Skip to main content
Tobacco Control logoLink to Tobacco Control
. 1998 Dec;7(4):397–408. doi: 10.1136/tc.7.4.397

Tobacco control advocates must demand high-quality media campaigns: the California experience

E Balbach 1, S Glantz 1
PMCID: PMC1751438  PMID: 10093175

Abstract

OBJECTIVE—To document efforts on the part of public officials in California to soften the media campaign's attack on the tobacco industry and to analyse strategies to counter those efforts on the part of tobacco control advocates.
METHODS—Data were gathered from interviews with programme participants, direct observation, written materials, and media stories. In addition, internal documents were released by the state's Department of Health Services in response to requests made under the California Public Records Act by Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights. Finally, a draft of the paper was circulated to 11 key players for their comments.
RESULTS—In 1988 California voters enacted Proposition 99, an initiative that raised the tobacco tax by $0.25 and allocated 20% of the revenues to anti-tobacco education. A media campaign, which was part of the education programme, directly attacked the tobacco industry, exposing the media campaign to politically based efforts to shut it down or soften it. Through use of outsider strategies such as advertising, press conferences, and public meetings, programme advocates were able to counter the efforts to soften the campaign.
CONCLUSION—Anti-tobacco media campaigns that expose industry manipulation are a key component of an effective tobacco control programme. The effectiveness of these campaigns, however, makes them a target for elimination by the tobacco industry. The experience from California demonstrates the need for continuing, aggressive intervention by non-governmental organisations in order to maintain the quality of anti-tobacco media campaigns.


Keywords: media campaigns; anti-tobacco advocacy; California

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (214.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bal D. G., Kizer K. W., Felten P. G., Mozar H. N., Niemeyer D. Reducing tobacco consumption in California. Development of a statewide anti-tobacco use campaign. JAMA. 1990 Sep 26;264(12):1570–1574. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Goldman L. K., Glantz S. A. Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. JAMA. 1998 Mar 11;279(10):772–777. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.10.772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Macdonald H. R., Glantz S. A. Political realities of statewide smoking legislation: the passage of California's Assembly Bill 13. Tob Control. 1997 Spring;6(1):41–54. doi: 10.1136/tc.6.1.41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Macdonald H., Aguinaga S., Glantz S. A. The defeat of Philip Morris' 'California Uniform Tobacco Control Act'. Am J Public Health. 1997 Dec;87(12):1989–1996. doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.12.1989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Skolnick A. A. American Heart Association seeks to delay state health department director's confirmation. JAMA. 1992 May 27;267(20):2723-4, 2726. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Skolnick A. A. Court orders California governor to restore antismoking media campaign funding. JAMA. 1992 May 27;267(20):2721–2723. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Traynor M. P., Glantz S. A. California's tobacco tax initiative: the development and passage of Proposition 99. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996 Fall;21(3):543–585. doi: 10.1215/03616878-21-3-543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES