Anne Landman's Collection
Problem the Increase of Consumption Restrictions Worldwide
Abstract
This 29-page Philip Morris (PM) strategy document outlines the company's assessment of the spread of smoking restrictions worldwide. It sums up what these measures mean to the company's long-term viability and lays out the company's strategies to fight smoking restrictions globally. PM's use of the term "consumption restrictions" reflects the point of view that public smoking laws are little more than obstacles that cut the company's profits. The document reveals that PM viewed itself as isolated and the sole driving force behind the industry's efforts to fight smoking restrictions: "PM appears to be driving the industry both issue-wise, dollar-wise and political wise...PM cannot count on the 'Industry'...PM will need to develop and deploy resources to save itself." PM verifies the effectiveness to public health of workplace smoking restrictions when it complains that FACT: --Bans/Restrictions affect consumption: --20% quit rate w/ U.S. workplace bans. Regarding opposition from governments and public health authorities on the issue of secondhand smoke, PM says:
"This is a formidable, worldwide adversary...Unless restrictions are stayed, business operations will be irreversibly, negatively impacted...It could be over unless we reach the media...Unless we act, the regulators will win."
PM summarizes many of the strategies that the company is still using today:
--"Change/Damage control of public perception." [Today: "We've changed."] --"Develop Proactive legislative/Regulatory agendas (Throw bombs)." [Today: Tort reform, preemption] -- "Re-shift the debate (i.e., [indoor air quality] bans = intolerance..." [Today: Choice, economics, too much government intervention] --"Increase/nurture third party allies..." [Today: restaurant associations, casinos, NCSL]. -- Find/Develop new themes (i.e., humorous, tolerance, etc.) [Today: "Accommodation", "Hospitality."] One strategy in particular on PM's list was to "Develop/communicate the real situation on risks [of secondhand smoke] relative to children." The company's pursuit of this strategy was documented in the March 7, 2005 issue of the journal Pediatrics, just released this week. The journal revealed that Philip Morris commissioned an article that was published in a respected pediatric epidemiology journal in 2001 which discounted the significance of research showing a link between exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). The article was subsequently cited in at least 19 other scientific papers, misleading physicians, their patients and researchers about the risk to babies of secondhand smoke exposure. The full article in Pediatrics about PM's activities on this count can be seen at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/115/3/e356
Fields
- Quotes
PROBLEM: The Increase of Consumption Restrictions Worldwide
FRAME OF REFERENCE: Global
Situation Analysis:
FACT: --Public Opinion --Bans/Restrictions Increasing --Litigation Threats --Science Bias --Lack of Industry Organization/mobilization --Strong Anti-Organization Network --Unacceptability of Smoking/ETS --Smoker's Guilt --No Natural Industry Allies --Youth framing of ETS issue --Insurance differentials --IAQ [Indoor Air Quality] Retrofit/Build vs. Ban --Smoker Discrimination --Inconsistent Policy within PM/Industry
CONCLUSION
--Little natural support for Industry --There is a price to support the Industry --Concerted effort against the industry
TAKE AWAY: We must create the means of support.
INDUSTRY/ENVIRONMENT
FACT:
--Words don't translate into deeds within industry. --PM appears to be driving the Industry both Issue-wise, Dollar-wise and Political-wise. --Competitors' International Organizations don't foster coordination. --Competitive issues regarding the product, i.e., ingredients, etc. --High risk- low credibility. --TI's/NMA's/Assocaitions are limited in effecting results. --Many competitors view issue as science driven, not legislative/political. --Resources--especially competitors'--very, very limited. --Industry: PM, RJR, BAT, Rothmans, JT, Gallaghers, Imperial, Reentsma, Government monopolies. --State monopoly/Other competitor issues may impact level of support on ETS. --Legal constraints on what the industry can do and say... --Overall environment (Social, Regulatory, Science Making, Economic and Media) hampers industry efforts.
TAKE AWAY: PM will need to develop and deploy resources to save itself.
COMPETITORS (EXTERNAL)
FACT: 1. No risk. 2. High credibility. 3. Free media. 4. Well organized. 5. Well defined objective. 6. They do not need to verify so-called "facts." 7. Viewed as politically correct. 8. Passion and committed supporters. 9. Worldwide network. 10. Access. 11. Talented. 12. Great PR. 13. Cooperative International organizations. 14. Politically astute. 15. Government financed. 16. Leverage health issue. 17. See List.
Take Away: This is a formidable, worldwide adversary.
FINANCES/PROFITS
FACT:
--Bans/Restrictions affect consumption:
--20% quit rate w/ U.S. workplace bans. --Atlanta/Hartsfield increase to P/L w/ Accommodation. --Increasing restrictions will have a negative impact on P/L
--Market Impact -Trendsetter markets -Strong PM $ markets
...Smoking restrictions mitigate spending on marketing, R&D, etc.
CONCLUSION
--Less money to do more. --Has a big and direct impact on bottom line and is potentially irreversible.
TAKE AWAY: Uncless restrictions are stayed, business operations will be irreversibly, negative impacted.
...Resources need to be directed to shift/communicate new perceptions.
...It could be over unless we reach the media. ...Unless we act, the regulators WILL win.
...OBJECTIVE: Ensure reasonable accommodation of smokers to protect long-term viability of PM
STRATEGIES
--Change/Damage control of public perception. --Advance sound science/expose bad science. --Develop Proactive Leg/Reg. agendas (Throw bombs). --...Re-shift the debate (IAQ bans-intolerance, Source Control-Source Management). --Aggressively communicate consistent/better messages. --Increase/Nurture third party allies. --Advance reasonable alternatives (Market relative). --Develop/Promote positive messages --Find/develop new themes (i.e. Humorous, Tolerance, etc.)
--The "Industry" is a myth. --Competitors may not consider this issue important enough because of campetitive differences. --PM cannot count on the "Industry." --"Industry" resources are relative and limited. --There are internal/external factors hindering "Industry" efforts.
- Company
- Philip Morris
- Author
- Corporate author, Philip Morris (inferred)
- Recipient
- Corporate recipient, Philip Morris (inferred)
Document Images
