Tobacco Documents Online

WO'a 211 '..r..narP»i taw.r. ~. *qu,ay A . Waf.'. 0w+0. C/WAMNA J.Y[l~Ji ftO!`0 N{.r.jtNtllf~ .vj ~yri.' TarL.~ .01ns.~'w~ r ,UiTTiW . cw1AS opev ~twOeT.a ~ rMMe001k Jr flatb tJy!KMiw •IC[ MOuC+1tX.NYANNI' J~/ CCOKR 1i.MrftiF, Jp.M.O' OMlGiL YICMGAN ~: ..~ Of.K10y~. tAMif.Ci'.Q t14Y'~TN {TIJP OYI[CfO4 CGMMfT1fEE ON! ENERDY' AND 1 COiMMER'CE' VrAASHtN'GTON, DC 205'',1i6' AprS l 1!4 , 1988 M~r~. W'.~ G'., Ch~amp~ion lK~itche~~l''1~ Senior Vice President RJR Nabisco Washington, Inc. Suite 525 ]~4~5'5~ P°e~nn~sy~~lvar3i~a~ Av~e~nue,~ N'.~W., Washington, D.C. 20004 De~a r~ M'r~., M~i tch~~e~l Y:~ QDOH N1:7;Zi, i0un A.wO(~suMiN6. 0404% w01 w10re'Qdl, at4i10I . rp',{ WM1- iANfLr! IMOwAL . i . T"aC IOWA rK wi" .Q.1NW. lUDoOi1 W" OCMrEtf4 COlAti00. 'p.rr, CrLLY.aM. AfeW uY "p11YiVI f tiAT. rtVr VGAC . P o9+M i regret that R,. Ji. &eynolds Tobacco Company has declined the Subcommittee's invitation to testify at our hearing (which' has now been rescheduledlfor May 4) on whether cigarette a'd~verti'se~m~en.tsare, decep~t.i;,ve., I appreciate, however, y,o'ursenc3'ing us'you'r written statement and your invitation'to contact you if we have any questions about your statement.. Your statement indicates that you market six NOW brandd cigarettes,and' that each has,a different tar llevel, ranging, ftom. less than.5 mg, to 3 mg. You then state (at 3), "Smokers have grown accustomed to, the various bra'nd styl'es of cigarettes on the . market and are very familiar with the di'fferences'between, filter and menthol, kings and 1100,''st and s ft packs and boxes. Moreover; those smokers with a particular interest in tar levels are aware that tar ratin;gs, can and often, dodiffer from aty~leto style. The NOW' ads attached to your news release .. provide in' a clear and strri~ghtforwar& fashion accurate information regarding tar ratings for the specific comparable styles of the compefii tivebrand's illustrated. These ads clea'rly, compare' the resp ctive tar r'a'tiing,s of NOW soft pack filter and menthol! 100's w'L.ththesoft pack filter and menthol 1i00!'sof' competitive brands, with the result that NOW is lowest. We bel'ieve these two' ads provide interested smokers with information, that is both accu'rate' a'nd useFul « in our view, "Low'est' on a, brand-style bybrand-style comparison basis means that there are no comparable competitive brand-styles' that are lower in tar." Your letter cites (at 4) American arands Inc. v. R. J. Reyrnolds, To3iaccoCo«,413 E'.Supp: I332- .5. ID.ff-.YI.'-I47T1)7lbut y+ou`-Gi.I ta`ientiionthe Court's holding a'at 11357) that "The questton in such, cases is -- what does the p!erson'to whom the advertisement is addressed find to be the message?'" The Court went on to' say that it couid' not determine whether the tu'OW' ad was deceptive, under the Lanham Act, because "there is simply no evidence of customer reaction in the record on which thtE question can be d'etermined."' id. at 1358'. VA., *'vwgt of AcprQgentdfibet Sl'lBCOM'MITTEE ON. TRAN'SPORTAITION, TOURISM, AND HAZARDOUS ~ tiAATER1ALS'

E "d pC:St' 86'itrtiA© Pa,ge 2 lSr. kl'. G. Champion IM!itchelil Apr i l 114', 1968 The Subcommittee, which has, oversighitjurisdicti'on for the Fed'eral Trade Commissi'on, wishes to better und~erstand' the basis for you~r, assertions andlhow consumers view these advertisements. Accord'ingly,, the Subcommittee requests that R. ,J. Re nolds Tob~accoi eo~np~anysuppSy by April 22. 19~88, the f ollow~ng,:(1) all documents in your possession, custody, or ccantrol„ incliuding, but notli'mited to "'copy tests" mn~d, market survey~s" supporting,or contaadicting,y,our statement, ":taokers have grown accustomedlto the various brand styles of'cigarettes on the market and areveryt€amil'iarwith the differences betweemfilter, and menthol, ki'ng.s and 140''s, and' soft packs and boxes;" ('2'), all documents in your possession, custody,, or control, incl~~u~i~i!ng butnotlimitedto "'copy tests" and mar~k~~et surveys, supporting or contradicting your statement, "those smokers with a particular interest in tar levels are aware that tar ratings can and often do differ from style to style;"' (3), all documents in your possession,: custody, or control, including but not limited to "copy tests" andlmarkQt surveys, supporting or contradicting, your statement, "The NQt«r ads,attached, to your news release ... provide in a, clear'and straightforward fashion accuirate information regarding tar ratings for the specific compiarable styles'of the competitive brands illustrated., These ads clearly compare the respective tar ratings of NON'soft pack filter menthol 1001rs w!ith the soft pack filter and menthol 1a0''s of competitive brands, with the result that NOw'is lowest., we believe these two ads provide interested, smo'kers with informationi that i!s both accurate and! useful;," (4)~ all d'ocuments, in lrourpossesslon,, custody, or control, including but not limited to "copy tests" and'market surveys, supporting or contradicting your, statement that, "'Lowest" on a, brand-style by brand-style comparison basis medns that there are no comparable competi'tive brand-stlrles that are lower in, tar;" (5), all documentw i~n, thecompany"s possession:, custody, or can~tffoil', includi'~ng, but, not limited to "'copy tests" and market surveys of'consumers, which refer or relate to how consumers ('both smokers and nonsmokers) react to or perceive advertisesments ot cigarettes with, less than 15 mg. of tar;. C8a for ttie l'ast year (calendar or fiseal), please state: (a) the percentage of'yor:r cigarette revenues derived from each of the six styles of'NON cigarettes and'(,b) the percentage of your cigarette ad'vertising exp ndi'tures spent on each, of the six stylies of NOW cig,arettes; and IW02liZI

b°d 1'dlol a•d se':s~ Ee.bc~GO wobj Page 3 Mr. W. G., Champion Mitchell April 14, 1988 Q7') please supply a sample of advertisements during the last year for each of the six styles of lNOW cigarettes. This request is limited to documents generated since January 1'98'3. Ilf you have questions about this lietter, please contact the Subcommittee's Senior' Counsell, Benjamin Cohen, at 22'5-93©14. SincereTy, ~~. OMAS A. LUKEN CH'AI RMAN