Tobacco Documents Online

CIGARETTE ADVI;RTISI\G CODE, INC. 51 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10010 RosLtlr B. MEYNER May 15, 1968 AREA CODE 212 683-2000 ADMINfSTRATOR Hon. Paul Rand Dixon Chairman Federal Trade Commission Pennsylvania Avenue at Sixth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20580 Dear Chairman Dixon: This is in reply to Mr. Perry's letter of April 30, 1968, requesting information for the Commission's use in preparing its report to Congress under terms of the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. First, a few words about your 1967 Report. The Commission reported then, in condemnatory terms, that a Code member-company was sponsoring "Beverly Hillbillies", a television program with a substantial percentage of young viewers. The fact is that the company withdrew its sponsorship when the percentage of under-21 viewers exceeded the 45 percent limit established by Code guidelines. The withdrawal was well publicized in the trade and secular press and in more than sufficient time for inclusion in your Report. The same Report made similar mention of the spon- sorship by another member-company of a western called "Rango". The fact is that the company cancelled when the audience readings ran perilously close to our cutoff figure. This action was not publicized and the Commission could not fairly have been expected to include it in the Report. In this connection, the Code office would be happy to help the Commission in verifying or updating information for the forthcoming Report. The 1967 Report also sought to discredit the Code by twice citing, as though it were current, an

Hon. Paul Rand Dixon -2- May 15, 1968 advertising slogan that had passed from use before the Code came into being. If the Commission plans again to discuss slogans, how about this arresting one, used after the advertiser had resigned from the Code: Medical research says "switch now:"? This one could serve a dual purpose. First, the slogan made its appearance after your Commission, without notice, public hearing, or, as far as the Administrator could discern, any new scientific evidence, abruptly reversed policy on "tar"-nicotine advertising. Second, it would make an ideal frame of reference for revealing something that the Code has sought to get ever since you did the turnabout---some definition and amplification of what the Commission meant by "collateral representations... as to reduction or elimination of health hazards" which were to be barred under the revised policy. The Commission might point out also, if it exists, any evidence of its enforcement of this ban. What follows will cover the period of about a year between April 11, 1967, when we replied to your request for similar information for the 1967 Re_.ort, and the present. As you know, the Commission's abrupt change of mind on "tar" and nicotine resulted simultaneously in the resignation of a major member of the Code, P. Lorillard Company. Another member, The American Tobacco Company, resigned, effective last September 1. Both Lorillard and American pledged on leaving to continue adhering to the Code's youth-appeal provisions. The Code underwent a structural change in mid- Deceanber---again as a result of the Commission's changed stance on "tar" and nicotine--when the members voted to suspend three sections of Article IV (Sections 2, 3 and 4), all dealing with health claims. It should be noted, however, that the amended Code leaves the Administrator with some authority still in the area of health. Paragraph (f), Section 1, Article IV provides: "Cigarette advertising may use attractive,

Hon. Paul Rand Dixon -3- May 15, 1968 healthy looking models, or illustrations or drawings of persons who appear to be attractive and healthy, provided that there is no suggestion that their attractive appearance or good health is due to cigarette smoking." Paragraph (i) of the same Section provides: "Cigarette advertising shall not depict as a smoker any person participating in, or ob- viously having just participated in, physical activity requiring stamina or athletic conditioning beyond that of normal recreation." The Code has had 4,944 submissions of advertising material between April 11, 1967, and this writing, and of these, 386 were rejected or withdrawn. The greatest single cause for disapproval related to the health provisions. It should be understood that the Administrator adopted the broadest kind of non-clinical interpretation of the word "health". Since the December suspensions, of course, disapprovals on health grounds have dropped sharply. The next-ranking frequency of rejections was accounted for by youth appeals, including the youthful appearance of models and indirect testimonials from persons held to have special appeal to the young. Most other rejections were for claims for distinction and sexual attraction. The Code's formal procedure for appeals from disapprovals was not invoked in the year. In nearly all cases, member-companies informally protest. The rejections ranged in severity from unconditional disapproval of three finished television commercials to disapproval of a draft press release. The count ; of rejections does not include trifling matters, negotiable by phone, such as substituting the word "woman" for the word "girl". Nor does it include the occasional situation where, for instance, an agency, filling out a preliminary layout for makeup purposes, might press the office-boy into service as a stand-in model.

Hon. Paul Rand Dixon -4- May 15, 1968 Member-companies have had considerable working experience by now with the Code's 45 percent rule on the youth-audience composition of television programs. A measure of the members' adaptability to the regulation was provided by our experience this year with programs planned for the season opening next September. We took the lineup of fall shows as announced by the networks and noted the offerings we thought might be troublesome. Then we asked for the members' planned schedule, and not a single one of the flagged programs was listed. It had not been necessary the previous year to proscribe "The Flying Nun" or "Gentle Ben". This year the Administrator ruled that in the forth- coming season "Mod Squad" and "New Adventures of Huck Finn" would not be appropriate for cigarette advertising. The youth guideline operated in the past year to prompt withdrawal of cigarette advertising from "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea", "The Second Hundred Years" and "Star Trek". The voluntary withdrawals came afterr near-miss audience composition ratings. The guideline, incidentally, was modified to conform to a new timetable of audience-composition reports; the effect will be to speed the withdrawal of cigarette advertising from programs that breach or threaten to breach the cutoff figure. Members have been exercising self-censorship in abstaining, in the case of televised motion picture series, from individual programs in the package that might have special appeal to the young. This self-policing has been monitored by our office, but it has not been necessary to intervene. The Code has not had a shred of evidence of any violation of the prohibition against cigarette advertising or promotions on college campuses, nor of the ban on the distribution of sample cigarettes to persons under 21 years of age. The instructions on send-away offers of free cigarettes are required to bear clear notice that the offer is for adults only. On the cigarette package warning, I can report only that compliance seems complete.

Hon. Paul Rand Dixon -5- May 15, 1968 Last October, the Administrator joined industry representatives at a meeting in Washington with U.S. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, members of his staff and other government figures interested in cigarette ad- vertising. The Senator had proposed new restrictive legislation and was seeking to learn what new measures in self-regulation the industry might put forward. Senator Kennedy was generous with his time and attention and there was a useful exchange of views. One result of this meeting was subsequent conferences with some staff people from the Senate Commerce Committee which is headed by Senator Warren G. Magnuson. They seemed to be interested exclusively in the area of youth appeal, and restrictions on health claims were not urged. We discussed a possible revision of the television youth-audience guideline----perhaps a cutoff percentage based on the 12-to-17 age range rather than the whole up-to-21 grouping. The staff people felt strongly, too, that cigarette advertising should be prohibited on college and professional football telecasts. The guideline change remains under consider- ation and the Administrator hopes that the conversations with the staff will be continued. The Administrator remains unconvinced that the percentage of young viewers of football on television is excessive. I have studied the audience composition figures and restudied them. In only one case were the findings close to breaching 45 percent and I am at a loss to explain the exception. It is somewhat academic, because this one telecast carried no cigarette adver- tising but I was interested to know why a relatively unpopular, post-season college all-star game (North- South), aired at a time when the season is tired, should attract more than 40 percent of its•watchers in persons under 21. "Freak" and "fault in the sample" are the best explanations given. Moreover, it is vain to hope for the absolute expungement of all associative ties between smoking and sports. Whatever steps are taken, there will still be the eyeball evidence that along the sidelines some coaches smoke and that in locker room victory

Hon. Paul Rand Dixon celebrations many players do,,too. May 15, 1968 Frankly, your last Report leaves me dubious that an objective and unbiased account and appraisal of past and present cigarette advertising will result from all this effort; but, for the record, I shall ask: May we have fairer play this time and may Congress have all the facts? Sincerely, Robert B. Meyner Administrator . cc. David L. Perry, Esq.