What is the height for a multinational tobacco? Be forced to finance a massive campaign.
prevention tobacco! Yet, this is what happens to four large companies known as the “Big Tobacco”. For a year, they will have to disseminate 260 spots per week, on the major tv channels in u. .s. . and in primetime. This campaign, which has just started will also include more than 50 newspapers with messages in full-page. Looks like this campaign?This campaign is far from our spots French of prevention against tobacco.
Of texts written in black on a white background are read by a voice-over, dying.
The manufacturers are obviously not that altruistic and specified, moreover, from the beginning of the televised message: “the federal court ruled that Altria, R. . J Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard and Philip Morris USA deliberately deceived Americans about the effects of cigarette smoking on health, and has ordered those companies to make this statement”. They are still obliged: “here’s the truth, smoking kills, on average, 1200 Americans every day. ” Finally, following the announcement takes the main damage caused by tobacco. The model of the tv spot has been defined by the american courts. The lobby has been forced to comply with it.
. He has therefore made every effort to make this campaign the least attractive possible. In effect, companies don’t want to capture the attention of a young audience, target yet privileged of their advertising campaigns classic. But from where comes this sentence?The condemnation of the multinational is the result of a long struggle.
For the past 18 years, the justice federal american faces, in fact, 11 industrial, and sellers of tobacco.
It all started in the 90’s with the release of the “tobacco papers”, reveals the fraudulent techniques of companies to counter the efforts of the WHO in its fight against smoking. The “Big Tobacco”, perfectly aware of the dangers of cigarette smoking, have continued to thwart the public policies put in place by the u. .s. government, sowing the doubt, aimed at young people, or influencing the personnel policy. In 1999, the Clinton administration made a complaint and the “Big Tobacco” are then forced to pay a fine of several hundreds of billions of dollars.
Then, in 2006, the industrialists are condemned for misleading advertising.
They are then asked to disseminate anti-tobacco campaign.
But they don’t want to. . After 11 years of arm-twisting and maneuvering to avoid application of this legal decision, they are now forced. And in France? This type of campaign does he have a chance to bear fruit and disgust smokers? The future will tell. One thing is for sure, in france, it is still quite far away from these methods of retaliation. The authorities are content for the time to broadcast their own messages of prevention.
“For the second consecutive year we have the months without tobacco. It has been proven that the impact and the effectiveness of a prevention campaign are, among other factors, related to its duration in time, but also to the broadcast frequency of the spots, at least two to three times per week,” points out William Lowenstein-physician specialist services, president of SOS addictions, and co-author of the book “All addicts and then?. . .