Abstract
This study contributes to an understanding of the discourses of cigarette advertising which intersect within policy debate, media exposure, and the interests of a debate’s primary actors. The policy refers to the existing legislation that has been evolved for ten years. Meanwhile, the debate refers to the nuance of banning the cigarette advertisement in fully or partially form of regulation. It identifies and maps discourse coalitions that emerged as part of Indonesia’s cigarette advertising debate (2010–2020) through an analysis of the main actors’ use of arguments during media coverage of the policy. The findings highlight the contested ground—as well as nature—of the cigarette advertising debate and policy in Indonesia. The current research was able to map the actors, arguments, target audience, as well as channels and impacts of the debate over the evolution of policy in the nation. As implied, the current research engages in the critical use of Lasswell’s model in communication and the process of constructing policy with the strong ties of interest from organizations behind the discourse.
Introduction
The tobacco industry has battled the fires of public opinion in many countries for years. Among critics, the dominant argument has been that cigarette advertising persuades individuals, particularly the young, to start smoking; encourages existing smokers to smoke more frequently; keeps potential quitters from leaving; whilst influencing ex-smokers to resume the habit (Hanewinkel et al., 2010; Pechmann & Knight, 2002). Indeed, the tobacco industry has been criticized too for conveying the visually oriented messages—of adventure (Cortese & Ling, 2011), independent (Marlow, 2001), clean and harmless (Craig & Moellinger, 2001), participatory action (Murti, 2020), and as a part of lifestyle (Hendlin et al., 2010)—to youth and teenage girls (Pierce et al., 2010) that minimise the very real health risks associated with the product.
However, only a small amount of research has examined the discussion of cigarette “disputes” that exist in the media as a potential text to map discursive information on the power relations and actors’ involvement in the issue. International researchers, in the main, have studied the effects of cigarette advertising upon the consumer (Craig & Moellinger, 2001), youth (Kim et al., 2019) and daily smokers (Maloney & Capella, 2015) that constitute its target audience. However, there is an emerging body of research in comparative studies between countries with less restrictive e-cigarette regulations (De Andrade et al., 2013; Yong et al., 2017) and messages contained within cigarette advertisements themselves (Solow, 2001). These debates raise important questions on how the discussion over cigarette advertisement regulation helps shape public opinion on tobacco products as part of a perceived (or projected) youth “lifestyle” over time. The current study aims to investigate the ways in which online news has historically and discursively portrayed the debate of cigarette advertisement policy throughout the given period.
Specifically, Indonesia has been chosen as the case to study cigarette advertisement policy due to three decisive factors, which include: socio-political aspect, economy, and media context. First, socio-political aspect focusses on regulation and law defining the field of advertising especially cigarettes. Some regulations have mention cigarette advertising, but none of them fully focus on the prohibitive elements necessary for just how a product should be advertised. The policy, as it exists, deals primarily with when and where an advertisement can be aired in television (21.30–05.00), as well as message content, allowing ads to appear so long as it “doesn’t show any ‘smoking activity.’” Policy, in many countries, is a part of the complex and dynamic political process needed to ensure a nation's well-being. At times the process may seem laborious, deemed too trite or involved: meeting pressures from numerous interest groups, enduring difficult compromises, to finally achieving implementation in a form entirely divorced from its original goals (IARC, 2008; WHO, 2017).
Second, economic context focuses on strength and power of the tobacco industry, the shares in in this area that shows the importance of tobacco industry in Indonesian society. Indonesia's cigarette industry has contributed to 1.66% of gross domestic income. The nation's income from the tax itself has increased every year. In 2020, it was achieved 164,92 trillion rupiahs (or 11 billion US dollar) which raised 5.3% from the previous year. The industry itself has been employed about 7,9 million people, both in the manufacture and the farm area (Indraini, 2021; Santoso, 2021). Economically, the tobacco industry in Indonesia creates an enormous amount of wealth each year, with Forbes crowning Indonesia's top tobacco industry owners, the Hartono brothers (Djarum) and Susilo Wonowidjojo (Gudang Garam), as the richest individuals in the country (Saptoyo, 2021; Supriadi, 2019), with a total wealth of US$37.3 Billion and US$6.6 Billion respectively. The data from the Ministry of Industry (2021) shows that there are about 176 companies, from total 374 cigarette companies, which focus on clove cigarette (kretek). However, there are only three big players in Indonesia's cigarette game, i.e. HM Sampoerna, Gudang Garam, Bentoel (Gumiwang, 2019; Sutianto, 2009), and two of them has been acquired by international companies: Phillip Morris and British American Tobacco recently.
Third, media captured the dynamics of the processes involved in regulating cigarettes in Indonesia, as well as its advertising, making it a highly publicised, available resource to be drawn from. In 2019, cigarette's advertisement spending reached 7,2 trillion rupiahs. This number was quite big since it was about 3.8% of total media spending in Indonesia, which was 188 trillion rupiahs in this year. The Indonesia's advertisement landscape is still dominated by television, newspaper, and then followed by digital media (Nielsen, 2020).
Despite the ban on smoking in public places and rules on displaying cigarettes in advertisements, public health activists and western media still see Indonesia as the “playground” of Big Tobacco. Indeed, we need not look far for examples, with the Sydney Morning Herald discussing “the iceberg phenomena of youth smokers” as represented by Indonesian Youtube's “smoking baby”; a tragi-comic figure who has racked up over 17.5 million views to date (Topsfield, 2017). Other media depicts Indonesia through a range of photos of young smokers, seemingly commonplace, on streets across the nation (Harris & Kilmer, 2012; Siu, 2016), with an Australian Broadcasting Corportation (ABC) News investigation depicting Indonesia as, “the world’s fourth-largest country … an enormous, thriving tobacco market [with] very few regulations on the sale and consumption of cigarettes” (Harris & Kilmer, 2012; para. 3). Such depictions from foreign media bring the academic conversation and global experts to the nuances that surround the debate on cigarette advertising—and whether or not they impact, adversely, upon the lives of the young, if not the nation.
Furthermore, Indonesia's cigarette advertisement policy remains unclear, and until 2016, Indonesia has been the only Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) country who's neither has a specific policy to deal with such ads (Tobacco Control Support Centre, 2020) nor adopted treaties on WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) (WHO, 2021) to reduce tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke.
Advertising in this research is any paid form of non-personal communication in both traditional (i.e., television, newspaper, out-of-home) and new media (i.e. online paid ads.) (Shimp & Andrews, 2013). Meanwhile, the television, banner and billboard are the biggest three advertising media as seen by Indonesian audiences, and as such, used by cigarette companies (Tobacco Control Support Centre, 2018). However, this research is not limited into these platforms and not attempt to see the most impactful media to the audience. This research is looking at the chronological process of the cigarette advertisement in the broader scope of discourses in 10 years and the context of the discussion (i.e., public spaces such station, park, or stadium, outdoor advertisement, and sponsorship) which predominantly appears in the discussion of cigarette advertisement in this project. Hence, the current study will examine too, how governmental policy of cigarette advertisement intersects with the process of discourse actors as part of the evolution of that process.
Policy Debate Through Lasswell's Model of Communication
Studying discourses on policy debate has persistently, to date, been influenced by the Lasswell model of communication. Since 1948, Lasswell's renowned concept of, “Who, said what, in which channel, to whom, [and] with what effect?” has been offering ways of theorizing political disputes (Ascher & Hirschfelder-Ascher, 2004), textual analysis on policy decisions (Auer, 2011; Colebatch & Radin, 2006), and constructing the development milestones of mass media communication (Lasswell, 2017) through its conceptual evolution over recent decades. In Lasswell's model (2017), there are five keys to help draw out the characteristics and interrelations of media, policy, discourse, and society (Lasswell, 2017). For example, communicators have turn to be more complex as individuals and organizations as they become “senders of information” as information into more pervasive, multi-platformed, and ubiquitous (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). At the same time, as these media or channels of communication become more interactive, data driven, and on-demand, enclaves of interaction are being built through the algorithms of these platforms (Scolari, 2009). As such, audiences are invited to be more participative, inventive, and part of a process that is becoming increasingly more personalized (Wenxiu, 2015). Finally, in what we shall call the “effects of communication,” the complexity to evaluate potential impacts opens up more space and possibilities to explore these human-machine interactions from a sociocultural perspective (Sapienza et al., 2015).
Nevertheless, Lasswell's model has received criticism from some scholars, centred primarily on the following three key issues. Critics see a potential risk in the model to perpetuate a one-directional process by which the “who” can deliberately attempt to influence the “to whom” components (Dunn, 2018). This model is also criticised as neglecting the circularity and simultaneous aspect of communication (Dunn, 2018). Finally, it is argued, that the model may also pose a risk in heuristic purposes as being oversimplified, incomplete, and outdated. Thus, some have argued that Lasswell's model should be tested under a variety of different circumstances and settings in order to confirm its capability—indeed compatibility—across a broader spectrum (Windahl & McQuail, 1993). With this in mind, others argue that although there are changes in media landscape, the legacy of Lasswell's model is still relevant to gauge its value to communication scholars as a whole (Sapienza et al., 2015).
To understand the discourses on cigarette advertising in Indonesia, Lasswell's model of communication is useful through a three-functional approach. First, Lasswell's approach serves to help map an intersectional study of politics and communication. Lasswell's questions are still acknowledged by scholars as a valid line of inquiry to identify actions, constructions, and measurement of messages within mass communication (Sapienza et al., 2015). Second, Lasswell's model is useful in examining mass media, such as advertising and new media, to help stimulate patterns of public affairs messaging, political views, interest, and power (Wenxiu, 2015). Third, the model enables possibilities of understanding the examination of participation of individuals, groups, and/or societal levels across new media outlets that are discursively constructed as both “who” and “to whom” (Auer, 2011).
Methods
This research uses a Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) based on a combination of category-based content analysis and network analysis to accommodate the study of policy debates (Leifeld, 2017). The study is applied to the coverage of five major national newspapers (i.e. Detik, Kompas, Tribunnews, Liputan6, and Sindonews) reporting on the development of cigarette advertising policy during a period of intense debate. All articles were read to determine whether they met the authors’ pre-defined inclusion criteria: that cigarette advertising in public space was the main focus of the article, and that the article was a news, commentary or feature piece (readers’ letters excluded). There are a total 180 articles about cigarettes from 2009 until 2020. Table 1 shows that Detik.com (n = 71, 39.4%) and Kompas.com (n = 46, 25.6%) dominated in articles about cigarettes during the period. These were followed by Tribunnews.com (n = 33, 18.3%), Liputan6.com (n = 16, 8.9%) and Sindonews.com (n = 14, 7.8%). The discussion about cigarette regulations were not prominent in 2009–2012, the period under review. It started to become the centre of discussion in 2015 (n = 91, 10,4%), 2017 (n = 152, 17,3%), and 2019 (n = 210, 23,9%) respectively, as seen below. The most samples were drawn from Detik.com, which produced 354 (40.4%) from a total of 877 statements; followed by Kompas.com (n = 354, 22.9%), Tribunnews.com (n = 139, 15.8%) and Liputan6.com (n = 139, 15.8%).
Articles in News Portal.
(Source: Figure by author, 2020).
To organize DNA research, first, textual data are annotated using a coding scheme that is amenable to network analysis (Leifeld, 2017). This study uses online news articles about cigarette advertisement published in five major online news portals: Tribunnews.com, Sindonews.com, Detik.com, Kompas.com and Liputan6.com (Alexa Rank, 2020). We used keywords—cigarettes, advertisement, regulation, ethics, and youth—to define news items related with the research objectives. Within each document, statements are annotated as units of analysis (Leifeld, 2017). A statement consists of 4 variables:
Actor: the person or organization who speaks or makes the statement. Concept: an abstract representation of the contents that are discussed. Agreement: Argumentation between good/bad and positive/negative elements of a statement important to understand what an actor wants to express—because actors may use same words/sentences to express different argumentation. An “agreement” indicating that a person agrees with the category or not; the discussion may also be about sentiment. Time and date stamp.
Two communication students coded the research data over an 8-week period. Firstly, they were trained to understand and identify the concept of unit analysis for news portals online and cigarette regulation, including types of statements. Intercoder reliability was based on 101 statements found across said portals and calculated using an SPSS data analysis. To assess reliability, the researchers used Cohen's Kappa for two coders with several categories. The results of the interrater analysis are Kappa = 0.851 with p < 0.001 which means the measure of agreement is convincing with an outstanding agreement (Landis & Koch, 1977; O’Connor & Joffe, 2020).
The goal of DNA is to trace a debate over time, visualize competing coalitions, and analyze their characteristics; this can be achieved by employing several descriptive analysis methods (Leifeld, 2017). To analyze the data, DNA was used to convert structured data into a weighted actor × actor network, where ties and their weights represent similarities among actors in terms of agreement and/or disagreement over concepts. The actor networks were then imported into Gephi, the network visualization software, to map actors and their coalitions visually. Actors in the network are represented as nodes and ties (calculated as above) and are represented by linear connections between each node. Girvan-Newman edge-between community detection—a common graph clustering algorithm—was applied to the network in order to identify discourse coalitions as cohesive subgroups with similar argumentative patterns.
Results
Who are the Actors?
Initially, the discourses of cigarette advertisement are coded by investigating the question of who are the actors represented in the mass media. The researchers then found that there were some organizational associations and individual actors who appear frequently in the mass media and create statements. Those are, for example, the foundation for consumer protections, student associations, foundation of children protections, child protection commissions, ministry of health, the association of tobacco producers, the ministry of communication and information, the medical doctors’ association/commitee of tobacco regulation, governors, regencies, municipalities, media companies, and the World Health Organization (WHO). These entities formed coalitions in which they propose or oppose the discourse in cigarette advertisement as presented in this study.
Propositions and Oppositions: Cigarette Advertisement Should be Limited in Public Space
Two discourse coalitions between propositions to oppositions are evident in the cigarette advertisement network below (Figure 1). The statement of discourse is whether or not cigarette advertisement should be limited in public space. The image below shows the coalition for those who are pro- (with the) thesis statement in relation to those who oppose.
Actor affiliation network (source: figure by author, 2020).
The proposition of the discourse in limiting cigarette advertisement in public spaces consist of eight actors who were predominantly represented in a news article with similar main arguments. The main actors which had high frequency and were linked to each other on the news in the first cluster were: Minister of Health (n138, f = 39); Muhammadiyah Student Association (Ikatan Pelajar Muhammadiyah/IPM) (n198, f = 10); Indonesian Child Protection Commission (Komisi Perlindungan Anak Indonesia/KPAI) (n394, f = 25); Lentera Anak Indonesia (LAI) (n304, f = 29); Ministry of Health (n258, f = 34); Indonesian Consumer Foundation (Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia/YLKI) (n96, f = 41); and National Commission of Tobacco Control (Komisi Nasional Pengendalian Tembakau) (n320, f = 14), Ministry of Communication and Informatics (n60, f = 6), Indonesian Advertising Companies (Persatuan Pengusaha Periklanan Indonesia or Association/P3I) (n954, f = 2).
On the opposition side of the discourse, of those proposing to limit cigarette advertisement in public space, there are five actors which link to each other. Those actors were members of the House of Representatives (DPR) (n93, f = 13); MNC Group Media (n606, f = 4); Indonesian Tobacco Farmers Association (Asosiasi Petani Tembakau Indonesia/APTI) (n = 650, f = 3); Indonesian Tobacco Society Alliance (Aliansi Masyarakat Tembakau Indonesia/AMTI), (n636, f = 5); and the Constitutional Court (n958, f = 6).
Answering the “who” questions are important in understanding the discourse of cigarette advertisement (Hajer, 2002). This process helps to identify those who create coalitions to propose and/or oppose discourse and shape the conversation (Colebatch, 2005). This process also helps to identify what kind of organizations are involved, as well as their interests in such discourses (Torgerson, 1985). As can be seen in Figure 1, those who want to limit cigarette advertisement in public space are organizations involved in public health, students or youth, and agencies for consumer protections. Meanwhile, those who oppose the limitation of cigarette advertisement in public space are organizations related to tobacco production, the media who receive the benefit of such advertisements, as well as political bodies such as the House of Representatives. This shows that the discourse of cigarette advertisement is indeed influenced—and compromised—by the power of these organizations to gain media attention for the interest of actors involved (Van Tatenhove et al., 2010). Furthermore, the actors are often presented through said statements based on their “connection,” or, “institutional identity,” strengthening the notion that policy making, even intervention in public debate in Indonesia is shaped by the negotiation and interactions of polycentric institutions and groups (Hajer, 2002).
What Does This say About Arguments in Cigarette Advertisement?
In the question of “says what,” Lasswell's second criteria (2017), the researchers looked deeper into the arguments of each actor. By codifying similarities between each argument, the researchers were able to locate the thematic concepts prevalent across the varying statements (Alhojailan, 2012). Both propositions and oppositions on the discourses of limiting cigarette advertisements address three main clashes. Those are: the nature of tobacco and cigarette products, the impact of this industry, and the effectivity of the regulations.
Those who propose the limitation of cigarette advertisement in public space argue upon the nature of tobacco and cigarettes as an addictive substance, its negative impact upon health and youth, and the effectiveness of advertising in influencing the young despite the many regulations that have been put in place. The central organizations who propose the limitation of cigarette advertisement, in the context of the debate, were the Ministry of Health, followed by the Commission of Child Protections of Indonesia. These organizations are illustrated together, that is, in agreement, on the need for a limitation of cigarette advertisement in public spaces, based on a range of concept statements (as can be seen in Table 2).
Proposition Arguments on Limiting Cigarette Advertisement in Public Space.
(Source: Figure by author, 2020).
Meanwhile, from opposition coalitions on the discourse of limiting cigarrete advertisement, arguments similarly clashed. The opposition argue that limiting cigarette advertising in public space is irrelevant, redundant, because of the adverse impacts upon an industry for which many people work. While, the cigarette and tobacco are legal products in indonesia, that should be treated similarly as any other legal industry, opposition to the proposal argue too that it cannot be compared to narcotics (an argument put forward by those in favour of limited advertisement). Finally, the opposition argue in favour of a “consumer's right to choose,” highlighting the peoples’ choices of whether or not to smoke, watch the ads, or to (even) stay away from said products (Table 3).
Opposition Arguments on Limiting Cigarette Advertisement in Public Space.
(Source: Figure by author, 2020).
Understanding the “says what” question, point 3 in Lasswell's model, in regards to cigarette advertisement discourses, helps to map how actors shape these coalitions and the basic concepts that inspire their moves (Diani & Bison, 2004). Lasswell's model, especially on “says what,” is able to uncover the contributions of actors in constructing the discourses that represent the voices and concerns within a given society (Torgerson, 1985). The arguments, it is noted, are a result of the reproductions of discourses within a society in which the past can be used (and reused) in recurrent settings within a specific context (Nichter et al., 2009)—in our case, Indonesia. These arguments seem “classic,” having been used in various debate settings of cigarette advertisement, especially those that have taken place within similar context settings (Nichter et al., 2009) such as those outlined throughout the current research. Similar arguments are to be found also in the public discourses on cigarette advertising elsewhere within research contexts, or even news outlets themselves (Burton et al., 2010). As a part of this process, the “says what” aspect of Lasswell's model, is still relevant in examining the debate surrounding the cigarette advertisement “controversy.” The power dynamics in shaping the debate, and policy, is at play through the multiple interpretations, values, even weak arguments based upon the issues of cigarette advertisement (Adekola et al., 2019; Cook, 2001). By drawing insights from the “says what” element, the current research explores how particular narratives and arguments gain prominence through “clashes” within debates between actors, amplifying, at times ironically, the actors’ own interests, coalitions, and affiliations.
To Whom the Arguments are Addressed to?
To answer this question, the study looks at the topic of arguments among those who agree and disagree. The current research is looking at the what is the “target of arguments” and “who” are the parties who shape the targets through argumentation? Examining the “to whom the arguments are addressed to” does not mean that the actors implicitly mention the person or the receiver of the target arguments (Eising et al., 2017). However, the very circulation of arguments around the subject of said arguments, often connects it to other stakeholders already involved in the topic (of the arguments). Thus, receivers are very often the stakeholders involved in the topic itself.
There are four topics that accumulatively become the target of agreement or disagreement from both proposition and opposition actors. Those are the topic on cigarette advertisement, regulation, how youth relate to cigarettes, among others. Statistically (Table 4), most of the article contains information and discussion about cigarette advertisement (n = 460, 51.9%). Followed by content about cigarette's regulation (n = 258, 29.1) and youth's relation to said products (n = 153, 17.2%).
The Accumulation of Agreement and Disagreement in Certain Topics.
(Source: Figure by author, 2020).
The majority of the discussion topic in most discourses is about cigarette advertisement, which highlights the many disagreements (n = 296, 33.4%), over agreements, of the concept under discussion (n = 164, 18.5%). Disagreement centres primarily on health, and, arguably, duty of care, in which people oppose the idea that the government can give voice to an industry such as Big Tobacco—by which they advertise across the mass media (n = 81, 17.6%)—which could lead, in turn, to harm among its own citizens, particularly the youth and children. Thus government, in their view, should apply serious rules for the industry or agency involved (n = 49, 10.7%). Here, it is worthy to note, that there are some others that do see the government as having already done their best to ensure cigarette advertisement remains regulated (n = 56, 18.9%). (Figure 2)
Pictorial warning on cigarette's packaging.
To put it in contexts in which the arguments clashes around the debate, we put several examples. One of the serious rules that has been implemented by the government is about the pictorial warning. To explain that cigarette is very dangerous for health, the government's created strict regulation for the industry to put on a pictorial warning on cigarette's packaging. The statement written on the packaging for example is, “Because of cigarette, I got a throat cancer”
This sentence is followed by picture of an old man with a hole in his throat. It's been a part of the debate since it was treated like a harmful product and should be banned, on the other hand, cigarette still distributed widely.
Further, in 2013, one of the billboards in Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia, promoted LA Light brand which raised a dispute in mass media and academic discussions upon the vague and ambiguitous messages for young people. The copy ad was: “Don't quIT! LA Light. Let's DO IT.” Based on these sentences, some people interpreted the message as an encouragement for youth ambition to pursue their dreams. Meanwhile, the others seen it to encourage youth not to quit smoking and just do it .
Further, in 2011, Sampoerna cigarrette company placed a billboard in Jakarta which depicted young man reaching out to catch up with friends on a bus, with a slogan: “Leaving only name is better than leaving a friend. Sampoerna, A Mild. A cool friend.” The message arguably appear as if the company told Indonesian young people that cigarettes are “cool friends” worth dying for. These examples shows that the cigarette's advertisement brought the real issue on the context of people's life. However, this research isn't focusing on the advertisement discourse but only on the news about the advertising debate. Thus, these examples are only to give further explanation about the Indonesian context.
The approach this study used to look at the configuration of statistics within the topic, highlight the circulation as well as intersections of interests and power of the stakeholders of the topic (Hajer, 2002). The current study does not see actors as having been explicit, either by finger pointing (at those who are in the position of “wrong doers”), or in the harm (believed) caused from discourses of the cigarette advertisement debate they have engaged in. Whether on youth health, or the risk to employers within the industry (Wesselink et al., 2014), actors, it appears, have engaged more with the topic of the debate, which subsequently implicates the stakeholders involved in the topic. For example, the topic on cigarette advertisement impacts upon advertising agencies, media industry, tobacco companies, and the changing media landscape of cigarette advertisement itself. Meanwhile, cigarette regulations give impact to stakeholders such as those previously mentioned—members of House of Representatives, ministries, regional governments (provincial /regencies /municipals), and policy advocates. Lastly, the topic area of youth and cigarettes have an intersection of interests that revolve around organizations who concern themselves with youth, health, and consumer protections. In the topic of “others,” we found that the stakeholders of the topics are related too to international organizations and the livelihood of employers, as well as employees, of the cigarette industry.
With What Channel Actors Problematize Cigarette Advertisement?
On the question of “with what channel,” the study approaches the discourse of cigarette advertisement by locating the topics of arguments that discuss the media of advertisement. That is, which part, or from which media, is the discourse of cigarette advertisement mostly being debated? From the discourse network analysis conducted through the current research, this study has found that there are several channels through which the actors mostly argue.
The media of advertisement, it appears, are mostly debated by proposition and opposition actors, ranging from offline to online media. In general, most arguments fall into prohibition of cigarette advertising everywhere, or at least, within public space. This debate absorbs the biggest number of agreement (n = 168) versus disagreement (n = 105) factors. This is because the definition of “public space” is very broad, making the debate circulated into an assumption of “banning across all spaces,” which was opposed hardly by any of the opposition groups under study. Meanwhile, the debate also appears on cigarette advertisement blocks on the internet, in which those who agree (n = 63) see the internet as a powerful medium, while those who disagree (n = 46), see it as unfair if cigarette advertisement were to be limited to television and elsewhere without the benefits of the World Wide Web. The debate also goes to banning cigarette advertisements on television, as those who agree (n = 55) see that TV is consumed by a great many people, with those who disagree (n = 37), seeing that advertisements on television has already been limited, with restrictions clear: no advertisement should show, explicitly, any cigarette—not even in contour. Other media that has become a target of cigarette advertisement, and subsequently finding itself in the “heat of the debate” (as well as pictorial warnings) (Noar et al., 2016), are the billboard (Altman et al., 1991), school areas and youth events (Crawford, 2014), as well as any local area, to enforce safety regulations (Helberg, 1995), on implicit/explicit messages which may attract young people (Figure 3).
Topics of arguments based on media coverage in cigarette advertisement (source: figure by author, 2020).
Examining the “with what channel” question from the Lasswell model is not only to understand which media actors use to voice their arguments, but also, which media they use to reach their targets, as well as to map their concerns, and interest (Gamson, 2004). This opens another level of the whole concept of “communication purpose,” in which not only how one conveys their message through effective media, but also, how they reach these target goals and interests when using “what channel” (Lasswell, 1948; Wenxiu, 2015). The propositions in this debate, seem move their media targets by looking at how the media works effectively to reach young people (Nurmansyah et al., 2019; Prabandari & Dewi, 2016). However, the opposition rarely grant concessions, arguing, that limitations already in place—through laws and regulations—is enough. That way, the opposition can argue to open more space for themselves to move, creatively, using advertisement messages, techniques, or approach in this restricted space.
With What Effect the Discourses Have Changed the Regulations?
Another question the current study explores in the course of this research, is that of “with what effect is discourse able to change regulations” over time? We use chronological orders to understand how actor arguments have developed and changed the course of regulations over the 10-year period (2010–2020) currently under discussion. This reveals that cigarette advertisements can be seen too as something of a political contest engaged in a three-way process.
First, the development of regulations and restrictions depend on the actors and the regulative power that actors can use to regulate cigarettes. The example of this process can be seen through the involvement of regional and provincial government actors who take action for their territory only. The study found that Bandung city (2014), DKI Jakarta Special Province (2016) and Kulon Progo Regency in Yogyakarta province (2016), appear to have their own special regulations in the treatment of cigarette advertising. This shows how actors, especially executive leaders such as governors, mayors, and regents have (perceivably) the special power to regulate the cigarette advertisement, at least in their own territory/ies (Table 5).
Chronological Process of Cigarette Advertisement Discourse Over 10 Years.
(Source: Figure by author, 2020).
Second, the move of banning—or limiting—cigarette advertising happened in a step-by-step process involving a succinct understanding of the media landscape in advertising. The processes of banning, limiting, and regulating advertisement, started in locations situated in school areas, those published outdoor, to eventually encompass television, train stations, the internet, and the sponsoring of sporting events (Achadi et al., 2005; Nichter et al., 2009; Prabandari & Dewi, 2016) (Table 6).
Indonesia's Regulation and Ethics About Cigarette Advertisement.
(Source: Datawrapper, 2020).
Third, as a part of the chronological process, the study finds that tobacco companies have contributed to mass media business, such as television, due to interactions fostered through the advertising cycle itself. The traces of a reluctant response from television media to engage with the issue highlight just how both advertising and Big Tobacco indeed intersect, are connected, and are, in fact, quite interdependent (Craig & Moellinger, 2001).
Understanding the impact of discourses through this chronological approach give the researchers insight into how the discourse have been developed over time and how public debate facilitated through mass media is indeed impactful but can also be compromised (Syaifuddin, 2018). The discourse of cigarette advertisement has established different milestones over this 20-year time period (Craig & Moellinger, 2001). The process to reach this goal, especially from the proposition actors who want to ban cigarette advertisement by any and all means, has developed, reflexively, through the trend of media usage, as well as the very landscape it attempts/intends to occupy (Hefler et al., 2013).
Discussion
This study sheds light an examination and a map to the development of discursive texts within media, policy, and cigarette advertisements which shows the complex intersections of actors, arguments, stakeholders, media, and changes of policy. Drawing from the recent changes on the cigarette advertising policy in Indonesia (2019), this paper is the first to provide an in-depth analysis on the debates of cigarette advertisement in Indonesia, the actors involved, and the evolution of policy across a variety of times and locations. This paper not only shed lights on the arguments, positions, and coalitions of actors in the development of cigarette advertisement, but highlights too common areas of contestation and issues that involves a multitude of organisations, local authorities, health providers, academic institutions, and those with strong interests, who have made extensive efforts in the debates to actively advocate their interests. However, as the arguments are captured by the media, the focus of the debate between these actors have been more on the arguments of the issues themselves, rather than on building coalition to influence policy. This is similar to several research projects which have provided a similar approach to discourse network analysis, such as findings in the debate on the regulations of E-cigarettes in Scotland (Weishaar et al., 2019). This study is similar with this study because it indicates how actors in the debate of cigarette regulation often times choose to focus on developing unified positions around the issues, rather than building advocacy and coalition to influence a particular policy. Indeed, as a consequence of providing these public statements, actors often find themselves positioned at either end of two polarised extremes, and quoted, primarily, for their views and opinion rather than evidence (Weishaar et al., 2019). However, this portrayal also presents an absence of evaluation and evidence-based argument to intervene in a particular policy. As a consequence, actors have been more inclined to show their personal opinions, over evidence, or any clinical or scientific approach.
In the context of Lasswell's model of communication, findings of the current study particularly focused on developing the “Who, says what, to whom, with what channel, and with what effect,” within the discursivity of texts of public debate in media. In the “who” question, on top of the benefit of using Lasswell's model to identify who the actors are, this research agreed that the complexities of the mass media process also shape the one who should/can appear in news articles (Naveh, 2002; Torgerson, 1985). However, using the Lasswell model, current research was unable to identify just why it was that the mass media took this or that specific actor, as opposed to another, as the centre of information that helped shape the discourses and coalitions (Dunn, 2018; Naveh, 2002). The “why this actor” question relates to how the mass media works in setting and selecting actors—who it is who can and can't speak (who can be heard)—within a mass media that is simultaneously in the process of creating the very discussions it covers (Jensen, 1991).
Meanwhile, examining the “says what” proponent from Lasswell does not necessarily offer the simultaneousness of messages and arguments which circulated within the media and national contexts (Lasswell, 1971). It is possible, however, in the era of participatory online media, that the “says what” elements of Lasswell's model are only an imitation of similar messages circulated elsewhere, which have been used, for the purposes of winning interest in other contexts. Thus, it is important to also examine the “imitated art” process by comparing them to other similar sources during a political dispute, public affair debate, or discourse. The complexity of circulation processes of messages in participatory online media still cannot be captured through the questioning of “says what,” alone. Researchers also need to delve into how this “says what” was circulated and repeated in different contexts (Bryant, 2012; Jensen, 1991). The conventional arguments built by the actors convey the reproduction on content from the circulations of expectations elsewhere around the globe. While, at the same time, the lack of evidence-based arguments show how personal opinion, as a representation of popular opinion, or coalitions of interests, are here more dominant than those of scientific or data-based statements.
In the context of examining “to whom,” we found that Lasswell's model is useful to find who are the targets/receivers of the message. Much of the messaging, it appears, is focused not only toward the general population, or, “potential consumer,” but strategically used to “message” the stakeholders who are involved. That is, a purposeful targeting of the very same actors engaged in the topic; those that might impact the topic in favour of change (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). However, it is important to highlight, that in Indonesian culture, finger-pointing and the “mentioning of names,” i.e., the specific targets of an argument (your opponents), as “wrong doers” within the context of a topic is not common. In this study for example, actors rarely mention the name of the company under discussion, rather, they point at the “cigarette industry” as a whole—perusahaan rokok. Therefore, researchers must be able to find those behind the messages or topics, because “one size does not fit all” in understanding how stakeholders are mentioned (Koontz & Johnson, 2004). Who are the stakeholders of the topics? Using this formular, the “to whom” question can be explored further (Koontz & Johnson, 2004).
Most concerns over the use of cigarette advertisements in public space, were especially geared toward the media, specifically, those relating to young people (i.e., school, internet, sporting events, etc.) (Nurmansyah et al., 2019; Ratriyana, 2021). In fact, young people, for a large part of its advertising history, have been known to be the main target of the cigarette industry, labelled as “easy to influence” by the advertisements of advertisers (Nurmansyah et al., 2019). This has been consistent throughout the timeframe under study, with the concern of proposition upon the youth lifestyle, and its impacts of cigarette addiction among the youth a major concern (Padon et al., 2017; Prabandari & Dewi, 2016). Meanwhile, in opposition, resistance and arguments toward prevention—in the form of policies on banning cigarette advertisement—have been obvious and clear from the start. The opposition coalition argue that cigarette advertisement has been limited and restricted, and has become quite hard for them to move within the “geography” of public space. Therefore, similar to the dynamics process seen between industry and agency in the research by Craig and Moellinger (2001), the banning of cigarette advertisement in public space not only affects the industry, i.e., “Big Tobacco,” but will not be beneficial for the advertising agencies, media, and stakeholders who own spaces for paid ads.
The discourse of cigarettes in the media has created an effect on advertising regulation over the past ten years. The cigarette industry has been negatively impacted, largely, due to restrictions placed on them through regulation; protocols that have impeded their promotion, for example: cigarette limitation in school areas (2015), outdoor advertising (2016), television (2017), train stations (2018), the internet (2019) and sporting events (2019). Effectively banned through the many limitations imposed, cigarette industries have found difficulties in creating an image (i.e., showing independence, athleticism, sexuality, wealth, power and adventurousness) to appeal to potential consumers and “capture” adolescent aspirations (Dalton et al., 2002). A further effect has been that the Indonesian cigarette business has been decreasing, gradually, with 2020 itself, seeing cigarette production fall, down to 12,3% (Rahayu, 2020), with the number of smokers drop by 3,3% (TCSC-IAKMI, 2020). Thus, cigarette advertisement currently uses their own media, such as social media, websites, and community platforms (including word of mouth) to inform the customer. Because, as has been shown, “paid” space, or, advertisements in the public domain, have been banned by policies that limit their moves. Similar impacts have been felt by advertising agencies across Indonesia in which a decline in massive orders from the cigarette industry—in buying and placing ads—in television, radio, and internet. Furthermore, one of the strategic aspects that the cigarette industry and advertising agencies have currently applied, is to use the “non-paid” aspects of marketing space. Since the banning has been on advertising, i.e., televised promotion, other types of marketing communication channels have not been closed for them, for example—community events, wandering sales people, and other forms that present themselves “physically.” With restrictions in place through public policy, the tobacco company has also needed to think—and act—strategically, creatively, to generate messages, campaigns, and/or events, which will not break the new regulations through collaborative works within advertising (Priyatna, 2013). Despite the rise of creative online media production, also available to be used, many of these types of media are not included as advertisement, but as “other types” of marketing communication channels. These channels are still being used, to move around loopholes within policy. The current study, therefore, calls for further research into the use of these other marketing communication channels being used by the cigarette industry despite the current banning on advertising.
The cigarette discussions, as covered, have also shown the possibility of restricting policy on a regional level, which depends on local leaders’ and decisions. From the current research, there are some local leaders from within the Indonesian political contest who have taken the initiative to ban cigarette advertisement in their regions. Some local leaders, such as the Regent of Kulon Progo, the Regent of Bandung and Governor of DKI Jakarta, create local regulation in order to reject all cigarette advertising within their own locations between 2014–2016. These local leaders were able to tailor the “localism message” (Kurland & McCaffrey, 2014) and to use their liminal positions as gatekeepers, between central government and grassroots members, to independently direct their activities (Ehrhardt, 2020). They believe that cigarettes are still the leading cause of preventable death in many countries, and as such, banning all advertising for cigarettes on any channel would be the most effective movement, running parallel with restrictions on TV, outdoor advertising, and brand-sponsored events (Craig & Moellinger, 2001; Kim et al., 2019).
Conclusion
This research contributes not only to aspects of showcasing the cigarette advertisement debate in Indonesia (2010–2020), but also to the political system and power which has been performed over the past decade in the “playground of the Indonesian cigarette industry.” This analysis indicates that the cigarette industry has been connected with many powerful organizations and associations to reach its objectives. Therefore, many coalitions have been created throughout the given time through these opponent and proponent groups as witnessed throughout the debate. When structural powers within government stand in opposition to each other, the cigarette industry has proven to be more effective at making policy and coordinating regulations with other agencies (Farnsworth & Holden, 2006). This condition is similarly proven in Indonesia. However, the coalition between the proponents of cigarette regulation has been stronger for the past ten years. Consequently, starting in 2016, cigarette advertising regulations have developed through a stronger objective: that of winning over the concerns of society, rather than the industry.
This further has shown in Table 6, that Indonesia's regulation has been evolved. It started since 2002 that start to prohibit the advertisement in the exhibit the picture form of cigarette. Further, it evolved in 2005 which regulated hours-time in advertising. It then continued to the prohibition of smoking area (2009), broadcasting standard (2012), regulation for warning in cigarette package that shows the disturbing images (2013), the expansion of no-smoking area criteria (i.e., campus, public area, etc.) (2017), and total prohibition of cigarette's advertisement in mass media which targeted to young audience (2020). From this explanation, we learn that that the regulation has been evolved in ten years span. This research contributes the evolution of policy in Indonesia which is wrapped up with the debates surround that.
The discourse of cigarette advertisement in Indonesia is a potential example of constructing social policy by using political engagement, institutional participation, coalitions, and the practice of media production. The cigarette industry “plays” through a number of alternative investments (strategies) (Holden & Lee, 2019), which then affects government decision making within the realm of economics. Using discourse network analysis, this research was able to show the involvement of the many stakeholders within the debate of cigarette advertisement, from the government bodies, advertising agencies, media industry, and education institution who have been heavily engaged in the cigarette issue for the past ten years. This method demonstrates an understanding of the interconnectedness that exists across areas of policy, communication, and public debate through the actors, arguments, topic and chronological orders in an extensive way (Leifeld, 2017). This research (model) has the ability to be implemented in other countries by using the same pattern of representing years of debates in relation to online news and across social media. The discussion of structural-and agency power of tobacco control and cigarette industries, though introduced, have not been fully integrated into this article; as such, it still offers further research opportunities to take the discussion into the future.
Further research can look further to the other detail forms of advertisement or marketing communication, including public relations, online advertisement, point-of-sales, or any form of participatory culture or action in the future. As this research is not aims for deconstructing cigarette advertising samples in Indonesia and deconstruct the example, and a list of examples and deconstruct those examples by analyzing discourse strategies and point out how powerful economic elites from the tobacco industry affect the advertising market, medias, audience, or how they avoid the law restrictions on tobacco advertising. Therefore, we suggest the further research to explore deeply on these aspects.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors express their immense gratitude to LPPM or Institute of Research and Community Service of Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta for the grant of research 2020. The authors also would like to thank to Shane Bradshaw for his incredible works on editing the manuscript.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The work was supported by LPPM UAJY or Institute of Research and Community Service of Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.
