Daily Doc: PM, Jun 24, 1987: Operation Down Under (II)
Daily Doc: Operation Down Under (II)
Title: Project Down Under Conference Notes
PM, Jun 24, 1987
Bates #: 2021502102/2134
Full Text of Document
February 21, 2000
I first posted information on Philip Morris' Operation Down Under months ago, but the documents cited at that time were far less extensive than today's. Also, Operation Down Under was posted so long ago, many new people from around the world have joined the list, probably missed that posting entirely, and it is a very important document.
Operation Down Under was perhaps the first major internal Philip Morris' (PM) effort to define a comprehensive strategy to combat information being revealed to the public that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is harmful to non-smokers. These extensive and concise notes were taken over the three days of the conference. They reveal much.
First, references in the document allude strongly to PM's awareness that ETS is not safe, that the mainstream scientific community won't support them in their views, and that they can't win this issue using logic. Some examples include the following quotes:
-- > 6. ETS [issue is] not solvable with deductive reasoning. Come up with something company can get behind with $.
--> 3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a "dangerous" statement...
--> Not going to get sympathy on our science by general scientific community.
--> If smokers get message that their smoke kills others, is this not something major?
and,
We've got to get to people on the street, but we are constrained because we can't say it's safe.
The document also contains a number of references to the fact that the secondhand smoke will decrease PM's cigarette sales/profits:
In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales. E.G., parties, planes, etc.
and,
1. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of cigarettes they smoke.
Moreover, parts of this document are extraordinarily threatening. One passage says there is currently no risk to politicians on ETS issues, so PM must create the risk. Another passage says:
Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM,
...and yet another says:
Sue the bastards!
Possible courses of actions listed in their 116-item brainstormed "ideas list" reveal PM's tendency towards starkly controlling tactics. Some examples taken from the list:
33. Create science journal.
34. Create non-science journal.
49. Acquire major media vehicle.
50. Develop own radio programming.
62. Undermine [U.S. Surgeon General] Koop et al 66. Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups. 77. Help select next SG [Surgeon General]. 81. Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues. 92. Repeal smoking restrictions in target states. 105. Attack anti groups where they hurt. 108. Acquire an insurance company.
...and yet, after all these ideas are listed, the admission still comes:
-- We don't have anything to slam them with on health issue.
This document provides a very frank inside look at the aggressive tactics the industry uses to stave off public health measures on secondhand smoke.
CITATION
Title: Project Down Under Conference Notes
Type of Document: Report, other (minutes?)
Author: Not named
Date: 19870624
Site: Philip Morris Tobacco Document site: http://www.pmdocs.com/
Page Count: 32
Bates #: 2021502102/2134
URL: http://www.pmdocs.com/getallimg.asp?DOCID=2021502102/2134
QUOTES
PROJECT DOWN UNDER CONFERENCE NOTES
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
8:30 A.M. Session
We are here to do something radical. To look at a problem. To achieve a solution. Nothing should be withheld. Lots of things have not been done....
Expectations of group members.
1. Some kind of discussion on passive smoking leading to PM or industry to come to public and change perception. 2. Come up with a way to deal with the social/legal context. 3. No expectations on outcome. Will come up with a plan, but can't predict its effectiveness. 4. Come away with consensus and a big picture plan. 5. Action program, somewhat different from what's been done... 6. ETS not solvable with deductive reasoning. Come up with something company can get behind with $.
...Annoyance -- people's noses haven't changed, perceived risk has.
Disagree. Annoyance has changed in last 50 years. Content of tobacco has changed in last 20 years. Cigars/pipes more "annoying" than cigarettes.
Question -- not that they are annoyed, but are they prepared to do something about it. Atlanta airport example -- long distance annoyance. Annoyance --- > chance to complain --- > more press coverage.
Science of ETS.
1. Our position: ETS not shown to be health hazard to non-smoker. 2. People should focus on whole of indoor air, if they are concerned. 3. We cannot say ETS is "safe" and if we do, this is a "dangerous" statement. ...
Legal perspective...
-- Most laws are invulnerable to challenge (NY is an exception). -- We won't be able to establish "the right to smoke." No legal basis for this "right." There are rights to privacy, union rights that do apply in limited fashion.
If smokers get message that their smoke kills others, is this not something major? In U.S., ETS issue will have devastating effect on sales. E.G., parties, planes, etc.
...U.S. political perception of NO RISK to politicians on ETS issue. Therefore we have to create risk to politicians....
...Covington & Burling get referrals on workplace cases. Frustrating. Not much can be done except bluff threats.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
2:00 P.M. Session
A.M. Where things stand.
P.M. What is the problem?
1. Problem -- threatens number of smokers & number of cigarettes they smoke. 2. How to alter public perception that ETS is damaging. 3. "
4. "
5. Is there a different problem?
(Assume that #2 causes #1)
6. Problem for smoking population -- nuisance/annoyance and risk accusations. And there are scientists, etc., who say it is a risk. How to do something for smokers. How to respond to scientists and risk issue.
7. Big, complex problem
A. Altering perception
B. Changing underlying fact from "not proven" to ETS is not harmful to non-smoker. C. What are we going to do at 9:00 A.M. Monday morning? This is separate from above. Has to do with making people feel good about Philip Morris.
D. How to make people (smokers and non-smokers) feel good about smokers.
8. Problem is broader -- general decline in social acceptability of smoking (includes ETS). 9. Problem is political. Our bullets are technical. Bullets against us are lousy, but we don't have better bullets. Need long term science. What created perceptions is their science.
Is there any fruitful science underway? Yes, in epidemiology and in monitoring, but next year to year and a half of science will be negative.
...Message has to be simple. There is no risk. That's the message.
First question -- Why are studies showing no risk not being published? Answer:
1. Peer pressure.
2. Telling people it's ok to smoke shunned by scientists. 3. Researchers don't want this grief.
4. Not going to get sympathy on our science by general scientific community.
...Is $100 million campaign worth an x increase in sales? Yes, if prohibition is alternative.
PROBLEM: HOW DO WE ALTER PERCEPTION OF PUBLIC ACCEPTABILITY OF SMOKING?
But this problem is a direct outgrowth of "harm" of ETS.
We've got to get to people on the street, but we are constrained because we can't say it's safe. What do we want to alter public perception to? A. Can't say it's good, safe, a tonic, etc. B. Can say "It is not shown to be harmful." Can you alter perception without touching on ETS? Yes. CHILL the rhetoric and bad science by SUING THEM. e.g., sue ACS for saying tobacco workers are murderers.
Chill does not equal win. But this idea does fit with present situation of legislators being risk free.
...Your solution must be multifaceted: scientific, PR, advertising, legal. There may be downside to PM as consumer products company -- fear of rocking corporate boat, backlash to any PM campaign. Risk would seem worth taking.
...The analogy of smoker discrimination and racial discrimination is hysterical, inaccurate and unfounded.
Wednesday, June 24, 1987
10:00 P.M. Brainstorming Session
Solutions to problem
1. Develop products that reduce nuisance value. 2. Develop products that have beneficial value to nonsmokers. 3. Develop a free-standing menthol.
4. Expand number of people prepared to talk about ETS objectively. 5. Create our own expert (like Iacocca). 6. More research -- prove ETS is safe.
7. Challenge publicly the scientific community. 8. Need authoritative spokesperson.
9. Look for costless areas of compromise. 10. Talk with / challenge media leaders. 11. Create a bigger monster (AIDS)
12. Make it hurt (political risk) to take us on. 13. NRA type force for us.
14. Greater effort to accommodate desires of non-smoker. 15. Make non-smokers fearful of consequences of office smoking bans (drug testing, etc.) 16. Communicate with core market.
17. Educate core market to respond.
18. Revisit primary issue.
19. Chill the rhetoric.
20. Courtesy campaign for smokers.
21. Re-examine ETS research to make case stronger. 22. Theatre of the absurd.
23. Segment public to look at perceptions and target-messages. 24. Seriously look at TV, print, other media campaigns. 25. Re-examine what we are doing to address symptoms -taxes, etc. 26. Identify natural allies
27. Change nomenclature for issue.
28. Develop public information network and network common language. 29. Lie low
30. Moderation campaign like beer.
31. Endow chair for ETS research.
32. Make sure industry goes along with our options. 33. Create science journal.
34. Create non-science journal.
35. Create smokers' rights unit within law firm. 36. Encourage grassroots organization outside of industry. 37. Involve candy wholesalers, leaf, farmers. 38. Create greater pressure on politicians. 39. Infiltrate W.H.O.
40. Educate PM employees on issue.
41. Fix industry's irritating public face. 42. Directly involve brand advertising in our issues. 43. Mark packages "Please smoke courteously."
-16-
44. Use carton inserts.
45. Support segregated public smoking/non-smoking areas. 46. Make preemptive gesture.
47. Support work demonstrating corrosive impact of nuisance regulations. 48. Vastly expand data base.
49. Acquire major media vehicle.
50. Develop own radio programming.
51. Adopt end game strategy. Maximize cash flow. 52. Develop immediate TV/radio response mechanism in every local community. 53. Promote better room ventilation. An A/C in every home. 54. Legislate clean air.
55. Work with unions to develop generic workplace policies for bargaining. 56. $2-5 million funding for CIAR now. $25-30 million per year later put into indoor air study. 57. Establish center or grant at university to study indoor air. 58. Internally, study need for group to study ETS. 59. Introduce no/low sidestream smoke cigarette. 60. Sue the bastards!
61. Get more support from board members. 62. Undermine Koop et al.
63. More movies featuring cigarette brands. 64. Get best selling novel with subtle connection to evils of anti industry. 65. Art philanthropy -- shift emphasis to literary arts. 66. Challenge tax exempt status of anti groups. 67. Someone outside industry to talk about integrity in science. 68. Re-examine sports promotions.
69. Get Nader-like group to examine anti funding. 70. Establish a risk perspective on issue. 71. Fund major university media resources and training center for science writers. 72. Program for journalism and law schools. 73. Support social research on positive aspects of smoking to society. 74. Establish ties with libertarian and conservative groups. 75. NRA strategy and say we did it.
76. Lobby for cabinet level industry spokesperson. 77. Help select next SG.
78. Re-examine structure and role of TI. 79. Abolish T.I.
80. Ad campaign.
81. Organize "spontaneous" protests on our issues. 82. Identify persuasive mediator between us and them. 83. Re-establish 20-years-ago network.
84. Re-establish seniority system in Congress. 85. New network at state level.
86. Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policymaking work,
-17-
87. Provide lists to supportive legislators. 88. Internationalize our efforts.
89. Presidential primary initiative.
90. Look at referendum process in key states. 91. Enact legislation with smoking as protected activity. 92. Repeal smoking restrictions in target states. 93. Fund research that documents victims and costs of smoking restrictions. 94. Look at law enforcement aspects.
95. Collect and use articles ridiculing antis. 96. Indoor air quality study on NY Times Building. 97. Involve non-smoker in mystique of smoking. 98. Refute argument that smokers incur greater medical/social/efficiency costs. 99. Show smokers are more efficient.
100. Tell good news better.
101. Make use of subsidiary goodwill and power. 102. Fund lung cancer research.
103. Test case town or workplace.
104. Defeat Waxman.
105. Attack anti groups where they hurt. 106. Fund women's unions (office workers) on general discrimination research. 107. Discounts for smokers.
108. Acquire an insurance company.
109. Look at where separation of smokers/non-smokers occurs and capitalize. 110. Do smokers have more fun?
111. Create perception and fact of smokers as a voting, political group. 112. Cement relationship with women smokers, e.g. child care. 113. Create desirable restaurant for smokers. 114. Condoms in cigarette packages.
115. Increase frequency of PM Magazine.
116. Increase pay for PM Mag editorial staff.
...Examination of 116 ideas.
-- We don't have anything to slam them with on health issue.
THE PROBLEM SOLUTIONS APPLIED TO THE TARGET GROUPS Smokers (comfortable, courteous and active) --NRA strategy
--Tell good news better
--create smokers as market segment to products other than cigarettes.
Non-smokers(non issue)
--accommodation (see discussion notes)
--fear of consequences of bans (drug tests, etc.) --courtesy campaign for smokers.
Anti-smokers(isolated)
--Chill the rhetoric
--Theatre of the absurd
--Sue the bastards
--Challenge tax exempt status of antis
--Get watchdog/3rd party group to investigate anti's fund allocations.
Public officials and Policy makers(feel heat and cool) -- Costless areas of compromise
--Create pan-strategic monsters (indoor air, employee rights, polygraphs, slippery slope). --Make it hurt
--Courtesy campaign for smokers.
--"Improve"' Koop.
--provide context for claimed risk of ETS. --Help select next SG.
--Create industry Valenti.
--Involve friendly and neutral legislators in our policy work. --Provide lists to supportive legislators. --Seek repeal of restrictions.
--Develop political targets.
Media (be objective and ideally pro us)
-- Expand advocates.
-- Create own Iacocca.
--Publicly challenge scientists.
--Talk to/challenge media leaders.
--Consider acquiring major media vehicle. --Explore creating or buying pop. science mag. --Explore best selling book on relevant issues. --Examine economic/human costs of smoking restrictions, including law enforcement. --Tell good news better.
-20-
Scientific Community (be objective)
--Expand advocates.
--More research.
--Publicly challenge scientists.
--Endow chairs for indoor air research.
--Create scientific journal (explore)
-- Adequately fund CIAR
-- Sociological research on positive aspects of smoking. -- Refute "social costs" argument (info goes to media plan).
Family and allies(become active)
-- Seek out other allies/industries.
* Credit goes to Gene Borio for posting more extensive information about Operation Down Under on his site, the Tobacco Bulletin Board System ( http://www.tobacco.org/ ) [NOTE: Full text of this document is here--gb]
This service is brought to you by the American Lung Association of Colorado ( http://www.alacolo.org/) and Smokescreen ( http://www.smokescreen.org)
To join Doc-Alert, go to http://tobaccodocuments.org/, scroll down to the bottom of the page, enter your email address in the box marked "Daily Document Newsletter," and click *subscribe.*
Visit the Daily Document Archives at http://www.smokescreen.org/list/viewmsgs.cfm?id=66.
Anne Landman, Regional Program Coordinator
American Lung Association of Colorado, West Region Office
Grand Junction, CO
(970) 245-2120
afoxland@gj.net
***********************
Go To: Tobacco BBS HomePage / Resources Page / Health Page / Documents Page / Culture Page / Activism Page
***********************
END OF DOCUMENT