Vintage Camel cigarette advertisements appealed to middle class women and men by luring them in with the idea that smoking was healthy, and resulted in an elevated social status. While implying tobacco soaked in poisonous chemicals was healthy and attractive was irresponsible, to say the least, the big tobacco companies got away with it for several years. So how did Camel convince consumers to overlook the hidden dangers of smoking? Creating a campaign based on appeal, logic, and surveys, compelled consumers to accept misleading information, and contributed to their advertising success. Vintage Camel cigarette advertisements used a variety of rhetorical strategies to successfully build what remains a multi-billion dollar industry today.
The …show more content…
Featured in the bottom right-hand corner is an attractive well-dressed business woman smoking a Camel cigarette, with a “T” over her mouth and throat area. Over her head is a thought bubble that states the consumer should let their “T” zone act as proof that Camel cigarettes are better than other brands. The “T” zone was a popular approach used in the 1940’s to sell cigarettes. It stood for taste and throat, because vintage cigarette brands tasted bad and irritated the throat. Ironically, the advertisement does not actually state that Camels have a pleasant taste, however it does suggest they might taste better than other brands. The advertisement also does not claim Camel cigarettes do not burn your throat. Instead, it implies they do not burn your throat as much as other brands. Through the manipulated logic and reasoning that Camel tastes better, and does not burn your throat, the advertisement successfully uses the ethos approach to appeal to …show more content…
Extra attention is brought to the word “experience” by making it larger or a different color from the rest of the words on the page. Also used are the statements, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” The manufacturer credits their claims by stating they are the result of, “a recent nationwide survey” by “three independent research organizations.” The advertisement further claims they surveyed “113,597 doctors.” What is interesting, they leave out the number of physicians surveyed that actually reported as smokers. This exclusion of facts misleads the consumer into thinking physicians support the brand when in reality, of the 113,597 doctors surveyed, the actual number of doctors that smoked could have been less than 20. The advertisement is obviously attempting to convince the consumer that physicians support their product, without giving a clear picture of all the facts. This strategic use of surveys to feature the support of expert physicians smoking Camels is a convincing use of the rhetorical strategy of
The …show more content…
Featured in the bottom right-hand corner is an attractive well-dressed business woman smoking a Camel cigarette, with a “T” over her mouth and throat area. Over her head is a thought bubble that states the consumer should let their “T” zone act as proof that Camel cigarettes are better than other brands. The “T” zone was a popular approach used in the 1940’s to sell cigarettes. It stood for taste and throat, because vintage cigarette brands tasted bad and irritated the throat. Ironically, the advertisement does not actually state that Camels have a pleasant taste, however it does suggest they might taste better than other brands. The advertisement also does not claim Camel cigarettes do not burn your throat. Instead, it implies they do not burn your throat as much as other brands. Through the manipulated logic and reasoning that Camel tastes better, and does not burn your throat, the advertisement successfully uses the ethos approach to appeal to …show more content…
Extra attention is brought to the word “experience” by making it larger or a different color from the rest of the words on the page. Also used are the statements, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” The manufacturer credits their claims by stating they are the result of, “a recent nationwide survey” by “three independent research organizations.” The advertisement further claims they surveyed “113,597 doctors.” What is interesting, they leave out the number of physicians surveyed that actually reported as smokers. This exclusion of facts misleads the consumer into thinking physicians support the brand when in reality, of the 113,597 doctors surveyed, the actual number of doctors that smoked could have been less than 20. The advertisement is obviously attempting to convince the consumer that physicians support their product, without giving a clear picture of all the facts. This strategic use of surveys to feature the support of expert physicians smoking Camels is a convincing use of the rhetorical strategy of