View Full Version : "Truth" Commercials- Good or Not
The Old Lady Hertha
06 Dec 2006, 10:41 PM
I think they suck.
Demosthenes
06 Dec 2006, 10:49 PM
I think they're pretty good.
But you know what sucks? The Dunkin Donuts ad where they make fun of coffee house menus for being too complicated and hard to pronounce. Then the ad says that at Dunkin Donuts, you can order a latte in plain old English, not French or Italian. What the hell language do they think "latte" is?
Dr.Phil
06 Dec 2006, 11:22 PM
Most stink so i rather not watch them
That Phat Hat
07 Dec 2006, 12:40 AM
Whether or not people actually "like" the commercials, the Truth campaign has shown to be effective at reducing teen smoking, far more than other anti-smoking campaigns. Even if you think they suck -yeah, they're sanctimonious- the message is clear and it gets across.
TheSlipperyOne
07 Dec 2006, 12:47 PM
I think it's funny that the Big Tobacco companies are the ones making the commercials.
Pints
07 Dec 2006, 12:50 PM
I think they suck.
They get better when you realize that....
........the Big Tobacco companies are the ones making the commercials.
The Old Lady Hertha
07 Dec 2006, 12:54 PM
I thought they had to finance it because of some Supreme Court ruling...
That Phat Hat
07 Dec 2006, 02:58 PM
I think it's funny that the Big Tobacco companies are the ones making the commercials.
They're not, actually. Yes, tobacco companies have to finance anti-tobacco campaigns, but they didn't create the Truth spots and in fact, they've tried to get them pulled off the air.
Truth spots are created by the American Legacy Foundation, a non-profit organization. Ones produced by tobacco companies mention the company by name.
Captain Splarg
08 Dec 2006, 10:07 AM
link to commercials? I've not seem them.
astabooty
08 Dec 2006, 11:50 AM
they suck, but not as much as above the influence.
yossarian
08 Dec 2006, 02:08 PM
I thought they had to finance it because of some Supreme Court ruling...
TPH already mentioned that Big Tobacco does not sponsor the "Truth" commercials....but to answer your question....the companies do have to provide money for anti-smoking campaigns but not because of any Supreme Court case. Rather, because of the 1998 national settlement with the various state attorneys general.
FabFiveFigo
08 Dec 2006, 03:48 PM
link to commercials? I've not seem them.
A few of them are here:
http://www.thetruth.com/
btw, Crabbo's awesome :)
fatbastard
08 Dec 2006, 04:25 PM
Most of them are rather funny and get a point across in a new and different way.
I'm FOR smoking (of whatever you want, it is America after all), but think the commercials are good. Nice to know more about what you put in your body. Now if they would just do one about what vile things are in BigMacs and Chipolte Burritos :) Not really too different.
That Phat Hat
08 Dec 2006, 05:23 PM
TPH already mentioned that Big Tobacco does not sponsor the "Truth" commercials....but to answer your question....the companies do have to provide money for anti-smoking campaigns but not because of any Supreme Court case. Rather, because of the 1998 national settlement with the various state attorneys general.I could be wrong here, but at least in some states, I think tobacco companies have to fund anti-smoking campaigns as part of the settlements, but the states chooses where the money goes. So Big Tobacco might be funding the ads, but not creating them.
I vaguely remember tobacco companies suing so the state-mandated anti-smoking ads couldn't disparage the tobacco industry.
Most of them are rather funny and get a point across in a new and different way.
I'm FOR smoking (of whatever you want, it is America after all), but think the commercials are good. Nice to know more about what you put in your body. Now if they would just do one about what vile things are in BigMacs and Chipolte Burritos :) Not really too different.
Also, what they've done is pretty clever, focusing on tobacco companies instead of smoking itself. Instead of saying "Smoking is bad, kids!", which everyone knows already and comes off preachy, their message is "Big tobacco is screwing you over and laughing all the way to the bank".
romagol10
08 Dec 2006, 05:48 PM
they suck, but not as much as above the influence.
Those above the influence commercials are laughably terrible.
yossarian
09 Dec 2006, 02:33 PM
I could be wrong here, but at least in some states, I think tobacco companies have to fund anti-smoking campaigns as part of the settlements, but the states chooses where the money goes. So Big Tobacco might be funding the ads, but not creating them.
Having been a tobacco lawyer during the 1998 settlement (I was in Seattle getting ready for trial against the Washington Atty Gen.'s office when the settlement was announced) I can tell you that the companies have to fund anti-smoking campaigns for ALL of the states that were involved in the settlement.
I vaguely remember tobacco companies suing so the state-mandated anti-smoking ads couldn't disparage the tobacco industry.
I don't recall this....but it could've occurred after I had stopped doing that type of litigation.