Cigarette Sign

[brianv]

Crazy as it it sounds...



http://www.copywriterjournalist.com/wp- ... oking1.jpg

http://www.copywriterjournalist.com/200 ... -shorlist/



http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/1/1.full

Timothy where did you get this next one?

[timothymurphy]

Timothy where did you get this next one?

I can't remember where I originally saved it from (a while ago) but I made a mistake in the above post.

It's from New Zealand, not America.

http://www.advertolog.com/stop-smoking/ ... ng-329591/

Designed by DDB New Zealand.

I'd probaby looked at this blog where he says it's American:

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centr ... in-ad.html

Sorry about the error.

[timothymurphy]

No smoking "gun". As in, you want the satisfaction of it, but don't bother, there is no smoking (gun) to find anywhere. Go to your private corner and enjoy your smoke, just not anywhere in public. That's the rule, it cannot be debated.

That’s well put.

As the Sign Design Society said, the signs are too numerous to be effective as anti-smoking tools. There is an overload ? we tune the signs out.

This overload allows the signs to work on another level apart from the conscious.
Could it be directly to do with “terrorism”?

Re:
Madrid Bombings of 11 March 2004 and Smoking Bans

If I had seen this Associated Press photo of a "no smoking" sign in the Madrid underground train system used oddly only once, I could ignore it ? but twice, in European National Media, and it is just about noteworthy.



The photo was used on the BBC Scotland website on 22 March 2006, and Deutsche Welle website on 1 November 2006 (Deutsche Welle is the German equivalent to BBC World or Voice of America)

In both cases Madrid has no particular relevance to the articles - both on the Smoking Ban:
Spain’s smoking ban is only now kicking-in in 2010, so Scotland and Germany were further along than Spain at the time of the articles, in 2006.
The reason for the inclusion of the photo is simply the massive red, white and black sign in a place associated with a terrorist attack.

Madrid sign on BBC - 22 March 2006


Madrid sign on Deutsche Welle - 1 November 2006


Perhaps this post already veers too much towards being “conspiracy-ish” but it seems to me that the dates chosen for publishing these articles already evoke the 11 March Madrid Attack date:
22 is 2x11 and November is 11th month?


Am I suggesting a tight co-ordination between national medias, smoking legislators, and terror perps effecting reminders and cover-ups?

Possibly, although I have not made comprehensive comparisons of the dates of terror attacks, smoking legislation etc ? There might be no pattern, and even if there is it will sound very “conspiracy-ish” to normal peoples’ ears.

Either way, if that "No Smoking" sign does contain the intended message of “No Smoking-Gun”, those Madrid commuters are getting a pretty intense dose.
I wonder if anyone in Spain has figured out what really happened on 11 March 2004?

The "No Smoking Gun" message, is in turn received second-hand by all the readers of BBC and DW articles. The world is told there is no smoking gun in Madrid.

[hoi.polloi]

I've noticed the sign appearing on TV in strange places, now. A shot will show the new design of the no smoking [gun] sign large and in the forefront, but maybe blurry or sharp but for a second, as if it were unimportant but conversely quite important.

Seems as though this so-called magical 'Illuminati' knows more about hypnotism than arcane spells. Of course you could argue that it's the same thing, but I think your research shows us that they are just trying to manipulate our basic fear centers all the time and thereby herd us into line.

One could say that it is for our benefit, given we apparently don't know how to rule ourselves and free ourselves from this twisted patronage, but if so why do they seem to get all the luxury of being well fed by great chefs, insane levels of comfort and pampering, guaranteed special health care, private servants, riches, special entertainment and parties and why do they constantly traumatize their brother and sister human beings who don't have such things? Doesn't that seem odd and unfair?

It's more likely that the so-called 'benefits' of signage and law-making they are doing 'for us' are actually for selfish and narrow-minded reasons caused by their lack of culture. If it were truly because they are some sort of 'elite' people, they probably wouldn't need to operate without transparency of any sort and they probably would not be trying to expand their medieval and obsolete models for society to a global level. That does seem to be what all this slight symbol and language control is about -- a self-centered lust to call Earth their personal kingdom.

I am glad you are writing, timothymurphy. What I thought was distracting and dubious celebrity research may actually have a great deal of merit to it; we might better understand their mentality by what strange goals they focus their efforts on.

[timothymurphy]

I've noticed the sign appearing on TV in strange places, now. A shot will show the new design of the no smoking [gun] sign large and in the forefront, but maybe blurry or sharp but for a second, as if it were unimportant but conversely quite important.

You're not imagining it!
While I've not seen much TV recently, I got out out to see "Four Lions", the new suicide-bomber comedy.

The No Smoking Sign in Four Lions
Basically, the "No Smoking" sign tended to hover around one particular character and no other:




It is even in the trailer, where i got this screenshot from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGk2TojOd-4

Having not analysed it, I can't say why the Smoking sign is attatched to this particular character...
I would call him the intelligent one, the sympathetic character.

Edit:
That is, as sympathetic as a suicide-bomber can be...

[fbenario]

That is, as sympathetic as a suicide-bomber can be...

That made me chuckle, Tim!

Until I remembered that I'm not convinced about the existence of suicide bombers. Still, a nice play on words.

[timothymurphy]

My FOI to COI included 3 questions:

1/ Who designed the twin-towers cigarette sign?

2/ How long did the design process take?

3/ Why was the pre-existing British Standard no-smoking sign not used?

(not exact quote)

A nice guy, Glynn ? Corporate Governance Manager at COI -responded today:

3/ Had no answer except to say that there is no answer:

The brief agreed with the Department of Health was to produce "signage materials such as posters/no smoking signs". No reference was recorded as to why other existing signage was not used.

2/ COI received the brief on 1 August 2006 and signs were sending out signs in 2007.
Not much to say there.



1/ A pretty specific response on who designed the signs:
Partners Andrews Aldridge
http://www.andrewsaldridge.com/



So are these “bad guys”?
? Well it’s an advertising company with 120 employees, based in central London. I am sure many of their creatives and administrators are not bad guys, if any.

But it is strange that the very first graphic you see on the homepage, contains what appears to be a mission statement about Behaviour Change.

Now Behaviour Change is an obsession of COI. But Andrews Aldridge has many other clients apart from COI?



Surely they don’t all choose Andrews Aldrige specifically for some dark powers of psychological control?

Another of their jaunty bits of clip art include piece of cartoon DNA:



That’s a bit spooky. I don’t mind advertisers attempting to control my behaviour with billboards and jingles, but the inference that they’re going to fiddle with my DNA is going a bit far!

Andrews Aldridge is part of the ENGINE group of marketing companies which are 12 companies all under one roof in London, co-operating with each other. ? a rather new paradigm.

http://www.theenginegroup.com/

Conclusion
-Partners Andrews Aldridge is not a public body so I can’t FOI them to ask why their cigarette design looks like the WTC..
-And I would rather not obsess over little signs such as the 110 % on the firm’s homepage,
- And Partner Steve Aldridge's reference to a porche 911 in an interview
( http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/factsandf ... e-aldridge )


Andrew Aldridge is not just a bunch of advertisers commissioned by COI ? AA won a place on COI’s “DM register” in 2001, and then won a place on their “Stragetic Roster” in 2009.
It means they’re close. But AA’s privacy is protected by not being a public body.

Here is an obsession and an expertise in behaviour control.
Also an interest is being absolutely cutting-edge ? whatever mysterious things that might involve?


Musings:
Bearing in mind Andrews Aldridge has people specialising in “word of mouth” and “press” I wonder about such spontaneous happenings as this anti-smoking protestor successfully invading Antony Gormley’s work of art ? The Fourth Plinth, in London to much press :


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZEaNFCgpqc
(incidentally, Gormley liaised with the 7/7 families in designing the memorial, as a consultant.)

PS. In 1999 Andrews Aldridge won the Harley-Davidson contract.
I wonder if they planted the “Harley-shirt” guy as a piece of cutting-edge product placement in 2001.
(just a joke there....but you never know!)

[hoi.polloi]

That’s a bit spooky. I don’t mind advertisers attempting to control my behaviour with billboards and jingles, but the inference that they’re going to fiddle with my DNA is going a bit far!

Agreed! Barf! DNA fun? No thank you. I like my DNA just fine chums.

Scientists believe they are perfectly nice individuals, even when their career involves gassing living creatures to death, chopping off their noses and doing tests on the decaying tissue. They just can't wait to have pets die of natural means, can they?

Likewise, advertisers are scientists of psychology and if they take their job at all seriously (most of them don't, mind you) then pleasing their clients is their number one goal, above humanitarian considerations.

Saying 'no' to a client, no matter how filthy, is frowned upon in the biz. Kind of like prostitution. Only far more immoral.

They might be 'nice guys', until you are outside of their hearing range. Then you may as well be a little white lab rat to dissect. This is how advertisers think. I know because I work with them and they disclose information to me thinking I think like them.

Don't assume they have conventional morality just because they have a public smiley face.

[fbenario]

Scientists believe they are perfectly nice individuals, even when their career involves gassing living creatures to death, chopping off their noses and doing tests on the decaying tissue.

Totally agree. No one should view scientists as disinterested pursuers of 'truth'. Came across this today:

Some Big Lies of Science

“[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”? Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005

The maintenance of the hierarchical structures that control our lives depends on Pinter’s “vast tapestry of lies upon which we feed.” Therefore the main institutions that embed us into the hierarchy, such as schools, universities, and mass media and entertainment corporations, have a primary function to create and maintain this tapestry. This includes establishment scientists and all service intellectuals in charge of “interpreting” reality.

In fact, the scientists and “experts” define reality in order to bring it into conformation with the always-adapting dominant mental tapestry of the moment. They also invent and build new branches of the tapestry that serve specific power groups by providing new avenues of exploitation. These high priests are rewarded with high class status.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19653

[timothymurphy]

If anyone's finding this thread a bit long, fear not...

I feel a sense of completion.
We have zeroed-in on the source of the WTC cigarette sign design?

I asked the agency Partners Andrews Aldridge:

Who designed the No Smoking sign?
-with a reminder of precisely which one I meant -


I got a disarmingly straight-forward reply:

From: Paul Walton ([email protected])

Sent: June 11, 2010 9:03:24 AM
To: tim murphy
Cc: Edmund Smiley-Jones ([email protected])

Hi Tim,
It was me.
If you need any information etc let me know.
Cheers.

--
Paul Walton
Head of Art

Partners Andrews Aldridge
60 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 7RT
T: +44 (0) 20 3128 6200
D: +44 (0) 20 3128 6259
E: [email protected]
http://www.andrewsaldridge.com <blocked::http://www.partnersandrewsaldridge.com>
Campaign’s Direct Agency of the Year 2009


Please consider the environment before printing this email

No more fudging or speculating is possible.
This guy can tell me if it’s simply a sign to tell people not to smoke...

I probed gently:

From: tim murphy

Sent: June 11, 2010 12:15:33 PM
To: [email protected]

Hi Paul.
Thanks very much for the reply.

My interest is in the psychology of the sign?

I read a COI report which explained that people need an “emotional stir-up” associated with cigarettes to help them quit.
http://coi.gov.uk/documents/commongood/ ... change.pdf

Given that COI commissioned the sign you designed, does the sign contain any imagery or associations that would cause an “emotional stir-up”?

Is the sign just for legal purposes, or is it designed to have a broader influence helping people quit smoking?

Your sign is a very interesting item because it is so ubiquitous now ? almost every shop and restaurant has your No Smoking sign at the door. I don’t know if you are already famous within advertising circles but you will certainly go down in history for the No Smoking sign of 2007. Congratulations!


Yours

Tim

P.S. This is personal interest project ? I’m not a journalist.

Paul's -the designer's - reply is pretty mundane:

Hi Tim.
It was a legal requirement that a sign had to be shown outside any business or a shared vehicle used for business, or even shared areas in rented property that it is now illegal to smoke in these areas.
I really wanted to design the sign without the full stop after ‘SMOKING’ but we had to use the exact wording that was in the Act.

I hope this helps.
Cheers.

Paul.

His biggest concern was whether or not it looked nicer without a full-stop after the words “No Smoking.”?

Could this be plausible? ? other work by him includes the Greenbee insurance campaign ? nothing sinister about that:



ftp://ftp.dma.org.uk/webdocs/awards/dm/Pdf/2009/425.pdf


But just to finish this off, I decided to go no holds barred with this, the very mind behind the infamous sign:

Sent: June 11, 2010 6:06:02 PM
To: [email protected]

Hello Paul,
Thanks alot for your information ? I just have one more question.

I am sure that you are aware that among the myriad anti-smoking campaigns in the world, quite a few have harnessed imagery connected to the world trade centre and terrorism:

New Zealand:
http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/ash_deaths


Hong Kong
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/11/1/1.full


UAE
http://www.copywriterjournalist.com/200 ... direction/



These posters provide the kind of “emotional stir-up” that COI wishes to harness causing behaviour change around smoking.

Given that COI commissioned your No Smoking sign, is it possible that your sign intentionally contains a 9/11 image, in order to cause an “emotional stir-up”?


The cigarette tip on the No Smoking sign, evoking 9/11?

In contrast to the British Standard No Smoking sign, your design has:
horizontal cigarette
realistic-looking smoke
an overlap to the red bar making it 3D-looking

All this makes it more evocative of the world trade centres on 9/11 in comparison to the British standard sign:


British Standard No Smoking sign

This is not meant to be an accusation but just interest in the fact that the No Smoking signs may be more sophisticated that they appear on the surface.

I hope you can respond to this interpretation of your sign.

Thanks

Tim

Unsurprisingly there is no invitation for more questions?

Hi Tim,
No sorry, It was not my intention.
Thank you for your interest, and good luck with your project.

--
Paul Walton
Head of Art

Conclusion

He says it was not his intention to use 9/11 imagery in his No Smoking sign.
So is it paranoia to believe otherwise?
I don't know.
The sign creator's words have authority on the topic.
And he has now been consulted.

However, I consider the question still open but will leave it to someone with a greater understanding of advertising and semiotics?


Journalist from The Guardian visiting the set of BBC television soap Eastenders:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI12o_z1cA4

[Terence.drew]

Could this be plausible? ? other work by him includes the Greenbee insurance campaign ? nothing sinister about that:



ftp://ftp.dma.org.uk/webdocs/awards/dm/Pdf/2009/425.pdf

nothing sinister about that- the front of the Greenbee house depicts a representation of the Freemasons all seeing eye

[hoi.polloi]

sh#t.

Well, not that I trust anyone, but I'm starting to feel invested in this case for real research purposes! I am going to send him an e-mail as well, and a serious one. Maybe this will help people talk about war symbolism in a helpful way.

[simonshack]

I just left a little comment on Farrukh's page. Hope my logic makes sense. ;)
http://www.copywriterjournalist.com/200 ... ment-80683

[timothymurphy]

someone with a greater understanding of advertising and semiotics?

Thanks Hoi for taking this one on.



Terence, I see what you're saying about the triangle with the circle of light in it.
It's just that I'm trying to argue things from a "normal" perspective.

[timothymurphy]

I just left a little comment on Farrukh's page. Hope my logic makes sense. ;)
http://www.copywriterjournalist.com/200 ... ment-80683

Your comment's already disappeared! :o
that was smokin' quick.