GLB@Link
Resources on Tobacco Control

The effectiveness of banning advertising for tobacco products
(October 1997)

Luk Joossens, Consultant to the UICC
UICC / ECL EU Liaison Office
33 Rue De Pascale - 1040 Brussels (Belgium)
Tel (32) 2 230.20.27 - Fax (32) 2 231.18.58.
e-mail : joossens@globalink.org

Introduction
The effect of advertising bans in: Norway - Finland - New Zealand and France
Discussion

References

Summary

According to the tobacco industry, advertising bans do not work and may have an opposite effect : sales may increase after a ban is introduced. According to the industry also, cigarette advertisements are aimed at adults who already smoke and are designed to encourage brandswitching, not the initiation of smoking or an overall increase of sales. In this review, we present the most recent data on tobacco consumption in four countries, where a ban was introduced as a part of comprehensive policy. In the four countries per capita consumption of cigarettes ( 15 years + ) dropped between 14 and 37 % after the implementation of the ban.

Country	Date of ban	Drop in consumption until 1996
Norway	1^st July 1975	- 26 %
Finland	1^st March 1978	- 37 %
New Zealand	17^th December 1990	- 21 %
France	1^stJanuary 1993	- 14 %

In three out of the four described countries, smoking prevalence among young people decreased, while in one it remained stable. Our conclusion is that advertising bans do work if they are properly implemented as part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy.

1. Introduction

Why do firms advertise? The obvious and most general answer is that firms advertise because it is profitable for them to do so. Firms spend money on promotional efforts if, and only if, they believe that the benefits (long term benefits) from that spending outweigh the costs.

The ABC of advertising is to persuade in order to sell more. So why should advertising for tobacco products be an exception to this rule ? (1)

According to the US Surgeon General‘s Report of 1989 (2) the direct mechanisms by which advertising and promotion might increase tobacco consumption are the following :

by inducing children and young people to begin experimenting with tobacco products and in this way to initiate regular smoking

by encouraging adults to take up smoking

by encouraging existing smokers to smoke more

by undermining existing smokers’ motivation to give up

by encouraging former smokers to resume the habit

Even though the tobacco industry asserts that the sole purpose of advertising and promotional activities is brand-switching among adult consumers, it appears , according to the US Surgeon General’s Report of 1994 (3), that some young people are recruited to smoking by brand advertising. Two sources of epidemiological data support this assertion. Adolescents consistently smoke the most advertised brands of cigarettes, both in the United States and elsewhere. Moreover, following the introduction of advertisements that appeal to young people, the prevalence of use of those brands - or even the prevalence of smoking altogether - increases (3).

In a recent article in one of the best known marketing journals (4), Pollay and colleagues argue that there are some reasons to doubt the so-called mature market classification of the tobacco industry, which would have us believe that it is not the intent, nor the effect, of cigarette advertising to influence young people, to reassure and retain existing current smokers who might otherwise quit, or to induce current smokers to smoke more - several of the ways that advertising might conceivably influence primary demand.

According to Pollay and colleagues, no isolation or immunity protects children and adolescents. Teenagers and younger children are in no way isolated from cigarette advertising’s attractiveness and inducements. There is no magic curtain around children and teenagers who seek to learn how to fit into an adult world , nor is there any convincing defence of a view that would make young non-smokers immune (4).

The main conclusion of this article in the Journal of Marketing is that young people operate as trend-setters to define the degree of success of brands which are " in ", with tobacco advertising sensitivity being three times larger among teenagers than among adults. The most advertised cigarette brand in the world is Marlboro. Marlboro has a market share in the U.S. of 59 % among adolescents and of 22 % among adults. The authors argue that cigarette competition between firms is dominated by the battle for market share among the young, and that assertions to the contrary, without supporting evidence, should be treated with scholarly scepticism (4).

Some reasons to expect greater advertisement sensitivity among adolescents than among adults are, according to the same article (4) :

First , identity formation and advertising attentiveness- adolescence is a time of identity formation, which makes teenagers especially attentive to both advertising and peer influences for cues concerning symbols of adulthood and acceptance .
Second, adolescents are novices when it comes to coping with persuasion. As consumers, the young tend to be more brand conscious, less price conscious, and less experienced in counter-arguing against advertising and selling tactics.
Third, previous research must be considered. Young people know advertising better, appreciate brand-stretching advertising more and possess an ideal self-image that is a better match to images created for cigarette brands than do adults.
Fourth, consider addiction and brand loyalty. Teens are a strategically important target audience, because brand loyalty is often developed during this time and this creates a barrier-to-entry for other brands not chosen during these crucial years.
Fifth, segments have differential strategic attractiveness. Strategic analysis indicates that cigarette firms should be far from indifferent to the dynamic phenomena of starting and quitting. The high rate of people quitting smoking and dying means that sales for this industry would drop precipitously were it not for a continuing influx of new starters (4).

2. The effect of advertising bans in Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France

A report of the UK Department of Health of October 1992 (5) reviewed various forms of evidence to assess whether tobacco advertising affects the aggregate demand for tobacco products. Four countries (Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand) were chosen, as these countries introduced a advertising ban and enforced it effectively. In all four counties enough data were available to evaluate the ban scientifically.

The main conclusion of this report was that current evidence available on these four countries indicates a significant effect. In each case the banning of advertising was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors (5).

Five years later we looked at the available data in the same four countries. Canada was, however, replaced by France (advertising ban 1/1/1993), as in Canada a legal vacuum was created by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of 21^st September 1995 to abolish the 1988 Tobacco Products Control Act, which was replaced by the Tobacco Act of 25^th April 1997.

In all four countries we shall examine the data for per capita cigarette consumption and smoking prevalence among youngsters.

2.1. NORWAY

The ban on tobacco advertising came into force on 1^st May 1975 in Norway.

Registered sales of tobacco per adult (aged 15 and above) showed an increase during the 1950’s and 1960’s. From 1970 this increase levelled off and decreased from 2,100 g in 1975 to 1,553 g in 1996 (-26 %).

Per capita sales of cigarettes and smoking tobacco in Norway
(15 years +) 1969/70 - 1996/97

Year (July - June)	Manufactured cigarettes (1)	RYO (in grammes) (2)	Total cigarettes (1+2)
1969/70	634	1442	2076
1970/71	627	1352	1979
1971/72	640	1396	2036
1972/73	600	1474	2074
1973/74	587	1460	2047
1974/75 ()*	561	1539	2100
1975/76	583	1468	2050
1976/77	588	1408	1995
1977/78	621	1391	2013
1978/79	628	1367	1995
1979/80	664	1379	2044
1980/81	640	1339	1980
1981/82	602	1341	1943
1982/83	550	1285	1835
1983/84	566	1267	1832
1984/85	633	1208	1842
1985/86	735	1155	1890
1986/87	793	1083	1876
1987/88	835	1042	1876
1988/89	841	1009	1850
1989/90	853	998	1851
1990/91	853	1001	1854
1991/92	875	1003	1878
1992/93	761	909	1671
1993/94	796	955	1751
1994/95	732	825	1557
1995/96	739	830	1569
1996/97	757	796	1553

Source : Directorate for Customs and Excise / National Council on Tobacco and Health

(***) : start of the advertising ban is 1^st July 1975 - Reference year for the evaluation of the impact of the ad ban is 1974/75

Note : the weight of a cigarette is estimated at 1 g.

From the year that advertising was banned (1975), prevalence of smoking by children and teenagers has declined steadily. Smoking prevalence among 16-19 years old decreased from 37,6 % in 1975 to 22,3 % in 1996.

Smoking prevalence among 16-19 years old in Norway
between 1975 and 1996
Daily smoking in %

Year	Total	Boys	Girls
1975	37,6	38,0	37,3
1976	35,5	36,0	35,1
1977	32,6	33,4	31,6
1978	29,3	29,5	29,0
1979	27,1	27,1	27,2
1980	27,4	26,7	28,2
1981	26,9	26,2	27,7
1982	26,0	25,2	27,0
1983	23,5	23,3	23,7
1984	23,6	24,6	22,5
1985	22,6	24,0	21,3
1986	25,3	25,6	25,2
1987	22,9	21,9	24,4
1988	24,2	21,4	27,4
1989	21,3	17,5	25,1
1990	22,3	18,4	26,1
1991	22,1	19,2	24,8
1992	22,8	20,7	24,7
1993	21,8	23,2	20,6
1994	23,1	24,7	20,9
1995	21,6	22,6	20,8
1996	22,3	22,2	22,3

Source: Norwegian Council on Tobacco and Health

2.2 FINLAND

In Finland, legislation to ban tobacco advertising was introduced in 1975 and came into effect in 1^st March 1978. Registered sales of tobacco per adult decreased from 2129 g in 1977 to 1350 g in 1996 (-37 %).

Per capita sales of cigarettes and smoking tobacco in Finland (15 years +)

Year	Cigarettes	Pipe and cigarette tobacco (in grammes)	Total cigarettes
1970	1866	318	2184
1975	2215	221	2436
1976	1741	324	2065
1977 (***)	1782	347	2129
1978	1784	314	2098
1979	1853	319	2172
1980	1869	238	2107
1981	1732	242	1974
1982	1789	240	2029
1983	1829	232	2061
1984	1913	232	2145
1985	1729	215	1944
1986	1822	198	2020
1987	1936	192	2128
1988	1867	172	2039
1989	1900	168	2068
1990	1780	154	1934
1991	1722	176	1898
1992	1693	218	1911
1993	1422	262	1684
1994	1349	258	1607
1995	1255	225	1480
1996	1090	260	1350

Source : Statistics Finland, Tobacco Statistics 1996

(***) : start of the advertising ban is 1^st March 1978 - Reference year for the evaluation of the impact of the ad ban is 1977.

Note: the weight of a cigarette is estimated at 1 g.

From the year that advertising was banned in 1978, prevalence of smoking among 16-25 years old men decreased from 35 % in 1978 to 23 % in 1997 and among women of the same age group from 25 % in 1978 to 21 % in 1997.

Daily smokers among 16-25 years in Finland between 1978/79 and 1997

Year	Males	Females
1978/79	35 %	25 %
1980/82	28 %	27 %
1983/85	26 %	19 %
1986/88	29 %	24 %
1989/90	29 %	24 %
1991/92	28 %	25 %
1993/94	26 %	22 %
1995/96	23 %	23 %
1997	23 %	21 %

Source : National Public Health Institute

2.3. NEW ZEALAND

Part II of the New Zealand Smoke-Free Environment Act 1990, banning advertising, came into force on 17^th December 1990.

Cigarette equivalent (incl. Handrolling tobacco) per adult (aged 16+) decreased from 1957 in 1990 to 1553 in 1996 (-21 %).

Cigarette equivalents (incl. Handrolling tobacco) per adult
(aged 16+) in New Zealand between 1970-1996

Year	Cigarette equivalents
1970	3114
1975	3233
1980	2856
1985	2493
1986	2304
1987	2327
1988	2190
1989	2024
1990 ()*	1957
1991	1796
1992	1613
1993	1579
1994	1520
1995	1535
1996	1553

Source: Statistics New Zealand

(***): start of advertising ban is 17^th December 1990 - Reference year for the evaluation of the impact of the ad ban is 1990.

Note: the weight of a cigarette is estimated at 1 g.

From the year that advertising was banned (1990), prevalence of smoking by 15-19 years old decreased from 26,8 % in the fourth quarter of 1990 to 24,7 % in the fourth quarter of 1995.

Prevalence of smoking by 15-19 years old in New Zealand (1990-1995)

4^th quarter of 1990	26,8 %
4^th quarter of 1991	25,7 %
4^th quarter of 1992	23,7 %
4^th quarter of 1993	24,0%
4^th quarter of 1994	24,7 %
4^th quarter of 1995	24,7 %

Source : Health New Zealand

2.4. FRANCE

The ban on tobacco advertising came into force on 1^st January 1993 in France.

Registered sales of manufactured cigarettes (aged 15 and above) increased from 1790 in 1970 to 2128 in 1991 (+16 %). In the period 1992-1996, per capita sales of manufactured cigarettes decreased from 2097 to 1834 (-14 %).

Per capita (15 years +) sales of manufactured cigarettes
in France (1970-1996) (*)

Year	Cigarettes
1970	1790
1975	2090
1980	2100
1985 ()**	2220
1990	2113
1991	2128
1992 ()*	2097
1993	2025
1994	1938
1995	1893
1996	1834

Source : Centre de Documentation et d'Information sur le Tabac, Eurostat

(*) Handrolling tobacco is not included in this table as there is some border trade of handrolling tobacco between the UK and France.

(**) Sales in 1985 were artificially high due to a distribution strike at the end of 1984.

(***) start of the advertising ban is 1^st January 1993 - Reference year for the evaluation of the impact of the ad ban is 1992.

In the period 1992-1996 prevalence of smoking by 12-18 years olds remained stable at 34 %.

Smoking prevalence by 12-18 years old in France (1992-1996)

1992	34 %
1994	30,5 %
1995	35 %
1996	34 %

Source : Comité Français pour l'Education à la Santé

3. Discussion

Many factors may influence tobacco consumption. Tobacco advertising is only one factor influencing the decision to smoke; others include social, religious, parental, sibling and peer smoking behaviour and attitudes, price and disposable income, age limit proscriptions, education and social class. To isolate the effect of one factor would mean holding the others constant. These factors are different from country to country, continually changing (6).

It is possible that an advertising ban alone will not lead to a drop of consumption as the net effect on consumption can be overridden or neutralised by falls in relative tobacco prices or income growth. In an editorial of the British Journal of Addiction (1992), Murray Laugesen pointed out that " for Finns, real per capita incomes after the ban (1978-1996) rose 36 %, Norwegian incomes (1975-1986) rose 50 %, while Icelandic incomes (1971-1986), rose 56 %. Tobacco taxation was raised more than once, but not often enough to keep up with both inflation and income " (7).

Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France enforced an ad ban which was part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy, such as price increases and the promotion of smoke-free places. The increase of prices alone can not explain the drop of consumption. Countries like Finland and Norway had great increases in income, which encouraged consumption. In New Zealand the reduction in tobacco consumption per adult was the same in the five years before and after the advertising ban of 1990, but during 1990-1995 the real price of tobacco products increased by only one third as much as in 1985-1990 (Personal Communication : Murray Laugesen). Already in 1992 the UK. Department of Health concluded that the banning of advertising in Norway, Finland, Canada and New Zealand was followed by a fall in smoking on a scale which cannot reasonably be attributed to other factors.

In order to maintain a downward trend, an ad ban must be part of a comprehensive tobacco control policy. The experience of Norway, Finland, New Zealand and France has proved that this policy is efficient and led to a decrease in sales between 14 and 37 % from the year that advertising was totally was banned to the year 1996.

References :

Pollay, R.W. , The function and management of cigarette advertising, March 1990 quoted in : ‘Report on Tobacco Advertising : Give children a chance’ by the European Bureau for Action on Smoking Prevention (BASP), March 1991.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking : 25 years of progress, a Report of the Surgeon General, Rockville, 1989.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Preventing Tobacco Use among Young People, a Report of the Surgeon General, Rockville, 1994.
Pollay, R.W., et al., The Last Straw ? Cigarette advertising and realised market shares among youth and adults 1979-1993, Journal of Marketing,

Department of Health, Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco consumption, London, 1992.
Chapman,S., Pushing Smoke. Tobacco advertising and promotion, Smoke-Free Europe 8, WHO Regional Office or Europe, Copenhagen, 1988.
Laugesen, M., Editorial : Tobacco advertising ban cuts smoking, British Journal of Addiction, 87 : 1992, pp. 965-966.

The effectiveness of banning advertising for tobacco products (October 1997)

The effectiveness of banning advertising for tobacco products
(October 1997)