Ex-tobacco insider says companies target blacks

A product that kills, and is directed toward a certain group is a crime against that group.

just candid wrote:

People who promote a product that kills should be the first to use it.

Diareha of the mouth!

just candid wrote:

People who promote a product that kills should be the first to use it.

How about we apply your self righteous reasoning to all products that can be considered as being bad for one's health then...shall we?

How many people die from eating BBQ?

http://www.themedguru.com/articles/reduce_can...

Shocking but true, eating a pound of directly grilled meat would give you as much carcinogenic benzopyrene as smoking 300 cigarettes. Thankfully, all this research has been performed on rabbits, cats and mice.
----------

Got a number for us?

just candid wrote:

A product that kills, and is directed toward a certain group is a crime against that group.

You sound just like the nuts at PETA.

http://www.mccruelty.com/unhappyMeal.aspx

Looks like breaking someone's favorite toy caused a backlash of vindictive name-calling.

I wondered how long it would take to rebuild the level of denial necessary to ignore clear evidence. The knowledge that causing cancer is different from causing an acute poisoning is NOT something Carmona put together out of whole cloth. The "no-threshold" model has been around and accepted for decades, not years, and is NOT a belief unique to those advocating smoking regulation.

This is true, no matter how many hundreds of posts attacking and mocking Carmona have assailed our sensibilities in the forum.

Not to worry, though. History knows you're not kind.

discusseded wrote:

Looks like breaking someone's favorite toy caused a backlash of vindictive name-calling.
I wondered how long it would take to rebuild the level of denial necessary to ignore clear evidence. The knowledge that causing cancer is different from causing an acute poisoning is NOT something Carmona put together out of whole cloth. The "no-threshold" model has been around and accepted for decades, not years, and is NOT a belief unique to those advocating smoking regulation.
This is true, no matter how many hundreds of posts attacking and mocking Carmona have assailed our sensibilities in the forum.
Not to worry, though. History knows you're not kind.

Sure...there are fanatics such as yourself who make such a claim...but so what?

Your position flys in the face of the first rule of toxicology so why would anyone with a brain be impressed?

Your position also ignores the fact that OSHA has set acceptable levels for exposure to carcinogens and toxins that make SHS look laughable at best.

Take galvanized welding smoke for example...OSHA has a "safe level" for this form of smoke...right?

How about you finally take me up on my offer to prove your position is a complete joke?

I'll start smoking and you start welding on some galvanized metal.

After your release from the hospital you can come back with your foolishness and tell us all about these other forms of smoke that have "no safe level".

Fair enough?

Well I think everyone is pointing a finger at everyone but themselves here. First off I am sick to death of hearing that everything is always about race. Oh the poor black people are always the target, or someone is out to get them AGAIN. Next, what you are saying is really idiotic, why would a company go to a black neighborhood and put up advertising for white people. Of course they are putting up the advertising for blacks in a BLACK community. And the same goes for the white neighborhoods. They are simply putting the appropriate advertising for different neighborhoods silly. And as for the price differences, Walmart and big chain grocery stores have different prices for different neighborhoods. So where is the logic here? The real issue here is that everyone makes their own choices in life, so stop blaming everyone else for the choices that YOU make. And please stop with the race card already, enough is enough.

Local Girl wrote:

Well I think everyone is pointing a finger at everyone but themselves here. First off I am sick to death of hearing that everything is always about race. Oh the poor black people are always the target, or someone is out to get them AGAIN. Next, what you are saying is really idiotic, why would a company go to a black neighborhood and put up advertising for white people. Of course they are putting up the advertising for blacks in a BLACK community. And the same goes for the white neighborhoods. They are simply putting the appropriate advertising for different neighborhoods silly. And as for the price differences, Walmart and big chain grocery stores have different prices for different neighborhoods. So where is the logic here? The real issue here is that everyone makes their own choices in life, so stop blaming everyone else for the choices that YOU make. And please stop with the race card already, enough is enough.

Sorry, local, but the issue raised here IS about the race card--as played by the tobacco industry. If you do some research--nowhere NEAR the amount done by Ms Wright--you will find that the tobacco industry researched susceptibility of black nonsmokers and built HUGE programs aimed exclusively at inducing black nonsmokers to become black smokers.

The black community has been targeted AS a black community, and it is just and fair that the black community's tobacco problem be targeted by Ms. Wright and her organization in their efforts to combat the industry's efforts.

It is NOT just OR fair to say, "Oh, come on. The tobacco industry has been playing the race card for decades. Don't you tobacco-use prevention people start playing the race card. It's SO last decade."

The purpose here is to save lives. That would seem to extend the definitions of "just" and "fair" far beyond those applied to the industry's efforts to increase their bottom line at the expense of lives.

To Lorillard wrote:

Lorillard, not once did the article mention you, so why did YOU respond. That's funny...who said she was talking about YOUR company???

While I agree with nearly all your points, I suggest that it is disingenuous to say that a reference to the tobacco industry or to "tobacco companies" in the context of the US is NOT a reference to the #3 tobacco company in the US.

Even if Ms. Wright stuck strictly to Brown & Williamson in her statements--and I very much doubt that is the case--the title of the article presented here says "companies".

Again, this is the only point with which I have a quibble, and it is a relatively minor one.

Thank you for the clarification.

discusseded wrote:

Frankly, I am not convinced that there is more than a misunderstanding or misquote involved here. The reference to the billboards is in the midst of a statement regarding what USED to happen, and the shift of tense in mid-quote is suspect.
As to the basic premise that predominantly-black neighborhoods are subject to different marketing tactics than are predominantly-white neighborhoods, the industry rep did not address this.(The denial is only of using billboards.) Do signs play a bigger part in one neighborhood than in the other, disregarding the SIZE of individual signs?
If so, why would that be? What would make the graphic approach seem more useful in eliciting purchases among black communities? Is this similar to suggesting that comic books would capture a bigger market share in those communities?
Is there a history of different smoking rates between these two communities? If so, why WOULDN'T the industry be trying to get more black kids started? An under-tapped market is an opportunity, isn't it?

It is the way of marketing to "target" certain groups and demographics may play a role, too. I am curious as to what type of advertising is displayed in Beverly Hills.

Stores, at least in the past, used to put the real sweet and sugary cereals at a child's eye level.

I'm not claiming any FACTS here but this is a very interesting topic.

BleuJei wrote:

<quoted text>
It is the way of marketing to "target" certain groups and demographics may play a role, too. I am curious as to what type of advertising is displayed in Beverly Hills.
Stores, at least in the past, used to put the real sweet and sugary cereals at a child's eye level.
I'm not claiming any FACTS here but this is a very interesting topic.

As I understand it, the tobacco companies control placement as well of quantity of advertising in stores that sign contracts with them. They also control product position in display cases.

Different companies, different strictures, but binding contracts that are enforced by means of discounts given to retailers that sign the agreements. The discounts are revocable at the discretion of the company, and for a length of time also at the discretion of the company. Retailers dependent on tobacco sales and/or sales to customers who come in for tobacco products really can't afford to lose the discounts that make them competitive.

Again, this is just my understanding of the situation. Feel free to check it out for yourself if you want confirmation/clarification.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
As I understand it, the tobacco companies control placement as well of quantity of advertising in stores that sign contracts with them. They also control product position in display cases.
Different companies, different strictures, but binding contracts that are enforced by means of discounts given to retailers that sign the agreements. The discounts are revocable at the discretion of the company, and for a length of time also at the discretion of the company. Retailers dependent on tobacco sales and/or sales to customers who come in for tobacco products really can't afford to lose the discounts that make them competitive.
Again, this is just my understanding of the situation. Feel free to check it out for yourself if you want confirmation/clarification.

I believe it. Placement of advertising is an ingenious yet devious part of marketing and sales. Thanks for taking the time to help elaborate ;-)

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, local, but the issue raised here IS about the race card--as played by the tobacco industry. If you do some research--nowhere NEAR the amount done by Ms Wright--you will find that the tobacco industry researched susceptibility of black nonsmokers and built HUGE programs aimed exclusively at inducing black nonsmokers to become black smokers.
The black community has been targeted AS a black community, and it is just and fair that the black community's tobacco problem be targeted by Ms. Wright and her organization in their efforts to combat the industry's efforts.
It is NOT just OR fair to say, "Oh, come on. The tobacco industry has been playing the race card for decades. Don't you tobacco-use prevention people start playing the race card. It's SO last decade."
The purpose here is to save lives. That would seem to extend the definitions of "just" and "fair" far beyond those applied to the industry's efforts to increase their bottom line at the expense of lives.

How will it save lives.?

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>How will it save lives.?

The clear purpose of Ms Wright's efforts is to stir up the black community so that they will rebel against the manipulative and denigrating behavior of the tobacco industry by quitting and/or by rejecting the advertising methods being used in their neighborhoods.

The companies have a long history of marketing research behind their methods, and it is a pretty good bet that what they are doing works.

If they are no longer permitted to employ those methods, fewer blacks will smoke and lives will be saved because fewer people's health will be DIRECTLY affected by smoking.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
The clear purpose of Ms Wright's efforts is to stir up the black community so that they will rebel against the manipulative and denigrating behavior of the tobacco industry by quitting and/or by rejecting the advertising methods being used in their neighborhoods.
The companies have a long history of marketing research behind their methods, and it is a pretty good bet that what they are doing works.
If they are no longer permitted to employ those methods, fewer blacks will smoke and lives will be saved because fewer people's health will be DIRECTLY affected by smoking.

Now do YOU actually believe all the bull you post on the forum.? I sure dont, I live in the real world.

discusseded wrote:

If they are no longer permitted to employ those methods, fewer blacks will smoke and lives will be saved because fewer people's health will be DIRECTLY affected by smoking.

Do you have any idea how absolutely insulting you are?

It is obvious that you think the race in question is too stupid to make up their own mind as to what to buy...and what not to buy based on a stupid poster in a window that is apparently capable of some kind of mind control.

They are just mindless pawns in big tobacco's hands as they lack the ability to make wise decisions without your help.

You clearly have no shame and no respect for others ability to reason... as you are blinded by narcissistic bigotry.

Let's take a guess...the next sign you would like to ban is Colt45....eh?

*shakes head*

PreachingToTheGarbage wrote:

<quoted text>Now do YOU actually believe all the bull you post on the forum.? I sure dont, I live in the real world.

Trick question, and impressive for the mentality you've shown. If I posted any, I might be able to come up with an answer for you. Since I don't, you're on your own. Your own bull, that is. Ride 'em, Preach!

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
The clear purpose of Ms Wright's efforts is to stir up the black community so that they will rebel against the manipulative and denigrating behavior of the tobacco industry by quitting and/or by rejecting the advertising methods being used in their neighborhoods.
The companies have a long history of marketing research behind their methods, and it is a pretty good bet that what they are doing works.
If they are no longer permitted to employ those methods, fewer blacks will smoke and lives will be saved because fewer people's health will be DIRECTLY affected by smoking.

No way, I know that you can't possibly believe the garble that comes out of your own mouth. First off, this whole forum is really ridiculous, you must have been the one who started this garbage on here. And no, you don't have it right. I worked in a business that sold cigarettes, and that is not the way it's done. No one made any deals with the reps to be able to sell their cigs, and there was no "quota" on the amount of signs posted. The reps asked for SOME signs, but it was up to the owner how many was posted. Of course when you are selling a product you want advertising for it, that's a no-brainer. But you better go back to the black neighborhoods and preach to the owners of the businesses about saving their customers lives. Do you honestly think that they care about those people, they are out to make a buck. And while we are at it, no black neighborhood that I have ever seen before had ads for illegal drugs posted anywhere, but that's certainly where you find the most drugs. Your whole concept makes absolutely no sense at all.

discusseded wrote:

<quoted text>
The clear purpose of Ms Wright's efforts is to stir up the black community so that they will rebel against the manipulative and denigrating behavior of the tobacco industry by quitting and/or by rejecting the advertising methods being used in their neighborhoods.
The companies have a long history of marketing research behind their methods, and it is a pretty good bet that what they are doing works.
If they are no longer permitted to employ those methods, fewer blacks will smoke and lives will be saved because fewer people's health will be DIRECTLY affected by smoking.

So you are saying that companies should be allowed to do marketing research? They should not be able to make their marketing attractive to many groups? All companies have to use generic slogans that apply to everyone regardless of the diversity of the nation. Did you know that auto designers, marketers, and dealers use the exact same tactics? Do you really think that people are that ignorant to not recognize this?
We should go after the bastards that market Pantene hair care.
http://www.pantene.com/en-US/african_american...
The racist bastards. There is not a single white person on the page.
I bet that they probably market their products in "black" neighborhoods as well.
Some one needs to do something about this.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>So you are saying that companies should be allowed to do marketing research?

(Sorry, Supposed to say)
So you are saying that companies should NOT be allowed to do marketing research?