There are certain iconic characters we all remember from childhood. There’s Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse and even commercial characters like Domino’s evil, pizza-ruining Noid. These characters help us remember a certain period in history and then they are gone. But do the things these characters represent go away just because they are not around anymore? Do we like pizza less because the Noid isn’t around to ruin our favorite slice? One Penn State professor recently posed this question about a different, but equally ubiquitous commercial character: Joe Camel.
There have been studies damning the tobacco industry for using cartoon characters to market cigarettes and advertising in dubious locations to lure new customers. But in banning these predatory advertising practices, have we prevented usage? Penn State Professor Emeritus of Economics Jon Nelson says no. In the U.S., we have done away with Joe Camel but alcohol and tobacco ads are still prevalent. Nelson’s study, “Do Advertising Bans Work? An International Comparison” examines countries like Canada and Scandinavian countries that have imposed wider bans on tobacco and alcohol advertising, controlling for other variables and determining the effectiveness of banning visual vice. So many people know that there are heavy penalties for DUI but they will ignore them in a moment of madness when they get behind the wheel and that needs to stop.
“When you say, for example, that a ban on spirits ads is effective, that doesn’t mean that it reduces drinking,” says Nelson. “It just causes them to substitute away from spirits and drink beer or wine instead.” The same goes for cigarette smoking. When smoking cigarettes is prohibited, people find new ways to take in nicotine such as by using a disposable vape.
Nelson’s findings showed that, while these bans did change the habits of drinkers or smokers, they did not curb the behaviors. Where they had a more profound effect was on brand loyalty. More heavily advertised products sell better but people still want the product, with or without advertising. They may have hidden the Camel, but it hasn’t stopped people from bumming his smokes.
“If you follow what has happened to consumption in these markets, it has been declining,” says Nelson. “The beer market is not a growing market, the liquor market has been declining for many many years. The wine market has shown some growth but even that has leveled off. So advertising in a static market does little more than affect people’s brand choices, it doesn’t do much to expand the market. Were it to do so, I think advertising bans would be effective. But as I found, that is not the case.”
Source: Jon Nelson, Penn State University
Writer: John Steele