Abstract
In 1994, the R.J. Reynolds tobacco company "orchestrated a massive, unprecedented public relations blitz," (1) aimed at linking tobacco control efforts directly to Prohibition in the public mind, even though the prohibition of tobacco has never been a stated goal of public health authorities in the U.S.. (Prohibition was an American social movement in the 1920s and 1930s in the U.S. that attempted to eliminate the sale and use of alcohol. It is generally considered to have been extreme and to have ended in failure.) RJR called the effort "Project Breakthrough." It was described this way in a planning document:
"PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH
1. Objective: create a campaign which frames and answers this question: Does America want prohibition? Will we tolerate a puritanical wave to infringe, to restrict and possibly to eliminate personal freedoms and individual choices?
2.Goals:
* reframe the debate: efforts all aim at return to prohibition, either front-door or back-door.
* make prohibition a clear and present danger now in our society; give it pejorative currency similar to the tax and spend issue in the early 1980s.
* directly tie the anti-smoker rhetoric with the stigma of prohibition; that's what they really want.
* spread the stigma to others: who's next; alcohol, beef, pork, private property, logging, fur, cholesterol, motorcycles, and others.
The campaign had several different phases designed generally to instill fear in Americans that rules restricting smoking would lead to increased crime and smuggling, economic failure, inability to purchase and use a host of other products, and the elimination of civil rights and freedoms.
Sample Project Breakthrough ads can be seen at the following URLs:
"COME OUT SLOWLY SIR, WITH YOUR CIGARETTE ABOVE YOUR HEAD."
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ogp61d00
"TODAY IT'S CIGARETTES. TOMORROW?"
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dhp61d00
"NO SMOKING. IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TOO FAR?"
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ehp61d00
RJR ran these ads, and others like them, in 32 major American daily newspapers, plus magazines like TIME, U.S. News and World Report,(2) Vanity Fair,(3) ethnically targeted publications like Blacks in Law Enforcement,(4), and popular publications like Rolling Stone and People.
Other campaign components included direct mailings to individuals and a "video petition" sent to legislators in Washington, D.C. The campaign appears to have lasted about 4 years. RJR considered the effort successful, according to an October, 1994 update on the project prepared by Thomas Griscom, Executive Vice President of External Relations and sent to Charles M. Harper, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp. Griscom's report claimed the campaign resulted in decreased support for raising the federal tax on cigarettes, generated 29,000 calls to a toll-free hotline, and put the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on the defensive, among other successes.
"Project Breakthrough" appears to have been RJR's response to a number of public health initiatives occuring at the time, including the broadcast of an ABC news program ("Day One") about spiking of nicotine in cigarettes, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's efforts to regulate nicotine as a drug, a proposal to fund health care nationally through an increase in the federal cigarette tax.
This document shows that the creation and spread of the arguments that smoking laws are a form of creeping prohibition can be linked directly to RJR.
Fields
- Notes
1) Description taken from PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH 1995 BRIEFING MANUAL http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebv80d00
(2) http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kgp61d00,
(3) http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vac25a00,
(4) http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vuc13a00
- Quotes
PROJECT BREAKTHROUGH
1. Objective: create a campaign which frames and answers this question: Does America want prohibition? Will we tolerate a puritanical wave to infringe,to restrict and possibly to eliminate personal freedoms and individual choices?
2.Goals:
*reframe the debate: efforts all aim at return to prohibition, either front-door or back-door.
*make prohibition a clear and present danger now in our society; give it pejorative currency similar to the tax and spend issue in the early 1980s.
*directly tie the anti-smoker rhetoric with the stigma of prohibition; that's what they really want.
*spread the stigma to others: who's next; alcohol, beef, pork, private property, logging, fur, cholesterol, motorcycles, and others.
*answer the question: Enough is enough?
3. Virtually every aspect of the tobacco debate can be traced back to one,overriding issue: prohibition. But the prohibition movement extends much further,touching the basic fabric of our founding principles: personal freedom and choice, without excessive government interference. This provides a positioning which can be both narrowly focused on tobacco but also expanded to other behaviors, products, and lifestyles.
[From Page 2:]
4.Structure: To effectively develop the issue of prohibition,a campaign team will be created. That requires a candidate (American public,smokers,other consumers)and an
opponent (government, activists, do-gooders, free spenders, thought police). Every activity is tied back to the central theme (prohibition) but develops as a free
standing issue. This allows consistency and focus but also maximum flexibility in bringing coalition partners into the campaign ... A key element throughout the plan is to stay one step ahead; plan and anticipate; control the agenda, the message; be quick, punch and counter-punch; be unpredictable; create a hard position, drive opponents to the other corner and fill the middle (fill up the game board).
[From Page 3:]
There needs to be an historical launching point to reinforce with the American public the fear and failure of prohibition. This underpinning will substantiate the 80%+
rejection of the notion of prohibition. This positioning also provides the legal (constitutional) foundation and stretches the issue into what results: crime, black markets, illegal products, tax evasion, American citizen against American citizen based on product use and control of information and thought.
- Company
- R.J. Reynolds
- Author
- Unknown. Found in the area of James W. Johnson, RJR Chairman
- Recipient
- N/A
RegionUnited States
Named OrganizationAmericans for Tax Reform
Citizens for a Sound Economy (Powerful industry-funded think tank that promotes deregulati)
Rogers & Cowan, PR agency
Named PersonSynehorst, T.
Bryant, S.
Breglio, V.
Powell, J.
Doig, J.
Roper
Bryant, J.
Elliott, T.
Brady, J.
Operation/ProjectProject Breakthrough (RJR '94 ad project to portray tobacco control as a return to)Massive advertising campaign to link public health efforts around tobacco to a re-emergence of Prohibition of the 1920s and 1930s.
TypeREPORT
SubjectCorporate strategy
advertising activity
advertising campaign
advertising effectiveness
advertising message
Document Images
Page 1: oia13a00
game board). As in any campaign plan, there are definite points to measure results; there
are higher profile and lower profile activities; there are focused efforts and more broadly
designed themes; there are opportunities to leverage the issue to generate public response
and political response (these two key objectives have to always be top of mind).
Messages include prohibition; big brother; this is what they really say; who knows
best; what is next; government for you or against you; fact or fiction; choices/ answers/
solutions; what we believe (personal, company, America); call the question.
Each message point can fit the individual parts of the plan.
Using secondhand smoke (ETS) as an example, here is how it works. Plan is
developed, using both current resources and outside special counsel. Points developed
stress the science foundation placed in the political framework which drives the public
debate. An important point here is that legislators, who implement policies based on ETS
science, are not academics but our arguments have been, primarily, academic. This calls
for a more simplified communication platform.
A mass media campaign reopens the debate, lay language presents the concerns,
smokers and selected allies are the core mass. Communicate the right message, to the right
audience, in the right style.
An example is attached. This is a draft message being considered in Asia. The
message works provided the work has been done to generate public reaction to the "800"
number and solid information in simple language is made available. An outside consultant
can assist in crafting the appropriate responses. There is another opportunity by providing
directly to opinion leaders, scientific and other information which is published but not
covered in the general media.
Couple with this a continued effort to find ways for smokers and non-smokers to
work together. This message resonates with both groups and isolates the activists as the
ones trying to drive wedges among the American public.
6. Timi g and other resources: A possible launch date is Memorial Day and this needs to
be discussed in more detail. The program can start earlier, but this time frame could be
the"formal" date.
Resources required now include about $200,000 to get the plan written and put
consultants under contract. The second phase will provide a definite budget and detailed
strategy plan. For discussion purposes, it should be assumed that a full scale effort,
including paid media which will be the largest component, is still in the range discussed:
$5 to $20 million.
The time frame previously discussed (to have a presentation ready within six
weeks) is on track provided approval is given to move forward into phase two.
Page 2: oia13a00
t
Each one of these areas has spin off impacts. For example, there exist coalition groups
which are potential allies under the prohibition umbrella. Many of these organization have
been developed through our FET programs, and the prohibition argument offers a bridge
for involvement in tobacco issues by developing and linking diverse but common collateral
issues.
* crime: prohibition means 45 million lawbreakers; smoke police instead of police
to address crime in the streets, schools, neighborhoods; (police organizations)
* economy: prohibition means retailers lose 30%+ of their current earnings,
affecting jobs, taxes revenues at all levels; different than FET which causes some
dislocation, this means total loss; ( convenience stores, truck stops, supermarkets)
* economy: prohibition means suppliers, small businesses, distributors lose some
or all of their earnings; the "job loss" impact numbers are real, and high (retail community,
small businesses, minority businesses)
* economy: prohibition means lost taxes, so who will pay the bill for the
government's large appetite? (Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for Sound Economy)
* restrictions: prohibition means lost freedom, government intrusion into personal
decisions, determine what is right, what can be done and when; limit access to product
through forced infringements (smokers, drinkers, fast food users, furriers, other farm
groups, loggers, veterans, restaurant and bar owners)
* restrictions: prohibition through manipulation of data, thought, speech, and
research; forcing public policy positions by using government grants, media manipulation,
government funded activist groups; in other words, using the resources of the government
to control thoughts, decisions and access to complete information. (scientists,
academicians, civil libertarians, gun owners)
4. Structure: To effectively develop the issue of prohibition, a campaign team will be
created.
That requires a candidate (American public, smokers, other consumers) and an
opponent (government, activists, do-gooders, free spenders, thought police).
Every activity is tied back to the central theme (prohibition) but develops as a free
standing issue. This allows consistency and focus but also maximum flexibility in bringing
coalition partners into the campaign. Some are involved because of direct connection with
underlying issue; others are there because the issue has broader ramifications.
These resources are required:
* white papers, backgrounders
* historical perspective
* economic impact study
* opposition research
* speeches, opinion pieces, letters, bullets
* constitutional background
* survey research
Personnel and organizational requirements:
Page 3: oia13a00
1. Objective: create a campaign which frames and answers this question: Does America
want prohibition? Will we tolerate a puritanical wave to infringe, to restrict and possibly to
eliminate personal freedoms and individual choices?
2. Goals:
* reframe the debate: efforts all aim at return to prohibition, either front-door or
back-door.
* make prohibition a clear and present danger now in our society; give it pejorative
currency similar to the tax and spend issue in the early 1980s.
* directly tie the anti-smoker rhetoric with the stigma of prohibition; that's what
they really want.
* spread the stigma to others: who's next; alcohol, beef, pork, private property,
logging, fur, cholesterol, motorcycles, and others.
* answer the question: Enough is enough?
3. Virtually every aspect of the tobacco debate can be traced back to one, overriding
issue: prohibition. But the prohibition movement extends much further, touching the basic
fabric of our founding principles: personal freedom and choice, without excessive
government interference. This provides a positioning which can be both narrowly focused
on tobacco but also expanded to other behaviors, products, and lifestyles.
We can point out through example and illustration that the ultimate goal of the activists
(on a number of fronts) is prohibition, and ask, "Why don't they just call it for what it
really is: prohibition, and stop hiding behind taxes, restrictions, etc.?"
A bridging theme provides a clear focus and takes a number of brush fires and put them
into a single, easily understood message: prohibition. Today our responses and reactions
are easily anticipated, are too diffuse and do not carry a central point. This activist
separation strategy keeps the industry off balance and the general public confused, at best.
Each core issue can be linked to the central theme: prohibition, because all can be
portrayed as another piece in the activist puzzle to make decisions for the general public,
to exercise control over their right to make an informed choice, and to inflict a singular
mind set across society.
* FDA regulation: prohibition through government control
* taxation: prohibition through higher taxes, making the product too expensive
* advertising bans: prohibition by limiting speech, information
* smoking restrictions: prohibition by control when, where and how
* grant programs: prohibition by "PC" driven research, science
* development: prohibition by freezing product research in place
Page 4: oia13a00
*campaign manager: Tom Synehorst
* campaign strategist: Susan Bryant, Vince Breglio
* campaign consultant: Jody Powell
* campaign pollster: R1S/M, Roper (public)
* campaign speechwriter: Jay Bryant
* campaign advertising: John Doig, Tim Elliott
* opposition research:TBD
* direct mail: John Brady
* coalitions: TBD
* ETS consultant: TBD
* Media relations: Rogers & Cowan
* Speakers bureau: TBD
These are the fundemental tools for a campaign: good information, good people, a
well defined strategy and flawless execution.
5. The FDA announcement provides the opening to define, in our terms, the prohibition
issue, calling for a fundamental public policy debate on government actions relating to
tobacco products and expanding it to other products, lifestyle choices and activities which
some vocal activist minority wants to restrict or eliminate.
There needs to be an historical launching point to reinforce with the American
public the fear and failure of prohibition. This underpinning will substantiate the 80%+
rejection of the notion of prohibition. This positioning also provides the legal
(constitutional) foundation and stretches the issue into what results: crime, black markets,
illegal products, tax evasion, American citizen against American citizen based on product
use and control of information and thought.
Each leg of the argument is developed under the umbrella but also as a free
standing issue with its own constituency and allies. This requires all message connection
back to the main theme but also structured in a way to motivate the target audience.
Research will provide a better road map for development of the individual legs of the
campaign. The first priority, however, is to establish the prohibition foundation before
branching into the collateral areas.
Once the campaign is launched (possibly Memorial Day) the separate, independent
but coordinated efforts begin. Doing a lot of things in different venues allows projection
and expansion of message (not just tobacco); amplifies and reinforces the message; allows
the deployment of soft and hard messages and messengers. This occurs through
advertising and at the same time documentaries/ infomercials; through targeted media and
general tone-setting interviews; through town hall meetings, public rallies and letters and
phone calls; an array of activities which modulate both message and delivery of the
message; with high profile and everyday spokespeople. There are those who deliver a hard
punch and others who provide a reasoned alternative to the portrayed out-of-touch,
puritan activist position.
A key element throughout the plan is to stay one step ahead; plan and anticipate;
control the agenda, the message; be quick, punch and counter-punch; be unpredictable;
create a hard position, drive opponents to the other corner and fill the middle (fill up the
