Would you follow @TheMarlboroMan?
The FDA recently passed new restrictions that will prohibit people under 18 from buying tobacco products starting in June. The law will also ban cigarette makers from distributing branded merchandise and sponsoring events. Tobacco controls are growing more severe but they don’t mention tobacco and its correlation with social media. Mad Men characters have a Twitter presence, but what if the Marlboro Man had his own Twitter handle? Would people think the cowboy is as cool as when the figure was first introduced in 1954? Would the public protest against his internet presence or embrace him and the rights of free speech?
Tobacco exposure has generally been limited to print advertisements and television in the past. Regulations have since then curbed the brands’ marketing freedoms. Could you imagine if tobacco companies decided to hit the younger market with social media instead? There really isn’t much stopping them from doing so, except potential backlash from an angry America. But would it really be worthwhile for these companies to invest in social media?
Many of the Mad Men characters have their own Twitter accounts, run by various fans, but you don’t see people protesting. That show is based on the early 1960′s, a time when smoking was glamorous and highly common. Even pregnant women of the time had no problem lighting up, so why should anyone get worked up over a television drama that mimics history?
After doing a little research I learned that @TheMarlboroMan has been suspended, although I’m not sure if the actual cigarette maker started the account. @MarlboroMan is someone named Jeffrey from Nebraska, and @MarlboroCowboy is Felipe Silva Viana and has yet to tweet something.
I personally wouldn’t like to see the Marlboro Man in such an influential setting. It seems invasive and out of line with today’s values. The general public knows enough about smoking dangers so it’s hard to measure how influential @TheMarlboroMan would be on Twitter if it were to exist.
Photo Credit: jmpznz
22 Responses
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
[...] More here: Would you follow @TheMarlboroCowboy? | The Next Great Generation [...]
-
[...] Would you follow @TheMarlboroCowboy? | The Next Great Generation [...]
-
[...] Would you follow @TheMarlboroCowboy? | The Next Great Generation [...]
-
[...] Would you follow @TheMarlboroCowboy? | The Next Great Generation [...]
I don't know if I would follow @TheMarlboroMan but I would hop on the @JoeCamel train in a hot second. Because cartoons that smoke are way more influential?
Using Twitter would be useful if they want to hit a young-adult bracket. However, if they are aiming for high-schoolers then Twitter would be a definite miss. Only about 1% of Twitter users are under 18. If they did start a Twitter then they would probably end up engaging faithful customers rather than acquiring new ones. This article only talks about Twitter; what about other social media sites, such as Facebook or Myspace? They could even integrate themselves into popular online games. Tobacco crop on Farmville, anyone? They need to figure out where online their target audience is spending time then find a way to incorporate themselves into that space.
Interesting take on the Marlboro campaign and tobacco industry.
Maybe it's just Texas, but you've always had to be 18 to purchase tobacco products.
The Marlboro Man campaign, although from the 50's, is regarded as one of the most well executed ad campaigns of all time. It took a feminine brand that used the slogan 'Mild as May' and turned it masculine. There were a lot of Marlboro Men, but the public identified with the Cowboy the most.The ads were originally conceived as a way to popularize filtered cigarettes.
The interesting part of it, though, is the brand recognition that organically sprang from the ads. Isn't that what we are pushing clients and brands to do now in social media? It's all about identifying your product with something – whether it is the traveling gnome, a certain color, etc.
There are brands I wish weren't on Twitter – but there is a market for cigarettes, and Tobacco is one of the most profitable fields. They should be out there, just as those against smoking should be. It's an even playing field. It might take a bit more strategy to justify a presence in social media, but there are smokers on Twitter. There are people who might enjoy it. It's a vice.
Do I smoke? No. Do I care if my friends want to follow them on Twitter? Not really. To each their own.
If you haven't seen the movie “Thank You for Smoking” you totally should – it's one of my favorites! But it has a great line in it that I thought of when I read this”
“We don't sell Tic Tacs for Christ's sake. We sell cigarettes. And they're cool and available and *addictive*. The job is almost done for us!”
I think whether it's allowed to be on Twitter or TV, billboards or magazines, cigarette advertising isn't the make or break factor. And I don't think having or following that fictitious character on Twitter is going to be what drives teens/adults/whoever to smoke – there's so much WOM and peer pressure sort of stuff that goes into that…
Think about the cowboy's persona – He wouldn't be tweeting things like “Smoking is cool, you should do it too” he would just be personifying the “cool” through what he says.
I don't know, I don't smoke, but I do think that seeing the Marlboro Man on Twitter would make me want to pick up the habit, just like following Shaq doesn't make me cheer for his team…
I'm with GoKTGo on this one. Characters like the Marlboro man or Joe Camel never said, “Hey kids, smoking is cool. You should do it, too.” That's why they were most effective in visual media. They could just personify cool, and could have a cigarette attached to them.
I'm not entirely sure how you personify cool on Twitter, but even if you could, I don't think doing that, and having a tiny avatar with a cigarette is going to do all that much to influence people to smoke.
Now, could it influence SMOKERS to go with one brand over another. That's a definite possibility in my mind, but I don't think you can exert enough influence over Twitter to convert someone from a non-smoker to a smoker – especially not in today's anti-smoking climate.
I've always been amused by how phallic Joe Camel is/was.
Nice bit of subliminal advertising on the part of Madison Avenue.
I think folks need to lay off of the Tobacco industry. Yes, they sell an addictive substance. Yes, they marketed to children. Yes, smoking has been shown to have a correlation with getting cancer. Today, in many urban locations across the U.S., a smoker needs to file for a permit in order to go outside and “enjoy” a cigarette across the street from the restaurant or bar they are attending. People still smoke, and people will continue to smoke. The more taboo you make it, the more teenagers will want to try it. Also, Over 28% of deaths in the U.S. are attributed to heart disease, which can be influenced by the addictive properties of Sugar, Processed Foods, and Caffeine (all of which have strong online presence and market almost exclusively to children). Smoking, like eating yourself to death, is a personal choice, and I think this crusade against the industry started with noble aspirations, but have since accomplished them. Let's not forget that the United States grew into the powerful nation that it is, by peddling nicotine to the world.
Good point about tobacco crops on Farmville, I agree they won't find their high school audience on Twitter. Myspace is definitely not as popular as it was, but there are still places in the US where people are just learning to use Facebook or maybe haven't even gotten into it yet.
I don’t think advertising of cigarettes should be banned. With or without advertising, tobacco is still one of the most purchased products. Teens to people in their late 60s and 70s smoke for one reason or another. Not to mention the fact that, as Scott pointed out, we allow advertisement of processed foods and sugar that kill more people than cigarettes do. And what about alcohol advertisement??????
People know all the health risks of smoking and that doesn’t stop them from it. It doesn’t even scare teenagers not to start because smoking is still perceived as something cool to do. With or without advertising, people will continue to smoke. All the scare tactics telling us how dangerous smoking is have the opposite effect, especially for people with boring lives who see smoking as the only dangerous and adventurous thing in their daily lives. A small adrenaline rush. We all have heads on our shoulders and we should use them to make decisions. If you want to smoke, go ahead it is your decision.
I can actually see @The_MarlboroMan have a lot of followers if his Twitter feed is entertaining and describes the life an interesting and cool persona. It can bring to life the Marlboro Man and make it more relatable and easier to identify with him than ever before. Will it be successful in increasing the number of people smoking? Probably, if smoking is the only aspect of the cool persona of @The_MarlboroMan to which people can relate. We, especially young people, want to be cool and if we think smoking can help us with that, we will do it. Is it smart??? No, not at all. But we’ve seen it happen before. Will it be as influential as TV advertisement? Probably even more. But again, we have heads on our shoulders and no one forces us to start smoking. It is a choice we make.
Reading my comment probably makes me seem as a smoker, but I am not. Actually I have a very strong opinion against it. Both of my parents smoke and my grandfather died from lung cancer. I still think smoking should be advertised or we should ban advertising of all products that might have health-related risks that is probably all products on the market.
I did see that movie, it was excellent! I'm not a smoker, but like you said: the Marlboro Man on Twitter wouldn't entice me to smoke.
Check out http://twitter.com/The_MarlboroMan
I saw that @The_MarlboroMan retweeted @NextGreatGen today about this article. It's interesting that you think cigarette advertising has a place especially since there are other foods and pharmaceutical drugs that have done their fair share of hurt. I understand where you're coming from, but I think the tobacco industry has caused a lot of corruption that weighs heavier with people. It's not to say that other industries won't face more restrictions if they haven't yet.
I'll admit, I started following @The_MarlboroMan.
I think it's the same as following someone like Shaq. I find him hilarious, so I don't mind clicking the Follow button. That doesn't mean I know anything about basketball or think he's a good actor. He's just entertaining and that's worth my follow. If the Marlboro Man oozed coolness and was ironically suave (I'm imagining a modern version of him… like the guy from the Old Spice commercial), I'd be all over that.
That said, I am not a smoker and I do not intend to start. I don't like the taste, the smell, or the feeling of smoke. No advertising will ever change that for me.
Raises all kinds of possibilities. Will cig companies find under radar ways to stimulate social content? Would not put it past them to try. Thanks for writing this piece.
Thanks for this thoughtful post, Kristen. Honestly? I'm shocked that tobacco co's aren't already using sm to reach out to kids. That they're not, restores my faith in…something. Corporate decency? Fearsomeness of our regulatory system?
I think the reason there's no backlash against Mad Men on Twitter is because they represent a faraway, fictional world where people were encouraged to engage in almost everything we consider life threatening today–eating, drinking, smoking, having sex. (Ah, the bliss of unenlightenment.) Some pregnant women were actually told by doctors to smoke *more* so babies would be smaller and easier to deliver.
And the reason Mad Men on Twitter works as engagement is because of the brilliantly crafted storyworld behind it. If it weren't for Matt Weiner's gorgeously produced show, you can bet @BettyDraper wouldn't have 25,000 people following.
So for @The_MarlboroMan to get massive following (and I agree with Christine, he is funny) he'd need to be part of something besides just a twitter feed. He'd have to be part of a larger campaign universe that was created and promoted on several platforms.
And if Philip Morris really was trying to reach kids, twitter shouldn't be in the mix at all. As Julia pointed out, only a small percentage of kids are on Twitter. Better to reach them thru Facebook (Farmville idea is brilliant) or…wait! What am I saying. I don't want to lay out any ideas. B/c I don't think cig companies should reach out to kids through sm or at all. My millennial kids were kids when Joe Camel was around and I regretted that my industry made cigs so subliminally seductive to them.
Thanks for writing and researching this piece. BTW, I'm also @BettyDraper
I don't smoke. I can't stand it, my mom smoked when I was a child and still does. (Plain and simple, just want you to know where I'm coming from.)
The problem with tobacco industries is that in addition to wrongfully targeting a young market while they are impressionable and incapable of making decisions of that level. But when you compound that with the alterations they make to their products to make them not only more addictive and dangerous, that's where the problem comes in.
I don't like smoke, but there are plenty of people who do, and I get that. What I don't get is why they have to pump additional additives that cause cancer (cute how you used 'correlation' the word is causation, plain and simple.). Why the smoking public doesn't rise up and demand an 'organic' cigarette is beyond me. They get upset with antibiotics in their poultry, but don't care when a company hides a pellet in the filter that when tested revealed 38 separate chemicals. Neither consumers or the FDA were aware of its presence.
There could be a safer tobacco product made, but its not being done. Tobacco companies are simply too greedy. The ingredients they add to make it more addictive (tobacco is already addictive, they add more) make it harmful to the body.
That is why people attack the tobacco industry.
My point was that we labeled the Tobacco industry as “wrongfully” targeting the youth market, as they were peddling an addictive cancerous product to impressionable children. Selling to youths is nothing new, life long consumers are forged by winning them over young, and every industry does it. I am not arguing that cigarettes are bad for one's health. As I said, there are plenty of atrocious products out there that are addictive, hazardous to health, and are marketed to children which are completely ignored. There are tons of corporations out there, that simply care about maximizing profit. Our generation received extremely heavy doses of anti-smoking propaganda from our Government… when we were impressionable youths.
As far as additives, check out the ingredient list on your processed foods, a majority of them can't be grown or made without an industrial lab. If the FDA didn't know about certain additives being in products that were approved, isn't that the fault of the FDA for not doing it's job in the first place? Making the Tobacco industry a martyr for operating like a typical modern business is not fair. Smoking is a personal choice, and trying to force people not to is fascism. You should read up on the guy who first started a political campaign to get rid of smoking, I'm sure you'll both know him and recognize some of his strategies being used the U.S. today
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tobacco_movem…
(It didn't work by the way)
By the way, I don't smoke and can't stand the smell of it either.