Who’s really stupid?
February 28, 2005 · By Hugo Chesshire
The Ontario government has sponsored a new anti-smoking campaign on TV and the web. Quite simply, it labels smoking as “stupid.” All the adverts I have seen thus far have in and of themselves been pretty stupid, but the latest one really takes the cake.
We see a full bathtub with a toaster propped on the edge. Toast pops up and a man emerges from under the bathwater and begins to butter it. He looks towards the camera and says (more or less):
“Looks pretty stupid! Well, your chances of dying from something like making toast in the bath are 1 in 36,000, but if you’re a smoker, your chances of dying are 1 in 2. So what’s really stupid?”
Well, I hate to split hairs, but actually your chances of dying are 1 in 1 whether you smoke or not. Perhaps they meant “prematurely” and couldn’t find time to fit that word in, but perhaps we could have made time by cutting a second’s worth of “toaster on bathtub” footage. I suspect that it was omitted because “dying prematurely” has less impact than “dying”, and they decided to tell a little white lie.
Furthermore, the actual numbers involved definitely come under the label of “lies, damn lies and statistics.” Chances of dying from making toast in the bath are 1 in 36,000, you say? I suspect that nobody has surveyed a large group of people who make toast in the bath every day for years, so this figure probably means “chances of dying if you make toast in the bath as a one-off event.” Are your chances of dying from tobacco-related diseases 1 in 2 if you smoke one cigarette as a one-off event? This type of creative accounting makes Enron’s books look like a paragon of honesty.
And there’s the man walking around a forest during hunting season with antlers duct-taped to a helmet. “Looks stupid, huh? Well, did you know that only a few people die each year from hunting, while thousands die from smoking?” Well, my friend, did you know that the ratio of regular smokers to regular hunters is quite disparate? It’s hardly a decent basis for comparison.
Or the guy strapped to a lightning conductor. “Did you know the chances of being struck by lightning are far less than dying from smoking?” Were these statistics gathered from people who were just going about their business, or were they gathered from idiots who strap themselves to lightning rods in a thunderstorm? One expects that the likelihood of being struck for the latter group is rather higher and probably puts the likelihood of dying from smoking to shame!
To quote Patrick Warburton’s “David Puddy” from Seinfeld: “You know who’s stupid? You are. Stupid.”
Why is the stupid campaign so stupid? Is it because the ads present un-realistic and over exaggerated situations to make a point? It did make its point. In fact, I would argue that it has been quite effective (at least that is what the focus testing before and after this clever campaign has shown).
So let’s make this simple and keep the hair on our head, where it belongs, rather than splitting them and missing the point. An advertising campaign should be judged on the effectiveness of its message and how it is received by the intended audience (ethos, logos, and pathos). Of course it is stupid to make toast in the bathtub - so is the choice to start smoking. Was this message clear? Yes. Did it grab your attention? Yes. But were you the intended audience? No.
The stupid campaign is targeted to children and youth aged 11-17 (the age where the majority of people make the stupid choice to start smoking). It was focus tested and developed in consultation with Ontarians from this age group (a smart move, if you want your message to be effective). I think the commercials are clever even if some of the situations presented are a little extreme (who would stand out in the thunder storm with a lightning rod?). Plus, they are being broadcast were young people will see them (prime time television and movie theatres). Smart!
I hope that people are talking to their children about the hazards of smoking. Smoking is indeed hazardous. But not every child in Ontario will get this message from home. Different people raise their children differently, and when one person chooses to smoke, then it will affect us all some way or another.
However, this ad campaign was not designed to get people to talk to their kids about smoking. It was designed to get kids to talk to other kids about why smoking is stupid. Why, do you ask? Well, we know that young people are the greatest influence on other young people’s choice to smoke or not. In fact, young people are 4 times more influential than their parents in this regard. This campaign has done its job; more people are talking about the stupid choice of smoking, especially young people to each other. Smart!
The stupid campaign is not intended to be the Ontario government’s be all answer to the issue of smoking. It is only one component. All levels of government are working on this issue from multiple perspectives. For example, there are Health Canada initiatives to help people quit smoking (here is the link http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-se.....tvads.html). In these campaigns you will notice middle aged people with kids and other sick people from second hand smoke. These ads are targeted to people who have already made the stupid choice to smoke and may be looking for resources to help them quit smoking (i.e. quitting smoking is hard, but a good choice, and if you need help, then we will provide you with resources to make this positive change in your life). These ads also provide a rationale for wanting to ban smoking in public places. A good example of this policy is that the City of Ottawa banned smoking in all public places. People are still free to smoke (because it isn’t illegal) but they cannot do it to the detriment of others in their work environment or around our children. Smart!
The real question is whether a choice whose merits and demerits are purely subjective can be categorically labelled as “stupid.” Stupidity is subjective too.
Is that really the question? If the merits and demerits of smoking are purely subjective, then please, enlighten us with 5 of smoking’s merits. Can you? No, you cannot. Because the choice to smoke is “stupid”, no matter which word you use for it. Ask an 11 year old, they will tell you so too. This is the point.
The technical effects of smoking are objective. The value placed upon them is not. To value health more than smoking is a purely subjective judgement based upon purely subjective, individual and unquantifiable values, and is logically just as stupid as smoking, and logically both are stupid at the same time, and not, because stupidity is relative and subjective.
What you mean is that the choice to smoke seems stupid to you, and that’s fair enough - but why would this become official state policy? Would you like it if the state decreed your lifestyle choices officially “stupid” because they, unlike you, felt that the benefits did not outweigh the risks?
If the government of Ontario can encourage children not to smoke, given what we know about its “technical effects” then yes, I think that is ok. And if the most effective way to get the message to children about the “technical effects” of smoking is to call it “stupid”, then yes, I think it is OK. Governments are elected to make subjective choices. My work is finished here, this argument is “stupid”.
Well, Lyndon, if you really need somebody to make subjective choices for you that badly, might I suggest that you move back in with your parents? Or if they’re the permissive type, perhaps a nice religious cult might suit you. It is extremely arrogant and condescending of you to assume that the rest of the country shares your fear of personal responsibility and to advocate a government that would deprive people of free choice. It’s my suggestion that governments should not make subjective choices for us but rather to lay out a legal framework within which we can make our own subjective choices.
Excellent critiques to such a thoughtless, anal ad campaign against smoking.
It’s too bad - to the best of my knowledge - severe stupidity and pretentiousness doesn’t lead to premature death as often as smoking reguarly.
Yes! I myself think smoking is terrible and should be campaigned against, but I hate anti-smoking commercials, especially those exact ones you mentioned! Did you see that one where it’s a guy pouring cleaning chemicals into his cereal and he goes “Oh well; cigarettes have more chemicals in them, so I guess I’ll just drink straight up chlorine- less people have statistically died from drinking cleaning agents in their cereal than lung cancer- must be less harmful than smoking-” A smoker might develop lung cancer after like 50 years; this man will die in an hour!
Lay off, Lyndon Simmons! I’m within the age-range of that target audience you mentioned, and not me nor any of my friends enjoy watching these commercials or find them effective. If anti-smoking campaigners wanted to appeal to a youth audience, they should have made a commercial with Peter Griffin or Dave Chappelle in it; at least it wouldn’t be arrogant in assuming that Canadian advertisers know anything about how teenagers think these days. Great editorial, Mr. Chessire.