Well it looks like cigarette packages will be getting a face-lift in the next year or so. One of the images will be of Barb Tarbox who died of lung cancer (label below).
This is a fascinating PR case study.
At first the government was focused on contraband cigarettes and reducing that trade.
Then there was outcry from the medical community and the government was seen as being in bed with the tobacco industry.
Then the government announced that new labels would be created.
From a PR perspective there are a number of fascinating elements associated with this development.
First, this was clearly the result of a PR war - one that never developed, but the threat of which moderated the governments actions.
Second, what I find thoroughly fascinating, are two elements of this story which the media seems to be completely ignoring.
The first is that in all the stories I've read (and admittedly I've only read a half dozen of the hundreds of stories) there is never a quote from a psychologist and their opinion on the subject. While addiction is a physiological issue, there is obviously a mental component to it and scare-marketing is clearly meant to operate at a psychological level. And yet, in none of the articles I read is there any comment from those who are the experts on the psychological effects - the quotes are generally from the government, doctors, the tobacco industry and smokers themselves.
The second is that articles infer that the government was intentionally shelving these ads as a direct result of lobbying from the tobacco industry. While this is obviously an easy scenario to imagine, none of the articles give any kind of details or facts to support that this actually occurred. Instead of fact, stories imply inference... that there 'seemed' to be undo influence by the tobacco industry.
And lastly, and perhaps most shockingly, none of the stories seem to ask the question that one would think should be asked at this point.... 'If we have reached the stage where we are putting people on their death bed on cigarette packages, how can we at the same time allow such a product to be legal?'
So why has the story unfolded the way it has? I would argue this is tied to a phenomena I've spoken about in past posts... the rush the media has in covering stories. The news breaks and they have to run with it right away (because other media outlets are), with the resources they have in hand at the time. Which means they are limited to those organizations who are reaching out to them or who they have spoken to on the subject already - in this case the medical community and the government.
Then in a couple of weeks, after the story has run out of steam, it's difficult to allocate resources away from new stories to go back and dig into this story with greater depth (and address elements, such as the three I've listed above, with greater detail).
The reason this is interesting from a PR perspective is that, I would argue, the only voices being heard in all this are those who have PR folks at work. Which goes to show how much the news is moderated by PR folks and the information they provide to reporters.
This story deserves to be flushed out much more than it has, and yet, it probably never will be. Which is too bad, because society loses when we tackle social issues within the media based on a rushed 24-hour news cycle. It also highlights how important it is for organizations to have PR resources available to them so that we hear from multiple voices and not just those who are at the forefront.
For full disclosure on my views, I personally think at this stage smoking should be made illegal. To me we've entered a period of almost absurd hypocrisy where we are now graphically informing people that smoking will kill you while at the same time selling them the product (and let's be honest, every Canadian is complicit in the sale of cigarettes given the taxes raised through such sales go to build schools, roads, etc.).
But my views on the subject don't pertain to the PR variables at play. From a PR perspective it is simply fascinating to watch how it is those with the strongest voice that have shaped how the story unfolds. Not necessarily those with the most to offer on the subject, as is evident by the fact that no psychological authorities were even consulted on the story.
This is why PR is so important to our world. It's not just the media that inform the public, but it's PR folks. And just like society would benefit from more journalists, it also would benefit from more PR folks, ensuring that all the voices that need to be heard, are heard. It is through such a dynamic that the public would ultimately receive truly informative details to shape their views and not just 'he said she said' type story structures.
I'll close by saying I'm continually impressed by the coverage The Toronto Star gives to stories (and it's the source I've linked to at the top of this blog entry). They seem to really try to present both sides of a story. In this case it would have been easy to simply update readers that new labels are coming (as most outlets did), but they actually dug a little deeper and went out on the street to see how kids and smokers were reacting to the news. Kudos to them for not just reporting the news, but at least trying to figure out how the news related to the real world and real lives of Canadians.
At first the government was focused on contraband cigarettes and reducing that trade.
Then there was outcry from the medical community and the government was seen as being in bed with the tobacco industry.
Then the government announced that new labels would be created.
From a PR perspective there are a number of fascinating elements associated with this development.
First, this was clearly the result of a PR war - one that never developed, but the threat of which moderated the governments actions.
Second, what I find thoroughly fascinating, are two elements of this story which the media seems to be completely ignoring.
The first is that in all the stories I've read (and admittedly I've only read a half dozen of the hundreds of stories) there is never a quote from a psychologist and their opinion on the subject. While addiction is a physiological issue, there is obviously a mental component to it and scare-marketing is clearly meant to operate at a psychological level. And yet, in none of the articles I read is there any comment from those who are the experts on the psychological effects - the quotes are generally from the government, doctors, the tobacco industry and smokers themselves.
The second is that articles infer that the government was intentionally shelving these ads as a direct result of lobbying from the tobacco industry. While this is obviously an easy scenario to imagine, none of the articles give any kind of details or facts to support that this actually occurred. Instead of fact, stories imply inference... that there 'seemed' to be undo influence by the tobacco industry.
And lastly, and perhaps most shockingly, none of the stories seem to ask the question that one would think should be asked at this point.... 'If we have reached the stage where we are putting people on their death bed on cigarette packages, how can we at the same time allow such a product to be legal?'
So why has the story unfolded the way it has? I would argue this is tied to a phenomena I've spoken about in past posts... the rush the media has in covering stories. The news breaks and they have to run with it right away (because other media outlets are), with the resources they have in hand at the time. Which means they are limited to those organizations who are reaching out to them or who they have spoken to on the subject already - in this case the medical community and the government.
Then in a couple of weeks, after the story has run out of steam, it's difficult to allocate resources away from new stories to go back and dig into this story with greater depth (and address elements, such as the three I've listed above, with greater detail).
The reason this is interesting from a PR perspective is that, I would argue, the only voices being heard in all this are those who have PR folks at work. Which goes to show how much the news is moderated by PR folks and the information they provide to reporters.
This story deserves to be flushed out much more than it has, and yet, it probably never will be. Which is too bad, because society loses when we tackle social issues within the media based on a rushed 24-hour news cycle. It also highlights how important it is for organizations to have PR resources available to them so that we hear from multiple voices and not just those who are at the forefront.
For full disclosure on my views, I personally think at this stage smoking should be made illegal. To me we've entered a period of almost absurd hypocrisy where we are now graphically informing people that smoking will kill you while at the same time selling them the product (and let's be honest, every Canadian is complicit in the sale of cigarettes given the taxes raised through such sales go to build schools, roads, etc.).
But my views on the subject don't pertain to the PR variables at play. From a PR perspective it is simply fascinating to watch how it is those with the strongest voice that have shaped how the story unfolds. Not necessarily those with the most to offer on the subject, as is evident by the fact that no psychological authorities were even consulted on the story.
This is why PR is so important to our world. It's not just the media that inform the public, but it's PR folks. And just like society would benefit from more journalists, it also would benefit from more PR folks, ensuring that all the voices that need to be heard, are heard. It is through such a dynamic that the public would ultimately receive truly informative details to shape their views and not just 'he said she said' type story structures.
I'll close by saying I'm continually impressed by the coverage The Toronto Star gives to stories (and it's the source I've linked to at the top of this blog entry). They seem to really try to present both sides of a story. In this case it would have been easy to simply update readers that new labels are coming (as most outlets did), but they actually dug a little deeper and went out on the street to see how kids and smokers were reacting to the news. Kudos to them for not just reporting the news, but at least trying to figure out how the news related to the real world and real lives of Canadians.
Comments
Post a Comment