More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette!
An Unbelievable Slogan!

For many centuries tobacco mass-produced cigarette has been identified with the New World of the United States as the virtual international symbol of American modernity. However, the last half of the twentieth century saw the U.S. tobacco industry come under pressure from the demonstrated health hazards of smoking and the subsequent steady decline in smoking in the United States. In response, the industry aggressively pursued expanding their markets, and initiated major new advertising campaign targeted to appease the rising public anxiety about the health risks of cigarette smoking. One of the most used strategies in the early 1950s, is to use the doctor’s image to assure the consumer that their respective brands were safe. For the purpose of a rhetoric analysis I picked an ad about “Camels cigarette “made by The RJ REYNOLDS Tobacco Company. In 1946 this company launched a campaign with a slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette“. The ad I picked has this slogan centered in bold capital letters, on top of it a big picture of a middle-aged doctor in bed wearing his pajamas. He appears to be waking up in the middle of the night to answer an emergency phone call .On top of the night stand next to him is his doctor’s black bag showing that he was ready for any emergency .Above that picture to the right an expression of the doctor in bold saying: I’ll be right over “and to the right of that a text that start in bold “24 hours a day your doctor is on duty …guarding health, protecting and prolonging life." Underneath the main slogan there is two part , to the left a text that talks about a survey that was conducted on doctors proving that most doctors smoke Camels, and next to it a picture of a pack of Camels cigarette that features Turkish and domestic blend . The second part to the right is a picture of a beautiful blond smiling with a cigarette on her hand and a form of a T on top of her mouth and a text titled “THE ‘T-ZONE’ TEST WILL TELL YOU " claiming : The T-Zone test proves that Camels cigarettes have a great taste and are great for throat comfort. My goal here is to Identify through a rhetorical analysis how this ad was used to influence people using rhetorical appeals (ethos, logos, or pathos). My intention is to explain how the ad manipulated the audience emotions (pathos), convinced the audience about how credible, honest, and ethical the camels brand is (ethos), and how by offering original data and evidence based on logic (Logos) the ad was able to convince its audience .Overall I think this ad was effective on using these appeals at that time but If we try to use it nowadays it won’t fulfil them. The reason is that the audience is more aware of the affect and danger cigarette present to our health so using them now will be inappropriate.
Whenever we read an argument we should ask ourselves: Is this persuasive? And if so, to whom? How is it trying to persuade readers? There are three primary modes of appeal that people can use to persuade an audience. We can make a rhetorical appeal by trying to manipulate someone's emotions (pathos), convincing someone we are a credible, honest, and ethical source (ethos), or by offering original data or convincing evidence (logos). These appeals are intrinsic to all arguments or assertions, and in many cases an effective argument uses all of them. This ad was able to use all of them and my intension here is to explain how that was done effectively.
First Ethos means the credibility of the person making the argument—or in other words, persuading with a person's good reputation or trustworthiness, it represent the convincing character or credibility of the speaker. Credibility of the speaker means expertise, bias, trustworthiness and accuracy of the character. This ad used a high moral character “the Doctor” to demonstrate trustworthiness and credibility. The doctor is also used as an expert in health, he is 1decribed as a reliable person in “I’ll be right over! …24 hours a day your doctor is on duty …guarding health …prolonging life.” The doctor is also presented as a hero, asking for "no special credit" - "When there's a job to do, he does it." His sacrifice makes him seem more appealing and trustworthy. In this ad also the doctor’s credibility is showing on him being a smart person that don’t smoke in bed.
The ad was clearly successful and probably affective on appealing to ethos of the audience around that period of time, but if we try to use it nowadays it won’t be affective at all. The reason is that doctor’s credibility has changed. Doctors are viewed not very trustworthy anymore. With all the crisis stories of the past doctors have gained a negative image of a business person. Doctors are viewed now “commercially motivated”, exploiting the fee for health service, and insurance policies to foist unnecessary and excessive health service taking advantage of the system. So using the appeal of ethos is not going to be affective like it was in the past. Second Pathos is an appeal to emotions—or in other words, persuading with emotion. Emotional appeal is the part of a communication that creates or evokes audience feelings. When using this appeal in ads the goal is to get response from the audience in order to influence their particular attitude toward the ad. This ad used the feeling of safety when dealing with doctors. The attitude suggested in the ad is to trust the doctor’s judgment because he represent a health guardian that help prolonged our life. The ad used also the feeling of being concern, the attitude suggested by the ad is that because of the seriousness of this health matter we should be making the right choice on what to smoke. The emotion of being happy and pleased is also used in the ad on the picture of the lady smiling while smoking, suggesting that when we smoke camel we will feel that way. The ad also wanted to use the notion that because of the experience of many, many millions of smokers camels will suit everybody’s T-ZONE like a T, which means they will be pleased with the taste.
It is clear that the ad was successful again to affect the audience by appealing to emotions. However nowadays there is no way people will fall into that rhetoric. People’s emotional responses to any event are rooted in their past experience the same with all other events in life. Smoking has become an event that is familiar to everyone, people are so informed about it. We all know somebody that smokes and/or somebody that got sick and maybe died from smoking .So this rhetoric has no effect on us nowadays , it actually ignite a feeling of angry and insulted if we hear it somewhere . This ad will have no appeal to pathos nowadays so using it is not going to be affective like it was in the past.
Third Logos is an appeal to our abilities to use logic and reasoning—or in other words, persuading with logic. This appeal involves the presentation of the evidence. Evidence in a form of facts, figures and expert testimony or stories given in support of a position. In this ad the main logical message this ad is caring is that if the doctor, with all of his expertise, chose to smoke a particular brand, then it must be safe. The ad also used Factual data or statistics stating that according to recent nationwide survey of 113,597 doctors prefer to smoke Camels cigarette. To appeal to logos also the ad used the definition of the “T-Zone” as our own laboratory for cigarette, referring to scientific laboratory that uses only logic in their discoveries. The Last logical message in the ad is about the brand name. In the picture of the pack of cigarette it says that Camel’s brand is a blend of Turkish and domestic cigarette and it is a costlier tobacco and logically that means it is made of a good quality. As the first two appeals this ads was successful using the appeal of logos, it made it seem smart and logical to smoke camels instead of other cigarette at the time. When it comes to using the same argument nowadays it is not arguable that people will reject it since they know more about the danger of smoking, people know that whatever brand of cigarette we smoke they all kill you!
In conclusion I will say that after exploring the ad’s goals, and the techniques used to persuade the audience by appealing to ethos pathos and logos I think the ad was successful and effective. The examination of this ad also proves that the use of the three aspect of appeal can be very persuasive. My role here is not to say whether or not I agree with the ad‘s argument but instead whether or not the approach used was successful, and I think the approach was successful. However I want to point out that using the same approach to make the same argument nowadays won’t work because the audience is much better informed and science has proven that the argument is not valid anymore.