![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
If there’s one thing I hate more than the news people, it’s the advertisers. Not all advertisers are evil, I’ll grant you (there are commercials I find truly funny and *gasp* even enjoy a little) but the ones that really get under my skin are the preachy ones. Yes, I’m looking at you ‘Truth’ ads.
Look, I don’t have a problem with people being anti-smoking. We all know smoke is just plain not good for you, whether it’s cigarette smoke, smog, or even the smoke from a burning building. But I think it’s a little funny that you’re poking at the tobacco lobby about their ‘half-truths and lies’ when your commercials twist the ‘facts’ just as much as they do.
Let’s look at your most recent ad, where you state that the tobacco lobby claimed that exposure to secondhand smoke is less harmful that drinking a glass or two of whole milk a day. You go to a dairy farm and the farmer’s all confused, because there’s nothing unhealthy about milk, is there? And smoke is evil.
You know what? If I drank a glass or two of whole milk a day it would be more harmful to me that my typical exposure to secondhand smoke. So who’s lying now? Oh, you don’t think it would be? Well, let’s examine your logic.
First, what’s a ‘glass’? In today’s ‘super-sized’ lifestyle, a ‘glass’ is typically 16 ounces. That’s 2 cups. Now we tackle ‘a glass or two’ – let’s say 1 ½ glasses per day, 24 ounces of whole milk. Up against… whose typical exposure to secondhand smoke? Mine? A casino worker’s? A child’s? Every person has a varying degree of exposure, there’s no ‘norm’. But in my case, I’m only exposed if I go to a casino or bar, which is rare. So the exposure I have is probably far less harmful to me than if I went to live in one of California’s smoggy cities.
So negligible health risks for me on the secondhand smoke – but how, you ask, can milk be harmful? At best the commercial is trying to compare people with high levels of exposure to something harmless, and that’s still wrong, right? Not exactly. There’s something about the commercial that caught my ear. ‘Whole Milk’. They specified whole milk. And it’s not because they were insinuating there are harmful chemicals in milk, no, not at all. What’s considered the largest growing (no pun intended) health ‘epidemic’ in the country? Um-hm, obesity. What does whole milk have? Lots of calories.
If I consumed 24 ounces (450 calories) of milk every day for a year, and changed nothing else, I’d gain 46 pounds. 46 pounds! And considering how much that would raise my risk of diabetes (which runs in my family), heart disease, and other obesity-related conditions, I think milk is a lot more hazardous to me than the minimal amount of secondhand smoke I’m exposed to. And multiply that by ten years… or twenty…
Look, I don’t think the message is wrong – smoking is bad for you, but then again, so are a lot of things. But if you’re going to argue against it – especially using the word ‘truth’ as your campaign name, doesn’t it behoove you to tell the actual truth? Isn’t there enough truth to the fact that ‘smoking is unhealthy’ to run a campaign? Why do you have to twist other people’s words and feed us your propagandized version of the ‘facts’?
As you obviously have no respect for my intelligence, I have no respect for you.
Smokers of the world, light one up for me, would you?
Look, I don’t have a problem with people being anti-smoking. We all know smoke is just plain not good for you, whether it’s cigarette smoke, smog, or even the smoke from a burning building. But I think it’s a little funny that you’re poking at the tobacco lobby about their ‘half-truths and lies’ when your commercials twist the ‘facts’ just as much as they do.
Let’s look at your most recent ad, where you state that the tobacco lobby claimed that exposure to secondhand smoke is less harmful that drinking a glass or two of whole milk a day. You go to a dairy farm and the farmer’s all confused, because there’s nothing unhealthy about milk, is there? And smoke is evil.
You know what? If I drank a glass or two of whole milk a day it would be more harmful to me that my typical exposure to secondhand smoke. So who’s lying now? Oh, you don’t think it would be? Well, let’s examine your logic.
First, what’s a ‘glass’? In today’s ‘super-sized’ lifestyle, a ‘glass’ is typically 16 ounces. That’s 2 cups. Now we tackle ‘a glass or two’ – let’s say 1 ½ glasses per day, 24 ounces of whole milk. Up against… whose typical exposure to secondhand smoke? Mine? A casino worker’s? A child’s? Every person has a varying degree of exposure, there’s no ‘norm’. But in my case, I’m only exposed if I go to a casino or bar, which is rare. So the exposure I have is probably far less harmful to me than if I went to live in one of California’s smoggy cities.
So negligible health risks for me on the secondhand smoke – but how, you ask, can milk be harmful? At best the commercial is trying to compare people with high levels of exposure to something harmless, and that’s still wrong, right? Not exactly. There’s something about the commercial that caught my ear. ‘Whole Milk’. They specified whole milk. And it’s not because they were insinuating there are harmful chemicals in milk, no, not at all. What’s considered the largest growing (no pun intended) health ‘epidemic’ in the country? Um-hm, obesity. What does whole milk have? Lots of calories.
If I consumed 24 ounces (450 calories) of milk every day for a year, and changed nothing else, I’d gain 46 pounds. 46 pounds! And considering how much that would raise my risk of diabetes (which runs in my family), heart disease, and other obesity-related conditions, I think milk is a lot more hazardous to me than the minimal amount of secondhand smoke I’m exposed to. And multiply that by ten years… or twenty…
Look, I don’t think the message is wrong – smoking is bad for you, but then again, so are a lot of things. But if you’re going to argue against it – especially using the word ‘truth’ as your campaign name, doesn’t it behoove you to tell the actual truth? Isn’t there enough truth to the fact that ‘smoking is unhealthy’ to run a campaign? Why do you have to twist other people’s words and feed us your propagandized version of the ‘facts’?
As you obviously have no respect for my intelligence, I have no respect for you.
Smokers of the world, light one up for me, would you?
no subject
no subject
I really hate their commercials. They make the logical, fact-loving part of me die a little inside. Then again, I don't believe it's okay to lie to people even if it is 'for their own good'.
no subject
no subject
no subject
The sad thing is, 'Truth' doesn't have to lie to get their message across - it's pretty well-known that smoking is bad for you. I don't think anyone with more than two brain cells will refute that. So why do they feel that they have to pull this shit? That's what pisses me off.
They're ruining a perfectly good message with lies and rhetoric. It's pathetic. I have more respect for the tobacco company's anti-smoking commercials.
no subject
Anyway, I'm interested to see if they post facts about the milk vs. second-hand smoke thing. Maybe they're talking about REAL milk (www.realmilk.com). They would lose points for making up statistics, but I admire them for outing a lot of the lies Big Tobacco has spread through the years. One bad commercial out of a string of pretty good ones is acceptable.
no subject
It's not the only bad commercial, though. They also implicated the Muppets (there are cigars shown on the show, but they're not relly smoked) and I don't like people that misrepresent my Muppets! I have a feeling if you picked apart their ads you'd find a lot more little things. I've never been impressed with their ad campaign, which is sad, because I'd sort of support their message...
no subject
no subject
But I still don't like people lying to me (yes, even if I agree with them) to make a point, because it underminds the validity of the point.
Although I do think we ought to look at where all the money would come from if people suddenly stopped smoking - those sin taxes raise an awful lot of cash!
no subject
*flick*
*inhale*
*puff*
no subject
no subject
A glass is traditionally 8 oz, and most glassware is made to hold 6 or 8 oz. Even my sister, who drinksthree to four glasses of milk a day, does not use a glass larger than the 8 oz ones. She is seriously milk obsessed, but even she would get sick at the thought of filling up the giant plastic cola cup we have and downing that in one sitting (I dared her to do it once. She wanted money for it...lame.)
The campaign uses shock, because with the younger kids, it still works. The commercials are weird, MTV-toned and outlandish, because they are fighting the tobacco companies with their horribly subversive "Smoking is whack...for teens" commercials that actually end up promoting smoking (which was brilliant on the part of the tobacco companies).
Anti smoking and drug ads have come a long way. The truth campaign is the first really successful one--it's massive and impressive, and it's been around since I was about 12, that's almost a decade. Maybe it'stime for it to retire, but it's one of my favorite campaigns out there.
Aaaaand I spent half a semester studying these campaigns. I think "R|e|s|p|o|n|s|i|b|i|l|i|t|y. My AntiDrug" is embedded in my braaaaaain.
no subject
My 'average' sized glass is 32 ounces, so I was downsizing! ;) We have 8 oz 'on the rocks' glasses, but the ones we use are 16, 24, and 32 ounces. My hubby will drink the 16 ounce one full of whole chocolate milk, so that's what I was going off of.
I like to think that B|r|a|i|n|s are my anti-drug. Seriously, health risks aside, there's no way I'm blowing that much money on drugs! O.O I read in a community somewhere that someone had spend $6K on ecstasy in something like four months, and all I thought was... 'man, that wouls by me a new range, a new patio door AND pay off my washer and dryer!'
no subject
Seriously? I want your glasses. When I lived in the apartment, someone owned these massive plastic tumblers that I just loved. They must have been 32 oz, because they were huge. I'd fill them up with icewater and be set for the rest of the day.
Quick, quick, go respond to my latest journal entry.
no subject
Yeah, we got these lovely *glass* 32 ounce ones at an outlet mall, they're tough to find. But they're great for mixing instant ice tea, and will hold two cans of soda with ice! Also, we have to have 'big nose' glasses, because my hubby has a rather largish nose and he can't tip the glasses with tiny openings up over it. SO all of our glasses also flare out or are pretty big around, which also makes them really easy to clean!
Well, I'm feeling old, but I appreciate the sentiment. I know it's only going to get worse as I get older... I'm already falling apart! :/
no subject
Yes. WE KNOW.
I also don't think they work, even on the younger age groups. Some people will never smoke, or ever have the urge to. Some people will, no matter WHAT you tell them. Neither of my parents, or any other adult I knew, ever smoked when I was a kid (except my old next-door-neighbour who smoked a pipe...that left me a fondness for the smell, but no real urge to do so myself). The general consensus surrounding me was that smoking was gross and bad for you, and relatively socially unacceptable.
But, these messages notwithstanding, I always, always thought smoking was cool, and I always knew on some level that I would smoke one day. Now, ten years past 'one day', I'm trying to stop. But that's another story.
My basic point here is: I love to smoke. I always have, and nothing any ad said would have made me even so much as pause. The people I know who don't smoke, certainly didn't need a campaign to tell them not to. So what's the point? Just leave people alone and let tem do what they will. I don't think we need to be preached to through advertising, AND I think there are evils bigger than smoking.
And, uhh...smoking is bad for you! (Just in case you forgot, or were so swayed by my love of cigarettes that you kind of want one...)
no subject
I'm probably more influenced by commercials than I'd like to be, but less so than they think I am. And I can see it being important for new products, but... if McDonalds stopped advertising, would it effect their sales?
Consider, you're not allowed to actually advertise cigarettes on TV (ironically, the anti-smoking commercials are the only 'advertisement' they get) and yet... they continue to sell pretty well. Makes you wonder.
There are bigger evils than smoking, and for the most part, smoking really does only hurt the smoker. So who cares? (The people I think are hysterical are the anti-tobacco activists that smoke pot. Oooookay, no, that's not bad at all...) And, like I said in a comment, taxes on cigarettes generate a crapload of revenue. Before you try to ban them you'd better figure out how you're going to make up for that!
no subject
"(ironically, the anti-smoking commercials are the only 'advertisement' they get) "
And those perpetuate the image that "Smoking is for grown ups. Coooool grown ups. If you don't smoke, you're a baaaaaby."
no subject
Call me a baby, then, since I never liked the idea of smoking. And since I'm such a 'baby', I demand NAPTIME! EVERY AFTERNOON! :D
no subject
But no advertising is going to convince me to go out and buy something I don't need.
Uhh...except the ads for Swiffer products, which sucked me in by appealing to my essential laziness...
Damn.
no subject
For just about everything else I'm good with generic/store brand items, unless there's really a difference in quality (store brand soda really does suck - with the exception of club soda, and I buy that at 69 cents a 2-liter!)
no subject
Y'know my one major brand loyalty is kind of ridiculous - I insist on buying Skippy peanut butter. None of the others ever taste as good.
And I'm with you on the store-brand soda!
no subject
Corporations hate your sort. ;)
When working on a project, I found out that most women buy the same menstrual products as their mom, and the companies haaaaate that. They have spent so much money trying to convince girls that whatever their moms use are laaame, and Tampax pearl will give you a shiney, new boyfriend.
But they'll get your sort with repetition. Pepsi! Pepsi! Pepsi! Recignize me! Pepsi! They hope that you will try something new, decide you like it, and stick with it forever because, gosh darnit, it's just everywhere.
Publix cola is delicious. It tastes like Pepsi. But nearly all sodas have regional flavors. Lots of research is spent to find out what the average NYer likes, the average Californian, or the average Singaporean.
no subject
I'M BREAKING SOME SORT OF TRADITION.
*breaks down and cries*
no subject
no subject
no subject
Tobacco companies may be evil for whatever reason...I personally have no idea. However, I have a hard time picturing them being any more evil than most big corporations, and I don't see anybody taking out ads against them. ;)
no subject
Producers of anti smoking campaigns in the US have finally gotten the point that kids think they are invincible, so while the overarching theme is that smoking is bad, more important is that smoking is uncool and Tobacco is led by seriously old, uncool dudes. The same goes for the recent weed commercials. It's not about slacking off in school or health effects, it's about being the lame friend who doesn't do anything anymore except smoke, and her peers (all attractive, popular sorts) no longer think she is cool.
no subject
And of course they don't stop people! Nor do the cigarette ads make people smoke. That's what I was getting at - people are going to do it if they want to or avoid it, advertising of any sort be damned.
Overall, I can't say I have much more respect for ads telling people they won't be 'cool' if they smoke than I do for ads implying that smoking WILL make you cool. It's all manipulation, and I get quite tired of it, whatever the cause behind it.
no subject
The ads themselves don't make people do anything. It is very hard to change people's minds, and in the case of warnings, they completelly lack the imagery and finesse of a well thought out ad. But ads plant an idea, and if the ad was successful, the idea sticks. Something gave you and I the idea that smoking is cool, and that is what cigarette companies want. Just like Nabisco plants the idea that Oreo cookies bring generations of families together through their delicious goodness, and General Mills (I think) that Kix are a healthier alternative to most sugary breakfast cereals, and therefore the best breakfast ever. Very rarely is the manipulation straight forward cause-and-effect, there are always a few steps in between (repetition, recommendation by peers, reviews, etc), and it is absolutely amazing just how advertising works.
no subject
I hate advertising, but it's completely fascinatng how it works, I agree. Have you noticed, though, how much more blatant advertising is becoming?
no subject
Anti-drug commercials are terrible, too. Remember the one where the dog talked to the girl? That made me think, "Man, I want what she's smoking!" (I don't even do drugs, either)
no subject
Oh, and the dog commercial? Seriously. I'd love to have my dog talk to me! Though I can usually probably tell what she'd say... 'I want a milkbone' and 'Let me outside' being the top two. :)
I'm glad I'm not the only one with that kind of reaction to it!