Statement in Response to Plaintiff's Allegations Concerning Advertising

Bliley Lorillard

Statement in Response to Plaintiff's Allegations Concerning Advertising

Date: 10 Jul 1986
Length: 2 pages
92346750-92346751
Jump To Images

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bliley_lor/92346750-6751.html

bliley_lor 92346750-92346751

Abstract

Alleges that plaintiff's attorneys are trying "to move the trial of their case from the courtroom to the media" in part by attacking cigarette advertising. Claims that cigarette advertising does not motivate non-smokers to take up smoking. Notes that all cigarette advertising contains the Surgeon General's health warning, and therefore does not imply that smoking is healthful. Argues that cigarette advertising "show pleasant looking adults who enjoy smoking a particular brand of cigarettes" because "there are millions of pleasant looking adults who do enjoy smoking." States, "[t]he way in which cigarette companies advertise is a subject that Congress has debated exhaustively and which is monitored continuously by both Congress and the Federal Trade Commission." Emphasizes personal choice as the fundamental issue in these cases and that "[t]hose who choose to smoke in the face of health claims should have the right to do so and should be responsible for that choice." Duplicates Bates 2047999357.

Fields

Type: STATEMENT
Author: Witt, Samuel B., III (CTR and RJR Director & Gen. Counsel)
Held various executive positions for RJR and Council for Tobacco Research
Recipient: General Counsel; Stevens, Arthur Joseph (LOR Sr. VP '89-95 and TI Communications)
Served on Lorillard Board of Directors 1985-92, was Senior Vice President from 1989 to 1995, served as General Counsel for Lorillard '93-95. Served on Tobacco Institute Communications Committee.
Copied: Stevens, Arthur Joseph (LOR Sr. VP '89-95 and TI Communications)
Served on Lorillard Board of Directors 1985-92, was Senior Vice President from 1989 to 1995, served as General Counsel for Lorillard '93-95. Served on Tobacco Institute Communications Committee.; Temko, S.L.; Bezanson, T.E.; Dehn, F.X.; Irvin, D.; Katz, H.R.; Mcdermott, R.F., J.R.; Purvis, A.R.
Named Organization: Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service; Federal Trade Commission; Congress
Keyword: Consumers; Health claims; Personal choice
Thesaurus Term: adult; advertising; brand switching; legal activity; mass media; tobacco organization; tobacco use; behavior

Document Images

Page 1: 92346750

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL 7/10/86 Statement in Response to Plaintiff's Allegations Concerning Adverti.sing Any attempt to suggest to the media that tobacco companies have used advertising to manipulate the American people without their knowledge is completely without foundation in fact, and insults the good sense and intelligence of American consumers. Common sense suggests that advertising cannot persuade a non-smoker to smoke. Cigarette ads do not say smoking is healthful. To the contrary, they all contain the Surgeon General's health warning. They do not urge non-smokers to start smoking, nor are they aimed at children. Independent research demonstrates that while cigarette ads are sometimes effective in motivating those who already smoke to try a new or different brand, they do not motivate non-smokers to take up smoking. Recent statements by the plaintiff's attorneys indicate clearly their continued campaign to try to move the trial of their case from the courtroom to the media. Part of their strategy is an attack on cigarette advertising, but their thinking is basically flawed. Cigarette advertisements show pleasant looking adults who enjoy smoking a particular brand of cigarettes. That is because there are millions of pleasant looking adults who do enjoy smoking. Using the same themes as the advertising for the thousands of other legal products sold in America, cigarette advertising seeks to encourage brand loyalty or a switch in brands.

Page 2: 92346751

-2- The way in which cigarette companies advertise is a subject that Congress has debated exhaustively and which is monitored continuously by both Congress and the Federal Trade Commission. The fundamental issue in these cases is personal choice. Those who choose to smoke in the face of health claims should have the right to do so and should be responsible for that choice. ###

Tobacco Documents Online

Bliley Lorillard