This document analyzes the evolution of advertising techniques and content over time. It discusses how early cigarette ads used biased and misleading information to claim smoking was healthy based on "expert" opinions. As health risks became clear, ads shifted to associating smoking with glamour and appealing lifestyles. The document also examines the use of stereotypes, noting how women were often portrayed negatively. While tactics have changed, ads still rely on stereotypes and bias to persuade audiences. The analysis cautions readers to critically examine ad claims and sources of information.

1. THE FINE ART OF
PERSUASION
Advertising

2. OH, REALLY?
 Advertising is pure persuasion! No matter what the ad is selling—
politicians, food, toiletries, any product—the purpose is to
persuade the readers/viewers to vote, purchase a certain
product, or change their minds about a topic.

3. PROBLEMS!
 The problem with ads is that they are biased and do not always
represent the “facts.” Does one toothpaste really work better than
another? Do “lose weight quickly” products work? Could they
even be unhealthy? Is Politician A more honest and smarter than
Politician B?
 Another problem is that ads can reinforce negative stereotypes:
the characters in ads are stock and flat, meaning that because of
brevity (and other factors), they lack “personality.” Advertisers use
stereotypical characters so that the audience can identify with
them, but these characteristics are not always accurate.

4. EVOLUTION?
 The basic selling premise of ads has not changed, and ads still
use stock characters, but ads have changed.
 Because the success of an advertising campaign depends on
how well the audience “buys” into the concept, ads reflect and are
strongly influenced by the cultural aspects of an era—or even
what is popular in a given year.
 We can take a trip back in time to prove this hypothesis!

5. These ads demonstrate a
logical fallacy: just because
an “expert” says so does not
make “it” so!
These ads also beg the question of
reliability: who were the 20,679 doctors?
How did the advertisers get this info?
Regardless, ANY doctor who would
advocate smoking today would get drummed
out of the AMA.

6. Hmmm, I wonder what
type of criteria the “medical
specialists” were using?
What would make
Chesterfields better or less
harmful than other
cigarettes?
Notice, there is no mention
of cancer, emphysema, or
other serious health
problems related to
smoking.

7. Well, little girl, you won’t live to
be 100 if you follow your
doctor’s example?
This ad uses pathos (emotion)
to appeal to the audience: the
little girl and her mother are
intended to make the audience
feel “emotionally” reassured
that smoking is healthy. The
doctor also makes smoking
respectable.
Can you spot logical fallacies?

8. Dentists got in on
the act, as well.

9. Even poor old Santa was dragged into the arena.

10. IGNORANCE
 We might be able to say, “Well, back in the old days, no one
realized how bad smoking was for your health,” but we must ask
how much clout cigarette companies had and what the
“downplayed” to the public.
 Until 1969, cigarette ads proliferated on TV, but even magazine
and other types of advertising could no longer claim that smoking
was healthy. This fact was still downplayed in ads, and the
smoking companies turned to other tactics to draw in smokers—
especially new smokers.

11. Ignorance cannot be used
as an excuse for the Joe Camel
ads; cartoon characters are
supposed to impress whom?
The target audience was not
mature, responsible adults!

12. SEXISM
 Smoking ads still proliferate in printed media, usually depicting
good-looking people having a great time while puffing away. After
the “doctor” recommendations where no longer a viable selling
point, associating cigarettes with a glamorous lifestyle came to
the forefront.
 The benefits of smoking were not the only fallacies fed to the
American public. As mentioned earlier, stock characters and
stereotypes abounded (and still abound) in both printed and visual
media.
 In the good ol’ days, women were depicted as helpless, controlled
by men, and in other negative stereotypes.
 I looked for ads portraying negative stereotypes of men, but
couldn’t find any! I am sure that they exist—if you find some, let
me know.

13. This ad combined the “coolness” of
smoking and sexism, depicting
women as gullible creatures who
would blindly follow a cool guy
anywhere IF he only blew smoke in
her face.
Somehow, I don’t believe this was an
effective pick-up move!

14. Women needed to smoke before
dealing with their children!
Prior to the 1940s, women who
smoked were scandalous, but an ad
such as this made smoking
something that even mothers
could, and were encouraged, to do.
Does not feeling “oversmoked”
include lung cancer?

15.  Women couldn’t open ketchup
bottles by themselves.

16. Got a wife who tampers with your
coffee? Then treat her like a child.

17. This ad is most likely intended to be
light-hearted, as well, but even the
attire of the woman is indicative of
her status and place in the world.
Don’t all women thrive of
“cooking, cleaning, and dusting?

18.  Draw your own conclusions!

19.  And where did the loose
women get those diseases?

20. OTHER HEALTH ISSUES
 All babies need caffeine or
sugar laced drinks!

21.  Not only was Coca-Cola
named for its most important
ingredient, but cocaine was
an over-the-counter palliative
until 1914.

22. INTO THE NEW AGE
 Advertisers must consistently
find new ways to sell
products, but so many use
the same tactics that when
we see something truly fresh
and original, we remember it!

23.  And cute still sells.
 (Push the play button!)

24. FINIS
 I have cautioned you to seek reliable sources! While you might not
use an ad as a source to back up an argument, they nevertheless
show how popular ideas, theories, and societal norms change. In
addition, they also demonstrate how new discoveries change what
we know about certain issues, i.e. the dangers of smoking.
 In addition, commercials are rife with bias, inaccuracies, logical
fallacies, and stereotypes: so are printed and other media sources! It
behooves you, the researcher, to ferret out those aspects and
evaluate their accuracy and their timeliness. If you do not, a reader
that is uneducated about the topic might believe the inaccuracies, but
an analytical and/or educated reader will not—do not risk alienating
your readers with drivel or making them perceive YOU as illinformed; if this happens, your points/arguments are moot.