Tobacco companies paid movie stars millions in celebrity endorsement deals

Sep 25, 2008

Tobacco companies paid the Hollywood A-listers of the 1930s and 1940s millions of dollars in today's money to endorse particular brands of cigarette, under contract, reveals research in Tobacco Control.

The continued presence of on-screen smoking in today's mainstream films is rooted in these "studio era" deals, claim the authors.

The research team accessed cigarette endorsement contracts between tobacco companies and studio-controlled movie stars, as well as adverts of the period, from university and major US newspaper archives.

The period under investigation covered the years 1927 to 1951, from the advent of talking motion pictures to the rise of television.

In return for the paid testimonials of their stars in cigarette ads major studios benefited from nationwide print and radio ads for themselves and their movies in lucrative "cross over" deals, paid for by tobacco companies, shows the research.

The studios with the most "cross over" deals were Paramount and Warner Bros, with the peak of activity occurring in the early and late 1930s, particularly for Lucky Strike (American Tobacco) and in the 1940s for Chesterfield (Ligget & Myers).

This was despite previous attempts to curtail the practice.

In 1927 the Federal Trade Commission ruled against American Tobacco, prohibiting the use of testimonial endorsements, unless written by the endorser and providing "genuine, authorised, and unbiased" opinions.

And in 1931, the precursor to the Motion Picture Association of America, the MPPDA, banned actor endorsements and on-screen product placement.

But the archived material shows that the studios took advantage of their contracts, which gave them complete control over the use of their celebrities.

They were able to negotiate the content of the testimonials, and insist that the endorsement ads, publicising new movies, coincided with their release to cinemas.

In all, almost 200 actors took part in the cigarette endorsements, including two thirds of the top 50 box office Hollywood stars from the late 1930s through to the 1940s.

Among others, actors Clark Gable, Spencer Tracey, Joan Crawford, John Wayne, Bette Davis, Betty Grable and singer Al Jolson all appeared in endorsements for brands, such as Lucky Strike, Old Gold, Chesterfield, and Camel.

American Tobacco alone paid the stars who endorsed Lucky Strike cigarettes US$ 218,750 in the late 1930s, equivalent to $3.2 million in today's money.

Individual stars earned up to $5,000 per year, equivalent to around $75,000 in today's money.

And in 1946, Ligget & Myers spent the equivalent of $50 million advertising Hollywood, which was more than its brand endorsement partners Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros and Columbia Pictures combined.

The authors say that smoking in movies is associated with teens and young adults starting to smoke themselves, but its persistent presence in mainstream films is rooted in the mutually beneficial deals between the film and tobacco industries in the 1930s and 1940s.

Source: British Medical Journal

Explore further: Oil-swishing craze: Snake oil or all-purpose remedy?

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Suddenly health insurance is not for sale

12 hours ago

(HealthDay)— Darlene Tucker, an independent insurance broker in Scotts Hill, Tenn., says health insurers in her area aren't selling policies year-round anymore.

Study: Half of jailed NYC youths have brain injury (Update)

12 hours ago

About half of all 16- to 18-year-olds coming into New York City's jails say they had a traumatic brain injury before being incarcerated, most caused by assaults, according to a new study that's the latest in a growing body ...

Autonomy and relationships among 'good life' goals

19 hours ago

Young adults with Down syndrome have a strong desire to be self-sufficient by living independently and having a job, according to a study into the meaning of wellbeing among young people affected by the disorder.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2008
Big deal - it is not like they were endorsing marijuana or some really dangerous drug. Stay away from articles like this - tobacco and alcohol are mainstays of our tax system and their minor and known effects are nothing compared to weed!!!
not rated yet Oct 10, 2008
Lol coco, I can't make my mind up to what you are. A 10yo retard who has just seen an anti-drugs campaign at school, someone working in the pharmacuetical industry or just the sterotypical naive and gulable american. Either way, your points are pretty ridiculous and close minded, much like you'd hear from the 1970s propaganda campaing to scare everyone away from drugs. Maybe you should sample for yourself and make your own mind up instead of assuming whoever gives you your facts is telling the truth.

How about a competetion? I smoke the most potent weed i can find til I drop and you drink liquor til you drop? Bet I'd still be able to work the next day whereas u'd be on ur death-bed feeling like utter crap.

More news stories

Treating depression in Parkinson's patients

A group of scientists from the University of Kentucky College of Medicine and the Sanders-Brown Center on Aging has found interesting new information in a study on depression and neuropsychological function in Parkinson's ...

Impact glass stores biodata for millions of years

( —Bits of plant life encapsulated in molten glass by asteroid and comet impacts millions of years ago give geologists information about climate and life forms on the ancient Earth. Scientists ...