PMC Attack Focus Groups: Thoughts and Implications

Anne Landman's Collection

PMC Attack Focus Groups: Thoughts and Implications

Date: 16 Mar 2001
Length: 3 pages
2085575823-2085575825
Jump To Images

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/2085575823-5825.html
Derived from: /pm/2085575823-5825.html

spider_pm 2085575823_5825

Abstract

This Philip Morris (PM) document was written by two corporate image consultants who worked for Philip Morris in March of 2001. In the memo, the consultants discuss focus group sessions held to evaluate the damage done to Philip Morris' corporate image from several anti-tobacco television ads and adverse news segments. One TV news segment revealed that PM spends far more money to promote its charitable giving than it spends on the charitable giving itself. Another news segment highlighted the fallacies of "light" cigarettes. American Legacy Foundation anti-tobacco (and how they affected the tobacco company) were also discussed. The consultants considered the news about PM's disingenuous charitable giving to be particularly damaging:

"The ABC News 20/20 segments appear to be the most effective and damaging to the company. There are two principal reasons why this message is so persuasive:

1. The message is simple: PMC spends more to talk than they do to give. There is tremendous persuasive punch to "$150 million to talk about giving $115 million." Like the best political attack messages, this is easy to understand and strikes people as wrong.

2. The message undermines the credibility that PMC has built in the last two years..."

The consultants also believed that a 60 Minutes II segment about the fallacy of "light" cigarettes was also damaging to the company "...for one big reason: for most people this is new information...this alone makes it potentially explosive and damaging (from both a legal and image perspective)."

These news segments and anti-tobacco ads were broadcast in the midst of a PM internal corporate project known as "PM21." PM21 was PM's effort (starting in 1999) to appear to be a more responsible, responsive and caring company. Under PM21, PM initiated a string of "feel good" ads (still ongoing) which highlight PM's contributions to food banks, disaster relief, domestic violence shelters, youth smoking prevention, etc. The tag line, "working to make a difference" was borne of the PM21 program. The main goal of PM21 was to "dispel misperceptions" about the company, to show that PM was "more than a tobacco company" and to help PM "speak up, state our case and take our rightful place in the societal, political and economic mainstream" (PM 2071720648/0652, dated 1999).

Fields

Quotes

As you know, we conducted focus groups in St. Louis with policy and media attentives to evaluate the impact of some recent attacks on the company and the industry. The following is a preliminary summary of our initial thoughts and some suggestions on next steps.

The messages that have the strongest (negative) impact on perceptions toward PMC/the tobacco industry are that that make respondents feel that they had been "deceived." However, it should be pointed out that many respondents said exposure to this information did not change their opinions toward PM. They already felt negative toward the company.

The information served to strengthen their impression that PM is a tobacco company and, to that end, a typical tobacco company (respondents noted "as expected"). This as you are well aware is the opposite of two of PMC's core messages; that PM is "more than a tobacco company" and "is changing the way we do business." Key impressions:

--The ABC News 20/20 segments appear to be the most effective and damaging to the company. There are two principal reasons why this message is so persuasive:

2. The message undermines the credibility that PMC has built in the last two years. Like all persuasive communications, it is in alignment with the prevailing pre-existing notions about the company/industry (lying and deceit).

3. The message makes people angry. It hits the anger button for many participants, causing them to have a negative reaction toward PMC.

--As past research has indicated, the foundation of the PM21 campaign (giving/contributions) does not hold up against attacks on the company's credibility. Clearly two [focus] groups does not provide conclusive evidence, but the results from last evening suggest that campaign serves to give a very quick boots to PMC favorability but does little to protect it from negative attacks.

--Perhaps most importantly, participant reactions suggest that paid media attacks on the rationale and credibility of the contributions campaign could prove potentially debilitating to the company's near term image efforts...

--The 60 Minutes II piece on :Light" cigarette was moderately persuasive with the audience last night....

...However, the industry and the company take a hit on this issue as well for one big reason: for most people this is new information. This is not something they have heard before. This alone makes it potentially explosive and damaging (from both a legal and image perspective)...

...--The ALF ads were viewed as very emotional but had the least negative impact on the company for the following reasons:

1. The emotion overwhelms the message. When asked about the purpose or objective of the ads, most participants thought it was to get people to stop smoking (using words like "scar", "frightening," "sad"). A minority of people thought the objective of the campaign was to vilify tobacco companies.

2. The sponsorship may hurt credibility. None of the participants had heard about ALF and the name itself gave people concerns ("who are they," "are they lawyers who want to sue tobacco companies"?).

3. The ads are poorly crafted...

4. The ads are too depressing...

--This does not mean the ALF campaign is entirely ineffective. It makes some points. But for the most part, it lacked the comparative persuasive power of the other segments, and more importantly was less likely to drive down perceptions of PMC...

Implications

--PMC takes several hits fromt he ABC News, 20/20 and 60 Minutes II segments. While they may not be repeated in the same form, it is likely that the antis will use these messages in future attacks.

--Therefore, it makes saens that PMC should prepare for and inoculate against these attack messages.

Company

Philip Morris

Author

Baker, Amy (PM, StrategyOne, Corporate image PR Firm)

Lombardo, Steve (Employee with StrategyOne, PM PR firm)

StrategyOne helped Philip Morris guaged the company's popularity or lack thereof with the public, helped PM work on enhancing its corporate image, tested how receptive people would be to new company names, etc. Steve Lombardo helped evaluate the effect of attack-ads against PM and adverse news reports on PM's public image.

Recipient

Nicoli, David P. (PM Washington Relations Office, c. 1992-94)

PM Legislative Council, 1992. PM Washington Relations Office, 1994.

Richter, Jonathan "Jon" (KRC Research and Consulting)

Assisted PM with corporate image development

Sylvia, David (PMMC Dir. of Public Policy & Research, c. Nov. 2000)

Sylvia David was Director of Public Policy and Research at Philip Morris Management Company circa Nov. 2000. Assisted with PM's management and programs to enhhance its corprate image.

Region

United States

Litigation

Feda/Produced

Operation/Project

PM21 (Corporate image improvement project starting in 1999)

PM21 stands for "Philip Morris in the 21st Century" and was "a long term effort to communicate more openly and assertively with the public about the people, products and programs of the PM family of companies." The actual reasons for the campaign were "to dispel misperceptions" about the company, to help PM "get a seat at the table" and "take our rightful place in the social, political and economic mainstream" (2071720648/0652). The PM21 program encompassed increased promotion and advertising of PM's philanthropic contributions to food banks, domestic violence shelters and youth anti-smoking campaigns. The effect of the PM 21 program was evaluated by financial analysis.

Named Organization

20 20

60 Minutes 2

ABCNews

American Legacy Foundation (National tobacco education and prevention organization (USA))

Created and funded by 1998 Master Settlement Agreement

Pmc

StrategyOne (Corporate Image PR firm, worked for PM)

Type

MEMO, MEMORANDUM

REPT, REPORT, OTHER

Subject

Corporate image

corporate intelligence

public relations

anti-smoking advocacy

Document Images

Page 1: bnx21c00

debilitating to the company's near term image efforts. The spokesperson responses did not sufficiently answer fundamental questions about the campaign. D The 60 Minutes II piece on "Light" cigarettes was moderately persuasive with the audience last night. In some respect participant reaction was based on both personal familiarity with smoking or cancer, and their view of personal responsibility. The more they leaned in favor of the personal responsibility argument, the less likely they were to be impacted by the segment. On the other hand, first-hand experience with a relative who died from lung cancer usually made the participant more receptive of the message. I. Interestingly, the government probably takes more of a hit from the 60 Minutes segment than the industry or PMC. People expect that the tobacco companies were less than forthcoming about the true level of tar, but they were surprised to learn that the government hid the truth as well. 2. However, the industry and the company take a hit on this issue as well for one big reason: for most people this is new information. This is not something they have heard before. This alone makes it potentially explosive and damaging (from both a legal and image perspective). 3. Finally, for those people who are not strong advocates of the personal responsibility message, the segment does trigger the anger emotion. Working in concert with pre-existing notions about the industry/company, this serves to drive down perceptions of PMC. 4. Both groups stated that the information provided on the website was important and should be disseminated through a broader channel of communication. D The ALF ads were viewed as very emotional but had the least negative impact on the company for the following reasons: I. The emotion overwhelms the message. When asked about the purpose or objective of the ads, most participants thought it was to get people to stop smoking (using words like: "scary", "frightening", "sad"). A minority of the people thought the objective of the campaign was to vilify tobacco companies. 2. The sponsorship may hurt credibility. None of the participants had heard about ALF and the name itself gave people concerns ("who are they", "are they lawyers who want to sue tobacco companies"?). 3. The ads are poorly crafted. In retrospect, after observing the focus group reactions, it is clear that ALF had an opportunity by using PMC's own ad, but really missed the mark by mixing messages. A more straightforward attack would have been better than adding the hospital patient to the mix. 4. The ads are too depressing. The man and his wife ad, leaves people feeling sad rather than angry.

Page 2: bnx21c00

> This does not mean that the ALF campaign is entirely ineffective. It makes some points. But for the most part, it lacked the comparative persuasive power of the other segments, and more importantly was less likely to drive down perceptions of PMC. Implications > PMC takes several hits from the ABC News; 20/20 and 60 Minutes II segments. While they may not be repeated in the same form, it is likely that the antis will use these messages in future attacks. ~ Therefore, it makes sense that PMC should prepare for and inoculate against these attack messages. Recommendations S 1 and PMC should work to develop some response messages (talking points) on both the charitable giving and light cigarette attacks. In the dial-test groups next week, we should prepare written statements or videotaped responses for testing. We should examine potential spokespeople and attempt to array potential messages in a debate like format. Ideally, we would like to test the segment and the videotaped response - back to back. In that way, we can assess the ability of the attack to move the needle (negatively)... and the response to bring it back into positive territory. Let us know if you have any questions about this summary or our recommendations.

Page 3: bnx21c00

Privileged & Confidential To: David Sylvia, Jon Richter & David Nicoli, PMC From: Steve Lombardo & Amy Baker, StrategyOne Re: PMC Attack Focus Groups: Thoughts and Implications Date: 16 March 2001 As you know, last night we conducted two focus groups in St. Louis with policy and media attentives to evaluate the impact of some recent attacks on the company and the industry. The following is a preliminary summary of our initial thoughts and some suggestions on next steps. The messages that have the strongest [negative] impact on perceptions toward PMC/the tobacco industry are those that make respondents feel that they had been "deceived". However, it should be pointed out that many respondents said exposure to this information did not change their opinions toward PM. They already felt negative toward the company. The information served to strengthen their impression that PM is a tobacco company and, to that end, a typical tobacco company (respondents noted "as expected"). This as you are well aware is the opposite of two of PMC's core messages; that PM is "more than a tobacco company" and "is changing the way we do business". Key impressions: D The ABC News and 20/20 segments appear to be the most effective and damaging to the company. There are two principal reasons why this message is so persuasive: 1. The message is simple: PMC spends more to talk than they do to give. There is tremendous persuasive punch to "$150 million to talk about giving $115 million". Like the best political attack messages, this is easy to understand and strikes people as wrong. 2. The message undermines any credibility that PMC has built in the last two years. Like all persuasive communications, it is in alignment with the prevailing pre-existing notions about the company/industry (lying and deceit). 3. The message makes people angry. It hits the anger button for many participants, causing them to have a negative reaction toward PMC. > As past research has indicated, the foundation of the PM21 campaign (giving/contributions) does not hold up against attacks on the company's credibility. Clearly, two groups does not provide conclusive evidence, but the results from last evening suggest that campaign serves to give a very quick boost to PMC favorability but does little to protect it from negative attacks. > Perhaps most importantly, participant reactions suggest that paid media attacks on the rationale and credibility of the contributions campaign could prove potentially

Tobacco Documents Online

Anne Landman's Collection