Consumer Affairs published and article today titled, “Do Advertising Bans Deter Bad Habits in Youth?” The article raises some interesting concepts, most notably that bans on alcohol and tobacco related advertising does not quell these high-risk behaviors by youth.
The focus of the article is on the review of studies conducted to support advertising bans. Jon Nelson, professor emeritus of economics at Penn State is quoted in the article as stating,
“The studies, in fact, are deficient in so many respects that the big question is whether there’s any influence of marketing at all, especially the mass media.”
Well, Mr. Nelson, I can tell you, without a doubt, that if bans and regulations were lifted, the marketing of tobacco and alcohol products to youth will have a dramatic effect. Usage will increase. This is because smart marketers know how to get people to do the things they want them to do. And that is precisely why the limitations are in place.
We know that effective marketing will push behaviors in a certain direction. I believe what Mr. Nelson is trying to convey is the absences of marketing does not necessarily push behaviors away from risk taking. While I agree with the sentiment, when it comes to teenagers smoking and drinking, a stalemate is a pretty decent, albeit not perfect, solution.
And how can you expect more? There is a proliferation of “adult” advertising that teenagers resonate with. 17-year old girls are not trying to emulate other 17-year old girls, they are trying to emulate sophisticated and beautiful adults. Like the women these ads:
Even if you take advertising out of the equation, look at what teenage and young adult movie stars are show doing on a regular basis. Images are prolific of the “it” stars Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart smoking. And what teenage girl isn’t currently in love with Pattison? (Marlboro must simply love this image of Pattison).
The bottom line is you can blame advertising for getting people to do something. But can’t blame the lack of advertising for unsuccessfully preventing action. Community hospitals, government agencies and other healthcare organizations that want to decrease risky behavior in youth should spend money on “anti” campaigns. Because, like I already said, good marketers can make people do what we want them to do.
A couple of anti-smoking “youth” ads found on the 10steps.sg website…
on Facebook
on Twitter
It seems that your blog always catches my attention. And I frequently feel compelled to comment.
I spent three years directing the “counter-marketing” efforts for the Wisconsin Tobacco Control Board. The goal was to counteract the persistent aggressive efforts of the tobacco industry. And despite certain “bans” on traditional advertising, the various marketing efforts of the tobacco industry still outstripped our meager “counter-marketing” efforts by nearly 100 to 1. We had 4 goals: to reduce the percentage of teens who smoked (since 90%+ of all smokers start before age 19), to provide the means for smokers to access quit-lines and other ways to quit (seems the vast majority of smokers actually want to quit), to educate minority population groups that are disproportionately effected – including native Americans, African Americans, Latinos and Hmong) and to educate non-smokers about the health effects of second-hand smoke in an effort to legislate against smoking in pubic places.
Like most states, the money came from the billions paid from the tobacco settlement. And, like most states, the money was eventually used to plug budget deficits rather than to continue to fight tobacco use.
The point of this is to say that, while the money was being spent, real progress was being made. Particularly among teens. Using tactics pioneered in Florida and the national Truth campaign, advertising was used to edcuate young people about ways that the tobacco industry was specifically targeting them. And to encourage their righteous outrage. It worked far better than “just say no”. In the years during which this effort was conducted, the incidence of smoking dropped – not just in Wisconsin, but in all states that addressed the problem with “counter-marketing” measures.
But when the money was gone and the advertising stopped, a few states – notably Minnesota and Massachusetts – carefully monitored the effect. Guess what? Smoking rates began to rise again.
So why do I say all this? To reinforce your point that social marketing – indeed all marketing – can be a powerful tool to impact behavior. And bans on ads to kids aren’t apt to help when signage, sponsorships, “adult” advertising and a variety of other promotional efforts continue – while “anti” efforts are no longer funded.
Craig, thank you for continuing to be a loyal reader of our blog. Its nice to know that our audience really does like to get some on the side. I appreciate your insight into this industry. Looking back now we should all know why “just say no” didn’t work as well as Truth – savvy marketers know we can’t tell teenager what to do. Campaigns like Truth put the information out and allow teenagers to make their own decision to act. Unfortunately, the money to run these campaigns will continue to slow as economic struggles still impact states. Just this morning MSNBC ran a painful story about the cutbacks in education and states opting not to use federal dollars for hiring new teachers in 2010 in lieu of saving the money for even worse cutbacks coming in 2011. Which means, of course, that there be limited available funds for “anti” campaigns that really can make a difference in the health of our youth. Maybe we should join forces and create a social media campaign to discourage youth from smoking?
Thanks again for your comments, we always appreciate them.