Tobacco marketing has long been a part of the adolescent experience. Images of the Marlboro cowboy and Joe Camel are familiar to generations of former and current adolescents. Recent changes in tobacco legislation have restricted advertising methods available to the tobacco industry. Gone are the days of cartoon images and cowboys that proved highly successful in marketing tobacco to youths. Today's tobacco advertising is more confusing and sophisticated, designed to reduce direct marketing to adolescents. Along with different advertising techniques, antismoking campaigns have been developed to grab the attention of adolescents. The effectiveness of the anti-smoking campaigns and new marketing techniques in reducing adolescent tobacco use is in question. This paper will briefly explore the recent evolution of tobacco marketing and primarily focus on the effectiveness of antismoking marketing campaigns in reducing adolescent tobacco use. In recent years, cigarette advertising has been singled out as a major influence in creating product and brand demand for cigarettes, especially among adolescents (Smith, Stutton, 1999). Pollay (1997) argues that the vast amount of evidence indicates cigarette advertising plays a meaningful role in influencing the perceptions, attitudes, and smoking behavior of youth.
             In November 1998 46 states and 5 territories reached a settlement with Phillip Morris Companies, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, and Brown and Williamson. The settlement placed restrictions on advertising and prohibits the direct or indirect marketing of youth. The settlement also called for the elimination of outdoor advertising that is not at a retail establishment. Also prohibited were cartoons in any tobacco advertising, marketing, or packaging. Product placement
             in the media was also restricted as was tobacco merchandising. Tobacco brand names were not allowed to appear on any non-tobacco items (Krugman, Fox, F
             ...