VENTING: 'Truth' Anti-smoking commercials

[thesloppy]

GAWD, is there anything more horribly condescending and just plain grating than these ads? And I say that as a fully converted, and born-again ex-smoker.

Considering that these ads are full of all these little tidbits and facts implying how conniving and manipulative the tobacco industry is, is it really too much of a stretch to wonder that if Big Tobacco is indeed so conniving, and IF, hypothetically speaking, these tobacco companies were forced to create anti-smoking advertisements, say as the result of some, purely hypothetical of course, class-action lawsuit....might they have purposely created the most preachy, condescending, and insulting ads they could to completely undermine the anti-smoking message they're supposedly pushing?

Does it make ANY goddamn sense to have the tobacco companies even partially involved in financing and promoting the anti-smoking message, and is it any surprise that they're not very good at it, and perhaps might have a different agenda altogether? In the end wouldn't it actually be more effective to have NOBODY talking about cigarettes on television, at all, rather than horrid, soul-crushing ads that actually make me want to light up an entire pack of cigarettes?

[SportsDino]

Your answer is correct, please select another category.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Although I agree that the spots are everything bad you said about them (and somewhat naturally I reckon), before you get too caught up in conspiracy theorizing, you probably ought to know that the spots are some of the most awarded in the ad industry in the past decade and that they're given a great deal of the credit for recent smoking declines among teens & 18-24's. If it's a conspiracy, it's been a damned ineffective one.

Maybe you (and me) just aren't the target audience.

[Flasch186]

Although I agree that the spots are everything bad you said about them (and somewhat naturally I reckon), before you get too caught up in conspiracy theorizing, you probably ought to know that the spots are some of the most awarded in the ad industry in the past decade and that they're given a great deal of the credit for recent smoking declines among teens & 18-24's. If it's a conspiracy, it's been a damned ineffective one.

Maybe you (and me) just aren't the target audience.

+1 in regards to awards and effect. They consistently win commendations in regards to creativity, execution, and impact.

[thesloppy]

Although I agree that the spots are everything bad you said about them (and somewhat naturally I reckon), before you get too caught up in conspiracy theorizing, you probably ought to know that the spots are some of the most awarded in the ad industry in the past decade and that they're given a great deal of the credit for recent smoking declines among teens & 18-24's. If it's a conspiracy, it's been a damned ineffective one.

Maybe you (and me) just aren't the target audience.

I have no doubt those ads are collecting awards from someone. Whoopee.

As far as teen smoking numbers go, the cynic in me would argue that attitudes toward smoking have changed towards smoking in the last ten years, and those changes have been global and they have been drastic. While the numbers and dates might match up conveniently, in order to attribute those attitude changes primarily to a handful of advertisements, you have to ignore a host of other factors like global smoking bans and a general move towards healthy living, all of which likely have a far more profound effect than those horrible ads. On the other hand, I'm sure they DO have some effect, but I refuse to believe that they are the driving force behind any kind of real and effective change.

[Groundhog]

You guys should see the anti-smoking commercials they show on TV during dinner time over here. Gruesome.

[JonInMiddleGA]

but I refuse to believe that they are the driving force behind any kind of real and effective change.

{shrug}

[Big Fo]

The anti-marijuana ads where the dog runs away from the stoner or where a little girl gets run over are far worse IMO.

[thesloppy]

I suppose this is somewhat of a question of the chicken and the egg. Anti-smoking ads are somewhat omnipresent and world-wide now, so I guess it becomes a question of whether you believe these kind of ads are a driving force for that change or are simply along for the ride, and happy to grab the credit. Obviously, I am of the second opinion.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh gods, do I hate these ads. Makes me want to smoke (and I've never ever smoked tobacco before).

[rjolley]

I liked the early ones, but the more recent ones are really annoying. The typo one is especially stupid and annoying.

[DaddyTorgo]

early ones good - more recent ones - fucking drive me nuts

[sabotai]

It seems the more they try, the worse they are.

The guy singing into a voice box is effective IMO. It's simple, straight-forward and is very effective at conveying the message that tobacco doesn't simply kill people, but pretty much can make your life difficult if you suffer from one of the terrible health problems it causes. IOW, if it doesn't kill you, there's still a very good chance a large portion of your life is going to really suck.

The typo one is the most annoying commerical I've seen in quite some time. It really makes me want to smoke purely out of spite.

EDIT: Doesn't suprise me that they win a bunch of awards. They could be terrible ads, and they'll find lots of organizations willing to give them a truckload of awards simply because of the nature of the ads. But, I'd be interested to see specifically which ones are getting the awards. The anti-smoking ones, or the ones that focus directly on the tobacco companies (IOW, the smoking voice box singer (anti-smoking ad) vs. the typo ad (anti-tobacco company ad)) or the simple ones vs. the over-the-top almost theatrical ones.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It really makes me want to smoke purely out of spite.

Don't worry about it, I got your slack covered ;)

[Klinglerware]

Although I agree that the spots are everything bad you said about them (and somewhat naturally I reckon), before you get too caught up in conspiracy theorizing, you probably ought to know that the spots are some of the most awarded in the ad industry in the past decade and that they're given a great deal of the credit for recent smoking declines among teens & 18-24's. If it's a conspiracy, it's been a damned ineffective one.


The consistently high GRP levels don't hurt either...

[JonInMiddleGA]

But, I'd be interested to see specifically which ones are getting the awards.

Quite a few of them, from the beginning of the campaign forward, have been overall or campaign level awards not specific to a particular spot.

The 2007 Addy was for "Smoking Cowboy" while a 2004 Emmy was for "Shards O' Glass".

To be honest, it's kind of hard to run them all down, as " the truth® campaign has won more than 300 awards for advertising efficacy: Clios, Webbys, two Emmys and three Effie awards".

Damned if I can find lists for all of them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The consistently high GRP levels don't hurt either...

No shit. I could probably sell icewater to Eskimos with that much weight.

Interestingly (since you brought up the point levels), I noticed the phrasing on the 2005 study that attributed 22% of the decline in teen smoking directly to the campaign was something to the effect that "the increased GRP level directly correlated to the decline in smoking" I just thought that was an interesting way of phrasing it, almost suggesting that the quality of the message wasn't as important as the sheer weight of it (and there's certainly some truth in that regardless of what the campaign is).

[Radii]

Isn't their target preventing new, young smokers? My understanding is that their ad campaigns are not really intended for any of us, or even towards existing, adult smokers, but rather preventing young people from taking it up at least, so I wouldn't expect any of us to really care for the ads anymore than we would be by a commercial for Barney.

[Klinglerware]

No shit. I could probably sell icewater to Eskimos with that much weight.

Interestingly (since you brought up the point levels), I noticed the phrasing on the 2005 study that attributed 22% of the decline in teen smoking directly to the campaign was something to the effect that "the increased GRP level directly correlated to the decline in smoking" I just thought that was an interesting way of phrasing it, almost suggesting that the quality of the message wasn't as important as the sheer weight of it (and there's certainly some truth in that regardless of what the campaign is).

I was astounded by the TV weight levels when I looked at the study.

One interesting thing that I saw was their correlation graph showing cumulative GRPs and odds of smoking. It appears to be a curvilinear relationship--with smoking odds increasing again after 10,000-12,000 GRPs. The implication is that their media is hitting diminishing returns at anywhere between 2/3 to as much as 1/2 of their execution levels.

If I were a media planner, and threw away even 1/3 of my execution budget in such a manner, I would be fired on the spot (or at least after they got the ROI analysis back). But I guess the non-profit world is different animal, I suppose...

[kcchief19]

Maybe you (and me) just aren't the target audience.
I have to admit that while I was aware of The Truth campaign and it's recognition, I'm not certain I've seen too many of the spots. I went over to the Web site to check it out and I see why. They are aboslutely aimed at children and teens. I don't have children and therefore don't watch Nickoloden, Disney Channel and other children programming where I'm guessing these ads are prevalent. No doubt, the football sim demo isn't their demo.
... I wouldn't expect any of us to really care for the ads anymore than we would be by a commercial for Barney.
Hence the success. Anything with cross-demo appeal for children and adults is few and far between. Anything brutally popular (or effective) with children will often times grate on the nerves of adults. Barney, Tele Tubbies, Power Rangers, High School Musical -- the list goes on and on.

[thesloppy]

I dunno how you could miss these ads. They are most certainly not confined to children/teen shows and/or networks, although I'm sure they saturate those arenas even more.

[sabotai]

Thinking about, I don't think I've seen them too oftan while watching ESPN or the History Channel, but they do seem to flood Comedy Central and the Cartoon Network (Adult Swim).

[thesloppy]

..based purely on anecdotal evidence pulled out of my own booty hole, the chance you will catch a 'truth' ad has more to do with WHEN you watch TV, rather than what you're watching. To my eyes, they're all over daytime TV, disappear in prime time, and surprisingly seem to return in latenight.

[Mustang]

I was taught not to smoke when C3-P0 caught R2-D2 smoking.


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jS7GBYyUbMY&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jS7GBYyUbMY&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Schmidty]

If they help stop young people from not starting to smoke, I'll suffer through them without a second thought.

Of course, I don't have to watch them at all. Tivo rules.

[korme]

The stupidest anti-smoking commercials are the ones involving re-learning how to drive and crap