Re: "da marlboro man"
Jim Mahoney (jem9@LEHIGH.EDU)
Wed, 31 Dec 1997 11:41:10 +0000
> The cigarette companies are not charitable organizations. They are
> making the equipment available not out of the goodness of their
> heart, but because they expect something in return, namely the
> exposure of their product name. If we do believe in our oath and
> law, and we take the equipment provided by the cigarette companies,
> do we not have some obligation to follow through on the implicit
> deal and provide the exposure they expect, or at least not do what
> one post suggested, which is to stencil a skull and crossbones next
> to the item?
You are correct, the cigarette companies are not charitable
organizations. The equipment they distribute has been charged off on
their books as an advertising expense. They have featured the
equipment in their prize catalogues in a way that associates their
product with something that is healthy and outdoor-sey such as camping.
If I buy a product, or receive it for free the only contract created,
implicit or explicit is that the company is providing a product for
my use for which I have compensated them either by paying money or
redeeming coupons. I would feel no worse about removing the cigarette
advertising from my sleeping bag than I would about taking the
alligator, Tommy, or Calvin emblem off of my shirt. As the owner of
that product, I have control over whether I want to advertise for
that particular company. I am not bound by any continuing contract.
Just as the bulk mailers know the vast majority of their advertising
will be tossed in the recycling bin, the cigarette companies know
that not all of their advertising will have its intended effect.
Just my $.02
troop 107 Allentown, PA
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City