Although many centuries have passed since the ancient Greeks developed the first theories of rhetoric, their concepts still can be used to understand how businesses today struggle to find a balance between ethics and expediency when writing their annual reports or creating websites. Corporations like Philip Morris, one of the largest tobacco companies in the world, have an especially difficult time in balancing their wish to appear ethical with their desire to be profitable. Ancient philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and Gorgias, studied and debated the same complex rhetorical situation that present-day corporations face.

The Philip Morris USA corporate website is a fascinating modern example of rhetoric. Philip Morris is the largest tobacco company in the United States. Yet, as required by the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that they have with the government, an anti-smoking campaign is now featured on their website.  According to the agreement, the website is supposed to inform the general public about the potential hazards of using cigarettes and other assorted products with nicotine. This entails presenting facts and statistics that could potentially portray their products and the company as a whole in a negative light. The website features many rhetorical elements to get its messages across including ethos, pathos, and logos sometimes in an obvious way, but at other times much more subtly.

Multiple Audiences and Varying Messages

The goal of the website is to address three very different audiences:  the concerned parents, the smokers or shareholders, and the government agencies that mandated this anti-smoking campaign. The messages are unique for each audience. Parents sigh with relief when they read over and over that “adults” are the targeted consumers of Philip Morris’s products. According to the website, children are not even considered consumers for the addictive substances. The government agencies are relieved when they see health warnings, statistics, and the disclaimer on the bottom right of the homepage that states: “This is the corporate website of Philip Morris USA. It does not sell, advertise, or offer promotions for our products.” To smokers it may seem as though Philip Morris USA really does care about its consumers. In the eyes of the cigarette consumers and investors, the paranoid anti-smoking lobbyists are just blowing everything out of proportion by making the company create such a campaign. The speaker, or corporate persona, of the site comes across as a very knowledgeable, dedicated staff member of Philip Morris who is concerned not only about the welfare of the consumers but also the global image of the company. This persona is effective because it portrays the individuals behind the corporation as responsible, caring citizens.

One message can certainly work in different ways when it comes to addressing varied audiences. This concept can be illustrated with the classic Aristotelian triangle. The corners represent the speaker, the audience, and the means to an end, or message, intended for the specified audience. In this particular example, there are three major audiences and therefore three possible triangles. The message for government agencies and parents is that smoking is harmful, it should be avoided by everyone, and that there are many ways to educate a child and discourage them from wanting to try cigarettes or tobacco products. The means to an end for these audiences is to include enough information to satisfy the MSA, but not so much that their products look entirely undesirable. I believe that the website is not as convincing as it ought to be in certain sections and therefore may give the remaining audience, the smokers, a different message. One example of the website lacking in information can be found in the “Smoking & Health Issues” section under the “Our Products” tab. There is a brief synopsis on topics such as “Smoking & Disease in Smokers”, “Addiction”, “Smoking & Pregnancy”, and “Surgeon General Reports,” but the links provided underneath those topics for elaboration often lead to irrelevant places or do not supply much more information. In navigating the site I realized that it is vague in many places and occasionally rambles, rendering some sections almost completely ineffective. Under the “Ingredients” tab, there was not a clear bullet-point list of ingredients as I had expected. Instead, there were lengthy paragraphs that linked to other places and gave no real information about what a cigarette contains. Later on, after doing a more comprehensive search, I was able to locate their product’s ingredients. However, the fact that I had initial trouble with this task suggests that others will as well who may not spend as much time looking through the site as I did. These manipulations of the site serve as discreet methods of persuasion in favor of keeping their customers. Their means to an end when it comes to their consumers is to use subtle persuasion so that they can still have a successful business.

Methods of Persuasion: Ethos, Logos, Pathos

This site relies heavily on ethos, logos, and pathos when it comes to each of its audiences. Most of the website, however, revolves around ethos. According to Aristotle, this was the most important of the persuasive appeals. In Rhetoric he explained that “persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others.” In conjunction with Aristotle’s prescription, Philip Morris is interested in proving their good character in the eye of the American consumers. If they can demonstrate their character or good ethos, they can persuade each audience to see the website the way it was intended for them. Logos is important for the website because the government agencies that are mandating that the site be up in the first place are looking for the logical appeals that are going to inform the public about the hazards of smoking. The pathos of the site is essential when it comes to tugging at the heart strings of all audiences. All three appeals could work in a different way for each audience which I feel is an advantage for this website’s purpose. There is no logical way that they can be fully committed to one side of this argument; therefore multiple interpretations of the site are ideal for the company.

In order to appeal to smokers, for example, they include among their “Highlights” a case where San Francisco was trying to ban the sale of cigarettes in convenience stores. Philip Morris portrayed themselves as a company fighting for the right of Americans to choose whether or not they want to purchase a product. This serves as an appeal to ethos as well as pathos because the company is fighting for what is “right” for its consumers making them an ethical, authoritative figure in the eyes of citizens who want to exercise their right to smoke. Reading about that case will make smokers feel as if the government is trying to violate their rights which may inspire strong emotions of anger and frustration. Another aspect of the site that may appeal to smokers is the section detailing how the company is hard at work trying to find less addictive, less harmful substitutes to the current products under the “Reduced Harm” link listed under “Products.” The consumers are lulled into a false sense of security by being exposed to all three appeals at once on this page.

This power of rhetorical appeal is acknowledged in Sharon Crowley’s article “Ancient Rhetoric and Modern Students” when she explains “Ancient rhetoricians were aware that language is a powerful force for moving people to action. Gorgias went so far as to say that language could work on a person’s spirit as powerfully as drugs worked on the body… As he said, language can ‘stop fear and banish grief and create joy and nurture pity’ in Encomium to Helen” (13). Plato agreed with Gorgias on this point. As Robert Connors describes in “Greek Rhetoric and the Transition from Orality,” “For Plato, rhetorical discourse was extremely powerful, even magical” (100). Plato, however, feared this magic because he knew that in cases such as the one at hand, the rhetoric could have harmful results on those who are put under the spell. After being swept up in the rhetoric, a consumer may delay quitting, and instead wait for the healthier, safer alternative that is claimed to be on its way. It would not seem practical or logical for them to quit just yet. Another similar appeal to smokers within the site is the entire “Making” section which features pictures of the tobacco being farmed in beautiful expansive fields by happy, dedicated workers. The process appears so natural, green, and healthy.

The appeals to the general non-smoking public are fairly standard logical pleas to understand that cigarettes can cause many health problems. An example of logos on the “Quit Assist” page linked from the corporate site’s homepage is the step-by-step list to stay smoke-free under the “Quitting and Staying Quit” tab. The section features logical steps that would help one cease smoking for a healthier lifestyle. It is mentioned throughout the “Quit Assist” site that cigarettes are statistically proven to be harmful to one’s health and that everyone would be better off quitting. Ethos for the non-smoking audience is portrayed everywhere through all their disclaimers and “responsible” reporting. The appeals to pathos also make Philip Morris appear caring, and dedicated to the health and happiness of their consumers. On the “Quit Assist” page, one sees smiling, happy faces with featured success stories about various people who have quit smoking and whose lives are now improved for doing so. This is very effective in terms of pathos because the ex-smokers seem happy and healthy, not terminally ill. This makes non-smokers realize that the Philip Morris site is really committed to portraying and encouraging a lifestyle without smoking. Using the same example, the same message could make smokers realize that at any given time, those smiling faces could be their own. To the benefit of the company, this could make consumers believe there is no real hurry to quit because the smokers in the pictures turned out okay after they had been smoking for many years. Although the smiling faces suggested it was possible to quit and have a successful, functional life, the actual writing suggested that “for most people, quitting is not the biggest challenge; it’s staying quit.” The site repeatedly warns of the difficulties that would come along with a relapse. This plays on people’s fear of failing. Overall, the discreet appeals which may dissuade the smoking audience from trying to quit outweighed the more obvious non-smoking-themed appeals within the website.

Effectiveness, Ethics, Argument

After reading the website, I believe smoking would remain appealing to those who are already hooked. An anti-smoking campaign created by a company whose livelihood depends on the purchase of cigarettes is quite a paradox. Back when the tobacco companies were using cartoon characters for their cigarette advertisements, they demonstrated Gorgias’s willingness to employ any means possible to get to the desired end. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates comes to realize over the course of their dialogue that Gorgias believes, “There is no need to know the truth of the actual matter, but one merely needs to have discovered some device of persuasion which will make one appear to those who do not know to know better than those who know.” With the government’s MSA in effect, Philip Morris has taken a turn towards Socrates’s and Plato’s idealistic, more truthful views: the prescriptive “ought.” This is to say that they use an optimistic tone and depict positive situations of what a smoker ought to do: quit smoking. Socrates and Plato still probably would not agree with Philip Morris’ example of ‘digital culture’. According to Connors, “The enemy for both Socrates and the younger Plato, was the authoritarianism of one-way discourse, whether poetic or rhetorical” (104). One can understand why they would feel so bitter towards this rhetoric after analyzing how contradictory hidden and blatant appeals are scattered throughout the entire website with no chance for the audience to ask questions about the company’s ultimate purpose.

Aristotle described three types of oratory for rhetorical situations such as the one at hand: political, forensic, and ceremonial. In Rhetoric, they are each defined as such,

The political orator is concerned with the future: It is about things to be done hereafter that he advises for or against. The party in a case at law is concerned with the past…The ceremonial orator is, properly speaking, concerned with the present, since all men praise or blame in view of the state of things existing at the time, though they often find it useful also to recall the past and to make guesses at the future.

Each type of oratory has its own and distinct end in view. Philip Morris mostly takes the form of the political orator because they are urging us to take some sort of action: to smoke or not to smoke.

According to Rhetoric by Aristotle, “The political orator aims at establishing the expediency or the harmfulness of a proposed course of action; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do good; if he urges its rejection, he does so on the ground that it will do harm…”. By this standard, the Philip Morris company is outwardly being ethical to the community because they are technically giving fair warning about the harmfulness of their products. However, the site could still be viewed as unethical for being less than completely persuasive as the site tries to discourage smoking. Selling tobacco products that might give a customer cancer could be considered comparable to McDonald’s selling junk food that can make Americans obese and ultimately ill with heart disease. The one difference between the two that could make Philip Morris’s business seem unethical is the addictive substance, nicotine, they put into their products to keep consumers coming back for more. In times of economic hardship, a habit like smoking can become very costly. With no addictive properties, many people may just give it up and spend the money on more practical necessities. In order to divert from the topic of addictive substances, large blocks of text (like in the “Ingredients” section as mentioned earlier) are utilized so that readers will skim through or skip over them. This is an example of how new technology affects both a writer’s articulation and a reader’s comprehension. Philip Morris probably loses a majority of readers at the long sections focused around the negative aspects of tobacco because they are not easily scannable. Kathleen Welch discusses in Electric Rhetoric that new technology alters communication so that the images on the site become as important as the words (if not more), and the difficult navigation of the site limits the amount and quality of information a reader receives. These elements of website communication allow Philip Morris to emphasize and articulate some ideas much more than others. Very few readers are willing to read every line of a webpage, especially when it’s presented to them through an unappealing format. Therefore, most readers never receive the full message about the risks of smoking.

The issue of expediency comes into play here because obscuring negative information in long blocks of text and hard-to-find pages, though ethically dubious, is extremely important for the company’s survival and growth. Philip Morris is a very expedient business, in that they seem to care most about what is advantageous to them. It is in no way beneficial for them to explain all the benefits of quitting or to explain that quitting completely is a realistic goal because their business relies on the purchase of tobacco products. Therefore, the presentation of that information is not as clear and concise as it could be. The employees at Philip Morris cannot possibly want everyone in the world to stop smoking unless they also want to lose their jobs.

Stephen Katz notes in “The Ethics of Expediency”, “For Aristotle – at least in his discussion of deliberative rhetoric – there seems to be no distinction between ‘practical wisdom’ and ‘moral virtue’, between expediency and the good, as long as rhetoric serves its end, that is, expediency is the necessary good that subsumes all other goods, and becomes the basis of virtue itself” (191). As the passage suggests, for some, expediency seems ethical because what is advantageous and what is ethically right may be regarded as one in the same. Perhaps Philip Morris believes that it is ethical to have multiple messages for multiple audiences, including one that supports smoking. If someone wants to smoke, Philip Morris asserts that the individual should have the right to make that decision. They also may come to believe they are ethically right based on how long they have been around the company and how much practice, or praxis as Aristotle would call that type of expert knowledge, they have in selling tobacco. Sometimes, expediency, ethical concerns, as well as personal beliefs can all be blurred together to create appropriate corporate mentality.

Suggested Website Revisions for Phillip Morris

In contrast to Philip Morris, Pfizer has a website entitled “My Time to Quit” that features an anti-smoking campaign as well. Not surprisingly, Pfizer’s website is much more informative, concise, and optimistic in giving quitting advice. One thing that is especially effective about Pfizer’s website that should be utilized by Philip Morris’s site is the use of interactive technology. Under “Plan Your Quit” and then “Living Smoke Free,” there is a box on the page where a consumer can calculate how much money they spend on the addictive habit. This appeals to logos and pathos because it serves as a reality check for people who are addicted to smoking. Obviously there is a large sum of money being spent by individuals who smoke, and they may feel that they are being irresponsible by using their money that way. They also feature a timeline that shows how much healthier the body becomes in the absence of smoking, even after just one day. There are no lengthy paragraphs anywhere throughout the entire Pfizer site. It is understandable that Pfizer’s site would be more clear and helpful because their interests do not conflict. Expediency and ethics are much more in agreement here because Pfizer sells many of the drugs that help people to quit smoking. Pfizer genuinely does want to help their customers, and they get a paycheck from it too.

Although Philip Morris’ site might seem unethical upon one’s first impression and would likely trouble both Socrates and Plato deeply, it is apparent that they are in a tough rhetorical situation that they must make the best of. The MSA requires them to disclose troubling facts and statistics about their products, yet their ultimate goal as a corporation is to be profitable. Socrates and Plato would not agree with the differences in rhetorical effectiveness throughout the site; some sections are largely incomprehensible while many of the more favorable sections were easily comprehensible. The site walks the fine line between expediency and ethics by utilizing the means of persuasion appropriate for each distinct audience.

Works Cited

Connors, Robert. "Greek Rhetoric and the Transition from Orality." Ed. Edward P.J. Corbett, James L. Golden, and Goodwin F. Berquist. Essays on the Rhetoric of the Western World. Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt Company, 1990. 91-109. Print.

Crowley, Sharon. Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994. Print.

Katz, Stephen. "The Ethics of Expediency." Ed. Tim Peeples. Professional Writing and Rhetoric: Readings From the Field. New York: Longman, 2003. 183-201. Print.

Welch, Kathleen E. Electric Rhetoric: Classical Rhetoric, Oralism, and a  New Literacy. Cambridge: MIT, 1999. Print.