Today I heard an ad on the radio featuring a mother looking for the best methods for discouraging her child from smoking. The ad directed her to the Philip Morris website. I was struck by the irony of that direction. But when I went to the Philip Morris website, I saw that the company’s home page is dedicated to resources regarding how to get your kids not to smoke, how to quit smoking, and the health issues associated with smoking. I recall that part of the settlement with cigarette companies requires them to direct resources towards preventing young children from smoking cigarettes, but seeing the implementation of that settlement in action makes me wonder about its impact. First, how can a company survive when it is compelled to advertise against its own product? Second, how effective is that advertising? I guess the answer to the second question may determine the answer to the first. And certainly the new rulings throwing out large jury awards against such companies may make the anti-advertising a small issue.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e200d834d4db6d69e2
Links to weblogs that reference Cigarette Company’s Anti-Product Advertising:
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
