
Forgiveness Marketing
Posted Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2000, at 3:57 PM ETCigarette companies cannot advertise their wares on television. They can, however, advertise their honesty and good intentions, or whatever it is that's being touted in an interesting ad that Philip Morris has been running lately. There are actually two slightly different variations on the spot, and both essentially summarize, for the benefit of you, the public, the settlement agreement between the big tobacco companies and the states in 1998.
Since those ads began running, there's been a small rash of forgiveness marketing. The other night I saw an ad featuring Jacques Nasser, the Ford honcho, apologizing about the company's ongoing tire fiasco. Today's Wall Street Journal mentions another Nasser ad, and yesterday I read that United Airlines has also been running ads featuring its chairman saying how sorry he is about all the delays and cancellations associated with the airline's dispute with its pilots' union. (I haven't seen this ad or the more recent Nasser ad; I'm also told Firestone has run apologetic commercials.)
What's the point of all this? Does it work? There are some differences among the campaigns here, so let's concentrate on Philip Morris for a moment. These ads have a simple look, mostly black type on a white background--kind of like the warning label on a pack of smokes. A woman's voice, reminiscent of the narrator of a filmstrip you might have watched in grade school, leads you through, and the only action is words fading on- and off-screen, echoing key phrases of her monologue. "No matter what you think of America's tobacco companies," she begins in one of the spots, "the fact is, at Philip Morris, we're changing the way we do business." She goes on to describe the 1998 tobacco settlement agreement, noting that the big tobacco firms agreed to pay $200 billion to the states. She proceeds to list all the onerous conditions the agreement lays on the tobacco firms: no billboards, no logos on clothing, no paid product placement in movies, no cartoon characters, etc. Plus, she observes, the settlement, "provides $1.5 billion to fund youth anti-smoking ads and education."
The screen type not only repeats her speech, but includes page citations from the settlement agreement itself, so we can double-check her veracity, I guess. "We know some may question our commitment," the narrator says, "so the agreement gives your state attorney general independent enforcement authority to ensure compliance." (Yeah, I'm sure the tobacco companies were adamant about that.) "But don't take our word for it," the woman concludes in a tone whose relationship to sarcasm is the same as the Mona Lisa's expression is to a smile. "For more information, call for a copy of the Tobacco Settlement Agreement." "Because things are changing. And at Philip Morris, we wanted you to know."
This morning I got an e-mail from a reader who expressed his general displeasure at what he called Mea Culpa Advertising. "It sends the message that a company can do whatever it wants until it gets pinched, at which time it can just hire a PR firm." If these companies "care so much about our happiness," he added, "the need for the commercials would never have arisen." (He threw in another ad for Miller Beer that I've seen a million times, in which the residents of a small town praise Miller for bottling water for them during an emergency; the ad notes that Miller is "a Philip Morris company.")
Ford and UAL are responding to specific problems that are high in the minds of their customers right now, so the relative effectiveness of these ads is a small sideshow to much larger crises. I'm sure that a lot of people who see those ads will react to them with the same skepticism as the reader who e-mailed me. On the other hand, what else are they going to do?
Philip Morris' endgame is harder to suss out. On one level there's an implicit request for forgiveness. But in a sentence, I'd say the real message of the campaign would be: Leave us alone! We've paid our pound of flesh, Philip Morris seems to plead, and we are now here to admit our sins and play by the rules that have been imposed upon us. All of which is fine. But the message also seems to be trying to pass itself off as a public service announcement, which is preposterous: The cigarette companies wouldn't be saying or doing any of these things if they hadn't been on the wrong end of expensive litigation that lasted for years. You can't grovel and posture at the same time. Or at least you can't do so without some pretty awkward contortions. But hey, don't take my word for it ...












Is It More Important for Your Turkey To Be Organic or Local?
Why Gift Cards Are a Terrible Gift
Is Sarah Palin's Approval Rating Really as High as Barack Obama's?
Justice Scalia's Most Eccentric Habits
Adam Lambert's Refreshing Non-Apology on the CBS Early Show
Democrats Have a Lot To Be Thankful For
Reader Comments from The Fray:
I personally just love Philip Morris's ad touting their involvement with Meals on Wheels. As I see this old lady sitting at home, getting a nutritious meal delivered to her by an opera-singing volunteer (?), I just know two things:
1) This lady isn't a user of PM's primary product
2) Her husband probably was.
--Mathom
(To reply, click here.)
I was on the "other" side of this debate until recently: What about personal responsibility? What about the warning labels? But the basic truth seems to me to be unavoidable: tobacco companies market deadly products. To some extent, they have been tricked: given presumable immunity thanks to congressional regulation and government warning labels. But deeper than this lies something I really can't figure out: how can these people sleep at night? They market the addiction to deadly products. So these ads really piss me off. They most certainly did not "want us to know". They wanted the opposite. They were forced to tell us. These ads are transparent lies, and I thought there were laws against that as well, and hopefully some busybody attorney general somewhere is as pissed off as I am right now.
--Nigel Pistov
(To reply, click here.)
Ever since I can remember, whenever a disaster involving big business occurred, someone always seemed to come up with "They at least owe us all an apology". Well, now they are giving us just that. This is not advertising, it is a public apology. The one that we the consumers have been asking for for years. The fact that it is over the public airwaves does not make it advertising. If Madison Ave could have production values that were straightforward, rather than some constant subliminal message, maybe these apologies would sound more heartfelt.
Ford bought Firestone tires for their trucks. Firestone was a very reputable supplier. Firestone had a bad batch and has agreed to replace the batch regardless of wear. Ford apologizes for the inconvenience they caused their customers in having chosen this reputable supplier who stands behind their products. Makes sense to me! As for Philip Morris, I think their spot was a statement of fact (more or less) rather than an apology. Do they even once say the words "We are Sorry"? They want to inform the world that they are doing their part (whether they like it or not!) and they want you the consumer to know what that part is. In all, I see nothing wrong with any of this. Should I buy it or not is really a personal issue. Is it a good idea on the part of the companies? I think so.
--Randy Boback
(To reply, click here.)
Philip Morris is trying to reach people who may be on juries in cigarette liability cases, to reduce the verdicts or convince that punitive damages are unwarranted. Maybe one viewer in a million is going to be on a jury, but some of the juries make decisions worth hundreds of millions to Philip Morris. The ads are cost-effective if they change one juror's vote any time in the next few years.
--Arthur Stock
(To reply, click here.)
I'm surprised the reaction to these ads is anything other than awe or incredulity. The ads ultimately are touting the result they were dragged into kicking and screaming--not to mention litigating to within an inch of their lives. Thank God there's a word like "chutzpah" out there, because that's the only word that can adequately cover the nerve the tobacco companies have in running these self-serving spots that suggest they agree with what they were forced to accept.
--David
(To reply, click here.)
To David:
I think "chutzpah" would better apply to the state and federal governments (who from taxes make bigger profits from tobacco products than the tobacco companies themselves) shaking down companies who make a legal product. The government gets away with this crap by creating an environment of hysteria among a bunch of idiots (the majority of the public, apparently) who can't think for themselves and rely on Big Brother (the government) to "protect" them from danger all the while the government rakes in billions of dollars in taxes from the sale of a product they demonize. "Chutzpah" will also apply to whoever finally gets it and decides to sue a government that is so hypocritically on both sides of the issue.
--Glenn
(To reply, click here.)
(8/30)