Tobacco Documents Online

THIRD DRAFT - 10/19/81 TO: EXECUTIVE COINIMITTEE FROM: HORACE R. KORNEGAY AND SAMUEL D. CHILCOTE, JR. SUBJECT: NEW DIRECTIONS IMPLEMENTATION , This paper. can serve as background for discussion at your meeting on October 28. It outlines the priority strategies of our New Directions plan, and the actions we propose. These proposals date from'your breakfast meeting'at Marco. Island in February, when some.of the best available' pub`~`ic affairs strategists forcefully urged new directions.for us in the wake of the second round of smoking restriction initiatives and in light of the post-election survey -results. At your June meeting we put forth our original ideas for. New Directibns. -Comments on those have been circulated to you by Brown & Williamson and Lorillard, We have weighed,these carefully in our staff discussions. In addition, events themselves have shaped our attitudes. You have already authorized certain new', strategic steps in our state activities and communications areas All of these developments have contTibuted to our thinking as set forth in this paper. In some cases, it poses an opportunity for new policy guidance to our staff. In any eveht, we have.. felt that any differing opinions should be fully discussed by your committee. CONFIDENTIAL: TIMN 0067411 MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION

2 Our objectives: ... -. i ~ , . ~ ; . . --Change public opinion and reduce public pressure --Cooperate with governments in some areas 0;.142- _4 --But stop state and federal legislation that is neither in our interest or the public's --Manage events and take advantage of them --Improve our credibility , --Assure you a greater return on investment in The Institute and your scientific research support. These objectives condense to a single phrase: Political success. With a reservoir of.public support, it becQmes achiev- able; without it, i't is impossible. This.realization ua,derlies our recommendations: Priority strategy #1: To provide more timely, emphatic and valid responses to questionable science. Rationale: Our scientific position is our fundamental problem. Negative public opinion, bad press and uhjustified regulations arise from it. Our research support and interpretations of research must move from defensive to constructive. Our far- reaching proposal in June was designed to bring The Institute into the mainstream of research support, research intelligence and research advice from experts. However, legal restraints and the emerging vitality of the industry research committee have led us to modify those suggestions and to submit the following. CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION TIMN 0067412

-3- ~ i-~-~ - T F?~t Action 71: Provide for Tobacco Institute and Council'for Tobacco Research staff representation on the industry research committee, reinforcing coordination, awareness and inputs into research developments, assuring greater cul'tivation of and greater public knowledge of third-party critiques of faulty research which may otherwise mislead public pol'icymakersl; assuring more systematic central reporting of research intelligence , through personal contact with investigators and.reports on research papers given at scientific meetings where literature and publicity developments often are forecast2; and enabling multidisciplinary advice to be available to the. Executive Committee in.its consid- eration of industry-supported research project9. Action #2: Through our Communications, Federal, State and Scientific Divisions, focus attention to favarable research O developments on audiences among the public, the news media, ~ legislators, businessmen and scientists. L5 ~ '..4 ~ a Priority strategy #"2: To help managements'with reasonable zU projects to assure smoker-nonsmoker comfort. A~q Rationale: Resistance to smoking restriction legislation O E* alone does not meet current public interest in alleviating the U~ occasional discomfort caused by cigarette smoke." Our adversaries ~A ~ TIMN 0067413 z ~ 1Progress on the Hirayama study has,been significant this year. Similar moves, however, can.be foreseen when public reactions to the White-Froeb study are forthcoming from Rep. Rose and Dr. Liebowitz, augmenting the recent Hirayama critiques which have appeared in the Munich 'Medical Weekly and the British Medical Journal. 2Need for coordination can be seen in the attached scheduled furnished annually to C~R by its consultant, Leonard :.ahn.

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION - 4 - have fanned discontent into social disapproval of smoking. 'oVe should be seen as part of the solution, not as part of the problem. .Action #1: Assign our Communications Division to a pilot project with the National Restaurant Association -- as a starting place leading to other groups -- both to quantify and qualify patron sensitivities to environmental cigarette smoke. The project will use interview and survey techniques to gather , evidence for the first time outside of the posturing which has occurred in regulatory hearings. Action #2: Apply the information as obtained in tr:ial- and-error tests of communications to reduce public.p'ressures,for regulation, either within or outside the_restaurant settings. Action #3: The Communications staff will publicize the good results of the work at this stage in hospitality and tobacco trade publications and throughout TAN. Action #4: The State Activities staff.will apply the pilot results in "their -0utreach proj ect, workingh with managements i n other businesses which are potential targets of smoking restriction legislation. Careful analysis will tell us who they are, the issues applicable to each, and the potential for practical alliances. Action #5: The State Activities. staff will lobby for legis- lative provisions of a waiver of application of smoking restrictions upon presentation of evidence of satisfactory ind'oor air qual•it,v measurement. In other words, making air quality, not just the presence or aroma of cigarette smoke, the decisive factor for .he first time. TIMN 0067414

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION - S - C~: ~ ~ t'7 Action r6: In an area we have not previously discussed, to attempt to reverse the.legislative trend, the State Activities staff will evaluate the states or localities ihere smoking restriction laws exist, seeking an appropriate pilot for intro- duction of legislation to repeal or modify such laws. Some 3S states have enacted some ty-pe of restrictions. Candidates for this effort may include Nebraska, where enforcement appears, notably lax, o.r Connecticut, where the attorney general has stated that there will be no enforcement. Repeals could be cited in defusing new legislative attempts. Priority strategy 43: To participate in fire preveff-tion education. Rationale: A causal role in fires is increasingly attributed to cigarettes (not to smokers). Our industry opposes regulation of cigarettes and disclaims liability. While correct, these postures alone give an appearance'of lack of concern on our part about the overall fire problem. Action nl: This step has already been taken. Our Communi- cations staff and counsel have talked informally with fire prevention authorities about public needs in this area. Action #2: Developing and submitting for approval of the Executive Committee, through appropriate clearance channels, public education messages about firA prevention which ~.+rould b.e suitable for Institute support or dissemination. TIMN 00674,15

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION - 6 - Action #3: Delivery of the messages to the public along with promotion to the fire prevention authorities-and legislators about our public interest efforts. This will be the task of our Communications, Federal and State Activities Divisions. Action #4: Continued dialogue with United Furniture Action Council. The Institute has provided to UFAC, in support of their research at the National Bureau of Standards, a$1.0,00,0 grant. UFAC's.testing program at NBS has ended. Its results are being considered by UFAC as part of their continuing efforts regarding furniture flammability. Tobacco company, Institute and UFAC executives have met to discuss areas of joint conce:rn and possible cooperative action. Consideration is being given to possible testing in the furniture flammability area.jointly by UFAC and The Institute. Priority strategy #4: To join in communicating sensible life- styles for'youngsters. Rationale: Many efforts'are made to discourage.youth smoking but almost all of them consist of wrongful "scare" tactics. Young people need knowledge of prudent youth lifestyles and encouragement to make informed adult lifestyle decisions later. Our voluntary record of youth advertising and promotion restrictions is little recognized. Action 'rl: Informal discussion.by the staff with reliable educators and the content and means of delivery of suitable material. TIMN 0067416 -

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION _ 7 - ~ ~, ,~ `fv t~ r ~tJ Action 42: Development by the Communications Division, with appropriate clearances, cf messages for approval of the Executive Committee. Such messages might stress both the practicalities and enjoyments of life divided into youth and adulthood, with emphasis on behavior appropriate for informed consideration at the adult stage, including a wide range from professional athletics to family responsibility, drinking or smoking. Rationality rather than fear could be emphasized. Action #3: Testing by the ; Communications staff of the efficacy of and responses to approved ine.ssages, under limited and controlled conditions. Action.ri4: Delivery of our.youth messages; by.the-hemmunications staff, accompanied by promotion of our activities to youth and educational authorities. Priority strategy #5: To secure enactment of "truth in statistics-".legislation. Rationale: Research data relied upon by r'egulators and the public in many areas, not just smoking and health,. are "distilled" and summarized:in the literature. They are accepted, usually,.at face value and concerned parties are denied opportunities to develop conclusions from them other than those.offered by their_ authors. Action Tl: Develop in our Federal ?;ctivities•division a list of non-tobacco precedents for such a law and a btief in support of it; and explore, develop and inventory endorsements and potential supporters of it elsewhere in the private sector. Such an inventory TIMN 0067417

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION - 8- might well reflect the interests of the chemical, food processing, energy and pharmaceutical industries, as examples. Action #2: Discussion by our committees of a draft bill (along the lines of one attached here) which would require that data relied upon in the development of regulatory policy be available to the government, and, in turn, to the public, -recognizing ~_ necessities to protect national security and proprietary interests. Additional actions depend upon achievement of a practicable draft. Action #3: Federal Activities secures introduction and presses for hearings and enactment. Action #4: Counsel prepaTes Institute testimony and support of third-party witnesses, based on smoking and health legislative and regulatory experiences in-which "hidden data" prevented full and objective-exploration. Priority strategy #6: To review long-standing advertising- guidelines. Rationale: Voluntary guidelines, deemed by our industry to be in the public interest, h'ave existed formally and informally for nearly 20 years, amended from time-to-time. Current assurance of their adequacy and greater public knowledge of their existence can help soften negative public opinion about brand advertising. Action 11: Committee of,Counsel to-complete,its project•of preparing The Institute response to the Federal Trade Commission , staff report on cigarette.advertising which wAs published last spring. TIMN 0067418

CONFIDENTIAL: _ 9 MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION Action #2: The Committee to review all of the volu.ntairy guidelines adopted by the industry as early as 1963 and. improved as recently as this year, in terms of their adequacy to meet advertising and promotional requirements while withstanding insofar as possible the continuing assaults on advertising from anti-smoking spokesmen. Action #3: Executive Committee consideration of any , recommendations forthcoming from the review. Action n4: Communications, Federal and State Activities Divisions to publicize results of review if warranted. Priority strategy #7: To develop a functional-legi-s-lative defeat model. Rationale: Legislative experience and the growing-complexity of legislative activity enable and require a strategic model forr attack on antismoking legislation. State Activities staff must inventory. past efforts and their'outcomes, list anticipated events and identify in advance the potential assets we can bring to bear I on them. This will provide the norm for any specific battle and serve as a point of departure, in contrast with the ad hoc planning characteristics of the past. This includes assessment of political characteristics and trends, the industry's operating position i.n the state, the role of staff, lobbyists and company representatives- and the industry allies, and recommended strategies. Development of the action model builds on the momentum established with the. TIMN 0067419

CONFIDENTIAL: MINNESOTA TOBACCO LITIGATION -10 - new organizational training and Outreach directions in the State Activities area. Action :1: State Activities staff, in,consultation with the State Activities Policy Committee, to complete development of the New York model already under discussion. Action #2: Application of the model in New York. Action 1#3: Application of an amended model elsewhere. , Priority strategy n8: To broaden and refine our conununi- cations effort. Rationale: Efforts this-year involving both news and paid space in the media have moved Hirayama from acceptabili~'? at least to controversy in the public mind. Further opportunities are anticipated (see above). Meanwhlie;'the copy, layouts*and media plan for our 1982 advertising already approved in concept, is being readied for Communications Committee review, testin„ adjustment and your fimal approval at our annual meeting in December. Subject to tightening its pace, our'public smoking film will shortly be distributed. Action T1:. To review 1982 advertising with the Communications Committee (scheduled to meet November 13); subject it to focus group and interview testing; and to.obtain copy and media plan . approval in December. Action =2: To refine and implement our public smoking f~lm distribution plan which will provide for 1) i.,argeting viewing by potential ally audiences such as organizations representing TIMN 0067420