Banned Cigarette Advert (Preview - It will also be written in my exercise book)

[1] How are smokers represented? [Aim for 200 words]

Smokers are usually represented negatively from different kinds of press and media. They are usually seen badly, as it not the best habit that someone can have. Smoking is based more negatively because of the damage it causes for different people i.e. creating cancer inside of people, damaging gums and teeth, bad scent followed with it. Smokers are seen to be as bad people just because of the habit they obtain. Smokers are addicted to smoking, so because of this they are represented as addicted, this is a problem which people think that they can’t change.  They are also represented as quite filthy, this is because they obtain the habit of smoking around people in public places, and the smoke blows into peoples face, this is seen to as quite dirty/filthy because some people don’t smoke. The advert shows smokers to be hooked onto smoking; it is kind of saying that they can’t change without professional help. The advert represents the young woman as a victim of someone who can’t get un-hooked from the cigarettes, this is also seen quite negatively because she is a young woman, and smoking too much and being hooked on cigarettes can kill you.

[2] Why do you think this advert was banned [it attracted 385 complaints before being withdrawn] [aim for 200 words]

I believe that this advert was banned because the image of the girl being hooked onto smoking is quite a disturbing image, and being used publicly it is shown to people of all ages. This picture is quite a horrific sight for someone of a younger age as it might scare them that the hook is pulling through the women’s mouth. I believe that it also got 385 complaints because it makes children also fear smoking, or even smokers.  Another reason why this advert might be banned is also because it looks like the person with the hook in her mouth seems in quite a lot of pain and distress because of it, it doesn’t represent a good image of a normal smoker, as most of them aren’t hooked on cigarettes as bad as the girl represented is. The advert is most probably banned because it has a shock-factor which would scare the younger generation as they look at it; it would probably make them scared of smoking in case that this ever happened to them; it causes distress to all-aged audiences but it would most likely be seen to scare the younger people which look at it, and maybe even scare them to not ever smoke. The advert is probably banned because it may also offend former smokers, and represent them in a bad representation.

[3] Can 'shock tactics' in advertising be justified? - Perhaps refer to the Benetton campaigns of Toscani covered in the Conventional/Unconventional lessons in class [see the 'Conventions' section of your 'Semiotics' booklet in your folder]? Why do you think some institutions use?

Shock-tactics in adverts can be justified in many different ways, companies tend to use shock-tactics to reel the audience in more; advertising of for example the “smoking advert” is an advert which is remember able, because it is so shocking. Shocking could mean that people fear the image, or find the image disturbing to the eye. Companies tend to use the shock tactics to show a product for example this smoking advert, as it definitely disturbs the younger audience and puts them off smoking, in case they thought that this would happen to them. The adverts are remember-able and make the audience fear the matter of the subject they are looking at.  Shock tactics in advertising are justified, because the aim of their campaign is to put people off being hooked on smoking. It does this quite well as it makes the audience fear the disturbing image; although quite a disturbing image, the shock-tactic used is justified as it brings a good reason on why people shouldn’t be hooked on cigarettes at such a young age, The advertisers the ‘National Health Service’ (NHS) are a good company who look out for better ways of making a human life the best, healthiest and easiest it can be regarding the health issues. For a good working company the NHS advertises something which makes people ill quite regularly, and promotes the bad things about being hooked onto it. The NHS deal with a lot of smoking issues on a regular basis; the aim of the advertisement is to put people off smoking so that the NHS themselves don’t have to deal with people be hooked onto smoking, and dealing with the consequences of when somebodies health turns for the worse. By using the fact that “one smoker needs over 5000 cigarettes a year” it underlines the potential danger of what being hooked on smoking can do to you; and how much you smoke can personally damage you inside and out. I think that using this kind of advertisement is a good way to promote how bad something simple such as smoking can turn out to in the end.  I believe that the advertisement though sadly banned now as it caused catastrophic madness; did actually sell the point that the NHS were trying to make with the advertisement about how being hooked onto smoking can cause you a lot of trouble with health. It has a justified point(to stop smoking), and evidence (the facts) and basically it just shows how you can get help to get ‘un-hooked’ before smoking causes anymore damage to you, then how it will when you are still smoking in the future. The advertisement is justified, it is straight to the point, and its self-explanatory the message is to simply stop smoking before it’s too late; and the company has used the shock-tactics to get even more promotion from the advertisement as people will talk about it, because it is disturbing and pass the message along to their friends. It is simply made, and self-explainable; it drags the message exactly to the point, and shows how the NHS will be there for you if you want help to get unhooked from smoking.