Tobacco Documents Online

3.3 INFOTAB NMA WORKSHOP Washington, September 19-22, 1983 Paper by Michael Thompson, T.I.N.Z. PRE PLANNED ADVERTISING DEFENCE STRATEGY INTRODUCTION In the last quarter of 1982, the Tobacco Institute of New Zealand set about to initiate appropriate strategies to consoli- date the defence of marketing freedoms. Before setting objectives, the following assumptions were made: ASSUMPTIONS l. A Private Member's Bill, or a Petition to Parliament, advocating the elimination of tobacco advertising and sponsorship will be introduced in the 1983 Parliamentary Session. 2. - Anti-smoking organisations and individuals will press for the elimination of advertising and sponsorship. 3. Government will seek further restrictions in the Code of Practice negotiations. 4. International organisations such as WHO and UICC will encourage Health Department officials and anti-smoking bodies to achieve a restriction of marketing opportunities. 5. Examples will be made of countries where bans exist - eg Norway. N 6. Sporting bodies will be encouraged to refuse tobacco a company sponsorship. p (V ~ Ln Q

2 OBJECTIVES Having accepted these assumptions, the following objectives were set: 1. To preserve the present state of marketing opportunities. 2. To avoid legislation and maintain voluntary control. 3. To assist media bodies in the defence of advertising. 4. To assist sporting bodies in the defence of sponsorship. ACTION PLANS To achieve our objectives, the following action plans were initiated: l. Up-date of presentation "The case for the Retention of the Right to Advertise Tobacco Products". 2. Produce.an abridged version of the above presentation. 3. Pre-prepare telexes and letters to Members of Parliament opposing legislation. 4. Conduct attitudinal research on cigarette advertising and sponsorship. 5. Encourage dialogue between, and action by, media, adver- tising and sensitive product groups. 6. Arrange meetings with Members of Parliament who promote legislation. 7. Pre-prepare submissions for 1984 Code of Practice negotia- tions. 8. Lobby sports journalists at the appropriate time.

3 9. Lobby Members of Parliament and party whips at the approp- riate time. 10. Pre-prepare media releases. 11. Seek on-going up-date of activities of international anti- smoking bodies. 12. Ask Infotab to provide on-going up-date of situation in countries with bans. TARGET GROUPS For the purpose of both communicating our eventual message and developing our pre-planned strategy, the following target groups were selected: Members of Parliament Media Associations Members of the Committee of Advertising Practice Advertising Associations Consumers Institute Newsletter readers Sporting bodies TAN members ALLIES It was obvious to us that the potential success of this opera- tion would be enhanced by the cultivation of suitable allies and accordingly the following individuals and associations were listed as having potential in this area: 1. Association of Accredited Advertising Agents 2. Association of New Zealand Advertisers 3. The Tobacco Distribution Trade

4 4. The Liquor Industry 5. The Committee on Advertising Practice 6. Consumers Institute 7. Sports Administrators 8. Selected Members of Parliament 9. Tobacco Growers' Federation 10. TAN members 11. Publishers 12. Sports journalists INITIAL ACTION To initiate our action plans we instigated a series of discus- sions and meetings with the following: a. Media Associations i) Newspaper Publishers Associations ii) New Zealand Press Association iii) Newspaper Advertising Bureau iv) Independent Broadcasters Association v) Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand b. Trade Associations i) Association of Accredited Advertising Agencies of New Zealand ii) New Zealand Liquor Industry Council c. Sports organisations, Members of Parliament, influential individuals, publishers, journalists and political research units.

5 ACHIEVEMENTS 1. We made useful contacts, both for the preparation of our strategy and for future co-operation and assistance. 2. We received useful advice from and a clearer understanding of the attitudes of people in a wide area of influence. 3. We increased our range of allies. 4. We increased the awareness of advertising, media and liquor industry organisations or potential threats to marketing freedom. 5. We were instrumental in bringing together media and agency organisations who formed industry action committees to pre-prepare for the defence of advertising in a number of product areas. 6. We completed our own attitudinal and behavioural research and assisted a committee of sports administrators to repeat similar research which updated 1979 reserach findings published by that committee. The results of this research provided substantiation for our claims that the majority of New Zealanders believe that the acceptance of sport sponsorship from cigarette companies is a matter for sports administrators alone; that cigarette companies make an important contribution to sport through sponsorship; and, that the majority of New Zealanders are not influenced in their consumption of tobacco by sponsorship activities. 7. We have received assurances of future co-operation from industry associations, sports administrators and sports journalists. 8. We succeeded in having one politician abandon plans for a Private Member's Bill to restrict our marketing freedoms.

6 9. We achieved a greater awareness, particularly amongst politicians, of our Code of Practice and Agreement with Government, and our member companies' repsonsible adher- ence to self regulation over a number of years. 10. We have completed a crisper, updated publication of our presentation "The Case for the Retention of the Right to Advertise Tobacco Products". 11. We have completed a pre-prepared strategy for use in the event that either a petition or a Private Member's Bill is presented to Parliament calling for further restrictions on our marketing freedoms. The kit for this strategy includes pre-prepared telexes and letters to all Members of Parliament, the submission "The Case for the Retention of the Right to Advertise Tobacco Products", and a press release for general media distribution. In September 1983 a petition was presented to Parliament calling for a ban on all cigarette advertising. The day after the petition was presented, the following tele- gram was sent to every Member of Parliament. "A petition has been presented to Parliament calling for a ban on cigarette advertising and sponsorship. The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand draws your attention to extensive New Zealand and worldwide evidence which shows: 1. Cigarette advertising does not increase the total tobacco 2. market, it is limited existing market. Advertising bans or to competing restrictions for a do not share affect of the total cigarette consumption. 3. Cigarette advertising does not influence young people to 4. smoke. Cigarette advertising does not influence adults to take up smoking or continue to smoke. 2501021525

7 5. Bans on cigarette advertising deprive consumers of impor- tant product information. 6. Cigarette advertising in New Zealand already adheres to a set of responsible guidelines endorsed by Government. 7. The majority of New Zealanders believe that acceptance of sports sponsorship from cigarette companies is a matter for sports administrators alone. 8. The majority of New Zeazlanders consider that cigarette companies make an important contribution to sport through sponsorship. 9. The majority of New Zealanders are not influenced in their consumption of tobacco by sponsorships. 10. Tobacco is a legal product virtually everywhere in the world, and repressive impediments to its normal commercial marketing have disturbing implications. We are happy to show you evidence in support of these conclu- sions. We submit that proposals to ban or further limit cigarette advertising in New Zealand are unwarranted, and we respectfully call upon you to reject such proposals. Under separate cover, we will be forwarding further information to assist your consideration of the proposal. Any additional details you may then require would be available to you upon request. Michael J. Thompson Executive Director The Tobacco Institute of New Zealand P.O. Box 1582 AUCKLAND (Phone: 797 393) "

8 The presenting of the petition received virtually no media coverate and we therefore decided not to issue our pre-prepared press release as this would only have served to generate publicity for the petition. Our paper "A Case for the Continuation of the Right of Tobacco Manufacturers to Advertise Their Brands" is prepared in unbound form and will be released at a time to be decided - we wish to avoid giving adversaries ammunition too soon. We have received considerable reaction from politicians in reply to our telegram and many of these reactions have created the opportunity for face to face meetings on the subject. In the days following the presentation of the petition, we went back to the allies we had contact with earlier in the year and at this stage we are relatively assured of at least five submissions to the Select Committee opposing the proposal. The TINZ paper "A Case for the Continuation of the Right of Tobacco Manufacturers to ADvertise Their Brands" (September, 1983) is available from INFOTAB.