The implications on youth

Name: Mariani Kornain (935 755)

Lecturer: Rohan Miller

The tobacco industry stated that advertising is used only to change or maintain brand preferences among existing adult smokers, but researchers argued that cigarette companies specifically target youth in their advertising (Pollay 1998; Pierce et al. 1998). The fundamental concern has been the role of advertising in influencing the smoking behavior of children and adolescents. There is no simple explanation as to why many teens take up the smoking habit. However, it is obvious that youths develop a smoking habit relationship with external, but immediate sources of information and socialization, e.g. parents, siblings, peers and mass media (Hastings and Aitken 1995). With the large participation of the youth in patronizing the tobacco industry and the industry’s reliance in advertising and promotion, it is necessary to evaluate whether cigarette advertising and promotions influence the youth’s smoking decision.

Specifically, the study would focus on the cigarette advertising on the youth. For this study, youths are classified as children below the legal age of smoking (less than 18 years old). There are two major questions to consider:

1. Does the tobacco industry specifically target the youth in its marketing?
2. Does cigarette advertising and promotion encourage the youth to smoke?

Primary data is very useful and effective for this type of study. However, due to time constraints, secondary data can be used as an alternative. Thus, journals and articles using real-life examples have been searched to support the argument.

Although the government has introduce strategies to curb youth smoking, e.g. taxation and legislation, the success is very limited. Tobacco industry has always maintained that they do not target youth, but the market logic of marketing to teenagers is huge. Since 90% of smokers pick-up the habit before they turn 18, it seems likely that the tobacco companies are interested in the teens’ brand choices (Anonymous 1998). This is the paradox of the cigarette industry, it is legally unacceptable to advertise to under-age youth but it has to advertise in order to survive. Previous surveys showed that Marlboro had almost 60% of youth market compared to 22% of the adult market, while Camel had 8.7% of youth and 3.7% of the adults (Pollay 1996).

Research in several countries has shown that children are very receptive to cigarette promotion. They are good at recalling, recognizing, and identifying things exposed to them (Mizerski 1995; Sullum 1998). There is even evidence that pre-school children are aware of cigarette advertising. Fischer et al. (1993) found that 30% of three-year-olds and 90% of six-year-olds matched "Old Joe", the cartoon character promoting Camel cigarettes, with a picture of cigarettes correctly, and that Old Joe is as well-known as Mickey Mouse. Studies have also shown that adolescents are more sensitive of cigarette advertising than adults are. DiFranza et al. (1991) revealed that teenagers were better at recognizing Old Joe (89% teens versus 72% adults), identifying the product being advertised (90% versus 67%), and identifying the brand name (95% versus 58%). The teens tend to have positive evaluations toward the advertisements.

There are three reasons to expect greater advertisement sensitivity among youths than among adults. First is the identity formation and advertising attentiveness of youths (Pollay et al. 1996). Adolescence is a time for identity formation, which makes teens especially attentive to both advertising and peer group influences for cues concerning symbols of adulthood and acceptance (Jackson et al. 1998). Due to the curious nature, teens are "more susceptible to the images of romance, success, sophistication, popularity and adventure which advertising suggests they can achieve through the consumption of cigarettes" (Nichter and Cartwright 1991, p.242).

Second, youths are persuasion-coping novices. Young consumers tend to be more brand-conscious, and less experienced in counterarguing against advertising tactics (McNeal 1992). The successful brands are those which emphasize togetherness, belonging and group acceptance, while at the same time emphasizing ‘individuality’, and ‘doing one’s own thing’ (Ash 1999). Marlboro Man, who is seen more as a cultural icon, epitomizes this by showing adult imagery rich with connotation of independence, freedom from authority, and self-reliance. In contrast, adults are less interested identity experimentation in cigarette campaigns because adult smokers are already brand loyal (Sullum 1998).

Third, youths are vital target audience because brand loyalty is often developed during adolescence and this builds an entry-barrier for other unchosen brands (Solomon 1994). Research found that repeated exposure to advertising can enhance its effectiveness, thus children can increase preference for the brands advertised and relatively few exposures are needed to generate action toward a stimulus (Mizerksi 1995; Pollay and Lavack 1993). Holak and Tang (1990) also discovered that cigarettes enjoy phenomenally high brand loyalty among all consumer product categories, because loyal and addicted smokers selectively screen out information about health hazards and competitor’s advertising.

Youth is also perceptive to other forms of cigarette promotion. Although television and radio cigarette commercials have been banned in the US for more than two decades, newspapers, magazines, and billboards are permitted. Cigarette companies also sponsor sports events and concerts, and sell or give-away clothing and other item with their brand names and logos on them (Figure 1). By sponsoring sports events, they promote the social acceptability of cigarettes, deftly finesses the law by making no falsifiable claims, and minimizes consumers’ counter-argumentation (Pollay 1998). Teens tend to see these sponsorship as just one more adjunct to other marketing activities. There is strong evidence that brand identities and preferences have been established among youth (Government of British Columbia 1997). Most children are able to name the cigarette brands and sponsored events, and tend to be most conscious of those shown on television. It implies that children learn about the relations between cigarette brands (or the visual clues) and sport by watching television.

---------------------------------Sorry, the browser can't show Figure 1-------------------------------

A survey found that children tended to associate Marlboro and John Player Special, both sponsored motor racing, with "excitement and fast racing cars" (Dubey 1995). These associations were activated by their simple advertisements, which mentioned no racing. It shows that children have no defenses against sponsorship as they have little understanding of the commercial and persuasive aims. There is evidence that children can identify brand imagery in "brand-stretching" advertisements for other products and services. Children were shown a glamorous advertisement for JPS Grand Prix Holiday which showed no cigarettes or government’s health warning, but 22% of 6- to 10-year-olds and 91% of the 12- to 14-year-olds said it advertised cigarettes, or cigarettes and holiday (Pierce et al. 1998).

The imagery with cigarette sports sponsorship appears to be very potent. They know that the most important psychological need of adolescents is their need for independence, autonomy, self-reliance, as they seek an adult identity independent of the family cocoon (Pollay 1998). The most successful brands with teenagers are those that present adult imagery rich with connotations of independence, freedom from authority, and self-reliance, e.g. Marlboro Man is totally and autonomously free. In Canada, cigarette campaigns always convene individualism by sponsoring only individual sports, i.e. skiing but not basketball.

Mills (1997) found that two third of children surveyed thought that they had seen commercials on TV despite the facts that tobacco advertisements have been gone from UK television since 1965. The most frequently cited brands are Marlboro and Benson and Hedges, which are the most rigidly advertised through event sponsorship on television. Clearly, visual imagery is taken and experienced without any necessary cognitive processing. Siegel et al. (1998) found that cigarette brands, i.e. Marlboro and Camel, which are popular among the youth, are more likely to advertise in magazines with a higher percentage of youth readers. In contrast, adult brands are less likely to advertise there. These studies demonstrate that cigarette companies specifically target the youth in their advertising.

Marketers maintain that one of the most vital roles of advertising is to reward existing customers to reinforce behavior (Schiffman et al. 1997). For example, advertisement reminds people how fashionable they are for buying a Versace jeans. Good reinforcing advertisement will create greater awareness and appreciation among product users. Researchers suggest that if cigarette advertising bolsters youth smoking, youth smokers would be more conscious and favorable of cigarette advertising than non-smokers would (Doran, Girgis, and Sanson-Fisher 1998). There is now substantial indication that this is so.

With the presence of advertising techniques, teens are capable to distinguish the different marketing positions of the cigarette brands (TFK 1999). This shows that their responses refer to no generic promotion, but that the key benefits promoted by the brands are reaching and being understood by teens. For example, teens believed Virginia Slims as to be thin, feminine and glamorous (Pierce, Lee and Gilpin 1994). None of these attributes were associated with Marlboro, thus it is perceived the Marlboro users look tough or macho and get free stuff. Jones and Carroll (1998) found that young females had more positive perceptions of a smoker than a non-smoker did when rating them on social characteristics. The smoker was viewed as more outgoing, sophisticated, not as easily manipulated, and less emotional about breaking up with her boyfriend.

Research has also shown consistent differences between under-age smokers and non-smokers in the same age in term of awareness measures for cigarette advertising (Hasting and Aitken 1995). Under-age smokers also seem to be generally more responsive of cigarette advertising than non-smokers of the same age. They often have more positive attitude toward the advertisements than non-smokers, are more likely to have favorite cigarette advertisements, and tend to rate the advertisements more highly in terms of attractive quality, e.g. ‘fun’, ‘exciting’ (Pierce et al. 1998). Pollay (1996) found that teen smokers are three times more likely to base their cigarette purchases on advertising than adults are. He mentioned that a 10% increase in a company’s marketing budget would yield a 9% increase in the youth share.

Researchers stated that sponsorship is designed to stop teens quitting (Pringle 1998). As an example, Marlboro was planning a unique sweepstakes wherein the winner gets USD1000 and 5 day’s luxurious holiday. This only suggests that smoking is needed to enter the contest, and further motivates consumers not to switch Marlboro with another brand. A large increase in female teens smoking has been linked with Virginia Slims’ (VS) "you’ve come along way, baby" campaign, launched in 1960s (Pierce, Lee, and Gilpin, 1994). This involved the promotion of a new record "Women Thing Music" which is very popular with female teens and can only be purchased with VS’ receipts (Shane 1997).

There are other factors associated with under-age smoking. For example, parents, siblings and peers also influence children. Studies revealed that children with smoking parents are more susceptible to start smoking at a younger age (Jackson et al. 1998). They tend to be greatly affected and influenced by a common scenario of seeing their parents and peers smoking. On the contrary, Aitken and Eadie (1990) stated that under-age smokers’ awareness of cigarette advertisement was independent of sex, age, socio-economic group, appreciation of general advertising, attitude towards smoking and smokers, perceived parental attitudes towards youth smoking, and smoking by parents, siblings, and peers. However, a recent study still stressed that cigarette advertising and promotion was the single most important factor in predicting why adolescents shifted toward smoking (Pierce et al. 1998).

Cause and effect relationships are always difficult to separate. An Australian research found that children might become more attentive of cigarette advertising after they start smoking (Alexander et al. 1983). Studies also suggest that cigarette advertising have predisposing and reinforcing effects on youths. Non-smokers who had favorite cigarette advertisements were more likely to assume that smoking has advantages such as making them look macho and grown-up than those with no favorite advertisements (Charlton 1986). They could be the future novices to smoking because they seem to have the values of the habit. Pierce et al. (1998) stated that advertising was far more important than exposure to family and peers who smoked. For example, a US study showed that children who like Old Joe advertisements were more likely to be either ambivalent about their smoking intentions or express a definite indention to smoke (DiFranza et al. 1991). These findings are constant with the assumption that cigarette advertising is one of the precursors in the progression from non-smoker to smoker.

A new study suggests that promotional items may foster youth smoking. Although it is illegal to sell or give cigarette-related merchandise to people under 18 in the US, children still wear hats, T-shirts or other items displaying cigarette logos. Sargent (1997) tested the correlation between smoking rates and ownership of cigarette merchandise among public school students. These findings revealed that there exists a correlation between smoking rate and ownership of cigarette merchandise. Promotional items are highly visible in public school setting and their ownership is strongly associated with initiation and maintenance of smoking. Consequently, children were more likely to own cigarette promotional merchandise if their friends or relatives smoke (Pierce et al. 1998). Although the data could not conclude that just owning these items made children more likely to smoke, the researchers found that children who own these goods were four times more likely to be smokers.

The tobacco industry always declares that cigarette advertising is only used to change brand choices among adults, but research showed that advertising influences youth smoking. Cigarette advertising may influence youth’s brand preferences or smoking experimentation by using the cognitive, and persuasive aspects (Pollay 1998). The impact of associative process such as brand repetition, mere exposure and classical conditioning is also important in cigarette purchases (East 1998). Rossiter and Percy (1997) suggested that advertising result in the five communication effects: need, awareness, attitude, intention, and purchase facilitation (Figure2).

---------------------------------------Figure 2 can't be viewed-------------------------------------------

The studies found that cigarette advertising and other promotional tools are reaching the youth. The research in Australia, the UK, and US discovered that under-age smokers seem to significantly prefer heavily advertised brands (Aitken and Eadie 1990; Hastings and Aitken 1995; Pollay and Siddarth 1996). Research in US showed that 86% under-age smokers prefer Marlboro, Camel, and Newport - the three most heavily advertised brands, and only one-third of adult smokers choose these brands (CDC 1994). These findings pointed that promotional devices, which help determine and reinforce adult brand choice, have a greater impact on young smokers and support the research predisposition that advertising reinforces youth smoking.

In analyzing how the advertising reinforcement may work, researchers stress the youths’ fundamental discrepancy about smoking, and the possibility for advertising to reduce this. Cigarettes may advertise to build brand awareness, which leads to favorable attitude toward smoking, or to counteract the post-purchase dissonance (Rossiter and Percy 1997). Youths know the danger of smoking, but they almost universally assume these risks will not be assigned to them because they will not become addicted (Kwechansky 1982). For example, Marsh and Matheson (1983) found that 44% of smokers, but only 26% non-smokers believed that smoking cannot really be dangerous or the Government would ban cigarette advertising.

It is possible that certain forms of cigarette advertising more directly reinforce under-age smokers. Cigarette firms learned long ago to use picture of health in their advertisements, rather than provide product information or make verbal claim (Pollay 1998). Advertising does not only promote the social acceptability of cigarettes, it also avoids breaking the law by making no falsifiable claims of fact and minimizes consumers’ counter-argumentation. Visual imagery is captured and experienced without any necessary cognitive processing. Pollay (1998) found that image-based advertisements are especially effective among teens because they are so common in American society, featuring attractive young adults in appealing settings and use of images of independence that are popular with adolescents.

Cigarette advertising is shown to prevent smokers from quitting. Hastings et al. (1994) suggests that young smokers try to reduce some dissonance between the insight that smoking is damaging and the delight of cigarette by looking out reassuring features in advertisements. For example, 60% of smokers start at 13, and some want to quit at 16 for a single common reason - desire to play active sports (Tye et al. 1987; Kwechansky 1982). It is suggested that Formula One offers a particularly useful outlet for the sports instinct because it is a sedentary spectator sport (Bates 1998). Sports and recreational sponsorship gives a reassurance to those who want to quit smoking. Thus, cigarette firms commonly sponsor individual sports such as motor racing, instead of team sports.

There is an argument that smoking uses a symbolic appeal for adolescence. Several studies have shown the association between under-age smoking and rebellious behavior; young smokers also seem to be noticed as more masculine or extrovert (Lee 1989; Engels et al. 1997). Jones and Caroll (1998) confirmed that female teens have more positive perceptions of a smoker than of a non-smoker in term of social characteristics rating. Brand imagery also appears to be an important element in youth smoking. Schroeder (1999) found those cigarette names "Slims" and "Thins" are misleading many teenagers because they believe that smoking controls body weights. Research has found that smoking has negligible effect on body weight, and only after decades of smoking there is a difference in smokers’ body weight and non-smokers’ (Klesges 1998). Hopefully, there will be a reduction in youth smoking when they learn this.

Numerous research findings have shown the evidence that cigarette companies do targeted youth in the advertising campaign. By using its advertising appeals, cigarette advertising is fulfilling the psychological needs of youth by showing image-based advertisement such as Marlboro Man and Old Joe. The industry is also sponsoring sports that are popular to the youth, such as Formula One, for promotional purposes. The most heavily advertised brands are targeting youth by advertising in magazines with higher percentage of youth readers.

An extensive range of evidence points to the conclusion that advertising does encourage smoking. Several studies of children in the pre-school reveal that cigarette advertising is received by them; that the young smokers are more attentive and appreciative of cigarette advertising than are non-smokers; and that their awareness can predict the adoption of smoking. Children, who see the advertisement and receive promotional gifts, lessen their resistance and later will be more willing to accept a cigarette from peers when it is offered. Given these findings, it is not suprising to know that there is documented evidence indicating that tobacco industry does target the youth and cigarette advertising does influence children.

Although the government has introduced strategies to reduce smoking over the years, the success has been limited mainly due to two reasons. First, government legislation depends heavily on enforcement, which is characterized as weak. Second, taxation increases the price of cigarettes, but it is not sufficient to decrease smoking and consumption. The study suggests using a comprehensive and integrated approach to combat under-age smoking. Research has shown that children need to be educated on the prevention of smoking as early as possible because most smokers start before they turn 18. Therefore, the prevention approach must combine the education and information, price increases, generic packaging, restrictions on both sale and availability of cigarettes and other initiatives must be fully enforced.

Advertising and promotion is the heart and soul of every business. Huge amount of money is spent in order to increase their market share. Knowing that advertising partly influences the youth to smoke, a moral issue is then generated. In order to combat this issue, it is important to determine the following:

• Is there a significant relationship between the smoker’s age and advertising?
• What is the possible effect of a change in advertising to a change in smoking pattern?

In addition to the moral issue mentioned earlier, it is also essential to determine the extent of responsibility of the government with respects to this issue.

• What is the government’s role in preventing the youth to smoke?

With the end view of minimizing the participation of the youth in smoking, the topics given above need further research.

Note: Result: 32.5 out of 35. Submitted for MKT7015, plagiarism is bad for your academic life.