WI: No Joe Camel

Geon

Donor
I don't think it would. Before Joe Camel the favored advertising symbol for Camel was the Camel guy (see below)



[Note - As the warning would indicate remember cigarette smoking is considered dangerous to your health.]

He was an adventurer but not as insidious as Joe Camel's character. I think the R.J. Reynolds group could get away with saying this was not targeting younger children, but looking to get older adults (young men) who already smoked to switch brands. As a result I suspect the settlement would probably not have been awarded.
 
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.

Obesity concerns were used in tobacco advertising since the 1920s, and it's worth noting that the sugar industry copied tobacco's tactics to even greater success (to the point where they had people sympathetic to them on the board of the American Dental Association, while Big Tobacco had much more trouble getting their guys on similar medical boards). I think the obesity epidemic isn't quite related to the decline of tobacco, but the related industries (i.e. Big Sugar) have and are using similar tactics to market their product. A two-liter of Coke and those cheap (and sugar/calorie heavy) snack foods are just as bad as a pack of cigarettes (get fat, rot your teeth, etc.), yet you usually need to show ID to buy the cigarettes which are locked up behind the counter.

Without Joe Camel, would the lawsuits or the resulting Master Settlement have ever occured?

Probably, since it was quickly being established you could sue Big Tobacco and get something out of it, and Big Tobacco needed to alleviate this coming legal burden which they had forseen coming. That said, they got off lucky with OTL's Master Settlement.
 
Obesity concerns were used in tobacco advertising since the 1920s, and it's worth noting that the sugar industry copied tobacco's tactics to even greater success (to the point where they had people sympathetic to them on the board of the American Dental Association, while Big Tobacco had much more trouble getting their guys on similar medical boards). I think the obesity epidemic isn't quite related to the decline of tobacco, but the related industries (i.e. Big Sugar) have and are using similar tactics to market their product. A two-liter of Coke and those cheap (and sugar/calorie heavy) snack foods are just as bad as a pack of cigarettes (get fat, rot your teeth, etc.), yet you usually need to show ID to buy the cigarettes which are locked up behind the counter.



Probably, since it was quickly being established you could sue Big Tobacco and get something out of it, and Big Tobacco needed to alleviate this coming legal burden which they had forseen coming. That said, they got off lucky with OTL's Master Settlement.

Just a couple of anecdotes but I have known a few people who gained a lot of weight after quitting smoking.

WRT tobacco advertising, I think the Marlboro Man was worse than Joe Camel when it came to making smoking look cool but that is just a personal opinion.
 

elkarlo

Banned
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.
I agree. Take out is also to blame. I think it's a multi faceted problem that has no quick answer.
 
. . . 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. . .

. . . Also, should this scrutiny of tobacco firms include any film they give money to that has no smoking whatever in it? . . .
These are good and important issues.

First off, if I was a successful movie producer like Spielberg — work with me a little on this one! :) — I might say, we’re not going to take any product endorsements whatever. We’re not going to cheapen the scene by having the camera linger on some damn commercial product.

But the purist approach is also a sterile approach. I might be better off allowing a messy team approach in which I push back at times but only loosely guide much of the time. And if one of my financial people says, hey, you’ll never even know what products we’re receiving endorsements for, that may well be true.

In keeping with freedom of speech, if I’m making a documentary, I think I have a right to show and talk about products, to show an insurance company’s logo and talk about the company, etc, etc. And same for making a regular movie which is a fiction story. Now, the company can sue me for slander, but it’s a high threshold and the burden is mostly on them. At least, that’s the way I think things should be.

I also like the Roger Corman approach in which we make a large number of merely good movies, and not much worry about perfection at all! In zen-like fashion, we merely allow the good stuff to happen and don’t try to force it.

======

As far as tobacco companies sponsoring movies with no smoking, out of simply the goodness of their heart, or sponsoring tennis tournaments and the like, I don’t like them cheaply buying “good corporate citizenship,” and then we’re going to back off on criticizing the centrality of their business which is wretched and rotten. Don’t like it one bit. Not sure how to legislate regarding it, but we as citizens should fall for it.
 
Last edited:

Geon

Donor
As far as tobacco companies sponsoring movies with no smoking out it simply the goodness of their heart, or sponsoring tennis tournaments and the like, I don’t like them cheaply buying “good corporate citizenship,” and then we’re going to back off on criticizing the centrality of their business which is wretched and rotten. Don’t like it one bit. Not sure how to legislate regarding it, but we as citizens should fall for it.

Let me be clear. I do not support smoking. However, I do support the First Amendment. The tobacco companies sell a legal product. Therefore in my humble opinion they deserve the same access to the airwaves and other media as any other legal product. I was concerned as far back as the 70's when the FDA started to ban TV ads for cigarettes how far this would go. The same idea goes for the cash settlements. Is tobacco addictive and dangerous to one's health? Absolutely!

But, it is a legal product. None of those who lost loved ones to smoking can say those individuals were forced to start smoking. We are all - or should be - responsible adults. We should - based on the information we now know, collected over the decades, realize that smoking is dangerous. That said we should be freed to make our own decisions. Advertising by its definition wants us to try a specific product. We can't fault them for wanting the business.

That said, do I support cigarette advertising targeting children? No. But if the company wants to use that logo it then becomes the responsibility of the parents and the teachers to give the young people the information so that they can make an informed and hopefully correct decision.

Note the key word I use here responsibility. By banning certain advertising we allow the government to say we aren't responsible. That is why I am concerned about any such ban.

As to cigarettes in films allow me to use a simple anecdote. I don't know how many of you saw the film Hidden Figures but in it the environment at NASA for the period was badly represented. You had people chewing gum! According to one NASA official from the period the diet of a NASA technician was cigarettes and coffee most of the time. The attempt to sanitize the film took away for me from the atmosphere -- the stress filled atmosphere of the period. Contrast with the film Apollo 13 which showed the techs smoking to relieve the tension of the moment. They weren't advertising smoking but showing it as part of the way people relieved tension in that period.

To put it simply it depends how the item is used in the story telling.
 
Last edited:
Let me be clear. I do not support smoking. . . . Advertising by its definition wants us to try a specific product. We can't fault them for wanting the business. . . .
I, however, do support smoking! ;) Just kidding. But I can remember a girlfriend from years ago who sometimes liked to sit on her bed and smoke, even though she was cutting back and slowly winding to quitting entirely. I think adults should have the right to smoke.

No, we can't fault the companies for wanting to increase their business, but that's kind of why I'm open-minded to changing the meta-system. For example, I think it's fine to have some companies essentially treated as quasi-illegal businesses in which we regulate like a son-of-a-gun. Say, three times the normal regulation and reporting for tax purposes, plus spot-checking. So, if there's any off-the-book payments, we're pretty damn likely to find out about them.

I don't support corporate personhood.

So, around the ? 1880s (someone please help me with the exact dates) when the supreme court didn't use the new 14th Amendment to protect the rights of human beings newly freed from slavery like the Amendment was clearly intended to, and instead used it to further a theory of corporate personhood, well, it's what you'd expect from brainy people trying to show off. It's also what you'd expect from high school kids like student council types who are in the second tier of popularity trying to suck up to the really popular kids. No, I'm not a fan of the supreme court, as I've said in other more political threads. And Citizens United (2010) is an example of a recent decision that's basically a disaster. If our nation continues to prosper and to expand the rights of everyday regular men and women, like I certainly hope we do, it will be in spite of this decision, not because of it.

I know I go pretty far regarding the supreme court, but I'd ask you to try and go part of the way with me.

=====================

As far as smoking and free speech, if someone wants to make a movie like 200 Cigarettes, more power to them. But that's entirely different than a damn tobacco company making payments.
 
Last edited:


For example, I think Thank You For Smoking (2006) was a great, kick-ass movie! And I can kind of go for a movie which is an equal opportunity offender.

But I would have been very disappointed to find out that things were hedged and played safe because of product placement money.
 
For example, I think Thank You For Smoking (2006) was a great, kick-ass movie! And I can kind of go for a movie which is an equal opportunity offender.
Nah that movie was clean as attacked everyone and even the movie itself, was even more neutral than the book. Eckhart acting was amazing too
 


For example, I think Thank You For Smoking (2006) was a great, kick-ass movie! And I can kind of go for a movie which is an equal opportunity offender.

But I would have been very disappointed to find out that things were hedged and played safe because of product placement money.
You might also like The Insider (1999), a movie about an executive who reveals that his company is manipulating the nicotine to be more addictive. The lawyers from the lawsuits that led to the Master Settlement appear in the movie.

Furthermore, you should research Skip Humphrey (guess who his father is), who got the tobacco companies to release their documents showing everything they've done over the years and ran for Governor of Minnesota, but was defeated by Jesse Ventura.
 
You might also like The Insider (1999), a movie about an executive who reveals that his company is manipulating the nicotine to be more addictive. . .
Doing just a little research, Jeffrey Wigand was head research chemist and eventually went public with how his company Brown & Williamson put ammonia in cigarettes to give a quicker hit of nicotine. And even after this type or this use of ammonia was shown to potentially cause cancer, the company wanted to keep it in until a safer substitute could be found.

Jeff was a stand-up individual, no question about it.

But he lost his marriage. Activism and taking on the powers-that-be is extremely stressful, without a large extended family, without considerable activist experience on how to take it medium step by medium step and build supporters along the way. And the other side will most probably play dirty to some extent, in part to get you to also play sloppy and dirty. You got to expect it, and if possible, jiu jitsu it and use it to your advantage. Still extremely stressful. Try not to fight it alone, but sometimes circumstances as such that you kind of have to.

I've read that very few whistle-blowers have ever again worked in their original field. This is kind of a measure that we're not very advanced as a moral culture.
 
Last edited:

Geon

Donor
I've read that very few whistle-blowers have ever again worked in their original field. This is kind of a measure that we're not very advanced as a moral culture.

I disagree with this last statement. However, first let me say that Mr. Wigand was very courageous in presenting the truth regardless of the consequences. But, seriously, would you hire someone who had just revealed trade secrets to the public at large and damaged the business he worked for? It could be argued from the other side that Mr. Wigand was the immoral one who was willing to reveal company secrets. Honestly unless he did change his career path he would be drawing welfare for the rest of his life as no sane business would hire him.
 
. . . But, seriously, would you hire someone who had just revealed trade secrets to the public at large and damaged the business he worked for? It could be argued from the other side that Mr. Wigand was the immoral one who was willing to reveal company secrets. . .
When I worked for this storefront tax place — and not going to say whether it was H&R Block, Jackson Hewitt, or Liberty Tax — I decided that my primary loyalty was to my clients and to my immediate co-workers, and not so much to the company hierarchy.

Yes, I tried to disclose the main negatives of the bank and loan products, even though most of the clients were focused on just whether or not they were going to get the loan. So, I learned to be briefer, which turned out to be better.

This is my thinking right now.
 
Last edited:
I believe it is less to do with tobacco and more to do with having something in your hand/mouth.

Sure, they dumped one vice for another. They quit cigarettes and replaced them with food, they need something and if you eliminate one thing it has to be replaced by something.
 
I am a big supporter of smoking (I don't smoke myself, that's stupid) because I believe in voluntary taxation. Smoking, drinking, gambling - human vices that can be taxed heavily and taxes that I can avoid paying by choosing to not participate in those activities (I do drink but not that much).

A great example is the baseball stadium that was built in Cleveland (where I am from) in the early 1990s. The ball park was funded in part with sin tax on cigarettes and was then made a non-smoking facility. Now whoever thought of that is the sort of evil genius I aspire to be. Someone who exploits a certain segment of society's lack of discipline for financial gain and then turns around and rubs it in their faces.

Yeah I know, I'm a bad person.
 
I am a big supporter of smoking (I don't smoke myself, that's stupid) because I believe in voluntary taxation. Smoking, drinking, gambling - human vices that can be taxed heavily and taxes that I can avoid paying by choosing to not participate in those activities (I do drink but not that much).

A great example is the baseball stadium that was built in Cleveland (where I am from) in the early 1990s. The ball park was funded in part with sin tax on cigarettes and was then made a non-smoking facility. Now whoever thought of that is the sort of evil genius I aspire to be. Someone who exploits a certain segment of society's lack of discipline for financial gain and then turns around and rubs it in their faces.

Yeah I know, I'm a bad person.
I agree with this. Better a voluntary tax than an involuntary one. I'm also driven by a belief in personal liberty, but I always make sure to use the tax arguement.
 
Top