Thank you. Seriously. I was trying to find a nice way to dismiss that post due to it being so out of touch with reality. But I couldn't come up with one and I like the poster so just thanks for putting it accurately and succinctly without emotion.
Well, there was no underlying point to my post...however, and I said that at the end. It was a random musing.
But, I will not abandon the idea that "Joe Camel" had nothing to do with increases in underage smoking, merely the brand they chose, nor was the character integral to an increase in smoking as a whole, but rather brand choice.
If you read the whole post again, you'll note, my point was not Joe Camel, that was just an example. It has to do with the fact that slapping Spiderman on a lottery ticket doesn't encourage anyone who doesn't want to buy a lottery ticket to buy one. Nor does putting Thor on a slot machine doesn't mean that people are more likely to gamble.
They are reflections of a consumer choice that has already been made, not vice versa.
My point was, it means that more people (who have already decided they want to gamble) are more likely to choose that "brand" due to character recognition.
Demand is not created (without legislation or social pressure), but it can be focused. They can have Joe the Camel or Fred Flintstone, doesn't matter. People don't make a decision to smoke because they see a cartoon character doing it. It's far more complex than that.
Mind you, I'm not touting the RJR initial defense (even though it sounds similar), and I have also looked into the cases (Mangini was the big one)...but, I refuse to grant the silly concept.
Underage demand for smoking existed and spiked around that era (after a decade of general decline) and that had pretty much nothing to do with advertising, and has more to do with general social pressures and general social acceptance of the behavior.
Nothing I've read or seen addresses this directly or thoroughly, nor does it look into the greater social implications. It merely focuses on the marketing campaign.
To say that the marketing campaign caused an increase in demand is just silly (even though it led to a settlement). RJR wanted people to smoke their products as opposed to others, but they weren't "pushing to kids" anymore than Sir Hiss getting drunk in Disney's Robin Hood made kids want to drink more.
Yes, at one point children could "identify Joe Camel with the Camel Brand" as much as they could identify Chuck E. Cheese with Pizza, Santa with Christmas or Mickey with Disney...
But, NONE of that creates consumer demand. The opposite, it directs consumer demand, but it doesn't drive it. That is just lazy logic.
Anyhow, as with the last post, I have no underlying point or agenda...just conversing. (as I said last time)
