Tobacco Documents Online

THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE, INC. 1735 K 5"TREET, NORTHWEST WASHINGTON, D. C. ~O000 WILLIAM I~ LOE~FE:F~. J IR oy April 15, 1968 PRIVILEGED AND ~ P~duced as ~equired by the C: ........ Recent extended discussions among Mr. Austern, Mr. Reeves and his associates, and myself, lead me to the following observations: i. Our 1968 public relations program requires substantial revision, to a degree still uncertain. 2. Our basic position in the cigarette controversy is subject to the charge, and may be subject to a finding, that we are making false or misleading statements to promote the sale - of cigarettes. 3. With oar ability somewhat reduced to "reopen" the cigarette controversy through public communications projects, current policy discussions with Administration and Congressional sources take on even greater importance. A brief review of certain events will help provide a basis for discussion of these observations. Statements made by Senator Magnuson, the American Cancer Society, Mr. Banzhaf, the Surgeon General and Wall Street Journal reporter, Ronald Kessler, make it possible for us to assume that there was.both individual and collaborative effort involved in the rebuttal to the January True magazine CONFIDENTIAL: TIMN 252389 . M/NNESOTA TOBACCo LITIGATION "

article. Well-meant cooperation by True and the cigarette industry in the promotion of the article has been charac- terized as deceptive by some of the ~bove persons and organizations, and in subsequent editorial comment in Advertising Age and other publications read especially in advertising ~_nd public relations circles. It can be argued that these rebuttals and reactions have been more harmful to the industry than if we had taken no action with respect to the True article. Certainly Hill and Knowlton's employment of Mr. Frank and True's change of editors contributed to the plausibility of our critics' statements in this case. But such unknown and unforeseen events can occur in the course of any of our projects. I believe, therefore, that we should proceed on the basis that the technique of future projects will be checked and criticized by anti-smoking forces. Similarly, we have to expect that the content of our efforts will be rebutted in detail by the same forces. In the case of the True article, detailed criticism was prepared and publicized by the American Cancer Society, and also prepared by the Public Health Service and publicized by Senator Magnuson. To a considerable degree the article was similar to the industry's own position in the smoking and health controversy, as currently stated in our draft "position paper." (Tiderock, as of April 8, is preparing a memorandum comparing in detail the two critiques and our paper.) It should be noted that our earlier project, the advertisement of the Barron's editorial, escaped noticeable rebuttal. The editorial will be remembered, however, as an independent criticism of government activity, with no reasonable suspicion possible that cigarette interests were responsible for its preparation. The contrast with the True article is obvious both as to content and suspected source. Assuming that both the technique and content of certain of our efforts are thus subject to attack, including the filing of complaints with government agencies, and consequent nega- tive publicity, the "test" of whether we can "speak for ourselves," as proposed by Tiderock and approved in January by the Executive Committee, becomes exceedingly important, and a priority project. CO DEtcrlAL: TIMN 252390 MINNEsoTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

State of Minnesota, ~t a|. ~ v~ , . Cou~t F~le No.: C1¢94-8565 Tiderock is preparing to sample public opinion in one city-- tentatively Indianapolis--on the cigarette controversy, following this immediately with heavy institutional Tobacco Institute advertising for several weeks, with a subsequent remeasurement of public opinion. From this, given forthright copy pegged squarely on the issues, we hope to learn (a) more about our ability to communicate without causing "flak" which leaves us worse off than before, and (b) whether we can bring about a greater awareness that the cigarette controversy is not a closed question. Tiderock should expedite appropriate and careful copy preparation and industry executives should lose no time in approving it. Pending this, projects such as the "big book" and the publication or republication and advertising of other books, and direct mail efforts, should be placed in abeyance. Time, however, is very short in terms of the possible onset of legislative hearings in but ten months. Mr. Austern has prepared a letter to me setting forth certain legal considerations relating to the foregoing. A copy of his letter and this memorandum will be made available to the general cou/qsel of principal member firms for their information and that of other executives. I am also sending copies of this memorandum to company public relations representatives. cc: H. Thomas Austern John V. Blalock James Bowling Frederick P. Haas Dan Provost H. Henry Ramm Paul Smith Charles Wade Addison Y. Yeaman coNFIDENTIAL: Mm_ S0T ,ro cco Lrn ,T _O TIMN 252391