There is a type of marketing called native advertising. You’ve probably seen it on social media feeds and media outlets. Essentially, it involves ads for products and services designed to look like their native surroundings, whether that's an organic post on Instagram or an article on an online newspaper. The thinking being that if it looks like a native post, users are more likely to see, trust, or click the ad.
Critics of this form of marketing say that it blurs the line between genuine content and ads. As part of the UK’s Committee of Advertising Practice Code, these kinds of posts must be marked clearly as ads, sponsored content, promotions, and so on.
But what about the articles that blur the line even further?
The article
The Guardian has long claimed editorial independence on nicotine and tobacco, despite taking money from groups like Bloomberg Philanthropies-backed Vital Strategies. Keeping the lights on at a newspaper is hard these days, and these kinds of funding models are increasingly common. Of course, even if they claim impartiality, the arrangement makes me think of the classic Charlie Munger saying, “Show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.”
A recent article in The Guardian is a convincing example of how this kind of “activist” journalism is running wild in once-respected online papers. Titled, Marlboro maker accused of ‘exploiting’ young people with a new global ad campaign, the piece is built on a facile “gotcha” that reveals the rank stupidity and lack of business acumen of the modern anti-nicotine groups.
The main thrust here is that three years ago, Philip Morris International (PMI) chief executive, Jacek Olczak, said “cigarettes belong in a museum” and that the company planned to transition toward safer alternatives, like pouches and vapes. However, new Marlboro ad campaigns in places like the Philippines and Indonesia have caught the attention of the usual groups who believe that Olczak is not standing by his stated aims.
The article in the Guardian is filled with quotes from:
- Mark Hurley, vice-president at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
- Jorge Alday, director of Stopping Tobacco Organizations and Products (Stop) at Vital Strategies
- Lisda Sundari, chair of Indonesia’s Lentera Anak Foundation.
These cosy trio are all funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies. They are all partnered with each other. In the last paragraph, PMI is allowed to mount some defence against the accusations. Per research, around 1 in 10 readers get to this part. In other words, the damage has been done.
Honestly, the argument that these campaigns undermine the long-term position of PMI is weak. In Q1 2026, smoke-free products made up 43% of PMI's revenues. It’s clear what direction the group is going in. However, anyone with a lick of sense understands they can’t just stop making, selling, and marketing cigarettes overnight. Here is why:
#1. Financial realities
Cigarettes still make up the majority of revenues. They have investors and board members, and PMI stock is part of some pension funds. They also have employees and customers. You can’t just torch all that overnight to sate Bloomberg and his useful idiots.
#2. R&D
PMI has invested heavily in smoke-free products over the last decade. The R&D is funded by cigarette sales. For now, any transition towards these safer products is contingent on some contribution from combustibles.
#3. Fiduciary duty
PMI is a publicly traded company. Their valuation is built around their cash flow. If they unilaterally exited the market or engaged in zero promotion, they would be in breach of fiduciary duty and could face legal action from investors.
#4. The goal is 2030
PMI has already stated their goal: Two-thirds of net revenue from smoke-free products by 2030. The trajectory is clear, and while some say getting over the line by 2030 is tricky, that’s their plan.
Final thoughts
While the Guardian, via Bloomberg-funded tobacco control groups, thinks they’ve got a real gotcha on PMI. But it’s little more than cheap rhetoric that only flies if the reader doesn’t know how business works.
The real story here is how this article feels like an untagged native promotion for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and its ilk. To me, it seems like there is a conflict of interest that means there is a very narrow band of permissible opinions. In this case, coincidentally or not, it’s exactly the message that Bloomberg wants.
