^What is immoral about spending your free time trying to help people and dig through mountains of files to find exceptionally diabolical marketing schemes tobacco companies employ? You should think that women's liberation had more to do with the collective maturing of the country as opposed to yet another highly successful, culture changing marketing initiative.
-
DPMC Moderators: tryptakid
Tobacco companies studied ways to hook female smokers
- Thread starter E-llusion
- Start date
rowland2110
Bluelighter
frizzantik said:
Yes i know Frizz, and im not trying to defend thier actions.
For some reason i find these anti-smoking ads i see on tv to be as low as the actions of the tabacco industrys themselves. I cant remember but the tactics used in the last anti-tabacco add i saw seemed really low like they were sinking down to the tobacco industrys level. It was a parody of some sort of 70's shpw. I cant remember it right now but i will look for it agian and post on it once i see it.
I was agreeing with what you said. I have no idea why I typed so many big words. It makes sense. I was saying that people should take note that it is amazing that a marketing idea that tobacco companies came up with managed to change American culture. Women can smoke in public now because of "freedom torches." People who spend their time researching tobacco company injustices deserve to be praised and should be regarded as highly moral. I don't see at all what anti-tobacco people do that is immoral.
Water
Bluelighter
You know the TRUTH ads and the "stupid" ads that are targeting the tobacco industry? They try very hard to appeal to specific demographics, such as the youth culture (much like "big tobacco").
I find it difficult to criticize a corporation for trying to improve its market share, after all the only higher power they have to answer to is their shareholders. Any social conscience that extends beyond mere appearance can only hamper their income and competitive edge.
Its quite unfortunate that people are caught out by these marketing ploys, for example the young women who cannot see through the slick marketing of fruit-flavoured cigarettes, and I suppose thats why there are anti-smoking campaigns all across the world. I can only hope that the costs of maintaining these anti-cigarette ad campaigns will be paid for by future reductions in the cost of public health caused by less smokers. Further, the cigarette industry is highly profitable not only for the corporations but for the federal government here in Canada, who keep taxing cigarettes to discourage use but end up turning a nice profit. They also plaster half of every pack with warning labels and images of cancerous lungs, brains, etc.
So I guess the bottom line is the free market. We can all wish that people weren't so susceptible to marketing gimmicks, but that can be a benefit when anti-smoking campaigns play on the very same lack of individual thought. Anti-smoking ads are now using some of the very same tactics that tobacco industries have used for years, making it seem like their way is the popular method that will make you cool.
I find it difficult to criticize a corporation for trying to improve its market share, after all the only higher power they have to answer to is their shareholders. Any social conscience that extends beyond mere appearance can only hamper their income and competitive edge.
Its quite unfortunate that people are caught out by these marketing ploys, for example the young women who cannot see through the slick marketing of fruit-flavoured cigarettes, and I suppose thats why there are anti-smoking campaigns all across the world. I can only hope that the costs of maintaining these anti-cigarette ad campaigns will be paid for by future reductions in the cost of public health caused by less smokers. Further, the cigarette industry is highly profitable not only for the corporations but for the federal government here in Canada, who keep taxing cigarettes to discourage use but end up turning a nice profit. They also plaster half of every pack with warning labels and images of cancerous lungs, brains, etc.
So I guess the bottom line is the free market. We can all wish that people weren't so susceptible to marketing gimmicks, but that can be a benefit when anti-smoking campaigns play on the very same lack of individual thought. Anti-smoking ads are now using some of the very same tactics that tobacco industries have used for years, making it seem like their way is the popular method that will make you cool.
I think it is rather easy to critisize unscrupulous corporation for improving their market share. They are selling cancer like other companies such as Monsanto and DuPont. The Laissez-Faire (sp?) approach to business ended years ago when the FDA, child labor laws, unions and environmental laws came into being. The higher power they have to answer to is the government which is supposed to be an extension of the people. Playing devil's advocate for tobacco corporations is foolish because they have always had so much on their side in the form of money, sympathetic congressman and a global army of idiot smokers. The reason they advertise so hard and expand their market share is because their product kills off a huge chunk of their market share every year. You can blame them for selling a deadly product and making it worse by adding chemicals. All smokers are idiots therefore advertising to them by trying to tell them that not smoking is cool appeals to the very same people who started because smoking was seen as rebellious and fashionable. It isn't immoral to be the counter weight to the tobacco companies heavy advertising campaign.
gsfgf
Bluelighter
They are a company. they advertize. Every company does the same things. The tobacco companies are just considered evil for it, while clothing companies that try to destroy people's self-esteem and convice them they need $120 pants to be happy are considered good. That's pretty fucked up imo. Also, a lot of tobacco advertizing comes from competition between brands. Starting smoking is a big deal. Switching from Camel to Marlboro isn't, so much of the effects of these strategies are just to convince people to switch brands.
Water
Bluelighter
Well I can't speak for everyone, but up here in Canada tobacco companies aren't allowed to advertise on TV, radio, or national magazine chains. When I see a tobacco ad in an American magazine, its a strange sight because I haven't seen one on TV in as long as I can remember. The latest push is suggesting that cigarettes should be hidden under the counter at convenience stores. I find this ridiculous, because most of the locally-owned stores make a good chunk of their money (and the owner's living) off of subsidies from tobacco companies to display their products front and centre.
Growing up in such a highly regulated atmosphere has probably contributed to my opinion that the industry is regulated more than well enough, and that the industry can't be blamed for trying to sell a product. As gsfgf alluded to, most corporations, no matter what they're selling, routinely embellish and lead on their customers. With such stringent restrictions already on the tobacco industry, any further advertising gimmicks they present are merely smart business.
Tokey, I agree that you have every right to criticize these corporations, I just don't feel that it's right to restrict their commercial impulse any further than we already have. I agree that a huge counter weight of protesters is good for the community because it gives perspective to those foolish enough to consider starting smoking.
I may have come off as a laissez-faire capitalist, but trust me, I do believe in certain restrictions -- like Tokey implied child labour and environmental restrictions are necessary -- but the current state of the free market in many sectors seems fine to me.
You know, all these arguments about tobacco make it seem like the industry would be more balanced if it were illegalized (!) -- there's no such thing as massive conglomerates pushing products like marijuana and heroin! Just local producers and distributors trying to get by and turn a reasonable profit.
Growing up in such a highly regulated atmosphere has probably contributed to my opinion that the industry is regulated more than well enough, and that the industry can't be blamed for trying to sell a product. As gsfgf alluded to, most corporations, no matter what they're selling, routinely embellish and lead on their customers. With such stringent restrictions already on the tobacco industry, any further advertising gimmicks they present are merely smart business.
Tokey, I agree that you have every right to criticize these corporations, I just don't feel that it's right to restrict their commercial impulse any further than we already have. I agree that a huge counter weight of protesters is good for the community because it gives perspective to those foolish enough to consider starting smoking.
I may have come off as a laissez-faire capitalist, but trust me, I do believe in certain restrictions -- like Tokey implied child labour and environmental restrictions are necessary -- but the current state of the free market in many sectors seems fine to me.
You know, all these arguments about tobacco make it seem like the industry would be more balanced if it were illegalized (!) -- there's no such thing as massive conglomerates pushing products like marijuana and heroin! Just local producers and distributors trying to get by and turn a reasonable profit.