or ftErfEMENCES -osc-~ - R- ., E- 7 k- ~- or Ad--.,.l 'm A--- V- Tobacco Ad.,rair-- ror '-;0 ij Proceed,.; ~ 1985!. :949. ..embidn'. "See -Eve-Trielisng Research bolaters Claims of Bu Sbeiver ~A_ 'N. E-oirt Ad~ - Resp-, ro Ca- M- C;--- Ad~-uig Weeii.evirs'. Mukei,rig New 0,, 2.9. 1993 . -, 5. -,--g A., D- 11. 1989i. p, 5 S- - sZ-Dsc, Alict. *Rmarch a, E- ?A-nt Sho-, Edno,lil F-- 4d--.g. The L y Per : 1,s D- )- c, .. Does. Afl,. Ad R,iderdup.' Matavo, Alt, (0c, 1992% _ -1 A--. S lc--Ds , 199~ . - - . - -fag. OWL~ a ftA-EUoh;. 'Research A-strig TcChft,o- ma: ;--.- R s,co I. he EW- I! Cl-er: Work - -d Do. , Work. 'H-rd BI---. '.-Alt D-:- -Ih . D,11-11 %led E.-.-r:.- ~r Nt I-F. 199'* , 14 X& J.'a'u'e. K ch R,Pom . -b. IC-' 7--v . "cALLLop.-H~Adv~r4W~ki.-23].Ad~tingPes:,*6.-; !Q83 P,ocesso,r. .~ Ddfi-i: Nt- Soc. Ili. Ne.,d- Dec. 11. 198-'. p. 4 ,he man.r-or- of Co.,.- R.-Ich. -L .. no. - :---: --its. ne- household ciia- must have -, roxior. couirmuou, -- -Ei .. TV cl J-rai ., Aa-- A-och., -rl~ be coa- ,, po,duci - 4 3 .d C cost. "r--- C; . nd fN J_ L-4 BAT Industries document for Legal Services: Health Canada 19 October 1999 d. Audience Segmentation Broadly speaking, an advertiser in a mature' product market can promote a particular brand in either oi two ways. He can point to objective characteristics of the brand that make That brand supenor to other brands, or he can identify The brand subjectively as the brand that is desirable." There are many product categories in which an advertiser can point to objective characTer-istrics of a brand Thar distinguish chat brand from competing brands. One make of auromobiie may have better mileage or require fewer repairs than another. and of course N automobii-ts var~ dramatically in price. Similarly, laboratorv studies may in fact show that some antacids work faster and more effectively than others. Cigarette advertisements also can point :o the *-,ar' and nicotine raring of a particular brand. its type of filter, caste or length. When such objective characteristics allow an advertiser to distinguish his brand from others, rhe acvc:-iser is likely to stress Those characteristics in the advertising- Ir many cases, however, brands are more or less interchangeable in 'objective' terms. Some z:zarerte brands, like some soft drinks and soaps. are more difficuit to disunguisn ~-om. one another on the basis oi objective characteristics than are other brands. Thus. orhe7 apcoaches. not limited to purely textual messages. may be used. advtmser attempting to promote a brand chat is less readily distinguLshame ironi othe: D.-arics therefore Tries a different approach. He aims to promote his brand with parricuiar, zroups of consumers within the Product category by saying, it. ef:'ect. 'If you are this kind. c. consLzmer, Brand X is for you. ir you are thar kind of consume:. Brand Y ;s ror yo-u.' The ac:ve:7.ser. in other words. chooses a particular group of corsumers wichin th,e p.ociuc- za-zzo.%- at whiich to direct his message and raiiors his message :,-. a wav is more :c a responsive chord with tha: group. R;;za7-'.-ss of the product, individuals tend to cluster in -taste :,_irures.* lz - zo These zroL:7:nz~ :1-1ar advertisers direc: -heir messages - parzicularly in rnarure producr ca-,ezorits n wh:ch objective differentiation of the constituent product brands is diffic~;ir. Aci,errise.~ no treat The public as an undifierenriared mass. That approach is -lot Coszz-ert . el::vc. anc it is particularly inefficient when many interchangeabie brands oi a product are :or-,,7,e:ing for a share of the market. This is simply a fact of effective marketing. which indiza-es nothing in itself about whether advertising increases Tocal consumprion of a particula. rroduc:. C', ......... . . ..... .............. ................. emerging markets if advertising is to achieve the same level of attention." Every advertiser therefore seeks the most effective means available to get a message noticed. for he reaps the reward of a viewer's momentary focus and a chance to 'speak' to the viewer.' JtErE RE Mc ES :.I.- 7ne Th- C1-11. \-- D- ~. 1919 . P. 5; B-1-11 It- ! -64% ! ~V--E&. -ft A.- D~ :S. 19xvi. p. - 'n ~.- M~, - - & .- - !7_ - -d M.- ' r~ .: -- .. malk~11.9 M-1. n W :J.w 1-56 . ..c ~ r\j CD BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 All adverrising seek to portray the brand being advertised in a 'positive' manner, and cigarette advertising is no different in this regard. Nor surprisingly, people in cigarette advertisements often appear to be enjoying themselves and -taking pleasure in smoking. This cannot be considered inherently misleading. Similarly, many cigarette advertisements depict attractive people, but that is about people portrayed are confirmed indiVidla2lisrs; sometimes they arc emphatically sociable creatures. The various cigarette manufacturers, like advertisers or soaps and colognes, attempt to attract the attention of each of these audiences. Bur it is not the advertisement that 'shapes' the consumer. It is the consumer (those in the audience who already use the product category) that 'shapes' the advertisement. In addressing their advertising to particular audiences, and in seeking to gain their arTention and preference, cigarette manufacturers are doing exactly what other advertisers do - and must do - to engage in brand competition. e. Consumer Response to Advertising Proponents of a ban on cigarette advertising overestimate the power of advertising - in part by under-estimating the intelligence and free will of the 'target' audiences. Although this view of consumers is one rhar,prevailed in advertising theory earlier in this century, it has since been discredited. Consumers, young and old alike. are far more sophisticated and discriminating m their responses to advertising than was once believed. Onc.- it was chought that advertising had a direct and powerful effect on consumers. Adve-tisers would say, 'Buy Brand X because it is superior to Brand Y,' and i.` the advertisement was clever enough. the consumer would buy the advertised brami. in realiry, the world ooes not and never did operate in the way described by this 'one-wai flow' modeL Adverrisers soon realised that simply disseminating a commercial mess2ge did not ensure ir wouid be no-iced. They also learned that, even when noticed, commerciai messages we.,- no-, nccessaniy retained, and that even when viewers found a particuiar adverrisemen. memorable. `-ey did no- always remember what brand was being advernsed." Morcm er. el en wn= conss-=crs did remember an adverrisemem. as weil as the name of -,h- advertised b.-and. mee was no guar3nree thar -hey would have any interest in buying the brand or ever. a product Nvi.-inin the product caregory. The failure of consumers to provide a Pavlovian resoonse srems rrom the fact that people are not hapless recipients of advertising. Rather, when rhev do norc.- advertising. they are active par-,icipanrs who ignore. selectively attend to, laugh. counrer-argue. forget or say 'no' to it." Individual audience members are the sum of myriad experiences and beliefs who evaluate commercial messages nor in a vacuuni but in the context o; their lives." REFERENCES "These ,-" 1-1. Ad-11.1-9 And isALiER. 'The I es I he A.d-cc.- Je.-I .1 Act-mit. M &I-en, Or" t trut, R-tch. -1. 119631. -d", of cl-nm a mm-IsId, - Sc.ItAM C.-inp-, .det. of .rk,-1t t rdi n 'Ch-fl, And I. Hti.dboot, .1 tid--s- I- and ,ad, r-L,. -6 as h .t,d am.,. 5,, 1 .0-1 c, .1. .s. 1--3-; - -SVVC,~. -The b c n. also - KAV. -.%1.,k-x C.--.1- ..d be H--- .1 F.-- t n .. c -sest.- .1 Effects.* ft NEW MODELS F(A MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Idea, . L 3-ts. d. 8;; A 6 1,t A - GwEK. - A.,- 11 CLAII. ed- 19-3i. ..d - -CGML -A. 1.1--on P . oc g %Lls; .I- And Mass St,d-' J-,nal ,: S-A 1-m -.1. 11, w Ad-mung EffircetV Is.' . Beh.-te.1 And ~ !%a ; R U.- -Tine Ina,as.- f In, Aud.-.' Jo i .: Manapernent 5ciencei In Markmatt M DAVIS A 4 SILK rds Advertising Reirtirch. Yni. 1. no. . :1 4tland T A0111ATSON. BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 . .. CounTer-arguments are a pervasive part of the exchange between advertiser and consumer. One may resist the most appeafing adverrisemenr for a iast-food chain because one is on a dier or does not like 'junk' food. One may resist a clever advertisement for a foreign automobile because one believes that domesric-made cars are more reliable or because one is pleased with the performance of one's own car. One may decide against chewing gum - despite the attractive, happy people who inhabit gum advertisements - because one thinks that chewing gum is annoying. 'rhis kind of counter-argumenr goes on all the time, most often in the form of an inrernalised debate. What is distinctive about the counrer-argumenTarion that occurs in the case of cigarerres is that no viewer ran possibly avoid the counter-argument. The anti tobacco point of view is one of the most widely disseminated consumer messages in the world. Indeed, cigarette advertising in most countries carries health warnings. Every cigarette advertisement is a reminder of the smoking ;and i-calth controversy, containing its own counrer-argument. Despite the pervasiveness of advertising, it lacks the persuasive impact on the consuming public that some would ascribe to it. Indeed, advertising is so pervasive precisely because the persuasive impact is so limited. Advertisers must advertise if they are to retain the brand loyalty of their own consumers and. perhaps. artrac- consumers away from competing brands. And, particulariv in the case of ma-ure -products. advertisers must compete aggressively to be heard through me commercial clutter. Even if the advertiser manages to catch the momemary attention o; a consumer. he always risks rejecrion of his message b~ the consumer's own inre-nal cour.-t:-argument. Proposals to ban or :ts-nc: advertising :he-2-ore . bor . n overestimate zhe power or advertising and underestimate ri-z sophistication of consumers. Because such proposals are based on flawed assurn.-tions. adve-risine bans and content controls will nor have the eiiec: proponents claim. N> .1.0 BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19. October 1999 ......... .......... . I ..... ........... International experience with Cigarette Advertising Bans -Evidence from other countries suggests that banning tobacco product advertising has not discouraged smoking." ' President's Council of Economic Advisers If cigarette advertising were a significant factor in smoking, one would expect to find more smoking in those countries that allow such advertising than in those countries that do not. In general. however, one finds just the opposite. Whether considered from the standpoint of per capita consumption or the percentage of smokers, tobacco product consumption appears to be higher in manv countries where advertising is forbidden than in many countries where advertising is allowed. E-Even more significantly, tobacco product consumption - both among adults and young people - is declining in many countries where advertising is permitted while increasing in many countries where advertising is prohibited. a. Trends in smoking among young people in the United States The decline in the in,"cience of tobacco product consumption among both sexes for the 19 75 - 198 70 period it: -.he United States is unmistakable. The critics of tobacco product advertisin- have vas-.'-,- exaggerated its influence. as Table One below reveals. Indeed. between 1975 and 19S-. there was a 30 per cent decline in smoking among high school Seniors. from 27 to *F -pcr cent. Meanwhilt there was a corresponding increase of 27 per cenr in the number oi ~:zh school seniors who had never smoked. from 26 to 33 per cenc- TABLE ONE Smoking status per c--:-.- of high sc~ooi seniors United States 1975- S7 L~ N"., ..diy -k- S-.k.d I Q-5 I Q 3- 10 3 b Z., 30 38 24 19-8 39 2' 19-9 40 Z6 1-80 41 29 1981 42 29 1982 9 40 30 1983 Q 41 29 1984 11 41 30 1985 11 39 31 1986 11 38 32 199,7 39 - SOURCE: j.h-- 0*.M.fi~ 198W.h. 1931. 19R5.19R-; ..d b~ch- 11R() MiAll, 1-Arn- :-Z, !-R-. !-Ab. ..d 4- 148-- REFERENCES E--ic %m- .1 h~ P- :5, 0 9-8-- T h~ Ch.,-. t P-d-v H--p hd- h, S.b- - T,-p-- ,h, US F--1 T,.a~ C --. .- - .- p .. T-- -d H d- ~f A, H C.- .. --n, b-- , .1 - US K.- i En,"~ ..d C-- 100,h C-1t., w S- 23 (1-9-1. R-- Ar,,i Ad---, .1 T.b- N) LP4 BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 ......... ........... . ..... ........ I According to the US Surgeon General's 1989 report, daily smoking among male high school seniors dropped at an even sharper rate, from a peak prevalence of 28 per cent in 1976 to 16 per cent in 1987 - a 43 per cent decrease. Among fernate high school seniors, daily smoking decreased from a peak prevalence of 30 per cent in 1977 to 20 per cent in 1987 - a 33 per cmr decrease. The decline among black high school seniors was especially significant, falling 70 per cent. from 26 per cent in 191-6 to eight per cent in 1987.-' The trend among high school sentors is consistent with those of other age groups. Among 20 to 24 year olds, for example, consumption fell from 47.8 per cent in 1965 to 29.5 per cenr in 1987. Among males in This age group, consumption dropped from 56.3 to 31.1 per cenr between 1965 and 1987. Among females, it declined from 40.5 to 28.1 per cent.' Despite a period of rising advertising and promotion expenditures by cigarer~e companies. smoking has declined dramatically and across the board. These statistics scarcely support -,he thesis that tobacco produc-, advertising increases the incidence of smoking among retnagers in the United States. 1. Smoking among juveniles in Finland, Sweden and Norway Finland and Norway have banned cigarette advertising, and Sweden has severely restricted such adver-tising. Evidence from these countries, however, suggests that these measures have been inei.-e--tive in reducing smoking among Their young peopie. Tobacco use among teenager's :.-. Finiand and Sweden is increasing. not decreasing. The authors of a recent in Tine Jourual of the Norwegian Medical Assoc-ation ~ !990" report that the advertising b-l- in -zhar zountry has had no discernible effect on the incidence oi smoking in Norway. :m Finland. tobacco product advertising has been banned completely since 19-S. Nevert;ieltss. University of Helsink; researchers have found that smoking among juvcniies increasec~ after imposition of the ban.' This is in sharp contras-, TO smoking incidence amorv, The same -1ge- group before the ban - which Fad been deciining 5harply beiore the ad ban Nva~ imposec. :n parricuia.. the incidence oi smoking among !-- to IS year Olds of both sexes I been dez.:ning sharr-,:~- in The ptriod preceding -he ban in 19-8. but generall~ srabiiise"-' between '10-9 and '985. Then. between 1985 and 199-. The evidence showed *a c;ear increase smoking ... among adolescents.' The researchers noted that the increase had betn greatest arnong g6ris aced 16 to IS - irom 2-5 per cent in 1979-1985 to 32 per cen- in 19S-;- 198 1. As :he 1989 survey report indicates. these trends have nor shown any sign 0~ weakenine in 1987-1989: 'The percentage of 14 To 18 year olds who smoke daiiy in 1999 was grea-rr than The respective percentage when the Act on Smoking came into cifec-, in 1977' kp, Z. - 12 years earlier! *EFE It EN CE$ ! US n. -e R~-.t ~h~ M .. p.hi.z H~.4h f A R~P0,t ni fh~ 1-- 2h9?9~ 1989; ~. k~.nLA A G--l ,~: 19W~ ~-a - ~-g- XARV0NfN~ L ~K0NN. 0. SIrVO" M. and KDAITULA. 0 Ch*ftt~ R,P.~. .. Ad.l-.' H.ai,h Hb. l9~7-19-;: PI~-- Rp- 1h~d. 1h~ Na.-Al B-d H6-L, F,.i CL Nl.~ 198-. * GO~M- ~D -.0 GO~M-. KG S k.np -di An-~ 7 .-4 - PAAV0~. M. T~KKANtN 1. WELOMA & AND X0sK(LA~ K. R-- ~-anc T~ddu, N- 1990. 1-110, -1.0. 1. .. An-d~ T.-d S k,ng . SUO.E. -A~. Almuikk A &1MnLA~ M. ARA-ET~MARJU. M. "%Aki. M V1V0~ 4 I.-VM: .. and 4. 5 Y.... P-Pk and 19-J-1999. Z~ (~1q BAT Industries document for Legal Services Health Canada 19 October 1999 A study just published in the Finnish Medical Gazette reports 'a slight increase' in smoking among adui. men and women (ages 15 to 64) between 1988 and 1990. The authors report that daily smoking among adult men increased from 35 per cenr in 1988 to 36 per cent in 1990, and daily smoking among adult women increased from 20 per cent to 21 per cent in the same period. The authors stare that 'the greatest increase in smoking over (the) two-vear period appears to be among young men.' More generally, the authors state that smoking increased in Finland until 1976, two years before tobacco product advertising was banned. Then, -the consumption of tobacco products, and smoking among young people starred to fall. However, in the mid 1980's the figures once more started to rise, and on the basis of the situation of the early 1990's, smoking does not appear to be decreasing at the moment." In Sweden. tobacco advertising has been severely restricted since 1979. Tobacco advertising is prohibited on television, radio, public transportation, posters and in.the cinema. Sorne advertising in the print media is permitted. but illustrations are confined to the product pack and trademark without decorative embellishment, and the text is limited to -objective' ;--formation about The product's nature And properties. Yet, the Swedish National Smoking and Health Association reported in 1983 ' that between 1980 and 1982 - after imposition of the 1979 restrictions - the incidence of smoking among teenapm in Sweden has nor d.-c:l According to the World Health Organisation, smoking among 16 vear oid maies. which has dropped from above 40 per cent in 1971 to 20 per cent in 19-9, increased to at leas-, ---; per cent in 198-1. During the same period. the incidence of smoking among 13 year old --ales rose from about five per cenr to over eight per cent. Following a bnei. subsequen~ decline. smoking began to increase again in 1984. This is nor . because Ine restrictions zurrendy in effect are not severe enough. It is because advertising restrictions do no-, affe= zonsumozion.1 in Norway. tobacco advernsing was banned in 19-5. However. ac:ording to a recent srud--- in the journal of the Norwegian Medical Association', the tota~ incidence o; daily smok:nz among Norwegian adults remained virrualiy unchanged between !9-9 38 -L)-:: cent, an.~ '.9S9 ~36 per ceriv. As the authors observe. smoking incidence in 198- rernained' hiaher it. No.-,.%-a%- than in the United States or Great Britain: between 19-- and 19S-. smokiric :::zidence declined more slowly in Norway than in The United States or Great Britain: ana smoking incidence among women in Norway increased during this period iirort, 29.- per zenr to 33.3 per cenrl. Assessing the impact of the 1975 ban. in a published exchange o' correspondence with Dr 5jarrveit. the authors concluded that.- 'Ever. though the law to sto:~ tobacco advertising has a meaningful content. we cannot see that it has had a fundamema', effect upon the sale or use of tobacco.' REFERENCES - S ~.g - .. S-.-. 5~k,.g ..j - .. ..d rales- G. .. 1-2&U-1. s -1- 1991 -ch Dl r1Q C:) U-4 BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 Those who favour tobacco advertising bans claim that smoking among 13 to 15 ve3r old Norwegian schoolchildren has declined sharply since advertising was banned in 19-5, reversing a supposedly upward trend." But how could juvenile smoking incidence have declined since 19775 if adult smoking incidence has remained essentially unchanged during the same period' There could be three explanations for this seeming paradox: 0) Many more people are waiting until adulthood to begin smoking; (2) older generations of smokers are smoking much more than they used to, offsetting the supposed decline in smoking among younger generations; or (3) juvenile smoking incidence is not declining. The first and third of these explanations tend no support to advertising controls as a means of reducing consumption. The second explanation seems highly implausible since it is generally older groups that are quitting at the highest rates. A fourth *explanation* might be that advertising in fact is not banned in Norw a~. This explanation has begun zo emerge, ever so subtly.,in the controversy over so-called 'hidden* advertising. Paavola and his colleagues. for example. suggested in their recent study*: -har the persistence of 'hidden' advertising in Finland -nay heip to account for the fact that ;uvenile smoking incidence in Finland is increasing. Dr Biariveit has even suggested that peo-pie smoke because of 'hidden' advertising on ashtrays! It strains credulity to assign such over,,hrinling, iriftuence to 'hidden' advertising. Be that as it may. one sirripiy cannot have it both Way$ citing a country as proof that banning advertising reduces consumption. and then suggesting triar cominued advertising is why consumption in thar counrry has nor deciined. The claimed decline in smoking among Norwegian vourh depends. in any event. on a misleadingly selective use of The data irom rhe uncenying surveys. Ti his claimec a . econe rt,.,ares to daily smoking, but the data indicat- that daily and occasional smoking among boys in this age group was in fact dechning prior to 19-5. and that daijy and occasional sm"king among 13 year olds. at least, increase6 a-rcr 19-3. Moreover. it is nor at all clear char zht incidence of smoking in this aet group was on :he rise before the imposition oi the advartismg ban. Although rhe incicitrice o' srnoKing :.-:s age group reportedly was higher in 19-5 :han in l9o3. no nationwide scioo,:*-iidrer iruc;y was performed between 1963 and 19-3. Thus, the incidence of smokize :7: -.-is are may well have peaked as early as 1970, w.?ie,1 the incidence of adui- smoKirg also peaxed. and declined thereafre,. As Aaro and others;' have noted: -There was no nation- wide study of smoking among schoolchildren in Norway between 1963 and 1975, Accordingly it is not known whether the increase in daily smokers among children of both sexes... occurred evenly throughout the... period or whether the trend may have reached a peak and culminated some time between the two dates." Pt E r E It IE N CIE S Lms.W and P~6-1 A-- P-d.no I 1h, AAXO L. M4UKMES. A, and RIERGLUKD~ 1.u SM--1 Armang St~ T.,Id Co.l,,,.,, .. $ Ung and H,.I,h. V.I. 1. Sch Ichdo- 19-3-1990. 3o.-I T.-p,g: C.n,d,.n C.-O .. S-k r. and 1913: P-nolop, 193 1. ZZ, i3,: 161-169. P-M, ~ and W.D. . Srnnkms Cn.-I . N-- Od- --t C ... cd - S-n. and H-kh, N.-b, I ~F-. P-C~. nK~04 ~ WELO~ A. and KCSKE~ K M -2 1 Q) SAT Industries document for Legal Services Health Canada 19 October 1999 ............. I Since the social acceptability of smoking has been decreasing. it is possible that the more recent schoolchildren studies reflect 'under reporting' of smoking rather than the stated decline in smoking. Also, it may be significant that The 1957 and 1963 data and the 197S- 1985 schoolchildren data were collected by different organisations. The two sets of data relied on by Dr Biarrveir therefore simply may not be comparable. Fin2llV, The Chief of the Tobacco Products Unit in Canada questioned the reliability of the studies cited by Dr Bjarrveir on The ground that it is 4based on small samples of a rather narrow age range."' The Norway data, he said, do not offer 'compelling evidence That banning tobacco product advertising reduces either smoking by youth or overall tobacco Consumption.' C. Cross-Country Surveys If advertising were a significant influence on smoking among juveniles. One would expect juvenile smoking to be higher where tobacco advertising is permitted Than where it is not. But a seminal World Health Grg2nisarion survey found 'no systematic differences' between juvenile smoking in countries such as Norway and Finland. where tobacco advertising is completely banned. and in countries such as Austria and England. where it is not." Indeed. the WHO survey and the Three CRU studies disclose that the in6dence of smoking among young people is higher in many places where advertising is banned than where it is not. In other cases. the incidence of iuveniie smoking is found to be virtually identical in both siruations.` In --inlanc. ior exampie. where Tobacco advertising has been banned completely since 19-S, -ne WHO survey found That 30 per cent of 15 yea, old schoolboys smoked weekly. while in AUSTria. where print-media and outdoor advenising are pe-mitted. the WHO survey found that only 17 per cent of 15 year old schoolboys smoked weekly.', In Norway. where tobacco advertising has been banned completely since 197-5. and in,rhe United Kinz6om. where prinr-media and outdoor advertising are ?er-nirred. 233 ?er cent ci~ I i year olic schoolboys were ~ouri-~ zo smoke weekly. Sirn~;a.lv ~ lound that the prom-non of 11 To 15 car he CRU 16-Countrv study olds who ciaimed to smoke regularly was significantly higher in Norway 113 pe. cenn and Sweden ILI per cent~ Than in Spain per cenE), where only minor advertising restrictions were in c;fec-,. and at higher than in either Hong Kong (3 per cent), where few tobacco advertising controis existed. or Kenva (less than O.S per cent). which h2d no restrictions.'- In Norway, 36 per cent of all 15 yea. Olds claimed to smoke regularly in 1981 while in Spain The figure was 27 per cent. In Hong Kong. the figure was 11 per cent." REF E RE "CES ph-., f- . " Ch,ld,-', R,,.,,Ci, V , Why D. J-ii. M~ C d. P,~d-~ ..d~ ~h. tsooo-. d. 198-,: Chiid,-*~ R -,.h U~-C A- K-~d- Pffl- E -460- ci ~h~ F-eters J-A-691811, JOIC-ilt SmOk--g -RO. ~0L0. - C-J. 199r,; Ch~id~.'. R-.h U-. J.1-1- S~h khA-; A WHO Ad_-9180DPf~M '9891. :.- 1_P.~: WHO S- e 24. CRU il,-C...m 51.a~ 17 ld. ., q~ iN_~ CD U-4 BATIndustries document for Legal Services: Health Canada 19 October 1999 ......... ........... . ..... ............................... . in Norway, of course. The subjects of The CRU 16-Country study were too young to have been influenced by cigarette advertising - or the 'climate' that it alleged]v fosters - before the ban was imposedd in 1975. Indeed. some of the subjects of the study had not even been born yet. By contras-,. all of the subjects of The CRU study in Spain and Hong Kong had grown up in The presence of cigarette advertising. Yet, The incidence of smoking among The juveniles studied in Spain and Hong Kong was lower by far Than The incidence of smoking among juveniles in Norway. In other words, although all these countries have very different tobacco advertising controls - ranging from minor to major and to a ban - one could not predict from that situation which country has the lowest incidence of juvenile smoking. Conversely, juvenile smoking statistics would nor help predict which country has the strongest restrictions on tobacco advertising. Gearly, factors other than tobacco advertising and its regulation must have played The key :oles in juvenile smoking initiation and incidence in these countries. This evidence srronziy indicates that an advertising ban or increased restrictions would not lead To reduced smok-.,-,g among juveniies. d. Tobacco product advertising and smoking by adults The evidence from 2 variety of free-market countries indicates that Tobacco product consumption by a6ui:s is unaffecreci by advertising controls. For the most part. the consumption trends --n evidence before co'nrrols were imposed rernained unchanged after controls were impose-. in some countries. as will, be seen, adult consumption levels are higher whert acive:tising is 'crbidden Than wh2re iz s allowed. The effecz of advertising conrrois on adult consumption C37: be assessed from -he standpoint ol adult per zapira consumprion or the incidence oi smok:niz among adults. From either standpoint, the results are The same. As with vo~mz people. the Scandinavian countries often are cited by a&e-rusing ban proponents as 2.1aces in which tobacco advertising restrictions have been followed by declinine oer capira z:msumprion among adults. Bur the statistics from Fin:and. Sweden and Norwa-. ~srabhsh -hz- aduic per cap:za Tobacco product consumprion ir rhose coumrle~ 6-egan acclining bero7t advertising conuois wer- imposed and rherea;:e.- ei-ner continued to decline or even increa~ed sornewhar." Maicir cross-country studies disclose similar findings. A 16-Counrry Study oi eight Soviet-bloc and market countries disclosed that smokinz mcreased - sharply in some cases - between '970 and 1984 in the Soviet-bloc countries. even Though advertising did nor exist dur;nc ,is period." At The same rime. in Canada. the UK and the US~ per capita consumption of zigarerres declined significantly during the same period. REFERENCES .~Vn -M -0 ca~- -7?- con-rn"'. in 16 Counifies !I BODDE-N ed. !9S61: ..TJRSO~. .. 5-1n V#31-44.' .19U F-d- ., w Ad-ing and Calt-c C-umpnon ~Srh ", 19M, 7h, J~ 14,h I 6 C - Ai-h.1- -4 D- C - S,.d, - ,-- h, ~ . p.hl,~h~d b~ h, Ad-1-- ii", -- a, n~ an. .1.". Ad--- and C.g-- L--- -a- P.b4,h,d - In, ban --- -., ~1,i, a, ti-ed K,ngd,,m Ad--- A,,.,c,,I,,n -e L-d- %Ir --. - 4~z--dh d ni.~ I%- K--h D--, - - A---. ~--ng 5~ .1., T.6- Ad--2 il- and C.--vu- 1-ou-, ~-o a, 12 r* -) CD Ln BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 .., .......... a . - ............................... . In the eight free-marke- countries, consumption trends were nor substantially affected by tobacco product advernsing b2ns or strict controls. In Italy, for example, where advertising was banned in 1962. adu;. per capita consumption increased from a base of 100 in 1960165 to 182 in 1984."' In Singapore, adult per capita consumption increased from a base of 100 when advertising was Danned in 1970 to 1.12 in 1984. And in Iceland, adult per capira consumption increased :-Om a base of 100 in 1971, when advertising was banned, to 113 in 1984.-"'The imposition o: ativern . sing controls in these countries plainly did nor achieve their intended purpose of reducing cigarette consumption. Dr Eugene %f. Lewit of the New Jersey Medical School's National Bureau of Economic Research recently considered the effects of advertising restrictions in less developed countries MDC's'l. According to Dr Lewit, 'evidence from a sample of LDC's suggests that the existence of advertising restrictions per se had little if any effect in trends in or on rhe level of cizarc= consumption."' The Toxic SU"S-2nces Board of New Zealand ('TSB') recently attempted to contradict the conclusio=s of these leading studies in a report entitled Tobacco or Health: An End to Tobacco Aciverrising or Promotion ('TSB Report'). The TSB claimed in this repor: that data from 1S countries 'shows that there is a relationship between legislation banning, tobacco promo=on and reduced uptake of the habit by young persons.", The TSB Re;~o:7 suffers from a variety of methodological and other flaws zhat invalidate its conciusionc_` In manF important respects, the TSB Report simply assumes its conclusions. For exarrip.'t. the TSB Report asserts that aggregate demand in -countries like cht Unirt:Q Mates _11US: DC aftecred by adverrising expenditures, simp because such expendi-cures are as :a.-,Tt as they are. Similarly. the methodology used by the TSB was to compare trends foJowing imposicion of a ban in the ban countries with trends in non-ban countries, bur no accoun: was aken of the trends in the ban countries before the ban took place. 'which is of zou:se z:-Uciai miormation.` Many conz:us.-ni zherefore were based or, misleading and. in some cases. self- conTradicrory data.'- -- key conciusion of the report was zha- tobacco consumption has dechned more rapi6:~- zn. -.ozaj bar' countries rh3n in ~on-ban countries. This conclusion. however. hinged on z.a;z;.yinz a single country, Portugal. as a 'total ban* country and inciuding the suppo;!c -;!:7 ine in tobacco consumption in Portugal in the overall decline in consumption in 'rota: ban' countries. But Portugal was misclassified as a 'total ban* country, and consumption in has nor declined. If Portugal is not counted as a 'total ban' 40 country. that catcgcr.,- does not show a more marked decline in tobacco consumption than REF E RE P4CES 1b< - H~.i.b: A. End siud'.- Pp. 1---'C. p. - .1989, -TSB R~r-*~. - Thei.nd ..d 7-- r-a; . --, - an Tb~ TSB - --d S h,- ad h, va. 1.11-d ", -- r, - ur.1 Th, T.b.~. ., %_ z~.id. -~N. Th~ i,tum,nd,cate an i=nw r. p~. ~paa con&,mpi~, -m A. Apl" ,.i .1 14 A i~ ~ h- .1 100 . 19~Q . 1- :. !9-4 n Th.n and 1- . and h~ 'H~.Iih - T.b.-.' f- h~ h- & 100 .. 19-0 1. 160 .~ !9~. r 7 T- S.b.- -d ~( N- Za.i d J.I, 148 9 - ~ Id. a, 10 p~ Id. e 1 -Z. - h~ 5..d, ni i--~ -d 4-- BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999 ..1 . . . . . . . . . . . . & . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . non-ban. ~:ountries, and the key conclusion or' -he TSB report is invalidated. Because of the selecrivc use of data as well as serious rne:nociological shortcomings. the TSB's conclusion cannot '-- considered valid. Given the evidence, it is nor su=nsing that the Quebec Superior Court recently struck down as unconstitutional the 1988 Tobacco Products Control Act. which severelv resrr;=ed cigarette advertising in Canada.` The Court found 'no rational connection* berween -,he means chosen and the legisianon*s objective of reducing smoking. 'There is no evidenc: that advertising as such entails a --anger to public health,' the Court observed. 'As Aristotle said, the word 'dog' never bit anyonc.' The Canadian Court, which consLcered all of the data on this issue, including the TSB Report. concluded chat neither -;-c TSB Report nor any scientific document demons-a-es that a ban on advertisinp wo-_;z' affect consumption. Specifically with regard to the TSB Report, the Court dismissed :--S much-routed document with the observation rha-, --- ccintains serious me-hodologica; erro- and a lack of scientific rigor which renders ir for all :n-enrs anC purposes devoid of an., -,rc,--ative value.~ in summarising the available evidence on whether advertising bans reduce robacc-c zonsurrprion, the Court rhert;cr~ was left with, little choice bur to conclude chat 'the v.-,.z-.nce o- a rational connection '_-z-_vttr, the restrictions and the objective sought is _.- . got non-emstent.' " 0 I RE r-e RE M ces ' RJ& 1- '. G-1 f C.-d N~- ': - , Id. .7 *-'- L~Vz~Zoz BAT Industries document for Legal Services : Health Canada 19 October 1999