|
Post by Wycco on Aug 19, 2003 9:32:00 GMT -5
You need a government permit to go fishing- but none to raise a child! (not that I'm advocating having "parenthood-licenses" - god forbid the government regulate that too!)
|
|
|
Post by hroark on Aug 19, 2003 16:46:38 GMT -5
wycco: I can tell you my wife and I often look at each other and realize that we most definitely are NOT qualified to be parents. How we have wished they came with instruction manuals.
who won: Tobacco advertising has been banned on TV for dacades. So teens of the last 20 years have not been exposed to what I would consider the glamorous image of smoking. Think of the image smokers of the '40-60's where exposed to. Look at any b/w movie, 95% of the heroes or heroines smoked.
So I would argue, how exactly are they reaching teens now? I dont think they have to reach them in order to get them to start smoking.
The reason kids start smoking is because the want to grow up quicker (seem as adults) and they want to defy and rebel against their parents and the establishment.
In fact, and I bet the tobacco companies know this, if they targeted a brand directly to teens, the teens would reject it and resent it, based on the idea that they want the grown-up versions.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Aug 19, 2003 19:07:33 GMT -5
Hroak,
To be honest I dont know the figures and I could well be wrong, but I believe that there are far less smokers today than in the 50's and 60's.
Is it down to smoking being far less visible on TV? I dont know, but there certainly appears to be a link that can be inferred.
well the answer is obviously what we are talking about. Where do they see smoking, well, it does happen all around them and of course advertising via F1 and other sports.
Whats more of a mans sport than F1? as you go on to mention, perhaps by targetting adults, they are really tergetting teens. persuasion is very subtle and involves the breaking down of plenty of barriers. Simply saying "come and smoke, its nice" would probably be less effective then subtle brand conscious placing of the product.
Okay, in my conclusion, do I think there is an obvious link between F1 advertising and teens smoking? Nope, but I do see the arguments. Besides, if it helps at the marginal level then its a better thing.
|
|
|
Post by hroark on Aug 20, 2003 10:59:16 GMT -5
I'm in advertising and marketing and have worked very closely with the ad agency that carries the Phillip Morris brands in Latin America. I've been privy to the way they think.
There is a principle in advertising: in the long run, share of voice equals market share. Share of voice is a term that describes your brand's share of the total expenditure in advertising in that particular category.
This is why Pepsi and Coke are always competing with each other over who spends more in advertising. They simply cannot allow the other to outspend them.
In tobacco, their choices of WHERE to spend their considerable budgets has been reduced very much. But they are still fighting over who has the highest share of voice.
By limiting tobacco advertising to magazines, billboards and these types of events (and no longer TV and other more invasive medias), tobacco advertisers in the US and Europe have been limited to fighting against each other for the existing market without being really able to create new smokers (as they did for years).
Just look at any cigarrette ad in a magazine. Some are even saying "as long as you smoke, try ours, they taste great!".
Basically their ad strategy says "If you are a smoker or are considering starting smoking, brand X, (bacause of pricing, packaging, and image positioning, as in F1) is the brand that best represents the image you want to convey to others (as a smoker)."
In conclusion, I can assure you that through their association with F1, tobacco companies dont really hope to convince people to START smoking.
What they are hoping is that if you are already a smoker and show up at the newstand where you buy your cigs, you will see the West or the Luckies, or the Marlboro carton and think of Kimi, or MS, or JV and either continue buying their brand or consider switching to their brand instead of the one you normally buy.
Obviously this same principle of share of voice applies to new smokers. But the ads are not designed to convince you to start. Just think of the way Pepsi tries to convince you to drink Pepsi (ice-cold drink, sweaty Britney, quenching her thrist and rubbing the cold can on her chest) there is nothing even close going on in cigarrettes. Their thinking is much more simple: if Marlboro spends 30% of all the money invested in tobacco ads in the world, they will probably capture 30% of all new smokers.
One of the significant statistics is that in North America and Europe, less and less people are starting smoking, but the age has lowered considerably. The fact is kids are growing up quicker than before. They have sex at an earlier time, they try drugs are a youger age, and they also start smoking earlier. This was not caused by the tobacco companies, but they understand this statistic well, yet they cannot target them. They have to rely on all the other ads to reach them.
Now, go to China and you will see blatant TV ads of the Marlboro man enjoying his cancer-stick after rustling some cattle. THATis an ad designed to get people to start.
|
|
|
Post by who won on Aug 20, 2003 19:33:37 GMT -5
Trust me, I am in almost full agreement with you there, thats why at the start of the whole thing I said I was 50-50, though what sways me is that I dislike the tobacco industry.
But to your point above, I think that while the persuasive power that is employed to encourage people to switch brands is probably the primary intent and the most likley outcome of the F1 advertising, if there is that much persuasion to switch, surely some persuasion must be there to even try. They are obviously saying try our cigarettes... if you already smoke, so some people may try then, ...even though they dont already smoke.
I dont think we are yet that sophisticated that ads can pinpoint exact bahavioural desires based upon pre exisitng behaviour, the message is try our cigarettes, thats all!
Does it encourage a lot of people to smoke? again, probably not, but I fully maintain that it is as the song goes, just another brick in the wall that is part of someones make up that would be a likely candidate as a new smoker. Just one more slightly persuasive argument to start will push him over the edge to becoming a smoker. It all helps.
I can well even imagine a scene of a 15 year old celebrating a Ferrari win having some drinks with friends and under some alcoholic influence another drunken friend holds up some Marlboro for Ferrari!! fags.
I know its a ridiculous argument and these people would smoke anyway, but if the government is serious about its objective, then it is doing what is in line with that.
|
|
|
Post by hroark on Aug 21, 2003 11:06:58 GMT -5
Yes I can see we are sort of arguing the same thing. Good thing they havent outlawed licor ads or I wouldn't have taken up drinking.
|
|
|
Post by ozcar on Aug 21, 2003 20:46:21 GMT -5
Benrie knows what he is doing - Tobacco advertising has been banned in most countries - especially Australia yet the legislation was mysteriously revisited when Melbourne knicked the race from Adelaide...
Point being he is milking the window to extract the maximum promotional dollars whilst we await the blanket ban in 2006. Lets face it, who else could pony up that sort of money besides pharmaceutical or car manufacturers and one of this is kinda involved already!
The funny thing about Marlboro is that many many years after the ban comes into effect...we will still see the archival footage of the great MS (or whoever) at the wheel of a marlboro red ferrari...or the shots of his 5th (and perhaps 6th) world title emblazoned with the ciggie brand across his suit...
Good one bernie.
|
|
|
Post by hroark on Aug 22, 2003 17:46:09 GMT -5
Thats an interesting point of view. Have you niticed that now that Volvos are sporty cars they've gone and dug up all the (very few) old pictures of them running rallies and stuff.
It is also impressive that you almost cant see a black and white picture of a motoring event without seeing the Dunlop logo.
|
|
|
Post by hroark on Aug 22, 2003 17:49:23 GMT -5
sorry, forgot to mention my point...
The advertising invested in F1 (on a winning team or future legendary driver) transcends time. Like you mention, years from now in history books, in posters, in magazines, in web-sites, people will continue seeing the sponsors MS and Ferrari had in the early 21st century.
I hadn't seen this added benefit...
|
|