The Influence of Advertising on Human Health
Advertising has always been an integral part of consumerist culture. Most of us take it for granted, and accept it as part of the everyday. However, there have been moments in the past when advertising played a massive role in the general condition of public health.
In the 1940s, it was advertising that exponentially increased cancer awareness among the American populace. Dr. Sydney Farber had been searching for a way to raise awareness about cancer, and funds for his research and children’s hospital, when he met Bill Koster. Bill Koster had years of experience in show business, and with Dr. Farber’s help, he created the ‘Jimmy Fund’.
Jimmy, whose real name — Einar Gustafson — was modified for the sake of the campaign (to be more relatable), was a young, blonde-haired, blue-eyed boy, who was a patient of Dr. Farber’s (Jimmy had Leukemia, a cancer of the blood). With the help of Bill Koster, Jimmy was given a radio spot on which the host had a conversation with him. And when young Jimmy shared his love for baseball, Phil Masi walked into the room and surprised him. Together, they sang a popular baseball tune –
Take me out to the ball game
Take me out to the crowd
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack
I don’t care if I never get back
The significance of the last line left many in tears.
Koster’s goal was to raise $20,000. After his campaign went live, the Jimmy Fund received over $231,000 dollars in a matter of months. Advertising had mobilised the masses, and in this case, served as a very valuable tool for scientific development.
However, this double-edged sword wreaked havoc when it came to a different kind of cancer — lung cancer. By the early twentieth century, four out of five people were regularly smoking cigarettes. While deaths due to lung cancer were peaking, scientists were actually having a harder time pinpointing smoking as the cause, due to the fact that it had become such a common and normalised practice. In the words of Richard Peto, an epidemiologist at Oxford, “By the early 1940s, asking about a connection between tobacco and cancer was like asking about an association between sitting and cancer”
As data began to accumulate on the dangers of smoking, cigarette manufactures used advertising to manipulate public perception in three steps:
- They claimed that research showed higher cases of lung cancer in mice that have been exposed to cigarette smoke
This was false. The research was conducted on humans, not mice. By referring to mice instead of humans, cigarette companies played on the genetic dissociation that was sure to follow (“Just because it happened to mice does not mean it will happen to me”)
2. They claimed that cancer could be the result of a number of factors of ‘modern life’
Once again, this planted doubt in the minds of consumers.
3. They encouraged scientists to research further
This devious reverse-psychology play was the icing on the cake.
(The truth was that cigarette companies were doing all that they could to repress research and data collection — but of course, the public was blissfully unaware)
Another reason this strategy worked was because cigarette manufacturers had spent decades enforcing a positive and even aspirational perception around their products. Famous personalities were used to glamorise smoking, and desirable personality traits were assimilated and associated with cigarette brands through a mascot (the Marlboro man, for example, who eventually died of lung cancer). Even doctors were used in advertisements, to ‘reassure’ the public about the safety of smoking.
However, scientific data and anti-smoking campaigns eventually won, only because public health was so definitively affected in a negative way (as long as there was even a shadow of doubt, cigarette manufacturers would keep advertising). The last cigarette advertisement ever (before surrogate advertising began) aired on January 1st, 1971, at 11:59pm. The Virginia Slims slogan, “You’ve come a long way, baby”, appeared briefly on the screen before vanishing forever.
Still, even though mass awareness on the high health risks associated with smoking exists, consumers continue to buy cigarettes. This is because awareness alone is often inadequate when it comes to altering mass behaviour. The key lies in influence. Sometimes this is fear, as in the case of the anti-smoking campaigns, but most often it is aspiration or trust that leads to behavioural trends. And when it comes to a product that could be negatively affecting our health, advertising depends on grey areas to survive.
Take vapes, for example. Marketers took advantage of the fact that there was no concrete research that could be used against them. As long as this doubt existed, they doubled down on advertising efforts, using colourful, ‘friendly’ packaging to promote a fun, glamorous perception; they exaggerated the health benefits of the product, and used strategic associations to embed themselves into pop culture. Moreover, they targeted the youngest possible demographic they could market to — teenagers. Naturally, this audience was more impressionable.
The aggressive marketing strategy used by vape companies resulted in an entire generation of American teenagers addicted to nicotine. Even grown adults subscribed to this ‘trend’, although well aware of the addictive nature of nicotine (a classic example of influence over awareness). Only now, when research is being published on the adverse effects of vaping, are restrictions being enforced. But significant damage has already been done.
Advertising plays an integral role in the decisions we make as consumers, whether we realise it or not. Some of us may believe we are ‘immune’ to advertising, but this is not true. Successful advertising is not what you see on mass media — it’s the effect that remains even after the ads stop airing. This can be best observed when we assess our consumption choices in everyday objects. Say you use Colgate toothpaste, drink Amul milk and use Apsara pencils. What made you choose these brands?
If you say that your choice is a habit you don’t put much thought into, ask yourself this — where did your habit come from? Does your family use these brands, and you are continuing to do so simply because you have grown used to them? Did someone recommend them to you? Did you make a choice based on price? Or did you pick the brands that were most easily available? If the answer to any of these is yes, then you have been influenced by marketing. In fact, legacy brands (ex: Amul) depend largely on ‘family tradition’ and word of mouth to remain relevant, which is still a form of marketing.
Advertising is an incredibly powerful tool. It has shaped the consumption patterns (and subsequently, the personalities) of multiple generations. When used for the right products, advertising can guide consumers to an easier, more aware, higher quality of life. But when in the wrong hands, it can cause widespread, long-term damage that could severely affect human health.
Works Cited
Mukherjee, Siddhartha. The Emperor of All Maladies. New York: Scribner, 2010. Print.
Silcoff, Matt. “The Evolution of Cigarette Advertising” Sites Dot Middlebury. May, 2015. Web. <http://sites.middlebury.edu/smokingkills/forms-of-tobacco-advertisement/> as seen on May 23rd, 2020.
