Page 1: 2046546208
R. J..REYNOL~ TOBACCO ,|NT,ERNAT|ONAI.: "~'T~ Cornl~l~ltlic~'ons: Gu~9[tt~es and Resources"
European ETS Communications Strategy
The primary objective of~ the ETS communications strategy is clear: to devise and
implement EU and local market plans that preempt and counter the potentially
negative impact of the IARC oublk;ations ,and ~)ro~osed report on second-hand
This does not mean that plans can be limitedto criticism of IARC alone, nor that
scientif'¢ argument will, by itself, suffice. IARC creates the context in which the ETS
issue is going to be debated but, ultimately, the industnj will be arguing the broad FTS
issue, not just the publication el' a sJn~e adverse report_ Thus, criticLsm of the
epidemiological basis on which the ~ARC report has been prepared is necessary, but
J essentially negative, and not enough. Publication of the CIAR~Xl~)sure.msults of
independent scientffic research, presents an opportunity to demonstrate credible
scientific results and broaden the debate, as has already bee~dem~stFated-happened
in the United Kingdom. Recognition of the social problems associated with ETS is also
important if legislators are to be persuaded not to implement, and the public to not
support, more svingent smoldng restrictions.
With these points in mind, it is apparent that communication with key audiences cannot
be limited to one~)oint in f~me,. As laid out later in this document, the indus~'y needs to
begin this process.~c,a~lg flow, and to take that communication through and
beyond publication of the [ARC report and exposure studies.
I The ramif'cations of the IARC .studies and their final report will be fel~ most clearly withJrt
government and the media. It is here that the Issue will be ~ought. For this reason, it is
recommended that the pdmary target audiences within each market be limited to
politidans, bureaucrats and regulators, and to national and specialist media.
CECCM and the international companies will adopt responsibility for communication
with EU institutions, and pan-Furopean media. Each NMA and/or member company
will need to take responsibility for its own national government and media targets.
Three parl plan
It is rtot going to be possible to deal with the threat posed by IARC in isolation.
Scientific criticism of the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) report on ETS
has, for example, had little effect. The publicity surrounding the classifica~on of ET$
as a class "A" carcinogen overcame rational argument and c~eated a new and more
dangerous environment for the industry. The weaknesses of epidemiology, the
strengths of exposure science, the politicization of IARC, and the relevance of
"accommodation" type programs can only be successfully argued in the context of the
broad ETS issue. :
With a small number of exceptions, the media is uneducated about ETS. Most
journalists will start writing about ETS from the simple position that it is harmful, despite
the industry's evidence to the contrary. Moreover, they will assume that anything the
industry presents is prejudiced, while anything that IARC and the anti-smoking lobby
declare is altnJistic.
September 15, 1B95 t [Draf~ 2]
Page 2: 2046546209
R. J. RE'YNOI_DS TOBAG¢O INTERNATIONAL: "ET"~ Communications: ~uidegne~ encl Resources"
The framework plan presented in this book is built upon these assumptions. It relies
heavily on the need to educate key media targets ahead of IARC =ublic, ations and
the exposure studiesCIAR~tudies. Full details appear in section three.
Preparing local media networks: the immediate task facing the industry is to try and
build better relationships with key opinion formers, primarily in the media. This will be
accomplished by education, but it also depends on being consistently available, frank
and open. Moreover, it demands acceptance that, although there is no scientific basis
for the attacks that have been made on ETS. there is a social problem associated with
It is thus advised that a small number of key media targets be approached and, over a
per~Od of montl-,s, educated in depth about the ETS issue. This is already happening in
PublicaUon of mcposure studies: the results of the exposure studies will be published
on a center-by-center basis throughout much of lg96 end 1997. In some cases the
studies will be published before the [ARC mporL So the specit'¢ plans adopted for
each market will, to an extent, depend on t~ming.
The publication of the Hazelton Report, in the United Kingdom, in late 1994, proved to
be very newsworthy. There was genuine media interest, because rra~t.joumalists
found the results so surprising. Coverage was very fair', and it is clear that suchthe
studies can be an extremely useful tool for the indusk'y, with both the media and
However, exposure studies, by themselves, will not counter the threat posed by [ARC,
and it is likely that the anti-smoking lobby will now be better organized to deal with
exposure science than was the case with the edflir~akHazelton ~tudy public~tionPepert.
It is also fair to say that media interest in the studies will not be limited to the countries
of origin. This explains the importance of consistent industry comment, and the
appointment of Spdng O'Brien to provide some measure of quality control.
Responding to IARC: although the exposure science is valuable, it does not directly
challenge the validity of IARC's research. It is going to be very important, in each
market, to question the basis of IARC's research, as well as its politicization. This will
require g~mpetsnt scientific comment from within the industry but, ultimately, third party
se.ientific comment will be of greater importance, if the criticisms of [ARC made by the
industry are to be credible_
The social component; most markets have "accommodation" type programs in place
and, in some cases, these programs cross national borders. For this reason, it has not
been felt necessary to include "solutk~ns" campaigns as part of the overall
communications framework, Nevertheless, it is very important that these existing
programs are woven into each NMAs IARC plan and,,= necessary, given a prominence
that does not currerttly exist. Equally, it is vital that consumer research on ETS be
available, to demonstrate public unease about smoking bans, and that existing
allian(:es with .tide asso~iation~ be maintained. Through pub|ieation of research,
the public can be an effective ~poke=man for the industw's core argument that smoking
bans are unnecessary. In much the same way, the willingness of bade associations to
speak out on this issue can be as effective for the indusby as third party scientific
Page 3: 2046546210
~. ,L ~.~:Y14Ot_~S TOBACCO tN'rl=RNATIONAL: *~c'TS Communicab'ons: Guiclelines and Resources"
The philosophy that lies behind the recommended strategy is very simple: coordinated,
yet individual, NMA communication in all major I~U markets, supported by
targeting Of key EU opinion-fommm and pan-European media. CECCM, tl~e NMAs,
their" member companies, and the international tobacco companies all need to work
closely together if a successful Furopean campaign is to be achieved. Each has an
important and specific role.
CECCM: Its primary role Js to provide adv,, guidance, support and product to each
NMA, calling upon the resources of the memberir~ematiemd companies as appropriate.
CECCM also aGtS as a clea~'Jng house for information b~tween NMAs and companies
and, as such, it will be the local point for industry cooperation and coordination.
Working with the intemaUonal tobacco companies, CECCM will also be responsible for
communication with EU institutions.
International tobacco companies: in addilion to their work through CECCM, the
intemational companies will be providing practical resources to NMAs, such as their
ETS scientists to act as spokespersons, and the benefit of their expod~e in dealing
with the ETS issue in many markets. They will also, of course, continue to operate in
If~e normal way through the NMAs on which th~j am represented..-Ha~g-fu~ded-tbe
NMA$: each NMA is responsible for developing and implementing a ~ational ~-TS
communications program. The recommendations contained in this book are a
f~amework for action, not a specific market-by-market plan. Nevertheless. it is expected
• at each NMA, along with its member companies, would'.'.-.'~ incorporate the key
elements of these recommendal~ons, namely to build understanding of the ~TS issue in
broad perspective through local media networks; to preempt the IARC report by
working with the international companies and Spring O'Bden to pul~licize the ~xposure
studies; and to counter the ~,RC report by questioning its scientific validity. It is also
expected that CECCM will be presented with an IARC plan, to include key media
targets, by eac~ 01' its NMA members before the end of this year, and then kept
informed of progress on a regular basis.
~ept~rnb~r 15, 1995 3