Daily Doc: PM, May 7, 1990: Philip Morris ETS Strategy, 1990
Daily Doc: Philip Morris ETS Strategy, 1990
Title: AN ACCOMMODATION STRATEGY IN EEMA A STRATEGIC BRIEF
PM, May 7, 1990
Bates #: 2021181862/1887
February 13, 2001
This environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) strategy document by Philip Morris' public relations firm Burson Marsteller reveals how Philip Morris and its PR flack perceived the ETS issue and how they developed "accommodation" as a strategy to deflect it in the 1990s. There are many pivotal lessons for advocates in this document, specifically that
1) the "...social acceptability [of smoking] is ultimately the bedrock upon which the industry's survival depends," thus accellerating the increase in the social unacceptability of smoking will help diminish the industry's future,
2) As long as we fight the tobacco industry on the issue of health--and not allow the industry to co-opt it into an argument of "free choice" or "rights of smokers" we will win, as per the following quote:
"...Equally, [these figures] reveal the source of the power of the anti-smokers as long as they can fight the cigarette wars on a battlefield of health....The industry stands somewhat flat-footed in response since it questions the fundamental promise (ie the existence of the health problem) -- a stance which puts it in conflict with the weight of public opinion."3) Emphasizing that secondhand smoke is an annoyance is perhaps more important as a strategy than emphasizing its known health hazards, since the industry has put so much effort into putting the health hazard into widespread doubt. When we say ETS is a health hazard, the industry pulls out studies it has commissioned through "independent third parties" to put the health hazard in doubt. However, the issue of annoyance plays to business owners' desire to maintain good customer relations and do what the marketplace demands. The industry has a hard time fighting that, as per the following quote:
"...the annoyance issue is more than a health concern...The annoyance issue is as dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous than misperceptions of the health impacts of ETS. If government officials, business managers or restaurant owners feel that they want to ban smoking for health reasons, the scientific data can be mustered to show that such a ban serves no health purpose. But, as has been discovered in the battle for airline smoking, as long as the decision-maker can fall back on a "comfort" or "customer preference" argument, it doesn't matter what the science says. It becomes a question of social harmony and good customer relations..."5) We should expose Philip Morris' "accommodation" program as a strategy the tobacco industry designed purely to benefit itself, not smokers, as per the following quote:
"...Accommodation must be perceived to be for smokers, not for the tobacco industry. If smokers are not visible carriers of the accommodation message, it will lack credibility..."There are many more lessons to be learned from this document. It's worth a read.
CITATION
Title: AN ACCOMMODATION STRATEGY IN EEMA A STRATEGIC BRIEF
Type of Document: Report ("Strictly confidential. Prepared without client approval.")
Author Corporate
Author Burson Marsteller
Recipient: N/A (Presumed intended
Recipient: Philip Morris Tobacco Company)
Date: 19900507
Site: http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/
Page Count 26
Bates No. 2021181862/1887
URL (on TDO): http://www.tobaccodocuments.org/view.cfm?CitID=1557122&GetListArrayIdx=1&ShowImages=yes URL on Philip Morris site: (you can view/print a PDF version from here) http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&if=avpidx&bool=2021181862/1887&docid=2021181862/1887&docnum=1&summary=0&sel1=
Litigation Usage: none yet
Thanks To: Miroslaw Kulowski of Poland for bringing this document to the attention of Doc-Alert.
QUOTES
INTRODUCTION
A circle of growing legal restrictions is closing in on the tobacco industry in North America and Europe with a likely spread to the Middle East over the next decade. The anti-smoking forces -- energized by the rising interest in health as a personal value and by its power as a political force wrapped in "green" clothing -- are using the health issue to promote:
--Restrictions on the advertising and marketing of cigarettes... --Higher taxes on cigarettes...
--Growing discussions of bans on smoking in public places.
Realistically, the industry faces two kinds of threats: politically, the threat is the creation of a highly restricted marketplace whereby cigarettes become a very expensive product which cannot be used in most public places and cannot be marketed beyond limited physical availability in some outlets. The second threat has to do with the social acceptability of the product, i.e, whether the smoker will feel comfortable about being a smoker in any social environment.
This paper will address the second of these concerns, largely because social acceptability is ultimately the bedrock upon which the industry's survival depends. If one assumes the gradual erosion of marketing and use freedoms...the industry (and each individual tobacco company) will be left at the end of the century with consumer loyalty as the sole support of the marketplace. And that loyalty will have to survive despite a host of social, legal and political pressures...
Certainly, there will always be smokers and, therefore, a market to be served, even if the industry is denied adequate communication tools. But the question is, how big will that market be? 10% of the population? 30% of the population? A great deal will depend upon the social acceptability of smoking....
SELECTING THE BATTLEGROUND
Currently the battleground for smoking is defined by health issues. There is near unanimity within the medical, public health, and governmental communities that the primary health question is "proven" fact. The various statistics that are used regarding "excess deaths per year" have become the rallying cry for almost every restriction placed on cigarettes...
It is not clear to what extent the medical community believes that ETS is a health hazard, although the general reluctance of scientists to publicly state their doubts on this question suggests that questioning the ETS health issue might not make a scientist popular among his colleagues. With regard to the public, the PM Baseline Survey shows that one out of two people (smokers and non-smokers alike) in Sweden, Finland and Turkey believe that ETS is a health hazard, and much higher percentages of Swiss believe the same (84% of smokers and 91% of nonsmokers).
...Equally, [these figures] reveal the source of the power of the anti-smokers as long as they can fight the cigarette wars on a battlefield of health....The industry stands somewhat flat-footed in response since it questions the fundamental promise (ie the existence of the health problem) -- a stance which puts it in conflict with the weight of public opinion.
In many markets (such as the U.S., the U.K. and Scandinavia) an effort has been made to shift the debate from the health issue to one of free choice and the rights of the smokers. ...This shift in battleground works well in societies which highly value individualism and personal freedom, particularly when making arguments regarding discrimination against those who smoke. But it does not work well for the ETS issue, since the smoker's "rights" are countered by the non-smokers "right to clean air." The battleground of individual rights can also be less than effective in societies, such as those generally found in the EEMA region, which tend to put a greater premium on social harmony or on correct behavior than on individuality and personal freedom.
The need, particularly in EEMA countries, is to find a different battlefield to fight on rather than health or individual choice....
...THE ANNOYANCE ISSUE
In every market covered by the PM Baseline Survey, over two-thirds of smokers said they were annoyed by cigarette smoking. For the EEMA countries (Sweden, Finland, Switzerland and Turkey) the figure was usually around 7 out of 10...
...And the annoyance issue is more than a health concern. When annoyed non-smokers were asked if they would still object to environmental smoke if the Minister of Health told them it was harmless, large majorities said they would still be annoyed...
...The annoyance issue is as dangerous and perhaps even more dangerous than misperceptions of the health impacts of ETS. If government officials, business managers or restaurant owners feel that they want to ban smoking for health reasons, the scientific data can be mustered to show that such a ban serves no health purpose. But, as has been discovered in the battle for airline smoking, as long as the decision-maker can fall back on a "comfort" or "customer preference" argument, it doesn't matter what the science says. It becomes a question of social harmony and good customer relations -- a subjective judgment which, according to the above figures, would not favor the maintenance of smoking in public places.
...But the ultimate danger of the annoyance issue is more than the question of outright bans...The ultimate danger is in the area of social acceptability, that the annoyance of public smoking creates the kind of atmosphere where smokers are reluctant to light up anywhere except in the privacy of their home and even then they feel guilty...In the extreme, being forbidden to smoke becomes a reluctance to smoke out of real sense of social guilt. ...social guilt can become a genuine threat to smoking...
[a discussion of a proposal for "accommodation" ensues...]
...---Accommodation must be perceived to be for smokers, not for the tobacco industry. If smokers are not visible carriers of the accommodation message, it will lack credibility.
...-- [T]he underlying purpose of accommodation as a strategy is to impact the social acceptability of smoking...Accommodation creates venues for smoking, but smoker clubs embody the idea that smokers are legitimate members of society...
...--Smokers clubs can be important tools in making accommodation programs worthwhile for merchants and employers...This is particularly true for...restaurateurs: if smoker clubs come to represent an endorsement which leads to more patronage, the restaurateur has a motivation for action....Smoker clubs...can provide the motivational tools for merchants to see a reward in smoker accommodation....
CONCLUSION
...Holding on to social acceptability is not just an industry battle, it can also become part of a brand battle. Marlboro-sponsored waiting areas in airports may be more than a symbolic gesture: it could be part of a brand strategy. Philip Morris award programs for restaurateurs might be more than reinforcement for accommodation: it could have to do with brand loyalty among gourmands. In short...it may well be the brands that lead the way on assuring social acceptability of smoking will be the brands that have the greatest loyalty among smokers...
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, or, for quick and easy at-a-glance viewing, try Gene Borio's great new Daily Document Archive at http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html
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