Cigarette advertising created both a dangerous-product market and a durable oligopoly

Evidence

The harms of advertising are aptly attested by the Lucky Strike campaign of the late 1920s and ’30s. The massive amounts spent on cigarette advertising had spurred demand for a dangerous product and deterred switching between brands, while also preventing cheaper newcomers from making much headway. The result was an oligopoly of branded cigarettes—Camels, Lucky Strike, and so on—that has lasted for decades, and, of course, no few cancerous lungs. — Tim Wu, The Attention Merchants, 274

Categorization

  • XREF: Concrete historical case of advertising as public harm — relevant to ADDENDUM-adjacent themes of how industries shape demand at public cost. — connects to: The tobacco industry deliberately targeted teenage smokers in its marketing strategy — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1624; Advertising compels consumers to identify with and demand the products imposed on them — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays…, 98; Cigarette advertising sold smoking as youthful freedom and women’s liberation — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 1694 (+4 more)

Broader Connections