'De-Marketing' Teen Smoking.

Can marketing be used to make a product less appealing?

Yes, and there's even a name for the practice. "Demarketing" is the strategy of deliberately trying to discourage the purchase or use of a product. The state Department of Health will soon select a marketing, advertising or public relations firm to help with a tobacco prevention and cessation campaign.

This begs two questions. Can marketing communications from afar really affect teens' smoking choices? And, if so, how exactly could it make a difference?

The evidence says that demarketing efforts toward tobacco use can be successful. Advertising isn't the biggest factor in influencing teens' buying behavior -- surveys suggest that parental influence and peers play bigger roles -- but it is still significant. Also, advertising can play a role in reminding parents, school leaders and retailers to be aware, and vigilant. No, ad can actually stop anyone from smoking, but the weight of marketing messages can influence the social context of smoking behavior.

But there's no guarantee of success, no matter how measured. Teens and preteens are surrounded by brand advertising for cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco. Smoking is prevalent in the media, especially movies; according to a 1994 study in the American Journal of Public Health, the rate of smoking in popular movies has consistently been about twice that in the general American population. Even more powerful is the context in which movie smoking occurs -- smokers are often portrayed as rebellious, dangerous and, by extension, cool. Think those traits have any appeal to teen-agers?

Tobacco use isn't a rational choice. It's expensive, it excludes you from many places and it carries a host of health problems. The decision to begin smoking must fundamentally be a social one.

Some anti-tobacco campaigns in the past have failed, I believe, because they focus on the wrong goals. A successful campaign in Arkansas won't need to generate awareness or teach health consequences. Everyone, including preteens, is well aware that smoking isn't exactly good for you. Nor should the campaign focus on the tobacco companies, as one national campaign does now. (Do you really think most teens care about tobacco companies -- or any company?)

The key is to understand the social signals teens send and receive from smoking. I recently co-authored a study of impressions of smokers that will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. In the study, we presented people (primarily 18- and 19-year-olds) photographs of male and female strangers (so there would be no preconceptions), then asked them to rate those strangers on a list of character traits. The photographs were carefully varied -- for different experimental subjects, a particular person to rate would be shown holding a cigarette, holding a cigar or holding nothing. In all three cases, the poses were otherwise exactly the same. All other factors were controlled, so any differences in perceptions would be due only to the presence or absence of cigarettes and cigars.

The results? Cigarette smokers were considered less appealing than non-smokers by both males and females. However, cigarette smokers were considered more rebellious, more cool and less old-fashioned. Interestingly, cigar smokers were considered by females to be as appealing as nonsmokers. Further, cigar smokers were judged by both males and females to be the most confident and secure.

Other studies have produced similar results. For example, a study in Health Psychology, which tracked fifth-through eighth-graders over time, found that those kids who began smoking tended to relate their image of smokers to their image of themselves. In other words, those kids didn't start smoking to appear more cool or sociable -- they began because they believed smokers are cool and sociable and that they were, too. Any effort we make in persuading teens and preteens about smoking must address the perceived link between smokers and "cool."

Personally, I'd rather see tobacco prevention and cessation addressed through persuasion than through more laws or taxes. We have the knowledge, so let's hope this upcoming effort will make a difference.

Jim Karrh, Ph.D., is assistant professor of marketing and advertising in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's College of Business Administration as well as a marketing consultant.