Burning money?: Movie-makers are burning potential earnings when they have onscreen characters light up, new research suggests.
Image: iStockphoto/THEPALMER
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
It's enough to make Cruella de Vil consider a nicotine patch: a new analysis has found that films with scenes that show smoking reliably make less money at the box office than their cigarette-free counterparts. The finding, says Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, adds to the case for giving any movie that depicts smoking to an automatic "R"-rating.
Together with Jonathan Polansky, who helped craft anti-smoking messaging in the past and now heads the California-based media campaign company Onbeyond, Glantz reviewed information on 1,232 movies released in the U.S. that were among the top 10 grossing films for at least one week between 2002 and 2010.
Movies with bigger budgets tended to earn more at the box-office, as they were more likely to feature big stars and massive promotional marketing. Moreover, PG-13 films had a better chance of making more money than R-rated films—in part because the former are accessible to a wider age-range of moviegoers. But even after controlling for factors such as total budget and film rating, the researchers found that smoking was associated with 13 percent less money made in ticket sales.
Thirteen percent might not sound like a big difference, but it can translate in to many millions of dollars, given the huge profits of blockbusters. Last year, for example, Inception and Iron Man 2 each made around $300 million in U.S. theaters alone.
"Putting smoking in the film isn't leading to more popular films that make more money," Glantz says. It's leading to less popular films that make less money." As to why films with smoking make fewer dollars, Glantz says he is uncertain, but he adds it might be part of a collection of edgy behaviors in a film that do not appeal to audiences as much as movie studios expect.
The research, which was funded by the American Legacy Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based tobacco prevention nonprofit, was published online September 26 in Tobacco Control.
Smoke screen
The controversy over cigarettes in films has raged for decades. It was not so long ago that tobacco companies paid directors to include scenes with smoking. For example, the American Tobacco Co. (now part of British American Tobacco), maker of brands such as Lucky Strike, gave a product placement firm at least $675,000 between 1984 and 1994 to get its cigs featured in films.
Perhaps best known for documenting that big tobacco knew for decades that nicotine was addictive and that smoking caused cancer, Glantz leads the Smoke-Free Movies project, which advocates that an automatic 'R' rating be given to any film that shows characters puffing away on screen, to prevent "anyone under the age of 17 from seeing the film in the theater without the accompaniment of a parent or adult guardian."
In September, the World Health Organization (pdf) echoed the call for worldwide adult ratings for films depicting tobacco use. And other researchers have called for similar age restrictions, including Andrea Waylen of the University of Bristol in the U.K. A study published by Waylen and her colleagues in the journal Thorax, released last month, crunched survey data from more than 5,000 adolescents and found that those 15-year-olds who had watched the most films featuring smoking were 73 percent more likely to have taken a drag than their counterparts who had seen the fewest such films. "The results of our study indicate that it's very important that children are protected from smoking in films," she says. Waylen adds that the findings from Glantz's study strengthen the case for adult ratings: "If there is no associated increase in [movie] income what possible excuse is there for smoking to be included?"
The rating of a film, which is ultimately set in the U.S. by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), is usually in mind before the first frame is shot, and written by studios into the contract of many movie directors, according to Glantz. So he hopes the new findings will convince studios to keep cigarettes out of the frame: "Hollywood is all about money. They talk about art, but it's all about money."
But not everyone is convinced that an automatic R-rating for smoking provides the answer. Simon Chapman of the University of Sydney, who describes himself as "'enemy number one' of the tobacco industry here in Australia", says that using this type of adult classification is an inefficient way of keeping youngsters from trying cigarettes. "I think that it's a very minor thing," he says of movie ratings. He adds that making more films R-rated would unfairly put the onus on parents to sort through which films show violence and sex, along with those that show smoking.
Chapman also points out that the new report from Glantz and Polansky does not take sales of DVDs and downloads into account—and many teens are able to view R-rated films this way. He adds, "the fact is that kids are already seeing R-rated films with great ease. Even the ones whose parents don't allow them to do that find a way."
The MPAA says it takes a highly contextual approach to determining film ratings, rather than an "automatic" approach based on a checklist. "We believe that we should treat smoking as we treat all other rating elements," says Howard Gantman, a spokesperson for the association.
However the campaign for automatic R-ratings for smoking turns out for future films, smoky classics such as Disney's 1961 cartoon 101 Dalmatians—featuring Cruella de Vil puffing away at her cigarette holder—will likely remain a popular children's movie for years to come. "In fact," Glantz notes, "101 Dalmatians was one of the smokiest films made."
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentSmoking kills so many people that is makes me feel sick to my stomach when I see it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt also says, I'm not ok, I have something wrong with my thinking.
The reason may be due to the fact that some percentage of the movie going audience may be in the process of quitting. Watching others smoke may make them uncomfortable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOk, I understand the notion that smoking is for adults and that films which are made for younger audiences have no need to have a character who smokes in them. However, a percentage of the populace DOES SMOKE, trying to shield our children from the fact that some people do smoke just adds to their curiosity later on, I would know, my parents tried shielding me from it and I am now a full blow cigarette addict. Yes, it is a disgusting addition, does it signify that the person is not ok/something is WRONG with their thinking (which by the way, I take that as an insult), I don't know, try asking Einstein (who smoked pipe tobacco, and the occasional cigarette) or Freud (who smoked cigarettes and died of jaw cancer).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm personally just flat out P.O.ed because I can no longer legally enjoy a cigarette anywhere but private property in the entire town I live in. I understand (even if I don't like it) the decision to not let smokers smoke inside of buildings, but seriously, to take away my freedom to go for a walk down my street and have a cigarette... It just seems kinda ridiculous to infringe on my personal freedom when we know that education is in fact the best way to combat cigarette smoking. I don't know, I guess I feel like we're going a bit to far.
Why do we call these people "smokers?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are nicotine addicts.
We do not have a cute name for heroin addicts, like jabbers.
Their conclusion doesn't make any sense. If there was an economic incentive to remove smoking from movies, Hollywood would take it without needing a regulatory incentive. Especially if they really are "all about money" as Glantz says. Seriously, he's killing his own argument. Not that it was a good idea anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, you don't have to respect what smokers do to their bodies, but you also don't have to vilify them just so you can feel smugly superior to someone. Remember that smokers can be good, normal people too.
Again here we have correlation mixed with cause and effect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for my own opinion I think that casual smoking should not be in movies. But I can see it's use as a character defining habit, like drinking or drug taking.
But I see very few Hollywood movies as I don't like them. It seems that Hollywood just cannot make a movie without someone getting killed, guns, explosions and a car chase.
And I don't think that is going to change soon but at least there are alternatives, even US made alternatives.
They are called smokers because they smoke, Candide, quit trying to change the rules of english grammer to match your pollitics. There are plenty of "cute" names for heroin addicts such as junkie (someone who partakes in "junk", a slang term for herion). Generally putting an -er at the end of a verb indicates that it has become a noun that is associated with perfoming the action of the verb. Using the suffix -ie or -y means pretaining to or involved with as in the earlier example "junkie". So I congratulate your stance, yes smoking is bad, but calling people nicotine addicts instead of smokers is an attack on the language not the behavior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the same logic applies to the consumption of alcohol on the screen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have something against heroin? Haven't had your coffee yet this morning (caffeine addict)? Or maybe you underslept (sleep addict)? Haven't been getting enough Vitamin D (sun addict)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think my point is adequately made.
There's something wrong with your thinking here. You seem to be suggesting that human thought is logical and rational. How many people claim to believe in a god? An afterlife of some form? How many people have fought wars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe're not rational.
As an ex-smoker who is now disgusted by smoking, I would be interested to see the raw data produced by this study. My bet is that "people don't like movies that show smokers" is writing your data to suit your story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd now I've gone back to the story, I see the study was conducted by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Doh!
We don't need rubbish studies like this to tell us smoking is unhealthy.
Please, Scientific American, more science.
The rest of us don't feel like breathing your second-hand smoke and raising our chance of getting cancer from it, and as for why your "freedom" to smoke anywhere has been revoked in favor of our "freedom" to breathe cleaner air, it's simple, really: we vastly outnumber you. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_non_smokers_in_the_US
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor sure it's all about money - tax money. Tobacco taxes ( at least here in the UK ) make far more revenue for the exchequer than the consequencies of tobacco use ( including illness )cost society. It is therefor convenient for the taxing authority to demonise the habit so that they can keep raising the taxes. I don't smoke, nor encourage others to do so, but to assume that smokers get nothing from the habit but ill health, is ridiculous. Much is made of what is termed "passive smoking" but the statistics are suspect and even the most pessimistic work out at less than 1% of the annual death rate from all causes. The fundamental erosion of freedom that prohibits like minded people from enjoying the habit indoors in their own premises does not seem to bother the anti smoking fanatics - who in many cases are using the "cause" as a way of dealing with grief. They are angry at the deceased for not quiting to please them, but cannot be seen to be damning the dead. Whether films depict smoking, or not is down to how authentic they wish their drama to be, and nowadays less people smoke, so less will be depicted in current scenarios. It could be pointed out that the only victims of nicotine users are the users themselves, whereas with drugs and alcohol others can be seriously affected through no fault of their own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't believe the outrageously fascist comments on here. This is an eminent science journal not Fox News. The double standards in today's society are sickening and if you think that by standing near someone who's smoking that you're somehow in more danger physically than you are walking through the carcinogenic fog of downtown Manhattan or LA then your science is as bad as your politics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmoking is bad for your health yes, but so is over-eating and alcohol abuse, should we stop showing alcoholism in films? Stop showing people eating at a fast food restaurant? America should really be concentrating a little more on her obesity epidemic rather than the pseudo-moralistic crusade against smokers. The hypocrisy and selective analysis from nearly all the mainstream media outlets re smokig clearly displays a controlled symbiosis with government policies and the morons lap it up. Next they'll be telling you marijuana is 'dangerous' whilst simultaneously shoving whiskey, guns and needless pharmaceuticals down your throat.
OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA.
From a statistical standpoint, I question the algorythms. Have they set these values against genres? The type of audience demography initially targeted for specific movies and set that data against profit outcome? As we know many of today's movie storylines emanate from focus groups, and many are sequels of successful originals. Who are today's anti-heroes? I question whether this analysis is more about the way the data was interpreted by a advocacy organization and less about a true look at the way the American culture is driven by commercial trends. As a non-smoker, this is my 3 cents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst of all, second hand smoke isn't too much of a factor when you're outside, especially when on the street/sidewalk (you produce more deadly and just as toxic of fumes if you drive a car or use any amount of grid electricity. Also if you're getting smoke in your face, either move a few feet, or politely let the person know, not all people will care but i think you'd be surprised by how many do). Your argument to take away my freedom to smoke is the same argument used by Hitler to take away Jews freedoms (We outnumber them, we don't like them or what they do, let's take away their freedom. Sounds very similar to, we outnumber them, we don't like them or what they do, let's not allow them to do it. Yes Hitler did take away their public freedoms before their private ones and it was all for the good of the people. Also, Hitler was anti-cigarettes, just FYI.).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, my original comment was that I think we've already gone more than far enough.
Interesting. One wonders how much Avatar would have made if they would have removed the idiotic chain smoking character played by Sigourney Weaver. That's more a comment on the bad writing for that movie than it is about money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, it's quite simple: Include smoking in a film only if it is relevant to the character, and therefore the plot in general.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a non-smoker who is pleased that smokers must only enjoy their drugs in a private environment (yes, nicotine is a drug, and so is coffee and alcohol; it's not a put-down, it's merely literally true). However, even more strongly, I am vehemently opposed to censorship. And as to product placement, I regard it as a vile and censurable practice, regardless of the product in question.
Film is art, no matter what anyone, including a film's backers, want to believe. There should be no other factor in the creation of art than the drive to create art. Anything else is worse than extraneous, it is desecration. So, I say to all parties, the smoking lobbyists and the smoking prohibitionists alike: Keep your agendas away from all artistic endeavors.
So many prohibitionists, so few amendments to repeal !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this