Designing and Implementing an Effective Tobacco Counter-Marketing Campaign 

Chapter 1 

Overview of Counter-


Marketing Programs


Counter-Marketing: An Art and a Science 

With the success of programs in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Oregon, and other states in the past decade, it’s 

clear that comprehensive tobacco control programs are a powerful tool for 

reducing tobacco use. As many studies have shown, an important piece of 

a comprehensive tobacco control program is a strong counter-marketing 

program (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 1999; Hopkins 

et al. 2001). Tobacco counter-marketing is defined as the use of commercial 

marketing tactics to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use. “Countermarketing attempts to counter protobacco influences and increase prohealth 

messages and influences throughout a state, region, or community” (U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS] 2000). 

Counter-marketing activities can play a role in increasing smoking cessation, 

reducing smokeless tobacco use, decreasing the likelihood that people will 

begin smoking cigarettes, and reducing nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. Counter-marketing messages can also substantially 

influence public support for tobacco control interventions and increase 

support for school and community efforts (USDHHS 2000). Countermarketing messages work best when they are tied to the activities of local 

programs throughout a state. 

In This Chapter


• Counter-Marketing: 

An Art and a Science 

• What We Are 

Countering 

• Qualities of a Good 

Counter-Marketing 

Program 

• The Power of 

Counter-Marketing 

Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 13 
What We Are Countering 

Tobacco counter-marketing programs play 

a vital role in countering the influential 

promotional activities of the tobacco industry, 

which spends billions of dollars a year on 

advertising and promotions. The following 

statistics underscore the importance and 

necessity of tobacco counter-marketing: 

■	

■	

■	

■	

■	

Total annual spending on cigarette 

marketing by the six major U.S. cigarette 

makers rose 16.2 percent from 1999 to 

2000, an increase from $8.24 billion to 

$9.57 billion, the highest figure ever 

reported to the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC 2002). 

In 1999, the five major smokeless 

tobacco companies in the United States 

spent $170.2 million on advertising and 

promotions, an all-time high (FTC 2001). 

The six major U.S. cigarette companies 

spent more than $949,000 on Internet 

advertising in 2000, according to the 

Federal Trade Commission (FTC 2002). 

In 2000, more than 80 percent of young 

people in the United States were 

reached an average of 17 times per 

person by magazine ads for “youth” 

brands of cigarettes (King and Siegel 

2001). (The study defined cigarette 

brands as “youth” brands if they were 

smoked by more than 5 percent of the 

smokers in the 8th, 10th, and 12th 

grades in 1998.) 

school students in the United States saw 

tobacco ads on the Internet (CDC 2001b). 

In 2000, about one-third of middle 

school students and one-fourth of high 

Qualities of a Good CounterMarketing Program 

Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco 

Control Programs (CDC 1999) identifies a 

number of elements crucial to a comprehensive tobacco control program; one of these 

elements is counter-marketing. Seven key 

characteristics apply to all successful countermarketing campaigns: 

1. 	 A counter-marketing program must be 

long term. The tobacco industry took 

decades to establish brand identity for its 

products and to normalize tobacco use as 

a part of our culture. Likewise, tobacco 

control efforts should be considered longterm commitments to addressing the 

problems associated with tobacco use, 

rather than short-term or episodic 

activities. If a state is developing a branded 

campaign, it should choose a brand that 

can stand the test of time and be refreshed 

as needed with brand extensions. Effective 

counter-marketing initiatives are intended 

to make important contributions today 

toward short-term goals, while also laying 

the groundwork for meeting long-term 

goals. 

2. 	 A comprehensive tobacco countermarketing program should consist of 

integrated, not isolated, components. 

Although they are explained separately in 

this manual, these components are most 

effective when they complement and 

14 Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 
Designing and Implementing an Effective Tobacco Counter-Marketing Campaign 

support one another. A comprehensive 

counter-marketing program must use a 

variety of available techniques and 

components at different times and in 

different combinations. 

3. 	 The counter-marketing program must be 

integrated into the larger tobacco control 

program. Just as counter-marketing 

components should be integrated, the 

counter-marketing program should 

complement the other elements of the 

tobacco control program, such as 

educational efforts, cessation initiatives, 

enforcement campaigns, and policy 

campaigns (including those related to 

secondhand tobacco smoke and price 

increases for tobacco products). 

Coordinating your counter-marketing 

efforts with local programs is a powerful 

way to extend their effect. In short, you 

need to tie the counter-marketing goals to 

the overall strategic goal for your tobacco 

control program. 

4. 	 A counter-marketing program must be 

culturally competent. No single countermarketing program will be effective for 

every segment of the population because 

tobacco use affects socioeconomic groups, 

age groups, racial/ethnic groups, and other 

specific populations in varying ways. 

Messages and strategies should be tailored 

as needed to be most effective among the 

campaign’s different target audiences. 

marketing program involves making


decisions about the overall direction of the 


program, its target audiences, creative


products, implementation, and evaluation.


Strategic planning is about setting priorities


and making sometimes difficult choices


about how program funding will be allo­


cated and how staffing will be organized.


These decisions should be based on how


these factors will contribute to the program’s


overall goals.


5.	 A counter-marketing program should be 

strategic. Successfully managing a counter6.	 A counter-marketing program should be 

evaluated. This process should begin with 

two questions: “What information do you 

or other key stakeholders want to know?” 

and “How do you obtain and use that 

information?” Evaluation isn’t merely a 

report that’s completed after all the work is 

finished. Evaluation provides a tobacco 

control program with continuous updates 

and insights on what is working, what is 

not, and what changes might need to be 

made to ensure that the program is progressing toward achieving its goals and objectives. 

7. 	 A counter-marketing program should be 

adequately funded. Tobacco advertising 

and promotion activities appear to both 

stimulate adult tobacco consumption and 

increase risk of youth initiation of tobacco 

use. Today’s average 14-year-old has been 

exposed to more than $20 billion in imagery, 

advertising, and promotions since age 6, 

creating a familiarity with tobacco products 

and an environment in which smoking is 

seen as glamorous, social, and normal 

(CDC 1999). In light of these ubiquitous 

Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 15 
and sustained messages promoting tobacco 

use, counter-marketing efforts of comparable intensity are needed. The Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention 

recommends that, at a mini-mum, states 

should allocate $1 to $3 per capita annually 

for a counter-marketing campaign that 

addresses all program goals in all major 

media markets in the state (CDC 1999). 

The Power of Counter-Marketing 

The California Tobacco Education Media 

Campaign, which began in the late 1980s, is 

one example of a successful countermarketing campaign (Independent Evaluation 

Consortium of The Gallup Organization et al. 

2001; Pierce et al. 1998). It uses hard-hitting 

earned media, grassroots marketing, and paid 

advertising (television, radio, billboards, 

transit, and print) to communicate the dangers 

of tobacco use and secondhand smoke and to 

counter protobacco messages throughout the 

state’s ethnically diverse communities. 

California’s campaign has demonstrated a 

strong correlation between its Tobacco 

Education Media Campaign program and 

decreased smoking prevalence rates even 

accounting for all other factors (e.g., increased 

excise tax): 

■	 A study found that the California 

antitobacco media campaign reduced 

sales of cigarettes by 232 million packs 

between the third quarter of 1990 and 

the fourth quarter of 1992. This 

reduction was independent of the 

decreases in consumption brought 

about by a tax increase (Hu et al. 1995). 

■	 A report from the University of 

California, San Diego, covering 1989 to 

1993 showed that the proportion of 

Californians who tried to quit smoking 

for more than one day rose significantly 

whenever the media campaign was in 

effect (Pierce et al. 1994). 

Another example of an effective countermarketing campaign is the Florida Pilot 

Program on Tobacco Control, which began in 

1998 (Bauer and Johnson 2001). Florida’s 

program is a comprehensive, youth-focused 

campaign that includes a youth-directed 

media campaign marketing the “truth” brand 

and slogan, youth and community activities 

organized as Students Working Against 

Tobacco (SWAT), school-based education and 

training, and retailer education and enforcement. From 1998 to 2000, youth tobacco use 

declined 40 percent among middle school 

students and 18 percent among high school 

students, and attitudes among students 

changed regarding deglamorizing tobacco use 

and tobacco industry manipulation, which 

were key campaign themes. Overall program 

results demonstrated that a comprehensive 

statewide program can be effective in 

preventing and reducing youth tobacco use 

(Bauer and Johnson 2001): 

■	 Current cigarette use dropped among 

Florida students, from 18.5 percent to 

11.1 percent of middle school students 

and from 27.4 percent to 22.6 percent 

of high school students. The primary 

campaign objective, to change attitudes 

about tobacco, was achieved. The 

16 Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 
Designing and Implementing an Effective Tobacco Counter-Marketing Campaign 

percentage of students committed to 

never smoking increased from 56.4 

percent to 69.3 percent of middle school 

students and from 31.9 percent to 43.1 

percent of high school students. The 

percentage of students currently 

experimenting with cigarettes declined 

from 21.4 percent to 16.2 percent of 

middle school students and from 32.8 

percent to 28.2 percent of high school 

students. The percentage of students 

experimenting with tobacco use who 

indicated they would not smoke again 

increased from 30.4 percent to 42.0 

percent of middle school students and 

44.4 percent to 51.0 percent of high 

school students (Bauer and Johnson 

2000). 

■	 Participants surveyed in October 1998 

and October 2000 were contacted again 

in February 2001 to determine their 

ability to recall specific antitobacco ads 

and to determine actual changes in 

smoking behavior. The results showed a 

strong correlation between confirmed 

awareness of the “truth” advertising 

campaign and reduced likelihood of 

beginning to use cigarettes and increased 

likelihood of quitting (Sly et al. 2001). 

Along with the California and Florida 

campaigns, successful counter-marketing 

programs have been implemented in several 

other states, including Arizona, Massachusetts, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oregon. In all 

these states, reductions in smoking consumption or prevalence or both have been attributed to a combination of tobacco control 

elements, including strong tobacco countermarketing campaign (CDC 1999; CDC 2003). 

The statistics from various state efforts indicate that it is possible to make a significant 

impact with counter-marketing efforts, but it 

requires hard work and ongoing commitment 

to the program. In addition, although many 

parts of a campaign can be measured and 

tested, successful counter-marketing remains 

an art as much as a science. Making the right 

choices in developing an effective countermarketing program is often complicated and 

requires constant strategic focus, coupled with 

flexibility when needed. This manual presents 

many of the lessons, subtleties, insights, and 

experiences of those who have learned firsthand how to create a successful campaign. 

Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 17 
Bibliography 

American Heart Association. Comments on Cigarette and Smokeless Tobacco Reports: Request for Public 

Comments. Federal Register 2001;66. Available at: 

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/tobaccocomments2/williamsbrian.htm. Accessed July 2, 2002. 

Bauer UE, Johnson TM. Assessing the Impact of Florida’s Pilot Program on Tobacco Control, 1998–2000: A 

Comprehensive Analysis of Data from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey. Vol. 3, Report 2. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Department of Health, 2001. 

Bauer UE, Johnson TM. Changes in youth cigarette use and intentions: following implementation of a tobacco 

control program. Findings from the Florida Youth Tobacco Survey, 1998–2000. Journal of the American Medical 

Association 2000;284:723–8. 

Biener L. Adult and youth response to the Massachusetts anti-tobacco television campaign. Journal of Public 

Health Management and Practice 2000;6:40–4. 

Biener L, et al. Adults’ response to Massachusetts anti-tobacco television advertisements: impact of viewer and 

ad characteristics. Tobacco Control 2000;9:401–7. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs— 

August 1999. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and 

Health, August 1999. Reprinted with corrections. 

CDC. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

2001a;50(40);869–73. 

CDC. State Programs in Action. Exemplary Work to Prevent Chronic Disease and Promote Health. Atlanta, GA: 

USDHHS, CDC, 2003. 

CDC. Youth tobacco surveillance—United States, 2000. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 

2001b;50(SS-4):1–84. 

Federal Trade Commission. Cigarette Report for 2000; http://www.ftc.gov/os/2002/05/2002cigrpt.pdf, 2002. 

Accessed April 24, 2003. 

FTC. Report to Congress for the Years 1998 and 1999 Pursuant to the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health 

Education Act of 1986; 2001. http://www.ftc.gov/reports/tobacco/smokeless98_99.htm. Accessed July 19, 2002. 

18 Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 
Designing and Implementing an Effective Tobacco Counter-Marketing Campaign 

Hopkins DP, Fielding JE, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, editors. The guide to community 

preventive services, tobacco use prevention and control: reviews, recommendations, and expert commentary. 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine Supplement, February 2001;20(2S). 

Hu T, et al. Reducing cigarette consumption in California: tobacco taxes vs. an anti-smoking media campaign. 

American Journal of Public Health 1995;85:1218–22. 

Independent Evaluation Consortium of The Gallup Organization, et al. Interim Report: Independent 

Evaluation of the California Tobacco Control Prevention and Education Program: Wave 2 Data, 1998; Wave 1 & 

Wave 2 Data Comparisons, 1996–1998. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Health Services, Tobacco 

Control Section, 2001. 

King C, Siegel M. The master settlement agreement with the tobacco industry and cigarette advertising in 

magazines. New England Journal of Medicine 2001;345:504–11. 

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/345/7/504. Accessed July 3, 2002. 

Norton GD, Hamilton W. Sixth Annual Report: Independent Evaluation of the Massachusetts Tobacco Control 

Program, January 1994 to June 1999. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Cambridge, 

MA: Abt Associates, Inc., 2001. 

Pierce JP, et al. Tobacco Control in California: Who’s Winning the War? An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control 

Program, 1989–1996. La Jolla, CA: University of California, San Diego, 1998. 

Pierce JP, et al. Tobacco Use in California: An Evaluation of the Tobacco Control Program, 1989–1993. La Jolla, 

CA: University of California, San Diego, 1994. 

Sly DF, et al. Florida Anti-Tobacco Media Evaluation (FAME) Follow-up Report. Tallahassee, FL: Florida 

Department of Health, Florida Tobacco Pilot Program, University of Miami Tobacco Research and Evaluation 

Coordinating Center, 2001. 

Sly DF, et al. Florida Anti-Tobacco Media Evaluation 30th Month Report: “truth’s” Influence on the Rise and 

Other Considerations. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, Center for the Study of Population, 2000. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General. 

Atlanta, GA: USDHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease 

Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2000. 

Chapter 1: Overview of Counter-Marketing Programs 19