Abstract
Volume 8 of the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing contained a content analysis of cigarette advertising from 1926–1986 [Ringold and Calfee 1989], together with critiques of both the analysis and its implications [Cohen 1989; Pollay 1989]. In a subsequent paper, Ringold and Calfee [1990] (1) argued that “the evidence supports our exclusion of mildness and most filter claims from the health claims category,” (2) defended their exclusive focus on coding of explicit advertising content (i.e., rather than the likely meaning/interpretation of such claims), and (3) presented a lengthy and speculative analysis to the effect that regulation of tar, nicotine, and related health claims (particularly by the Federal Trade Commission) was ill-advised. This paper responds to each of these issues.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
