Every document and picture tells a story: using internal corporate document reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess tobacco advertising.

In this article we present communication theory as a conceptual framework for conducting documents research on tobacco advertising strategies, and we discuss two methods for analysing advertisements: semiotics and content analysis. We provide concrete examples of how we have used tobacco industry documents archives and tobacco advertisement collections iteratively in our research to yield a synergistic analysis of these two complementary data sources. Tobacco promotion researchers should consider adopting these theoretical and methodological approaches.

A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s.

OBJECTIVE: To use the product launch of Player's Premiere as a case study for understanding the new cigarette product development process during the 1990s. We determine the (in)validity of industry claims that: (1) development of the physical product preceded the promotional promise of "less irritation"; (2) "less irritation" was actually realised; (3) advertising informed consumers; and (4) advertising regulations caused the product's failure in the marketplace. SETTING: Court proceedings assessing the constitutionality of Canada's Tobacco Act, which substantially restricts cigarette advertising. The 2002 Quebec Superior Court trial yielded a new collection of internal documents from Imperial Tobacco Ltd (ITL), including several about the development and marketing of Player's Premiere. METHOD: Trial testimony and corporate documents were reviewed to determine the validity of the industry representations about the new cigarette product development process, focusing on the case history of Player's Premiere. RESULTS: In direct contradiction to industry testimony, the documentary evidence demonstrates that (1) communications for Player's Premiere, which claimed less irritation, were developed long before finding a product that could deliver on the promise; (2) ITL did not sell a "less irritating" product that matched its promotional promise; (3) the advertising and other communications for Player's Premiere were extensive, relying on the hi-tech appearances ("tangible credibility") of a "unique" filter, yet were uninformative and vague; and (4) Player's Premiere failed in the marketplace, despite extensive advertising and retail support, because it was an inferior product that did not live up to its promotional promise, not because of regulation of commercial speech. CONCLUSIONS: New product development entails extensive consumer research to craft all communications tools in fine detail. In the case of Player's Premiere, this crafting created a false and misleading impression of technological advances producing a "less irritating" cigarette. This product was solely a massive marketing ploy with neither consumer benefits, nor public health benefits. The industry attempted to deceive both consumers and the court.

Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One and CART auto racing: tobacco brand exposure and enhanced symbolic imagery through co-sponsors' third party advertising.

Through third party advertising of events such as Formula One and CART auto racing, tobacco brand names continue to attain visibility to a vast audience.

The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the development, intent, and consequences of US tobacco industry advertising for low machine yield cigarettes. METHODS: Analysis of trade sources and internal US tobacco company documents now available on various web sites created by corporations, litigation, or public health bodies. RESULTS: When introducing low yield products, cigarette manufacturers were concerned about maintaining products with acceptable taste/flavour and feared consumers might become weaned from smoking. Several tactics were employed by cigarette manufacturers, leading consumers to perceive filtered and low machine yield brands as safer relative to other brands. Tactics include using cosmetic (that is, ineffective) filters, loosening filters over time, using medicinal menthol, using high tech imagery, using virtuous brand names and descriptors, adding a virtuous variant to a brand's product line, and generating misleading data on tar and nicotine yields. CONCLUSIONS: Advertisements of filtered and low tar cigarettes were intended to reassure smokers concerned about the health risks of smoking, and to present the respective products as an alternative to quitting. Promotional efforts were successful in getting smokers to adopt filtered and low yield cigarette brands. Corporate documents demonstrate that cigarette manufacturers recognised the inherent deceptiveness of cigarette brands described as "Light"or "Ultra-Light" because of low machine measured yields.