Green Hat Group

That was a pretty cool website we looked at as a group, and we definitely learned some interesting things. The issue of whether or not these ads are going to reach out to people who are already smokers is one that I think doesn't have a good answer. It would be reasonable to say that most people who smoke know that it's bad for you, but they still do it anyways. If these is a good way to convince smokers to stop smoking, I don't think anybody has found it yet.

Something that I've been noticing is the apparent lack of cultural differences between the US and Sweden. For the most part, we are very similar, and I wouldn't be slightly surprised if it turned out that the Sweden group turned out to be a Stanford group posing as a Sweden group. I'm pretty sure that's not the case, though ;D

Actually what I really noticed this past conference was the frustration with the technology. Now that we've gotten to know each other (aka we're better able to tease each other about personal quirks), we have so much to say to each other but the media cannot seem to keep up. Because at least half of our Stanford side talk without self-confidence (I won't mention names ...) our Swedish counterparts are constantly having to ask us to repeat our comments. Although this impedes the fluidity, it has not dampened either side's enthusiasm.

Although I like the idea of cigarette boxes having to display state-mandated images, I too question the merit of the images. It seems we have all become jaded viewers. We've heard so much about the dangers of smoking and seen so many disturbing images that they lose their effect. Probably the most effective campaign is the one waged in the private lives of smokers. Family, friends, lovers, their disaproval is far sharper than any graphic images of a seemingly far away and unrelated futures.

I agree with Alex about there not really being that much of a cultural barrier in discussing things like the warning labels on cigarette packaging. Our reactions were pretty much the same, definitely a result of how cultures worldwide are being 'Americanized' (though I'm not sure that's a good thing). I don't know much about Sweden unfortunately, but being from Europe I'm guessing maybe smoking is more socially acceptable there as opposed to in California, though our Swedish friends did mention that it's now illegal to smoke in bars and clubs, etc. That said, I'm surprised only one of them was pro-smoking (not that I'm disappointed - Go non-smokers!).

About the warning labels, one thing I noticed about the European labels is that some of them relied heavily on the guilt factor (with relation to smoking's effects on children), and I was personally most affected by those. I think they would likely affect potential smokers that were also potential parents, but I doubt they would affect smokers who are already parents (they would have likely found a way to work around such obstacles such as smoking outside). As for the information-based warnings, I feel like smokers already know the effects of cigarettes. As we said during the conference, it's also much easier to ignore words as opposed to images. While the more gory images I felt were probably more effective in dissuading potential buyers of cigarettes, I'm not sure how viable such a scheme would be (should children really be exposed to such images?).

I agree with Katrina about our self-confidence issues... must work on that. And find a green hat.

To answer how I feel about my own question (what could be persuading for a smoker), I do feel that family and friends (or those closest) have a larger impact (personal experience). Perhaps general anti-smoking advertisements may be more effective if they changed their audience to the ones around smokers.

Hi there Green Hats...
This is my first blog comment ever. We´ll see if it works. See you later.

Hi Jakob!!!

Although we had technical difficulties today, I'm glad you are able to post a comment. : )