THE POLITICS OF TOBACCO ADVERTISING

Transcription

1 Thorax 2002;57(Suppl II):ii64 ii68 ii64 * J Connolly Formerly of Ation on Smoking and Health (ASH), London, UK THE POLITICS OF TOBACCO ADVERTISING Introdutory artiles J Connolly The Master Settlement Agreement with the tobao industry and igarette advertising in magazines C King 3rd, M Siegel Bakground: In 1998 the attorneys general of 46 states signed a Master Settlement Agreement with the four largest tobao ompanies in the United States. The agreement prohibits tobao advertising that targets people younger than 18 years of age. Methods: We analyzed the trends in expenditures for advertising for 15 speifi brands of igarettes and the exposure of young people to igarette advertising in 38 magazines between 1995 and We defined igarette brands as youth brands if they were smoked by more than 5% of the smokers in the 8th, 10th, and 12th grades in 1998; all others were onsidered to be adult brands. We lassified magazines as youth-oriented magazines if at least 15% of their readers or at least 2 million of their readers were years old. Reah, a standard measure of exposure to advertising, was defined as the number of young persons who read at least one issue of a magazine ontaining an advertisement for a partiular brand of igarette during a given year. Results: In 2000 dollars, the overall advertising expenditures for the 15 brands of igarettes in the 38 magazines were $238.2 million in 1995, $219.3 million in 1998, $291.1 million in 1999, and $216.9 million in Expenditures for youth brands in youth-oriented magazines were $56.4 million in 1995, $58.5 million in 1998, $67.4 million in 1999, and $59.6 million in Expenditures for adult brands in youth-oriented magazines were $72.2 million, $82.3 million, $108.6 million, and $67.6 million, respetively. In 2000, magazine advertisements for youth brands of igarettes reahed more than 80% of young people in the United States an average of 17 times eah. Conlusions: The Master Settlement Agreement with the tobao industry appears to have had little effet on igarette advertising in magazines and on the exposure of young people to these advertisements. (N Engl J Med 2001;345:504 11) Brand appearanes in ontemporary inema films and ontribution to global marketing of igarettes JD Sargent, JJ Tikle, ML Beah, MA Dalton, MB Ahrens, TF Heatherton Bakground: The appearane of a igarette brand in a inema film gives the brand a ertain distintion through its assoiation with the haraters and general tone of the film. Through the worldwide distribution of films, brands are promoted globally. We assessed the tobao-brand appearanes in a 10-year sample of ontemporary films. Methods: We viewed the ontents of the top 25 US box-offie films for eah year of release, from 1988 to 1997 (250 films in total). We ompared the prevalene of brand appearanes for films produed before a voluntary ban on paid produt plaement by the tobao industry ( ) with films produed after the ban ( ). Tobao-brand appearane was defined as the sreen appearane of a brand name, logo, or identifiable trademark on produts or produt pakaging, billboards, store-front advertising, or tobao promotional items. We defined ator endorsement of a brand as the display of a brand while being handled or used by an ator. Findings: More than 85% of the films ontained tobao use. Tobao brands appeared in 70 (28%) films. Brand appearanes were as ommon in films suitable for adolesent audienes as they were in films for adult audienes (32% vs 35%), and were also present in 20% of those rated for hildren. Prevalene of brand appearane did not hange overall in relation to the ban. However, there was a striking inrease in the type of brand appearane depited, with ator endorsement inreasing from 1% of films before the ban to 11% after. Four US igarette brands aounted for 80% of brand appearanes. Revenues outside the USA aounted for 49% of total revenues for these films, indiating a large international audiene. Interpretation: Tobao-brand appearanes are ommon in films and are beoming inreasingly endorsed by ators. The most highly advertised US igarette brands aount for most brand appearanes, whih suggests an advertising motive to this pratie. (Lanet 2001;357:29 32)

2 The politis of tobao advertising INTRODUCTION The battle over the advertising and marketing of tobao produts ranks as one of the main fronts in the war between the tobao industry and the publi health ommunity over the last 20 years, both in the UK and around the world. The publi health ommunity has argued that the advertising and promotion of tobao produts leads more people to begin smoking and dissuades smokers from quitting. As suh, it leads to more smokers, and more deaths due to smoking. They argue that, as a result, it is important for governments to legislate to prohibit tobao advertising and promotion. The publi health ommunity also argues that a prohibition on tobao advertising must be omplete. It is not suyient merely to ban, for example, advertising on television or that aimed at those aged under 18. If this is done, they argue, tobao ompanies marketing budgets will simply be moved into those areas of marketing whih are not prohibited, and the evet (of persuading non-smokers to start smoking) will ontinue. The publi health ommunity argues that, while soiety as a whole has a right to free speeh, this right is not untrammelled. The right to free speeh arries with it responsibilities, and soiety has a responsibility to ensure that advertising should not harm anyone. They argue that, as tobao advertising leads non-smokers to start smoking, it diretly leads to the death of around half of them from smoking related disease and, as suh, should not be permitted. Finally, the publi health ommunity argues that there are already restritions on the advertising of other potentially harmful produts suh as firearms and presription drugs, so that a ban on tobao advertising would be neither unpreedented nor the thin end of the wedge. By ontrast, the tobao industry and its supporters have onsistently argued that, while its produts are ontroversial, they remain legal. They argue that, for a ompany to pratise its legitimate and legal business, it must be allowed to advertise and promote its produts. They argue that prohibition of the advertising of a legal produt would be a dangerous limitation on the right to free speeh, and that it would set a dangerous preedent with prohibitions on the marketing of other legal produts suh as alohol, ovee, and fatty foods being sure to follow. The tobao industry also argues that tobao advertising does not avet the total number of people smoking. Rather, they argue, it is intended to persuade urrent smokers to swith from one brand to another. As suh, a ban on tobao advertising would not redue tobao onsumption and might indeed inrease it as, without advertising, tobao manufaturers would be fored to ompete on prie reduing the ost of igarettes. This in turn would lead to more people smoking. Finally, they argue that they do not market their produts at the under 18s, but instead at adult smokers who make an informed hoie to smoke. As suh, they have a right to be able to reeive information on brands to inform this hoie. In addition to its inherent value as a publi health measure (in the eyes of the publi health ommunity at least), the prohibition of tobao advertising has taken on a symboli, almost totemi, value to many in the publi health ommunity. The prohibition of tobao advertising is a publi poliy goal whih an be ahieved relatively simply by government ation if the politial will exists to do so. It requires relatively simple legislation to introdue a omprehensive prohibition of tobao advertising, and there are no diret finanial impliations for government inlaying suh legislation in the same way as there are, for example, in hanging tobao taxation rates in order to bring about a redution in smoking. All sides of the politial spetrum also agree that the poliy outome (a redution in deaths due to smoking) is a desirable one, even if they do not always agree the means that are likely to ahieve this. In addition, opinion polls have shown that the banning of tobao advertising is a popular move among the publi. A poll onduted by ICM for Ation on Smoking and Health (ASH) in 2001 found that around two thirds of the population want tobao advertising to be banned. 1 As a result of the relative ease with whih a government an ban tobao advertising if it hooses to do so, publi health ampaigners have sometimes appeared to treat the willingness or otherwise of governments to do so as a barometer of their determination to takle the publi health issues aused by smoking more generally. The issues surrounding the prohibition of tobao advertising remain fairly onstant around the world. However, the outomes whih governments have reahed have varied substantially. For example in the European Union, eight ountries (Luxembourg, Frane, Italy, Portugal, Finland, Ireland, Belgium, and Denmark) have either a total ban on tobao advertising or allow only extremely limited exemptions. A further two ountries (the UK and Netherlands) are in the proess of legislating to ban tobao advertising. However, the remaining five have either no restritions or only very limited ones. 2 In the UK, legislation to ban tobao advertising and promotion was an eletion manifesto ommitment of the Labour Party when they ame to power in A Bill to meet this ommitment was introdued in January 2001, but was lost due to lak of time in the run up to the 2001 general eletion and did not omplete its parliamentary stages. The re-introdution of this legislation was inluded in the Labour Party s 2001 manifesto but the Bill was not re-introdued in the July 2001 Queen s Speeh. Following this omission, Liberal Demorat peer Lord Clement-Jones re-introdued the legislation as a Private Member s Bill in the House of *ii65

3 Connolly ii66 * Lords. At the time of writing this Bill has passed through the parliamentary stages in the House of Lords and has been re-adopted by the Government in the House of Commons. This makes it likely to beome law by the end of the urrent Parliamentary session. 3 This paper examines in more depth the politial, rather than sientifi, issues whih have arisen during attempts to prohibit tobao advertising in diverent ountries, fousing primarily on the UK legislation urrently before Parliament. Framing of arguments A frame is a way of pakaging and positioning an issue so that it onveys a ertain meaning. 4 6 It has been defined as the emphasis plaed round partiular issues that seeks to define what the issue is really about, 4 as the proess by whih someone pakages a group of fats to reate a story, 7 and as the broadly shared beliefs, values and perspetives familiar to the members of a soietal ulture and likely to endure in that ulture over long periods of time, on whih individuals and institutions draw in order to give meaning, sense and normative diretion to their thinking and ation in poliy matters. 8 On a broader level, the framing of an issue not only defines the issue but also impliitly suggests a solution. It is for this reason that it has been desribed as the basis by whih publi poliy deisions are made. 7 For example, in the debate over water fluoridation two ompeting frames are that of publi health, whih an be paraphrased as the state has a responsibility to fluoridate the water for the good of itizens health and that of individual freedom, paraphrased as the state has no right to interfere with what I drink I have the right to deide whether or not to take fluoride tablets. Eah of these frames suggests a diverent preferred solution. The former suggests that water fluoridation ought to take plae; the latter that it shouldn t. As Wagenaar and StreV point out: how questions are worded is related to how poliy advoates and opponents shape and present poliy options to legislators and other opinion leaders, as well as to the general publi. 9 The evet of framing has been demonstrated in studies of publi opinion on alohol poliies, 9 seat belt laws, 10 and environmental poliy. 11 Issue framing is thought to play a entral role in the formation of poliy on publi health. It has been argued that, in reality, debates on publi health issues represent a battle for framing the issue in the eyes of the publi and poliy makers. 7 Rather than the relative merits of the ases being put being the deiding fator in whether or not a proposal goes ahead, it is atually the relative suess of proponents and opponents in framing the overall terms of the debate. As a result, it is hardly surprising that both the publi health ommunity and the tobao industry and their supporters have attempted to frame the debate on their own terms in order to give their preferred ourse of ation the best hane of suess. In the ase of tobao advertising, the issue in most ases has been whether or not a government ought to bring in legislation to ban the advertising and promotion of igarettes and other tobao produts. In the ourse of debates, both proponents and opponents of this legislation have sought to win the battle to frame the debate in ways whih present their ase to best advantage. In the ourse of legislation to ban tobao advertising in the UK, the following arguments are those whih have been used most often by either the publi health ommunity or the tobao industry in order to support their ase 12 : Tobao advertising persuades young people to start smoking and dissuades smokers from quitting. The government has a duty to redue this death toll by any means neessary (put forward by the publi health ommunity). Smoking kills and treating smokers osts the Exhequer a huge amount of money (publi health ommunity). Tobao advertising is about persuading smokers to hange brands, not about persuading non-smokers to start (tobao industry). A ban on advertising will not redue the number of people smoking and may atually inrease it (tobao industry). The government has no right to restrit the advertising of a legal produt (tobao industry). Adult smokers have a right to information on whih igarettes to smoke. The urrent voluntary agreements are working well and should be allowed to ontinue (tobao industry). Broadly speaking, these seven arguments break down into three frames: The evetiveness of the legislation The eonomi impat of the legislation Civil liberties/role of government It is worth noting that eah of these frames has been used, albeit with divering emphasis, by both sides of the debate to demonstrate their points. The following setions examine eah of these frames in turn, looking at how they have been used during the passage of the UK s legislation to ban tobao advertising. Effetiveness of the legislation The evidene base for the evetiveness of bans on tobao advertising in reduing tobao onsumption was the entre of muh debate during the passage of the UK legislation. Supporters of the legislation, inluding the Government, have pointed to a large number of studies showing that advertising bans have been evetive in ountries where they have been introdued. During the Seond Reading debate for the legislation on 2 November 2001, the Bill s promoter, Lord Clement-Jones, reviewed the evidene: Dr Clive Smee, Chief Eonomi Adviser to the Department of Health, published the most omprehensive study of the link between advertising and tobao onsumption in He reviewed 19 studies, mainly from the UK and the United States, orrelating advertising spend and total tobao onsumption. Smee onluded: The balane of evidene thus supports the onlusion that advertising does have a positive evet on onsumption. Smee also reviewed the impat of advertising bans that had been introdued at the time. The most signifiant of those were Norway and Finland where bans had been in plae for over a deade at the time of the report. He onluded: In eah ase the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a sale whih annot reasonably be attributed to other fators. Other reent work has ome to similar onlusions. In its publiation Curbing the epidemi: government and the eonomis of tobao ontrol in 1999 the World Bank analyzed the evidene and onluded that tobao advertising auses tobao onsumption to inrease and partial advertising bans are inevetive: Poliymakers who are interested in ontrolling tobao need to know whether igarette advertising and promotion avet onsumption. The answer is that they almost ertainly do, although the data are not straightforward. The key onlusion is that bans on advertising and promotion prove evetive, but only if they are omprehensive, overing all media and all uses of brand names and logos. Other reent evidene omes from Amerian researhers SaVer and Chaloupka of the National Bureau of Eonomi Researh in

4 The politis of tobao advertising the US, who studied data from 22 ountries, in their paper The evet of tobao advertising bans on tobao onsumption. They onluded: tobao advertising inreases tobao onsumption. The empirial researh also shows that omprehensive advertising bans an redue tobao onsumption, but that a limited set of advertising bans will have little or no evet. 13 In the ourse of the debate these findings were ehoed by a number of peers inluding Lord Hunt, the Minister in harge of health in the House of Lords. 14 Opponents of the Bill, however, were less onvined, or pretended to be, by the evidene. Lord Naseby, the most voiferous opponent of the Bill during its passage through the Lords, said: the 1992 Smee report, whih has been referred to today and is often quoted, made no estimate of the likely evet on onsumption of a total ban on tobao advertising in the UK. That fat was subsequently onfirmed by the author. Even given the range speulated, one must ask why the mid-point should be taken. The outome ould lie anywhere aross the range. Personally, I believe that the evet would be zero. I suggest that we should be provided with something muh more substantial than pure speulation in justifiation of the Bill. That is partiularly important, given that there are people inluding people outside the tobao industry who believe that the evet ould equally well be an inrease in tobao onsumption and the take-up of smoking. Indeed, when one looks at the evidene of the experiene of earlier bans on alohol in the United States and in ertain Canadian provines, one soon begins to believe that the evet may be exatly the opposite to the one sought. 15 This issue reurred numerous times during the ourse of the debates on this legislation in the House of Lords, with opponents of the Bill attempting to have a lause inluded whih would have automatially resinded the legislation if, after 5 years, there had not been a fall in the onsumption of tobao. While this may at first glane seem like a sensible preaution, there are a number of problems with this approah. Firstly, it assumes that the evidene base for the evetiveness of advertising bans is less than omprehensive. Supporters of the legislation do not agree that this is the ase. Seondly, it sets a dangerous preedent sunset lauses (as lauses suh as these are known) are generally only used when the state is taking powers to restrit severely an individual s freedoms. That is not the ase for this legislation. Finally, suh a lause would, in the view of the Bill s supporters, give the tobao industry arte blanhe to try to undermine the legislation for 5 years in order to get it overturned. As a result, the Bill s supporters resisted alls for a sunset lause. This point was taken to a vote, whih was won onviningly by the supporters of the legislation with a majority of more than three to one. 16 In the end the battle for ontrol of the evetiveness frame in the passage of this legislation was one of the largest points of argument. It was won by supporters of the legislation. Eonomi impat of the legislation In the ourse of the debates on a ban on tobao advertising in the UK, many of the legislation s opponents attempted to play up the potential downside of the legislation with regard to its eonomi impat. A number of these ontributions foused on the evet of the legislation on the little man that, while people may agree with lamping down on advertising in general, it would have a serious evet on small businesses suh as newsagents. For example, Lord Luas said: I think of the ordinary orner shop selling magazines and one of those magazines ontains a tobao advertisement. Is it being suggested that every single orner magazine shop has to go through every edition of every magazine on its shelves to make sure that it does not ontain a tobao advertisement? That is what the Bill provides at the moment. It imposes a duty on these people who are far too far down the hain to be of any real signifiane in heking. I really do not think that should be the ase. It is fair enough to bring in the middle people those who devise an advertisement beause they are involved in the intelletual proess of putting an advertisement together. I believe they ought to share the publisher s liability under Clause 2(1). But I do not believe that the two other lasses of person should have this duty of are imposed on them. 17 In a similar way, Baroness Gibson spoke in favour of the little man in her ase in the shape of people working in tobao manufaturing. If the Bill was suessful, she said, these people would risk the loss of employment, something whih should be avoided. 18 In response to eah of these arguments, supporters of the legislation ountered that the legislation was neessary in order to redue tobao related deaths whih ost the taxpayer a large sum of money eah year. During the Bill s seond reading debate, Health Minister Lord Hunt estimated that a 2.5% redution in tobao onsumption the Government s estimate of what ould be ahieved by an advertising ban would eventually save the National Health Servie around 80m per year. 19 Although these arguments were asserted frequently during the ourse of the legislation, the issue was never taken to a vote so it is diyult to assess whih of these sets of arguments gained the upper hand with a majority of peers. Civil liberties/role of government It is within this frame that opponents of the legislation onentrated most of their evorts during the Seond Reading debates of both the ultimately doomed Government legislation and Lord Clement-Jones Private Member s Bill. Many speehes during these debates desribed the legislation in extremely negative terms. For example, during the debate on the Government s Bill on 28 Marh 2001 Lord Geddes said that: I have real problems with the onflit between a legal produt [...] on the one hand and a banning of advertising on the other. To be onsistent I hope that this does not happen surely tobao should be delared illegal. Then there would be some logi in the Bill and in the ban on advertising beause, in that ontext, you would be banning advertising of an illegal produt. Here you are banning advertising or proposing to of a legal produt. I annot get my mind around that. 20 In addition, Lord Harris, the patron of Forest, the tobao industry funded smokers rights organisation, went even further, saying: At a more mundane level, this Bill would violate the right of ompeting businesses, inluding orner shops, to ommuniate freely, as we have heard, with their own ustomers. Suh a far-reahing statutory prohibition, whih is unpreedented in a free soiety in times of peae, would require some speial explanation and justifiation. One does not have that speial justifiation. 21 Lord Mason of Barnsley, another opponent of the legislation, said very muh the same thing: The tobao smoker feels he is being told and ontrolled, and to him it is anathema in a demorati soiety. Tobao is still a legal produt and it has the legal right to be advertised. I know that tobao ompanies argue that they are direting their advertisements not at young or potential ustomers but at the *ii67

5 Connolly ii68 * Learning points The tobao industry and publi health ommunity are at war over the advertising and marketing of tobao; the stakes are high The prohibition of tobao advertising ould be ahieved relatively simply by government ation, provided the politial will exists to do so Legislation on tobao advertising may make it onto the statute books in 2002, but it ould yet be derailed by a onerted effort from the tobao industry to influene Parliament. Even if legislation sueeds, the industry is likely to hallenge the legislation in the ourts. ompetition between ompeting brands. Well, be that as it may, the point is that they are being singled out for publi and unfair hastisement. Now under this legislation so stritly to ontrol their right to advertise and promote their produts, banning their advertising and promotion to this extent is almost the final step to stop smokers being informed of their tobao hoie. 22 In response to these points, supporters of the Bill have sought to equate the proposed legislation with restritions on the advertising of other produts suh as firearms and presription drugs, whih are responsible for fewer deaths than tobao. This point was made by both Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Hunt in the ourse of debates on the Bill for example, during the Seond Reading Debate on the Private Members Bill on 28 November Conlusion This paper has set out the issues involved in the politis of tobao advertising and given examples of how arguments have been deployed by both supporters and opponents of a tobao advertising ban in the UK. This is an area where the battles are very muh ongoing; while legislation is looking likely to make it onto the statute books in the ourse of 2002, at the time of writing it still has not happened and may yet be derailed by a onerted attempt on behalf of the tobao industry to influene Parliament. Even if the legislation sueeds in getting onto the statute books, it is likely to be hallenged in the ourts by the tobao industry in an attempt to see it struk down on tehnial grounds. During this proess, we an expet to see many of the same arguments being used by both sides. It may yet be several years before a full prohibition on tobao advertising is in plae in the UK, and even longer before we an see the extent of the evet that tobao advertising has on onsumption and tobao related illness. Referenes 1 Tobao Advertising Opinion Poll. Prepared by ICM Researh for ASH, August European Commission. 3 Ation on Smoking and Health (ASH). 4 Chapman S, Lupton D. The fight for publi health: priniples and pratie of media advoay. London: BMJ Publishing Group, Entman R. Framing: towards larifiation of a fratured paradigm. J Commun 1993;43: Ryan C. Prime time ativism: media strategies for grassroots organising. Boston: South End Press, Wallak L, Dorfman L, Jernigan D, et al. Media advoay and publi health: power for prevention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, Shon DA, Rein M. Frame refletion: towards the resolution of intratable poliy ontroversies. New York: Basi Books. 9 Wagenaar AC, Streff FM. Publi opinion on alohol poliies. J Publi Health Poliy 1990;11: Slovi P, Fishhoff B, Lihtenstein S. Response mode, framing and information-proessing effets in risk assessment. In: Hogarth RM, ed. Question framing and response onsisteny. San Franiso: Jossey-Bass, Vaughan E, Seifert M. Variability in the framing of risk issues. J So Issues 1992;48: House of Lords Offiial Report. 28 Marh, House of Lords Offiial Report. 2 November 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 2 November 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 2 November 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 1 Marh 2002, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 2 November 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 16 November 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 18 January 2002, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 28 Marh 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 28 Marh 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 28 Marh 2001, Col House of Lords Offiial Report. 16 November 2001, Cols