By Robert Goldrich
Readers of this column over the years know that we are unabashed fans of much of the creative that has gone into anti-smoking ad campaigns. Public service messages out of such states as California, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Arizona have scored consistently in our “The Best Work You May Never See” gallery. But our admiration goes beyond the creative mettle of these spots. The fact is that these efforts underscore the power of advertising to tackle issues of importance and to make a positive difference in our society.
Several studies have reported reduced rates of smoking, particularly among teens and young people, due in part to relevant ad campaigns. On a national level, the work being done by Crispin Porter+Bogusky, Miami, and Arnold Worldwide, Boston, on behalf of the American Legacy Foundation has also struck a responsive chord, helping people to kick the tobacco habit or not start smoking to begin with.
So it’s with more than a casual interest that we’ve been keeping tabs on the government’s racketeering case against Big Tobacco, alleging a 50-year industry conspiracy to mislead the public with what the Justice Department describes as “half truths, deceptions and lies that continue to this day.” This “newest” litigation dates back to the Clinton Administration.
A Justice Department lawyer said the government has proven that major tobacco companies lied about the risks of smoking and of secondhand smoke, as well as tobacco’s addictive powers; manipulated nicotine levels to hook smokers; deceptively promoted low-tar or “light” cigarettes; reneged on promises to sponsor independent research; and suppressed evidence that would have undermined Big Tobacco’s public-relations stands and defenses in court.
This made it all the more shocking when government legal counsel in its closing argument drastically cut its major financial demand on Big Tobacco–from $130 billion to $10 billion. The reason for this abrupt change at the tail end of an eight-and-a-half-month trial is subject to conjecture. However, a prominent school of thought is that political interference is to blame. The Los Angeles Times cited an informed, albeit anonymous, source who said the dramatic shift was “forced on the tobacco team by higher level, politically appointed officials of the Justice Department.”
With the changeover from the Clinton to the Bush administration, there had been initial speculation that the government would drop the case altogether. Nonetheless, the litigation continued, with more money and resources being put into the trial.
But now with the latest turn of events, there’s serious doubt as to the determination of the Bush administration to make Big Tobacco pay for its offenses. The long-held plan was to seek $130 billion to be paid out over 25 years and to be put toward a program that would help every smoker who wanted to quit.
Some of this money, if a verdict came down in favor of the government, would have presumably gone towards ad/marketing campaigns to raise public awareness of the broad-based smoking cessation program. Yet this situation transcends potential funding being lost for agency creative. What’s truly being lost is the chance for appropriate restitution in the form of funding that will go towards helping victims and preventing many others from becoming victims. Alas, it seems that the latest turn of events seems more concerned with protecting tobacco companies instead.Google Opens Its Defense In Antitrust Case Alleging Monopoly Over Online Ad Technology
Google opened its defense against allegations that it holds an illegal monopoly on online advertising technology Friday with witness testimony saying the industry is vastly more complex and competitive than portrayed by the federal government.
"The industry has been exceptionally fluid over the last 18 years," said Scott Sheffer, a vice president for global partnerships at Google, the company's first witness at its antitrust trial in federal court in Alexandria.
The Justice Department and a coalition of states contend that Google built and maintained an illegal monopoly over the technology that facilitates the buying and selling of online ads seen by consumers.
Google counters that the government's case improperly focuses on a narrow type of online ads — essentially the rectangular ones that appear on the top and on the right-hand side of a webpage. In its opening statement, Google's lawyers said the Supreme Court has warned judges against taking action when dealing with rapidly emerging technology like what Sheffer described because of the risk of error or unintended consequences.
Google says defining the market so narrowly ignores the competition it faces from social media companies, Amazon, streaming TV providers and others who offer advertisers the means to reach online consumers.
Justice Department lawyers called witnesses to testify for two weeks before resting their case Friday afternoon, detailing the ways that automated ad exchanges conduct auctions in a matter of milliseconds to determine which ads are placed in front of which consumers and how much they cost.
The department contends the auctions are finessed in subtle ways that benefit Google to the exclusion of would-be competitors and in ways that prevent... Read More