Tobacco Documents Online

TWO Complexes, A Compound and A Campaign

Abstract

This fascinating early historical document from the Philip Morris Tobacco Company reveals the psychological turmoil that tobacco company executives went through in the 1950s over early allegations that use of their products damaged human health.

The writer of this document describes the "guilt complex" from which "all of us, or at least some of us" in the tobacco industry suffer:

"We tend to suffer from the sternly repressed fear that our opponents are right and we are wrong on the health question and that we are thus devoting our business lives to the propagation of lung cancer."

He goes on to conclude in no uncertain terms that a particularly bad constituent of cigarette smoke needs to be removed.

"BENZPYRENE MUST GO."

Fields

Quotes

TWO COMPLEXES

Self-analysis, confirmed by a professional, Mike Helfgott, leads to the following view of our relation to the health problem. All of us, or at least some of us, in the tobacco industry are caught between a guilt complex and a power complex.

The guilt complex is a simple matter. We tend to suffer from the sternely repressed fear that our opponents are right and we are wrong on the health question and that we are thus devoting our business lives to the propagation of lung cancer.

The power complex is a matter of natural human resentment of attempts by outsiders to play a role in our industry. Product modifications suggested by outsiders meet with an emotional resistance that would not occur of the same modifications were originally suggested by insiders.

The very natural operation of these two complexes causes a difference between the manufacturer and the consumer on the health question.

From our point of view Mr. Gruber's escapade of last summer looks like a dirty trick on those nice folks who make Marlboro, Winston, L&M, etc. He has com ecloser to acknowleding repressed guilt feelings than anyone else in the tobacco industry has ever come, and he has acknowledged the influence of outsiders in shaping the policies of a tobacco company.

From the consumer point of view the picture is very different. From his point of view those nice folks who make Marlboro, Winston, L&M, received exactly what they deserved for being so outrageously complacent about their products that they were unwilling to remove or reduce suspected ingredients unless and until they were confronted with complete proof that those ingredients were the sole and direct cause of vast numbers of fatalities.

THE COMPOUND

The analysis above leads to the following conclusion:

BENZPYRENE MUST GO.

This compound must be removed from Marlboro and Parliament or sharply reduced. We must do this not because we think it is harmful but simply because those who are in a better position to know than ourselves suspect it may be harmful. Other ingredients that might be harmful must also go, but benzpyrene should go first because it is the one that seems to be under most suspicion at the moment.

Some of our people who are not lawyers have told me that such a step would impair our legal position, and I would like to protest most strongly against this argument. Whatever our legal position may be at the moment, it cannot possibly be made worse by removing this ingredient. A man can confess to an action only if he is competent to know whether he did it or not, and we are certainly not competent to testify as to what does or does not cause lung cancer.

I have also heard it said that we could't advertise such a development. I don't see why we couldn't advertise it in a restrained and completely frank way, but I think that we could exploit it without ever saying a word about it in paid advertising. One article in the Journal of the American Medical Association would start the ball rolling.

I think there would be two optimum conditions for removing this ingredient:

(1) Preferably it should be connected with the filter because our position in the filter business is more than twice as good as our position in the nonfilter business. The man who saves the unfiltered cigarette should receive a meda, but this medal should come from the American Tobacco Company--not from us.

(2) The removal should be accompanied by as little disturbance of the present product as possible. If a large disturbance is involved it would have to be tried on a new brand, but clearly the ideal thing would be to find some chemical catalyst that would cancel out this compound without any other distrubance to the cigarette. Then we could do it right away on Marlboro and Parlilament.

Whether our next big swing is up or down will be determined, in my opinion, on whether we beat Mr. Gruber to the benzpyrene, or he beats us to it.

THE CAMPAIGN

Mile Helfgott suggested a campaign which also grown out of the analysis of the complexes. I thkn it is very interested although, of course, it is not as much of a life or death matter as the "Compound." Mike starts out as follows"

"DID YOU KNOW THAT PARLIAMENT (MARLBORO) HAD CHANGED ITS BLEND OR FILTER EIGHT TIMES IN THE LAST SIXMONTHS?"

We would go on to describe more or less truthfully the dramatic story of our efforts to catch up and to stay caught up in the high filtration field. We would talk about the hours spent, the samples makde, the laboratory tests run, etc., always emphasizing the terrific effort we were putting into this project. We would close by pledging to Parliament (Marlboro) smokers that from now on they could be assured that Parliament (Marlboro) would immediattely bring them any tar and nicotine reducing innovations that were consistent with good smoking and that we would do this no matter how much effort and expense were required.

The rationale for this campaign is a matter of trying to get on the smoker's side of the health question and to combat the smoker's bitter resentment of our former complacency by persuading him that from now on we would immediatetly give him anything that might possible put him in a better position with regard to his health. Specific improvements could still be announced. Beyond that, the attempt would be made to build an image of the brand as a brand that was sold by people who were genuinely concerned about the health of their cusomters and did not believe in taking chances with the health of their customers.

J.E. Lincoln

Company

Philip Morris Cos., Inc.

Author

Lincoln, J.

Recipient

Millhiser, R.R.

Region

United States

Litigation

Broi/Trial Exhibit P-0575

Flag/Trial Exhibit P-2031

Morm/Trial Exhibit

Stmn/Produced

Stmn/Selected

Stmn/Trial Exhibit P-10686

Txag/Trial Exhibit P-2031

Type

Memorandum

Subject

Corporate Marketing Strategies

corporate responsibility

Health

Health Effects

Health Promotion

safer cigarette

Smoke

Smoker psychology

strategy

Cigarettes