Behind the smoke (and mirrors) of the fag ads

March 25, 2005
A still from one of Philip Morris' cinema ads aiming to deter teenagers from smoking. Critics say the ads are merely an attempt to win brownie points for corporate responsibility.

Photo: Supplied

Are they seeking to reduce harm to smokers or simply trying to keep them hooked? Julie Szego explores the new PR offensive of the tobacco giants.

If you've been to a teen flick during the past two years, a genre of anti-smoking ads might be familiar. The ads, mostly screened over school holidays, portray cool, sexy kids who shun the fags. In one, we see a few shots of slim Katya, 15, and are told she "does fashion: does style: does her own thing . . . doesn't smoke." Another ad shows a surfie lad trying to pick up chicks by faking a broken leg. The boy "does extreme sports: does love the attention: does push his luck," and, you guessed it, "doesn't smoke."

Most viewers would attribute the ads to a public health body, but there is no Quit logo. The ads, which first ran on MTV in Europe, were developed by tobacco giants and distributed in Australia by Philip Morris. The company cannot put its logo on the ads because this would breach laws prohibiting tobacco advertising in cinemas.

In places with more liberal advertising regimes, such as the US, the company openly warns consumers about the dangers of smoking. Advertisements with messages such as "Youth smoking is a problem" and "You should not assume that lower tar cigarettes are safer or better for you" run in the print media of more than 20 countries. This month Philip Morris USA began airing TV ads that explicitly advise smokers on how to quit.

The confusing, contentious world of tobacco non-promotion is part of a new PR offensive being waged by an industry desperate to rehabilitate its pariah image. Trying to unpack the logic only sends you deeper into the fog of circular argument and contradiction. The issue can almost be expressed as a brain teaser: A multinational needs to recruit consumers to an addictive and potentially deadly product just to stay in business. But the same multinational tells people not to fall for the nicotine trick. What should we make of this?

The tobacco giants' rationale goes like this: Even with the effort to slash smoking rates, people will still smoke. Prohibition is not the answer but harm minimisation is important. We only target the adult smoking population; there are enough of them to keep the industry viable. It is our corporate responsibility to warn people off smoking and reduce their risk of harm.

The corporate-responsibility line provokes rage among public-health advocates who accuse cigarette companies of disingenuous manipulation.

"It's still the same wolf," says Todd Harper, executive director of Quit Victoria. "We're still talking about an industry that has opposed every sensible piece of legislation to reduce the harm of smoking."

For its part, Philip Morris resists talk of any "tobacco industry". "There's not a tobacco industry - let's get this straight," said one of Philip Morris' global chiefs, David Davies, in an interview with The Age this week during his visit to Australia.

It is sensible spin given accusations that for decades tobacco companies colluded in deceiving customers about the dangers of smoking. Of the three tobacco companies in the Australian market, Philip Morris has been working hardest at its public makeover in recent times.

Davies, senior vice-president of corporate affairs, spoke to Canberra's National Press Club this week, where he promoted the development of a cigarette that reduces the health risk to smokers. "Without letting up in the effort (to cut smoking rates) . . . how do you address the harm that's caused by people who continue to smoke?" he says.

"We are dedicating enormous resources to how you can produce a product that can reduce harm and we ask the scientific community to join us in this."

The notion of a less harmful cigarette is being pushed by tobacco companies and appears to be gaining traction in some places. New Zealand has recently flagged interest in modified tobacco products as part of a wider review of anti-smoking laws. Philip Morris' main competitor in Australia, market leader British American Tobacco, claims it is also pursuing the development of such products.

"Put simply, there's bad stuff in smoke," says Davies. "And you can address this by filtration and alter what you do with tobacco, because it's burning that generates harmful ingredients in smoke."

Anti-smoking advocates say it is merely the last gasp of an industry facing ever-tightening restrictions. Cigarette companies, with their sorry record of putting science and ethics last, lost the right to a seat at the table long ago, they say.

Simon Chapman, Sydney University professor in public health, suspects Davies is referring to a type of smokeless cigarette recently test-marketed in the US to a less than enthusiastic reception. It involves the release of tobacco vapours via a heated rod, so that people get their nicotine fix without needing to inhale smoke and all its carcinogens.

"You have to suck so hard to get any sensation you almost get a hernia," says Chapman.

Democrats leader Senator Lyn Allison, who is leading the charge against tobacco in Federal Parliament, says that the whole notion of a "safer" cigarette is, like the "light" and "mild" labels that have invoked the wrath of Australia's consumer watchdog, just another ploy to comfort smokers out of beating their addiction.

It's hard to lob a killer question at tobacco companies because they can pre-empt even the most tabloid. "What would your chief executive officer do if he found his 10-year-old daughter had been smoking?" is one in a long list of frequently asked questions on the Philip Morris International website. Answer: "No parent wants their kids to smoke. That goes for Andre Calantzopoulos, our CEO, too: like many of our employees, Andre is a parent himself."

To the obvious question of how the industry sees a future if young people fail to take up smoking, there is an answer too. Says Davies: "I simply don't accept the premise that if you have a world where no kids smoke that therefore adults wouldn't smoke."

But this does not fly with anti-smoking advocates, who scorn the industry's youth-prevention initiatives as little more than an attempt to win brownie points for corporate responsibility.

The ultimate aim of new-look tobacco companies, say the critics, is to keep themselves nice in the West in order to stem the tide of stiff regulation that could disrupt their cultivating emerging markets elsewhere.

Philip Morris last week bought a 40 per cent stake in one of heavy-smoking Indonesia's largest cigarette producers. The deal was widely interpreted as a move to offset the curb in Western tobacco consumption.

Of course, there is no killer answer available to tobacco firms because health bodies will never accept their legitimacy in public debate. The notion of a responsible cigarette manufacturer is a misnomer for them and they want nothing more than to deal them out of the game for good.

The multinationals argue that even if they vanished tomorrow an unscrupulous black market would promptly step in to fill the vacuum. "The question has been answered - there will still be a tobacco industry," says Davies. "But I want a tobacco industry populated by companies like Philip Morris."

Davies and others at Philip Morris talk about the company having "evolved", but from what precisely is never specified.

Asked why a responsible corporation should not reimburse the public purse for treating diseases caused by its products, Davies mentions, among other things, the massive excise taxes levied on tobacco. Anyway, people who smoke knowing all the risks should not look to litigation to solve their problems.

He knows that there will continue to be cynicism about tobacco companies, but Philip Morris will persist with harm minimisation.

"People are going to criticise us but that's not going to deter us," Davies says.

That's one promise the critics are likely to believe.


Our Advertisers