Saturday, December 1, 2012

The Tobacco Industry: A Student of Machiavellianism


While on Thanksgiving break I gave in to all the hype surrounding AMC’s hit show, Mad Men, and watched the pilot episode. During the episode, Don Draper, the founding partner at a New York City add agency, has a meeting with the owners of Lucky Strike Cigarettes. In the meeting they take on the new problem presented in the cigarette industry after the Surgeon General’s Report was published in 1964, which lead to the requirement of cigarette companies to post warnings on cigarette packages and advertising. A health warning on any product, for obvious reasons, defers people from buying the product. Don Draper works with the owners of Lucky strike to circumvent the new warning label laws and to market the lucky strike brand so that people feel comforted by and continue to purchase their product.
Lucky Strike add pitch in Madmen. 
"Everyone else's tobacco is poisonous, Lucky Strike's is toasted."

The pilot episode of Mad Men began to make me think about the philosophical orientation that the Cigarette Industry holds. I believe that the Cigarette Industry closely follows Machiavellianism. Machiavellianism is based on the philosophical ideals of Niccolo Machiavelli, a philosopher during the late 1400s and early 1500s. Machiavellianism presents the idea that we should do whatever is necessary to fulfill ones desires and that the “ends always justifies the means.” This is to say that all actions (means) in obtaining what one wants (ends) are justified by attaining the end product that one desires. Machiavellianism also preaches that ethics do not matter in one’s actions when working to obtain desired end results.  However, under Machiavellianism, one should pursue actions with higher ethics, when possible, in order to achieve a desired end. For example, imagine if someone is given the options to negotiate, cheat, or murder in order to get the promotion in their company. Under Machiavellianism, that person should negotiate, as it is the most ethical action and yet it still gains the desired end of getting the promotion. Now that Machiavellianism and its aspects are explained, we can explore how the cigarette industry is a student of its ideals.   
He's just fallowing Machiavellianism!



Since 1789, when the first tobacco advertisement ran in a New York newspaper, the tobacco industry has done everything in its power to gain profit.  During the 1940’s and 1950’s advertisements were everywhere, displaying cigarettes as cool and harmless. A New York Times article stated that the 1950’s were the golden age for tobacco companies, “…cigarette ads featured endorsements from dentists, doctors, babies, and even Yankees slugger Mickey Mantle”(James and Olstad).
 



The golden age of cigarette's
 In the 1960’s the health risks of cigarettes were publicized in the Advisory Committee’s Report on Smoking and Health, based on “more than 7,000 scientific studies linking smoking with lung cancer, emphysema and other diseases”(James and Olstad). As mentioned in my description of the episode of Mad Men, the health findings did not stop cigarette companies or the cigarette industry from producing and selling cigarettes, as they simply changed their advertising strategy. The tobacco companies started, “advertising to younger markets with candy cigarettes and mascots like Joe Camel- whom a 1991 study found was more recognizable among 5 and 6 year-olds than Mickey Mouse” This marketing strategy results in kids becoming addicted to cigarettes at a young age, creating a life long consumer. The idea of advertising to a younger market and continuing to sell cigarettes at all, when they are proven to cause serious health risks is by all aspects immoral and unethical. Regardless, the cigarette industry continued to increase profit and did so with new and unethical marketing strategies. Furthermore, the cigarette industry does not regard ethics in their means, but rather is only concerned that maximum profit, the desired, end is met. 


Sources: 
Sugren General Report: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60   
Times article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1905530,00.html
Cheating picture: http://blogs.ksbe.edu/anchung/2008/03/07/does-the-end-always-justify-the-means/
Lucky Strike picture: http://youthvoices.net/discussion/spin-lucky-strike-cigarettes
Marlboro picture: http://www.quitsmokingpainlesslynow.com/cigarette-advertising/marlboros-for-mummy/

2 comments:

  1. I enjoyed your post because you are pointing out a standout example of an industry whose strategies reflect Machiavellian ideals. Everything you say about the advertising methods used by tobacco companies and how they espouse Machiavellian beliefs is interesting and compelling. However, I don't think the tobacco industry is alone in their techniques. Although they are one of the most clear examples of this, I am sure other advertising campaigns have employed some of the same cut-throat "any action necessary" approaches. Take, for example, McDonald's and the fast food industry. Like tobacco, the fruits of their business have been proven to be distasteful in the long run as far as effects on human health. Yet they tend to completely ignore this fact when getting their message across to the public. Sure, many a fast food chain have made attempts to introduce healthier menu items. But in my observations, they are careful to separate these items (both in advertisements and on the physical menu) from the more traditional unhealthy fast food items like burgers and fries. This means that their strategies for these potentially physically harmful food items has remained largely unchanged from any public outcry against them. The industry's way of handling this outcry has been, as I touched on, to simply divert some attention away from these nutritionally questionable items. They aren't discontinuing them, because like the tobacco companies, they realize that they still sell. And as long as Big Macs are bringing in revenue (assuming a Machiavellian perspective), why change anything? Who cares about the harmful health issues linked to eating them?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This post is extremely true in that it illustrates the issue that arises when a conflict of interests comes about. One can resolve conflict the best way they see fit, however, some paths may not be as optimal as others. One could choose a destructive path that provides the end results one may be looking for with alternate effects that one would seek. The problem with this is that ulterior motives have a great medium to be accomplished through and transparency is non existent. This can lead to corruption of institutions such as the tobacco industry and the surgeon general, as noted in the great example you explained. Transparency should be more prominent in society for these reasons.

    ReplyDelete