Tobacco Documents Online

This 1973 letter from the Brown & Williamson tobacco company relates B&W's discovery that Philip Morris was using tobacco in its cigarettes that was "adnormally high in nicotine content." The letter is written to B&W's parent corporation, British-American Tobacco Company.

A 1974 B&W chemical examination report that further details this study (Start Bates No. 570305198) reports that "most reconstituted tobaccos gain significantly in nicotine content during cigarette manufacture. This nicotine transfer is massive for the major reconstituted tobacco in Philip Morris cigarette products."

http://www.tobaccotranscripts.org/tdo/work.php?citation_source=snapBW&citation_docid=952158&image_source=snapBW&image_docid=952158&zipfile=d%3A%2Fxml%2FsnapBW%2F1_50000.zip&citation_source=snapBW&citation_docid=952158&filename=952158.xml&title=B%26ampW+Report+No.+74-4.+A+Chemical+Examination+of+B%26ampW+and+Competitive+Reconstituted+Tobaccos.

This brief Tobacco Institute memo reveals the tobacco industry's strategy to threaten and frighten City Council members into doing its bidding.

In 1991 the Long Beach, California City Council passed an ordinance that aimed to completely eliminate indoor smoking in public places after 1994. The Tobacco Institute threatened the Council with a legal challenge to the ordinance AND initiated a referendum drive to repeal the law. These twin actions threatened the City Council with unnecessary potential expenditures and put them in a bad position.

The memo lays out the strategy:

"The Council clearly did not want to expend the necessary funds for a legal challenge, nor did they want to pay for the election that would have been called had they left the original ordinance standing. As a consequence, we were able to draft a compromise much more to our liking."

Although this document is ten years old, the strategy is still in use now. The difference is that today "surrogates" (who don't appear to be linked to the industry) are the ones making these same threats. In the city of Montrose, Colorado (pop. 11,000) voters approved a ballot initiative on April 4, 2001 that eliminates smoking in indoor public areas. Almost immediately, small band of Libertarians threatened to sue the City of Montrose AND initiate a recall of the law through a referendum drive, the very same strategy the Tobacco Institute effectively used to get the changes it wanted in the Long Beach law in 1991.

This letter sent to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation's marketing department exposes in detail the behind-the-scenes activities cigarette companies go through to get cigarettes placed into major movies.

It is quite revealing. Little do today's moviegoers realize the extent to which they are being be advertised to when viewing major movies. Little do they realize either that (much to the corporations' glee) they are actually paying for the "privilege" of absorbing this unique subliminal advertising.

The writer of this document explains to B & W:

"Cigarettes as Props

1. Recently there have been a number of high-visibility feature films in which one or more of the central characters smoke a particular brand of cigarettes. This has been happening because cigarette manufacturers have been paying for the exposure. Following are some notable examples:

Movie Actor/Character Brand

"Continental Divide" John Belushi Marlboro "Superman II" Margot Kidder Marlboro "Pennies from Heaven" Steve Martin Camel "Prince of the City" Treat Williams & Merit or key supporting players Marlboro "Absence of Malice" Sally Fields Carleton

Participation in movies is not limited merely to actors smoking a particular brand. For example, 'Superman II' also included a classic fight scene in which Superman and the bad guys throw a Marlboro truck back and forth at each other on Lexington Avenue. This truck was produced solely for the movie and exists nowhere else. There are other instances of cigarette advertising serving as part of the scenery (c.f. 'Neighbors', 'Pennies from Heaven')."

Under the section entitled "RATIONALE," the writer explains that:

"By appearing in movies, RALEIGH will be receiving an implied third party endorsement. In the movie context this endorsement is considered very impactful since unlike the passive exposure of advertising and PR, the movie exposure requires a pro-active role for the viewer (i.e, the viewer must _go_ to the theatre and _pay_ to watch the films)."

He also explains how the placement of cigarettes in the movies favorably impacts the audience towards the brand"

"...Although the placement _may_ not be consistent with RALEIGH's image, the placements will almost certainly be consistent ith some psycho framework into which the viewer wants to project. The Brand can become identified with something or someone that is desireable to a specific viewer set."

According to this document, the practice of paying to place products in movies is practically ubiquitous. The writer lists some other products whose manufacturers and/or service providers have placed them in movies: "Coppertone, Budweiser, Coors, Apple Computers, Kawasaki, United Airlines and American Airlines are a few other sponsors who have recently bought into films."

This 1978 internal Brown & Williamson memo shows that the company knew cigarette consumers were ignorant about the addictiveness and poisonous natures of nicotine:

"Very few consumers are aware of the effects of nicotine i.e., its addictive nature and that nicotine is a poison..."

Yet without the tobacco industry ever publicly offering the above information to consumers, it often now defends itself by claiming "everyone has long known the effects" of their products.

A manual for NMA's on the dos and don'ts of global ETS strategies, e.g., don't directly sponsor scientific symposia, do use scientific consultants at hearings, etc.

In the 1970s, the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Comany (B&W) developed a brand of "low gas" cigarettes called FACT. The ensuing ad campaign for FACT that actually drew smokers' attention to some of the dangerous gases (aldehydes, acetaldehyde, priopionaldehyde, acrolein) that are present in cigarette smoke. FACT was aimed at the health-conscious smoker, much like Lorillard Tobacco Company's Kent cigarettes with the Micronite filter of the 1950s.

This 1978 B&W memo, however, indicates that B&W's management eventually saw tremendous danger in this type of marketing, saying

"B&W should not pursue a new product positioned as a low gas-low 'tar'...

...We do not support definition in advertising of the problem of gas in order to specifically communicate its consumer benefit and distinguish it from low 'tar.' To supply such a definition would require overt references to the alleged ciliatoxic and cardiovascular ill effects of smoking. The possible ramifications of this in the Legal, Regulatory and Policy area are appalling....A likely result of such activity on our part would be escalation of quitting rates among smokers...

In this 1987 memo, a Brown & Williamson (BW) employee laments that KOOL cigarettes are "no longer attracting new smokers." He explains how to design a cigarette that would be more successful in attracting "starters" to "correct this problem." The author then ties the "problem" to the fact that the menthol level in KOOL cigarettes had been increased in 1985, which inadvertently made the product unappealing to starters:

"Basically, [the problem] is that KOOL's menthol level is too high for starters...Franchise [established] smokers prefer a product providing a greater menthol taste than do starters..."

The writer suggests solutions:

"...[A] more logical approach is to: 1) promote KOOL MILDS as the starter brand, ...2) Line-extend the KOOL family with a product having...lower menthol...specifically to attract new smokers..."

On Page 3, the writer explains how to make the product appealing to new smokers:

"Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy."

This document shows B&W's intent to design a cigarette specifically to appeal to "starters," despite the tobacco industry's insistence that its intent is not to recruit new smokers, but simply to get established smokers to switch brands.

This 1977 memo from a Brown & Williamson product manager Vance Carter Broach describes B&W's "Social Smoking Project," which was a project to give smokers the "physical and psychological defenses" to keep on smoking in the face of the negative health information broadcast by the government and public health groups.

Broach states the background for the project:

"The 1976 Kalhok/Short report, 'The Effects of Restrictions on Current Marketing and Marketing in the Future' notes 'compounding negative pressures' may deter smokers from the 'pleasurable pursuit of the smoking habit.' They consider it the industry's job to either 'deflect' these pressures or to provide the smoker with more adequate defenses.

'Physical defenses' included designing cigarettes that generate no ash or sidestream (secondhand) smoke.

'Psychological defenses' would include product positionings that provide smokers with:

--A more positive self-image --More positive perceptions of the smoking habit --A statement of describable benefits derived from smoking: a reason why --A militant 'smoker's rights' philosophy"

The objective of B&W's "Social Smoking Project" was to

"...provide smokers with strong reasons to continue smoking."

This document shows that the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company actively worked to combat the decline in smoking rates that were occurring from dissemination of public health information about smoking in the 1970s.

In this letter from William Kloepfer (Senior Vice President of the Tobacco Institute) to Ernest Pepples (VP and General Counsel for Brown & Williamson), Kloepfer claims that, contrary to claims that smokers cost the country in lost productivity, absenteeism and increased medical care, actuarial data on smoking will actually show that smokers' deaths actually "saves us [the U.S.] substantial sums in care and support for the elderly and retired population."

Kloepfer continues, "Certainly this approach opens the way to charges of cynicism. But cold mathematics can, I think, reduce our vulnerability to that..."

In this letter to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, ad agency executive Steven Schwartz of Gray Advertising in New York proposes that the 1979 Surgeon General's report (which concluded that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer 90 times in some industrial workers, retards fetal growth in pregnant women and causes developmental deficiencies in children born to smoking women) presents new product "positioning opportunities" for the cigarette maker.

This 412-page document lists feature films in which American Tobacco cigarettes were injected (or were attempted to be injected) into the plot, or in which they were placed as "set dressing." Examples: "Pall Mall, Carlton and Lucky Strike cigarettes will be used as set dressing in a Mini Mart in Comstock," "We provided LUCKY STRIKE cigarettes for Kathleen. The cigarettes have been established as her brand, and she will be smoking them throughout the film. The exposure for THE AMERICAN TOBACCO CO. should be great."

The document lists many significant family films in which cigarettes were placed or attempted to be placed: "Big Top Pee Wee" (starring Pee Wee Herman), "Ghostbusters II" (starring Dan Aykroid and Bill Murray), "Christmas Vacation" (with Chevy Chase), "Look Who's Talking Too" (with Kirstie Alley, John Travolta), "Ghost" (starring Demi Moore, Patrick Swayze), "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, "Big" starring Tom Hanks, and many more. A memo discussing the film "Clean and Sober" (about a man who checks himself into a detox center) says "Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Carlton were given for use by Charlie and many other patients in the detox center."

The placement company proposed that, in a film about a high school student, the main characters' father and favorite hero both smoke American Tobacco cigarettes throughout the film ["Personal Choice," 1988, listed on page 180]. For another film about a 13 year old girl ("Far From Home" starring Drew Barrymore), it was proposed that her father smoke Carlton cigarettes [Page 183].

The document points out that in some cases cigarettes were provided for "good guy" roles (e.g., Page 313).

According to this list, cigarettes were purposely made to appear in hundreds of films: cigarettes are seen in the foreground and background, on billboards, in stores, inside a freezer, on a truck, in bars, around the Thanksgiving table, on signs and countertops. They are purposely used throughout many films by main characters: fathers, mothers, heroes, by supporting actors and extras, in response to stress and as props to make a character appear "cool."

This document gives us an idea how pervasive and purposeful cigarette placement has been in the movies.

1989 document marketing document that divides the female target market for cigarettes into a "blue blouse" and "white blouse" segments.

This 1987 Brown & Williamson document recommends a theme for an advertising campaign to sell a new brand of cigarettes to young adult, blue-collar males who are stuck in boring, repetitive union jobs. A pejorative description of the blue collar life pervades the piece, and forms a theme that is repeated throughout. The proposal reads:

"Roger Rhu...is depicted as the outdoors man. The fresh-water fisherman of mid-America and the prototypical blue-collar, larder-enhancing sport hunter. Primary images show him on location in the early morning, backgrounded by chums. Accompanied by hounds, sometimes in, on or hear his old 'pick up,' in the mist or midst of primeval America, readying for, or resting after, pursuit of his quarry."

When not in the field, "Roger Rhu" would tie flies, clean his weapons, pan-fry steelheads (fish) and "show the taxidermists a thing or two."

Overall, the proposed ad campaign has a strongly anti-social undercurrent and portrays American men as war-hungry, fawning over weapons, having Neanderthal tendencies and a need to escape from women in order to cope with them.

B&W says hunter "Roger" would take joy in the "paramilitary planning and execution of a womanless trek back into a somehow prehistoric, simple, meat-gathering past...He lights up a cigarette at those special times when contentment seems especially profound. A good drag talks louder about how he feels and what he enjoys than anything his family or friends can drag out of him."

The rationale for the ad campaign is as follows:

"...IN A WORLD WHERE MAN'S NATURAL BELLIGERENCE AND RISK SEEKING ARE SCORNED AND EVEN RIDICULED BY THE EMERGENT COMMON-SENSE, SENTIMENTAL VALUE SYSTEMS OF A PEACETIME FEMINIST SENSIBILITY, HUNTING AND FISHING REMAIN THE FEW MASCULINE PASTIMES ACCEPTABLE AS ALTERNATIVES TO WAR..."

Describing the target audience, B&W states,

"The primary appeal is directed to the blue-collar, time-clocked, dues-paying union member, working at a boring, repetitive, good-paying job. He's married, about to be, or looking to be. He goes fishing or hunting when he can. When she doesn't give him too much grief. Sometimes because she does."

This document shows us that the corporate advertising mentality can be aimed at reinforcing negative stereotypes while simultaneously pushing harmful products.

Analyzes proposal for a campaign targeting truckers..."A strong image with definite sexual overtones: masculine, massive, sleek, long, powerful and dominating...Most drivers have had the experience of being tailgated or passed by a large truck on the open road. The noise, speed, and size of the vehicle can be intimidating; the truck usually gets it way....It is an achievable image...An assumption can be made that more young men 16-25 years old aspire to be truck drivers than explorers or cowboys."

his Brown & Williamson document from 1987 discusses creating a new menthol product that will attract beginning smokers, or "starters." It shows that tobacco companies add a low level of menthol flavor to cigarettes to cover up some of the tobacco taste and make smoke less harsh, making cigarettes more palatable to beginning smokers. The author, D.V. Cantrell of B&W's Research, Development and Engineering Department writes,

"First, let's consider which smoking attributes are important to a beginning smoker. Based on my own initial smoking experiences and comments from other smokers about their early smoking experiences, the attributes are: 2. low tobacco taste (this is an acquired taste with use), low impact and irritation (a strong smoke is intolerable), low tobacco aftertaste (heavy, dirty taste is intolerable), and 4. if it's a menthol product, it should have a low amount. ... Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-a-vis candy. The level of menthol is the product is, however, critical. A product having a moderate to high menthol taste will usually be rejected by starters, while the same level will be quite acceptable to established menthol smokers."