Tobacco Documents Online

This talk (given by Samuel Chilcote of the Tobacco Institute in 1988) was a briefing for the chair of the Institute about the progress the Institute was making against the anti-tobacco movement at that time.

In the talk Chilcote expressly states that the "primary mission [of the Tobacco Institute] is to defeat legislation."

He describes how the Institute successfully "defeated or postponed 93 percent of all the bills we faced [betwewen 1979 and 1987]...and 95 percent of those of major concern."

Boasting about how little it cost the Institute to avoid such legisation, Chilcote states,

"...[T]he total cost of dealing with federal excises last year was less than what our members pay every three hours in federal excises....[T]he cost of dealing with advertising restrictions in 1987 was less than the industry spent in a few issues of "People Magazine."

Chilcote also states that the Institute gathers extensive intelligence about anti-tobacco organizations, including the sources of their funding, their internal organzation and internal disputes.

Perhaps most interesting (and significant) are the statistics Chilcote recites to show what the Institute wase up against on the public smoking issue. The statistics show astoundingly strong national support for public smoking restrictions, even at the workplace and even among their own customers, smokers:

"--In 1974, 50 percent of the public favored restaurant restrictions. It was up to 81 percent in 1980, and by 1984 the figure was at 90 percent.

--Workplace restrictions. 55 percent favored them in '74, 62 percent in 1980 and 75 percent in 1984.

--Among smokers, four years ago 64 percent favored workplace restrictions. 83 percent agreed to separate sections in restaurants. That's 83 percent among our own customers four years ago.

If you were to think about these numbers, and read the newspaper, you might fairly assume that there is no place left to smoke in the United States. But the fact is, our legislative track record is exceptionally good..."

In this 1989 Corporate Affairs speech, John Dollisson of Philip Morris (PM) warns that the Asian-Pacific anti-tobacco league has just been formed and discusses how this threatens PM's business in the region. Dollisson outlines the strategies and resources that PM will use to defeat the efforts of this group and successfully continue pushing its products into Asian-Pacific countries. Dollisson warns that

"Asia is now the priority target for the world anti-tobacco movement. We should remember that as U.S. cigarette exports to Asia account for close to 70% of our volume and 97% of our profits....The implications for our business...should this league be successful, are significant."

[Italicized emphasis added.]

Dollisson outlines strategies to help PM gain more influence in the region with governments and the public. He also reveals that several other tobacco companies joined with PM to fund an expansion of PM's successful "Whitecoat Project" into Asia. The purpose of the Whitecoat project was to recruit and train scientists who would help PM (and other tobacco companies) foster and preserve confusion on the health issues associated with secondhand smoke:

"PM, RJR and B&W agreed to fund a network of ETS scientists in Asia. Candidates have been identified in Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Philippines and Thailand. JTI's support is being sought to expand the program to Japan...At the end of a training session [by late June] we will have a core of 10 scientists who are fully trained on the issues, ready and prepared to make a contribution by way of writing articles, briefing government officials and so forth. Their first task will be a press conference in Hong Kong."

Dollisson also reveals the use sports sponsorships to build allies and gain influence in the Asian region, and boasts about how PM has already been successful at staving off public health measures in several Asian-Pacific countries:

"...To date the region has been successful at fighting off anti-tobacco proposals. It is essential that we defeat or substantially water down the [Council on Smoking and Health] Proposals in Hong Kong to ensure that it is not used as a precedent for the region."

This 89-page document found in the R.J. Reynolds collection is a comprehensive evaluation of the tobacco control movement (from the tobacco industry's point of view) from macroscopic to microscopic levels. It is dated March 1, 1989. The paper advances the theory that people who promote public health interests around tobacco have some sort of psychopathology:

[From Page 45]:

"There is considerable speculation concerning the pathological characteristics of the anti-smoker. Anti-smokers have been likened to fanatics, rigid authoritarian activists, and neurotically needful people seeking to express other concerns through anti-smoking activity. In order to test these notions, we pre-tested a number of instruments and selected appropriate measures of authoritarianism, neuroticism and extroversion, and hypochondriasis and psychosomaticism...."

The testing revealed that no significant differences were found among groups of people who opposed smoking, however.

The writers of the paper hoped to find ways to keep more people from moving into the "anti-smoker" category. Of their research, they state:

"We hope in this manner to understand the dynamics of anti-smoking and to gain insight into possible approaches that would stabilize the neutrality of the non anti-smoker."

The paper also sought to explore how people ranked tobacco as a perceived pollution threat in everyday life, and in doing so grouped some other quite potent health threats in with annoyances like "barking dogs":

From page 79:

"...Tobacco smoke and litter...are things these people seem to tolerate on a daily basis. The pair is eventually combined into a cluster with industrial ash, acid rain, toxic waste and barking dogs."

In discussing why the anti-smoking movement tends to drown out pro-smoking voices, the writer points out that "people rarely support 'pro' movements," and that "it is easier to complain than to support." The document further suggests a reason why smokers are difficult to organize and how to improve this situation:

[From page 80]:

"While smokers may identify with each other on a personal level, they do not on a group level. A major factor inhibiting the development of group cohesion among smokers is a sense of shame. One way of mitigating this sense of shame is to build on the positive functions of smoking."

In the summary, the paper cautions the industry on pushing people who are more tolerant of tobacco into the "anti" category:

"It is important not to strain the tolerance of this [more neutral] group. For example, cigarette butts are a source of aggravation. A consistent finding of our study is the association of cigarette butts and litter and the associated heaps of cigarette butts (e.g. dumped auto ashtrays) with a lack of concern for other people, selfishness, and an almost personal assault."

and...

"Other sources of potential strain include what is perceived to be the industry's appeal to young adults to encourage them to smoke. "

Finally, the document contains an appendix listing pro- and anti-smoking groups around the country, the year they each was formed, the name of the leaders and status of the groups as of the writing of the paper. The anti-smoking groups have acronyms like SHAME, GASP, ASH, BRASH, SOS, SMASH, SMOG and FANS, and the far shorter list of pro-smoking groups have acronyms like PUFF (People United to Fight Fanatics) and GROAN (Growing Resentment Over Anti-smoking Noises).

This Philip Morris (PM) document was written by two corporate image consultants who worked for Philip Morris in March of 2001. In the memo, the consultants discuss focus group sessions held to evaluate the damage done to Philip Morris' corporate image from several anti-tobacco television ads and adverse news segments. One TV news segment revealed that PM spends far more money to promote its charitable giving than it spends on the charitable giving itself. Another news segment highlighted the fallacies of "light" cigarettes. American Legacy Foundation anti-tobacco (and how they affected the tobacco company) were also discussed. The consultants considered the news about PM's disingenuous charitable giving to be particularly damaging:

"The ABC News 20/20 segments appear to be the most effective and damaging to the company. There are two principal reasons why this message is so persuasive:

1. The message is simple: PMC spends more to talk than they do to give. There is tremendous persuasive punch to "$150 million to talk about giving $115 million." Like the best political attack messages, this is easy to understand and strikes people as wrong.

2. The message undermines the credibility that PMC has built in the last two years..."

The consultants also believed that a 60 Minutes II segment about the fallacy of "light" cigarettes was also damaging to the company "...for one big reason: for most people this is new information...this alone makes it potentially explosive and damaging (from both a legal and image perspective)."

These news segments and anti-tobacco ads were broadcast in the midst of a PM internal corporate project known as "PM21." PM21 was PM's effort (starting in 1999) to appear to be a more responsible, responsive and caring company. Under PM21, PM initiated a string of "feel good" ads (still ongoing) which highlight PM's contributions to food banks, disaster relief, domestic violence shelters, youth smoking prevention, etc. The tag line, "working to make a difference" was borne of the PM21 program. The main goal of PM21 was to "dispel misperceptions" about the company, to show that PM was "more than a tobacco company" and to help PM "speak up, state our case and take our rightful place in the societal, political and economic mainstream" (PM 2071720648/0652, dated 1999).

On November 2, 1995 prominent anti-tobacco advocate Patrick Reynolds (grandson of the founder of the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company) presented this creative but completely misguided public relations proposal to the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) as a way to help the company build goodwill with the public. The proposal, which Patrick appropriately titled "Project PR," suggested that RJR use a set of cartoon characters, that Patrick had created, to teach kids not to smoke. The characters, "Buck Dromedarian and the Deep Space Camels" were half-human, half-camel space aliens who hailed from the planet Dromedarius in the galaxy Humpus. Patrick helpfully suggested that, if RJR desired, Buck could even interact with RJR's Joe Camel character in ads promoting the cartoons. Patrick suggested RJR license his characters for use on products that would appeal to children, like toys, music videos, trading cards, stuffed animals, T-shirts, video games, films, a TV series and live appearances. Patrick even proposed that RJR send him (Patrick) on a world tour featuring himself in live appearances at shopping malls and schools in the U.S., Europe and the Far East. Patrick also proposed that he himself be featured in the cartoon, interacting with his space camels.

On page 13 of his proposal, Patrick said,

"Tobacco executives will not be portrayed as bad guys; if RJR prefers, those characters could be omitted from the script. Patrick Reynolds would, given his preferences, like to put some blame in the stories on the world's politicians for failing to stop kids from buying cigarettes. In this way, blame could be deflected to where it really belongs..."

and

"...The more open the RJR team can be, the more popular Buck comics and TV series will of course be with teens--and the more RJR will be trusted and liked as the 'good' tobacco company..."

Patrick apparently presented the proposal in person to Guy Blynn, RJR's Vice President & Deputy General Counsel. Handwritten notes on the first page, presumably by Blynn, say "Seed money: $250,000," "Target age group? and "People in health community think a good idea?"

This is an example of how a well-meaning but unsophisticated tobacco control advocate, acting in isolation, can over-reach.

The entire text of the proposal makes for quite entertaining reading.