theory to practice report: cigarettes, advertising and persuasion in the public sphere

11417060 - Oliver Hall

Theory to Practice Report:!

Cigarettes, Advertising and Persuasion in the Public Sphere!

!Introduction

!Advertising effectiveness and its impact in the public sphere boils down to two discursive models.

Each inculcated by consumerism and competition, the first school of thought mirrors that of

extant literature, assuming an awareness role dominated by unidimensional information

dissemination. The converse is achieved through the efficacious means of “intangible and/or

psychic differentiators” synonymous with persuasion in society (Banerjee, B; Bandyopadhyay, S,

2003 pp. 1-2). Having moved beyond mere utterances, advertising has thus evolved into a

symbiotic being, one predicated on acclimating “consumer thoughts, feelings and actions” to

“persuade the receiver to take some action, now or in the future” (Spence-Stone, R 2011 pp. 4).

Self perception, and that of society as a whole, is thus balanced on the promotion of a product or

belief in an idea. Advertising has herein developed into a privileged form of social discourse that

has “unparalleled rhetorical force” in the public sphere (Beasley, Denasi 2002).

!Media discussion in response to the contemporary issue of plain packaging of cigarettes has

been an oscillating pendulum, swinging between both ethical and consumer considerations

amongst the public sphere. This relevant contemporary issue thus embodies the conflicting

paradigms of advertising, persuasion and the complexity of media and communication sector

debate. This reports aim is to identify and discuss the use of private and public advertising

sectors as pervasive disseminator[s] of cultural values, contributing to and challenging this

persuasive ‘advertising force’ in the public sphere (Lavidge 1961), using the the plain packaging of

cigarettes as a poignant example.

!!Research Design - The Issue; Comparing Theory and Practice

!


The last several decades have seen sweeping tobacco control measures imposed on cigarette

advertising and promotions. The “gradual restriction of tobacco advertising and promotion”,

coupled with “mandated health warnings and product information” on tobacco packaging had

seen packaging assume the central role as a marketing and promotional tool, still highly effective

due to their high degree of social visibility. 2011 saw the induction of the Tobacco Plain Packaging

Bill which sought to “prohibit the use of all tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and

promotional text on the retail packaging of tobacco products” (Bills Digest 2011). Persuasion is

what remains constant here, as “the media and advertising format landscape continue to change”

(Pelsmacker and Neijens 2012) as to do the social discourses surrounding tobacco and

cigarettes. Through the aesthetics of the packaging itself, the tobacco industry has developed

brand image associations that are particularly effective where it comes to attracting and

‘persuading’ young people. “Our packaging is our marketing” (Morris, Phillips. 2009). Advocacy of

free markets morality is here limited by transitional persuasion/propaganda dichotomy (Fawkes

2007). Within the “modernist paradigm of objective rational design”, “persuasion is distasteful”,

associated with the worlds of advertising and marketing— introverted, manipulative, and frivolous

- prompting an alternative dichotomy (McCoy 2000). Mass-advertising today, (particularly in

regards to the tobacco industry), is more about lifestyle and image than it is products, veering

away from information but towards seduction (McCoy 2010). Advertising is therein a cultural

system rather than an informative one. Advertising cultural system is however incomplete, due to

the vacuous rifts resultant from noncommercial content (Sandikci 2010).

In 2011 Australia became a focus of world media in relation to proposed plain packaging

regulation. The plain packaging of cigarettes has recently dominated the media pool, with

conflicting debate stances surfacing in television, radio, print, press and digital forums alike. As

these forums of content converge, so to do the contributing sectors. The not-for-profit, private,

and public sectors each utilizing media advertising and in essence, persuasion along with it. The

organizations and individuals involved, some of which include the Cancer Council, Big Tobacco,

and the Australian government, have each been very vocal. These parties evoke Habermas’

preclusion of a “refeudalization” of power relations, whereby decisions of advertising leaders

sanction and maintain the the illusions of the public sphere (Crossley and Roberts 2004). These

seemingly conflicting standpoints and competing cultures of information and persuasion is no


longer pertinent, with each instead interacting and overlapping to inform social culture (McCoy

2000).

!In a recent panel discussion, spokespeople from the various interest sectors articulated the roles

and practices that constitute their own use of public communication medium, in order to engage

with the media and ultimately society at large. Clare and Alice Collins (Insight Communications),

provided an in-depth look into the not-for-profit sector’s use of public communication and its

impact on the public sphere. While Al Crawford (Executive planning Director) (Clemenger BBDO)

offered his viewpoint on the role of private sector advertising in society. These and other views

offered a snapshot into the world of these different sectors, the purposes for which they work,

their limitations and constraints, and ultimately their utilisation of and representation in the media.

These figures act as samples, offering up a larger a picture at the world of public communication.

This ultimately allows one to draw parallels to each sectors media utilisation and stance in regards

to a specific contemporary issue such as plain packaged cigarettes.

!!Discussion - Various Sector Implications for Advertising

!Advertising takes place in a public forum melting pot, one within which business interests,

creativity, consumer needs and government regulations meet and coalesce (Spence-Stone, R.

2011). Advertising’s contributing role to a lively public sphere is thus repudiated by Sandikci

(2010) as more than a “hegemonic tool of the capitalist ideology”, but rather evoking a

“performative function, “incit[ing] public debate and dialogue on social and political issues, and

foster[ing] positive notions of identity and citizenship” (pp. 46). Media representation of plain

packaging cigarettes this public debate is a uniform example of the forms of persuasion utilized

by current advertisers, providing capacious prerogatives for social discussion and reform. Our

public sphere supports freedom of speech and the press, and provides means of diffusion of

material for socio cultural issues such as the plain packaging debate. Todays heavily industrialized

society fosters competition and endows the media.

!The private sector of the plain packaging debate is presence largely represented by the tobacco


industries, namely W. Merrett, Imperial Tobacco Australia. A number of Australian retailer

organisations have also expressed opposition to the Bill, and concerns regarding its implications.

Thus, the private sector is further represented by The Alliance of Australian Retailers (AAR),

comprising of the following member organizations: The Service Station Association Pty Ltd;

Australian Newsagents' Federation Ltd and National Independent Retailers Association Inc. This

AAR stance is however explicitly supported by British American Tobacco Australia Limited and

Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited.

!In favor of plain packaging’s initiation stands the not-for-profit and the government/public sectors.

The predominant head of the media coverage in regards to advertising is that of the Cancer

Council Victoria, a non-profit cancer charity organization involved in an advocacy role. Following

suit, the Australian Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, the Public

Health Association, Australia, the National Stroke Foundation and the National Heart Foundation

of Australia have each expressed stark support for the proposal. NHFA “strongly supports plain

packaging of tobacco products and welcomes the bipartisan support for this world first measure.”

Australian federal and state and territory governments of the public sector side with the public

health organizations media stance. World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework Convention on

Tobacco Controland its 172 parties are obliged to ensure that: “Tobacco product packaging and

labelling do not promote a tobacco product by any means that are false, misleading, deceptive or

likely to create an erroneous impression”. Here one can see the direct implication of the use of

marketing and advertising persuasion by Big Tobacco.

!Persuasion and advertising can be seen to distort and blur the parameters of one’s psychosis,

relaying only the hubristic values, lifestyles and philosophies that serve the interests of mass-

media, and offering social and personal aid through consumption and the ‘commodity of the self’.

This view of mass-advertising can be described as “the colonization of the public sphere by

systems of authority” (Soules 2001). Plain packaging herein encapsulates this theory into practice,

flooding the media with the voices of big business rather than that of the public itself. Having

evolved beyond mere utterances, public exposure and one’s perception of ideas, is actuated by

advertisements, surpassing one’s personal experience and thought.

!


The private sphere, firstly by the tobacconists attempt to represent the discursive channels

between the consumer and the government sector, persuading them to reject a “nanny state.” Al

Crawford (Executive planning Director) (Clemenger BBDO), a representative of this private sector

claimed that “Information is only useful if done in a way that’s interesting” Advertising is “often not

information, but memory” and thus an emotional, persuasive connection needs to be fostered.

Here advertising information is no longer “noble”, and can be viewed as “manipulation” of the

information and the public, or as “propaganda” (McCoy 2000). This seemingly ‘manipulative’ and

emotional connection in advertising is similarly fostered by the The Alliance of Australian Retailer’s

“it’s not going to work so why do it?” campaign. The campaign centers around attempt at

empathy, with the use of shopkeepers speaking of their business worries. This advertisement

campaign acts as a front for the tobacco industry, synthetically imbedding in the minds of the

people rampant consumerism and materialism. Alice collins (insight communication) spoke of this

anonymity leverage. Given the predominate challenge for revenue in public communication

sectors, particularly advertising, donors are expecting value for their contributions. This campaign

acts as a means to offer varying view points on the one matter. Julie Robotham affirms that the

tobacco industy here attempts to persuade people that the legislation won’t “prevent smoking”

but rather “hamper small businesses and cost jobs” under an auspices. “Money is the hub of

everything” says - Paul Cheal (Honner Media) of the private sector, as in line with the private

sphere the campaign had ‘no finite budget’ says Ms Moon.

!Nik Robinson, spoke of the untapped potential of social media, as did many of the panelists. In

line with todays communication industry, much of the plain packaging has been unfolding online

in social media. The use of online fan groups and viral YouTube content reveals an attempt to

combat the growing intricacies of the public sphere. Alice and Clare Collins also spoke of

resources to support campaign requirements, Technology progression has provided tracking and

substantial evidence for campaigns in order for results to become immediate. Social media is

however “yet to be fully tapped”. The Vic Cancer Councils amongst the non-profit/public sector is

“constricted by many boundaries not constricting commercial sectors” says Collins. The

advertisements campaign takes a satirical look at the private sector, highlighting the “laughable

position of tobacco executives”. Their stand alone webpage plainfacts.org.au directly repudiates

the competitors advertisements, firmly denoting the AAR’s ”it won’t work, so why do it?’ slogan


as a ‘myth’ with supportive evidence. Charitable not for profit stance hold discursive notions of

authority and power, opening the reliability of their ‘information’ while ultimately still persuading.

Sullivan denotes that this type of persuasive control comes with moral and ethical responsibilities.

In a very real sense the plain packaging debate’s goal of persuasive control, lines its advertising in

a narrow parallel with political propaganda (Sullivan, K. 2007, pp. 36).

!!Conclusion

!Pelsmacker and Neijens concluded that persuasion is most effective when its presence is

unnoticeable, where its “integration looks natural and innocent.” Games of persuasion are also

not without consequence, with communication critics claiming advertising to be a form of social

communication which promotes “non-communication” (Leiss, Kline and Jhally 1986). Each

sectors media coverage of the issue defies this theory in practice, instead opting for direct target

market address. While there is much debate both amongst the sectors and academics on the role

of persuasion in advertising, some rhetoricians such as Friestad and Wright (2004) through

‘Persuasive Knowledge Model’ would say that this persuasive communication is part of creating a

dynamic environment where proposal and counter-proposal can be aired and that this process

itself contributes to informed decision-making that should instead define the public sphere.

!As can be seen in the work of academics and the opinions of practitioners on the panel,

advertising and its persuasion implications is having a dramatic impact on the workings of a

healthy public sphere in both the public and private sector. This suggests that persuasion plays

an integral role assisting and undermining the of advertising to achieve a meaningful deliberation,

participation and quality of information for all stakeholders in the public sphere.

!!!References: !!Banerjee, B., Bandyopadhyay, S. 2003,’ Advertising Competition under Consumer Inertia’ Marketing Science, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 131-144!


Beasley, R., Danesi, M. 2002, ‘Persuasive signs: the semiotics of advertising’, Muton de Gruyter, Berlin. pp. 1-46.!Fawkes, J. 2007 "Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach", Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 4, pp.313 - 331!Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1, (June), I31.

Larson, C. U. 2010, ‘Persuasion: Reception and Responsibility’, Cengage Learning, Wadsworth. pp 41-69. !Leiss, W., Kline, S., & Jhally, S. (1986). Social communication in advertising: persons, products, and images of wellbeing. New York: Methuen.!Lavidge R.J., Steiner, G.A, 1961, A Model for Predictive Measurements of Advertising Effectiveness, ‘Journal of Marketing’ American Marketing Association, Vol. 25, No. 6 pp. 59-62<http://www.jstor.org/stable/1248516>!McCoy, K. 2000, ‘Information and Persuasion: Rivals or partners?’, Design Issues, Vol. 16, No.3, pp. 80-83.!O'Shaughnessy, J., O'Shaughnessy, N. 2004 ‘Persuasion in Advertising‘ Routledge, London!Pelsmacker, P. D., Neijens P. C. 2012, ‘New Advertising Format: How Persuasion Knowledge Affects Consumer Responses’ Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp.1-4.!Phillips, M. J. 1997. ‘Ethics and manipulation in advertising: answering a flawed indictment’ Quorum books, Westport CT.!Roberts, J.M. & Crossley, N. 2004, ‘Introduction’ in After Habermas: New perspectives on the public sphere, N. Crossley & J.M. Roberts (eds.), Blackwell Publishing, Oxford UK & Malden MA, pp. 1-17.!Sandıkcı,O. 2010 ‘Shock Tactics in Advertising and Implications for Citizen-Consumer’ International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 1, No. 18, pp. 42 - 50!Sullivan, K. 2007, ‘Perception of Images in Advertising and Impact on Consumers’ Lives’, viewed on 15 May 2012<http://ethicapublishing.com/ATEOI_ch2.pdf> Wells, W., Spence-Stone, R., Crawford, R., Moriarty, S. & Mitchell, N. 2011, Advertising principles and practice, 2ndedn, Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest.!---!!Goodwin, N. 2011 ‘Social media the new battleground in the war against Big Tobacco’, The Sydney Morning Herald, viewed 16 May 2012 <http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/social-media-the-new-battleground-in-the-war-against-big-tobacco-20110629-1gqip.html#ixzz1vAVGzMO1>!Robotham, J. 2010. ‘Tobacco ads aimed at plain packaging’, The Age, viewed 16 May 2012, < http://www.theage.com.au/national/tobacco-ads-aimed-at-plain packaging-20100803-115hi.html#ixzz1vAUMXinC >.!---!


Heart Foundation 2012, Plain Packaging, viewed 13 May 2012.<http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/driving-change/current-campaigns/smoke-free/pages/plain-packaging.aspx>!Parliamentary Business 2011, Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011,Bills Digest no. 35 2011–12, Canberra, viewed 15 May 2012.<http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd035>!‘Plain Packaging.. It just doesn’t make sense’, 2011, The Alliance of Australia Retailers, viewed 14 May 2012.<https://www.australianretailers.com.au>!Plain packaging - The Facts, 2011, Cancer Council, viewed 15 May 2012<http://plainfacts.org.au>!Stop this Nanny State, 2011, viewed 14 May 2012<http://nonannystate.com.au/Ads>!The Alliance of Australian Retailers, 2010, ‘It won’t work so why do it?’, video commercial, viewed 14 May 2012.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rOy1Psykek>!Total Product Recall, 2011, Cancer Council Victoria, viewed 15 May 2012.<http://www.cancervic.org.au/media/tv-health-messages/john-clarke.html>!!

theory to practice report: cigarettes, advertising and persuasion in the public sphere

Documents