Loading…
Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada
OBJECTIVE To assist in planning anti-smoking advertising that targets youth. Using five US state campaigns, one US research study, and a Canadian initiative as exemplars, an attempt is made to explain why certain advertising campaigns have been more cost effective than others in terms of reducing ad...
Saved in:
Published in: | Tobacco control 2000-06, Vol.9 (suppl 2), p.ii18-ii31 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b520t-12d1913259058c703eb16edcbb1b4c91e68ff79346c2bcb851ed4d7e661c843e3 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | ii31 |
container_issue | suppl 2 |
container_start_page | ii18 |
container_title | Tobacco control |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Pechmann, Cornelia Reibling, Ellen Thomas |
description | OBJECTIVE To assist in planning anti-smoking advertising that targets youth. Using five US state campaigns, one US research study, and a Canadian initiative as exemplars, an attempt is made to explain why certain advertising campaigns have been more cost effective than others in terms of reducing adolescent smoking prevalence. Several factors which prior research and theory suggest may be important to cost effectiveness are examined. Specifically, three variables pertaining to the advertising message (content, consistency, and clarity) and two variables related to the advertising execution or style (age of spokesperson and depiction of smoking behaviour) are studied. DESIGN A case study approach has been combined with supplemental data collection and analysis. To assess campaign effects, published articles and surveys of adolescent smoking prevalence in campaign versus control (non-campaign) locations were utilised. Adolescent subjects provided supplemental data on the advertising message variables. Trained adults content analysed each advertisement to assess the executional variables. SUBJECTS A total of 1128 seventh grade (age 12–13 years) and 10th grade (age 15–16 years) students participated in the supplemental data collection effort. RESULTS An anti-smoking advertising campaign initiated by Vermont researchers was found to be the most cost effective in that it significantly reduced adolescent smoking prevalence at a low per capita cost. Next in order of cost effectiveness were California, Massachusetts, and Florida because behavioural outcomes were inconsistent across time and/or grades. California was ranked higher than the other two because it spent less per capita. Minnesota and Canada were ineffective at reducing adolescent smoking prevalence, and no comparison outcome data were available for Arizona. Four factors were found to be associated with increased cost effectiveness: (1) a greater use of message content that prior research suggests is efficacious with youth; (2) a more concentrated use of a single efficacious message; (3) an avoidance of unclear messages; and (4) an increased use of youthful spokespeople that adolescents could more readily identify with. No indication was found that depictions of smoking undermined campaign effectiveness by inadvertently implying that smoking was prevalent. CONCLUSIONS The highly cost effective Vermont campaign can be used as a model for future efforts. It is estimated that 79% of the Vermont advertisemen |
doi_str_mv | 10.1136/tc.9.suppl_2.ii18 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1766281</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>20207841</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>20207841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b520t-12d1913259058c703eb16edcbb1b4c91e68ff79346c2bcb851ed4d7e661c843e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCD-AAioTEiSye2HHsHpBWq0JBpYBouVqO4916m8TBdir673GU1apw4uSR3_eeZvQQegF4CUDYu6iXYhnGYWhlsbQW-CO0AMp4Tgjwx2iBBaM5LRk5Qsch7DAGUpXwFB0B5hRKzhfoatVHm4fO3dp-m6nmzvhowzRr1Q3KbvuQReW3Jk5_926MN6dJCiYLcWysCdnGuy67_rHKVN9ka9WrRj1DTzaqDeb5_j1B1x_Ortbn-cXXj5_Wq4u8LgsccygaEECKUuCS6woTUwMzja5rqKkWYBjfbCpBKNNFrWtegmloUxnGQHNKDDlB7-fcYay7ZDR99KqVg7ed8vfSKSv_Vnp7I7fuTkLFWMEhBbzZB3j3azQhys4GbdpW9caNQVYATAigCXz9D7hzo-_TcSmLA8espCRRMFPauxC82RxWASynxmTUUsh9Y3JqLHlePbzhgWOuKAEvZ2AXovMHvcAFrhKS9HzWbYjm90FX_layKvUtL3-u5Zdv55-_Y3EpJ_7tzNfd7j_2-wNavr2g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1781806543</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Pechmann, Cornelia ; Reibling, Ellen Thomas</creator><creatorcontrib>Pechmann, Cornelia ; Reibling, Ellen Thomas</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE To assist in planning anti-smoking advertising that targets youth. Using five US state campaigns, one US research study, and a Canadian initiative as exemplars, an attempt is made to explain why certain advertising campaigns have been more cost effective than others in terms of reducing adolescent smoking prevalence. Several factors which prior research and theory suggest may be important to cost effectiveness are examined. Specifically, three variables pertaining to the advertising message (content, consistency, and clarity) and two variables related to the advertising execution or style (age of spokesperson and depiction of smoking behaviour) are studied. DESIGN A case study approach has been combined with supplemental data collection and analysis. To assess campaign effects, published articles and surveys of adolescent smoking prevalence in campaign versus control (non-campaign) locations were utilised. Adolescent subjects provided supplemental data on the advertising message variables. Trained adults content analysed each advertisement to assess the executional variables. SUBJECTS A total of 1128 seventh grade (age 12–13 years) and 10th grade (age 15–16 years) students participated in the supplemental data collection effort. RESULTS An anti-smoking advertising campaign initiated by Vermont researchers was found to be the most cost effective in that it significantly reduced adolescent smoking prevalence at a low per capita cost. Next in order of cost effectiveness were California, Massachusetts, and Florida because behavioural outcomes were inconsistent across time and/or grades. California was ranked higher than the other two because it spent less per capita. Minnesota and Canada were ineffective at reducing adolescent smoking prevalence, and no comparison outcome data were available for Arizona. Four factors were found to be associated with increased cost effectiveness: (1) a greater use of message content that prior research suggests is efficacious with youth; (2) a more concentrated use of a single efficacious message; (3) an avoidance of unclear messages; and (4) an increased use of youthful spokespeople that adolescents could more readily identify with. No indication was found that depictions of smoking undermined campaign effectiveness by inadvertently implying that smoking was prevalent. CONCLUSIONS The highly cost effective Vermont campaign can be used as a model for future efforts. It is estimated that 79% of the Vermont advertisements conveyed efficacious messages, 58% concentrated on a single efficacious message, 70% showed youthful spokespeople, and only 4% contained unclear messages. The results suggest that, in the less effective campaigns, as few as 25% of the advertisements contained messages that prior research indicates should be efficacious with youth, as few as 10% of the advertisements focused on one efficacious message, and up to 32% of the advertisements lacked clearcut messages.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0964-4563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-3318</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/tc.9.suppl_2.ii18</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10841588</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adolescent Behavior ; Adolescents ; Advertising as Topic ; Advertising campaigns ; Advertising expenditures ; Advertising research ; Anti smoking movements ; anti-smoking advertising campaigns ; Canada ; Case studies ; Child ; Cigarette smoking ; Cigarettes ; Consumer behavior ; Consumers ; Consumption ; cost effectiveness ; Cost effectiveness analysis ; Cost-Benefit Analysis ; Data collection ; Female ; Health Promotion - economics ; Humans ; Male ; Marketing ; Original ; Researchers ; Role models ; Smoking ; Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence ; Smoking Prevention ; Teenagers ; Tobacco ; Tobacco smoking ; United States ; youth targeted advertising</subject><ispartof>Tobacco control, 2000-06, Vol.9 (suppl 2), p.ii18-ii31</ispartof><rights>Tobacco Control</rights><rights>Copyright 2000 Tobacco Control</rights><rights>Copyright: 2000 Tobacco Control</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b520t-12d1913259058c703eb16edcbb1b4c91e68ff79346c2bcb851ed4d7e661c843e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20207841$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/20207841$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10841588$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pechmann, Cornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reibling, Ellen Thomas</creatorcontrib><title>Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada</title><title>Tobacco control</title><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE To assist in planning anti-smoking advertising that targets youth. Using five US state campaigns, one US research study, and a Canadian initiative as exemplars, an attempt is made to explain why certain advertising campaigns have been more cost effective than others in terms of reducing adolescent smoking prevalence. Several factors which prior research and theory suggest may be important to cost effectiveness are examined. Specifically, three variables pertaining to the advertising message (content, consistency, and clarity) and two variables related to the advertising execution or style (age of spokesperson and depiction of smoking behaviour) are studied. DESIGN A case study approach has been combined with supplemental data collection and analysis. To assess campaign effects, published articles and surveys of adolescent smoking prevalence in campaign versus control (non-campaign) locations were utilised. Adolescent subjects provided supplemental data on the advertising message variables. Trained adults content analysed each advertisement to assess the executional variables. SUBJECTS A total of 1128 seventh grade (age 12–13 years) and 10th grade (age 15–16 years) students participated in the supplemental data collection effort. RESULTS An anti-smoking advertising campaign initiated by Vermont researchers was found to be the most cost effective in that it significantly reduced adolescent smoking prevalence at a low per capita cost. Next in order of cost effectiveness were California, Massachusetts, and Florida because behavioural outcomes were inconsistent across time and/or grades. California was ranked higher than the other two because it spent less per capita. Minnesota and Canada were ineffective at reducing adolescent smoking prevalence, and no comparison outcome data were available for Arizona. Four factors were found to be associated with increased cost effectiveness: (1) a greater use of message content that prior research suggests is efficacious with youth; (2) a more concentrated use of a single efficacious message; (3) an avoidance of unclear messages; and (4) an increased use of youthful spokespeople that adolescents could more readily identify with. No indication was found that depictions of smoking undermined campaign effectiveness by inadvertently implying that smoking was prevalent. CONCLUSIONS The highly cost effective Vermont campaign can be used as a model for future efforts. It is estimated that 79% of the Vermont advertisements conveyed efficacious messages, 58% concentrated on a single efficacious message, 70% showed youthful spokespeople, and only 4% contained unclear messages. The results suggest that, in the less effective campaigns, as few as 25% of the advertisements contained messages that prior research indicates should be efficacious with youth, as few as 10% of the advertisements focused on one efficacious message, and up to 32% of the advertisements lacked clearcut messages.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adolescent Behavior</subject><subject>Adolescents</subject><subject>Advertising as Topic</subject><subject>Advertising campaigns</subject><subject>Advertising expenditures</subject><subject>Advertising research</subject><subject>Anti smoking movements</subject><subject>anti-smoking advertising campaigns</subject><subject>Canada</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Cigarette smoking</subject><subject>Cigarettes</subject><subject>Consumer behavior</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Consumption</subject><subject>cost effectiveness</subject><subject>Cost effectiveness analysis</subject><subject>Cost-Benefit Analysis</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Promotion - economics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Marketing</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Researchers</subject><subject>Role models</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence</subject><subject>Smoking Prevention</subject><subject>Teenagers</subject><subject>Tobacco</subject><subject>Tobacco smoking</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>youth targeted advertising</subject><issn>0964-4563</issn><issn>1468-3318</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUFv1DAQhS0EotvCD-AAioTEiSye2HHsHpBWq0JBpYBouVqO4916m8TBdir673GU1apw4uSR3_eeZvQQegF4CUDYu6iXYhnGYWhlsbQW-CO0AMp4Tgjwx2iBBaM5LRk5Qsch7DAGUpXwFB0B5hRKzhfoatVHm4fO3dp-m6nmzvhowzRr1Q3KbvuQReW3Jk5_926MN6dJCiYLcWysCdnGuy67_rHKVN9ka9WrRj1DTzaqDeb5_j1B1x_Ortbn-cXXj5_Wq4u8LgsccygaEECKUuCS6woTUwMzja5rqKkWYBjfbCpBKNNFrWtegmloUxnGQHNKDDlB7-fcYay7ZDR99KqVg7ed8vfSKSv_Vnp7I7fuTkLFWMEhBbzZB3j3azQhys4GbdpW9caNQVYATAigCXz9D7hzo-_TcSmLA8espCRRMFPauxC82RxWASynxmTUUsh9Y3JqLHlePbzhgWOuKAEvZ2AXovMHvcAFrhKS9HzWbYjm90FX_layKvUtL3-u5Zdv55-_Y3EpJ_7tzNfd7j_2-wNavr2g</recordid><startdate>20000601</startdate><enddate>20000601</enddate><creator>Pechmann, Cornelia</creator><creator>Reibling, Ellen Thomas</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Group</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000601</creationdate><title>Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada</title><author>Pechmann, Cornelia ; Reibling, Ellen Thomas</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b520t-12d1913259058c703eb16edcbb1b4c91e68ff79346c2bcb851ed4d7e661c843e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adolescent Behavior</topic><topic>Adolescents</topic><topic>Advertising as Topic</topic><topic>Advertising campaigns</topic><topic>Advertising expenditures</topic><topic>Advertising research</topic><topic>Anti smoking movements</topic><topic>anti-smoking advertising campaigns</topic><topic>Canada</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Cigarette smoking</topic><topic>Cigarettes</topic><topic>Consumer behavior</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Consumption</topic><topic>cost effectiveness</topic><topic>Cost effectiveness analysis</topic><topic>Cost-Benefit Analysis</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Promotion - economics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Marketing</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Researchers</topic><topic>Role models</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence</topic><topic>Smoking Prevention</topic><topic>Teenagers</topic><topic>Tobacco</topic><topic>Tobacco smoking</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>youth targeted advertising</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pechmann, Cornelia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reibling, Ellen Thomas</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Family Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pechmann, Cornelia</au><au>Reibling, Ellen Thomas</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada</atitle><jtitle>Tobacco control</jtitle><addtitle>Tob Control</addtitle><date>2000-06-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>suppl 2</issue><spage>ii18</spage><epage>ii31</epage><pages>ii18-ii31</pages><issn>0964-4563</issn><eissn>1468-3318</eissn><abstract>OBJECTIVE To assist in planning anti-smoking advertising that targets youth. Using five US state campaigns, one US research study, and a Canadian initiative as exemplars, an attempt is made to explain why certain advertising campaigns have been more cost effective than others in terms of reducing adolescent smoking prevalence. Several factors which prior research and theory suggest may be important to cost effectiveness are examined. Specifically, three variables pertaining to the advertising message (content, consistency, and clarity) and two variables related to the advertising execution or style (age of spokesperson and depiction of smoking behaviour) are studied. DESIGN A case study approach has been combined with supplemental data collection and analysis. To assess campaign effects, published articles and surveys of adolescent smoking prevalence in campaign versus control (non-campaign) locations were utilised. Adolescent subjects provided supplemental data on the advertising message variables. Trained adults content analysed each advertisement to assess the executional variables. SUBJECTS A total of 1128 seventh grade (age 12–13 years) and 10th grade (age 15–16 years) students participated in the supplemental data collection effort. RESULTS An anti-smoking advertising campaign initiated by Vermont researchers was found to be the most cost effective in that it significantly reduced adolescent smoking prevalence at a low per capita cost. Next in order of cost effectiveness were California, Massachusetts, and Florida because behavioural outcomes were inconsistent across time and/or grades. California was ranked higher than the other two because it spent less per capita. Minnesota and Canada were ineffective at reducing adolescent smoking prevalence, and no comparison outcome data were available for Arizona. Four factors were found to be associated with increased cost effectiveness: (1) a greater use of message content that prior research suggests is efficacious with youth; (2) a more concentrated use of a single efficacious message; (3) an avoidance of unclear messages; and (4) an increased use of youthful spokespeople that adolescents could more readily identify with. No indication was found that depictions of smoking undermined campaign effectiveness by inadvertently implying that smoking was prevalent. CONCLUSIONS The highly cost effective Vermont campaign can be used as a model for future efforts. It is estimated that 79% of the Vermont advertisements conveyed efficacious messages, 58% concentrated on a single efficacious message, 70% showed youthful spokespeople, and only 4% contained unclear messages. The results suggest that, in the less effective campaigns, as few as 25% of the advertisements contained messages that prior research indicates should be efficacious with youth, as few as 10% of the advertisements focused on one efficacious message, and up to 32% of the advertisements lacked clearcut messages.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd</pub><pmid>10841588</pmid><doi>10.1136/tc.9.suppl_2.ii18</doi><tpages>14</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0964-4563 |
ispartof | Tobacco control, 2000-06, Vol.9 (suppl 2), p.ii18-ii31 |
issn | 0964-4563 1468-3318 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_1766281 |
source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; PubMed Central |
subjects | Adolescent Adolescent Behavior Adolescents Advertising as Topic Advertising campaigns Advertising expenditures Advertising research Anti smoking movements anti-smoking advertising campaigns Canada Case studies Child Cigarette smoking Cigarettes Consumer behavior Consumers Consumption cost effectiveness Cost effectiveness analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis Data collection Female Health Promotion - economics Humans Male Marketing Original Researchers Role models Smoking Smoking - legislation & jurisprudence Smoking Prevention Teenagers Tobacco Tobacco smoking United States youth targeted advertising |
title | Anti-smoking advertising campaigns targeting youth: case studies from USA and Canada |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A46%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Anti-smoking%20advertising%20campaigns%20targeting%20youth:%20case%20studies%20from%20USA%20and%20Canada&rft.jtitle=Tobacco%20control&rft.au=Pechmann,%20Cornelia&rft.date=2000-06-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=suppl%202&rft.spage=ii18&rft.epage=ii31&rft.pages=ii18-ii31&rft.issn=0964-4563&rft.eissn=1468-3318&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/tc.9.suppl_2.ii18&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_pubme%3E20207841%3C/jstor_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b520t-12d1913259058c703eb16edcbb1b4c91e68ff79346c2bcb851ed4d7e661c843e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1781806543&rft_id=info:pmid/10841588&rft_jstor_id=20207841&rfr_iscdi=true |