PSA/Ad: "Think Outside The Pack"

[Thulium]

Several people have mentioned interest in creating a PSA or advertisement, and I would like to create something that serves to educate and entertain so I've got a rough concept for a short commercial spot that I think could be effective and timely.

I've worked in television and radio for some time, but it's been a few years. I'm gathering up my contacts and resources, but I would appreciate any help I can get with this. I've presented this idea to a musician friend and he expressed some willingness to help create (or in this case re-mix) some music.

Here's the rough draft of the script:

"Think outside the Pack" ​

-by Thad Marney​

CONCEPT: Video to be shot as a "mash-up" parody of the current ad campaigns from Verizon Wireless and GEICO insurance. Scene begins with 2 characters having a conversation in an outdoor setting.

P2 begins to take out a cigarette and lighter, P1 notices and reaches for an electronic device

P1: "Have you heard about Electronic Cigarettes? They use flavoring and a fog generator to simulate the experience of smoking without producing any actual smoke. Not only does it reduce harm to yourself and eliminate the risk of harming others from secondhand smoke...I'm saving money too!"

P2: "So is that how you got that Network?"

Camera pulls back to reveal a large group of people standing behind P1

P2: "Think outside the pack. That's the lives you could be saving by switching to vapor."

musical outtro - "Every Breath You Take" by The Police (originally)

Narrator: "According to the United States Surgeon General, Secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke. Switching to a smoke-free alternative like electronic cigarettes could save the lives of the people around you. Visit www.CASAA.org to learn more."

 

[instantinlaw]

I would help if I could, but I only build & host websites. I say go for it if you can.

 

[Moobyghost]

I like it and want to do it. lol.

Sounds great.

 

[Thulium]

I like it and want to do it. lol.

Sounds great.

Glad you like it, TGWTF. With "The Network", theres plenty of room for extras and it would be a lot of fun if we could have some familiar faces. Not saying you couldn't be one of the principal actors...in fact, there's no reason to limit ourselves to just the one version of this ad. The above was just my first thoughts.

 

[seminolewind]

You know I like it!

 

[ladyraj]

Sorry to disagree with others but I see an inherent flaw in the logic, namely second hand smoke/passive smoking/environmental tobacco smoke and the 53,000 deaths a year. Stanton has already claimed that nicotine causes endolethial dysfunction, heart arythmia, and vaso-constriction in capillaries and arteries. Citing his work will bring about repercussions not favorable to a educational PSA/AD. Further the groups aligned against the PV are citing second hand vapor as dangerous with a mere 30 minutes of exposure. Perhaps 2nd hand vapor as a harm reduction vehicle will add only half as many dead bodies to the already proclaimed 53,000 dead bodies...but the argument will become.. cessation of nicotine will prevent any dead bodies.

I don't mean to be sarcastic but using Stanton's name with a harm reduction stance is laughable if one is familiar with his research.

I've yet to see any death certificate claiming the cause of death as second hand smoke (Nor as a secondary cause, or even a contibuting factor) have you? The numbers listed are computer projections based on coding changes in diagnoses...I've even seen SHS being blamed for susceptibility to planter warts, mental disease due to exposure while in utero and even before conception, behavior disorders in children and adults, a host of skin disorders, a boatload number of suspected viral susceptibility, the list goes on and on...

The above mentioned ailments are reportedly due to the nicotine inflammatory and vaso-constrictive response based on secondary exposure. Thus, vaping nicotine free of tar and other constituents does not apply.

How will a PSA counter this bevy of myths developed via the relaxation of scientific standards by use of the "precautionary principle"?

Sorry if my grammar and spelling is off my brain is a bit fuzzy today...I don't mean to offend, but I have been fighting this fight along time and sometimes it's easy to guess which way the froggy will jump. (let's hope not into a baited trap)

 

[Thulium]

Sorry to disagree with others but I see an inherent flaw in the logic, namely second hand smoke/passive smoking/environmental tobacco smoke and the 53,000 deaths a year. Stanton has already claimed that nicotine causes endolethial dysfunction, heart arythmia, and vaso-constriction in capillaries and arteries. Citing his work will bring about repercussions not favorable to a educational PSA/AD. Further the groups aligned against the PV are citing second hand vapor as dangerous with a mere 30 minutes of exposure. Perhaps 2nd hand vapor as a harm reduction vehicle will add only half as many dead bodies to the already proclaimed 53,000 dead bodies...but the argument will become.. cessation of nicotine will prevent any dead bodies.

I don't mean to be sarcastic but using Stanton's name with a harm reduction stance is laughable if one is familiar with his research.

I've yet to see any death certificate claiming the cause of death as second hand smoke (Nor as a secondary cause, or even a contibuting factor) have you? The numbers listed are computer projections based on coding changes in diagnoses...I've even seen SHS being blamed for susceptibility to planter warts, mental disease due to exposure while in utero and even before conception, behavior disorders in children and adults, a host of skin disorders, a boatload number of suspected viral susceptibility, the list goes on and on...

The above mentioned ailments are reportedly due to the nicotine inflammatory and vaso-constrictive response based on secondary exposure. Thus, vaping nicotine free of tar and other constituents does not apply.

How will a PSA counter this bevy of myths developed via the relaxation of scientific standards by use of the "precautionary principle"?

Sorry if my grammar and spelling is off my brain is a bit fuzzy today...I don't mean to offend, but I have been fighting this fight along time and sometimes it's easy to guess which way the froggy will jump. (let's hope not into a baited trap)

That seems fair, but I don't see that as a showstopper. I simply googled for a statistic on secondhand smoke and used the first one I found. If the particular study I used to get the 53,000 number is questionable, we need only to grab a different statistic. If nothing else, I'm sure somebody's got a confirmed list of deaths associated with smoking by non-smokers. Surely there is a statistic we could cite...and simply saying "so-and-so says that x number of deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke" puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim.

The whole point of this ad format (aside from leveraging a bit of humor) is to make clear the factual benefits of smoke-free alternatives (namely: no smoke) without making any specific medical claims in the form of:

1. Smoke causes <malady>.
2. E-cigs don't produce smoke.
3. You figure it out.

 

[ladyraj]

That seems fair, but I don't see that as a showstopper. I simply googled for a statistic on secondhand smoke and used the first one I found. If the particular study I used to get the 53,000 number is questionable, we need only to grab a different statistic. If nothing else, I'm sure somebody's got a confirmed list of deaths associated with smoking by non-smokers. Surely there is a statistic we could cite...and simply saying "so-and-so says that x number of deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke" puts the burden of proof on the person making the claim.

The whole point of this ad format (aside from leveraging a bit of humor) is to make clear the factual benefits of smoke-free alternatives (namely: no smoke) without making any specific medical claims in the form of:

1. Smoke causes <malady>.
2. E-cigs don't produce smoke.
3. You figure it out.

I think the CDC (and other groups) carries those stats. Here is a current CDC fact sheet that may be useful:

Smoking and Tobacco Use :: Fact Sheet :: Secondhand Smoke :: Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) :: CDC

I figured out #2 along time ago but it's not me the ad is geared towards and the nonsmoking/nonvaping population majority may not understand the difference between smoke or vapor plumes. Contrary to what is reported the mortality rate via SHS is computer generated predictions based on SAMMEC computations. Sorry to offer a different opinion and if I can help with anything you find appropriate...let me know.

Oops! Glantz uses the CalEPA guesstimates mentioned in the CDC factsheet. How he arrives at the 53,000 is via "absolute midpoints" that equates to a statistical best guess applied to an statiatical prediction. It is always good to know where the numbers come from so here is Stanton's artistic decription:

So, here's where the numbers I have seen come from:

38,000 deaths (from CDC MMWR) is the lower bound estimate of heart disease deaths (35,000) plus 3,000 lung cancer deaths. This is an estimate of the minimum number of deaths from just these two causes.

65,000 deaths is the upper bound of heart disease (62,000) plus 3000 lung cancer deaths. This is an estimate of the maximum number of deaths from just these two causes.

53,000 is based on the midpoints for heart disease (48,500) plus lung cancer (3,000) plus SIDS (2300 deaths), which adds up to 53,800. As the midpoint and including all the diseases with death estimates, it is the most meaningful estimate.

--Stanton A. Glantz

Edit: Stanton's numbers differ from the original report...I'd go with the CDC numbers which is 49,900 (69,600-22,700+3,000) or round it to 50,000.

 

[Zofryer]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's plenty of evidence that SHS hasn't caused a single death.

www.data-yard.net

That's a very detailed analysis with a very large number of participants. There's also ample evidence to suggest that a large portion of the currently accepted "evidence" of SHS smoke death claims have been "massaged", much like the global warming data.

 

[ladyraj]

Zofryer, I tried and failed to make that point.

Regarding the CDC factsheet:

"Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker."
----------------------------------------------
Please note the seperation of nicotine from SHS instead of nicotine as part of SHS...the distinction is brand new phrasing and has important implications for our cause. All of the facts gleaned were via cotinine as a marker of nicotine and no other constituents. They're using this terminology for a reason.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Not to rain on anyone's parade, but there's plenty of evidence that SHS hasn't caused a single death.

And? Since when has the anti-smoking crowd let facts stand in their way?

 

[Thulium]

Zofryer, I tried and failed to make that point.

Regarding the CDC factsheet:

"Exposure to nicotine and secondhand smoke is measured by testing the saliva, urine, or blood for the presence of a chemical called cotinine. Cotinine is a byproduct of nicotine metabolization, and tobacco is the only source of this marker."
----------------------------------------------
Please note the seperation of nicotine from SHS instead of nicotine as part of SHS...the distinction is brand new phrasing and has important implications for our cause. All of the facts gleaned were via cotinine as a marker of nicotine and no other constituents. They're using this terminology for a reason.

Ladyraj, your point was not missed. In reality, every one of these reported deaths is most likely attributable to a lifetime of exposure to a variety of carcinogens so there is really is NO number that accurately describes the number of annual SHS deaths. ...but that is not the point I'm trying to make. The point is that SHS exposes bystanders to a high level of toxins and carcinogens such that it is reasonable to suspect that it is in large part responsible for many otherwise preventable deaths. Vapor, OTOH hardly exposes the user to a measurable amount of toxins, and is fundamentally different than smoke so when it comes to bystanders, as Dr. Siegel said, "There is no legitimate concern there."

 

[ladyraj]

Thulium, I read Dr Siegel's blog everyday. Further, I have read the Surgeon General's report (2006) on ETS, The EPA's 1993 info, and almost everything out there regarding ETS. I've researched the topic for years and found most numbers originate from very few sources and then are picked up and hyped by various groups and the media. I've also read the report from Enstrom and Kabat that Zofryer supplied a link to on this thread. The evidence is not as clear as one might have been led to believe.

I respect Dr Siegel but he hasn't done any work via studies on vapor.

Here is a brief list of the findings from SHS studies completed up to May 2006:

www.data-yard.net

If the allegations against our PVs are about second hand vapor then what makes you think the groups making such statements would simply agree with Casaa, Siegel, Salmon, Nitzkin, Rodu, or anyone else with out proof.

The groups manufacture their proof and have decades of experience in delivering that message to the public via every media format known to man.

I guess I'm confused because I thought an educational spot was to attract people who could benefit from the product or loved ones that can influence the smoker to a safer alternative while getting the message out to the general public. I didn't realize the same tired old comments about passive smoke that TICK smokers off would be repeated ad nauseum.

My bad...

We smokers gave an inch and lost miles of earned respectibility gleaned from living the American dream just because we smoked. All social life and PC went out the door. People became rude and chased children away from us. All of this because someone wants to get the masses to believe the smell of smoke kills our children, friends, coworkers, and anyone within 100 feet of our habit. I do not like to be portrayed as a murderer and most smokers don't either.

There are almost 50 million cigarette smokers out there who should be our target audience...shall we irritate the crap out of them by claiming they are harming their fellow humans?

Use the health benefits of harm reduction not the SHS accusation of murder.

Added Drama for effect and just my opinion but it is a shared one WITH your target audience.8-o

 

[ladyraj]

Please note that I am not asking anyone to fight the SHS studies but one doesn't have to jump on the bandwagon when the harm reduction aspect for primary smoking is the stated goal of advocacy.

Sorry, If I spoke too frankly, but there it is...a dissenting opinion.

 

[Thulium]

Thulium, I read Dr Siegel's blog everyday. Further, I have read the Surgeon General's report (2006) on ETS, The EPA's 1993 info, and almost everything out there regarding ETS. I've researched the topic for years and found most numbers originate from very few sources and then are picked up and hyped by various groups and the media. I've also read the report from Enstrom and Kabat that Zofryer supplied a link to on this thread. The evidence is not as clear as one might have been led to believe.

ladyraj, I've already admitted that.

However, IMO, we do ourselves a greater disservice by adopting the stance held by BT for so many years.

I respect Dr Siegel but he hasn't done any work via studies on vapor.

Nobody said he did. I simply quoted him on the topic of e-cig risk to non-users: "There is no legitimate concern."

You don't have to do studies on vapor to understand the difference between vapor and smoke. Combustion uses environmental oxygen to create carbon monoxide and other toxins and carcinogens and includes solid particles that have a cumulative health effect. Vapor, on the other hand, is merely a state change of a liquid meaning the liquid retains its chemical composition and, unlike combustion, there are NO by-products..

Here is a brief list of the findings from SHS studies completed up to May 2006:

www.data-yard.net

Here's some additional statistics on the effects of secondhand and sidestream smoke:
Secondhand Smoke | Effects of Secondhand Smoke
Secondhand Smoke: MedlinePlus
ACS :: Secondhand Smoke

If the allegations against our PVs are about second hand vapor then what makes you think the groups making such statements would simply agree with Casaa, Siegel, Salmon, Nitzkin, Rodu, or anyone else with out proof.

Keep in mind that we are talking about a 30 second video...There's not really much room to bother trying to "prove" that e-cigarettes do not produce smoke.

The groups manufacture their proof and have decades of experience in delivering that message to the public via every media format known to man.

I guess I'm confused because I thought an educational spot was to attract people who could benefit from the product or loved ones that can influence the smoker to a safer alternative while getting the message out to the general public. I didn't realize the same tired old comments about passive smoke that TICK smokers off would be repeated ad nauseum.

I'm sorry that there are some smokers still upset that there is so much data showing that secondhand smoke is dangerous. The point of this ad IS to educate and attract people who could benefit from smoke-free alternatives.

The data you cited was a listing of several hundred different studies showing various degreees of increased mortality rates. Granted many of them did not show a statistically signficant increase, but it looked to me like there was consistently an increase in the mortality rate of non-smokers.

If it makes you feel better, I'm perfectly willing to not use the statistic I cited above. I've repeated that it was simply the first stat I found dealing with mortality and the comedic payoff "Those are the lives that could be saved by switching to vapor" works in my opinion.

My bad...

We smokers gave an inch and lost miles of earned respectibility gleaned from living the American dream just because we smoked. All social life and PC went out the door. People became rude and chased children away from us. All of this because someone wants to get the masses to believe the smell of smoke kills our children, friends, coworkers, and anyone within 100 feet of our habit. I do not like to be portrayed as a murderer and most smokers don't either.

I don't like being portrayed as a murderer, but I think a lot more respectability was lost from the years of denying all the evidence that secondhand smoke is deadly.

You know what? I think I'll go with the Surgeon General on this one. http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/foreword.pdf

 

[ladyraj]

Thuliam, I have no idea why you mention the "adopting the stance of BT". BT actually does not dispute the SHS evidence and they cite the same references and links you offer. This fight is not about BP, BT, or any other alphabet group...it's about the choice to reduce harm via alternatives from smoking. (or so I thought). Perhaps you didn't read the part where I wrote one doesn't have to be a SHS denier to not adopt the SHS bandwagon route. (lest you jump on the SHV one as well).

I'm beginning to understand that intellectual nuances/semantics/personality variables are hampering my ability to to persuade you on any point we differ on. Perhaps, that is my deficit and lack the ability to articulate the finer points of a new campaign versus riding the coat-tails of existing, albeit successful, campaigns the media is saturated with.

Again, my working assumption was the group was seeking to do something different rather than the saturated market already in place. A 30 sec piece would seem to require an attention getter in such a short period of time. Something novel to get one's attention.

I'm not dispararging your valuable and on point offerings, or your energy put into the cause. I merely suggested not including SHS.

EDIT: This is an anlysis taken from the F2C website which was originally posted on Doc Siegel's blog regarding some interesting findings from the 2006 SG report...I offer the work as a point of interest:

http://freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=927

I apologize if I'm not clear via my writings.

That being said, since you have so many great ideas and are familiar with Doc Siegel's blog...there is man called David Goerlitz who has experience with camera work and wants to do something to aid this campaign. He was the "Winston Man" in yesteryear and testified in the tobacco trials.

If interested you can reach him at The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary or simply google his name. He is active with helping children remain smokefree and adults rights to choose harm reduction alternatives. He has a "recognition" factor as well.

Once again, I respect and honor your efforts, we just seem to disagree on a few points. If I am overstepping my bounds by writing any opinion to the board...I apologize, I just wanted to help in some way.

 

[Thulium]

Thuliam, I have no idea why you mention the "adopting the stance of BT". BT actually does not dispute the SHS evidence and they cite the same references and links you offer. This fight is not about BP, BT, or any other alphabet group...it's about the choice to reduce harm via alternatives from smoking. (or so I thought). Perhaps you didn't read the part where I wrote one doesn't have to be a SHS denier to not adopt the SHS bandwagon route. (lest you jump on the SHV one as well).

I think the problem is you and I are operating under separate sets of assumptions. This is MY deficit, really. By "adopting the stance of BT" I am not referring to any current campaign, but rather the reputation that BT has garnered of actively suppressing and denying evidence of the hazards of smoking.

What I seem to have missed is the evidence that SHS deniers are a large enough group to merit deference. I feel like you might as well be telling me that I shouldn't do something because it would offend neo-nazis or "Flat Earth" people.

If someone can't accept the words of the US Surgeon General who concluded that secondhand smoke causes premature death and health problems to children and adults who don't smoke, I'm not sure I'll be able to convince them of anything.

Please understand that I am not trying to advance any anti-smoking agenda. My intention was to restate a fact (really ANY fact will do) that is generally accepted (smoke is unhealthy) and then simply point out to the viewer that it doesn't apply to smoke-free alternatives.

I'm beginning to understand that intellectual nuances/semantics/personality variables are hampering my ability to to persuade you on any point we differ on. Perhaps, that is my deficit and lack the ability to articulate the finer points of a new campaign versus riding the coat-tails of existing, albeit successful, campaigns the media is saturated with.

You may be right, there seems to be a communications disconnect. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like you would rather the commercial be directly promoting the concept of harm reduction rather than risk offending the portion of the audience who doesn't believe that secondhand smoke is deadly?

Again, my working assumption was the group was seeking to do something different rather than the saturated market already in place. A 30 sec piece would seem to require an attention getter in such a short period of time. Something novel to get one's attention.

Ooh. Here we might have the real source of the problem. I think you are assuming that I am acting on behalf of the board of CASAA. This is not the case. This thread is my idea for a PSA that I personally would like to have produced for CASAA.

You don't think that a mash-up parody of the Verizon "The Network" commercials and the "Geico" Kash commercials is a novel way to get one's attention?

I'm not dispararging your valuable and on point offerings, or your energy put into the cause. I merely suggested not including SHS.

EDIT: This is an anlysis taken from the F2C website which was originally posted on Doc Siegel's blog regarding some interesting findings from the 2006 SG report...I offer the work as a point of interest:

Freedom To Choose - Just So You Know...

I apologize if I'm not clear via my writings.

It's my understanding that Dr. Seigel is in favor of indoor smoking bans because he does acknowledge the danger of secondhand smoke. Where the good doctor defers from some others is that he opposes OUTDOOR smoking bans. The quote I now have cited in the OP is from the Surgeon General's report concluding that SHS causes death and injury and that indoor smoking bans "fully protect" bystanders from those risks.

That being said, since you have so many great ideas and are familiar with Doc Siegel's blog...there is man called David Goerlitz who has experience with camera work and wants to do something to aid this campaign. He was the "Winston Man" in yesteryear and testified in the tobacco trials.

If interested you can reach him at The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary or simply google his name. He is active with helping children remain smokefree and adults rights to choose harm reduction alternatives. He has a "recognition" factor as well.

Once again, I respect and honor your efforts, we just seem to disagree on a few points. If I am overstepping my bounds by writing any opinion to the board...I apologize, I just wanted to help in some way.

I'm not sure we even really have a disagreement as much as a misunderstanding. I came up with this idea several days ago and just kinda liked it from an artistic standpoint, but I kept it to myself. However, when I learned of what has happened in New Jersey I was so...well...angry...that I decided to pull out this idea and focus my frustration on doing something to teach or reinforce the concept (if only in the subtlest way) that vapor is substantively different from smoke in basically every way that matters.

The intention for this ad is not to teach the viewer some random statistic about SHS, the intention is for them to hear "These are the lives you could be saving by switching to vapor." Its the punchline to a multi-layered joke for a reason.

If you are legitimately concerned about offending people by addressing SHS mortality, I'd certainly be open to other suggestions. This whole thing is subject to revision at any time and the current structure or dialog posted is not set in stone, nor is it anywhere close to the only way I'd support this...it's just the best I've got so far.

 

[ladyraj]

Ha ha! Yes I know how you feel with the anger and frustration at how legislators are going about mandating this or that all willy-nilly without reading the pros and cons in the bills they pass! HaHa! One has to laugh at these brazen tactics...otherwise we'd explode!

I gave you the link to my gathering of SHS findings in the 2006 report to demonstrate how those findings have been ignored or twisted beyond recognition. Keep in mind the wording of how "findings" attribute causality was changed specifically to make the anti-tobacco groups happy. In science and research one doesn't state that "the findings were SUGGESTIVE to infer a causal relationship". Yet...even a brief google reveals the SG's report has been quoted as saying things that were no where in the report.

Our problem may lie in what is perceived as fact. As a scientist, I know that facts based on suggestive theory are just that...guesstimates.

You have a creative mind and use resources available to you, while I question every source of fact as I was trained to do...even Doc Siegel's offerings. On the blog, we challenge him regularly and he seems to enjoy the exercise.

If you think I'm alone in this current thinking about how smokers are being treated...think again. If there are 46 million smokers who have family/friends that care for them (even if I count only one family member) the percentage of the population for a target audience jumps 92 million...almost a third of our entire American population. Only 75% of that population are adults (who can vape or smoke) So roughly...230 million adults in the US.

Again, I must ask...who is your target audience? Surely, not just the million or so vaporers who have already made the choice...

BTW, 30 seconds in a commercial is a long time (I did one for Prilosec OTC uttering the slogan "I take one pill a day and I'm good for 24 hours"). The catchy slogan is the important thing here...alot of people recall that phrase.

If your phrase involves SHS it could have the opposite effect. On this very forum people report hostile smoker's feelings regarding vaping. The smokers take on SHS is more hostile because of the underlying assumption that smokers are harming their fellow man.

I respect your choices, I merely wanted to caution you against the message underlying the words...there always is one.

I must admit I have the sense the forest is not seen because the frigging tree is blocking the view. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ladyraj]

Oops! "legitimately concerned"??? Is that versus illegitimate concern or an oral exercise in pursing my lips and blowing smoke up one's tailpipe? Do I need to be vetted before I express any concern as to IF it has merit? Or wouldn't I have to express the idea before one could decide if it is legitimate or not?

There is always a message behind the message.

 

[Thulium]

Its a bit unintentional, but I suppose my intended audience is my peers...and specifically fellow Oregonians, now that I think of it. Oregon started an indoor smoking ban from all public spaces based completely on protecting non-smokers from SHS. All the smokers I know are accostomed to this and don't consider themselves "murderers", but have accepted the fact that they are doing something that is unhealthy not just for themselves but for the people around them.

I enjoyed smoking (or at least the positive aspects of it) far too much want to quit for just myself...but I was feeling miserable knowing that I was exposing my daughter to toxic fumes to the point where I felt bad getting too close to her. That seriously sucks, and what I am liking best about switching to vapor is that I get all the things I liked about smoking, but this tastes WAY better and I can give my daughter a hug without fear of putting her at greater risk or even just having some of the nasty smell rub off.