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
- TI
- 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.
- Hirayama
Document Images
-ii-
Devil's advocate case: 10 of 13 studies show effect in
direction of harm. Government has need to protect
non-smoker.
Scientific response: No chemical is entirely safe. Using
mass balance technique on ETS you find minute quantities
which imply even infinitely smaller risk.
The frequent communication of the above message will work.
Health oriented counter argument. Non smokers get nothing
from smoke and therefore should be subject to no risk.
Devil's Advocate #12. "You're killing my children."
Annoyance problem historically handled successfully. If
limited to this, we win.
Cigarettes are singled out because of no redeeming virtues
to non-smokers.
Irradiated food is not annoying, but debate is increasing.
PROBLEM: HOW TO REDUCE MILITANCY OF NON-SMOKERS?
Other problems fade if harm issue goes away. Nuisance
factor reinforced by visibility of ETS which can't be
completely avoided.
A scientific battle was lost with SG's '86 report. Is there
any way of showing SG is wrong?
Yes, by blowing Hirayama out of the water. Show it is
nonsense.
Also need counter and dramatic proof of our own.
Discussing. epidemiology leads nowhere. Low level ETS and
lower level risk is a convincing argument. Begin by
addressing risk.
But we've got to say it loud and long.
Why haven't we?
i. set of not paying attention and problem will go away.
2. Cost factor
3. Risk factor -- create criticism in response to our
campaign.
Here at PM, corporate stance is changing. If we come back
from this meeting saying we've got to talk about it (i.e.,
launch campaign), this will be received well by sr. mgmt.
Primary issue study.
had lovely lungs.
Control group although exposed to ETS
Can you make public understand relative risk?
Message has to be simple.
There is no risk. That's the message.
First question-- Why are studies showing no risk not being
published?
Answer
i.
2.
Peer pressure.
Telling people it's ok to smoke shunned by
scientists.
Researchers don't want this grief.
Not going to get sympathy on our science by general
scientific community.
Nuke industry analogy. They have lost battle, even though
science indicates nuke power is safer than, say, coal or
oil.
We do not know the impact of "telling them" because we have
never done it. From PR and political perspective, our
arguments make a credible case, given, that we carry some
baggage.
Is $100 million campaign worth an x increase in sales?
Yes, if prohibition is alternative.
PROBLEM: HOW DO WE ALTER PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY
OF SMOKING?
But this problem is a direct outgrowth of "harm, of ETS.
We've got to get to people on the street, but we are
constrained because we can't say it's safe.
What do we want to alter public perception to? A. Can't say it's good, safe, a tonic, etc.
B. Can say "It is not shown to be harmful."
Can you alter perception without touching on ETS?
Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM.
e.g., sue ACS for saying tobacco workers are murderers.
Chill does not equal win.
But this idea does fit with present situation of legislators
being risk free.
OUR CHARGE was to come away with plans that can begin to be
implemented 9:00 A.M. Monday morning. ETS must be included.
ETS is focus because it's driving public policy. It is the
LINK between smokers and non-smokers.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
3:45 P.M,. Session
Summary of problem
How to alter public perception that ETS is harmful,
recognizing that smoking is in. disfavor in society
How to alter public perception of ETS in. terms of
perceived risk and annoyance.
Why problem exists
i. active smoking (logic that if active is bad, passive is
bad) ETS becomes tactic for anti-smoking groups.
2. smoke is annoying
3. lack of objective science
4. ETS is variable, difficult to measure
5. militancy of organized, active opposition
6. sin connotation ---> smoker guilt
7. The no risk myth and idea that no risk is only
acceptable level of risk.
8. New = bad news.
9. media bias against big business
10. American litigious nature; adversarial, confrontational
nature of American society.
Ii. Industry has not talked about issue (TI). (Banzhaf
airline example).
12. leads to assumption of guilt.
13. SG's reportand appearance of objectivity on their part
and not on ours.
14. Unpopular issue with scientists (subset of primary
issue). To come out on our side in U.S. and elsewhere is
professional suicide.
15. Presence of bad science, e.g., Hirayama
16. S~cial/peer bandwagon/pressure
17. Lack of grassroots constituency.
18. Product make-up is different (more annoying) today.
19. No political, social or legal risk to oppose ETS.
20. negatively perceived nomenclature of ETS
21. unchallenged rhetoric of opposition
The view of someone not associated with industry.
Your solution must be multifaceted: scientific, PR,
advertising, legal. There may be downside to PM as consumer
products company -- fear of rocking corporate boat, backlash
to any PM campaign. Risk would seem worth taking.
The analogy of smoker discrimination and racial
discrimination is hysterical, inaccurate and unfounded.
Discussion
If industry had begun longitudinal research in the 1950s,
we might have headed problem off at the pass. Did not and
are still fighting to recover lost ground.
Downsides to research and other activity.
-- Lausanne meeting -- research proposals were rejected
because fear that research might precipitate issue that did
not exist.
-- Research on filters, not ETS, back then. No one
took ETS seriously because measurements were minute plus
risk in doing research where you don't know were it will
lead.
-- Legislative risk in becoming more visible
-- Pervasive fear that if you fight too hard on ETS, it ~.
means conceding the primary issue.
~
It becomes a question
Don't have to make case
-- RJR ran a few ads and quit.
of who has the most stuff to throw.
exclusively on the health issue.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
I0:00 P.M. Brainstorming Session
Solutions to problem
i. Develop products that reduce nuisance value.
2. Develop products that have beneficial value to non-
smokers.
3. Develop a free-standing menthol.
4. Expand number of people prepared to talk about ETS
objectively.
5. Create our own expert (like Iacocca).
6. More research -- prove ETS is safe.
7. Challenge publicly the scientific community.
8. Need authoritative spokesperson.
9. Look for costless areas of compromise.
I0. Talk with / challenge media leaders.
Ii. Create a bigger monster (AIDS)
12. Make it hurt (political risk) to take us on.
13. NRA type force for us.
14. Greater effort to accommodate desires of non-smoker.
15. Make non-smokers fearful of consequences of office
smoking bans (drug testing, etc.)
16. Communicate with core market.
17. Educate core market to respond.
18. Revisit primary issue.
19. Chill the rhetoric.
20. Courtesy campaign for smokers.
21. Re-examine ETS research to make case stronger.
22. Theatre of the absurd.
23. Segment public to look at perceptions and target..
messages.
24. Seriously look at TV, print, other media campaigns.
25. Re-examine what we are doing to address symptoms --
taxes, etc.
26. Idenfity natural allies
27. Change nomenclature for issue.
28. Develop public information network and network common
language.
29. Lie low
30. Moderation campaign like beer.
31. Endow chair for ETS research.
32. Make sure industry goes along with our options.
33. Create science journal.
34. Create non-science journal.
35. Create smokers' rights unit within law firm.
36. Encourage grassroots organization outside of industry.
37. Involve candy wholesalers, leaf, farmers.
38. Create greater pressure on politicians.
39. Infiltrate W.H.O.
40. Educate PM employees on issue.
41. Fix industry's irritating public face.
42. Directly involve brand advertising in our issues.
43. Mark packages "Please smoke courteously."
-16-
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
8.6.
Use carton inserts.
Support segregated public smoking/non-smoking areas.
Make preemptive gesture.
Support work demonstrating corrosive impact of nuisance
regulations.
Vastly expand data base.
Acquire major media vehicle.
Develop own radio programming.
Adopt end game strategy. Maximize cash flow.
Develop immediate TV/radio response mechanism in every
local community.
Promote better room ventilation. An A/C in every home.
Legislate clean air.
Work with unions to develop generic workplace policies
for bargaining.
$2-5 million funding for CIAR now. $25-30 million per
year later put into indoor air study.
Establish center or grant at university to study indoor
air.
Internally, study need for group to study ETS.
Introduce no/low sidestream smoke cigarette.
Sue the bastards!
Get more support from board members.
Undermine Koop et al.
More movies featuring cigarette brands.
Get best selling novel with subtle connection to evils
of anti industry.
Art philanthropy -- shift emphasis to literary arts.
Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups.
Someone outside industry to talk about integrity in
science.
Re-examine sports promotions.
Get Nader-like group to examine anti funding.
Establish a risk perspective on issue.
Fund major university media resources and training
center for science writers.
Program for journalism and law schools.
Support social research on positive aspects of smoking
to society.
Establish ties with libertarian and conservative
groups.
NRA strategy and say we did it.
Lobby for cabinet level industry spokesperson.
Help select next SG.
Re-examine structure and role of TI.
Abolish T.I.
Ad campaign.
Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues.
Identify persuasive mediator between us and them.
Re-establish 20-years-ago network.
Re-establish seniority system in Congress.
New network at state level.
Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policy-~'~
making work,
-17-
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
Provide lists to supportive legislators.
Internationalize our efforts.
Presidential primary initiative.
Look at referendum process in key states.
Enact legislation with smoking as protected activity.
Repeal smoking restrictions in target states.
Fund research that documents victims and costs of
smoking restrictions.
Look at law enforcement aspects.
Collect and use articles ridiculing antis.
Indoor air quality study on NY Times Building.
Involve non-smoker in mystique of smoking.
Refute argument that smokers incur greater medical/
social/efficiency costs.
Show smokers are more efficient.
100. Tell good news better.
I01. Make use of subsidiary goodwill and power.
102. Fund lung cancer research.
103. Test case town or workplace.
104. Defeat Waxman.
105. Attack anti groups where they hurt.
106. Fund women's unions (office workers) on general
discrimination research.
107. Discounts for smokers.
108. Acquire an insurance company.
109. Look at where separation of smokers/non-smokers occurs
and capitalize.
110. Do smokers have more fun?
iii. Create perception and fact of smokers as a voting,
political group.
112. Cement relationship with women smokers, e.g. child
care.
113. Create desirable restaurant for smokers.
114. Condoms in cigarette packages.
115. Increase frequency of PM Magazine.
116. Increase pay for PM Mag editorial staff.
Thursday, June 25, 1987
8:15 A.M. Session
Agree to agree on overall strategy. -- What do we want to accomplish.?
-- Develop constituency.
-- Old Testament approach (eye for eye)
e.g., cigarette pack: on the outside have a "be courteou.s"
message; on the inside, "but it goes both ways, join us"
message.
Examination of 116 ideas.
-- We don't have anything to slam. them with on health
issue.
-18-
-- Long term ideas are good, but we don't have the
MESSAGE for the short term.
If we stand up big enough with Rupp arguments and courtesy
as message, tell people reasonable/rational viewpoint, some
of them will believe
End game option is a controlled retreat.
situation accelerates into an abrupt end.
is therefore better. Need messages.
Usually the
Fighting back now
We face having our message from Hilton Head be "spend
money." This in the face of two outside speakers who said
"keep your heads down." Say what Rupp said in short term.
We have to divide public up, divide messages to fit.
First recommendation -- messages and justification.
Assume there is an alternative to doing nothing. Need
strategy to soften public while going hard on technical side
so that when information is produced, public will listen.
Assumption of conference is that we have good messages and
just aren't saying them.
Important to develop strategy in which messages will fit.
Let's agree on a few basic arguments.
Communications "case" is not "proved" as it is in law.
communications, perception = proof.
In
THE CASE (as finally agreed upon after extended discussion).
i. Science has not established any risk to non-smokers.
2. ETS can be a nuisance (an annoyance), but neither side
should be intransiqent.
3. Seek accommodation, respecting fundamental riqht of
Americans to freedom of choice.
4. No government intervention required.
THE CRITERIA
-- Credible/plausible
-- Cost effective
-- Can be achieved
-- Worth the risk
-- Effective
-- Fits time scale
-- Sustainable
-- Simplicity
THE PROBLEM SOLUTIONS APPLIED TO THE TARGET GROUPS
Smokers (comfortable, courteous and active)
-- NRA strategy
-- Tell good news better
-- create smokers as market segment to products other
than cigarettes.
Non-smokers (non issue)
-- accommodation (see discussion notes):
-- fear of consequences of bans (drug tests, etc.)
-- courtesy campaign for smokers.
Anti-smokers (isolated)
-- Chill the rhetoric
-- Theatre of the absurd
-- Sue the bastards
-- Challenge tax exempt status of antis
-- Get watchdog/3rd party group to investigate anti's
fund allocations.
Public officials and policy makers (feel heat and cool)
-- Costless areas of compromise
-- Create pan-strategic monsters (indoor air, employee
rights, polygraphs, slippery slope.
-- Make it hurt
-- Courtesy campaign for smokers.
-- "Improve'" Koop.
-- provide context for claimed risk of ETS.
-- Help select next SG.
-- Create industry Valenti.
-- Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our
policy work.
-- Provide lists to supportive legislators.
-- Seek repeal of restrictions.
-- Develop political targets.
Media (be objective and ideally pro us)
-- Expand advocates.
-- Create own Iacocca.
-- Publicly challenge scientists.
-- Talk to/challenge media leaders.
-- Consider acquiring major media vehicle.
-- Explore creating or buying pop. science mag.
-- Explore best selling book on relevant issues.
-- Examine economic/human costs of smoking
restrictions, including law enforcement.
-- Tell good news better.
-20-
Scientific community (be objective)
-- Expand advocates.
-- More research.
-- Publicly challenge scientists.
-- Endow chairs for indoor air research.
-- Create scientific journal (explore)
-- Adequately fund CIAR
-- Sociological research on positive aspects of
smoking.
-- Refute "social costs" argument (info goes to media
plan).
Family and allies (become active)
-- Seek out other allies/industries.
-- Seek industry cooperation and support.
-- Doublecheck union activities/relationships.
-- Make use of goodwill of PM subsidiaries.
-- Support women's labor unions.
-- Cement relationships with women smokers, e.g. child
care.
Non media ideas
-- #i, #2, #18 from long list.
-- Taskforce to revisit primary issue
-- Taskforce to re-examine ETS research
-- Taskforce to re-examine present programs including:
brand advertising and marketing, cigarettes in movies,
industry medial research/publicity, art philanthropy, sports
promotion, tobacco farmers/industry/government network,
lobbyists, presidential primary program, trademark/brand
extension to non-tobacco items (enhance mystique among
non-smokers).
-- Taskforce on Center, grants, chair studying indoor
air quality.
-- Taskforce on Koop (book or article, science fallacy.
Vehicles
-- TV/print/radio/media campaign (advertising included)
-- Change nomenclature for issue.
-- Create "'answer service" for public and media.
-- Packaging messages on courtesy.
-- Satellite response unit and regional offices
(incorporates training science writers.
