(This week, PR News editors Phil Hall and Courtney Barnes hold an ashtray to the anti-smoking PR campaigns and Big Tobacco's stealthy marketing efforts.)
COURTNEY: It looks like PR is in the news again, this time thanks to the new Hollywood film, "Thank You for Smoking." The movie inflames the reputation of
communications professionals as spin doctors, with star Aaron Eckhart playing a spokesperson for Big Tobacco who goes on an PR offensive to promote smoking in the face of
outspoken, health-conscious adversaries. Not only does the film give the public relations industry negative PR itself, but it raises another question: Which side is considered
the winner in the fight against tobacco? After years of anti-smoking campaigns, people still light up; on the flip side, Americans are more aware of the health risks than ever.
So what gives?
PHIL: The flippant answer is easy: People who smoke are stupid and self-destructive (it's suicide on the installment plan). But the deeper answer is more intriguing,
from our perspective. The tobacco industry has long employed under-the-radar marketing campaigns on bringing new smokers to their products. College kids are the main quarry in
their viewfinder, as witnessed by the large number of experiential marketing campaigns coordinated by the cigarette brands that are centered in the bars around college towns.
These type of shenanigans constitute what I would call anti-PR - promoting a product without calling attention to your activities. The sad thing is, they are extremely
successful. Even one new smoker is one too many.
COURTNEY: Right, and without chastising smokers any further, the most significant point is the slick marketing done on the part of Big Tobacco. Even in a movie like
"Thank You for Smoking," cigarette makers are getting freebie press; after all, people will be lighting up on screen throughout the movie. I think it comes down to the fact that
any PR for tobacco companies is good PR because it constantly keeps smoking at the forefront of consumers' minds. It's a matter of anti-smoking campaigns retaliating with
something that can actually debunk the "sexiness" of taking a drag.
PHIL: Or perhaps the anti-smoking campaigns are as wispy as a smoke ring? I actually consider many of the PSAs relating to smoking to be uninventive and inefficient.
Maybe it is time to reconsider how the anti-tobacco groups can get their message out. I recall a PSA from 20 years ago that depicted a fetus lighting a cigarette within the womb.
The point was to discourage pregnant women from smoking, and here we are two decades later and I can recall it vividly. Really, the anti-smoking groups need to become more
visceral and daring in their promotional work.
COURTNEY: I know there is a lot of truth in what you're saying, though I do believe there have been a number of poignant anti-smoking commercials to date. Perhaps it
just goes to show that for PR professionals in the nonsmoking section, it has to be about targeting the right audiences (kids, for example, as they are the next generation of
smokers) and passing no-smoking ordinances. But either way you look at it, one thing is for certain: The addictive quality of nicotine is a double-edged sword. So far, the
smoking war has been a lose/lose situation for all sides.