Unless otherwise noted, information in this section comes from references 165 and 166.
The tobacco industry stoutly defends its right to advertise, and vigorously opposes any attempts to further restrict its promotions (see Chapter 14, Sections 18 and 19). It is through maintaining advertising that the industry in part maintains public credibility: once governments ban all advertising and promotion, it will be evident to the community that there really is something gravely wrong with the product. A British survey showed that 44% of smokers agreed that 'Smoking can't be really dangerous or the government would ban advertising'.(167)
Tobacco advertising promotes the notion that smoking is an acceptable and desirable activity. One former advertising leader has commented that fostering a conducive atmosphere for smoking is probably the major service derived from advertising; survival of the industry being more important in the end than brand competition.(168)
The tobacco industry uses a number of defences for its fight to continue advertising. The following are summaries of the major arguments presented by the tobacco industry in support of continued marketing practices, with critical comment.
The tobacco companies claim that advertising does not increase tobacco consumption, and does not encourage non-smokers, who by definition can have no interest in their advertising, to start smoking. Instead, advertising is inter-company competition which encourages existing smokers to change or stay with a particular brand.(33)
While this argument might have some credibility if tobacco were a product with a strictly defined or limited market (as, for example, petrol, which is only of use to car owners or drivers), it is unconvincing when applied to cigarettes. Tobacco products are advertised with themes of mass appeal like sexual success and glamour; themes which do not distinguish between smokers and non-smokers. Car manufacturers would hardly argue that their advertising is intended only for existing car owners, rather than potential first car buyers.(128)
Tobacco companies also have something of an imperative to attract new customers: since 18,920 Australians die from tobacco caused diseases each year,(169) and around 150,000 more quit smoking permanently each year,(170) it is essential that tobacco companies recruit new smokers in order to survive.
The inconsistency of the tobacco industry's argument has been exposed by the advertising industry itself. A former president and chairman of the Board of the world's second largest advertising agency has said:
In recent years the cigarette industry has been artfully maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. Take my word for it, this is complete and utter nonsense. The advertisers know it is nonsense, the industry knows it is nonsense, and I suspect, the public knows it is nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function which has been shown to increase consumption with virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco products. The industry only advances this argument to try to undermine efforts to restrict tobacco promotion.(168)More recently, an Australian marketing consultant has commented that 'it's time cigarette advertisers stopped the tripe that their advertising does not encourage people to take up smoking. Of course it does -- it is high quality advertising that does its job very well'.(171)
If advertising is simply competition between the companies for a larger share of a limited pool of customers, it would logically follow that in countries where a tobacco monopoly exists, there would be no need to advertise. This argument has in fact been put forward by one company executive(172) as a reason why bans have been enforced in some countries. However there are no bans in several other countries where the governments have tobacco marketing monopolies; for example South Korea, Thailand and Turkey: therefore the advertising in these countries could only be intended to expand the markets.
It has fu