In the Golden Days of advertising, advertisement executives and copy writers were fortunate enough to create adverts that did not have to adhere to a multitude of modern guidelines and regulated, set by the government.
During the 1940s and 1950s, many physicians found that lung cancer was on the rise and thus, research was conducted to determine whether or not cigarette smoke was the cause of the epidemic. Of course, carcinogens were found in cigarette smoke and the culprit of the global lung cancer pandemic was detected.
These medical findings lead to a decrease in cigarette sales and the tobacco industry acted to quell the fears of the public. While scientists and other researchers were finding cancerous effects of tobacco, the Camel corporation set out to prove its product’s “mildness”. Rather than addressing concerns of fatal disease, the corporation sought to reassure its consumers that its product didn’t even cause throat irritation and as a result, being beyond incapable of causing cancerous side effects. At the study’s conclusion, Camels consumers are reassured that of 2,470 thorough examinations, no throat irritation could be found.
In this particular advertisement, the Camel corporation seeks to establish credibility with its consumers by conducting a study with a medical team and a vast sample size. Furthermore, by incorporating the statistic that of 113,597 doctors regarding what brand of cigarettes they preferred they stated Camel. Not only implying that Camel is considered a health conscious choice, but smoking cigarettes is a wide spread choice made by doctors.
As conflicting reports emerged regarding the safety to tobacco products, a great majority of these consumers had been enjoying such products regularly for years, possibly decades. Due to factors such as nicotine, or pleasure, consumers were likely to avoid literature urging them to break their cancerous habit and instead, seek confirmation bias. The Camel advertisement validates what consumers had “known” all along and more importantly, doesn’t require them to acknowledge the fact their health habits are detrimental nor do they have to change their lifestyle.
As I was reading your post I was mentally preparing to write a comment essentially saying what you said in your last paragraph. I completely agree. People will tend to believe the convenient truth. So all the cigarette manufacturers had to do was provide a semi-reasonable counter argument into people minds, and smoker would keep smoking because it’s easier than quiting.
Definitely, and it’s a universal truth. It is always more difficult to break a habit or establish a new routine than find reasoning to continue onward with one’s same choices. Thank you for your feedback!
Wow, this is a very in-depth analysis. The only criticism I have is that you never mentioned the significance of the money-back guarantee. To be fair, I don’t really know what the significance would be, but it must be something or they wouldn’t have included it in the ad! Maybe something to do with calming the anxiety of consumers hearing about cigarette’s health hazards?
I agree, it would definitely relieve the anxiety of the consumers. Thank you for your feedback!
The amount of background information for your analysis was incredibly helpful in understanding it at the end. Since I don’t know much if anything about smoking in the mid 1900s it was helpful to know extra information on what it was like. Very in-depth review, I’m not sure that I have many if any suggestions to make it better!