Thank You for Smoking Reflection

Thank You for Smoking is a 2005 film focusing on Nick Naylor, a cigarettes lobbyist trying to raise his son. The movie presents him as a powerful speaker, able to argue anything to anyone. While I saw this, I couldn’t help but feel his arguments were dishonest, even beyond the defense of cigarettes. This consumer manipulation is just as common in real life, and I believe we should be improving awareness and preventing these tactics.

“Under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based.” This is the very first statement from the FTC’s website section on Advertising and Marketing. I want to focus on the second claim, that advertisements cannot be “deceptive or unfair.” While I won’t claim that Nick told any outright lies, he is certainly withholding information. He knows cigarettes are dangerous yet advertises them to the public anyway. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment's Right to Receive.

Even beyond withholding information, his arguments are full of logical fallacies. When he suggests placing cigarettes into Hollywood films to help them sell, he’s using an appeal to authority, hoping that audiences will want to smoke because famous actors are smoking. In the scene where he impresses his son with his ice cream argument, he presents the argument as a false dichotomy between vanilla and chocolate. He then uses the strawman tactic, claiming that his son only wants there to be one ice cream flavor (despite Nick being the one to present only two options). Whether it be against the public or his son, he’s not afraid to use disingenuous tactics to win.

Of course, Nick isn’t the only one in advertising to use disingenuous tactics. Companies use these all the time. This study in the International Research Journal of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences does an in-depth analysis of the slogans of several major companies, and while they all aren’t egregious, most are skirting the line of “deceptive.” Disneyland’s “The happiest place on Earth” is impossible to prove and could be considered a false dichotomy. Holiday Inn’s “Pleasing people the world over” is using bandwagon appeal, implying they will please everyone just because they have pleased some people around the world. While nothing these companies are saying can be proven untrue, they present their brands in ways meant to manipulate consumers without evidence.

In the future, I expect this insincerity to grow worse, especially in vice advertising, as studies only continue to prove them wrong, and younger generations grow up increasingly hesitant to buy. According to a 2023 Gallup survey, the number of drinkers under 35 has decreased, and those who do drink don’t drink as regularly. To continue profiting, I expect campaigns from these companies to become even less honest.

To combat this, the easiest solution would be stricter enforcement of advertising laws. If the FTC expanded what qualified as deceptive advertising and enforced accordingly, companies would be forced to be more transparent. Granted, this could lead to overly restrictive laws and difficulties for smaller companies who don’t have the funds to challenge unfair enforcements in court. I don’t find this solution likely anyway, as large companies would use all their financial resources to prevent this. Another option would be to help improve media literacy in education. I have found my AP English and Honors classes to be the most productive in learning to analyze media, but it’s a shame not everyone will take advanced/alternative classes like these. The way I see it, in a world where big companies are everywhere and want our money, we should be as aware as we can of not only what they’re saying, but how they say it.