(8 of 9)
The most immediate effects would certainly be felt by the three major networks and by the nation's independent TV and radio stations. In anticipation of some sort of restriction, CBS has already set up its 1969 budget without including the $59 million — 11% of total revenues — that it took in from cigarette commercials last year. President Frank Stanton expects that CBS would eventually find other advertisers to take up the slack, but a blackout would certainly hurt other broadcasters. If the British model held true, tobacco ads might eventually be banned from magazines, which depend on them for about 31% of their income, and from newspapers
A Worrisome Precedent
Even cigarette critics concede that there is no precedent for restricting the marketing of any legal product. The possibility of such a restriction raises sensitive questions about the future of other manufacturers, including gun makers and dairymen (some of whose products are a prime source of cholesterol). Many Congressmen are worried about setting an example that might be a form of censorship, but these same men would be in favor of stricter warning labels, not only on cigarette packages but also in ads. At last week's congressional hearings, Surgeon General Stewart said that he favors more explicit and more broadly applied warning labels instead of a flat ban on broadcast advertising. Even FCC Chairman Rosel Hyde somewhat softened his position and told the committee that he would be willing to forgo the ban if Congress ordered health warnings "in every bit of advertising, in print or radio or television." Of course, that would rule out the need for a ban. As Philip Morris' Cullman indicated, few if any manufacturers would be willing to spend money to advertise that cigarettes may cause "cancer" and "death."
The dilemma that cigarettes pose for society has reached its current state partly because many crusaders are pursuing an oblique and unsatisfactory approach to the problem. A ban on broadcast advertising makes little sense so long as cigarettes remain legal. Such a ban would mean that new and perhaps "safer" brands would be difficult to market.
It can be argued that the present problem would not be so acute if the industry had practiced more self-policing back in the 1950s, when the health question began to be raised in earnest. In fact, since the early health scares, cigarette tar and nicotine content has declined by about 40%, according to the Public Health Service, through the use of filters and milder tobaccos. Research goes on, despite some powerful obstacles. Not the least of them is that "advances" in filter design often make cigarettes so tasteless or tough on the draw that no one will buy them. Such has been the fate of the once-bally-hooed Strickman filter, which is now marketed in Canada and is selling poorly. Overall, however, the industry could have spent much more on developing safer tobaccos, better filters and other means of reducing the dangers of smoking—and it can still do so today.