Backfire

Nervous, nicotinous William Hard Jr., roving editor of rich (circ. 5,500,000) Reader's Digest, is glad to smoke any kind of a cigaret, likes them all. His likes gave him an idea and Reader's Digest a story. Last week the story backfired, leaving long-nosed Editor Hard wondering whether it had been worth while.

Bill Hard's thesis was an old one: that one cigaret was much like another, that the magic of any one brand for its smokers was a creation of silver-penned advertising wizards who should be put in their places. To prove it, Reader's Digest hunted up a laboratory with a cigaret-puffing robot, put it to work dragging on 24 specimens of each of seven brands.

Result of the Reader's Digest tests, as written up by Robert Littell: "The differences between brands are, practically speaking, small and no single brand is so superior to its competitors as to justify its selection on the ground that it is less harmful."

The Digest listed the microscopic quantities of nicotine and the low percentages of tars found in each smoke. On the figures, Old Golds were ahead of the rest by a thin longitudinal slice of a frog's hair.

Quick were Old Gold's silver penmen to start the backfire. Reader's Digest's July issue was still on top of the rack in the bathrooms of American homes when Old Gold hit the newspapers with full-page advertisements :

"Reader's Digest Exposes Cigarette Claims! Impartial tests find OLD GOLD lowest in Nicotine and Throat-Irritating Tars and Resins . . . Get July Reader's Digest. See what this highly respected magazine reports."

Said surprised Mr. Hard, "I think Old Golds are going overboard a bit."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.