Tobacco Documents Online

~ EMO R A N DUM TO: FROM CC: DATE RE: ANTHONY J. ANDRADE ~ EUGENE S. PECK H. BRASS I. SARGEANT G. WIRTZ A. FILIPPONE P o MAGLIONE M. REARDON SEPTEMBER 26, 1991 CECCM ADVERTISING AND SPONSORSHIP PAPERS As you have requested, here are my comments on the latest draft CECCM papers, "The Case for Tobacco Advertising", and "Sponsorship": "The Case for Tobacco Advertising" "Wh~. AdvertisinG Does": Once again, the Informatlonal premise that underlies our advertising case needs to be clarified. Considering that one reason Judge Chabot struck down the Canadian Act on freedom of expression grounds was because it denied the public access to commercial information upon which informed economic choices could be based, this is not a minor point. The emphasis in the Inltial paragraph of this section should be on "information" not "communication". I would suggest the following revisions for the first sentence: "Advertising is the driving force of a free market. It is the effective communication of information concerning brand differences that enables consumers to make informed economic choices". The second sentence should also be revised to explaln more clearly how the absence of brand information "freezes" market share as well as inhibits research and development. This could be phrased as follows: "Without the means of pointing out brand differences through competitive advertising, consumers are unable to fo~ulate meanlngful distinctions between available brands. This effectlvely freezes market share at existing levels since consumers continue to use those brands with which they are already familiar. It also 2501009382

Memorandum to ANTHONY J. ANDRADE September 26, 1991 discourages product research and developmen~ because there are no alternative means by which a manufacturer can communicate product innovations to consumers." ".What AdV~rtlslnu Does Not_Dg~: This section continues to make the implied argument that bans increase consumption. As noted previously, this point is counterintuitive. Most people believe that advertising increases consumption. After all, to the lay mind, that is its purpose. They do not make the crucial distinction that advertising actually functions on the brand, not the market, level. We do not deny that advertising influences existing smokers to try different brands. We do deny that it encourages nonsmokers to smoke. It is difficult for those who do not understand this point to accept that in Eastern Europe, where traditionally no advertising has been permitted, consumption is higher on a per capita basis than in those Western European countries where some tobacco advertising is permitted; however, this point can be effectively and simply demonstrated by consumption data. To go beyond this point and suggest that the data also shows that bans actually result in an increase in consumption, even though this argument can be made, raises questions about the accuracy of our evidence. This is the same evidence that we use to demonstrate that bans do not have a statistically significant effect on consumption. As a result, making this point weakens our entire consumption argument. I WOuld recommend keeping the focus on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The phrase "partlcularly in Scandinavia and Eastern Europe" should be deleted from the first sentence of the third paragraph. The flnal sentence of that paragraph should also be deleted and the third paragraph should be merged with paragraph four. Finally, I would delete paragraph five. "~he Children 'I~su~'": This section is a good statement of our position in this area. "A.Change in Smoking Habits": We still have significant product liability concerns about this section. It Impliedly credits cigarette advertising for the trend to filter and low-tar cigarettes. The industry position is that filter and low-tar cigarettes have been produced solely in response to consumer demand. This demand was stimulated by the pronouncements of government and health 2501009383

Memorandum to ANTHONY J. ANDRADE September 26, 1991 Page 3 B| authorities in the 19708, not cigarette advertising. To state otherwise puts the industry in the position of endorsing these types of cigarettes as somehow "safer" than unfiltered, high-tar brands. To avoid this problem, the first three paragraphs of this section should be deleted. The final paragraph discusses the Canadian ad ban decision. It properly belongs in the former "Free Speech and Censorship" section that has been omitted from this draft. Advertising as freedom of expression is a major and timely part of the case for tobacco advertising. My recommendation would be to delete the current section on "A Change in Smoking Habits" and replace it with a section -on freedom of expression and censorship as originally planned. "~ompe~itlon and the Internal MaK_k_e_~": The final paragraph of this section is a good argument on the censorship point and should more properly be placed in the section on "Freedom of Expression and Censorship". It points out the protectionist basis for ad bans and that they are not solely grounded in public health concerns. "To conclud~"~ This section is a good summary of our primary arguments; although, the personal choice, no- effect-on-consumption and slippery slope" arguments are not fully explained in the body of the paper as it now stands. "Sponsorship" I have little to add to my previous comments concerning the CECCM sponsorship paper in my memorandum of September 12. I still find the effort to distinguish sponsorship from advertising little more than an exercise in form over substance. Is there really any difference between a Formula One racing car painted in a brand's colors, with the brand name prominently displayed, and a billboard, except that the former is mobile and the experience demonstrates, the real hub of the argument is the loss of economic support for sponsored activities. My main concern is still the credibility of these arguments. Who will be moved by the claims of discrimination against the industry, loss of goodwill and diminished standing in society?