Smoking = World War III

What costs five dollars and can catalyze World War III? Cigarettes! Alright, you got me. In the U.S. cigarettes on average cost less than five dollars with tax. Ok, and they won't cause World War III. I was just attempting to utilize what advertisers and marketers call "somatic markers". In the book Buy-ology Martin Lindstrom explains that "somatic markers are typically associations between two incompatible elements".

In the brain they work as shortcuts to create a linear, succinct train of thought. That way we can "connect an experience or emotion with a specific, required reaction" states Lindstrom.

Earlier this month, there was an advertisement that incited a lot of contention for depicting a kid at the train station without his mother. The kicker? It was an anti-smoking advertisement that intimates, “this is how your child feels after losing you for a minute...just imagine if they lost you for life.” Unfortunately, the debate isn't centered around whether the message is effective or valid. People seem to be more concerned about the crying child in the video: whether he was truly acting or not. (I really don't wish to debate that aspect of it. But I will say this, I have seen an elephant instructed to paint another elephant. I'm sure someone can get a kid to cry on command.)

What I do wish to comment on is that this video makes use of the somatic marker in a very pointed way. It connects the experience of losing your child, or your child losing you, through smoking. As I recounted above, somatic markers are used to link two elements that aren't traditionally associated, and that association is supposed to elicit specific responses. In a way, the ad links two things that are conceivably associated. People do die from smoking, and they inevitably will be survived by some family or friends. Yet at the same time that association is about the largest tangible stretch one could propose.

I wonder, how effective is this message?

Lets take a look at the typical associations anti-smoking campaigns utilize: disclaimers on cigarette boxes. We've all seen them. The black and white letters advising you that smoking will cause: birth defects, lung cancer, and emphysema among other things. This association is much more straightforward, thus you might not think there is an inherent difference in these two ad techniques I've mentioned. But I do.

In his book, Lindstrom notes one particular study in which brain activity was recorded using fMRI while test subjects were shown anti-smoking ads. The results? The most activity in the brain was recorded in the Nucleus Accumbens. Don't worry, it meant nothing to me when I first read it either. That's a region of the brain strongly associated with pleasure and addiction. Thus, what Lindstrom was arguing is that those ads are actually counterproductive and "encourage smokers to light up".

How is this so? The hypothesis lies in the existence of Mirror Neurons. These neurons have been shown to exist in primates and are thought to exist in humans. In primates, mirror neurons have been shown to fire while both participating in an action, such as picking up a nut, or just watching that action take place.

Therefore, it seems as though when smokers see or read traditional anti-smoking ads their mirror neurons fire and activate their nucleus accumbens. You can imagine this through the envisioning the thought process step-by-step. You see the warning of emphysema, telling you it is caused by smoking; you think of the smoke in your lungs; you imagine having to physically take a drag in order to get the smoke in your lungs; and by this time your mirror neurons have already started freaking out. Done. Over. You want to smoke.

Why is this different than the video ad's technique above? Because the association is remote. There are too many reasons why a child and a parent could become separated. It should be hard for the brain to linearly connect smoking with losing your child. That just isn't a known association, and maybe it won't set off any mirror neurons.

However, the point being is that this remote association has been forged and it is very memorable. Now, possibly, not only are no mirror neurons firing, but you might have some furtive apprehensions about wanting to light that cigarette. Advertisers use this technique relentlessly. Ever watched a commercial and said "what? how is that related?". It doesn't matter. The ad now created an alliance between two disparate trains of thought, and next time you look for toilet paper you might think "yeah, guys with double comb overs are funny...I'll buy that toilet paper".

So if you take away anything from this lot of information remember this: smoking isn't exactly what is considered healthy. Every eight seconds someone dies from smoking; twelve times more British citizens have died from smoking than in WWII; smoking kills one in ten adults globally; and smoking related diseases caused more than $150 billion dollars in health care expenses in the U.S. Oh, and cigarettes will kill your pets.

- m.tsang