Tobacco Documents Online

T TOBACCO INSTITUTE 1875 CSTREET., NORTHWEST ANNE Hl DUFFIN WASHINGTON. DCI20006 Vice President 202i:-Ij7--)800 • 800/424-9876 202','457'--I874 MEMORANDUM November 2'0, 19'79 TO: Messrs. Tucker, Ave, Bowling, Dey, Nova, Shinn and Wyatt PROM!: Anne Duf f in SUBJECT: "An Analysis of the Public Relations ~ of The Tobacco Institute" Not infrequently we are asked to describe our public relatiions,program. As atime-s'aver in responding,,, and in the belief' that a third-party' assessment has additional-credibility, we have begun using the attached. The author received her B. B.A. last May. Attachment cc: TI Staff .

t INTRODUCTION ' A major role/ played by a trade associationifor an industry is of' public relations. In today's business world,, problems can span an entire industry and must be dealt with on an industrywidiee basis. In, recent years the problems" facing, and' being created for thetoba~cco:industryhave grown in number and intensity. It isans unusual case because the industry itself took no specific action to prompt the barrage of anti-smoking action. It must,, however, d'efend itself', and The Tobacco Institute is, i'tsmain vehic]1ef'ordoingsa., In this paper I will examine the history of The Tbbacco Institute and'the anti-tobacco movement. I will then examine the problems facing The Tobacco Institute and evaluate the public relations program used as a mealns to solve these problems. I will focus on the subject of' 'r'public smoking,,'n' the most recent campaign waged against the tobacco, industry, in the latter half of this report. The Tobacco Institute needed to alter its strategy to meet this new issue. It is this change ~ in the public relationseff'ortsof' the Institute which I will . tr examine.

-G- I!I. HISTORY OF THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE The Tbbacco Institute was founded in 1958 as a nonprofit, noncommercial organization. It now represents twelve U.S. tobacco manufacturers. "'Tihe aim of the Institute iso to foster, public understanding of' the smoking and health, controversy, and!public knowledge of the historic role of' tobacco andl its place in the national economy" M,. The Institute is funded by its member companies. The overall budget is ",a closely, guarded secret` (2), but it is known that the _ member companies contribute according to their share of the market ('3). The chief executive officers of the member companies oversee all of' the Institute's functions, and Institute advisory committees are made up of' member company of'f'icers (4). The Institute remained small and inconspicuous during,its first ten years of' operation. Despite the report of the_gurgeon General''s advisory committee on smoking andl health in 1964 and subsequent attacks from anti-smoking factions, the Institutte "maintained a low profile, content with being 'a presence in Washington'' (5). It had conducted '"no research into public attitudes about smoking and related issues, nor had there been any attempts at creating a full-time rational programm of' public communicationsl"(6)i. In 1967, the battle between "anti-smokers"' and the tobacco industry began to change. Slowly the emphasis was shifted to the consumer,, instead of' the product. The Institute had haid~mixed~ success in the past against opponents like the American Cancer Society and the American. Heart Association, and the new intent of the anti-tobacco interests.O., ~r ~ C!'a ~ . rb M .

prompted a needed growth andistrategy implementation at The Toba~cco Institute (',7). The issues have gmown even more heated' in the last two years. The Znstitute''s staff has grown~ about 80' percent in the last year(,8') up; from40'employeesi'n 19'7, 8i (91).Thisgrowth enables the Institute to conduct the"extensive publii;c relations program it does today..

III. HISTORY OF THE ANTI-TOBACCO CAMPAIGN The earliest evidence I found of a tobacco controversy is the Federal Trade Commission"s request, in September 1955, that cigarette manufacturers "make no health inferences in their ad'vertising,",(10) . The Surgeon General made his first statement on smoking and health in July 1957 (11). The issue wasn''t really hot, however, until the 1916Os. The major contributors to the smokingconflict then were the Federal Trade Commissioni(FTC), the Federal C'ommunications . Commission (FCC) and the Surgeon General. The actions taken by the FTC concerned advertising and'packaging, based, the Commission said,, on statistics offered by the Surgeon General. In January 19'641 the Surgeon General's report stated that "cigarette smoking is causally relatedl to lung cancer in males" (12) ., The FTC' immediately proposed, a warning be placed on cigarette packages, and this proposal led to the Cigarette Labeling and AdvertisingAct in July of 1965 The FCC, on the other hand, acted in response to pressure from the private sector. IniJanuary 1967, John F. Banzhaf III filed a complaint with the FCC requesting free time on the air for anti-smoking advocates in accordance with the Fairness Doctrine (14)1. This action wals, thebeginningg of a long, processin which thetermsand implications, of the Fairness Doctrine w~ere questionedi and studied. Mr. Banzhaf organized his cause into• Action on Smoking, and Health (ASII)' in February 1968. q, A year later, the FCCproposed a ban on all broadcast cigarette advertisements (15). The tobacco companies responded withia request

~ f~a~r~~ anti-trust exemption to,p~~ermit~ in~~terc~ompany~ agreement voluntarily to dlsco~~nt~inue~ broadcast a~~d~~vertising~ by ~~ January 1, 19~~70'~. Afte~~r, mmany hearings and debates, the P'ublic Health C'igarette Smoking Act wass signed by ~ P~re~sident~ Nixon on~ April 1, 197'a'. Th~~is, ~~ act~ p~rohib~~it~ed~ all broadcast ad'vertising of cigarettes after January 1, 1971, and' strengthened.the package "caution" label to a"warning" (16).. Again, the applicability of the Fairness Doctrine was questioned. T.h~e~~ FCC ruled that,as~~ of~ January 2, 19:~7~1, it no~ lo~nge~r' appllied~,, w~i~th- o~~ut~ c~ig~are~ttecomm~e~~rcial&,~ -and broadc~aster~swere~ not obligated ~~ to~ a present contrasting views on the smoking controversy (17). Interesting- ly, the F'C'C'~ lat~e~r, decide~d, (in July, 197'4)'~ to~ limit th~~e~~ "rappl~i'cation, of the Fairness Doctrine to broadcast viewpoints rather than to product commercials" (18). This decision reversed the stand the FCC took in. 1967 when the doctrine was applied to cigarette advertising. The 197fls saw the rise of' the "public smoking,''' issue. The first s~~,tudy~~ con~~c~~erni .ng~ this~~ issue, a pub~licopinion surve~y~,~ by, th~e~ Federal Aviation Age~ncy~ (~FAA)~~ and the,P'ub~~lic Health Service, was reported in 19~~72'., That~ report concluded that tobacco~ s~~moke~~ is~ "Judged' not to~ represent a health hazard,to nonsmoking passenger "(19). The government study f'ailed,, however,, to deter opponents' claims to the contrary. Since 1972, there have been many efforts, some success- ful, to restrict and/or prohibit smoking in public. In 1974, smokers were ~ restricted to the rear 20 percent of seats on interstate buses, and ASH campaigned heavily in the following years to extend' that rule to all public transportation (20,).,

The~ ent~ire~~ is~sue found a s~~inglIe~ spokesman in J'anuary~~ 197$I, when, NTEW Secretary Califano announced plans for a federal anti.-smoking,campaign The $30, million effort, he said, was aimed at protecting children and nonsmokers from the dangers of' cigarette smoke (,21)1. Within the nexttt year, many institutions, i'ncluding the General S!ervices Administration, ' ~ ~ ' ' ~ ' a~s, (2 ~2 adopted policies~~ wh~i ~ol d~e~signat~ed' are ) ~. ch~ restricted ~ smoking t Among other orgainizations formed!to oppose smoking were Fresh Air for Non-Smokers (,FAiVS)' and Group Against Smokers" Pollution (GASP')1. It was all too apparent by then that tobacco products were no longer being attacked; smokers were. The president of' the American Lung Association sai'd: Probably the_onTy way we can win a substantial redh.iction in smoking, is if' we can somehow make it nonacceptable socially. We thought the scare of'medical statistics andi opinions would produce '' a major reduction. It didn't (23). Tn January of' 1979 came a new report from the Surgeon Generaly, said by Secretary Califano to leave no doubt as to the dangers of' smoking (2'0. Legislation had already been proposed in many states to make smoking illegal in specified public places.

_7_ ' IV . THE TOBACCO INSTITUTE' g GENERAL PUBLIC RELATIONS P'O ' ICY The Tobacco Institute utilizes all communications media in conducting its public relations (25). . In the print medium, it covers all the issues concerning, tobacco in pamphlets, reports and booklets. These materials are avaiilabletothepublic!, on req,uest,, at no cost, and some aree sent out with appropriate mailing, lists. The subjects range from general tobacco facts to women and smoking. The Institute also publishes bimonthly The Tobacco Observer." With a circulation of' more than 65,,000, it is the largest tobacco newspaper in the world (26), distributed to persons in all areas of tobacco from grower to retailer, plus the news media and any citizens who indicate an interest. Articles in the Observer are desi'gned to keep the reader abreast of developments which~concern smoking and the tobacco industry. The Tobacco Institute uses f'i]1msasa formof' commun~ication, and education. One f'ilmiisabout the history of tobaccoi'n America, and'twoothera are on smo~kinga~ndg health. The two, la~tt~e,rfilms, "The Need to Know" and' "Answers We Seek, "' are -designed for adult audiences and are available through film catalogs to any . organization or group on a free loan basis. All three films are distributed through Modern Talking Picture Service and by early ~, N 1979 ~~~ had b~e~en~ seen by mo~~re~ than 7~00~,,0~~0~0~~ persons (2'7~)~, M ~ ~ Other powerful modes of' Institute communication are lectures, -1 W guest appearances and'lobbying. The Institute has a staff'of four• 0 fulltime traveling speakers. The program began in 1975, and the speakers R,^ have~ appeared bef'o~r~e~~ 2'5~:01 c~ivic~ c~~lub~~s~ a~nd' 4~0~~ c~ollege~s~ and~ undertake~~~n,

Tmore than 2',000 media interviews (281. The program~ has been very successful and the speakers have received good media reception.. All four speakers have had extensive media experience, wh,ich~ benefits the program greatly. One lecture given by William F. Dwyer, one of' the speakers and vice-president of the Institute, is available in, p r'in't . The tobacco lobby is considered one ozf the most effective in Washington (29). The industry supports alpolitical action committee headed by an Institute officer,, which contributes on a minor scalee to political campaigns which are in, the industry''s interest. The lobbying effort has been expanded, in recent years with the threat of pending legislation which might adversely affect the industry.. Today, the Institute is active in Washington and'also i'n five regional offices which direct efforts against state and local laws restricting smoking. Many Institute staffers are familiar in political circles,, as they have worked' in politics inithe past (30')'. The mo t recent addition to The Tobacco Institute's public relations program is advertising. The first two ads pertained to tobacco as an agricultural product. They were placed in autumn 1978 in Time, Newsweek, U.&. News and World Report, many Sunday newspaper supplements and a number of farm publications. Newer advertisements address smokers andinonsmokers. The first appearedlin February 1979'9 in Sunday supplements around the country, the newsmagazines and farm publications. All advertisements are selling an idea, not a product but the fact is that there are two sides to any story and perhaps the public has only heard one side of the issues in the tobacco controversy. . Q ~ . ~ ~ ~ . i V ,

Finally, like any public relations practitioner, The Tobacco. Institute must respond~to individual problems and' events as they occur. Press conferences and special reports attract media coverage. There is no guarantee that such public relations efforts from a controversial industry will be successful. However,, a news conference co~nduc~t~ed~ b~y~ th~e~ Ins~t~itute~,~ on January~~ 10, in an effo~r~t~ to, c~oun~terac~t~ negative publicity from the new Surgeon General''s report, January 11, wa~s~~ well received. It was!the lead s~~to~~ry~ oniall three television ~ network news shows that night and the next day was covered' on "Gloodi Morning, America", "Today Show", and „CBS' Morning News" (31)'. In this case, the Institute's efforts were well rewarded. As a whole, the public relations program implemented by The Tobacco Institute is wide in scope and very impressive. The Institute takes action on all facets of' the tobacco, controversy. w f ;,

V~~.~ THE TOHAC~C~a~~ INST~ITUTE!S~ PUBLIC RELATIONS P'0'LIC~~y~ RELATING TO PUBLIC SMOKING The "public smoking" controversy deals with the effect of cigarette smoke on nonsmokers. It was first promoted in 1971 by the Surgeon General, Dr. Jesse L. S'teinfeld, wh stated, in a, speech: Evidence is accumulating that the nonsmoker may have untoward effects from the pollution his smoking neighbor forces upon hjm...It is high timeto, ban smokingf'romall conf ined publli'cp]Jacesc such as restaurants, theatresa airplanes, trains,, and, buses. . . (',3!21) Although therew~as, ~~ litt~le~ scientific suppor~t~~ fo~r, D~~r~~.~ StelnfeldJ~s statement (,33 )1, it nonetheless spurred a, new anti-smoking camp ign. The nature of the public smoking issue has' placed The Tbbacco Ih~stitut~ein th~e: new position of~ being able~ to~ t~ake~ positive action and its public relations program over the past several years indicates this. Clear evidence of the Institute"s reaction to the public smoking issue is in the speakers program. The speakers stress six mainn points: 1) Anti-smoking laws are unenforceable and represent an unconscionable waste of'law enforcement resources. 2), The "anti-smoking indurstryn is intent on turning 60' million people into "second class citizenst" and criminals. 3) Laws and regulations which restrict andidirect an ind'ivid!ual''s use of' a completely legal product are the products of' the same type of mind which would, seek toadjustthetemperatureof' your~ bath, on the grounds that the "adjuster" knows best. 4) SMoking may be unpleasant to many people, but public smoking is a matter to be settl:ed by common co rtesy, not criminal prosecution. 5) The end aim of' anti-smoking forces is the prohibition of cigarettes. 611 Ini thelastanal'ysis,theissue is freedom, of' cho~ice~„ and each law or regulation which restricts that freedom, no matter how petty the infringement may seem, represents an erosiion,whichcanseldom be repaired (,34)~. ft:

It~~ s~hould~ be~ noted t~h~at~ health is~~ not om~e~ o~f' the main points of the~ lectures. Hea1th~~ ramifications oi'~ pub~lici~ smo~king are~ covered but are treated as a support argument. The message, theref'ore, is easily understood'by smokers and nonsmokers alike. This~~ effor~t~~ t~o~~ co~mmunic~a~te~ wit~h~ the e~n~t~ire~ pub~li~c,i's~ alao~ evident~ in recent advertising of' Th~e~~ Ins~~t~itute.~ Th~~e~ ads~~ address b~oth~~ smoke~~rs~ and nonsmokers. They also delineate between nonsmokers and anti-smokers. The message emphasizes cooperation and!courtesy as universal virtues. The issue has~~ been r~e~duc~ed in, thes~e~ c~ommunic~a~t~ionst~o, one~ o~f' simple- human nature. The print materials which deal with this issue are mare specific than th~e~~ advertising. Studies ar~e~~ cite~d,~,~ s~c~ientis~t~&ar~e~~ quo~ted~~ and~ f'a~llaciesare corrected. The~ final mes~s~a~g~e~~ is~ that~ f'ree~~,~ personal ch~~o~~ice~~ sho~ul~d' not~ b~e~~ infringed~ upon, especia~~lly~~ when th~e~re~~ is no s~~c~i~entif'ic~ ce~r~t~ainty~~ that~ th~e~~ cho~~ice!is~~ harming the pub~lic~.~ S~~iimple~ cour~~t~e~sy~ cani dic~~tat~~e~~ wh~en~ the~~ choice~ to~ smoke should be, m~ad'e~~.~ It should be pointed out that the Institute conveys this messagee in its publications: This leaflet is presented by The Tobacco Institute . in the belief' that full, free and informed discussion of the smoking and'hea~lth controversy isin the public interest and in'the conviction that the controversy must be solved by scientific research. This message sums up the purpose of'The Tobacco,Institute. The Institute does not en:courage smoking or discourage quitting (,3'5 ). It be.lieves, and, acts 'in its belief, that only an informed public can make sound decisions concerning smoking. of The Tobacco Institute is to inform the public. I , ,

v -12- END NOTES 1 ~"'T'I S'cop~~e~~ and Activities," To~~b~~ac~co~~ Insti'tu~~t~e~ pamphlet. 2 Michael C. Jensen, "'Tobacco: A Potent Lobby...and a. Coping Indu,st~ry,,'"~ New York Times, P'e~~b~~ruary~ 19, 1978'~, p~i.~4 3 Richard R. Miller, program planner, The Tobacco Institute, personal interview, April 9, 1979. 4I Cor,orate Public Issues and Their Management, ©ctober 15,, 197 &, p. 2'. 5 "Spokespersons: PR Wave of the Future," C'ommunication, News, Juuly,, 1977 6 Corporate Public Issues, p. 1. 7 Ibid~. , p. 2'. 8 Miller, interview. 9 Jensen, p. 1. 10 ."The Federal Government Chronology of' Irrtervention in the Smoking and Health C'~ontro~~v~ers~~y~, "~ Tob~ac~~co!Institute~ booklet, ~ pi . 1. r ~. 13 Ibid. 14 "Ped'eral Communications Commission and C'igarettes," Tobacco Institute booklet, p. 1. 15. Ibid., 16 "The Federal Government Chronology," p. 3.

or- 17 18 . 19 "T'he Federal Communications Conmission," p. Ibid., p. "The F'ederall Government Chronologyr. m 2'0' Ibid. y pp. 7'-8 . Ib'id., pp. 112-13 . 2!2' Ibid'. 23 William F. Dwyer, "The Cigarette Consumer Controversy,"' a lecture, 19'79', p. 13. 2'4 "The Federal Government Chronology,'f p. 15. 25 Miller, interview. 2'6', Ibid. 2'7 "TI Speaking,Team Presents "0ther Side" Observer, November, 1976, p. 10. 28 Miller, interview. Jensen, p. 4.. 30 Ibid.. 31 Miller, interview 32 "Special Report: Smoking, folder. 33 34 35 Ibid. Corporate Public Issues,. Communications News.. , ~ The~ Tobacco and the Puiblic, "' Tobacco Institute p . it