Anachronistic Truth Campaign Commercial Gets Blank Stare
Continuing its illogical idiocy, the Truth campaign has dredged up yet another decades old quote from a "tobacco company executive" who is now likely dead if not certainly retired. This executive, in response to a claim smoking cigarettes during pregnancy can lead to low birth weight said, "...some women would prefer smaller babies."
This is idiotic on so many levels. First, it's an anachronism from 1971. Times have changed and no human with a brain in their head would ever say that today. If this ad ran in 1971, it would make sense. Today, it's a complete disconnect. Attempting to slam a tobacco company for something someone said 37 years ago is just stupid. Second, maybe women did and still do want smaller babies. After all, who really wants to squeeze out a 15 pound fattie? Maybe the guy was repeating something he heard while drunk at a cocktail party and it was taken totally out of context.
Does any kid today really care what some old fart said before they were even born? While these ads try to make powerful statements using actual statements, they fall flat because the statements are from an entirely different era which has no relevance to a kid today who's considering smoking. Oh they make for nice ad concepts but all they do is elicit blanks stares sort of like the one on the girl in this very commercial. You can just hear her think, "What the fuck is he talking about?"
If Truth really wants to be relevant and create a powerful campaign that will resonate (oph how I hate that word) with today's youth, they'll have to become a lot more like PETA adopting that organization's investigative stealth.
Comments
It's great how your trying to defend the tobacco company. I hope you got your free carton of cigs for your post. Bottom line is big tobacco is still doing any and everything they can to get people to use there product, that will eventually cause there consumers to die. Providing people with insight on how they think about their consumers can only be a good thing whether it came from today or 30 years ago. Do you really think the people running those companies have changed? If they have it's only that they have became smarter at deceiving people.
I don't smoke, never have, never will...and I agree with the Adrants team and will sum up what they are trying to say... These commercials suck and are annoying. The team behind the commercials may have good intentions but they need to get their facts lined up for today's target audience and should consider alternate creative ways to promote good health.
dude, I so confused. Your "rant" is completely unfounded. What was said about cigarettes a decade ago is still true today. That is the point. I have to agree with Desmond in that I can't believe you appear to be defending "big tobacco." I think the point is that babies are fucked by cigarettes-that's a fact. So, if your gonna smoke, don't have a baby. And if you decide to have a baby anyway, then realize when your baby comes out all small and feeble and unhealthy, it was your own dumb-ass fault.
I could have done without the animated bird though.
Clearly both BT and Desmond have not been reading Adrants for a very long time. I in no way support tobacco companies and their despicable efforts to get people to smoke. You've missed the point completely. I am criticizing the logic used by Truth to make their argument. That's all.
In which case, I agree with you. The commercial sucks. There are more current issues one could attack on the issues of tobacco. It is pretty much the worst TRUTH spot I've ever seen. Who produced this one?
Cosmetics companies used to use lead, mercury and rat poison in women's makeup, blinding and killing them throughout the 1930s. I'm sure their initial discussions weren't "let's shut the business down" (or even, "let's make the product safer"), but "how can we spin this?"
Eventually, the govt. stepped in and regulated, just like they've done with tobacco. It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye. Or a lung.
I have a few comments:
1) I'm glad to see i'm not the only one who hates the truth ads. Last i checked tabacco is Legal.
2) Babies are not "f#$!ed buy cigarettes" - they are screwed by their dumb owners who unfortunately have Free Will and CHOOSE (yes, a poor choice) to smoke while pregnant.
3) Though AdRants is clearly not defending tobacco, i think someone should. Why should a company be responsible for someone's PERSONAL responsibility?
4) And, if you are going to argue that the baby isn't given the choice well you'd be right. You don't get to choose your parents because life just isn't fair. If you want, i'd be happy to support taking babies away from parents who choose to smoke while pregnant but i'm sure you'll find that smoking is likely the least of the problems among that set.
BT. This was done by Arnold and CPB.
1. Yes, the commercial is stupid and overproduced.
2. Yes, your post comes across (intentionally or not) as defending tobacco companies.
3. Patrick is clearly both (a) a drug addict (nicotine) and (b) an idiot. Smoking's not remotely "Legal" for those to whom the ads are targeted! Your subtle emphasis on "CHOOSING to smoke WHILE pregnant" does nothing to hide your agenda, one in which it's magically okay to fill a house with carcinogenic clouds as soon as the baby is born, and one in which drug addicts choose, out of the blue, each and every day with complete free will, to take the next hit.
-- B
Post a comment