Smokers Are Suckers: Should Incongruous Metaphors Be Used in Public Health Prevention?

Article (PDF Available)inAmerican Journal of Public Health 101(2):203-4 · February 2011with122 Reads
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.197996 · Source: PubMed
EDITORIAL
Smokers Are
Suckers: Should
Incongruous
Metaphors Be
Used in Public
Health
Prevention?
‘‘It’s easy to quit smoking. I’ve
done it hundreds of times’’
—Mark Twain
There is no real need to question
anymore why so many efforts are
made in the war against tobacco.
As most are now aware, smokers
are not the only people endan-
gered by tobacco use. The latest
World Health Organization esti-
mates reveal that in the United
States alone, 50 000 people die
each year from environmental
tobacco smoke, constituting ap-
proximately 11% of all tobacco-
related deaths; this number rea-
ches almost 80 000 in Europe.
1
Many countries have made great
strides in trying to reduce tobacco
use within their borders, but in
a few such places the tobacco
epidemic rages on, particularly in
emerging markets like China and
India.
2
In light of these sobering
facts, associations of nonsmokers
worldwide have joined govern-
ments and nongovernmental or-
ganizations in creating various
public awareness campaigns
warning of the dangers of tobacco
use.
Recently, measures to fight to-
bacco were taken to a whole new
level in France thanks to—or be-
cause of, depending on one’s sen-
sibilities—a campaign sponsored
by an association called Les Droits
des Non Fumeurs (Nonsmokers’
Rights) featuring the slogan
‘‘smoking makes you tobacco’s
slave.’’ The strength of the cam-
paign, however, lies in the picto-
rial, incongruous metaphor at the
core of the strategy: the image
shows an adolescent on his knees,
facing a standing adult male in
a posture that clearly evokes an
act of sexual submission.
3
The
image leaves little room for
alternate interpretation as the
adult holds the younger’s head
with one hand while the adoles-
cent holds a cigarette in his
mouth.
HIT ME WITH YOUR BEST
SHOT
Using the aforementioned cam-
paign as an example, one can
easily see a real paradigm shift in
the strategies employed to prevent
adolescents from smoking. After
years of playing the fear card,
including graphic depictions of the
consequences of tobacco use,
surprise is now the prevailing
emotion. This new strategy and its
nonverbal incongruous metaphor
most easily described as ‘‘smokers
are suckers’’ invokes such an
emotion from the consumer by
associating smoking with some-
thing even less acceptable: teen-
agers being forced by adults to
perform sexual acts. The move is,
to say the least, quite a gamble.
There is indeed an obvious risk
of cognitive interference between
the message perceived by con-
sumers and the one supposed to
strike us: smoking is bad for
others too.
At the scientific level, Lakoff
and Johnson’s theory of concep-
tual metaphors in cognitive lin-
guistics
4
accounts for the strategy
behind this disruptive campaign.
Simply put, a metaphor is what
makes us experience something in
terms of something else by map-
ping from a source domain
(suckers) to a target domain
(smokers) that are generally dis-
tinct from one another.
5,6
FROM ARTFUL DEVIATION
TO DISCREPANCY
Although the theory of con-
ceptual metaphors allows us to
grasp the logic behind the com-
munication strategy, it cannot ac-
count entirely for the subsequent
reactions it triggered. During an
experiment aiming at transmitting
attitudes through advertising, the
effects of various metaphors have
been measured.
7
It appears that
the effects of those rhetoric tricks
rely mostly on their artful devi-
ance.
8
More precisely, for a meta-
phor to be efficient and to change
consumers’ beliefs, it needs to be
incongruous
7
and, ipso facto, lead
to surprise. In other words, no-
body expected a nonverbal meta-
phor on smoking to take not only
a sexual turn, but also an illegal
one by depicting the tobacco in-
dustry as a sexual predator and to
a certain extent evoke submission
for capital gain. As a result, the
metaphor therefore moves from
artful deviation to discrepancy.
Metaphors are an efficient tool
for impacting public opinion and
reinforcing public policy, and their
use for such purposes is nothing
new. For instance, control or mil-
itary metaphors are often used in
public health prevention, includ-
ing campaigns targeting tobacco
use. This was the case in early
2003 when the deadly severe
acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) spread in 37 countries.
The metaphor employed in the
UK’s media coverage was ‘‘SARS
IS A KILLER.’’
9
Wallis and Ner-
lich accurately pointed the exis-
tence of ‘‘an overlap between the
Killer metaphor and traditional
militaristic metaphors: both rely
February 2011, Vol 101, No. 2 | American Journal of Public Health Editorial | 203
on an independent set of FORCE
metaphors.’’
9(p2634)
The French case took a differ-
ent tack from most public health
prevention campaigns, however,
with the move from the ‘‘tobacco
is a killer’’ metaphor to ‘‘smokers
are suckers’’; in fact, they deviated
largely from all marketing codes
of conduct by associating smoking
with moral rather than health
consequences. And to a certain
extent, the campaign worked.
People were surprised, if not up-
set, because the image was inter-
preted by consumers in light of
their past experiences, eliciting in
many cases a surprising de
´
ja
`
vu.
The fact that the image is not
explicit makes the campaign an
even more likely topic for discus-
sion, as is evidenced by the public
debate in France and worldwide.
DISRUPTIVE STRATEGIES:
PREVENTION OR
PROVOCATION?
If people manage to get past
the obvious sexual reference and
end up making the connection be-
tween the image and smoking, the
‘‘smokers are suckers’ metaphor
leaves no room at all for a positive
interpretation. This intense nega-
tivity could be viewed as a positive
from the perspective of fighting
tobacco use. Although strong
doubts exist as to the way the pub-
lic opinion perceived the cam-
paign, the tobacco industry seems
to have received the message per-
fectly well: it is extremely unhappy
to be pictured as a pedophile.
10
The Nonsmokers’ Rights Asso-
ciation sees the matter differently,
arguing that the campaign was
merely a novel strategy that sought
to garner the attention of young
people on a major public health
issue that concerns them deeply.
11
Time and the result of the political
debate that unraveled in France
told us the organization did not
make a smart move. So far, though,
it is clear that the big winner of this
controversy is the marketing
agency that designed the campaign.
This public discussion surround-
ing the campaign has certainly
surpassed their wildest expecta-
tions, particularly given that only
15000 campaign flyers have been
printed and space in only two
magazines has been purchased.
Besides, it seems that most of
the young people, to whom the
campaign was primarily directed,
were not as shocked as many of
the adults who saw the image. This
may mean, then, that the campaign
missed its mark because it did not
have the desired effect on its target
audience. Metaphors are only suc-
cessful if their meaning is under-
stood by the people they target.
4
Lakoff and Johnson accurately
remind us that ‘‘In allowing us to
focus on one aspect of a concept
... a metaphorical concept can
keep us from focusing on other
aspects of the concept that are
inconsistent with that meta-
phor.’’
4(p10)
The ‘‘smokers are
suckers’’ metaphor problem carries
an ambiguity. From one point of
view, it can support public policy
by presenting smokers as victims
and tobacco and its manufacturers
as aggressors. The public opinion
might have perceived this initiative
as a strong support for victims.
12
However, by judging from reac-
tions to this campaign—ranging
from French government officials
to journalists and bloggers world-
wide—the word is almost exclu-
sively down on the use of sexual
submission in a public prevention
campaign. The metaphor is so
powerful it leaves no room for
a constructive public policy debate
between the involved stakeholders
given that, for example, the criticism
can expand to any government
collecting taxes from tobacco sales,
making them guilty by association.
Hence, not surprisingly, almost
nothing is known regarding the
concrete actions the Nonsmokers’
Rights Association might effectively
be taking to fight smoking.
BRAINY STRATEGIES
As suggested by a governmen-
tal report recently published in
France, an option to improve the
efficiency of strategies in public
health prevention could be
a more systematic use of behav-
ioral and brain sciences when de-
signing them.
13
Recent work in
this field provides insights re-
garding how public service an-
nouncements about smoking
should be tailored to encourage
better consumer recall.
14
The war against tobacco is cer-
tainly a tough one. But we’d rather
fight with finely crafted strategies
rather than poorly designed
weapons of mass communication
that can lead to collateral damages.
Andthisisnot(just)ametaphor.
j
Fre
´
de
´
ric Basso, MSc
Olivier Oullier, PhD, MSc
About the Authors
Fre
´
de
´
ric Basso is with the Graduate School
of Management and the Center for Research
in Economics and Management, University
of Rennes 1, Rennes, France. Olivier Oullier
is with the Cognitive Psychology Laboratory,
University of Provence and CNRS, Aix-
Marseille Universite
´
, Marseille, France, and the
Center for Strategic Analysis, Paris, France.
Correspondence should be sent to Olivier
Oullier, Laboratoire de Psychologie
Cognitive (UMR 6146), Universite
´
de
Provence & CNRS, 3 place Victor Hugo, Pole
3C Case D, 13331 Marseille cedex 3,
France (e-mail: olivier@oullier.fr). Reprints
can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by
clicking the ‘‘Rep rints/Eprints’ link.
This editorial was accepted April 22,
2010.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.197996
Contributors
Fre
´
de
´
ric Basso and Olivier Oullier
contributed to this editorial equally.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Gwenola Bargain,
Julien Bouille
´
, Matthieu Mandard, and
Erwann Michel-Kerjan for feedback on
early versions of the editorial.
References
1. World Health Organization (WHO).
WHO report on the global tobacco epi-
demic, 2009: Impl ementing smoke-free en-
vironments. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO;
2009.
2. Samet JM, Wipfli HL. Globe still in grip
of addiction. Nature. 2010;463(7284):
1020–1021.
3. Forceville C. Metaphor in pictures
and multimodal representations. In: Gibbs
RW Jr, eds. The Cambridge Handbook of
Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press; 2008.
4. Lakoff G, Johnson M. Metaphors We
Live By. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press; 2003.
5. Lakoff G. Women, Fire and Danger-
ous Things. Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press; 1987.
6. Lakoff G. The Contemporary Theory
of Metaphor. In: Ortony A, ed. Metaphor
and Thought . 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press; 1993.
7. Phillips BJ, McQuarrie EF. Impact
of Advertising Metaphor on Consumer
Belief. J Advert. 2009;38:46–61.
8. McQuarrie EF, Mick DG. Figures of
Rhetoric in Advertising Language. J Con-
sum Res. 1996;22:424–438.
9. Wallis P, Nerlich B. Disease meta-
phors in new epidemics: the UK media
framing of the 2003 SARS epidemic. Soc
Sci Med. 2005;60:2629–2639.
10. French Press Agency. Associations et
gouvernement demandent l’arre
ˆ
t d’une
campagne anti-tabac [press release]. Feb-
ruary 22, 2010.
11. Erlanger S. French ad shocks but will
it stop young smokers? The New York
Times. February 23, 2010:A4.
12. Barry CL, Brescoll VL, Brownell KD,
Schlesinger M. Obesity metaphors: how
beliefs about the causes of obesity affect
support for public policy. Milbank Q.
2009;87(1):7–47.
13. Chapter 7. Oullier O, Sauneron S,
eds. Improving Public Health Prevention
With Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Paris,
France: Centre d’Analyse Strate
´
gique;
2010. Available at: http://www.strate-
gie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/NeuroPrevention_
English_Book.pdf. Accessed November
14, 2010.
14. Langleben DD, Loughead JW,
Ruparel K, et al. Reduced prefrontal and
temporal processing and recall of high
‘‘sensation value’’ ads. Neuroimage.
2009;46(1):219–225.
204 | Editorial American Journal of Public Health | February 2011, Vol 101, No. 2
EDITORIAL
    • "Figurative metaphors deviate artfully from expectations (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2009). However, if figurativeness is too disruptive, the metaphor may be unsuccessful, as demonstrated by some anti-smoking campaigns that led the targeted population to misunderstand the metaphor's intended meaning (Basso & Oullier, 2011; Bremer & Lee, 1997). Therefore, it would be interesting to attempt to account for the impact of the visual perspective on highly figurative metaphors and the potential disruption of health-oriented campaigns. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Consumers try to avoid temptation when exposed to appetizing foods by diverting their attention away from their senses (e.g., sight, smell, mouthfeel) and bodily states (e.g., state of arousal, salivation) in order to focus on their longer term goals (e.g., eating healthily, achieving an ideal body weight). However, when not including sensations in their decision-making processes, consumers risk depleting their self-regulatory resources, potentially leading to unhealthy food choices. Conversely, based on the concept of “embodied self-regulation,” the suggestion is made that considering bodily states may help consumers regulate their food choices more effectively. A new model is proposed that facilitates understanding observed consumer behavior and the success or failure of self-control in food intake. It is argued that bodily states and sensory information should be considered when modeling consumer behavior and developing health-related advocacy and communication campaigns. The model proposed here leads to new perspectives on consumer consumption behavior and health policy research and strategies.
    Full-text · Article · Aug 2016
    • "The conceptual metaphor theory therefore seems to be a good candidate for the investigation of the rationale behind the marketing of FIPs. Moreover, this theory has proven useful to analyze and better understand public health related issues such as tobacco (e.g., [18]), medicalization [19], physician/patient relationship [20], epidemics [21], how packages are designed [22] and even current marketing strategies (e.g., [23– 36]). The essence of a metaphor is to experience one kind of thing in the terms of another [16] . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: A Food Imitating Product (FIP) is a household cleaner or a personal care product that exhibits food attributes in order to enrich consumption experience. As revealed by many cases worldwide, such a marketing strategy led to unintentional self-poisonings and deaths. FIPs therefore constitute a very serious health and public policy issue. To understand why FIPs are a threat, we first conducted a qualitative analysis on real-life cases of household cleaners and personal care products-related phone calls at a poison control center followed by a behavioral experiment. Unintentional self-poisoning in the home following the accidental ingestion of a hygiene product by a healthy adult is very likely to result from these products being packaged like foodstuffs. Our hypothesis is that FIPs are non-verbal food metaphors that could fool the brain of consumers. We therefore conducted a subsequent functional neuroimaging (fMRI) experiment that revealed how visual processing of FIPs leads to cortical taste inferences. Considered in the grounded cognition perspective, the results of our studies reveal that healthy adults can unintentionally categorize a personal care product as something edible when a food-like package is employed to market nonedible and/or dangerous products. Our methodology combining field (qualitative) and laboratory (behavioral and functional neuroimaging) findings could be of particular relevance for policy makers, as it can help screening products prior to their market release - e.g. the way they are packaged and how they can potentially confuse the mind of consumers - and therefore save lives.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: In France, cognitive science (e.g., eye-tracking) and neuroscience (e.g., functional neuroimaging) are not used to develop and test anti-tobacco strategies. The newly found knowledge in behavioral and brain sciences could provide valuable insights in the understanding of attentional, emotional, memorization and decision-making processes at play when tobacco addicts are exposed to prevention messages. We argue that neuroscientific methods should be used in the fight against tobacco to better design and evaluate the impact of measures such as combined text and graphic (shock) warnings, neutral packets and support to people who want to stop smoking. © 2013 médecine/sciences – Inserm.
    Article · Nov 2013
Show more