Tobacco Documents Online

This expansive, 295-page confidential report was prepared for the Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company in 1976. Its purpose was to examine present and past trends and predict what would be likely to affect the future of the cigarette market through the year 1990. It is a vast, comprehensive report (and surprisingly prescient). Its market analyses predict future cigarette sales based on such measures as per capita income and educational levels, fertility rates, life expectancy, likelihood of regulatory legislation, changes in attitudes towards smoking and tobacco issues, world population growth, key trends like changing social values, and more.

The study predicted that social acceptability of smoking would decrease, and noted that even smokers "strongly favored restrictions" in where they could smoke.

"Thus the smoker will find himself increasingly restricted as his habit beceoms less socially acceptable. The study questioned both smokers and non-smokers and this favoring of restrictions was exhibited strongly by smokers as well as nonsmokers."(page 53).

The report also found that teenage girls were exhibiting a marked increase in smoking rates and individual consumption. While mentioning that teenage girls are not a "legitimate market," the paper mentions that this trend "will provide a substantial mrket in the future."

"The implication of these trends is that although this particular age groups is not a legitimate marketing target per se, it will provide a substantial market in the future if trends continue."

Of particular interest was the discussion about drug use and changing social values that permit wider use of drugs, particularly marijuana. Some people have stated that the tobacco industry has trademarked the street names of various types of marijuana for use if and when marijuana ever becomes legalized. The report confirms this, and even goes so far as to predict the value of a legalized marijuana market:

"[Marijuana] is the recreational drug; the choice of a significant minority of the population.

The trend in liberalization of drug laws reflect the overall change in our value system. It also has important implications for teh tobacco industry in terms of an alternative product line. "(The tobacco companies) have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package it [and] the distribution to market it" (Reference 20). In fact, some firms have registered trademarks which are taken directly from marijuana street jargon. These tradenames are used currently on little known legal products, but could be switched if and when marijuana is legalized. Estimates indicate that the market in legalized marijuana might be as high as $10 billion annually..."

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 report from Brown & Williamson (B&W) describes the mechanism through which movie stars were recruited to use specific cigarette brands in their films in exchange for money and gifts.

The report explains the benefits of movie placement, and how cigarette companies use stars and their images to subtly market cigarettes through film:

"Placement of signage/product in movies allows BWT to receive extensive exposure at minimal costs..." and,

"Product usage/association with a specific star provides exposure and linkage with a star's personality/character. Stars tend to set trends, e.g., disco dancing with 'Saturday Night Fever...Association with a specific star's image can enhance/build a brand's personality -- more so than traditional media."

Movie placement also allows tobacco companies to "reach smokers who are light readers."

One "con" listed to placement of cigarette brands in the movies is that it "could be construed as aiding and abetting tax evasion--primarily because AFP [the promotion company in charge of placing the product] has been making payments in cash and gifts, rather than by check." Another "con" is that the cigarette companies could be required to place a health warning in the film...an indication that the cigarette companies took advantage of a situation in which their products could be freely promoted to the public without a health warning.

The five-page report recommends that the company continue its program of product placement in movies, even though the company risks adverse publicity by doing so. In a section entitled "Rationale," the report minimizes the risk to itself, saying any adverse publicity would be shared by many companies, and not just them:

"Adverse publicity, if any, will be leveled against entire industry, or all packaged goods advertisers who use this medium...not just BWT. Thus, the potential for embarassment to BWT specifically, is limited."

This document's historical significance is that it shows how cigarettes were placed in movies without leaving a paper trail, e.g. by "making payments in cash and gifts, rather than by check," and shows clearly how fully utilizing a new route of promotion (and beating the compeition in doing it) became the prime focus of cigarette companies, to the detriment of public health.

This report on the effects of cigarette advertising on consumer behavior was commissioned by Imperial Tobacco and RJR-Macdonald of Canada. It was written by Joel B. Cohen, Ph.D. (Distinguished Service Professor of Marketing, Adjunct Professor of Anthropology and Director, Center for Consumer Research) of the University of Florida. In the report, Dr. Cohen disputes the industry's oft-repeated claim that its advertising is aimed only at getting existing adult smokers to switch brands. Cohen says,

"The need to replace smokers who either quit or are casualties of smoking has led many to question cigarette industry claims that their advertising is intended primarily to encourage brand switching...the U.S. evidence indicates that the tobacco industry spends about $9 per person per day for advertising and promotion, and only 10% of smokers switch brands in an average year...Accordingly, such expenditure--purely for brand switching--would seem to be difficult to justify economically...." [Pages 3-4] In Section 1.40 Cohen poses the question, "Couldn't the advertising only make the particular cigarette attractive for existing smokers?" Response: "The answer is essentially 'No,'" and explains why this is the case.

Cohen ridicules the industry's claim that cigarette advertising would only appeal to adults who already smoke, saying,

"Nonsmokers, and particularly adolescents, cannot be made immune to advertising effects...[the industry's argument] is as if a magic curtain could be put in place to shield children, teenagers and others from the impact of these appeals. No convincing theoretical argument or empirical evidence has yet been introduced by the cigarette industry to demonstrate that otherwise effective advertising is mysteriously ineffective for adolescents who have yet to become smokers. Until such evidence is provided, this proposition cannot be taken seriously." [Page 8]

Thus it appears that RJR-Macdonald and Imperial hired an advertising expert who concluded that the companies' most common arguments about the reach and effects of their advertising cannot not possibly be true.