Jump to:

Anne Landman's Collection

Core Objectives

Date: 1994
Length: 27 pages
2044333554-2044333581
Jump To Images
ness 00034296

Abstract

This 27-page Philip Morris (PM) strategy document from 1993 outlines how PM successfully fought a proposed smoking ban in Austin, Texas. Among PM's core objectives stated in the document is to "Manage external and internal perceptions to benefit our business."

PM laments the effect smoking bans have had on its business:

"Smoking restrictions have been estimated, this year alone, to have decreased PM profits by $40 million."

The document discusses the company's application of its "Accommodation Program" as a tool to help prevent or delay the enactment of laws restricting public smoking.

Page 21 of the document indicates that PM is fighting popular sentiment towards smoking restrictions: ,

"--Antis continue to seek smoking bans on the local level. --Recent polling says Californians want smoking restrictions."

PM's strategies against public health efforts are revealed on the next pages:

"Introduce legislation to scatter anti's resources...pursue numerous accommodation bills...Pass language which allows smoking in California and preempts localities from approving more onerous laws..."

PM also reveals plans to attack and hobble the charitable health organizations that pursue smoking restrictions:

"Regulate charitable organizations... [pass laws requiring] reporting requirements for percent of funds used for research vs. salaries. Cap administrative costs, salaries, lobbying expenditures. Establish minimum percentage of funds for research..."

And more strategies for PM's use of its Accommodation program to "refocus antis" are revealed:

"--Seek local level Accommodation laws in a limited number of localities to refocus antis and show accommodation is acceptable."

In addition to revealing how PM "played" the city council in Austin to defeat the proposed smoking ban there, the document also discusses the company's strategies for defeating excise taxes.

Fields

Notes

From Ness-Motley collection Produced by: PMI Affected Defendants: PMI, RJR

Quotes

CORE OBJECTIVES

• Minimize impact of Federal, State and Local taxes on the retail price of our products. • Protect the rights of Adult consumers to smoke. • Protect PM-USA's ability to market our products. • Manage external and internal perceptions to benefit our business. SMOKING RESTRICTIONS

Situation Analysis:

The Bad News

The EPA Report received wide publicity and has caused an acceleration in proposed bans and restrictions.

Currently 47 states have some form of smoking restrictions. Smoking is restricted in Private workplaces in 19 states; 28 states restrict smoking in restaurants. This year alone 18 states and 269 localities passed smoking restrictions. Measures are still pending in 6 states and 165 localities.

Smoking restrictions have been estimated, this year alone, to have decreased PM profits by $40 million.

Restrictions in shopping malls and arenas have been added to workplace and restaurant restrictions.

The Good News

More than 9,000 restaurants nationwide participate in the Accommodation Program. Over 250,000 merchandise pieces have been distributed featuring The Accommodation Program Symbol.

Thirteen states currently preempt local smoking restrictions.

Since 1989, 29 states, the District of Columbia and the city of Boston have enacted legislation which prohibits employment discrimination against smokers.

...Recently utilized The Accommodation Program to effectively advance Government Affairs' legislative agenda in a number of states.

In response to proposed statewide smoking ban in Pennsylvania last month:

• Identified restaurant owners to testify at hearings

• Maximized use of exhibit booth at PA Restaurant Association Trade Show to mobilize business owners to sign a petition, and write letters to elected officials.

• Produced timely VNR [video news release] which was widely aired across the state.

...AUSTIN, TEXAS

Situation

• On 12/2, City Council Agrees to Hear Proposed Smoking Ban Ordinance in One Week or on 12/9.

• Proposal Bans Smoking in Restaurants and Other Public Places and Severely Restricts Smoking in the Workplace.

• Austin, Texas City Council is as Liberal as the Berkeley, California City Council.

Strategy

SMOKING ORDINANCE

AUSTIN, TEXAS

• Create Coalition to Kill Ordinance in One Week

• Urge Coalition to Seek Less Onerous Ordinance

Resources Activated

• PM and RJR smokers call city council members prior to the hearing and testify at the hearing. • PM hires consultant to organize the hospitality industry. • PM consultant convinces Austin Restaurant Association to oppose the ordinance and joint the Texas Restaurant Association's activities. • TX Restaurant Association phone banks restaurateurs and hires local consultants to Lobby Individual City Council Members. • PM and RJR salesforces circulate flyers to retailers, restaurateurs, entertainment contacts and consumers.

• Miller Distributing alerted and has agreed to assist.

Smoking Ban Ordinance was Defeated on a 3 to 3 vote.

--5 hour hearing was held on 12/9. --125 witnesses sign up to testify

--63 for the ordinance (anti-smoking activists, health group representatives)

--62 against the ordinance (e.g. restaurant and bar owners and employees, bowling alley and bingo parlor proprietors, smokers rights activists, music industry representatives, smokers and a few nonsmokers. --Coalition continues to work for more reasonable ordinance. --Next hearing delayed until February 1994...

...Antis continue to seek smoking bans at the local level...

STRATEGY:

--Introduce legislation to scatter anti's resources... --Introduce numerous Accommodation bills... --Workplace (business organizations) --Restaurant (local restaurant associations) --Hotel (hotel-motel association)

Company
Philip Morris (Altria Group)
Author
Presumed corporate author, Philip Morris
Recipient
Presumed corporate recipient, Philip Morris
Region
United States
California
Named Organization
NSA (National Smoker's Alliance)
1994 National Smoker's Alliance 1994 - to present. Front group formed by Philip Morris Tobacco Company to oppose smoke-free laws without its corporate involvement being detected.
Type
Outline
Named Person
Administration, Clinton
Subject
secondhand smoke
secondhand smoke strategy (Corporate strategy to deal with ETS issue)
legislation
Corporate strategy
industry activity
industry front group
industry influence
industry response
industry strategy
public health policy
public policy
public smoking law

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Document Navigation

View Range: - of 27

NEXT »

Page 1: 00034296 Log in for more options!
CORE OBJECTIVES Minimize impact of Federal, State and Local taxes on the • retail price of our products. Protect the rights of Adult consumers to smoke. Protect PM-USA's ability to market our products.~ Manage external and internal perceptions to benefit our business.~i,.=~ii!..
Page 2: 00034296 Log in for more options!
CIGARETTE SXCISE TAXES Situation Analysis: The Clinton Administration seeks to increase the federal excise tax on cigarettes up to 75’ per pack to support a national health care program. State cigarette excise taxes have increased at an average annual rate of 8,5%* and states are tying increases to state health care programs on an accelerated basis. Although only 9 states allow local excise taxes on cigarettes, the number of cities and counties taxing, the product is increasing. In 1987, 392 cities and counties taxed cigarettes. By the end of 1993, that number will rise to 439; an average increase of 8 new taxing units per year. 1994 is an election year and therefore we may not face as many battles as this past year. * Slightly lower for an election year, and higher for a non-election year.
Page 3: 00034296 Log in for more options!
::.: ~: ::-.'-..~. Ovel'a]l, most respondents had a greater awareness of the proposed '-;--.tunding sources (i.e., cigarette, gasoline and Income tax) for the ~ :°= ~ National Health: Care Program than about the plan. Most respondents ::.~ .i.~ h~ad little Understanding-of•the core intent of the program and how ....... i ] :,.the. ~rogram Will personally affect them. ..the Federal Government's ability to administer the program. ~.;13i~t~restii~gly, the majority were in favor of national coverage despite their Confusion about the plan and their cynicism about ~:.~ . ~.-Attitudes about funding tend to reflect how consumers feel they will • be personally affected by any increases in tax or copayment sources. That is, most respondents were 'more than happy to "pass the buck" • - to someone elSe or Share theburden provided the tax was not on a:_ -: :~ ; ;product they use on a regular basis (such as gasoline, etc.). " :~-~ spontaneous reactions tO the cigaretteexcise tax tended to be driven ~.:-:,,~+~i by"resl~ondents' personal attitudes about smoking. The non-smokers• i. ~~ ~?_~~sli_o.~!d~par_ry a...greater Share of the financial burden; ' Most Of these ............ individuals feel that smokers add to the cost of healthcare and .......................... ..... therefore should= ........... bear a g~;e ater portio n-0f the .............................. burden.
Page 4: 00034296 Log in for more options!
: ...... ;. T-hei~Ogt ~ser@fia-sive ai, gume-i~t~- aoainst the excise tax on cigarettes ~. ~ ~.- ~iN~.~-.. .......................................................... -- -Job& Income Loss ,.. Bluecollar respondents related to this argument on a personal ~ " level " including theii~selves/family/friends as being directly .......... : .......... !affec.~e_q,:..~y the..tax. White collar respondents were more ........... .~;"- d~t~chi~d-fationalizing the ~;g-ument as persuasive because Of i:~I' ...... :- ~,. : .... it~ negativeimpact on jobs and the economy. ! ~ ~ i: .'-- -'5~ !. 2.: , " " .... " .......... " ......................... ~--: ~" ., that the government Wastes/misspends money. The blue collar of our _ . :~g.r~ip_s..._.w_e_._r.e...p_articuiaHyad&mant about taking care .... nation's problems be~org-/~-~-e~d-ifig m~ney on foreign aid. . ~ ~..,,~,~..--=~.Bad Revenue Source -.; ...... ~ThiS was also brought up independently. Many smokers and .......... " ..... '~ nOn-smokers easily grasped the problem of relying on an ....................... ~--'unreliabie-revenue base~ for a IOng:termprogram and ~.~: ;-i !i ;=.~.. ;; .e.xpressed concern. ,over this issue. .... =~:!-~The. ,s!hgling out One group" argument also received a fairly ..~ i::emot!~l £~sponse. aos,t- smokers and a few non-smokers felt that ' !--i. L~'~"~i~*~fl~;~~i~-r~x~tiOh'i~divisive-'~-a~entiment that ~as nbt ........ .... i positively received. Smokers tended to feel particularly strong about i ..; i! this issue.
Page 5: 00034296 Log in for more options!
SMOKING RESTRICTIONS Situat=onys~s: .. ' : - ~ The Bad News The EPA Report received wide publicity and has caused an acceleration in proposed bans and restrictions. Currently 47 states have some form of smoking restrictions. Smoking is restricted in Private workplaces ih 19 states; 28 states restrict smoking in restaurants. This year alone 18 states and 269 localities passed smoldng restrictions. Measures are still pending in 6 states and 165 localities. Smoking restrictions have been estimated, this year alone, to have decreased PM profits by $40 million. - . Restrictions in shopping malls and arenas have been added to workplace and restaurant restrictions. The Good News More than 9,000 restaurants nationwide participate in the Accommodation Program. Over 250,000 merchandise pieces have been distributed featuring The Accommodation Program Symbol. Thirteen states currently preempt local smoking restrictions. Since 1989, 29 states, the District of Columbia and the city of Boston have enacted legislation which prohibits employment discrimination against smokers.
Page 6: 00034296 Log in for more options!
2044333560 I "03£V1 pue V£N eql#oddn£ • se^!~oe[qo uo!ld~uee~d pue uop, epoLuuJoooe ~Joddns o~ SJaLunsuoo al~^!loe pue suo!l!leOO s£au!snq a~eaJO • elq!ssod Je^eJaqta uo!lelSl6el u! pue elpeuJ eq~ u! eweq~/uo~,eu!w!Jos!p-!;ue eql mowoJd. • ensst eql uo s~eqtue~u e!peLu pue 'sJepeel sseu!snq '~snpu!/q!lel!dsoq eleonp~ • uo!|dLUee~d ~o; lapOLU e se e!u~oJ!leO u! epue6e e^!sueqeJdLuoo e dole^eG 's~olels!.6el pue sJeut~o ssau!snq o; sueq 6u!~lo~us oi uo!~nios eA!leu~elle ue se uJeJ6oJd uo!;epouJuJOOOV eql ep!AOJ~l se!6ele ,S SNOIIOIEI.LS3EI 9NI IOiAIS
Page 7: 00034296 Log in for more options!
THE ACCOM~.~.DATK)N PROGRAM Current Asso~ietion Participants by State (as of 11/12/~) IA COUNTRmS Gt~am ............ .2 ~ ........... 5
Page 8: 00034296 Log in for more options!
Accommo~htion Program Priority for Targeted States I In~ea~ Efforts I Follow-Up I ~Ih Lilt
Page 9: 00034296 Log in for more options!
p • m • ~ • Restaurants: Hotels / Motels: Bowling Cec~ters: 374 Malls: 38 Alrportm: 1 (Rhode Island) PROGRAM TOTAL: 9,013 i
Page 10: 00034296 Log in for more options!
THE ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM How does The Program work? 4 Phase Continuum

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Document Navigation

View Range: - of 27

NEXT »