Anne Landman's Collection
Project Down Under Conference Notes
Abstract
Information on Philip Morris' Operation Down Under was last posted in February of 2000, but it appears that since that time, sensitive portions of the document that were quoted then on Doc-Alert have been redacted (censored) from the version referenced. We have managed to find an unredacted version of Operation Down Under Conference Notes in the Bliley set of PM documents, however, and so are re-posting information from the document with the updated references to the unredacted version.
Operation Down Under appears to be Philip Morris'first major internal effort to determine a comprehensive strategy to combat science revealing that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can be harmful to non-smokers. These extensive and concise notes were taken over the three days of the conference. They reveal much.
First, references in the document allude strongly to PM's awareness that ETS is not safe, that the mainstream scientific community won't support them in their views, and that they can't win this issue using logic. Some examples include the following quotes:
-- > 6. ETS [issue is] not solvable with deductive reasoning. Come up with something company can get behind with $. [2021502102]
--> 3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a "dangerous" statement... [2021502106]
--> "...[We're] not going to get sympathy on our science by general scientific community." [2021502113]
--> "If smokers get message that their smoke kills others, is this not something major?" [2021502109]
---> "We've got to get to people on the street, but we are constrained because we can't say it's safe." [2021502109]
The document establishes that PM is aware that there is no legal right to smoke:
--> "We won't be able to establish 'the _right_ to smoke.' No legal basis for this 'right.' " [2021502106]"
The document also contains a number of references to the fact that the secondhand smoke will decrease PM's cigarette sales/profits:
"In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales. E.G., parties, planes, etc. [2021502109] and,
"1. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of cigarettes they smoke." [2021502110]
Moreover, parts of this document are extraordinarily threatening. One passage says there is currently no risk to politicians on ETS issues, so PM must create the risk. Another passage says:
Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM," [2021502113]
...and yet another says:
"Sue the bastards!" [2021502117]
Possible courses of actions listed in their 116-item brainstormed "ideas list" reveal PM's tendency towards starkly controlling tactics. Some examples taken from the list:
33. Create science journal. 34. Create non-science journal. 49. Acquire major media vehicle. 50. Develop own radio programming. 62. Undermine [U.S. Surgeon General] Koop et al 66. Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups. 77. Help select next SG [Surgeon General]. 81. Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues. 92. Repeal smoking restrictions in target states. 105. Attack anti groups where they hurt. 108. Acquire an insurance company. ...and yet, after all these ideas are listed, the admission still comes:
"We don't have anything to slam them with on health issue." [2021502118]
This also appears to be the moment when PM came up with its "accommodation" strategy. According to the document, the "accommodation strategy was to both antagonize and marginalize public health agencies while allowing PM to make itself appear to be "reasonable on the ETS issue.":
"PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCING CHANGE IN POLICY...This begins major media campaign defining us as reasonable on ETS issue...Nonsmokers placated----Anti's go batshit, become shrill, isolated."
These somewhat disorganized notes provide a very frank look at the stark and aggressive tactics the industry uses to stave off public health measures on secondhand smoke.
User-Contributed Notes
Fields
- Notes
Unredacted version, 33 pages
- Company
- Philip Morris Cos., Inc.
- Named Organization
- PM
- TI
- PM Magazine
- NAS
- Center for Indoor Air Qual Research
- FTC
- Covington & Burling
- Coalition on Smoking or Health
- Detroit Free Press
- NY Times
- Miami Herald
- ACS
- RJR
- Philip Morris
- NRA
- W.H.O.
- CIAR
- T.I.
- TIRC
- EPA
- CBS
- UPS
- CIAR
- Omni
- Discover
- PM USA
- GF
- DOW
- Monsanto
- Operation/Project
- Operation Down Under
- Type
- Outline
- Named Person
- SG
- Hirayama
- Repace
- Lowrey
- Rupp, J.
- Mitchell, S.
- Schimk
- Robertson, G.
- Feinhandler
- Meyers, M.
- Koop
- Waxman
- Hatch
- Nader
- Regan
- F.E.R.
- Dodgey
- Valenti
- Iacocca
- Tower
- Connoley
- Muskie
- Kuralt
- Strauss, B.
- Spenser
- Field
- Albright, J.
- Schmertz, H.
- Graham, F.
- Burson
- Waylon, E.
- De Borchegrave
- Lee, P.
Document Images
PROJECT DOWN UNDER CONFERENCE NOTES
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
8:30 A,M. Session
We are here to do something radical. To look at a problem.
To achieve a solution. Nothing should be withheld. Lots of
things have not been done.
The role of the facilitator is to get you to identify the
problem and to arrive at a solution as a group. Between now
and Friday, we will use the "interactive" process to focus
on the issue, what has been done, how we are going to solve
it.
Expectations of group members.
i. Some kind of discussion on passive smoking leading to PM
or industry to come to public and. change perception.
2. Come up with a way to deal with the social/legal
context.
3. No expectations on outcome. Will come up with a plan,
but can't predict its effectiveness.
4. Come away with consensus and a big picture plan.
5. Action program, somewhat different from what's been
done. MONDAY MORNING 9:00.
6. ETS not solvable with deductive reasoning. Some up
with something company can get behind with $.
7. Monday morning 9:00 solution. Fits into larger context.
8. Development of policy, not just following TI.
9. More aggressive approach.
10. Entirely new, dynamic way of looking at problem.
ii. Hope group will begin dialogue to understand problem,
realizing it is not a problem that can be solved at 9:00
Friday.
12. Get realistic appraisal to top management. We will get
temporary solutions, hope it is first step in longer way, we
can win on issue.
13. (i). Define message to public.
(2). Political approach.
(3). How to isolate "gurus" here and in other
countries.
-2-
We have to start, together, a long term process on complex
problem.
Problem in U.S. Industry is going down, ETS is contributing
to that.
-- 1972 SG first mentions ETS
-- 1981 Hirayama
-- 1985 Repace & Lowrey
-- SG's report ETS causes cancer
Research peaks in 1984, perhaps because scientific community
feels issue is resolved.
Increase in papers accompanied by increase in poor papers.
Post-Hirayama is original research.
Political, public opinion, mass media, science -- 4 areas of
examination.
1984 Increase in stories on ETS.
reportage.
Public perceptions on ETS
Scientific and political
1974-1984 83% of non-smokers and 62% of smokers now
say "Yes, ETS is harmful to non-smoker."
Are those 83% convinced?
Smokers?
Non-smokers -- yes.
Hazard? Yes.
Personally? No.
Common perception.
hurt non-smoker.
Smoking hurts smoker, therefore ETS must
Political 1970-87
Beginning -- elevators, now public places.
perceive anti-smoking as a popular position.
Legislators
Overlay of graphs.
steady growth.
Media rockets up. Public opinion shows
Survey -- 1985 Attitudes toward industry and smoking.
Issues well defined then and exacerbated now, e.g. Repace
N=5,000 figure.
Perceived threat to health & safety.
-- drunk driving 9+
-- hazardous wastes
-- street crime
-- drugs
-- smoking 7.6 (not #i issue)
Key subgroups: women much more likely to view ETS as
harmful. Age -- older = more harmful.
Same breaks on other perceived risks?
Yes. Women are more concerned on all environmental issues
than men.
Cigarette smoke pleasant? 1% yes.
Ask people to put it out?
DANGER V. ANNOYANCE
Far more intense feelings for annoyance than danger,
especially among non-smokers. Annoyance factor is driving
these numbers.
(Sampling via "geodemographics" produces 40 groups that
account for 90% of variance in attitudes.)
Most likely to be annoyed and view ETS as harmful:
-- pools & patios -- blue chip blues
-- gray power -- urban gold coast
-- Levittown -- single city blues
-- God'~s country
80% likelihood of voting
Least annoyed & least apt to view as harmful:
-- rank & file -- money & brains (not ideologi-
-- Hispanic mix cal)
-- Norma Rae-ville
-- shotguns -- old Yankees
-- back country
What about Black clusters?
Rank & file, Black enterprise.
more conservative.
Southern minorities
Cluster system developed via U.S. census data. Broke out
groups, reanalyzed data using groups on 250,000 "block
groups." (There are a number of block groups in one zip
-4-
code -- e.g., 9 clusters in one mid-Manhattan zip).
Smoker & smoker friendliness -- Old Yankee rows
-- Rank & file
Graphs don't show much hope for us.
Giving answer to survey and actinq on this belief are very
different.
What we did on receipt of this info:
PM MAGAZINE. more than 7 million circulation. Idea was to
create, maintain and educate a data base. Readership
consists of 80-90 % smokers.
Can identify geographically, politically, or by cluster.
Base exists in our Richmond computer.
Now time to survey readers to see if magazine changes
attitudes.
We can go to millions of people with low risk of making them
enflamed.
Annoyance -- people's noses haven't changed, perceived risk
has.
Disagree. Annoyance has changed in last 50 years. Content
of tobacco has changed in last 20 years. Cigars/pipes more
"annoying" than cigarettes.
Question -- not that they are annoyed, but are they
prepared to do something about it.
Atlanta airport example -- long distance annoyance.
Annoyance ---> chance to complain ---> more press coverage.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
10:07 A.M. Session
John Rupp (Covington & Burling)
Where we are
In deep shit.
Before '86, growing % of pop. said ETS harmful to non-smoker
and jurisdictions considering, anti ETS legislation & Fortune
500 companies considering workplace restrictions.
Serious credibility problem.
ETS fixed on by do-gooders
1986 NAS report & SG"s report. WATERSHED SIGNIFICANCE.
SG has been clever & successful on this issue. SG has
tremendous credibility. Scientists not prepared to
challenge. SG going toward smoke-free society. 1986 SG
report central event we have to talk about. Can't stem the
tide without addressing this report.
Science of ETS.
i. Our position: ETS not shown to be health hazard to
non-smoker.
2. People should focus on whole of indoor air, if they are
concerned.
3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a
"dangerous" statement.
Legal perspective.
-- Most laws are invulnerable to challenge (NY is an
exception).
-- We won't be able to establish "the right to smoke." No
legal basis for this "right." There are rights to privacy,
union rights that do apply in limited fashion.
-- No constitutional right to be free of ETS either.
-- Common law (NJ Bell case) Schimp Mitchell somewhat of a
danger.
-- BASIC POINT: Courts not prepared to serve as arbitrators
for public workplace smoking disputes.
-- Covington & Burling get referrals on workplace cases.
Frustrating. Not much can be done except bluff threats.
-- Product liability. Only one case with workplace ETS at
core (woman in California is suing a tobacco company).
Statute of limitations defense.
Not a threat like primary issue, but ignoring ETS product
liability cases will be at our peril.
Swedish cases not relevant because laws are different.
If litigation was aimed at employer, would this have impact
on us?
Suit comes down to product.
non-smokers.
Against tobacco companies by
Washington State case is against employer.
We call actions against us product liability. Actions
against employers still have serious implications for us.
Schimk -- default judgment in NJ against NJ Bell.
Product liability should be kept in box separate from suits
against employers.
ETS OUTSIDE U.S.
Terrible trouble in Nordic countries. A. Cases & restrictions ("But sales are up!")
B. Problems will spill over here.
o
Canada A. Spillover ("But we already have restrictions."
B. Ad ban serious.
C. Sales are up, but projections not goo.
What is in pipeline.
-- Scientists on our side pretty good, we need more.
-- Gray Robertson Indoor air quality studies.
-- Written material used fairly effectively.
-- Center for Indoor Air Qual Research -- $1-2 mill in
2 years.
-- Studies now funded.
A. None a silver bullet.
B. Most useful -- briefcase air sampling.
-- Union support has been mobilized.
No one resource is sufficient.
of what we need.
Together, we're still short
Somebody has to say ETS is no risk. Has to cQme from
somewhere.
Research by Feinhandler corporate sociology (1986).
I. What causes companies to establish no-smoking
regulations?
2. What can we do?
Top down model
Management dedicated anti's
(Not much can be done)
Bottom up model
Smoking an employee
grievance -- easy to point
to "displacement." Small
group can cause major org.
chnges simply be being vocal.
"Cost" & "liability" may be
issues.
-7-
Smoking policies reduce controversy (suggests accommodation
strategy).
Section #6 Program for "real world."
In depth look at small number of companies. SG's report
broke down arrangements completely. Salvaged by doing
interviews off site. SG report galvanized situation.
Two kinds of activities at PM to take issues to people which
are now in place:
-- Plug-in guns -- magazine, data base, etc.
-- Issue-specific guns -- Essay contest on ad ban, etc.
Management reacts periodically to news stories. Therefore,
several months ago we were asked to create ads to "move
needle" toward our side.
Three types of ads.
i. "Designer" campaign. Artistic photo & copy. "I think
we can live together." "Faulty data." "I'm a responsible
guy," etc. Geared to smokers & non-smokers.
(noted here that copy has not been legally approved.)
2. "Rights" campaign. Subject standing outside restaurant,
exclusion compared to that of minorities, prohibition.
3. "Science of ETS" campaign.
Did focus groups. Groups liked #i best, liked #2 least.
Quantitative research revealed #3 liked best, #2 worst.
Therefore, we can't make a call yet, need more research to
determine ad strategy.
What constitutes "like" in above responses? Readability &
acceptability = like.
Can't use focus group to determine attitude shift.
Use of our name carries some baggage, but replacing with
long list of supporters is seen through immediately. On
tests of name recognition, order was RJR > PM > ... TI.
In Germany, if ad is aimed at smokers, you don't get
non-smoker complaints.
NYC issue testing. People accept tobacco company
communicating with customers.
Designer ads identified with by smokers, but confrontational
approach needs to be fixed. Science ads not read,
complicated jargon.
-8-
As we think through this, remember there are different ways
of getting information across to different people. E.g.,
some people would like science jargon.
Legal side. Discussion should remain open, there are legal
problems, someone needs to say it.
Matthew Meyers left FTC. Zealous anti-smoker. Big paper on
health issues to change labels. Meyers now with Coalition
on Smoking or Health. United to eliminate smoking, smart,
dedicated and aggressive, has Koop's ear and those of
Waxman, Hatch, etc. Knows ETS is anti's silver bullet.
We are not dealing with a passive body. We are in a battle
with other side which has been active for more than five
years. There is a REAL ADVERSARY out there.
Detroit Free Press, NY Times, Miami Herald all declared
non-smoking news rooms. These are people who are spreading
the news and their own attitudes have changed.
PM Mag and ads are a way we can respond to this on our own
ground.
Business Trends
-- 2% annual decline in sales in U.S.
-- World production (accounted for by China} up.
-- Japan down a bit.
-- Internationally, price drives sales.
-- Major company advertising up.
-- Decline in U.S. not explained by price increase.
-- Be careful of world stats. 40% is guess, e.g.
China.
-- In developed world, sales is a function of price.
-- 24 markets = 90% of sales. Internationally, market
is flat. Single great effect is big tax increase.
-- If smokers get message that their smoke kills
others, is this not something major?
In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales.
E.G., parties, planes, etc.
Smoking opportunities 24 hour pie chart.
i. Sleep 1/3. 2. transportation. 3. workplace.
4. lunch. 5. work. 6. travel. 7. home. 8. dinner.
9. recreation.
Rate of decline will accelerate if tax and ETS are linked.
E.g., U.K. gov't increase.
We are just at be~inninq of impact of ETS issue.
U.K. a lab case. Decline largely a reaction to price.
U.S. political perception of NO RISK to politicians on ETS
issue. Therefore we have to hreate risk to politicians.
German case -- point out (messages) to smoker who he is.
Improve smoker's self image and isolate zealots. In U.S.,
everything becomes adversarial. Not so in Germany, Japan.
U.S. hasmost extreme form of adversarial culture.
Therefore, ads may not work.
But we don't know that because it has never been done on
scale of, say, introducing a new brand.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
2':00' P.M. Session
A.M. Where things stand.
P.M. What is the problem?
i. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of
cigarettes they smoke.
2. How to alter public perception that ETS is damaging.
II
4. " "
"
5. Is there a different problem?
(Assume that #2 causes
6. Problem for smoking population -- nuisanGe/annoyance
and risk accusations. And there are scientists, etc., who
say it is a risk. How to do something for smokers. How to
respond to scientists and risk issue.
o
Big, complex problem.
A. Altering perception
B. Changing underlying fact from "not proven." to ETS
is not harmful to non-smoker.
C. What are we going to do at 9:00 A.M. Monday
morning? This is separate from above. Has to do
with making people feel good about Philip Morris.
D. How to make people (smokers and non-smokers) feel
good about smokers.
8. Problem is broader -- general decline in social
acceptability of smoking (includes ETS).
9. Problem is political. Our bullets are technical.
Bullets against us are lou.sy, but we don't have better
bullets. Need long term science. What created perceptions
is their science.
Is there any fruitful science underway?
Yes, in epidemiology and in monitoring, but next year to
year and a half of science will be negative.
10.. Worst case scenario. How to support current smokers in
face of overwhelming adverse information and publicity.
ii. Short of some dramatic proof, perception problem will
remain.
12. Basic problem -- There is an unbalanced perception that
ETS is damaging. This leads us to operate from premise that
ETS is not harmful. Questions become approach, how long,
what resources to get message across.
Bad public perception persists.
PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING. IT DRIVES PUBLIC POLICY.
HOW TO ALTER PUBLIC
PERCEPTION THAT
ETS IS DAMAGING?
If perception were changed, would laws be repealed?
Yes, over time.
Why we have problems.
i. Lack of objective science.
2. Logic that if mainstream smoke is damaging, ETS must be
too.
( Also Annoyance factor. Also problem in defining ETS.
It
is variable).
3. Anti's can state case in two sentences. We need 20
minutes.
Our case: six claims, all rejected except respiratory
health in kids and lung cancer.
-- Kids: common sense response -- you don't hold
babies over a charcoal broiler and you don't blow smoke in
their faces.
-- Lung Cancer: based on 16 studies, only 2 of which
showed, statistically significant differences. If you remove
Hirayama from group, NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT STUDY.
