Philip Morris Quits Hollywood Cold Turkey

These disingenuous ads by Philip Morris USA give cynicism a bad name.

Notice that PM USA launched these ads after the Democrats, who are not the main beneficiary of tobacco campaign contributions, won the Congress. Also note that no statement has come from PM International, Altria's biggest tobacco division and the one known to have bought brand placement in the past. Also note that the Euro market is in the midst of discussions about loosening product placement riules in general. If I were PM USA, I'd run these ads, too. (Read them as closely as PM USA"s lawyers did and you'll see that they don't really say much at all.)

For the record, 1999-2005, 41% of G/PG, 75% of PG-13 movies and 88% of R-rated live-action U.S. films have featured tobacco. Out of these 837 movies, only two critiqued or satirized the tobacco industry (The Insider and Thank you for Smoking); only three major films depicted the dire health effects of tobacco (Thank You for Smoking, The Constant Gardener, Constantine; any others?).

Yet certain members of the film industry have defended Hollywood's record as merely "reflecting reality" — as if they were all nominees in the Best Documentary category.

Technically, of course, these guys are right. The "reality" is that the tobacco industry is at least three times larger than the $20 billion U.S. film industry and that it has a documented record of systematic paid brand placement, script approval, and other crass practices. (But I doubt that's what they meant.)

The answer is not draconian "production codes" but four voluntary steps the film industry could take tomorrow (see http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/solution/index.html). These include updating the R-rating to include future tobacco imagery. Before this comment gets jumped by the "junk science" web goons on Philip Morris' payroll: old films wouldn't be re-rated. And there would be exceptions for depictions of real historical characters who smoked and tobaco's dire health consequences.

Because R-rated films reap half the box office of PG-13 films, on average, producers would have an incentive to keep smoking out of films that would otherwise get a PG-13. Filmmakers would remain free to include smoking in any film they want, as long as they accept an R-rating, just as they calibrate language, sex and violence for on-screen ratings today.

By reducing adolescent exposure by 50 percent (they'll still get exposed from R-rated films), reasonable, voluntary measures that raise no First Amendment issues can avert some 60,000 future U.S. deaths a year. That's like eliminating all current U.S. deaths from drunk driving, criminal violence, drug use and HIV/AIDS combined.

Smoking on screen is worth $4.1 billion in sales revenue (npv) to the tobacco industry; $850 million pure profit. As coarsening as some other film content might be, nobody ever died from hearing the F-word or seeing an eyeball pop out. Tobacco imagery is another story and everyone in the industry knows it. So do the overwhelming majority of parents, according to recent polls. Yet the MPAA refuses to give parents any warning of the only toxic content in films.

The studios just need to set a date to drop all their tobaco subsidies at once, so no studio has an advantage. How about declaring, on February 25, 2007, that no studio will distribute a G/PG/PG-13 film with tobacco imagery after January 1, 2008? Too soon to carry through contracts with, say, an "interested" offshore investment fund? Say June 1, 2008 instead.

Why not? Would you miss it? Quick: "Narc" — smoking or smokefree? "Babel" — smoking or smokefree? "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" — smoking or smokefree? Nobody ever left a theater saying, "You know, there should have been more smoking in that movie. It just wasn't believable."

Reply

Your comments: These disingenuous ads by Philip Morris USA give cynicism a bad name.

Notice that PM USA launched these ads after the Democrats, not the main beneficiary of tobacco campaign contributions, won the Congress. Also note that no statement has come from PM International, Altria's biggest tobacco division; known to have bought brand placement in the past.

For the record, betzeen 1999 and 2005, 41% of G/PG, 75% of PG-13 movies and 88% of R-rated live-action U.S. films have featured tobacco. Out of these 837 movies, only two critiqued or satirized the tobacco industry (“The Insider” and “Thank You for Smoking”); only three major films depicted the dire health effects of tobacco (“Thank You for Smoking,” “The Constant Gardener,” “Constantine;” any others?).

Yet certain members of the film industry have defended Hollywood's record as merely "reflecting reality" — as if they were all nominees in the Best Documentary category.

Technically, of course, these guys are right. The "reality" is that
the tobacco industry is at least three times larger than the $20
billion U.S. film industry and that it has a documented record of
systematic paid brand placement, script approval, and other crass practices. (But I doubt that's what they meant.)

The answer is not draconian "production codes" but four voluntary steps the film industry could take tomorrow (see
http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/solution/index.html). These include updating the R-rating to include future tobacco imagery. Old films wouldn't be re-rated. Depictions of real historical characters who smoked and tobaco's dire health consequences would be excepted.

Because R-rated films reap half the box office of PG-13 films, on average, producers would have an incentive to keep smoking out of films that would otherwise get a PG-13, in effect clearing tobacco from youth-reated films. Filmmakers would remain free to include smoking in any film they want, as long as they accept an R-rating, just as they calibrate language, sex and violence for ratings today.

By reducing adolescent exposure by 50 percent (kids will still get exposed by R-rated films), reasonable voluntary measures that raise no First Amendment issues can avert some 60,000 future U.S. deaths a year. That's like eliminating all current U.S. deaths from drunk driving, criminal violence, drug use and HIV/AIDS combined.

Smoking on screen is worth $4.1 billion in sales revenue (npv) to the tobacco industry; $850 million pure profit. As coarsening as some other film content might be, nobody ever died from hearing the F-word or seeing an eyeball pop out. Tobacco imagery is another story and everyone in the industry knows it. So do the overwhelming majority of parents, according to recent polls. Yet the MPAA refuses to give parents any warning of the only toxic content in films.

The studios just need to set a date to drop all their tobacco subsidies at once, so no studio has an advantage. How about declaring, on February 25, 2007, that no studio will distribute a G/PG/PG-13 film with tobacco imagery after January 1, 2008? Too soon to carry through projects with "interested" offshore investment funds? Then say June 1, 2008 instead.

Why not? Would you miss it? Quick: "Narc" — smoking or smokefree? "Babel" — smoking or smokefree? "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" — smoking or smokefree? Nobody ever left a theater saying, "You know, there should have been more smoking in that movie. It just wasn't believable." What’s hard to believe is that we’ve stood for this blatant corruption for so long.

Reply