Tobacco Documents Online

239 0 t In April 1977, Brown and Williamson's advertising agency, Post- Keyes-Gardner, Inc., presented Brown and Williamson with its marketing and strategy recommendations for the reintroduction of Fact cigarettes.52 The ad agency proposed two possible strategies to distinguish Fact from other cigarettes: 1) "More complete health protection through selective gas filtration," 2) "More taste and satisfaction in a low tar cigarette."53 About the proposed strategy focusing on better health protection as the result of fnhaltrg lower levels of gas, Bost-Reyes-Gardner, Inc. wrote: A secondary opportunity to distinguish Fact from the mass, of tar number claim is by capitalizing on the product's unique selective gaa filtration. This would demand • roduct 1ma e• advert~sing and would provide the brand w t  rea po nt of difference. It would mean expanding the cigarette health issue beyond tar to encompass gas. However, this would require establishing 'gas" as a meaning- ful health hazard in cigarettes because currently there is very low consumer awareness or comprehension of the gas problem. The Agency believes one of the major problems with the introductory advertising for Fact was that it failed to educate health concerned consumers about the dangers of gas. This failure to establish the gas problem meant that Fact's selective filtration promise was meaningless to the majority of the target audience. However, if smokers are effectively educated regarding this problem, the selective gas filtration promise may still be powerful, particularly among the very health conscious.54 52 Document 35524 - Brown & Williamson, "Marketing Advertising Strategy Recommendations for the Reintroduction of Fact Cigarettes," April 18, 1977. (The same document was also submitted by Post-Keyes & Gardner, Inc. - Document 714569). 53 Id. 54 Id., at 3. 2-22 I

240 Oorever, the agency also noted the weakness of this proposed strategy: This strategic option assumes yas will become a major health issue. To ensure it becomes an issue will require - an educational approach in introductory advertising. It Ss questionable whether any cigarette manufacturer should be publicizing a new health hazard for cigarette smokers. The desire to.avoid spelling out the gas hazard in adver- tising cogld severely weaken the effectiveness of this approach SS. Ultimately, Brown and Williamson documents indicate that it elected not to educate the public about the health hazards associated with the gases in cigarette smoke and not to focus the Fact ad campaign on the low gas issue. The reason for Brown and Williamson's decision is explained in a document entitled "Fact 1977 Repositioning and 197! Marketing Summary: Until the problem of gas becomes public knowledge through government investi ation or media covera e, a low gas benefi rill rema n of little strategic value. [emphasis .AA.A1;6 . . . The rationale is restated in a memorandum from the representative of the Brown and Williamson 'Brand Group" which had overall responsibility for Fact: 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 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 areas are appalling...a likely result of such 55 Id., at 6. 56 Document 35523 -'Fact 1977 Repositioning and 1978 Marketing Plan Summary." 2-23 241 March 24, V STATEMENT of the BAKERY, CONFECTIONERY & TOBACCO WORKERS INTf to the SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND HUMAN I Re: S. 1929, "The Comprehensive Smoking Prc Act of 1982" The Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco V Union represents over 160,000 workers in the Canada. Approximately 30,000 of our members U.S. tobacco industry. We present this testimony on behalf of those who are employed in that industry, as in the various aspects of the food productic speak on behalf of the many workers in the t are not organized and do not, therefore, ha~ to represent them at the hearings. We oppose S. 1929, The Comprehensive Sr Education Act, for two very important reasor First, it threatens our industry and ot needless loss of sales, earnings, and ultim~ Second, it threatens a host of other wc tries and the general public with the loss c hazardous environmental and occupational exI To put it plainly, this legislation is be. It is not merely a harmless labeling bi first step down the road to prohibition. Ir merely a tobacco and health bill, but rathei