Podcast appearances and mentions of Joe Camel

Through his paintings and projects, Anthony's message is clear: art is not only for expression, but for communion with God and an invitation for others to encounter His presence.Anthony has made the journey from mainstream success to spiritual purpose and has seen his social-political art evolve into devotion to Christ, demonstrating how art can be a prophetic voice in culture.Freda's award-winning illustrations and paintings have appeared in numerous publications, including the New Yorker, Time, Rolling Stone, and the New York Times. He has a permanent art exhibit at the 9/11 memorial In NY. Anthony Freda Anthony began his career in advertising, notably working on the infamous Joe Camel campaign. When the FTC ruled the campaign illegal for marketing cigarettes to children, Freda experienced a profound moral awakening that led him to leave advertising behind. He went on to work with prestigious publications such as The New York Times and The New Yorker, but it was his work on an OpEd piece for The New York Times promoting the Iraq War that sparked another ethical reckoning. Realizing he had gone from selling cigarettes to selling war, Freda transitioned once more, joining the early alternative media movement in the 2000s.Freda's work has often pushed boundaries, both politically and artistically. His art is part of the permanent collection of the 9/11 Museum and Memorial in New York, where his piece is one of the only works that questions the official narrative of the events of 9/11. His ten-year tenure with Infowars as an illustrator and writer further cemented his place in the world of controversial alternative news, and he has been vocal about his role in the space.Freda's work, especially his art, continues to stir debate. In 2024, an author in Germany faced legal consequences for simply posting one of his book covers on social media, and Freda himself has been extensively censored for his dissent against the official COVID-19 narrative. He has even been flagged as a potential domestic terrorist for his critical stance and controversial imagery. One of his most notable works is a covert illustration for The Wall Street Journal in 2025, where he secretly adorned Xi Jinping's tie with skull motifs as a subtle critique of global politics.In 2024, Freda worked as an illustrator and media consultant for RFK Jr.'s Super-Pac, AV24, further cementing his role in the political and media landscape. However, in recent years, Freda has pivoted his artistic focus towards Christian art. After decades of political commentary, he now sees the battle as spiritual and has committed to dedicating much of his creative work to Christ, producing original pieces as a devotion to his faith.WebsiteInstagramJesus Park KickstarterSubstack Example

Daily sponsor of the Rightside Way Monologue: https://wilmerandlee.com/stan-macdonald

SlimFasts' the Joe Camel of Kratom. What's with all these women teachers hooking up with students? Slim got a warning from his neighbor. Lazlo and SlimFast are DISGUSTED by women' s bathroom (and periods). SlimFast gave himself a sponge bath, and Lazlo places a lot of money on a sports bet. Would you re-do your college years? In Headlines, a lady got stabbed in Marshalls due to a slow line, Erotica Chat GBT is coming, lead is being found in protein powder, a Missouri dad coached his daughter while she was beating up her bully, and much much more! Stream The Church of Lazlo podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts!

Were back! Guess that animal, fursonas, rockies dogs, kangaroo maps, cop stories, liver comas, Joe Camel, note taking, skinner farts, Gavin Newsome hair, back to theme songs of the week. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

July 29 - August 4, 1989  This week Ken welcomes the comedian behind the new special "with Picture", Jim Tews. Ken and Jim discuss hot aural experiences, college text book rip offs, professors who make you buy books they wrote, pen names, sci-fi, Married...with Children, lazy writing, being 10 years old, being a child of divorce, permissive Dads, basic cable, black "cheater/scrambler" boxes, cigarettes, Joe Camel, being in the U.S. Coast Guard, your cigarette brand, having a terrible memory, broad characters, how Peggy is the MVP of Married...with Children, the horrors of being at a multi-cam show live taping, Maria Shriver, horny Benson and Hedges, tasting the richness of America, random collages, reimbursement for guesting on TV talk shows, pranking news programs, nonsensical MTV ads, the love triangle of Hulk Hogan, Randy Savage and Miss Elizabeth, the revelation of Joe Bones, the devolution of COPS, Golden Girls drug episode, Beyond Tomorrow/Beyond 2000, Acid Rain, Sammy Davis Jr on Hunter as a boxing coach, having a bully bossy big sister, having the "Jimmy wasn't here last week" advantage, avoiding serialized shows, TGIF, MTV's Half Hour Comedy Hour, Stand Up Spotlight, skateboarding, Sk8 TV, Ken watching TVs at department stores, Murder She Wrote, National Geographic, the Family Ties compromise, being land locked, divorced Dad boats, World travel, having an obsession with Chile, visiting Austria, having family in Germany, doing a stand up tour for Armed Forces Entertainment, seeing the pyramids, the classic underage mail fraud to get free CDs, Debbie Gibson and Living Colour being classic 1989, MacGuyver, National Geographic, Baby Boom, annual traditions of playing your brass on the roof on New Year's, unsolicited musical accompaniment at parties, saxophone, Chuck Norris, practicing Karate, Unsolved Mysteries, Who's the Boss?, Wonder Years, Roseanne, Queens, Malls lost to time, FYE, Swimsuit '89, Head of the Class, kicking a hole in the wall watching Sidekicks, Ernie Reyes Jr, Knight and Daye, Shark Week, how the 1983 made for TV movie "Who Will Love My Children?" is four times better than Hot Dog: The Movie, Jesse Jackson guest starring on A Different World, living in a Reader's Digest household, "Humor in Uniform", Cheers, the 1989 writers' strike, The New Mission Impossible, saying no to the SF Strip Club with your Coast Guard co-workers so you can visit shooting locations from Full House, texting Bob Saget, slapstick humor in Perfect Strangers, 20/20, the 20th Anniversary of Woodstock, Minga the Demon,  Doctor Doctor, Matt Frewer, Tales from the Crypt, Miami Vice, the commercial exploitation of the Woodstock 20th Anniversary, and getting VIP treatment at outdoor festivals.

Braga, King, and Ski talk: :15: tie dye shirts, Oregon's Grateful Dead night, John Mayer vs Jerry Garcia, squares listening to jam bands for seven hours, Joe Camel gear. 31:13: Bridge Bin Laden, bargain pizza, dog walking tactics, genuinely dumb dogs. 53:25: TSB Fixes Your Life. 1:02:57: Top 3 bands we wished we could see before a lead member died.

We get sidetracked by the information that Ty Robinson has a pet camel and we never knew about it.

Have you ever had one of those moments where you realize you've been looking at something the wrong way this whole time? Yeah, that's exactly what happened in this episode.Michael from Ad Badger sat down with Abe Chomali, and they got real about something a lot of Amazon sellers don't want to admit—just because your ads are bringing in sales doesn't mean you're actually making money. They talked about why ACOS can be super misleading, how some brands are spending more and somehow making less, and why profitability is the real metric that matters. Also, did you know there's an entire eBay market for failed startup swag? Because I didn't, and now I can't stop thinking about it.We'll see you in The PPC Den!

Show Notes Episode 313: I Would Smoke 500 Miles, And I Would Smoke 500 More (Redux This week Host Dave Bledsoe wakes up coughing from what he is sure is just cat dander and allergies, and proceeds to light the first smoke of the day!  (We're sure everything is fine!) On the show this week, we open up that one drawer in the kitchen with all the menus and a phone book from 2001 to see how many Marlboro Miles we can find in there!  (25 miles, only 400 packs of Marlboro Reds to go to get that awesome windbreaker!) Along the way we learn of Dave's formative years using an addictive chemical to give him the illusion of being cool.  (Cigarettes, not alcohol.That came slightly later.) From there we dive into the history of cigarette advertising in the 80's and 90's after Nixon kicked them off the television.  (Someone must have failed to contribute to Dick's campaign!) We learn how the Brands needed something new and exciting to capture that youth market, and cowboys were NOT cool in 1992!  (Except for you Garth Brooks!)  We go on to talk about Marlboro Miles, the Marlboro Old Country Store and how you could spend $500 bucks on a ten dollar igloo cooler!  Then we spend some time with the Camel that Kills, Joe Camel.  (Joe didn't kill kids, but he DID help kill big tobacco!) Finally, we explain that advertising isn't what made kids smoke, it was the stress of life lived with Baby Boomers.  Our Sponsor this week is Cancer Cash, the smoking loyalty program that earns money for your future cancer treatment!  We open the show with the Merchants of Death and close with Brian Schmidty explaining the distance he and his friends will travel to pass out on your doorstep! Show Theme: Hypnostate Prelude to Common Sense The Show on Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/whatthehellpodcast.bsky.social The Show on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/whatthehellpodcast/ The Show on Youtube:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjxP5ywpZ-O7qu_MFkLXQUQ The Show on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/whatthehellwereyouthinkingpod/ Our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/kHmmrjptrq Our Website: www.whatthehellpodcast.com Patreon:  https://www.patreon.com/Whatthehellpodcast The Show Line: 347 687 9601 Closing Music:https://youtu.be/VBkVhBBQ2ME Buy Our Stuff: https://www.seltzerkings.com/shop Citations Needed: Cigarette brand loyalty in Australia: findings from the ITC Four Country Survey https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/suppl_1/i73.info THE MEDIA BUSINESS: Advertising; The Marlboro Man Is Missing in Action in New Campaign https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/23/business/media-business-advertising-marlboro-man-missing-action-new-campaign.html THE MOST SINISTER CIGARETTE PROMOTION OF ALL TIME https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/the-most-sinister-cigarette-promotion-of-all-time Joe Camel (1974-1997) https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/bcoppola/2017/09/17/joe-camel-1974-1997/ Joe Camel, a Giant in Tobacco Marketing, Is Dead at 23 https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/11/business/joe-camel-a-giant-in-tobacco-marketing-is-dead-at-23.html Joe Camel Video ABC  https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/july-10-1997-end-joe-camel-ads-10616510 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If you were around in the late 80s, he seemed impossible to miss... An anthropomorphic cartoon camel that quickly became one of the defining spokes characters of the decade--but one that came with endless controversy. This is a look back on the creation, popularity, and backlash of Joe Camel. It's also the story of the state of the tobacco industry coming out of the 1970s and heading into the 1980s. The story of Joe Camel goes all the way back to 1913, and we'll take a trip through the entire 20th century to look at the rocky history of cigarette advertising, taking us into the 80s, and one of the most memorable brand mascots of all time... Get access to new episodes early and ad-free: Patreon.com/80s  

Episode 3 Season 2 features a full Dragon's Milk lineup from New Holland Brewing. We discuss Camel Joe, Foolish Hispanic Sayings, and more!

Tampa Florida trial lawyer Steve Yerrid has done it all.  He was a boxer in his youth and a fighter for justice in his career as a trial lawyer.  Steve was the youngest member of the Tobacco “Dream Team,” which secured a $17 billion settlement from Big Tobacco and numerous changes in their business practices which have saved thousands of lives.  Steve has many record setting jury verdicts.  He has served as personal counsel to NY Yankees' owner George Steinbrenner.  And he has given back to his community through his Yerrid Foundation.  Steve has authored several books and has frequently spoken on the topic of what separates those would achieve greatness (i.e., those who have “it”) from everyone else.  Join Rahul and Ben for their fascinating conversation with Steve as he shares aspects of his incredible career and things that have shaped his approach to trying cases and success in life. About Steve Yerridhttps://www.yerridlaw.com/attorneys/c-steven-yerrid/In a city like Tampa, Florida, a coastal metropolis steeped in history, the list of well-known names and larger-than-life personalities is rich and lengthy, but few names resonate with the same renown as Steve Yerrid.Yerrid, a trail-blazing trial lawyer for more than 45 years, has built a legacy that continues to evolve, fueled by a relentless desire to help as many people as possible, whether seeking and securing justice on their behalf in the courtroom or selflessly devoting his time and donating a substantial portion of his accumulated wealth to bettering the world around him. In an age where importance and social impact are measured by likes and subscribers, instead of hard work and good deeds, Steve remains a practitioner of the old ways, always leading by example and putting the needs of others first. Whether meeting each client of his firm personally or taking time to deliver much needed food to the area's most vulnerable and less fortunate, he is and has always been one-of-a-kind, a determined legal and social warrior the likes of which are a rarity in today's world.Yerrid has experienced a career of noteworthy achievements, including over 300 verdicts and settlements of $1 million or more for individuals and the families of those injured or killed by the wrongdoing of others. Among those was a jury verdict of $217 million, the largest medical malpractice award in Florida's history, and the nation's largest verdict in 2006. In 2009, he again obtained the country's largest verdict rendered in a wrongful death case that year, with a jury award of $330 million. When he was just 30 years old, Yerrid received international recognition in one of the world's largest maritime tragedies. In utilizing a rare “Act of God” defense, he was able to secure the complete exoneration of Captain John Lerro, the accused pilot in command of a large 608-foot bulk freighter which, during an unpredicted storm packing hurricane force winds, was blown off course and struck the mammoth Sunshine Skyway Bridge, collapsing its center span and tragically claiming 35 innocent lives.  Not a decade has passed that Steve has not left an indelible mark. In 2010, confronted by one of the largest environmental catastrophes in history, then-Governor Charlie Crist appointed him as Special Counsel regarding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster and its aftermath. Yerrid gave his time, costs, and efforts for nearly a year to the people of Florida as a public service. As a result, The Florida Justice Association presented him with the Outstanding Pro Bono Award, a special recognition given only every several years. Yerrid also was retained by the City of Tampa to hold BP responsible for the economic damages it sustained as a result of that disaster. He successfully obtained a $27.5 million settlement in July 2015. It was the largest recovery paid to any municipality by British Petroleum. In the 1990's, as the youngest lawyer appointed by the late Governor Lawton Chiles to an 11-member “Dream Team” of private lawyers, Steve undertook a leading role in Florida's landmark lawsuit against the previously unbeaten cigarette industry. The case resulted in the biggest monetary settlement that had occurred in U.S. history, ultimately topping $17 billion. In addition, he and the Dream Team members succeeded in obtaining unprecedented advertising concessions that permanently prevented marketing aimed at children, eliminated cigarette billboards, vending machines, Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man, and established youth tobacco prevention programs across the United States. As a result of his success, tenacity and integrity, Steve has long been sought out to take on important and precedent-setting cases. He was honored to be appointed as Special Counsel to the Office of the Chief Judge (13th Judicial Circuit) and the Florida Conference of Circuit Judges. In representing Florida's entire judiciary, he successfully argued before the Florida Supreme Court and protected state judges and staff from public disclosure of confidential records and internal communications within the court system. Yerrid is a lifetime member of the prestigious Inner Circle of Advocates, an “invitation only” organization whose membership consists of the top 100 trial lawyers in the United States. He is a past recipient of the Perry Nichols Award, bestowed by the Florida Justice Association (FJA) as its highest honor in recognition of a lifelong pursuit of justice, and in 2013, he received the Excalibur Award for exemplifying leadership and commitment at the highest level of Florida's civil justice system, an honor bestowed on only four Florida trial lawyers. In 2016, he was voted into the National Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame. Steve also is the recipient of several FJA Eagle Awards (Gold, Silver and Crystal), including recognition as the first donor to achieve the $1 million-dollar-level of giving to the FJA's educational efforts designed to protect and improve the American system of justice; currently serves as a Distinguished Fellow in the FJA; has been named Top Lawyer in the Nation by Lawyers USA; was selected by the National Law Journal as a top ten litigator; honored by the American Board of Trial Advocates a Diplomate as well as Trial Lawyer of the Year (Tampa Bay); and the recipient of numerous other honors and recognitions through his career too numerous to specifically reference. He has been continuously listed in Best Lawyer in America over the last five decades. Steve Yerrid, a Georgetown University Law Center graduate has long been one of the country's top catastrophic injury and wrongful death trial attorneys, having secured over 300 verdicts and settlements of $1 million or more.  This year the jury awarded $15 million in damages to each parent for mental anguish, plus burial expenses of $7,502.00. The verdict total was $30,007,502.00.  In 2006 - A $217 million verdict was obtained for the client and his family. It is the largest medical malpractice verdict in Florida's history, and the top national jury verdict of its kind in 2006.  1990s, Mr. Yerrid was selected by the late Gov. Lawton Chiles as the youngest member of the 11-member “Dream Team” of private trial lawyers. He took a leading role in Florida's landmark lawsuit against the previously unbeaten cigarette industry. The case resulted in the biggest monetary settlement in the nation's history at the time, ultimately topping $17 billion.  The mantra that everyone should have a shot at happiness, success and living the American dream led to the formation of The Yerrid Foundation almost four decades ago.   The self-funded family foundation has made significant donations to more than 700 causes and charitable organizations locally, nationally, and even internationally, with an emphasis on children's issues, pediatric cancer research, the welfare of veterans, and domestic abuse victims.

Skidding into your UNIT-approved podcatcher is the pod on "The Legend of Ruby Sunday," and, oh boy, do we have questions. Has Unit become the earth-based research office for Doctor Who? Why would Unit drop everything to find the Doctor's new friend's mother? How would the Tennant Doctor react if he saw Susan Triad's big reveal on television? And what is Sutekh without the Egyptian / Osirian backstory to lean on? All this and more as two grumpy old fans come to terms with the penultimate episode in Ncuti Gatwa's first season. The opening music is "Hazy Shade of Winter," covered by The Bangles, and the closing music is "Walk Like an Egyptian," by The Bangles. We recorded this episode on 19 June 2024.

Ad Free Episodes: ​​ https://bit.ly/49oj3vo Subscribe to Our NEW Channel: https://www.youtube.com/@stretchandfade Hunter and Noel debate the strangest things to say on a porn set, if heaven is actually worth it and share Joe Camel's surprising doppelganger. They also check in on Ricky Martin's discography and upcoming shows. Head to https://shadyrays.com and use code: STRETCH for $20 off polarized sunglasses. Control Body Odor ANYWHERE with @shop.mando and get $5 off off your Starter Pack (that's over 40% off) with promo code FADE at https://shopmando.com! #mandopod Over 2 Million Butts Love TUSHY. Get 10% off TUSHY with the code STRETCH at https://hellotushy.com/STRETCH #tushypod If you listen on Apple Podcasts, go to: https://apple.co/tmgstudios Stretch & Fade Socials: https://twitter.com/stretchandfade https://www.instagram.com/stretchandfade/?hl=en https://www.tiktok.com/@stretchandfade  https://www.reddit.com/r/stretchandfadepod/ NOEL http://youtube.com/thenoelmiller http://twitter.com/thenoelmiller http://instagram.com/thenoelmiller https://www.tiktok.com/@notnoelmiller?lang=en HUNTER https://www.youtube.com/@MeatCanyon https://twitter.com/meatcanyon https://www.instagram.com/meatcanyon/?hl=en Hosted by Noel Miller & Hunter Hancock, Created by TMG Studios, Noel Miller & Hunter Hancock, and Produced by TMG Studios, Noel Miller & Hunter Hancock.  Chapters: 0:00 hollaback? girl? 0:35 intro  0:58 hollaback, girl 3:03 gwen as joe camel 4:26 directing a problem actor 6:05 overheard on a porn set 8:24 angels speak to me 10:27 shady rays 11:49 why I killed mom 14:40 guided by the devil 18:12 divorced in heaven 22:34 mando 24:48 heaven is overrated  27:52 escaping heaven 30:15 the heavenly prostate 34:07 gay magic 35:08 tushy 36:55 reviewing gay magic cards 41:21 prideful and rich 45:00 ricky martin's casino concert 48:00 ricky martin's discography 50:07 she bangs guy 52:46 micro wrestling 54:50 our new channel!  56:56 hunter's new content 57:53 promo corner 

Are “Zynfluencers” the new Joe Camel? Joe was the cartoon mascot used by R.J. Reynolds to sell cigarettes in the 1990s, until the government cracked down on marketing tobacco to youth. Today, according to journalist Emily Dreyfuss, social media influencers are using their platforms to push addictive and harmful products like Zyn, a nicotine pouch, to young people. In a recent New York Times piece, Dreyfuss writes that influencer marketing to kids “falls into a legal and technical canyon so vast that the next generation is being lost in it.” We'll talk to Dreyfuss about the power of influencers and what parents need to know. Guests: Emily Dreyfuss, director, Shorenstein Center News Lab; co-author, "Meme Wars: The Untold Stories of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America"

Things get spicy when Benson, Rollins, and Tamin go to a convention hosted by a hot women's wellness brand and leave with more than just a treasure trove of impossible vibrildos and yoni eggs. Adam's middle school trumpet rival leads an ensemble cast that some how adds up to less than the sum of its parts in this "bad boss is raped by worse employees in a ludicrous scheme to kick her out of the business" caper.Sources:Think Twice Before Putting a Yoni Egg in Your Vagina - Cleveland ClinicMusic:Divorcio Suave - "Munchy Business"Thanks to our gracious Munchies on Patreon: Jeremy S, Jaclyn O, Amy Z, Nikki B, Whitney C, D Reduble, Tony B, Zak B, Barry W, Karen D, Sara L, Miriam J, Drew D, Nicky R, Stuart, Jacqi B, Natalie T, Robyn S, Isabel P, Christine L, Amy A, Sean M, Jay S, Briley O, Asteria K, Suzanne B, Jason S, Tim Y, Douglas P, and John P - y'all are the best!Be a Munchie, too! Support us on Patreon: patreon.com/munchmybensonFollow us on: BlueSky, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Post, and Reddit (Adam's Twitter/BlueSky and Josh's Twitter/BlueSky/Letterboxd/Substack)Join our Discord: Munch Casts ServerCheck out Munch Merch: Munch Merch at ZazzleCheck out our guest appearances:Both of us on: FMWL Pod (1st Time & 2nd Time), Storytellers from Ratchet Book Club, Chick-Lit at the Movies talking about The Thin Man, and last but not least on the seminal L&O podcast …These Are There Stories (Adam and Josh).Josh debating the Greatest Detectives in TV History on The Great Pop Culture Debate Podcast (BRAND NEW!) and talking SVU/OC on Jacked Up Review Show.Visit Our Website: Munch My BensonEmail the podcast: munchmybenson@gmail.comNext Week's Episode: Season 8, Episode 19 "Florida"This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5685940/advertisement

Patreon preview. Unlock full episode at https://www.patreon.com/stavvysworld Joe Kwaczala joins the pod to discuss his album 'Funny Songs & Sketches,' his jam band era, Pittsburgh and Baltimore accents, Joe Camel, the return of baggy pants, and much more. Joe and Stav help callers including a trashman sidepiece who's self-conscious about his job and the fact that the man he's cucking doesn't really care, and a pastor in Kentucky who's politically progressive and wants advice on meeting people who aren't super conservative. Listen to Joe Kwaczala's album 'Funny Songs & Sketches': ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/album/53q2X1vpsoQfGspSb1csYg?si=ppTY2hJnQHmfFPNUK59sAg ON APPLE MUSIC: https://music.apple.com/us/album/funny-songs-sketches/1706954388 Follow Joe Kwaczala on social media: https://joekwaczala.com/ http://instagram.com/joekwa http://tiktok.com/@JoeKwaczala http://twitter.com/joekjoek https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100063743386598 https://www.youtube.com/@JoeKwaczala Wanna be part of the show? Call 904-800-STAV and leave a voicemail to get advice!

Death penalty. QB Draft. Joe Camel. Jimbo survives?     To advertise on our podcast, please reach out to sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/TheJeffWardShow

The lads get behind the wheel of a beat-up station wagon and haul some obnoxious folks around town in this week's review of Generation Um, starring Keanu Reeves. The shocks are out and the gas tank is empty on this one, with goofs including: Sam's time as Joe Camel, Hulk smashing over grilled onions, how to fairly pay your actors with Spanish cuisine, and just a hint of kitty kisses.

Yanni comes up with some good ideas for pharma to promote the vax to kids and involves geriatric models and Joe Camel. Virginia local candidate has sex with her husband on the internet for donations for her campaign. Vivek Ramaswamy took a Soros affirmative action scholarship to go undercover and destroy it, and more! Real news here, folks!  See Yanni do stand up live in your town: Calgary Sept 22–23 FORt Wayne, Indiana Sept 29-30 Red Bank, NJ Oct 14 San Fran Oct 27-28 New York City Nov 4 Providence Nov 10-11 Phoenix Nov 16-18 Spokane Dec 1-2 Tulsa Dec 8-9 Louisville Dec 15-16 Vancouver Jan 12 Toronto March 23 Join our highlights page for highlight clips from the episodes: https://youtube.com/channel/UCfMy34qIYYy7XiRaHKO1ykw new bonus episodes every Wednesday at https://www.patreon.com/yannispappashour?utm_campaign=creatorshare_

.

In this episode of Facing the Dark, we delve into the topic of loneliness and how to navigate it healthily. Dr. Kathy expounds on the belief that it is not realistic to avoid loneliness all the time, but rather, it is appropriate to accept and embrace being alone at times. She emphasizes that not addressing loneliness may lead to insecurity and lack of confidence. She points out that learning to handle loneliness is important, encouraging us to see it as a positive experience.  Dr. Kathy shares how resiliency is the ability to bounce back from despair, disappointment, grief, and fear, and that it is a choice that can become a part of one's character. We guide parents in fostering resiliency in children, preventing loneliness from leading to despair or isolation. 

This week Alex & Ryan conclude their talk with advertising guru and brand anthropologist Richard Wise, in the second episode of a two-part series where they discuss Éric Rohmer's 1962 film "Le Signe du Lion" (or "Sign of the Lion"). Richard Wise, the creator of the infamous Joe Camel ad campaign, was once denounced as a corrupter of our nation's youth by Bill Clinton. Today he is a brand anthropologist and head of WPP's Geometry Global in London, where he has advised such venerable brands as Bulgari, Dunhill, Ritz-Carlton, and Johnnie Walker. He is also an advisor to the Wharton School of Management's Future of Advertising project. His book Save Your Soul: Work in Advertising: A Cheeky Proposal from America's Most Condemned Adman is available everywhere fine books are sold. Richard Wise LinkedIn Alex Keledjian Alex Keledjian is the creator of Project Greenlight, a documentary television series where executive producers Matt Damon and Ben Affleck gave first-time filmmakers a chance to direct their first feature film.   In 2018, Alex wrote and directed the film High Voltage starring David Arquette and Luke Wilson. Ryan Gibson Ryan Gibson is an Emmy-award winning producer of such films as the critically acclaimed Woe and the upcoming film Slotherhouse. He has worked for over twenty years in all aspects of film development and production. HBO Max will stream the latest season of the Emmy-nominated TV series Project Greenlight from executive producer Issa Rae and Miramax Television in January 2023. How I Got Greenlit Instagram Twitter Podlink Credits Alex Keledjian, Host Ryan Gibson, Host Pete Musto, Producer/Editor Jeremiah Tittle, Producer Experience more of How I Got Greenlit via ncpodcasts.com For guest inquiries, sponsorships, and all other magnificent concerns, please reach How I Got Greenlit via howIgotgreenlit@gmail.com For inquiries and more information on Next Chapter Podcasts info@ncpodcasts.com New episodes go live every Tuesday. Please subscribe, rate & review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, wherever you listen to podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week Alex & Ryan talk with advertising guru and brand anthropologist Richard Wise, in the first episode of a two-part series.  Richard Wise, the creator of the infamous Joe Camel ad campaign, was once denounced as a corrupter of our nation's youth by Bill Clinton. Today he is a brand anthropologist and head of WPP's Geometry Global in London, where he has advised such venerable brands as Bulgari, Dunhill, Ritz-Carlton, and Johnnie Walker. He is also an advisor to the Wharton School of Management's Future of Advertising project. His book Save Your Soul: Work in Advertising: A Cheeky Proposal from America's Most Condemned Adman is available everywhere fine books are sold. Richard Wise LinkedIn Alex Keledjian Alex Keledjian is the creator of Project Greenlight, a documentary television series where executive producers Matt Damon and Ben Affleck gave first-time filmmakers a chance to direct their first feature film.   In 2018, Alex wrote and directed the film High Voltage starring David Arquette and Luke Wilson. Ryan Gibson Ryan Gibson is an Emmy-award winning producer of such films as the critically acclaimed Woe and the upcoming film Slotherhouse. He has worked for over twenty years in all aspects of film development and production. HBO Max will stream the latest season of the Emmy-nominated TV series Project Greenlight from executive producer Issa Rae and Miramax Television in January 2023. How I Got Greenlit Instagram Twitter Podlink Credits Alex Keledjian, Host Ryan Gibson, Host Pete Musto, Producer/Editor Jeremiah Tittle, Producer Experience more of How I Got Greenlit via ncpodcasts.com For guest inquiries, sponsorships, and all other magnificent concerns, please reach How I Got Greenlit via howIgotgreenlit@gmail.com For inquiries and more information on Next Chapter Podcasts info@ncpodcasts.com New episodes go live every Tuesday. Please subscribe, rate & review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, wherever you listen to podcasts. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Points of discussion:Read the 2023 Beer Branding Trends Review Q1: I asked this last year and am curious again, were there any sections / ideas that didn't make it into the final draft? Thanks again for putting this all together. Love these reports.- Burt Reynolds and Tom Selleck founded Casamigos Tequila- Fingers Newsletter Q2: On the idea of releasing a budget beer option… Let's say that, hypothetically, you could get the COGS to a place where this was actually a feasible option. Would you still advise against this from a branding and reputation standpoint?I'm picturing a compelling use case for something like this where someone might enjoy 1 or 2 great craft beers and then finish the night with a High Life or Banquet, etc. Could this be an opportunity to still offer a craft beer to those consumers?- On the perils of releasing budget beer brand Q3: Is hop water design really a blank canvas? Are there cues that consumers are already expecting? What should people be doing to fit it neatly outside of NA / Seltzer / Sparkling Water?- Is Hop Water the next big Beyond Beer trend? Q4: I looked up hop waters after reading this newsletter last year, and was blown away by how expensive they are. The few brands that I found locally are as expensive if not more so than actual beer. How do you think these brands can justify such a high price point at retail, and do you still think that this category is going to see a lot of growth in the short term given how expensive these products are?- Doug Veliky's COGS breakdown on Hop Water vs. Beer Q5: You joked about hand waving and pearl clutching in the podcast about alcohol & minors, but do you really think anything is going to happen legislatively on this front?I see so many actual problems facing our country (income inequality, gun violence, attacks on women's rights and on LGBTQ communities) and just can't see lawmakers doing anything to even attempt to address this issue.I agree that it's getting kind of ridiculous—Hard Sunny D, c'mon!— I just don't think anything will come of this. That's not to mention how powerful the alcohol lobby is.- Joe Camel vs. JAMA Q6: I know you explicitly said you're only focusing on branding and marketing for this piece, but I have to ask about specific beverage trends in your work, COLD IPA is big (maybe?), RTDs are on fire, and Non Alc beer seems to be catching on… Are there any other categories or beer styles that people are sleeping on?Q7: My partner sent me your paths to market email. It was reassuring to see that we're doing at least a few things right. I'm curious, out of everything you wrote about there, is there any valuable marketing activity a new brewery should consider as they get closer to opening their doors? RAPID FIRE!!! Q8: What is your boldest prediction for the beer industry by 2030? Spicy takes only?Q9: You've written a lot about Hop Water, but no love for Hard Tea?Q10: Where do you guys fall on Fat Tire's latest rebrand? Good idea or complete disaster? I get why they would update the packaging, but to change the liquid itself seems extremely risky. I've been expecting a newsletter on this topic for months now!Q11: What do you make of the super high ABV beer trend we're seeing right now? I've seen a lot of reporting about how this can be explained as a “Bang for your Buck,” in other words, this is driven primarily by the recession. But I'm not sure it's that simple. Why is this such a big deal right now?Q12: Given everything you wrote about hard seltzer in this report, would you try to dissuade a small brewery (say, yours truly here in Texas hill country), from releasing one in 2023? -Learn more at: www.craftbeerrebranded.com / http://www.beyondbeerbook.com-Have a topic or question you'd like us to field on the show? Shoot it our way: hello@cododesign.com-Join 5,500+ food and bev industry pros who are subscribed to the Beer Branding Trends Newsletter (and access all past issues) at: www.beerbrandingtrends.com 

Points of discussion:1. 2023 Beer Branding Trends Review2. New York Times article3. Some Brand Architecture solutions: The Beyond Beer Handbook  4. Check out the Joe Camel JAMA Studies and subsequent lawsuits from the 90s. Wild to think that as many as 90% of 6 year old children could accurately match the Joe Camel campaign with the brand itself.-Learn more at: www.craftbeerrebranded.com / http://www.beyondbeerbook.com-Have a topic or question you'd like us to field on the show? Shoot it our way: hello@cododesign.com-Join 5,500+ food and bev industry pros who are subscribed to the Beer Branding Trends Newsletter (and access all past issues) at: www.beerbrandingtrends.com 

Philly D is a fellow podcaster and the host of I'm Tellin' You. He and Check Your Brain's Tony Mazur talked about his sleeves of tattoos, his podcasting journey, and the explosion of the craft beer industry. Why has cigarette advertising been outlawed everywhere, but alcohol billboards are abundant, and every street corner has a vape shop? Check Your Brain's Tony Mazur went back in time to remember the days of Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man, and how society has drastically changed in the world of sports and advertising. Be sure to subscribe to Tony's Patreon. $5 a month gets you bonus content, extra podcasts, and early access to guests. Visit Patreon.com/TonyMazur. Tony is also on Locals! Visit CYBpod.locals.com and subscribe. Cover art for the Check Your Brain podcast is by Eric C. Fischer. If you need terrific graphic design work done, contact Eric at illstr8r@gmail.com.

Enjoy this sample of P:TR-The Second Gate. Available at Patreon.com/PodcastTheRideJoe Camel was Camel Cigarette's cartoon mascot in the 80s and 90s. We take a look at his merchandise, short-lived cast of friends, and his downfall.Listen to Podcast: The Ride Ad-Free on Forever Dog Plus:http://foreverdogpodcasts.com/plusFOLLOW PODCAST: THE RIDE:https://twitter.com/PodcastTheRidehttps://www.instagram.com/podcasttherideBUY PODCAST: THE RIDE MERCH:https://www.teepublic.com/stores/podcast-the-ridePODCAST THE RIDE IS A FOREVER DOG PODCASThttps://foreverdogpodcasts.com/podcasts/podcast-the-ride Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Enjoy this sample of P:TR-The Second Gate.  Available at Patreon.com/PodcastTheRide Joe Camel was Camel Cigarette's cartoon mascot in the 80s and 90s. We take a look at his merchandise, short-lived cast of friends, and his downfall. Listen to Podcast: The Ride Ad-Free on Forever Dog Plus: http://foreverdogpodcasts.com/plus FOLLOW PODCAST: THE RIDE: https://twitter.com/PodcastTheRide https://www.instagram.com/podcasttheride BUY PODCAST: THE RIDE MERCH: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/podcast-the-ride PODCAST THE RIDE IS A FOREVER DOG PODCAST https://foreverdogpodcasts.com/podcasts/podcast-the-ride Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Happy to announce that we've made our own Sight and Sound best movie list and it only contains one youtube video and two video games. Notes:  The Scary Hypno Man, Kevin Spacey Hopper, Peg Pete, fuckable aliens, A24 Orson Welles, 08 Watto, Godus Profits, Caesar Loyalty Missions, Amleth Cinematic Universe, Pilled Pasqually, Joe Camel's Subliminal Penis, Me-Fisto, CE3, Russ gets turned Maoist, The Famous Pizza Bagel Lady, Cement Noodles, The Spider Troop, Overwatch's Diversity Points, CGI Twitter Zeppelins, Talokan Respeto

Brees! #blazygang blazy susan special. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/bling-viera/message

January 28 - February 3, 1989 This week, after a few false starts, Ken welcomes comedian Amy Miller (watch her special Ham Mouth and buy her album California King) to the show. Ken and Amy discuss false starts, kids cartoons, missile launch codes, growing up White Trash, Roseanne, Joe Camel, sexy Joe Camel, buying scratch tickets, being sent to the corner store for adults, bootleg carnival airbrush art, Camel Cash, Marlboro Miles, stranger danger, realistically defending Roseanne, exploiting crazy people, vetting celebrities, how you can't say "White People Suck" on Instagram, Dan Conner: Great Dad, Russians bootlegging American TV, Vanna White, Golden Girls, Empty Nest, full page ads, 21 Jump St, Perfect Strangers, mail order music clubs, Throw Mama From the Train, not watching America's Most Wanted, LifeTime style movies of the week, Farrah Fawcett made for TV movies, the strangeness of Craisins, Children of a Lesser God, Dreambreakers, pretending you watched Billy Graham so you can talk about it at Church, The Wonder Years, Family Ties, Head of the Class, Growing Pains, Boner in the Army, the lack of female people of color on the mainstream stand up scene in the 1980s, Night Court, Marsha Warfield, loving David Letterman, Just the Ten of Us, TV stars trying to have musical careers, Dallas, Beauty and the Beast, Falcon Crest, CBS being super horny, being thankful for gel caps, complaining about boxing padding, and Murphy Brown.

Pioneer, path breaker, field builder. These are all descriptions that apply to our guest today, Dr. Marion Nestle. Marion Nestle is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health emerita at New York University. She has been a major force in food policy for decades, partly because she is a brilliant communicator and a prolific author. Her groundbreaking book, "Food Politics," has been published in several editions. Another book, "Unsavory Truth: How The Food Companies Skew The Science of What We Eat," is a classic. And this just begins the list. But today we're talking about Marion's newest book, which is a memoir called, "Slow Cooked: An Unexpected Life in Food Politics". It offers an unprecedented look into the life, the thinking, and the passions of one of the top figures in the field. Interview Summary   You've had an amazing journey to get to where you are. People know a lot about what you've done at the point where you became an academic started publishing, and things started showing up in the field, but an awful lot happened before that that led up to the academic part of your life. I'd like to have you tell us a little bit about that, if you would.   I called the book "Slow Cooked," because it took me forever to develop a career. In looking back on it and in writing this book, I realized that I was a woman of my time. I grew up in the 1950s when expectations for women were extremely low. Women weren't expected to do anything except get married and have children, which I did. I was fulfilling societal expectations. I worked very hard and was pretty unhappy about all of that because doors seemed so closed. I grew up in New York, and my family moved to Los Angeles when I was 12. I went to an academic high school where everybody went to college, but you were not expected to do anything or to use your college education to create a career. You were expected to find a husband, get married, and have children, and that is what I did.   So then what led you from that to the academic world?   Well, I wasn't very good at being a housewife, and I found it hard to be home with young children all the time. I had a lot of growing up to do, and my poor kids and I grew up together. But I stayed home with the children for a couple of years and it was not a happy experience. I think that was the time in my life when I was close to being clinically depressed. I had friends who said, "You have just got to go back to school." Well, I didn't know what else to do. I thought that was probably good advice, I had very good grades as an undergraduate. So, I was able to get into a graduate program and went back to school when my children were six months and two years old and somehow survived that. Looking back on it, I don't know how I did. That was the beginning of a long, slow progress towards a career. I went to graduate school because I wanted to make sure I had a job at the end of it. I trained to be a laboratory technician and got a job when I finished college. But even in graduate school, I didn't take what I was doing very seriously. I wasn't treated as if I was a serious student. I was told that the only reason they were giving me a fellowship was because no men had applied that year. I thought, "Well, nobody's going to take me seriously, I'm not going to take myself seriously either. I'm just going to do this." And at the end of it, I knew I would have a job.   So what happened that got you interested in academic life, and food issues in particular?   The transition was on my first teaching job. I went to Brandeis University as a postdoctoral fellow. By that time I was divorced and remarried. My husband had a job in Boston. I got a job as a postdoctoral fellow with Brandeis. That led to what I call the swimming pool epiphany, which was a realization in a moment that I could not have an academic career as a bench scientist and handle two young children at the same time. There were women who could do that, but I was not one of them. I was a bench scientist, and working in a developmental biology laboratory. My kids had swimming lessons at Brandeis on Saturday morning. I stayed home with them, because my husband had his own job. He was an assistant professor at Harvard, and he had to work on weekends to keep up with his work. One day there was a much longer swimming lesson for some reason, so much longer that I thought, "Well, I'll just go to my lab. And there won't be anybody there, and I might actually be able to get a little work done." I walked into my lab on a Saturday morning and everybody was there, everybody! The lab director, his wife, the lab technician, the graduate students, the other postdocs, everybody was there except me. I didn't even know that people were there on Saturday morning. I thought, "Oh, okay, this is why everybody treats me like I'm not getting any work done." And, "Oh, okay, THIS IS WHY I'm not getting any work done." That was the end of my lab career. I started looking for a teaching job right away. I knew I couldn't do it. So I took a teaching job at Brandeis, and learned how to learn, which was very useful. On my last year at Brandeis, I got handed a nutrition course to teach. As I like to describe it, it was like falling in love and I've never looked back.   That is so interesting. And What happened after Brandeis?   Well, after Brandeis, my husband got a job at UCSF in San Francisco. I went along as an accompanying spouse, not really realizing the terrible political position that I was in - because I had gotten a job because I was my husband's wife. The job seemed fantastic, I was a halftime associate dean for human biology programs, and then the other part of my time I was teaching nutrition to medical students. I was able to keep that going for eight years, until it and the marriage fell apart at the same time. Then I went to public health school, and actually got credentialed in nutrition. I did a master's in public health nutrition at the University of California, Berkeley. And then, when the UCSF job ended, I went to Washington for two years with a very fancy title: Senior Nutrition Policy Advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services. There I edited the 1988 Surgeon General's report on nutrition and health.   That was a landmark report. But there's a question I'm dying to ask, what was it about nutrition that made you fall in love with the field?   Oh, it was so much fun! It was so much more fun than molecular biology and cell biology. For one thing, the papers were so much easier to read. When I first started teaching undergraduate nutrition, I could give undergraduate students original research papers in nutrition and they could critically evaluate those papers - almost without knowing very much about science. They could see that the number of study subjects was very small, that the studies weren't very well controlled, that there were all kinds of other factors that could've influenced the outcome of those studies. I thought this is just the best way of teaching undergraduate biology I could think of, because everybody could relate to it in a very personal way. It was really fun to teach. Still is.   You're a very gifted communicator. So I can imagine how you would enjoy teaching. You've had an interesting journey through the nutrition field itself, having started at kind of the basic level, with a biological background, teaching about research papers in the field, and then transitioning to having this major focus on the policy side of things. I'm imagining that time in Washington you just discussed was pretty influential in that. Is that right?   Oh, it certainly was. You know, I took the job because I was told, "If you're interested in nutrition policy, this is the place to be." I was in the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, which is responsible for a large number of very important public health initiatives. And I thought the Surgeon General's report was really worth two years of my time. I ended up writing most of it, and certainly editing a great deal of it. It was an education in how politics works. I had come from Berkeley, where we didn't really understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats. We thought both of them were mainstream, and didn't really get it. Oh, I learned the difference very quickly. It was an education in how Washington works; what you can say and what you can't say; how you get things done politically; how you try to work across bipartisan lines, but how difficult that can be. Also, I met people in agencies who ended up being extremely helpful in later stages of my career. If I had a question, I knew who to ask. I was on committees, I was just really involved in a great deal of nutrition-policy activities in Washington during that two-year period. It was a very steep learning curve, and one that I consider immensely valuable.   And was it during that period where you came to develop a richer view of the influence of food industry on the way food policy decisions are made?   On the first day of my job in Washington, I had just arrived from California. The director of the office I was in explained that even if the research showed that eating less meat would be better for health, the Surgeon General's report could never say "Eat less meat." Because that was a politically impossible statement. The Department of Agriculture would complain to Congress, and the report would never be able to come out. That was, as I am fond of saying, no paranoid fantasy. It was absolutely true. An enormous part of my job in Washington was to fend off the Department of Agriculture official who was most interested in making sure that the Surgeon General's report did not say one negative word about red meat. And of course, it didn't. It said, "Eat less saturated fat," and you were supposed to know that saturated fat is a euphemism for meat.   The role you played was really phenomenally important, and that document that you worked two years on was really very important at the time. So what did you do after that?   Well, I discovered quite early in my time in Washington DC that I was not suited for a Washington DC career. I tend to be outspoken and say what I think, and that's really not acceptable in those circumstances. I was constantly getting my boss in trouble for things that I said. I discovered quite quickly that in addition to the Republican and Democrat split in Washington, there was a split between people who liked New York better than Washington, and those who liked Washington better than New York. I quickly discovered that going to New York would be going home, in a sense. I started looking for jobs in New York right away. After a year or so, the job chairing the Home Economics Department at NYU came up. I applied for it, and happily got it.   Boy, that term - home economics - really brings you back, doesn't it?   It does, and I thought it was hilarious, because here I was with a degree in molecular biology, and another one in public health nutrition. I was coming to chair a Department of Home Economics. Couldn't believe they still existed. I had been hired to change the department into something more appropriate for the 20th, if not the 21st century. And I didn't realize how hard that was going to be. But it was actually the only job I got, so I was happy to do it. It was in New York; it was in The Village; it was at NYU. Which was, at the time, kind of a third-rate institution, but with a commitment to improve dramatically. Which it did very, very quickly, over the next several years. It was very exciting to be part of that development. And of course, eventually the department shifted from home economics to food studies and nutrition, which is what it is now.   When you bring up home economics, it reminds me of being in high school in South Bend, Indiana, where the girls went to home economics classes and the boys went to shop class and learned to do woodworking and things. What a difference there is today.   I was happy to learn how to cook. I think they should bring cooking back. It's a great thing to know how to do, and it certainly improves the quality of food that you eat at home. That's where I learned to cook - in home economics, in junior high school. But the home economics department that I inherited had 25 different home economics programs run by five faculty. It was so absolutely amazing, and there was much work to be done to kind of clean up some of that. Fortunately, I had a lot of administrative help, because the university was improving rapidly, and it wanted that department to improve too.   You're so right about cooking and how important the skill it is. I do a lot more cooking these days than I do woodworking or using a drill press. I wish I could have gone with the girls into that home economics class back then.   Well, I wish I could've gone to the shop, I would've loved to know how to fix cars.   Ahh, there you go. So at NYU, you created, I think, what was the first university program in food studies, is that right?   The first one called "Food Studies." There was a program at Boston University in gastronomy that had been kicked off by Julia Child and Jacque Pepin, but I knew that gastronomy would not work at a rapidly-improving university that took its academics very seriously. But there were, at NYU, a great many programs with "Studies" in their title. And I thought if we had food studies, we could get away with it. And we did. We were very, very fortunate in being able to do that, because a program in hotel management that the department ran was being taken away from us and transferred into another school. And it was an extremely lucrative program, and everybody felt very sorry for losing the income from that program. And so, when we came up with the idea of food studies, once people got over the initial question, "What's that?" And we were able to explain to them that food is a multi-trillion-dollar-a-year industry; the major public health problems in the world are connected to food; agriculture is connected to food; climate change is connected to food - in fact, practically any problem you can think of is connected to food in some way. Then we were permitted to go ahead and do that. We were very, very fortunate in creating a new field, because the "New York Times" wrote about the program the week after New York State approved it. The most amazing thing happened! We had people in our offices that afternoon holding up copies of the clipping and saying, "I've waited all my life for this program." In a sense, we created the program that many of us wish we could've taken when we went to school, because it's a program about food and culture. It now has agricultural components in it, although it didn't at the beginning, but it does now. It's kind of food and everything. Our students love it, they all come into the program wanting to change the world through food, and I'm greatly in favor of encouraging them to try to make the world better through food. I think it's a great way to do it.   I found the same thing in my teaching. The students are so keen on these issues, they get more sophisticated and knowledgeable every year. Interest in food and climate change, like you said, is just booming. And boy, it's really heartening to know that there are so many young people interested in taking on this issue. And thanks to you and others who started those early programs that really paved the path for everything that exists today. Let me ask you about your book "Food Politics", which is really a classic. What inspired you to write that?   I had gone to a meeting at the National Cancer Institute in the early 1990s, and it was about behavioral causes of cancer, mostly cigarettes. This was my first meeting with the main anti-smoking physicians and scientists who were taking extremely activist positions against smoking. They did slideshows, and the slides showed cigarette-company marketing in remote areas of the world: the jungles of Africa, and the high Himalayan mountains. One of the presentations was about marketing to children, and showed pictures of the Joe Camel ad everyplace where kids hang out. I was kind of stunned by it. Not because I didn't know that cigarette companies marketed everywhere, and marketed to children. I did know those things, but I had never paid any attention to it. I had never systematically thought about it. Cigarette advertisements and advertising was so much a part of the landscape at that time that it was unnoticeable. It just kind of disappeared into the woodwork. I walked out of those presentations thinking, "We should be doing this for Coca-Cola!" We nutritionists should be looking at the companies that are marketing products that are not particularly healthful, and looking at how they're doing it. So, I started paying attention. I started looking at food-industry marketing, fast-food marketing, soda marketing everyplace I went. And I started writing articles about it. In the late 1990s, I had a sabbatical coming up, I needed a sabbatical project, and by that time I had figured out that NYU valued books. I had been trained in molecular biology, where the only thing that's valued is original research in very prestigious journals. But NYU values books, it's very humanities-based. So, I thought I could take those articles and put them together into a book. That's where "Food Politics" came about. It was a little bit more complicated than that, but that was basically the origin of "Food Politics".   It is one amazing book, and it had so much influence on generations of students, and researchers, and advocates. And I thank you for writing it. It really has had a big impact.   Well, thank you for that. I have to say, I thought I was just stating the obvious.   Well, obvious to you, maybe, because you had the insight to look into these things before other people did. You really were a pioneer there. A lot of people believe that the job of an academic is to do their research, do their scholarly work, do their teaching, and then that's it. Not to go out and try to change the way the public thinks about things, talk to the press, try to change policies, and do things like that. The thought is, once you stray into that territory, you're biased toward a certain point of view and you lose your objectivity as a scientist. Now, I certainly don't believe that's the case, and boy, if anybody epitomizes that sort of philosophy, it's you. How did you sort that through in those early days, as your work was moving into the advocacy arena?   Well, I think there were two things that happened. One was that I went into a department that did not have laboratories. So laboratory science was out of the question. I had to find something to do as an academic where I could publish in scholarly journals. And yet, I wasn't doing original kinds of research, so I had to solve that problem. But the other was the miracle of NYU: they hired me as a full professor with tenure. I had tenure! I could do anything I wanted without fear of reprisals, or without fear of being fired because I was saying something that would offend someone. I have to say, never in my 30 years at NYU did anybody ever suggest that I keep my mouth shut. So it was absolutely the right place for me, and, I guess, the right time. But I had, I guess, they are biases. I had them for the beginning. I think it would be better if people ate more healthfully. I think it would be better if we had a food system that was better for climate change. I think it would be better if people ate diets that reduced hunger, and reduced their risk of chronic disease. I think those are values that are really important. To be able to do work that promotes those values made perfect sense to me. You know, I realize that I'm looked at as incredibly biased. I never get appointed to federal committees, and I have not been invited to the forthcoming White House conference, because I'm considered much too controversial. I've always found it ironic that people who work for food companies or who think that food-company marketing is perfectly appropriate are not considered biased. That's the world we live in.   You know, it's interesting how the academic world construes the concept of impact, and journal articles, and how many times people cite your articles. The outside world might look in on that definition of impact and just think it's ludicrous. You think of impact in a different way, and I do as well. If you're able to harness the work that occurs in the academic world in order to create the kind of social changes that you're talking about you really are kind of maximizing the potential of what exists inside the academic world. Do you agree with that?   Oh, absolutely, it's publish or perish, and I quickly discovered that food studies was a wonderful umbrella for the kind of work that I wanted to do. And it valued books, it values articles, opinion pieces. I mean, the way I describe my work is I write heavily-footnoted editorials. These're opinion pieces that're backed up by large amounts of science. I think that's a valuable contribution. I'm not able to measure the kind of impact that I have. I have no idea what it is, and I don't know how to measure it. But I'm doing the kind of work that feels good to me. I'm doing work that I feel good about and I feel is worthwhile. I hope that other people will pick it up, and that students will follow in footsteps. And one of the reasons for writing the memoir was to encourage students, no matter what field they're in, to get some idea that they can do these kinds of things, it's okay. You can get paid for it!   That's not to mention changing public opinion or putting pressure on political leaders to do things outside of industry influence, and things. You know, it reminds me of an op-ed you and I wrote together in the "New York Times" some years ago, on the World Health Organization and the stance it was taking on sugar. Those things need to be made public, people need to know about those. And sometimes academics are in a pretty good position to highlight some of those really important issues.   Oh, absolutely, and all of that research skill that we have, all of those references and citations give a credibility to the kind of work that we do that is pretty unimpeachable. You know, I'm often attacked for my opinions. But never on the research that backs them up, which is kind of interesting. You may not like what I say, but I've got evidence to back it up.   Yes! Speaking of attacks, over the years, I've had so many of these sort of things. Some really nasty and threatening and some a little more humorous. I remember somebody once sent me a letter that said they wished a pox on my house. I wasn't sure what I was to do with that. Like, I mean, should I go to Home Depot and buy a pox detector? I didn't really know what to do. Heck, you must've had a ton of that kind of stuff. Has that ever bothered you?   Well, you would be amazed at how little of it I've gotten. I mean, there was one right at the beginning when "Food Politics" came out, there were a lot of attacks. "Doesn't she know anything about personal responsibility," and "Who is she to tell people what to eat," and that kind of thing. And then the famous letter from a lawyer saying I maligned sugar by saying that soft drinks contain sugar, when I, of all people, should've known that they don't contain sugar, they contain high-fructose corn syrup. Which I thought was hilariously funny, because high-fructose corn syrup is a form of sugar. But nothing ever came of it. I've heard remarkably little overt criticism or that kind of thing. What I have heard from people is I talked to one person who said he was hired by a soda company to track every single thing I was writing and then develop positions that the soda industry could use to refute what I had said. But I didn't know anything about that until that confession later on. I was kind of amazed. He got paid to do that! Yeah, I thought that was pretty good.   That's so interesting, so you're creating jobs. Back to that time you were in government, working on the Surgeon General's report, you were noting a lot of influence by the food industry on nutrition guidelines, nutrition policies, etc. If we fast-forward to today, do you think nutrition guidelines, nutrition policies, are less influenced by the food industry?   Absolutely not. Of course they're still influenced. You can look at it in the dietary guidelines. They still talk about salt, sugar, and fat. They don't talk about the foods that those substances come from. They're still very cautious about advising less of any particular agricultural product, because the pushback is enormous. The meat industry is enormously influential over government policy. I mean, we have government agencies that are captured by corporations. We see this in many, many fields, but it's certainly true in food. Everybody is worried about the FDA these days because of its cozy relationships with food companies. I just did a blog post this week on user fees. I don't think the FDA should be getting its money for doing inspections of food corporations from the corporations it's inspecting. They can't possibly do that in an independent way. The Department of Agriculture has long been infamous for working for the meat and dairy industries. The food industry likes the perks it gets, doesn't want them changing, and it uses the political system in the way that all corporations use the political system. I think there's more recognition of food-industry influence over what we eat and how we eat, and that's very gratifying.   Are there things you think could be done to lessen this influence, if you could wave the magic wand?   Yes, get rid of Citizens United to start with, so that corporations can't buy elections. I think there's a lot we could do. I think we need an agricultural system that is focused on public health, not on growing commodities that feed animals and fuel automobiles. I think one of the greatest travesties in the food system is that 30 or 40% of United States corn is used to make ethanol. That's just shocking. In a world in which food is a really big issue, we should be growing food for people, not for automobiles, and not nearly as much for animals. You know, and I think there're all kinds of policies that would promote public health in a way that we really need promoting. We need universal school meals; we need a healthcare system, that would be nice; and we need an agricultural and food system that is focused on reducing hunger and reducing chronic disease, particularly obesity-related chronic disease, which the government doesn't want to touch. Because touching it means putting some limits on what food companies can do. I don't think that food companies should be permitted to market junk food, especially to children.     Bio   Marion Nestle is Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health, Emerita, at New York University, in the department she chaired from 1988-2003 and from which she retired in September 2017. She is also Visiting Professor of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell. She holds honorary degrees from Transylvania University in Kentucky and the Macaulay Honors College of the City University of New York. She earned a Ph.D. in molecular biology and an M.P.H. in public health nutrition from the University of California, Berkeley. Previous faculty positions were at Brandeis University and the UCSF School of Medicine. From 1986-88, she was senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of Health and Human Services and editor of the 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition and Health. Her research and writing examine scientific and socioeconomic influences on food choice and its consequences, emphasizing the role of food industry marketing. She is the author, co-author, or co-editor of fourteen books, several of them prize-winning, most notably Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2002); Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety (2003); What to Eat (2006); Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics, with Dr. Malden Nesheim (2012); Eat, Drink Vote: An Illustrated Guide to Food Politics (2013); and Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning) in 2015. She also has written two books about pet food, Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine (2008) and Feed Your Pet Right in 2010 (also with Dr. Nesheim). She published Unsavory Truth: How Food Companies Skew the Science of What We Eat, in 2018.  Her most recent book, with Kerry Trueman, Let's Ask Marion: What You Need to Know about the Politics of Food, Nutrition, and Health, was published in September 2020.  Her forthcoming book with University of California Press is a memoir to be published in 2022.

This week Blakey baby examines the ideal window to drink a hot coffee, Joe Camel's disgusting snout, and gives his takes on street signs. Blake's Patreon: Patreon.com/blakewexler See Blake Live: https://www.blakewexler.com/live-dates Blake's Philadelphia Eagles Food podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/feeding-the-birds-podcast/id1306857833 Thanks to Frankie, Lynn Shore and Joe Mackenzie for the jingles & music.

Colin revs his engines with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth watching Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991), a neo-Western starring Mickey Rourke and Don Johnson as the titular anti-heroes who rob a bank to save their friend's bar and find themselves the target of futuristic drug smugglers. Listen as we mourn the death of Joe Camel, have Crystal Dreams, and hang out with Jack Daniels and Jose Cuervo on this week's exciting episode! Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

A group of margarita-drinking kindergarteners got us thinking: How does advertising impact kids and how can advertisers improve on it? From the Joe Camel cigarette ads of the late 1980s and 1990s to the fruit-flavored vape juice pods of recent years, the Better Business Bureau National Programs' Mary Engle helps break it down on “Something Offbeat." Hosted by Mike Rogers, produced by Lauren Barry and Chris Blake, audio editing by Chris Blake, original music by Myron Kaplan, editorial support from Cooper Moll.

.

This week we discuss other Sideshow Bob episodes, how popular Home Improvement was, Old folks TV shows, Dr. Demento, The Arsenio Hall Show, Joe Camel and his infulence on young people and much more. Join us for #60 on the countdown of the top 100 Simpsons Episodes of all time!

TJ & Lizzy discuss season 2, episode 4 of Wentworth, Joe Camel's unconscious messaging, and Black and Pink. www.blackandpink.org Sound from zapsplat.com Cover art by Elise Bigley --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/unlockingwentworth/support

The Don discusses the ills of being a late bloomer in most things in life, how Joe Camel and a high school English teacher's beard influenced his decisions, and the fact that the government is trying to kill us.  Not all heroes wear capes.  And the Don doesn't even own a sports jacket.  Listen in.  

Discover the fascinating story behind Joe Camel, the cartoon character designed to attract smokers to Camel cigarettes. Uncover how the marketing campaign intended for adults inadvertently targeted a younger audience, leading to significant controversy and a shift in advertising regulations. #JoeCamel #Cigarettes #WeirdHistory #MarketingCampaign #AdvertisingControversy #SmokingHabits #BrandMarketing #AdvertisingRegulations #YouthImpact #HighLifeAssociation Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The theme of this session seems to be "immorality". Ryan's sick and on way too much medicine and Tiler is really depressed this week and dragging the mood down. Tiler brings another WTF!? to the show, America edition. Ryan wants to tell you all about the Candiru fish aka the animal that wants to live in your penis. Wesley Snipes, Joe Camel, and cannibalism; yay or nay? They are THOSEGUYSYOUHATE!

Oh how we've missed you! Have you missed us? So sorry for the delay but with coflicting scedules and sickness that ran rampant through the house we had a tough time getting this one out for you but here it is in all of it's glory! In this episode we see Krusty try to pivot to stop the bad ratings of Itchy and Scratchy by introducing a new character, everyone's favorite half Joe Camel and a third Fonzarelli, kung fu hippie from Gangsta City, the rappin surfer whose fool he pities, everyone's favorite Poochie. We were just coming back from a road trip to Pittsburgh so we were all a little bit punchy but think the episode turned pretty good, even if we went multiple days from watching the episode to recording the podcast. Cori sings some Nelly and has a question about Luther Vandross. Bryan tells us of the connection between Poochie and a certain character form Growing Pains, all while trying to discover the meaning of "debu." Brenden leads a discussion of fan boy culture and gets very upset over the concept of painting bricks. But through it all the family can at least agree on one thing, Roy's our boy! So join us for this deleriously delusional ride, you'll be glad you did!

So we admit it..... we didn't have a clue what the hell we were gonna talk about when we hit record. We had an idea, but no solid plan.... so we did what we do best, we started babbling about nothing. Eventually we talk about retro ad campaigns and worked our way into discussing a few celebrities who started out as simple product spokespeople. You will learn everything Wikipedia has to offer on Max Headroom and Ernest P Worrell, and you'll get a crash course in the musical career of one Bruce Willis. All this and more this week on The Power Hour. Contact us. Here's the info.... Email: retropowerhour@gmail.com Voicemail: 669- BE RETRO (669 237 3876) or the Anchor Voice Line: https://anchor.fm/retropowerhour/message. We wanna hear from you! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/retropowerhour/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/retropowerhour/support

Greetings friends!  We were able to find a copy of Pirates of Darkwater and thus have embarked to recount the tale to you, the listener.  We're off to a promising start with a discussion of the practicality of a boat made entirely of bones, we question the very premise of the show, Joe Camel has a cameo appearance, and the bad guy looks racist for a race that doesn't exist.  https://popculturefailure.podbean.com/   popculturefailure@gmail.com Show: @FailedPopCultur Jake: @mdwstlvaffr Sky: @sandwichsurplus

Allan M. Brandt is a professor of the history of science at Harvard and author of The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. He discusses the tobacco industry's 20th-century campaign to make its addictive and deadly product somehow acceptable — and its 21st-century campaign to do it all again.* FULL TRANSCRIPT *GARFIELD: Welcome to Bully Pulpit. That was Teddy Roosevelt, I'm Bob Garfield with Episode 6: Crime of the Century.OLCZAK: The prime cause of harm generated by the smoking is an outcome of the combustion. Okay? When you burn the cigarette, when you burn the tobacco you release the thousands of the chemicals. Many of those chemicals, they are very bad for the human body. If you eliminate the combustion, you actually can achieve a very, very significant reduction in exposure to the toxicants.GARFIELD: In our last episode, we heard from Philip Morris International CEO Jacek Olczak as he boasted about Philip Morris's plan to convert half of its business to non-combustible tobacco products by the year 2025 — a strategy that impresses Wall Street and part of the public-health community, but to others is merely reminiscent of a century of Big Tobacco manipulation, cynicism and fatal lies. In that story we heard briefly from Allan Brandt, professor of the history of science at Harvard and author of The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. This week, we return to the professor and the subject of the Cigarette Century, so deadly and corrupt.Allan, welcome to Bully Pulpit.BRANDT: Thanks so much for having me.GARFIELD: The tobacco industry has a long and dark history, going back at least to the early 50s when the evidence of smoking's dangers became an existential threat to cigarette sales. Can you tell me what the research was at that turning point?BRANDT: There'd been a lot of research going all the way back to the middle of the 19th century about the possible harms of smoking, but there wasn't fully substantiated knowledge, I would argue, til right around 1950. But then things changed quickly and radically because a group of early epidemiologists, both in England and the United States, began to study smokers and what happened to their health, and they began to study lung cancer patients and what their smoking behaviors had been. And they came up with incredibly robust and important findings that were published around 1950, '52 and three, more studies by 1954. And all of them reached one absolute conclusion, which was that smoking was actually a cause of lung cancer and likely other diseases that would be studied subsequently, especially heart disease, stroke and other cancers.GARFIELD: So of course, the industry said, oh my God, this is terrible news. We can see that we're merchants of death and we will henceforth get out of the cigarette business and into selling wintergreen candy. Right?BRANDT: That's not exactly what happened. Here you have a multi-million dollar industry confronted by scientific evidence that their product causes disease and death. And so the tobacco executives started to put their heads together and figure out, how do we respond to this? Do we say the science is bad? Do we just disregard it? Do we try to incriminate the scientist who produced this? And eventually what happens is that in December, 1953, the six major CEOs of the big tobacco companies get together at the Plaza Hotel in New York to consider the way forward because they knew that they were in a massive crisis in terms of their industry. And they called in probably the nation's most powerful and influential public relations executive, John Hill, to consult with them. And he listened to them for a while. And then he said, I don't think you understand how to do this. What you need to do is create uncertainty. Don't deny that these studies have appeared. Just say there's much more we need to learn. We need more science. And in a sense, one of the things that Hill told them is if you don't like the science that's coming out, begin to develop your own science. Find skeptics, find marginal scientific and medical people, give them grants and have them produce science that will serve the interest of your industry. What the tobacco industry really introduced in the early to mid 50s was the idea: How can we confuse science? How can we obscure what's coming out? How can we make people say, you know, there's a debate, we just don't know? A lot of physicians and scientists were coming out, 1952, 1953, saying we need to regulate cigarettes, we need to tell our patients to quit. A lot of doctors did quit and by the early 1960s, the industry's campaign — based on Hill's principles — really led to people saying we just don't have enough evidence yet.GARFIELD: Now, as you mentioned, 70 years ago the research showed the correlation between cigarette smoking and cancer based on health outcomes and behaviors for large study populations. But it wasn't laboratory science on a cellular level. So this opens some space for creating doubt, circumstantial evidence, blah, blah, blah. You have identified the industry's three pronged strategy.BRANDT: Yes. The three points were essentially that the evidence of the harms of smoking were inconclusive, that cancers had many causes and what we would really need is much more intensive research to resolve a publicly important question and that no one was more committed to the idea of learning more, investigating more completely and resolving this question. And then, of course, if we ever do find anything in cigarettes that might be harmful, we will take the lead in fixing our product and assuring the health of the public.GARFIELD: Yeah, like this Chesterfield commercial from the late fifties. The interviewer was a familiar face to the audience of the day: George Fenneman.GEORGE: As you watch, an electronic miracle is taking place as a stream of electrons creates this television picture. Here tonight is another electronic miracle, destined to affect your lives even more than television. This new electronic miracle, AccuRay, means that everything from auto tires to ice cream, battleship steel to cigarettes, can be made better and safer for you. Now meet Mr. Bert Chope, brilliant young president of Industrial Nucleonics. Well Bert, exactly what is AccuRay?CHOPE: Well, George, it is a device by which a stream of electrons passes through and analyzes the product while it is actually being made. They transferred what they see to this electronic brain, which adjusts the production machinery for errors down to millionths of an inch.GEORGE: Well, I always ask the question so many people ask me. How does AccuRay make Chesterfield a better cigarette than was ever possible before?CHOPE: Every cigarette made with AccuRay control contains a more precise measure of perfectly packed tobaccos, so Chesterfield smokes smoother, without hotspots or a hard draw.GEORGE: That's why Chesterfield tastes better and is best for you. Bert, what's your cigarette?CHOPE: You see, I know what AccuRay can do.GARFIELD: “Better for you,” like Kent's micronite filter and Marlboro Lights were supposedly — but not actually — better for you. But apart from — excuse the expression “puffery” — they stacked the deck with putatively legitimate scientists.BRANDT: They found a group that was hostile to epidemiology, that was committed to the idea that cancers have to be genetic. They hired a lot of people who were highly sympathetic to eugenic notions of genetics and elitism. And then the other thing they did is they gave out a lot of money to scientists. So in my research, I found a young scientist — his grant from the government had run out and they were very good at identifying these folks who were not really fully succeeding and saying, well, we can give you a grant and here's what we want you to do. And then when they produced papers, they edited the papers, they turned them around. Whenever there was a paper that seemed to be hesitant about the connection between smoking and disease, they would make sure it appeared in the press. And they really said there are two sides to this story. The media, in a sense, supported the Hill principles because the media was very committed to the idea that every story has two sides.GARFIELD: The same kind of false balance in, let's say, climate coverage, where climate denialists are given, you know, equal time with global scientific consensus.BRANDT: What the climate science world is based on are the principles of what today are widely called the tobacco industry playbook. So you set up these, like, industry funded, so-called independent research agencies — you know, the Center for Indoor Air Research. And what it turns out is that they're funded by industry and they collect scientists and materials as if they were independent. And the tobacco industry worked very, very concertedly to produce this alternative. And one of the arguments I'm prepared to make is the tobacco industry invented disinformation at this scale.GARFIELD: You were talking about the the cult of false balance, which is a longstanding journalistic reflex. But there's something else, and that is that as a revenue source, tobacco advertising was one of the two or three largest sectors for television and newspapers and magazines. So while the harm of tobacco was reported, there were huge disincentives for the media into taking sides. Do you think that that disincentive was corrupting?BRANDT: I do. I think that one of the things that the tobacco industry also invented, in a sense, were these very powerful conflicts of interest and in the largesse of the companies and their deep pockets really corrupted a number of critical social institutions, to some degree journalism. But in many ways, I would emphasize how it corrupted our political processes. And today, we give a lot of attention to special interest lobbying and contributions to political campaigns that we understand have undermined our democratic processes, especially around issues of science. The first part of Hill's principles, and part of what became the tobacco industry playbook, was to invest in campaigns and invest in politicians and shape their views on legislation through these funds. So, the industry invented disinformation, but it also created the kind of special interest lobbying. So, I sort of go from tobacco. We could include guns. The beverage industry has done a lot of this. And, of course, most notably right now is that the big energy oil companies have utilized so many of these techniques that are familiar for me from investigating the history of tobacco.GARFIELD: When it came to influencing the public and manipulating behavior, it turns out that these were not inexperienced people. As you wrote in the previous half of the 20th century, the industry, quote, “took a product that had existed at the cultural periphery and remade it into one of the most popular, successful and widely used items of the early 20th century.” You know, it's hard to imagine that there was a time when cigarette smoking was relatively marginal. How did they engineer its path from marginal to ubiquitous?BRANDT: The rise of popular smoking is one of the most remarkable stories in the history of mass consumer culture. The industry, through some very brilliant marketing and thinking, was able to take a product — little used, on the margins of society; actually quite a stigmatized product, late 19th century — and absolutely turn it around. They were very aware of the power of mass media, and they focused on making it for youth and making it cool. They focused on making it sexy and they realized that they had a potential to manipulate the culture. There was sort of the notion that cigarettes and American culture didn't fit, that we emphasize productivity, individual responsibility, no idleness. A lot of our culture was hostile to pleasure. And they inverted this. There are many examples of people like Edward Bernays, who was a giant early 20th century thinker in advertising and public relations. And he hired women to march in the Easter Day parade smoking cigarettes because women, it had been thought, shouldn't smoke in public. There were a lot of issues about women taking up smoking, and he associated cigarettes with women's rights and suffrage. So there was a strategic approach to popularizing cigarettes that was incredibly effective. And of course, you have this added advantage with cigarettes that when you do get people to smoke, you also get them addicted. Bernays went to the Hollywood studios and asked them to portray characters that smoke and brought cigarettes into the movies in an intense way. It didn't just happen. It's just an unbelievable story. Almost no one smokes in 1900, especially not cigarettes, and by 1950, 1960, we're very close to a majority of all adults smoking. And the impact that that had on health and continues to have on health has just been devastating.GARFIELD: The Hollywood story is just extraordinary, because not only did the rise of motion pictures parallel the rise of tobacco usage in the world, actors were eager to embrace it because, as you mentioned, you know, it was sexy, but also, also — dude! — it gave them something to do with their hands.BRANDT: Absolutely, and it was like, this is a prop. I'm giving it to you. It's going to appeal to our consumers. They hired many major movie stars who smoked in their movies to then do advertisements for them.GARFIELD: From Ronald Reagan to Mary Tyler Moore to the rugged and macho John Wayne.JOHN WAYNE: Well, after you've been making a lot of strenuous scenes, you like to sit back and enjoy a cool, mild, good-tasting cigarette. And that's just what Camels are, mild and good-tasting pack after pack. I know, I've been smoking ‘em for 20 years. So why don't you try ‘em yourself. You'll see what I mean.GARFIELD: Frank Sinatra actually sang about his cigarette TV sponsor.FRANK SINATRA: Cheeeesterfield. You start with a Grade A tobacco, the best that you can get. It's the sound of big pleasure, the sound I'll be making for Chesterfield in this time spot every week. It'll be easy for me because Chesterfield is my brand. It has been for years.GARFIELD: And Winston brokered a truly historic celebrity deal — or, anyway, prehistoric.BARNEY RUBBLE: Winston packs rich tobaccos specially selected and specially processed for good flavor in filter smokin'.FRED FLINTSONE: Yeah, Barney, Winston tastes good, like a … cigarette should.GARFIELD: Yes, decades before before the cartoon Joe Camel outraged the public by targeting kids, R.J. Reynolds managed to co-opt the appeal of Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble — neither of whom actually smoked Winstons, because they were animated characters from the Stone Age. The point being, though, that before anyone ever used the word “influencers,” Big Tobacco purchased endorsement from whomever conferred authority?BRANDT: Many sports figures, movie actors, famous people, doctors, and they helped create this sort of cult of influence and personality. GARFIELD: Doctors. DOCTORS.NARRATOR: Yes, folks, the pleasing mildness of a Camel is just as enjoyable to a doctor as it is to you or me. And according to this nationwide survey, more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.GARFIELD: So before 1952, when the epidemiology started piling up, these guys were wizards at social engineering. And so now it came time to turn those skills on the problem of debunking legitimate science. And hence the playbook you've described. Now, 1953 was 1953, but over time the epidemiological smoking guns were being validated by lab research, cancer in mice and eventually a more fundamental understanding of the effects of tar, nicotine and other chemicals at a cellular level. But controversy was the industry story and they were sticking with it. BRANDT: Yes, it worked for a very long time until it began to erode, because of the concerns that began to arise in the late 1950s, but especially the 1960s, about negligence and responsibility for the tobacco companies through torts and suits.GARFIELD: Product liability.BRANDT: Yes. And so the lawyers kind of took over the strategy by 1960, certainly by 1964. And they said we don't have any choice, because otherwise the liabilities to the industry and information that we know it's harmful would undo the financial structure of the universe of the industries. And there are many ironies about this. Like, you sort of think, well, labeling cigarettes was a public health benefit. And at first the industry opposed labeling, but then the lawyers shift. They say, well, we actually need a label to protect us from liability. So, you know, the first label said: caution, cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health. Actually, its biggest implication was that it protected the companies from liability.GARFIELD: And if anyone said, well, how, you know, how could you have not warned us? They said, well, we did warn you.BRANDT: The companies would say, well, you were aware that there was a label on the package, weren't you? And the litigant would say, yes, I was. And then they say, well, how can you hold our company responsible? And that's the way it went for a long time, really, until the 90s. And then a variety of forces began to direct very damning evidence to the companies. And one is it became very clear that the companies had maintained high levels of nicotine to keep smokers addicted.GARFIELD: But in April 1994, at Congressman Henry Waxman's House hearing on tobacco, under questioning from Congressman Ron Wyden, seven CEOs of major tobacco companies lied under oath — not only about augmenting the effect of nicotine in their products, but that nicotine was the drug that hooked smokers to begin with. The Surgeon General, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization and others were unanimous, but …REP. WYDEN: Lemme begin my questioning on the matter of whether or not nicotine is addictive. Lemme ask you first — and I'd like to just go down the row — whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive. I heard virtually all of you touch on it and just, yes or no, do you believe nicotine is not addictive?CEO: I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes.REP. WYDEN: Mr. Johnston?CEO JOHNSTON: Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction. There is no intoxication.REP. WYDEN: Alright, we'll take that as a no. And again, time is short. If you could just, I think of each of you believe nicotine is not addictive. We just would like to have this for the record.CEO: I don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive.CEO: I believe nicotine is not addictive.CEO: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.CEO: I believe that nicotine is not addictive.CEO: I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive.REP. WYDEN: Dr. Campbell, I assume that you're aware that your testimony, and you've said in your testimony that nicotine is not addictive, is contradicted by an overwhelming number of authorities and associations. For example, in 1988 the surgeon general of the United States wrote an entire report on this topic. The surgeon general, of course, is the chief health advisor to our government. I assume you have reviewed that report.DOCTOR: Yes, I have sir.BRANDT: So that was one thing. The industry fought this tooth and nail, but the evidence really was rising all the time, that smokers could create risks for nonsmokers, especially indoors. And if Americans have a view that it's up to me and I'll take my risks, they're very sensitive to the idea of risks being imposed on them by others. And the change in indoor smoking bans, workplace smoking bans, getting smoking off of airplanes, all these things, I think, undermined the notion that this is a good and healthy product. And these were all elements of the decline of tobacco in the United States. The one other issue that I really wanted to raise here, though, is that the industry had always been focused on getting young smokers. They had to go get younger smokers if they were going to — the word they use — replace the smokers who were dying and the creation of the tobacco market was in the youth market. And often the youth market is an illegal market. For many years, you couldn't buy cigarettes til you were 16 or 18. The number kept going up. So in the 90s, and a lot of people remember this, you know, there was the famous Joe Camel comic book campaign.GARFIELD: Joe Camel was a cartoon.BRANDT: Yes, a cartoon character. Totally cool. Flying jets, getting women, hanging out in clubs. And a lot of the information from the development of that campaign is now fortunately in the archives because R.J. Reynolds was sued.BERNSTEIN: The commission's complaint alleges that this campaign was used to promote an addictive and dangerous product to children and adolescents under the age of 18, and that this practice is illegal.GARFIELD: That was Jodie Bernstein, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, in May of 1997.BRANDT: And so I think these things together, you know, the idea that secondhand smoke was harmful to others, that the companies had manipulated cigarettes to be more highly addictive at a time that they said we're trying to protect the public, the appeal to kids. These are the things that led to the kind of crisis of the industry that in some ways it remains in and is looking for strategies to emerge from.GARFIELD: We discussed how the surgeon general warning actually turned out to have the ironic effect of creating legal impunity for the industry. But these smoking guns you're describing, like the marketing to kids, like the documentary evidence that they had added nicotine to tobacco and the science on second hand smoke, they ultimately would give power to litigation that was able to do what legislatures and regulators could not do. And that was to hold the industry accountable.BRANDT: Yes, there was a shift in litigation strategy, in the 90s, from smokers who had been harmed being the plaintiffs, to a very innovative strategy where the state said, well, we pay all these monies to take care of people who your companies have caused to be ill, and you need to compensate our states for the health care expenses that we have had associated with smokers. And it was in the many billions of dollars. And so this states' litigation, brought by attorneys general, turned out to be in many ways quite successful and resulted in what's called the master settlement agreement at the end of the 90s that agreed to pay the states 246 billion dollars to compensate them for the costs that they had had.GARFIELD: Again in 1997, this was Mississippi attorney general Mike Moore taking a victory lap before the assembled Washington press.MOORE: We wanted this industry to have to change the way they do business, and we have done that. We wanted the industry to stop marketing to their products to our kids, and we have come up with a comprehensive plan that will do that. We wanted to do something that would punish this industry for their past misconduct, and we have done that. And we wanted to make sure  that every single person, not only in America but this entire world, knows the truth about what the tobacco industry has done to the people of this world over the last 50 years, and we are satisfied that we have done that.GARFIELD: At approximately the same time as the master settlement was put into force — and this quarter of a trillion dollars penalty to the industry seemed to be a huge turning point, and tobacco usage has plummeted worldwide since then, so I guess it was a turning point — but it happened at the same time that Francis Fukuyama published his book The End of History, which was predicting essentially that liberal democracy had taken hold the world over and that authoritarianism and the forces of reaction were just going to fade into oblivion. That turned out to be prematurely burying ultraconservative politics. And, equally it seems to me that the master agreement prematurely buried the notion that the tobacco industry was on the skids, on the way to oblivion. It did not play out that way.BRANDT: It didn't at all. And we have a notion here in the United States and many countries in Western Europe that we've seen this dramatic decline in smoking. It's no longer a favored cultural behavior. Many, many thousands, millions of people have quit smoking or died from smoking. But the industry had a long term strategy that said, smoking is on decline in wealthy, highly educated societies. So where can we effectively market cigarettes now?GARFIELD: So let's talk about that, because the industry now says: Yes, cigarettes cause cancer, heart disease, hypertension, emphysema and a host of other conditions. And it is our strategy to reduce our revenues associated with combustible cigarettes by 50 percent. And the elephant in the room is the other 50 percent of their revenues. So, on the one hand, they're acknowledging that they are selling a lethal product. And on the other hand, they're saying, and we will continue to do so to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and hundreds of millions of lives. One scarcely knows where to begin, but where does?BRANDT: And this is one of the most diabolical aspects of the changes in the United States and other similar countries — during the 80s and 90s and the early 2000s — is that going all the way back to the 1950s and 60s when the threats to tobacco began to arise, the companies were looking at markets in China, East Asia, Africa, Latin America. So most people think that — and these are the projections of the World Health Organization — that 100 million people died in the 20th century as a result of smoking and that in this century, one billion people will die, 10 times as many, because of the explosion of combustible cigarettes around the world. So I look at the move to e-cigarettes and vaping, as kind of the latest strategy that's really part of this wider history that I've been examining. We need to be very skeptical of these companies that claim that they've crossed over to legitimate health oriented products because they've made these claims since the 1950s. They told Americans, you know if you're worried about smoking, smoke filter cigarettes and that was the beginning of Marlboro. You know, you had a cowboy smoking a safe cigarette, which turned out not to be the case. So I'm very skeptical and worried about the current situation with vaping, e-cigarettes, other nicotine related products, and the idea that we're just a responsible company trying to mitigate the harms that our principal product has produced for over a century. Many of my colleagues, who have advocated with me for tobacco control, thought, well maybe this is the answer. There would be a harm reduction product that would vastly reduce the health impacts of combustible tobacco and lead to a radical change in the epidemiology of tobacco related deaths in the 21st century. They believe that we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.GARFIELD: Not an uncompelling argument.BRANDT: But what they also realized is people don't start using nicotine products as adults. So, we created a remarkable human-made health crisis through the aggressive introduction of e-cigarettes and vaping without any scientific evidence that they actually served harm reduction, or only minimal and often industry sponsored evidence that they could do that. And so, the history of Juul and vaping as a company is very informative. Juul always claimed, all we want to do is produce a safe product for people who want to switch from tobacco to a vape. But, it now appears that was a big lie because the Juul executives and the company had to understand how much of their market was in underage use of the product. And they addicted thousands and thousands of this generation of young people to nicotine, many of whom are bearing those consequences now, some of whom switch to combustible tobacco. So, it's made me very skeptical of an industry that says: we learned our lesson and we have great products.GARFIELD: Now, I don't ask these questions for no reason. This is 2021, and the same industry that has so corrupted science and research for most of a century is now claiming that it's smoke-free strategy of noncombustible cigarettes is just following the science, that they are asking us to cleave to the science in making decisions personally and as a society. And, you know, how do you feel about that?BRANDT: Well, I just think this is consistent with the strategies that they invented and utilized for a very long time, and as you probably know, just in the last month it was reported that a journal, the American Journal of Health and Behavior, published a entire issue on harm reduction and Juul vaping. It became clear and it was widely reported in the press that the issue of this journal was completely paid for by Juul and the work was done in Juul labs. And so, they return to this strategy of, we can produce the science. And it has muddied the waters and diluted the authority that science really needs to have positive public health impacts. And we really need science. And science has to speak with expertise and authority and validity and clear and aggressive peer review. And we need to know the difference between something that you know is a fact and something that obscures facts. It's a challenge to the planet right now when we think about climate change and its regulation and the intense capital that's involved.GARFIELD: The scorpion stings the frog to death and says, it is my nature.BRANDT: Yes, and in these instances, profits and more profits obscured the consequences. And, we see that honestly with Purdue Pharma. We see it at Juul. We see it in many of the major energy companies. And these strategies of, we can control this space, has really been incredibly harmful to all of our human health.GARFIELD: I already asked this question in a different way, but I'm gonna offer this one up as well. Just putting aside the unknown effect of noncombustibles, even if it achieves its smoke-free goal, half of Philip Morris's revenue will still come from cigarettes people set fire to and inhale, which means millions and millions more deaths around the world. The estimate I saw was six to seven million souls per year around the world, which is a Holocaust per year. If Philip Morris is suddenly so enlightened, by what moral calculus can it continue to kill millions of human beings with their products?BRANDT: It's been a question for the industry since the middle of the 20th century. They have a product that's highly addictive and incredibly harmful and it's incredibly profitable. It involves a lot of powerful people losing a lot of money and they just can't give it up. That's a gigantic problem in relationship to capitalism and health.GARFIELD: We talked about the playbook, how the strategy forged in January, 1953, in the Plaza Hotel has not only dictated Big Tobacco's moves, but also those of the gun lobby and the fossil fuels industry. I don't know, Big Sugar.BRANDT: Yes.GARFIELD: And other industries that cause direct harm to the people who legally use their products. And those initiatives, in those other industries, have us on the brink of planetary destruction. I mean, I don't think I'm hyperventilating here. The techniques that we have described have created and fostered so many existential harms that one wonders what chance have we? Can we make the case that we're discussing crimes against humanity here and the tobacco industry is accountable not only for the deaths from its products, but from the toll of these other industries who embraced tobacco's game plan?BRANDT: Well, I think these are massive crimes and I'm not without hope, but I do think the kinds of crises that we're becoming more aware of have the potential to motivate changes in our politics, our policy, our regulation. So, the combination that we've seen this year of Covid-19, of radical changes in the climate that are changing our weather and threatening health in that way, have to be taken seriously, immediately. I think it's going to take changes in our political strategies and orientations to do that. But the revelations of how these companies behave is an important element to that and understanding what they're doing, how they're doing it, exposing the playbook when it's being used so successfully, is a critical element to building the will to really take this on.GARFIELD: Allan, with a little bit of trepidation, I'd like to one more time revisit the infamous Plaza Hotel conference and offer a historical analogy. In early 1942, the Nazi High Command held a secret conference in a villa in the Berlin suburb, Wannsee, to forge the Final Solution for the so-called Jewish question, namely the destruction of the Jews in Europe. So that was fateful in the worst way. Now, the meeting you're describing, that took place not quite 12 years later, has the tobacco industry convened at the Plaza to forge a strategy for the so-called, these were their words, tobacco question — in this case, by destroying scientific consensus through disinformation and doubt. Now, I'll get flak for this, along Godwin's Law lines, because the Holocaust claimed six million Jewish lives. But in the balance of the 20th century, tobacco claimed on the order of 350 million human lives, which I guess until the advent of the climate crisis, may have been history's most lethal crime against humanity. What took place at this conference?BRANDT: Well, I think what Hill was able to do was to appeal to a kind of psychological rationalization on people who had spent their whole careers in this tobacco industry culture. They said, well, we've always had a controversial product. There have always been people against us. They'd convinced themselves, I think at least at first, that there really was some ambiguity and that there really was some uncertainty. But rather than that being marginal to the way we understand science, Hill's strategy gave it a bullhorn, and so when Congress would have hearings about are cigarettes harmful or not, there was always a kind of notion, the tobacco control people and the epidemiologists will come in and then the industry scientists will come in. And I think publicly we were quite naive about how that worked, and now we can look back and see into it that this is the origins of industrial disinformation, misuse of science at the tremendous costs of public health and global health that you just mentioned.GARFIELD: So, going back to my analogy, that grim analogy, is it overheated? Is it unhelpful? Is it irresponsible?BRANDT: I wouldn't say it's unhelpful, but I do think that it's probably good to look at this kind of industrial impact on death and disease in a slightly different context than the Holocaust and Nazi decision making. They both do reflect a fundamental disregard for human life and a series of psychological rationalizations that are sold to the public and are based in fundamental misconceptions about what we know and how we know it. But as you say, it's a politically fraught analogy. The notion of these people were evil and they did something horrendous, it sometimes can obstruct our ability to see the mechanisms of work at how industries have exploited public health for incredible financial gain and greed.GARFIELD: Allan, thank you very much.BRANDT: It's really been great to talk to you.GARFIELD: Allan Brandt is professor of the history of science at Harvard and author of The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America.(THEME MUSIC)GARFIELD: All right, we're done here. Now then, Bully Pulpit is produced by Mike Vuolo and Matthew Schwartz. Our theme was composed by Julie Miller and the team at Harvest Creative Services in Lansing, Michigan. Bully Pulpit is a production of Booksmart Studios. I'm Bob Garfield. Get full access to Bully Pulpit at bullypulpit.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, the guys chat about how important it is to learn from the mistakes of past marketers and why it's so tempting to engage in unethical marketing practices. Nico tells us the 6 things we can learn from history and Chad reads one of the sketchiest Instagram posts ever.  It all starts with how JUUL, a very well known electronic cigarette brand, ignored all the mistakes their predecessors made and completely crashed and burned. They shamelessly marketed their products to teenagers and profited off products that killed people. Why would they ignore all warning signs and allow history to repeat itself? In the summer of 2015 founders Adam Bowen and James Monsees launched the JUUL Electronic Cigarette. In fall 2017 the newly named JUUL Labs had 200 employees, by the end of the following year they had 1500 employees. The company was valued at 15 Billion dollars, following a $650 million investment round. That is explosive growth and a whole lot of success.  So this sounds like another silicon valley success story, or even a company doing some good, reducing cigarette smoking? Well - there was a darker side. And one that would eventually come back to bite hard.  To understand why, the guys take a look back in history and discuss how in 1997, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against the RJ Reynolds company - the owners of Camel Cigarettes - for specifically marketing to children with the “Joe Camel” cartoon campaigns. The results of these and other lawsuits were significant prohibitions on the marketing of tobacco to minors. And as a result - teenage smoking had been on the decline for decades leading up to JUUL's rise around 2015, 2016, and 2017. So JUUL had an opportunity… grow into a healthy new market, and be a force for good - helping to reduce tobacco dependency, and position themselves in the market as an aid to smoking cessation… OR… take the other route. The JUUL team was very successful at marketing their harmful products to teenagers. They actually made their device look like a flash drive so that parents wouldn't even be aware that their kids were “JUUL'ing”. The owners of JUUL weren't aware of the risks of their product but they still spent thousands of dollars to market their products to children as young as 8 years old. Then the blowback happened. In 2017 the FDA announced it was taking steps to crack down on e-cigarette use among teens. Not only were government regulators and researchers on their case…parents started to get involved. In response to the FDA crackdown, the company announced they would be using real customers who were using the product to switch from smoking instead of models. In late 2018, Juul shut down their social media accounts, they also agreed to make changes to its youth advertising practices as part of a settlement with the Center for Environmental Health. Listen to the interview with JUUL CEO here.  Nico and Chad end the episode by discussing why a big company like JUUL wouldn't learn from the past and go on to make mistakes, knowing that it could kill their brand. The Influence of greed is strong in marketing and kids are especially susceptible.  Enjoy the show! We speak about: [00:20] How can we learn from history? [02:30] The history of how JUUL got started [06:20] Concerns about who was using their product [09:40] Why were kids actively using the product? [21:40] The blowback [26:20] JUUL's response [30:40] Message from CEO [37:40] What have we learned Resources: Website: https://www.marketingrescuepodcast.com/