What if RJ Reynolds didn't create Joe Camel? What effects would this have on public perception of Big Tobacco, anxiety about marketing to children, etc.?
What if RJ Reynolds didn't create Joe Camel? What effects would this have on public perception of Big Tobacco, anxiety about marketing to children, etc.?
Was Joe Camel somehow instrumental in the exposure of tobacco marketing to kids? Was it like "Holy shit, they've got a cute cartoon character in their ads, we'd better investigate further." Or was it already known that that was going on, and Joe just sort of became the most visible symbol of it?
Horse was out of the Barn
![]()
Tobacco ads only showed up in the earliest seasons of the Flintstones, and IIRC the Flintstones was not intended specifically for kids at that point unlike later seasons.
The settlement was a big deal.I know the damage was down, but I remember Joe camel being a lightning rod for a while. Probably gave the political will to get the Master settlement agreement
But I don’t know if there were other things which really clipped the wings if the tobacco companies.
Didn't you already post pretty much this thread last year? Why not simply revive that one by adding a significant post, instead of starting another thread?What if RJ Reynolds didn't create Joe Camel? What effects would this have on public perception of Big Tobacco, anxiety about marketing to children, etc.?
Yul Brynner and Orson Wells, by remarkable coincidence, both died on the same day in 1985 on opposite sides of the country.Yul Brynner's posthumous anti-smoking ad? . . .
We’re kind of asked to.Didn't you already post pretty much this thread last year? Why not simply revive that one by adding a significant post, instead of starting another thread?
https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/wi-big-tobacco-wasnt-so-shady.451129/#post-17545397
The MSA is a big deal, it def does benefit smaller companies that don't pay or don't pay as much to it. Like VGR and JT.The settlement was a big deal.
But I don’t know if there were other things which really clipped the wings if the tobacco companies.
What might make a real difference is to go after product placement of cigarettes in movies.
Now, please understand, I'm all in favor of freedom of speech and artistic freedom. If a director wants to make a sexy scene with really erotic, sensual smoking . . . or a tough guy scene with the villains or hoodlums or gangsters smoking . . . or friends out on the town for the night and some smoke, some don't, it's part of being accepted flaws and all, -- then more power to that director! Again, freedom of speech. But taking money for product placement is a different matter.
Here's a 2016 article about cigarette product placement in French movies, even though apparently cigarette ads have been banned in French for like the twenty-five previous years!
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/direct-evi...nd-smoking-behavioral-placement-french-movies
So, it's a tough nut to crack, especially give that movies are usually a one-time grouping of professionals with sometimes disorganized finances.
So, here's an idea. Audit the tobacco companies like a son-of-a-gun. Let them know that if there’s any illegal advertisements or payments, people are actually going to go to jail. Advertising agencies can take on tobacco companies as clients, of course they can, but realize that you will also be subject to auditing like a son-of-a-gun, including spot checks.
Stanton Glantz could be one of those McCarthyist "everyone is an employee of Phillip Morris" types. I wouldn't be too quick to accept his speculation as fact.What might make a real difference is to go after product placement of cigarettes in movies.
Now, please understand, I'm all in favor of freedom of speech and artistic freedom. If a director wants to make a sexy scene with really erotic, sensual smoking . . . or a tough guy scene with the villains or hoodlums or gangsters smoking . . . or friends out on the town for the night and some smoke, some don't, it's part of being accepted flaws and all, -- then more power to that director! Again, freedom of speech. But taking money for product placement is a different matter.
Here's a 2016 article about cigarette product placement in French movies, even though apparently cigarette ads have been banned in French for like the twenty-five previous years!
https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/direct-evi...nd-smoking-behavioral-placement-french-movies
So, it's a tough nut to crack, especially give that movies are usually a one-time grouping of professionals with sometimes disorganized finances.
So, here's an idea. Audit the tobacco companies like a son-of-a-gun. Let them know that if there’s any illegal advertisements or payments, people are actually going to go to jail. Advertising agencies can take on tobacco companies as clients, of course they can, but realize that you will also be subject to auditing like a son-of-a-gun, including spot checks.
I'd personally be interested in how much obesity rates track to how many times the average person eats out at a restaurant in a week. Restaurants serve big portions to justify higher prices, the meals have salt, sugar, fat, all the things we as humans find so tasty but that are distinctly bad for us in anything more than modest amounts.. . . and smoking rates have come down massively since then.
I personally believe people tend to need to be addicted to something, and I think a decline in smoking probably has something to do with obesity, as smoking is a appetite suppressant. No the whole reason ie sugar and junk food plus cushy life styles, but has something to do with it.
We don't judge scenes in movies.The problem you have there is how do you differentiate especially in films and on TV shows between a scene where there is a deliberate attempt to advertise a product and the artistic freedom of a film director. . .
We don't judge scenes in movies.
We carefully examine and audit the financial records of the tobacco companies. That's how we tell whether or not monetary payments have been made.
He could be. Now, a lot of the article is based on this French guy Pascal Diethelm, as Stanton states at the beginning.Stanton Glantz could be one of those McCarthyist "everyone is an employee of Phillip Morris" types. . .