Joe Camel Stirs in His Grave: Court Creates Loophole for Cartoons in Cigarette Ads
A Pennsylvania court ruling that a nine-page gatefold ad sponsored by R.J. Reynolds (RJR) in Rolling Stone magazine does not violate the 1998 "Joe Camel" ban on cartoons in cigarette ads relies on a complete misunderstanding of the way the magazine business works. If the ruling were followed by other courts it would create a loophole for cartoons sponsored by cigarette advertisers as long as those images were in "advertorial" sections and not in traditional display ads.
In the magazine business, "advertorial" occurs when a publication agrees to create a "special section" that is only appearing in the magazine because an advertiser requests it. While the editorial content of the advertorial might be produced independently from the advertising planned to run next to it, there's an implicit agreement about everything being printed in that section: don't print anything might offend that advertiser. Magazines justify doing this by making it obvious that the advertorial is different from the magazine's regular sections.
Camel's ads, on the cover of the nine-page extravaganza, featured vintage-style photomontages promoting "Camel Farm," the brand's commitment to indie music. Technically, they did not violate the 1998 Master Settlement between the states and Big Tobacco that killed off Joe Camel and other cartoon characters that appealed to children. The cartoon ban is hilariously specific. It includes:
... the attribution of unnatural or extrahuman abilities, such as imperviousness to pain or injury, X-ray vision, tunneling at very high speeds or transformation.Inside the gatefold, however, was a feature titled "Indie Rock Universe" which consisted of a massive four-page mural of cartoon dogs, cats, horses and sci-fi imagery, produced by the staff of Rolling Stone. Click to enlarge:
The court ruled that as the editorial was produced independently, and Camel did not sign off on it, that RJR cannot be liable for a third-party's use of cartoons near its ads.
The ruling, however, ignores the business reality of magazine advertorial, even though it touches on it in passing. Judge Dan Pellegrini wrote:
Reynolds specifically requested that the editorial content and its advertisement shared the common theme of independent rock music; ...In other words, this was an advertorial, with all that implies. The content only existed because RJR paid Rolling Stone $300,000 to create an environment in which both parties knew Camel would be promoted. Under the Pennsylvania ruling the next time RJR requests an advertorial the magazine could -- in theory -- run its own images of Joe Camel as long as editors don't explicitly warn RJR in advance.
While RJR will see this as a victory, it will be unlikely to push the envelope any further. Health activists want a ban on music promotions as well as cartoons. Plus, Pennsylvania court judges are elected, and thus not well respected by more influential courts where judges are generally appointed based on experience and expertise.
Related: