I can't even find any mention of this concept outside of this article, even though it seems like it's a really important thing to tackle.
Joeseph Ripken
"Benson & Hedges pulled its funding for the Symphony of Fire and the Toronto International Film Festival in 2000 when new advertising regulations came into effect. The subtext was that they were only funding them to get their logo displayed, not to support culture."
—- Ok, seriously? We're going to demonise a company for not wanting to give away money now? Say what you want about tobacco companies, but it would be stupid of any company to just give away money and not advertise it. Every company that gives away money to charities advertises it.
The entire damn point of sponsorship is to put your logo on the event. Jeese people.
The host of a little watched web show that explores bad tv episodes.
"A large ad seen on the street featured the slogan "Smoking will kill you slowly". Under it, someone helpfully tagged the subtext ("We're not in a hurry"). "
Do you idiots really believe that an ad that flat out says "SMOKING WILL KILL YOU" is a veiled smoking ad just because "SLOWLY" is affixed to the end? I know you get an erection when you think you've spotted some lie and get to feel like you're smarter than everyone else, but really, think these things through a little.
Hide / Show Replies
You speak the truth. Thumbs up to you, my good poster.
The host of a little watched web show that explores bad tv episodes.
Edit: Yeah, thinking it through a bit more, it wouldn't count as an example.
Edited by hayleychaotix
It says " smoking will kill you adding "slowly " to the end of that doesn;t change the sentiment.
You can't sell a product by saying it will kill you, so saying that a billboard that says smoking will kill you is a commercial for smoking is patently ridiculous.
The host of a little watched web show that explores bad tv episodes.
I wanted to point out an inaccuracy in this article: cigarette advertisements on television are not banned in the US, they were voluntarily withdrawn due to legislation requiring anti-smoking PS As to be run with equal time opposite any TV ad. The PS As were so effective that they stopped trying to compete with them. In essence this subverts the trope a bit. as for the topic discussed above: If you are a smoker, seeing a "stop smoking" ad can remind you about cigarettes and make you want to smoke... this is especially a problem for those attempting to quit, who then see images of cigarettes in the form of stop smoking ads. As for the "smoking will kill you", in Australia i've heard that people ask for their favorite brands by the gruesome image on the cover "gimme 2 black lungs, and a throat cancer please" our friend @72.82.6.154, needs to remember that no-one is immune from failing to think things through, or the occasional 'dilbert principle' stupidity.
It seems there is a big problem with a lot of the "Real Examples" being that they aren't stealth smoking ads at all, but rather various forms of unintentional Broken Aesop and Values Dissonance. I think we should filter out all the examples not published by cigarette companies.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Limit to fictional examples only.
, started by JackMackerel on Jan 12th 2011 at 10:56:28 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman