INTRODUCTION

Marketing of Non- Tobacco Products

Publicly the tobacco companies have always maintained that they do not target youth, but the
market logic of selling to teenagers is overpowering - teenagers are the key battleground for
the tobacco companies and for the industry as a whole. Their response has been that peer
pressure is the most important aspect in children smoking. But internal documents sharply
contradict this, by showing that they set out to aggressively advertise to youth, and even
manipulate peer pressure to make people smoke their brand. If the last ten years have taught us
anything, it is that the industry is dominated by the companies who respond most to the needs of
younger smokers. The tobacco companies failure to live up to the ethical norms is most notable in
their duty to do no harm. Approximately one-third of the worlds adult population smokes cigarettes.
Of this group of over a billion people, half will die prematurely as a result of smoking.11 If tobacco
marketing is effective, as research suggests it is, it is doing considerable harm by influencing
consumers to adopt a deadly habit. Furthermore, targeting specific consumer groups, which is crucial
to most marketing campaigns, places a burden on the members of these groups when the product
being offered is dangerous. Because consumers are defenseless in controlling the barrage of messages
they are faced with, and to some extent the effect that these messages have, this burden can be quite
heavy. Tobacco marketers also do not seem to be fostering much trust in the marketing system, as
allegations of deception still abound regarding their advertising. In other words, one would not
consider doing harm to others or acting dishonestly as worthy of a universal law. Tobacco marketers
unfortunately fail to achieve the aforementioned standards on all accounts and can therefore be
deemed unethical.
Every day in the United States, the tobacco industry spends almost $42 million on advertisements and
promotions, and between 2002 and 2003 the industry increased its spending by $2.7 billion.13
Obviously, the industry is dedicating such astronomical amounts of money to marketing for a reason
its effectiveness. This is evidenced by the fact that 80,000 to 100,000 children start smoking each
day14 and that 34% of those do so as a result of tobacco company promotional activities.15 Tobacco
marketing has become such a business that in 1996, Philip Morris, the world s largest cigarette
company, ranked ninth on the list of the worlds largest advertisers, spending more than $3 billion.16
A recent study conducted by the World Health Organization proved that the efforts of companies such
as Philip Morris have not gone unsuccessful, as 15 billion cigarettes are sold each day.17 A survey a
few years ago found that nearly 80% of American advertising executives from top agencies believed
cigarette advertising does make smoking more appealing or socially acceptable to children. Through
advertising, tobacco firms try to link smoking with athletic prowess, sexual attractiveness, success,
adult sophistication, adventure and self-fulfillment.18 One unique aspect of tobacco marketing is that
once the initial sale is made (i.e.: a consumer experiments with smoking), there is little need to reach
that same consumer again due to the highly addictive nature of tobacco products. The previous is
evidenced by the fact that half the people who start smoking in adolescent years continue to do so for
15 to 20 years.19 The marketing of tobacco companies is largely responsible for such staggering
statistics.
Marketing Aimed at Children
Despite the restrictions that are in place to limit Big Tobacco s ability to lure children and teens,
tobacco marketing still asserts a strong influence on these market groups. Whether tobacco companies
are purposely targeting young smokers or are inadvertently asserting their influence, the fact remains
that tobacco marketing is affecting the youth population. Because of the health risks associated with
smoking as well as the restrictions imposed by the government, tobacco companies primarily rely on
creating a brand image to attract young consumers. On its Web site, tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds
describes its Camel brand as: An authentic original, Camel is a brand with a rich heritage and one that

also keeps up with the times. Camels combination of a classic nature and contemporary flair
reinforce the brands position as a flavorful cigarette with a rich heritage, a colorful personality and
irreverent sense of humor.22 This brand personality is consistent with a strategy of attracting youth to
cigarettes by positioning them as an initiation into adulthood. Cigarette manufacturers have long been
aware of the fact that the key to attracting youth is to show cigarettes as among the illicit pleasures of
drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and having sex. Coincidentally, these are the same traits that
would best describe Joe Camels suave appearance. Further proof of Camel s strategy of targeting
teenagers has been documented in tobacco industry internal letters. To Ensure Increased and Longerterm Growth for the Camel Filter, the Brand Must Increase Its Share Penetration Among the 14-24
Age Group Which Have a New Set of More Liberal Values and Which Represent Tomorrow s
Cigarette Business.23 Aiming tobacco advertising at children places a burden on them because if they
are influenced by the advertising, they will likely be drawn toward a highly addictive and deadly
product.

What is known - key facts about marketing to children

Cigarette advertising reaches children as young as three. In one study, six year olds were
as familiar with Joe Camel as Mickey Mouse. Other studies have found that Joe Camel
appeals more to kids than adults.
Children were most aware of the cigarette brands that are most frequently associated with
sponsored sporting events on TV.
Nine year old children are receiving the positive message from cigarette advertisements at
the age when they are most likely to try their first cigarette.
The most commonly remembered brands by 11 year olds are the most heavily advertised.
In one study, a third of the 10- and 11-year-olds and more than half of the secondary
school children were able to name cigarette brands and sponsored sports.
Advertising campaigns targeted at older teenagers and young adults are likely to present
qualities which younger teenagers find attractive.
Teenagers consume the cigarettes that most dominate sports sponsorship.
The great fallacy promoted by the industry is that by avoiding marketing that is childish, they
are somehow avoiding an appeal to children. In fact, advertising to children and teenagers
works precisely because it identifies smoking with adulthood. The teenage years are a time of
great aspiration and insecurity, smoking can become a badge or signifier of certain positive
values - these are remorselessly nurtured by tobacco industry marketing.

The Lies
Big tobacco has increased its revenues and consumer-base through the use of highly deceptive and
misleading marketing campaigns. While they have not outwardly lied in every instance, the industry
has time and time again construed truths into self-fulfilling ends. In an attempt to gain a positive
public image, a tobacco company once gave $125 thousand worth of food to a charity, according to
an estimate by the Wall 5
Street Journal. Then, they spent well over $21 million telling people about it.24 Additionally, In
1997, a tobacco CEO said that if it was proven to his satisfaction that cigarettes cause cancer, he d
probably shut (the company) down immediately to get a better hold on things. Their Web site now
admits that cigarettes cause cancer, but theyre still open for business.25 Acts such as these highlight
the very prevalent actions by these companies to cloud consumers minds with deceitful information
and then act in ways that satisfy only their bottom line. In a seven-year racketeering lawsuit against
the tobacco industry, which ended on August 17, 2006, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler imposed a

requirement for tobacco companies to make corrective statements concerning their products. In
accordance to her ruling, the defendants must discontinue the use of the terms, low tar, light,
ultra light, mild, and natural in regards to any of their products in the absence of there being any
significant health benefits associated with them.26 Judge Kessler went on to say about tobacco
companies that, They distorted the truth about low tar and light cigarettes so as to discourage
smokers from quitting.They suppressed research. They destroyed documents. They manipulated the
use of nicotine so as to increase and perpetuate addiction. While Kessler s ruling is a step toward
curbing tobacco marketing, it is almost fact that Big Tobacco will continue with its deceitful marketing
tactics, its manipulation of truths, and its outward lies to the public.

Ethical Justification for the Marketing of Non- Tobacco Products

One central goal of a companys marketing mix is to attain high levels of customer satisfaction. If
satisfied, these customers are likely to become loyal and drive the firm s profits. On the contrary, a
firm unable to keep customers satisfied will in turn suffer the economic consequences. For example,
attracting new customers costs significantly more than retaining existing customers. Therefore, a good
marketing campaign may result in not only satisfied customers, but higher profits for the firm and
shareholders as well. In this way marketing achieves a mutually beneficial relationship between a firm
and its customers and fulfills its duty of doing no harm.
The marketing of tobacco products is different from other products for many reasons. One of the most
important differences is the fact that dissatisfied customers of tobacco companies may not be able to
stop buying the product due to the addictive nature of cigarettes. It is estimated that over 90% of
attempts to quit smoking fail in the first year. If consumers are buying products that they do not want
to, the goal of marketing is lost and the tobacco companies are profiting from the suffering of others.

The ethical dimensions of marketing practice can be evaluated based on three main
components: the intent of the action, the means or methods adopted by which the
practice is implemented, and the end or consequences of the strategy or tactic (Laczniak
& Murphy, 2006, p.161). The intention refers to what marketers want to happen, the
means refers to how they carry out the action, and the consequences refer to what actually
happens. These components are portrayed in the conventional marketing ethics
frameworks known as virtue ethics (motives), deontology (means), and utilitarianism
(ends). By analysing Indonesian tobacco marketing practice against these frameworks
separately, this paper can provide an insight how the current practice might be perceived.
This approach hopefully can inspire tobacco manufacturers or regulators to focus not
only on the outcomes but also the process of how they make a decision.

Company profile / background.

Philip Morris is one of the worlds leading tobacco companies with its different products
sold in worldwide. Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) (NYSE: PM) is an American
global cigarette and tobacco company, with products sold in over 200 countries with
15.6% of the international cigarette market outside the United States. The most
recognized and best selling product of the company is Marlboro. The company states its
history is traced to Mr. Philip Morriss 1847 opening of a single shop on Londons Bond
Street which sold tobacco and cigarettes. The current Operations Center of the company
is located in Lausanne, Switzerland, it owns 7 of the top 15 tobacco brands in the world.
Philip Morris markets its brands both under premium and discount tobacco brand
names. Philip Morris has a long story to tell with its more than160 years in the tobacco
industry. Because tobacco, the main constituent of cigarettes, is the single greatest cause
of preventable death globally and is addictive, the company's operations (and its
competitors'are highly controversial and are increasingly the subject of litigation and
restrictive legislation from governments concerned about the health impacts of its
products.

the ethical issues in the organization:

PHILIP MORRIS AND TARGETING KIDS
Philip Morris Marlboro brand is the most popular brand among kids, accounting for 60
percent of the underage market (another Philip Morris brand, Parliament, is number
four).1 That means that roughly 2,000 kids become regular Marlboro smokers every day,
with more than 600 of them likely to die prematurely because of their smoking.2 To look
at it another way, if current trends continue roughly five million kids alive today will die
from smoking -- and about three million of them will have started their smoking habit
with Marlboro cigarettes.
For years, Philip Morris USA has profited greatly from the sales of their most popular
cigarette, the Marlboro. The social image of smoking a cigarette varies greatly across the
world but the most common depiction is that of coolness. For decades, smoking a
cigarette has been synonymous with the It factor. As portrayed in television and print
media around the world, only those who wish to be of a certain social caliber smoke
cigarettes and if you dont, you should soon. Everyone wanted the it factor and the idea

spread quickly. Unfortunately, cigarettes continue to be the leading cause of preventable

illness and death. Cigarettes are filled with nicotine, which acts like a poison to the
human body. The tobacco industry has used corporate social responsibility tactics to
improve its corporate image with the public, press, and regulators who increasingly have
grown to view it as a merchant of death. Regardless of their efforts, one fact remains the
same: the tobacco industrys products are lethal when used as directed, and no amount of
corporate social responsibility activity can compete with that ethical corporate
responsibility.
In this research paper, we will discuss what Philip Morris USA is doing, as a brand, to
warn consumers of the danger of their products while continuing to maintain their
business and gain. We will also briefly analyze whether or not these tactics are suitable
for todays society and whether they are being carried through effectively and to an
honorable extent.
The U.S. cigarette companies spend more than $5.6 billion to promote their cigarettes
each year.4 Philip Morris, which controls almost 50 percent of the total U.S. Cigarette
market, is responsible for the lions share of that spending. Marlboro is the most heavily
advertised brand in USA. Philip Morris continues to advertise heavily in magazines with
large youth audiences, although it could easily reach adult smokers through ads in
publications with far fewer non-adult readers. Philip Morris also opposes measures that
would make it much harder for kids to obtain cigarettes but not significantly
inconvenience any adult smokers -- such as restricting vending machines to adult-only
locations, permanently banning sales of single cigarettes or kiddie packs (cigarette
packs of fewer than 20 cigarettes), requiring that cigarette packs be placed behind sales
counters, or prohibiting cigarette sales by mail or over the Internet.

What public said Philip Morris

We don't want kids to smoke. We're intensifying our efforts that we started a number of
yearsago by launching this new smoking-intervention initiative, starting with these ads.
What Researcheer Say In public Marketing to Kids
Marlboro's phenomenal growth rate in the past has been attributable in large part to our
high market penetration among young smokers . . .15 to 19 years old . . . my own data,
which includes younger teenagers, shows even higher Marlboro market penetration
among 15-17- year-olds. Marlboros growth, continue growth among new, young
smokers While Marlboro continues to attract increasing shares of young smokers,
expecteddeclines in the number of young people restrict future volume gains from this
source.Because of our high share of the market among the youngest smokers, Philip
Morris will suffer more than the other companies from the decline in the number of
teenage smokers.

What reporter said about Philip Morris

The success of Marlboro Red during its most rapid growth period was because it
became the brand of choice among teenagers who then stuck with it as they grew older.
Young Smokers: Prevalence, Trends, Implications, and Related Demographic Trends,

Who are the primary stakeholders?

The Stakeholders of Philip Morris USA Inc.
Philip Morris has several stakeholders both internal and external that the organization
needs to be aware of when doing business. Examples of the internal stakeholders of
Philip Morris are employees, shareholders and suppliers whereas customers,
communities, governments, society, and the media are examples of external stakeholders
of the organization. Furthermore, Freeman (2010: 24) has divided stakeholder into two
groups called primary stakeholders and secondary stakeholders these two groups
should be understood as the words primary and secondary indicate. Primary
stakeholders are those who the business is directly concerned with at some level:
employees, suppliers, financiers, com-munities, and customers. When examining the
figure Creating Value for Stakeholders (Appendix E), the primary stakeholders are
depicted in the inner circle closest to the firm. The secondary stakeholders are those who
at a minimum affect the primary stakeholders such as government, media, special interest
groups, consumer advocate groups, and competitors (Appendix E). The secondary
stakeholders are those placed in the outer ring in the figure (Appendix E). For managers it
is important to take the sec-ondary stakeholder into consideration as well as the primary
stakeholders as Freeman (2010) argues that value should be created for any individual or
group who is affected or can affect by the business organi-zation (Freeman 2010: 26).
Philip Morris believes that identifying and engaging with its different stakeholder groups
can help the business understand the wants and needs of its stakeholders. Furthermore,
Philip Morris will get a chance to realize which issues are relevant for its particular
stakeholder groups and then find the best solutions to resolve them. By identifying
possible issues Philip Morris has the opportunity to pay regard to them when making
business decisions (Philip Morris 2012c). We have an impact on or can be im-pacted by
stakeholders from shareholders to tobacco growers, trade partners and public health
organi-zations. Likewise, our business actions can affect or be affected by those in
government and the regula-tory sector, as well as the regions and towns where we live,
work and do business. (Philip Morris USA 2011c). From the quote it can be concluded
that Philip Morris is affected by its stakeholders opinions and that it has recognized the
fact that it has an impact on its stakeholders as well.
In the following the primary stakeholders of Philip Morris will be analyzed with the idea
that business can be understood as a set of relationships among groups which have a
stake in the activities that make up the business (Freeman 2010: 24) and that knowing
these relationships will help understand how a business works. The stake of the

employees at Philip Morris is their jobs and thereby also their source of income.
Employees who have worked for a long time in the business will be skilled for exactly
their job at Philip Morris hence; it might be difficult to find a similar job. In return for
their work efforts they expect security, benefits, payment and fulfilling employment by
Philip Morris (Freeman 2010: 25). Phil-ip Morris has stated on its website that in 2010
the average time of service amongst its employees were eighteen years and that
furthermore, are employees rewarded with benefits and the opportunity to attend
leadership programs (Philip Morris USA 2012g).
The customers and suppliers of Philip Morris exchange resources for the products and
services of the firm, and in return receive the benefits of the products and services
(Freeman 2010: 25). For Philip Morris it is important to have suppliers who are
committed to making the business better and therefore, Philip Morris is cooperating with
several different suppliers to get new ideas among other things (Philip Morris USA
2011h).
The shareholders, or financiers as they are called by Freeman (2010: 24), of Philip Morris
are expecting to get some financial return as they have invested money in the
organization in the form of bonds, stocks etc. and thereby they have a financial stake in
the organization (Freeman 2010: 24). Finally, the communities in which Philip Morris
operates need to be taken into consideration as communities allow the organization to
build establishments, and in return the communities will benefit from Philip Morris both
on the economic field in the form of taxes and dues, but also in the form of social
donations. Estab-lishing a business in a welcoming community makes it easier to create
value for its stakeholder groups as the atmosphere around the business will be more
positive. It is expected by businesses organizations to be good corporate citizens and a
business should never bring a community into contact with any kind of risky behavior for
example in the form of environmental impacts et cetera (Freeman 2010: 25).
One of the secondary stakeholders of Philip Morris is the media, which is also as an
external stakehold-er. As a tobacco company operating under strict restrictions, the media
is important for Philip Morris as media coverage can influence its market position and the
brand name. Getting negative press coverage can be harmful to the brand name whereas
positive media coverage, for example portraying Philip Mor-ris as a social responsible
business, can help create a positive reputation around the tobacco company and its brand
name. However, it can be argued that bad press coverage is better than no press coverage,
but that discussion will not be entered as it is outside the scope of this report. Having a
positive reputa-tion around the business may in the long run lead to attracting new
customers or investors which in the end will result in profit for the shareholders. Philip
Morris communicates with investors, media, elect-ed officials, community leaders,
public health professionals, scientists and other members of the public who are interested
in tobacco issues. We also monitor news reports, attend conferences, survey public
opinion and use other means to stay informed about emerging trends and views of our
business. (Philip Morris 2011c). Interacting with these internal stakeholders gives Philip
Morris USA the possibility to step in when concerns or problems emerge amongst its
stakeholders.

Philip Morris is involved with its stakeholder in different ways, as can be read in the 2010
Corporate Responsibility Report (Appendix A) where some of the stakeholder initiatives
are listed. To mention a few examples of the initiatives for the internal stakeholders in the
section Sustainable Agriculture (Appendix A: 34) it can be read that issues on safety for
the tobacco growers have been expanded in 2010 moreover, in the section Supply Chain
Responsibility (Appendix A: 35) it can be read that an event with workshops led by
suppliers was hosted focusing on CSR. In addition, with the purpose of doing business
Philip Morris arranged for employees to meet with retailers, growers, suppliers and consumers over the age of twenty-one.
Philip Morris emphasizes the importance of interaction with its several stakeholders and
from what it learns from the engagement that is put into operation in four main points
(Philip Morris USA 2011c):
identify and manage emerging issues
inform our business processes, including our annual strategic planning and risk
management processes, and other decision making
continue our efforts to align with society
build a better understanding of Altria Group and its companies.
Engagement with stakeholders needs to be well-balanced and a business should try to
operate with re-spect to all of them in trying to avoid a potential stakeholder conflict from
emerge (Appendix C: 44). One way to prevent a potential stakeholder conflict is by
communicating to the different stakeholder groups to get an understanding of what
stakeholder wants, needs and expect and this understand of the stakeholders can then be
used by management when taking decisions that have impacts on its stakehold-ers.
It can be assumed that Philip Morris is involved in stakeholder engagement to try and
differentiate from its competitors. Focusing on value creation for its stakeholders might
spread around and as research has showed that consumers are willing to switch brands to
business organizations that are social responsible (David 2005: 7).
What are possible alternatives?
Philip Morris Anti-Youth-Smoking Television Ads
A recent study found that Philip Morris new anti-youth-smoking ads were less effective
than those already being used in California, Massachusetts, Arizona and Florida in their
statewide tobacco prevention programs. More specifically, the study found that:
Ads that graphically, dramatically, and emotionally portray the serious negative
consequences of smoking were consistently rated highest by respondents in terms of
making them stop and think about not using tobacco. But the Philip Morris ads said
little or nothing about negative health consequences from smoking.
Ads that focused on the choice theme (i.e., be yourself, you can choose whether to
smoke), such as those run by Philip Morris, were consistently rated lowest.6
If Philip Morris really wanted to reduce youth smoking, it is clear that the company could

spend the millions of dollars it has allocated to anti-youth-smoking efforts more

effectively. But that is Philip Morris And Targeting Kids, Page 2 not surprising given
Philip Morris history of marketing to kids and ineffectual anti-youthsmoking
initiatives.

What are the Ethics of the alternatives?

Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism puts forward the claim that ethical decisions should maximise benefits for society and
minimize harms. What matters is the net balance of good consequences over bad for society overall
(Trevino & Nelson, 2011, p.40). This means that the best ethical decision will be the one that produces
the greatest net benefits for society and the worst ethical decision will be the one that produces the
greatest net harms for society. In other words, utilitarianism aims to achieve the greater good.
Because of its focus on results or consequences, out of the three classical ethical theories,
utilitarianism is perhaps the most flexible. This theory has been popular in business and marketing
literature because of its utility principle. Furthermore, most of us tend to agree that it is important to
evaluate the impact of a decision on society. However, the utilitarian approach requires the
identification of possible stakeholders who are involved in a particular situation, as well as their
alternative actions and potential consequences (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). Therefore, whilst the
decision may bring benefit to a particular stakeholder group, it may harm another stakeholder group.
Furthermore, it may not be easy to gather all of the relevant information prior to making the decision,
and to foresee all potential consequences.
From the utilitarian perspective, it is important to note that the tobacco industry benefits society due to
its economic contribution. After an increase of 8.5 per cent in tobacco excise tax in 2013, it was
estimated that the industry would increase government revenue from USD 8.31 billion to USD 9.17
billion (Sagita, 2012). In comparison, healthcare costs attributed to tobacco-related illness are only 1.2
billion USD per year (Barber et al., 2008). Furthermore, stricter regulations on tobacco marketing may
harm the employment of approximately 6 million Indonesian citizens who work in tobacco related
industries. The utilitarian argument implies that cessation of tobacco marketing would damage the
countrys economy, and thus the standard of living of the entire population, because of its high
dependency on the tobacco industry. On the other hand, although it is estimated that 23.7 per cent of
the 1.7 million deaths in Indonesia in 2007 were caused by tobacco, it is only a minority of the
population is whose health is affected in this way (Barber et al., 2008). It was estimated that the
population of Indonesia in July 2013 was 251.2 million (CIA, 2013).
Naturally, the arguments are not as simple as they first appear. It might also be argued that the
marketing of tobacco may lead to an increase in perceived consumer benefits Such as temporary
pleasure. However, it can create longer-term disadvantage for customers as it can cause illness and
premature loss of life (Laczniak & Murphy, 2006). If we consider positive utilitarianism to involve the
maximisation of pleasure, and negative utilitarianism to imply the minimisation of pain, we begin to
see how these arguments begin to cancel each other out. The utilitarian emphasis on the greater
good also begs the question of what, exactly, is good or happiness? Both terms being subjective,
the notion of a common utility becomes lost in the fog of postmodernism and the moral relativism of
individual choice. In addition, what is best for us, and what we want might not always amount to the
same thing. Who is it that will make this choice for us if we cannot make it ourselves? It might be said
that whoever is in a position of power decides what utility is, and makes this decision for everyone
resulting in what may well be a far from optimal situation.

Deontology
For deontologists, ethics is grounded in notions of duty and it follows from this that some acts are
morally obligatory, regardless of their consequences (Somerville & Wood, 2008, p.146). The
deontologists position is about doing what is right, with individual well-being as the most important
element of every decision (Schlegelmilch, 2001). The golden rule, do unto others as you would have
them do to you applies in this position. Deontologists argue that certain moral principles known as
natural law such as honesty, promise keeping, fairness, loyalty, rights (to safety, justice, etc),
responsibility, compassion, respect and loyalty, are binding, regardless of the consequences of the
actions (Trevino & Nelson, 2011). Deontology holds that an action is ethical if it is suitable to become
a universal law (Ferrel et al., 2013). Unlike the utilitarian view, deontology believes that certain
(harmful) actions should not be undertaken, even to maximise utility. Moreover, it also emphasises
that certain actions are inherently right and the determination of this rightness focuses on the
individual actors, not on society (Ferrel et al., 2013).
The cigarette is the only legally available product that, when used as directed, can harm or injure
others (Snell, 2005). Nicotine, the most active ingredient in tobacco, has been found to be
physiologically and psychologically addictive, in a similar way to heroin and cocaine (rather than
shopping, chocolate or using the Internet). Because of this addictive agent, the majority of smokers
become strongly dependent on nicotine and find it difficult to quit cigarettes (Bates & Rowell, 1998).
As tobacco is a harmful product, deontologists may perceive any activity which encourages the use of
tobacco to be morally wrong. In this respect, for deontologists, tobacco marketing is an unethical
practice.
Tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship are permitted in Indonesia with few restrictions. The
new regulations imply that tobacco advertisements should not show cigarettes, cigarette packs, or the
use of cigarettes or tobacco (Tobacco-free Kids, 2011). But tobacco marketers have been creative in
sidestepping these restrictions, by endorsing the themes of fun, youthfulness, modernity, and
togetherness in their advertisements, all of which may be attractive to young people. However, these
advertising messages can be perceived as deceptive as they do not endorse the danger of cigarettes to
their audiences.
For instance, in 2011 Sampoerna (owned by Phillip Morris International) used an advertising slogan
Dying is better than leaving a friend. Sampoerna is a cool friend. This message implicitly suggests
that dying is better than leaving (i.e. not smoking) Sampoerna cigarettes. In 2012 a TV advertisement
for Dunhill Mild (owned by British American Tobacco) portrayed a male model spear-fishing before
cooking up his catch with his fashionable friends while the voiceover declares it is time to discover
what fine taste is all about. This advertisement implicitly encourages the audience to discover the
fine taste of 6Dunhill Mild. More recently, in 2013 Indonesian tobacco giant PT Djarum (owned by
British American Tobacco), promoted its popular brand of L.A. Lights cigarettes with the provocative
slogan DONT QUIT and Lets Do It! (Tobacco-free kids 2013).
These examples can be categorised as deceptive, because the advertisements glamorise the temporary
pleasure customers get from smoking but say nothing about the products well-known danger to health.
Hackley notes that the increasing persuasiveness of advertising campaigns can lead to a general
distrust in organisational communication (Hackley et al., 2008). However, the continuing rise of
tobacco related deaths in Indonesia suggests that no such distrust of advertising communications is
emerging in Indonesia. For a deontologist, to continue to use clearly effective communications to sell
a deadly product is unethical. Finally, we must add that the hidden messages in these advertisements
conflicts with the notion of virtue ethics, which emphasises the importance of traits such as integrity,
fairness, trust, respect, and empathy in marketing practice (Murphy, 1999).

CONCLUSION

The aim of this paper has been to evaluate tobacco marketing practice in Indonesia based on the
conventional marketing ethics theories: utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. The utilitarian
perspective, although opening up further questions for debate, implies that cessation of tobacco
marketing would damage the countrys economy, and thus the standard of living of the entire
population. Contrary to this, only a minority of the population are affected by tobacco related
illnesses. However, it is precisely this harmful characteristic that leads deontologists to perceive
tobacco marketing as an unethical practice. Virtue ethics, which focuses on the intention of actors,
may imply that tobacco marketers have a professional responsibility to generate profit for their
companies. However, the aggressiveness of tobacco marketing activities is not consistent with virtue
ethics, which emphasises moderation and avoidance of excesses. Furthermore, the themes of fun,
youthfulness, modernity, and togetherness which are endorsed in tobacco advertisements can be seen
as a deceptive practice. In addition, the use of marketing communications such as sponsorship of
music and sporting events and oversize billboards which are accessible to children may call into
question the assertion that tobacco companies are not deliberately targeting young potential smokers.
Based on the ethical evaluation of tobacco marketing practice in Indonesia, we suggest that current
practices are against the principles of deontology and virtue ethics. Although the utilitarian perspective
indicates that banning tobacco marketing can damage the countrys economy, one should never forget
the fact that tobacco is a harmful product by nature, even if it is used as directed.

W.D. Ross, a Scottish philosopher, amended Immanuel Kants works by formulating a

list of duties in order of importance, which he believed necessary to live by. Ross
believed that, in order to live within a duty-based means, people should:
1. Tell the truth.
2. Right the wrongs that one has done to others.
3. Act Justly
4. Help others in respect to virtue, intelligence, and happiness.
5. Improve oneself with respect to virtue and intelligence.
6. Give thanks.
7. Avoid injury to others.
Tobacco marketers clearly violate several of the aforementioned duties in addition to the
ethical norms outlined by the AMA. Firstly is their failure to tell the complete truth to
consumers in regards to their products. As discussed previously, these companies convey
an extremely diluted version of the truth to the public with little regard to the
ramifications such actions will result in. To stake the claim that tobacco marketers do not
act justly would for all accounts and purposes be truthful, however, even Plato did not
amply define justice in The Republic.27 Surely the most obvious of Ross duties, which
tobacco marketers fail in adhering to is avoiding injury to others; after all, every 6.5
seconds a human being dies from a tobacco-related disease.28
Shortly before his death Wayne McLaren expressed his regret for his role in influencing

young smokers as a Marlboro Man: If I was responsible for making one person smoke,
maybe I can be responsible for making two of them quit.29 Appearing in an antismoking television spot shortly before his death, Mr. McLarens image as a Marlborosmoking cowboy was contrasted with that of him in his hospital bed. His 6
brother provided the voice over which shed light on the independent lifestyle promoted
by the tobacco companies. Lying there with all those tubes in you, how independent can
you really be?