IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New General and specific are two different things
I teach my children to make good dietary choices and until they learn I control what they eat. I have healthy and slender children.

I live in a population that is overweight. And part of the reason for that is the advertising of very profitable high calorie low nutrient comestibles (calling them "food" is a bit generous). If it weren't an effective way to influence a population, the very successful companies involved wouldn't spend vast amounts of money on it year after year. As a result of living in an overweight population, some of my expenses (medical insurance, for one) are unreasonably high. And there are more personal reasons for my being interested in reducing the overweight population.

The two situations are related, but not identical. In particular, they are not solvable by the same means, as is clearly visible from the fact that the first is solved (by my own implementation of your proposed solution) and the second not.

New So what is root cause?
Root cause is NOT advertising. Its a population of individuals who do NOT implement sensible eating habits.

If you stop advertising, will people magically get skinny?

How long has it been since adverts for smoking were banned?

Its simply another way for people to validate behavior by deflecting responsibility. Its not my fault...its that damned advertising!
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New An interestingly enough
since they banned the advertising of cigarettes, rates of smoking have fallen.
New 40 years
and all they could muster is a 25% drop..which I actually attribute more to better education of the people on health effects and reduced access more than to lack of advertising.

Advertising doesn't make kids fat. Eating does. Advertising why Burger King is better than McDonalds sets a brand preference. The parent's money buys the stuff. (or preferably, doesn't.).

I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Not so simple, IMO.
InfoPlease says male smoking dropped from 56.9% of the population in 1955 to 23.9% in 2007. A 33% point drop.

Advertising of addictive substances like cigarettes is designed to get people to try it. Once people have smoked enough to be addicted, advertising doesn't matter. So, what matters is information available to young people - people who are easily influenced due to their youth and inexperience. (Similarly with junk food.)

http://www.cdc.gov/m...PDF/wk/mm4428.pdf (24 page .PDF from 1989)

p.3-4:
The increase in rates of smoking initiation among adolescents during 1985–1989 may reflect increased real expenditures for cigarette advertising and promotion. The increase in rates occurred during a period when real expenditures for total cigarette advertising and promotion† doubled, and expenditures for cigarette promotion more than quadrupled (7 ) (Figure 2): from 1980 to 1989, total annual advertising and promotional expenditures (in 1993 dollars) increased from $2.1 billion to $4.2 billion, while promotional expenditures alone increased from $771 million (37% of total expenditures) to $3.2 billion (76%) (Figure 2). Promotional efforts have been highly effective among adolescents. For example, among persons aged 12–17 years in 1992, approximately 50% of smokers and 25% of nonsmokers reported having received promotional items from tobacco companies (1 ).

An association between overall cigarette marketing expenditures and initiation
rates for smoking among adolescents is plausible for at least four reasons. First, brand loyalty is usually established with the first cigarette smoked (8 ); therefore, cigarette companies have an economic incentive to encourage first-time smokers to smoke their brands. Second, adolescents are exposed to cigarette advertising and promotions that employ themes and images that appeal to young persons (1 ). Third, advertising directly influences brand awareness and attitudes toward smoking among adolescents (1 ). Specifically, adolescents smoke the most heavily advertised brands, and changes in brand preferences among young persons are associated with changes in brand-specific advertising expenditures (9 ). For example, the Joe Camel campaign introduced nationally in 1988 was associated with an increase in the market share of that specific brand among adolescents (1,9 ). Finally, consumer research suggests that younger persons (i.e., aged 14–17 years) aspire to be young adults (10 ); therefore, advertising and promotional efforts targeted toward young adults may have greater appeal to adolescents because of their age aspirations.

Although current estimates of smoking initiation rates among adolescents are not
available, from 1991 through 1993, the national prevalence of smoking increased
among eighth- and 10th-grade students (6 ). To reverse the trend of increasing smoking initiation rates among adolescents and to achieve the national health objective for the year 2000 of reducing the initiation of cigarette smoking by youth (no more than 15% should become regular smokers by age 20) (objective 3.5) (4 ), prevention efforts that focus on young persons should be intensified. Such efforts could include making cigarettes less affordable by either increasing their real price (1 ) or by limiting sales to cartons rather than individual packs, enforcing laws prohibiting the sale and distribution of cigarettes to young persons (4 ), conducting mass media campaigns to discourage tobacco use (1 ), and eliminating or severely restricting all forms of tobacco product advertising and promotion to which young persons are likely to be exposed (4 ).


Advertising does affect peoples' buying decisions, and tobacco companies got their message out by ways other than TV ads.

Fast food joints rarely make comparisons to others - they instead show skinny people having great fun with porn food. There's no connection between the product and what it does to too many people.

Weight gain is about more than food intake, as we know. It's not as simple as saying "eat less!".

HTH! :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Ok. I give up.
I still ain't buyin it...but I give up :-)
I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New <Snoopy Dance!>
New If the advertising didn't work, they wouldn't advertise.
They said I was gullible ... and I believed them
New Individuals and mobs
They don't work the same.

     Pu-leeze - (beepster) - (11)
         Individual VS Population - (mhuber) - (10)
             Can't agree... - (beepster) - (9)
                 General and specific are two different things - (mhuber) - (8)
                     So what is root cause? - (beepster) - (7)
                         An interestingly enough - (jake123) - (4)
                             40 years - (beepster) - (3)
                                 Not so simple, IMO. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     Ok. I give up. - (beepster) - (1)
                                         <Snoopy Dance!> -NT - (Another Scott)
                         If the advertising didn't work, they wouldn't advertise. -NT - (Meerkat)
                         Individuals and mobs - (mhuber)

I never want to see that line out of context.
46 ms