It’s Toasted!

The 1930 “It’s Toasted!” advertisement for Lucky Strikes cigarettes is a great example of how pseudo-medical endorsements were used to market products. Aimed primarily at American and Western smokers, the ad blends persuasive imagery with text to create a compelling message. It aims to distinguish Lucky Strikes from other cigarette brands by suggesting that, unlike its competitors, it is not only harmless but also protective against irritation and coughing. In essence, the ad seeks to separate Lucky Strikes from both its market rivals and the common health concerns associated with smoking. By featuring physicians —individuals traditionally seen as opposing smoking —it leverages their authority to challenge the typical negative stereotypes tied to the habit.

The image is composed in portrait orientation with high contrast and pronounced highlights. At its center is a middle-aged, healthy-looking, fair-skinned physician in a white lab coat, holding a pack of Lucky Strikes and gazing at it with the satisfied expression of someone making a significant scientific discovery. The pack of cigarettes appears to be closer to the viewer, thanks to the use of perspective, which is subtly incorporated into the ad. The bold red background grabs attention, while the typography in white and yellow adds to the ad’s striking impact. The lower portion of the ad presents the claim, “20,679 physicians say Luckies are less irritating,” followed by a disclaimer noting that the figures were “checked and certified”. This strategic use of authority figures and colors creates an impression of credibility and trustworthiness, all in the service of selling cigarettes.

The ad attempts to persuade the audience that smoking Lucky Strikes is harmless by highlighting that many physicians believe the brand is less irritating and unlikely to cause coughing. This message positions Lucky Strikes as an exception to the general belief that smoking is a deadly habit. Why? Because, unlike other brands, Lucky Strikes are “toasted,” and even doctors who typically advise against smoking are portrayed as approving of this particular brand. As noted in advertising strategies of the time, “The advertisements touted ‘On guiding patients in their cigarette smoking’ in which they urged the doctor to tell their patients with coughs or throat irritation to switch to their supposedly less irritating brand” (Ayoub and Jackler 2018, 1349). The message is conveyed through a simple image of a physician, whose figure occupies most of the upper half of the ad. The dominant red color of the background and the physician’s white coat immediately draw our attention to him. From there, our gaze naturally shifts to the right, where he holds a pack of Lucky Strikes. This tactic reflects the broader effort by tobacco companies to “target physicians as a potential sales force to assuage the public’s fear of health risks and to recruit them as allies against negative publicity” (Ayoub and Jackler 2018, 1355). By positioning a trusted medical figure alongside the brand, the ad echoes similar marketing campaigns like the one run by RJ Reynolds in 1946, which claimed, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” (Brandt and Gardner 2006, 229).

The ad was released at a time when concerns about the dangers of smoking were growing, and more people were starting to believe the warnings from physicians and scientists about its harmful effects and long-term consequences. As one of the leading cigarette brands in the U.S., Lucky Strikes recognized this threat and felt the need to act quickly to calm public fears. To address this, they decided to feature health professionals themselves as the main spokespersons, quoting physicians who claimed their product was safe. While Lucky Strikes had a loyal customer base and wasn’t worried about losing them, they were concerned about the increasing number of people beginning to recognize the broader dangers of smoking. In response, the ad turned this threat into an opportunity, allowing the brand to capitalize on the situation. However, by the 1950’s, as scientific evidence linking smoking to health issues emerged, “the credibility of physician endorsements in tobacco advertising began to wane” (Ayoub and Jackler 2018,1357), which made this approach less effective over time.

If I were part of their target audience at the time, I’d have two options: either reject the ad and trust the growing body of evidence that smoking is harmful, or continue smoking, but switch to Lucky Strikes, which claims to be healthier and less irritating than other brands. For regular smokers, the likelihood of quitting altogether would probably be low. However, the chance of switching to a brand like Lucky Strikes, backed by claims from health professionals, would likely be much higher.

Lucky Strikes has faced decades of criticism and boycotts, mainly due to health concerns about smoking and deceptive advertising. As awareness grew about the dangers of smoking, the brand was condemned for downplaying health risks and manipulating target audiences with misleading ads. Its marketing of the product as “safer” became increasingly immoral as the scientific evidence against smoking mounted. “The last notable use of physicians in tobacco advertising occurred in 1954, after which the industry shifted focus to filter cigarettes as a new marketing strategy” (Brandt and Gardner 2006, 222). When the tobacco industry faced legal battles and financial damages in the 1990s and 2000s, consumer support for brands like Lucky Strikes waned. Smoking became less common, and alternatives like vaping worsened the criticism.