Bliley TI
Arguments against a Test [of "Responsible Living Program"]
Abstract
Outlines arguments against test of "Responsible Living Program" posing legal, administrative, survey research, and advertising/marketing points against test design and implementation. Notes preferences of National Association of State Boards of Education, Tobacco Institute staff, Public Relations Counsel, and Communications Committee. Remarks "this program's objective is to influence certain members of Congress" (includes editing in marginalia).
Fields
- Named Organization
- Communications Committee
- Congress
- NASBE
- National Association of State Boards of Education
- Public Relations Counsel
- Congress
- Type
- Draft material
- Outline
- Presentation materials
- Youth
- Outline
- Named Person
- Temko, Stanley L. (Covington & Burling, TI Budget Committee)Stanley Tempko was an attorney at Covington & Burling. Tempko has knowledge of the legal issues facing the tobacco industry; additives; freon; grass-roots lobbying; and workplace smoking.
- Subject
- Federal level
- industry sponsored research
- Legislatures
- Liability
- marketing
- mass media
- Political influence
- public relations
- State level
- tobacco industry structure
- youth
- Expenditures
- industry sponsored research
Document Images
CONFIDENTIAL:
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
ARGUMENTS AGAII~ST A TEST
NASBE PREFERS A'NATIONAL ADVERTISING PROGRAM AUGMENTED BY PUBLIC
RELATIONS ACTIVITIES IN A FEW STATES.
° WE WILL NOT FIND A CO-SPONSOR WILLING TO SUPPORT A PROGRAM WHICH
MIGHT BE DISCONTINUED AFTER A TEST PERIOD.
THIS PROGRAM'S OBJECTIVE IS TO INFLUENCECERTAINMEMBERS OF
CONGRES~~. A LIMITED TEST WILL NOT HELP US ACHIEVE THAT
OBJECTIVE...ANDMAY, IN FACT, SEEM LIKE "TOO LITTLE TOOLATE" TO
THOSE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS~
A TEST OF THIS SORT IS NOT A GOOD VALUE. ADVERTISING ON A
STATE-BY,STATE BASIS IS TERRIBLY INEFFICIENT.
° IN THE JUDGMENT OF TI STAFF, PR COUNSEL AND COMMUNICATIONS
COMMITTEE, THE PRE, DURING AND POST RESEARCH I/ILL NOT PROVIDE
SIGNS OF OPINION MOVEMENT EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE
THE COST. ~IN ADDITION, LEGAL CONCERNS ABOUT
COMMENSURATE
WITH
THIS RESEARCH HAVE BEEN RAISED...WHICH I WOULD ASK STAN TEMKO TO
A/)DRESS q
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Produced as required by the Court's March 7, 1998 Order in
State of Minnesota, et al. v. Philip Morris, et aL
Court File No.: C1-94-8565
TIMN 0013882
CONFIDENTIAL:
MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION
A TEST:OF THIS SORT IS NOT THE SAME AS TEST MARKETING A NEW
PRODUCT. THERE IS NO WAY TO CONFINE THE NEWS MEDIA OR
ANTI-SMOKER REACTION TO TWO STATES...AND IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT
TO WITHDRAW THE PROGRAM IF 1T DOES NOT TEST SATISFACTORILY.
A TEST OF THIS SORT WILL NOT DETERMINE IF THE PROGRAM IS "BOMB
PROOF," BECAUSE IT IS LOOKIN~ AT THE WRONG THING.
WHAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS CRITICISM FROM EDUCATORS
AND OTHERS CONCERNED ABOUT YOUNGSTERS, NOT PUBLIC REACTION. OUR!''"
BEST DEFENSE AGAINST THIS SORT OF CRITICISM W~LL ,BE OUR
._= co- sPosso wsq P, 'zz TO:
- RECRUIT OTHER EDUCATORS TO PRAISE THE PROGRAM. WE WILL BE
MUCH MORE ..LIKELY TO OBTAIN ENDORSEMENTS FROM EDUCATORS IF WE
PROCEED NATIONALLY.
- PROFESSIONALLY DEF THE MATERIALS.
IF NASBE AND OTHER~EDUCATION GROUPS ARE WILLING TO PUT THEIR
NAME ON ~HES~E M~ TERIALS, AND IF THOSE MATERIALS PASS THE INITIAL
ROUND OF RES ,C.hl PROPOSED. WE SHOULD BE REASONABLY ASSURED
THAT THEY ARE' ACCEPTABLE,
TIMN 0013883
