WI: No Joe Camel

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.?

I'm pretty sure that the tobacco industry's overall reputation by that time was going to be in the toilet no matter what. But...

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
ThunderousSatisfiedAsianpiedstarling-size_restricted.gif
 
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?

Joe Camel was pretty much the symbol of it since everyone (tobacco companies and activists) knew it was going on, but Joe Camel got a lot more media attention with things like that one poll showing he was one of the most recognizable cartoon characters by children.

Horse was out of the Barn
ThunderousSatisfiedAsianpiedstarling-size_restricted.gif

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.
 

elkarlo

Banned
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
 
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.

Honestly, I'm hard-pressed to think of an episode of The Flintstones with a plotline and jokes that would be accessible to children in the 1960s, let alone its later decades in syndication.

"Whose baby is that? I'll buy that. What's your angle?"

Watching that show in my elementary-school lunchroom in the mid-70s, I had no idea what any of those phrases meant, let alone that they were supposed to be spoofing typical corporate jargon of the early 60s.
 
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
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.
 
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
We’re kind of asked to.

If the thread is even five months old, we get a pink box with a red border asking if we’re really sure or wouldn’t we rather start a new thread?

And I kind of like a new thread in which all the participants in the conversation are fresh and active participants.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

elkarlo

Banned
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.
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.
I don't think anything else wrecked the tobacco industry as much, 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.
 

Geon

Donor
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.

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.

Example: Picture a scene in a bar with two guys talking. One guy pulls out a pack of cigarettes which-just for a brief second is shown to be a pack of Marlboro cigarettes. He lights one and hands the pack to his buddy. All of this is a part of a larger scene. Is this a legitimate part of the film or an attempt to advertise?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
. . . 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.
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.

Or, maybe track the heaviest 40% of the population with how often they eat out at restaurants. By no means does it explain everything, but I think it explains a lot.
 
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.
 

Geon

Donor
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.

I like this idea, but, I am still uncertain it is the right way to proceed. Having said that, please understand I am not a believer in using deceptive advertising to lure young people into smoking. But, such a tactic as what you suggest could be used to the extreme. Consider...a group of health enthusiasts want to go after obesity and choose to target companies like Coca Cola and Pepsi advertising their products in movies might be tempted to try similar tactics in any film that shows a character sipping from a can of Coke or Pepsi. A group concerned about the overuse of alcohol in films might target any brewery such as Budweiser that allows a can or bottle of its product to be shown on screen. I could go on...the point is that soon many of these companies who admittedly do pay for a cameo shout-out to their product would soon be looking for other means to advertise their products and the film industry would see a serious loss of income for new films. I will admit I do not know how much money goes into these brief product cameos in a film but my guess is that it is considerable.

Also, should this scrutiny of tobacco firms include any film they give money to that has no smoking whatever in it? Such as a G or PG rated film where smoking is either minimal or non-existent? Shouldn't these films be allowed to be supported especially if the companies involved actually don't show their products in them?
 
Stanton Glantz could be one of those McCarthyist "everyone is an employee of Phillip Morris" types. . .
He could be. Now, a lot of the article is based on this French guy Pascal Diethelm, as Stanton states at the beginning.

And good points are raised. In Quartier V.I.P (2005), a rock star smokes Gauloises Blondes. And an employee of the damn placement agency admits there was a deal between the movie producers and SEITA, the French subsidiary of Imperial Tobacco. (sidenote: often these deals are for surprisingly small amounts of money). In the 2013 movie Ouf, the director of the placement agency (what we in America might call the CEO or maybe COO) says there was a deal, again with SEITA, but he says it was okay because only a cigarette and smoking was shown, and not the brand name. But I don't think that's French law, which says no product placement money for cigarettes. And the author laments the fact that there has not been follow-up enforcement of the law.

In the 2001 film Amélie, which I thought was a cool movie, there's a scene with a plastic bag having the Gauloises brand which "appears prominently," "not in the storyboard." Okay, I guess it depends on how in-your-face it was, and this one might genuinely be more gray area. Although I don't like obvious product placements of any product.

And yes, at the end, when either Stanton or Pascal says, "As a consequence, unless proven innocent, French movies in which actors smoke should be presumed guilty of tobacco product placement - and smoking behavioral placement. And treated accordingly," that is probably going too far.
 
Last edited:
Top