Here's A Summary of the Ideas We Discussed Yesterday at the First Legal/Legislative/Science Brainstorming Session.

Anne Landman's Collection

Here's A Summary of the Ideas We Discussed Yesterday at the First Legal/Legislative/Science Brainstorming Session.

Date: 15 Jan 1997
Length: 4 pages
517156201-517156204
Jump To Images

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/517156201-6204.html
Derived from: /rjr/517156201-6204.html

spider_rjr 517156201_6204

Abstract

This twisted 1997 memo by Seth Moskowitz of R.J. Reynolds' (RJR) Public Relations department recounts a brainstorming session held to address problems facing the industry at the time, particularly a lack of credibility and an onslaught of lawsuits being filed against the industry by state Attorneys General seeking to recoup the costs of treating sick smokers.

The memo starts out by discussing the need to "humanize" the tobacco industry by putting kind and helpful face on the company (RJR). Moskowitz complains that the public perceives the industry to be "a group of two-faced, conscience-less killers who trade lives for dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth," he says, "but the public doesn't know this."

The discussion quickly turns to ideas for turning public opinion against the AG's lawsuits. One plan was to instigate a wave of frivolous, ridiculous lawsuits against a number of other industries. For example, Moskowitz proposes using a study to "indicate that drinking citrus juice carries an increased risk of lung cancer." He muses,

"What if we worked with the state AGs or legislators in some tobacco states (NC, VA), and with a business or citizens group in Florida to sue the citrus producers in Florida and California for reimbursement of state medical expenses paid to treat illnesses 'caused' by the consumption of citrus products? Under current Florida law, this could be done entirely using a statistical model. All we need to do is plug in a few statistics and suddenly we can calculate the dollar amount Florida has paid out in medical expenses to treat orange juice-related cancers. Could also mount a highly emotional PR campaign against citrus growers for harming children (stunting their growth). We could choose other states and industries and do the same thing (Minnesota and dairy products? California and wine consumption? Beef and any number of states.) A series of Medicaid reimbursement-type suits simultaneously launched against a number of industries in a number of states would get major coverage and drive home how ridiculous the recent AG attacks on the tobacco industry are."

Immediately following this self-serving idea to cause havoc in other industries, the memo flips back to seeking ways to "humanize" the industry. One idea was to use an ad campaign to highlight the good works RJR employees do in their private lives, like helping school children and carrying the torch for the Olympics.

Fields

Notes

A memo that is an addendum to this one (written the following day) relates another "kinky" idea: "...Let's get our scientists to do two studies: one, of a coffee pot and cups of coffee in an environmental chamber; the other, of coffee pots and cups of coffee in a variety (maybe half a dozen) real-life work settings (including a coffee shop like Starbucks) to document the carcinogens released from coffee into the air...If we can show that coffee releases even one molecule of any airborne carcinogen, we can directly compare coffee to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke], and make the case that coffee needs to be regulated under the same guidelines as ETS..."

Title: ADDENDUM TO BRAINSTORMING SUMMARY. Authors: MOSKOWITZ SW Document Date: 19970116 Document Type: LETTER Bates Number: 517156205/6206 Topic: SMOKING BY-PRODUCTS Page Count: 2 Collection: R. J. Reynolds View as: TIF | PDF | Page-by-Page URL: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yhg30d00

Quotes

To: Peggy,Cynthia,Melinda -- CC: David,Tom

Here's a summary of the ideas we discussed yesterday at the first legal/legislative/science brainstorming session. If I've missed (or mischaracterized) anything, please let me know:

By way of philosophical underpinnings:

First--There seemed to be consensus that perhaps the most important challenge we have, regardless of the specific Issue we are tackling (ETS,youth non-smoking, nicotine/addiction, restrictions, litigation), is to humanize (put a face on)our company and the tobacco industry.

For probably half a century or more, the industry has been perceived by the public as a monolithic, impersonal entity ("Big Tobacco"). Although that characterization arose from the political influence the industry once commanded at a national level, for many years the industry's power and influence has been steadily eroding, and the characterization of today's domestic tobacco industry as Big Tobacco is inaccurate and misleading. The industry is still large from a customer and revenue standpoint. But from the perspective of power and influence, the tobacco industry certainly doesn't have any more (and,in fact,often seems to have less) than most other industries its size.

Nonetheless, anti-smoking activists--and the anti-smoking industry, in general--have a vested interested in maintaining the myth of Big Tobacco because that publicly portrays the industry as formidable foe, which bolsters the missions (and coffers) of the anti-smoking agencies and organizations who oppose us. Further, portraying the industry as a wicked, sinister, nefarious, secretive non-personal entity helps to sway public support for the forces that act against us. The anti-smokers have been very effective in fostering a widespread public perception of the industry as a group of two-headed, two-faced, conscience-less killers who trade lives for dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the public doesn't know this. Consequently, any efforts we can make to put a face on the industry and present a realistic portrayal of the men and women who work for--and make their living from--tobacco will help establish an environment more conducive to our effectively communicating our positions and perspective to the public.

...Some programs/activities ideas:

1. Develop ways to combat the image of "Big Tobacco" by juxtaposing "Big Tobacco"and "Big Government." The political party that is for "Big Government" is against "Big Tobacco." Yet big government squanders hundreds of millions of dollars each year fighting the tobacco industry when other very important issues are not receiving adequate funding...

2. Make the public aware of how dangerous AG-type suits can be to other industries by instigating efforts against some other industries. For example:

--A published study (Alvanja) that manipulated data... indicate[s] that drinking citrus juice carries an increased risk of lung cancer. Yesterday, an article indicated that children who drink more than 12 oz. of OJ a day can stunt their growth.

We could choose other states and industries and do the same thing (Minnesota and dairy products? California and wine consumption? Beef and any number of states. A series of medicaid reimbursement-type suits simultaneously launched against a number of industries in a number of states would get major coverage and would drive home how ridiculous the recent AG attacks on the tobacco industry are. 3. To humanize the industry, launch a series of "Do-ers Profiles," ads that mimic the Dewars' Profiles format and look,but introduce the public (nationally) to people who work for Reynolds Tobacco and the good work they do, in their professional and private capacities. For instance,Carolyn Brinkley and her youth-nonsmoking efforts; Vivian Turner and her efforts to help school children; Robert Egleston carrying the torch for the Olympics... If Dewars sues us for adopting their format, we may or may not have to pull the ads, but in the meantime, we'd get a good deal of media attention for the concept and the people featured...

Company

R.J. Reynolds

Author

Moskowitz, Seth W. (RJRT Public Relations Program)

Recipient

Carter, Peggy Cook (RJR Media Relations Manager)

Cruz, Cynthia (RJR Public Relations Manager '90; Corp. Affairs 1993)

Melinda

Griscom, Thomas C. (RJR External Relations, Exec. VP c. 1991-95)

Thomas C. Griscom served as Executive Vice President of External Relations 1991-1995. Thomas Griscom is an Executive at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and is knowledgeable regarding creating and marketing a safer cigarette. Thomas C. Griscom served as Executive Vice President of External Relations 1991-1995.

Fishel, David B. (VP RJR Public Relations)

Also on TI Communications Committee

Region

United States

Named Organization

Manhattan Institute (Judicial studies think tank; RJR is corp. sponsor)

1990 RJR was corporate sponsor in 1990. Judicial studies think tank

Type

LETTER

Named Person

Congress

Clinton

Fontham

Alvanja

Brinkley, D.

Turner, V.

RJR

Egleston, R.

Iauco, David Nicholas (Senior VP of Marketing at RJR from 1989-2003)

David N. Iauco was Senior Vice President of Marketing for RJR Tobacco Development Co. 1988-1989, Senior Vice President of Marketing in 1992, 1994, and Senior Vice President of Worldwide Business Development in 1995. (Source: R. J. Reynolds Summary - RJR Liability Notebook). Senior vice president for marketing, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. in 1994 (NYT 5/13/94. Iauco says that RJR had actually reached the market with a cigarette that carried less health risks than Premier; but the company was constrained in the claims it could make about the product (NYT 5/13/96). He was used as an expert in the Mississippi case.

Caldwell, L.

Caldwell, A.

ACS, American Cancer Society

Moyers, W.

Lehrer, J.

Brinkley, D.

Glantz, Stanton Arnold, Ph.D. (UCSF Professor of Medicine, Author of "The Cigarette Papers")

Stanton A. Glantz worked for the Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California--San Francisco (1994)

Banzhaf, John F., III (Exec. Dir. Action of Smoking & Health (ASH))

Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).Professor of Law at Georgetown. Banzhaf succeeded in using the Fairness Doctrine to get cigarette commercials off television in 1968. See Banzhaf FCC, 405 F, 2d 1082 (D.C. Cir. 1968) (affirming FCC ruling that radio and television stations must devote a significant amount of broadcast time to case against smoking). His telephone number is (202) 659-4310. The big focus in past years has been to force OSHA to enforce smoking bans, per Matt Bars. ASH publishes Smoking and Health Review bulletins. "A leading anti-smoking activist" (Chic. Sun-Times 6/23/93). Action on Smoking and Health is located at 2013 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006. (Castano Expert List) See Action on Smoking a Health, TTLA Almanac - Names.

Daynard, Richard A., J.D., Ph. D. (Law Professor)

Expert on the legal aspects of tobacco litigation.

Coggins Cre

*Simmons, William S. "Sam" (use Simmons, William Samuel, Ph.D.) (R.J. Reynolds Research and Development Scientist)

Worked in RJR's "Smoking and Health Department"

Donahue, D.W.

Robinson, J.H.

Griscom, Thomas C. (RJR External Relations, Exec. VP c. 1991-95)

Parrish

Ellis [Payne], Maura (Spokesperson for RJR in 1994.)

Maura Ellis used to be known as Maura Payne.

Carter, P.C.

Milloy, Steven J. (Paid advocate for PM, ExxonMobile and other corps.)

Steven J. Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

Fumento, Michael (Journalist busted for accepting $$ from Monsanto)

Journalist exposed for secretly accepting $60,000 from agribusiness giant Monsanto in 1999 to write a book favorable about biotech while simultaneously working as a writer for BusinessWeek magazine, w/o disclosing the arrangement to his editor. He was dismissed from his job at BusinessWeek.

Harvard Univ

Wagner, B.

Whelan, Elizabeth M., Sc.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., (President, American Council on Science & Health, Anti-Tobacc)

Author of book, "A Smoking Gun: How the Tobacco Gets Away With Murder" (George F. Stickley Co. 1984). President of the American Council on Science and Health in 1984. IN 1997 she was located at the American Council of Science and Health, 1995 Broadway, Second Floor, New York, NY 10023.

Center For Science

Sheryl

Subject

Corporate image

Corporate strategy

public relations

Document Images

Page 1: ntl01d00

6. In an attempt to debate specific issues while simultaneously humanizing the industry, get Bill Moyers, Jim Lehrer, David Brinkley or some other prominent journalist/commentator to stage a series of televised national forums called "Tobacco on Trial." Individual segments would focus on addiction, ETS, youth smoking, litigation/personal liability/responsibility. Have maybe 10 "experts" at each roundtable discussion with a live studio audience. Feature some of the most prominent antis (Glantz, Banzhaf, Daynard, et al and some of the industry's best people (Coggins, Simmons, Donahue, Robinson, Griscom, Parrish, Ellis, Carter, etc.), as well as outside experts not associated with the industry or with any anti orgs. Would make fascinating television. Would generate widespread news coverage. Would put a face on some of the industry people. Would maybe sway some opinion leaders and other members of the public to reconsider their views. 7. Devise ways to educate the public about epidemiology and put risk in perspective. For example, work with Stephen Malloy, Michael Fumento, CEI, the Manhattan Institute and others to put together a 1/2-hour or 1-hour TV show explaining epi and risk. Create an epi/risk website to educate the general public, maybe working with the Harvard School of Public Health. Do the same for journalists. 8. Work with Bernie Wagner, others, to establish a Washington or New York think tank called "Truth in Science" to play the same type of role currently played by Elizabeth Whelan and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 9. Develop and place op-ed pieces explaining our perspective on issues in national publications (Time, Newsweek, major dailies) -- Robinson on addiction; Carter on leaked documents; etc. That's all I've got in my notes. As I said earlier, if I've missed or mischaracterized anything, please let me know. Sheryl is setting up the next meeting for early next week. See you then. Seth

Page 2: ntl01d00

What if we worked with the state AGs or legislators in some tobacco states (N.C., Va.) and with a business or citizens group in Florida to sue the citrus producers in Florida and California for reimbursement of state medical expenses paid to treat illnesses "caused" by the consumption of citrus products? Under current Florida law, this could be done entirely using a statistical model. All we need to do is plug in a few statistics and suddenly we can calculate the dollar amount Florida has paid out in medical expenses to treat orange juice-related cancers. Could also mount a highly emotional PR campaign against citrus growers for harming children (stunting their growth). . We could choose other states and industries and do the same thing (Minnesota and dairy products? California and wine consumption? Beef and any number of states. A series of medicaid reimbursement- type suits simultaneously launched against a number of industries in a number of states would get major coverage and would drive home how ridiculous the recent AG attacks on the tobacco industry are. 3. To humanize the industry, launch a series of "Do-ers Profiles," ads that mimic the Dewars' Profiles format and look, but introduce the public (nationally) to people who work for Reynolds Tobacco and the good work they do, in their professional and private capacities. For instance, Carolyn Brinkley and her youth-nonsmoking efforts; Vivian Turner and her efforts to help school children; Robert Egleston carrying the torch for the Olympics and for the industry; Dave lauco, father, tobacco marketer; Lisa and Alan Caldwell, parents, tobacco couple. If Dewars sues us for adopting their format, we may or may not have to pull the ads, but in the meantime, we'd get a good deal of media attention for the concept and the people featured. 4. Series of ads featuring the headline "Who makes more from tobacco?" juxtaposing photos and salaries of people in the anti-smoking industry with people who work for the company. E.g., the head of the American Cancer Society and an RJR brand manager. 5. Series of "Do?" ads or op-ed pieces questioning "common wisdom" and explaining the misquided basis for oft-quoted mythical statistics. For example, Do 3,000 kids take up smoking each year? Do 3,000 nonsmokers get lung cancer from other people's cigarettes each year? Do 450,000 people die each year from smoking? Do ads cause kids to smoke? Are smokers "slaves" to their smokes? Is "Big Tobacco" really all that big?

Page 3: ntl01d00

It's no secret tMat we have a decades-old credibility problem. Changing this -- and changing the image of the industry -- must be a top priority if we are to make any headway in confronting the challenges of the more difficult issues we face. Second -- There seemed to be consensus that an Important ingredient in any activitieslprograms we develop is novelty or "shock value," similar to the shock value that garnered such widespread awareness of and publicity for the initial series of Beneton ads. Shock value is important for two reasons: 1. The public has become so enured to the prevalent portrayal of "sinister Big Tobacco" that any efforts we pursue will have to shock the public into at least being willing to take another, new, look at the validity of their prevailing assumptions and perspectives. 2. The media has become so jaded toward the industry that communications without at least a modicum of novelty or shock value will be largely ignored or overlooked as "un-newsworthy" or "more of the same stuff we've come to expect from the tobacco industry over the years." Some programs/activities ideas: 1. Develop ways to combat the image of "Big Tobacco" by juxtaposing "Big Tobacco" and "Big Government." The political party that is for "Big Government" is against "Big Tobacco." Yet big government squanders hundreds of millions of dollars each year fighting the tobacco industry when other very important issues are not receiving adequate funding. Ways to do this? Get someone in Congress to order and publicize a GAO accounting of the amount of money and the number of agencies in the federal government devoted to anti-tobacco efforts. Do the same for other federal efforts -- like the effort to combat illegal drugs and juxtapose the two studies against a backdrop of a 100% increase in illegal drug use among teenagers during the first four years of the Clinton administration. 2. Make the public aware of how dangerous AG-type suits can be to other industries by instigating efforts against some other industries. For example: . A published study (Alvanja) that manipulated data gathered for the Fontham ETS study indicate that drinking citrus juice carries an increased risk of lung cancer. Yesterday, an article indicated that children who drink more than 12oz of OJ a day can stunt their growth.

Page 4: ntl01d00

1/15/97 To: Peggy, Cynthia, Melinda -- CC: David, Tom Here's a summary of the ideas we discussed yesterday at the first legal/legislative/science brainstorming session. If I've missed (or mischaracterized) anything, please let me know: By way of philosophical underpinnings: First -- There seemed to be consensus that perhaps the most important challenge we have, regardless of the specific Issue we are tackling (ETS, youth non-smoking, nicotine/addiction, restrictions, litigation), is to humanize (put a face on) our company and the tobacco industry. For probably half a century or more, the industry has been perceived by the public as a monolithic, impersonal entity ("Big Tobacco"). Although that characterization arose from the political influence the industry once commanded at a national level, for many years the industry's power and influence has been steadily eroding, and the characterization of today's domestic tobacco industry as Big Tobacco is inaccurate and misleading. The industry is still large from a customer and revenue standpoint. But from the perspective of power and influence, the tobacco industry certainly doesn't have any more (and, in fact, often seems to have less) than most other industries its size. Nonetheless, anti-smoking activists -- and the anti-smoking industry, in general -- have a vested interested in maintaining the myth of Big Tobacco because that publicly portrays the industry as formidable foe, which bolsters the missions (and coffers) of the anti-smoking agencies and organizations who oppose us. Further, portraying the industry as a wicked, sinister, nefarious, secretive non-personal entity helps to sway public support for the forces that act against us. The anti-smokers have been very effective in fostering a widespread public perception of the industry as a group of two-headed, two-faced, conscience-less killers who trade lives for dollars. Nothing could be further from the truth, but the public doesn't know this. Consequently, any efforts we can make to put a face on the industry and present a realistic portrayal of the men and women who work for -- and make their living from -- tobacco will help establish an environment more conducive to our effectively communicating our positions and perspective to the public.

Tobacco Documents Online

Anne Landman's Collection