Tobacco Documents Online

NARRATIVE OF KEY EVENTS IN SOSAS PROJECT ..

I. NARRATIVE OF KEY EVENTS IN SOSAS PROJECT ~ackground " 1 B. Calender of Events. . . • 1 ACS Meetings " 2 2. RJR Strategy in Response To Anti-smoking Campaign ..... 2 3 New York "Retreat" on SOSAS 4 4. Formulation of SOSAS Strategy ......................... 8 5. Basic Issues Identified by Research ............ • ....... i0 6. Viable Communication Options .......................... ii. 7 i ki j - 1 • Pass ve Smo ng As Ma or Issue ........................ 2" 8. Problems with Passive Smoking Mass Communication ...... 14 • 9. Courtesy/Corporate Profit Reexamined .................. 20 10 Ad Tests " " 22 ii Tobacco Forum " 24 12. California Campaign ................................... 25

NARRATIVE OF KEY EVENTS IN TIIE SOSAS PROJECT I3ACKGROUND SOSAS (Study of the Sociai Aspects of Smoking) was the direct result of a change in the strategy of anti-smoking forces in the fall of 1976. Previous to this time, ~he main thrust of anti- smoking activity was to eliminate cigarette advertising from TV and to con~nunicate warnings through mandatory advertising legislation and the media that smoking was harmful to the smoker's health. In 1976, the .American Cancer Society proposed an were to promo'te legislation banning smoking in both public and private places, to focus propa- ganda on the presumed health hazards to non-smokers, and to eliminate all cigarette advertising and promotion. To implement this program, the ACS organized among its own membership a National Commission on Smoking and Public Poli&y. It held "hearings" in various cities throughout the United States in the spring of 1977. o

CALENDER OF EVENTS • March 1977 On March 22, the first meeting of the National Commission on Smoking and Public Policy was held in Los Angeles. The purpose was to gather testi- mony from objective (though ACS hand-picked) witnesses regarding the danger of smoking. Seven more regional hearings were conducted in May/June. The tobacco industry was immediately faced with the decision as to whether to participate in the "hearings". On March 25, RJR requested five of its advertising agencies to make a recommendation. The unanimous recommendation was not to participate but to undertake a long-range program to determine public attitudes toward smoking, particularlyin respect to the relations between smokers and non-smokers and their rights and concerns. April 1977 Utilizing its own advertising agency, public relations, and other consultants, the SOSAS group of RJR conducted intensive research among the public and thought leaders to determine their attitudes on the social aspects of smoking. At the same time extensive investigation was made into the claims of anti-smoking groups and eva].uations were made as to possible responses the o industry might make to these a~:'guments, o

June 1977 A research study conducted in June 1977 by V. L. Tarrance indicated that t~e Tobacco Industry image "' was not positive. The Industry was rated 5th of 5 and below both the Liquor and Oil Industries. Focus g~oups were conducted by the Beaumont Organization in June to identify smoking-related issues and their relative importance to the general population. Irri- tation to non-smokers and non-smoker health were qualified as the two most important issues. July 1977 Public Opinion Research was launched by the Beaumont Organization to identify major industry problems and possible positions of greatest appeal to general public. On July ii, Agency Management, Account and Creative Groups met with Jim Peterson and Hudnall Christopher in Winston--Salem to discuss overview of SOSAS project. August 1977 On August 16, BBDO Account and Creative Groups were briefed on anti-smoking issues by RJR Legal and R&D in Winston-Salem. . In August 1977 BBDO~prepared a stn~ary of the history .i of prohibition to underscore the similarity of events leading to p~ohibition compared with current anti- O O smoking activities. -3-

September 1977 BBDO continued work on the development and refinement of basic concepts representing viable long-term SOSAS directions. October 1977 In October of 1977, the SOSAS group held a "retreat" in New York City and reviewed all of the data then available. • From this meeting, several critical facts emerged: (i) The public, both smoker and non-smoker, had serious concerns about the health effects of smoking on non-smokers. (2) Non-smokers were in favor of greater restrictions On smoking areas and even smokers showed little resistance to this. (3) Conversations with thought leaders indicated little belief in the health hazards to non- smokers, but encouraged the thought of some efforts to promote courtesy as a solution to the smoker/non-smoker conflict. (4) While the public had a general disposition to resist government interference in private affairs, this did not appear to strongly influence the majority who found merit in restrictions on the areas in wh~ch cigarettes could be smo)[ed •

Perhaps the most significant outcome of this meeting was that the evidence clearly showed the lack of public interest and support for reopening the questions of primary smoking, the economic disadvantages to farmers, employees of the industry, and~other economic and social factors that "had been considered as possible valid arguments against further restrictions on smoking. Subsequent to the October SOSAS ':retreat", further information from focus interviews and from Yanhelovich research generally confirmed the previous data. November 1977 A meeting was held on November 22 at BBDO with Mr. Shinn commenting on several SOSAS position statements. Based on these co~nents various positions were eliminated from future consideration due to legal considerations. BBDO supplied several demographJ.cally acceptable test markets to Roy Pfautch and the Edelman organization. RJR personnel further restricted this market list on the basis of the local press, severity of local anti- smoking climate, etc. Two test areas (Erie, Pa. and Des Moines, :Iowa) and two matched control areas (York, Pa., and Omaha, Neb.) resulted from this process. BBDO reiterated its concerns with test marketing, stating that test markets would forfeit O O

the surpr£se element. Also, measuring attitude shift over'such a short time interval would probably result in inconslusive data. December 1977 In a December 5 meeting with Hudnall Christopher it was confirmed that BBDO's primary responsibility for all work would be the passive smoking issue. Also comments from Messrs. Crohn, Shinn, and Jacob would be incorporated into several alternative concepts prior to group sessions to be held later that month. On December 13, concepts were finalized with RJR MRD in New York City and the first focus groups testing advertising concepts were conducted in New Jersey. • " Advertising concept focus groups in.Seattle on December 19. Advertising concept focus groups in St. Louis on December 20. From the focus groups four positions emerged as being most viable for future consideration: Non-Smokers' Health, Courtesy, Smokers' Right to Smoke, Additional Government Regulations. The first of these potential .. positions, Non-Smokers' Health, was judged to have the greatest promise.

Also in Deebmber, results were received from the Yankelovich Corporate Priorities Research designed to measure public policy pressure on business. The research was conducted among leadership people (government, media, financial) as well as the general population. High proportions of both population segments view passive smoking as a health hazard and see increased cigarette tax as the next public policy target. In general, there was little confidence in business with most people feeling that there is an over-emphasis on profit at the expense of public interest. In December BBDO was charged with identifying various service programs (fire prevention was among those suggested) for public relations purposes. The agency forwarded its proposal and suggested some preliminary research to determine the potential downside of relating the tobacco industry (cigarette smoking) with fire prevention. The public service program was later dropped from consideration. January 1978 In January of 1978, anew element was the announcement • by Secretary Caiifano of an ambitious government anti- smoking prograra which received widespread publicity and co~nent, much of it focusing on the question of whether the Federal Government had a legitimate function in this area. t, O

As of January 1978, a ])road strategy had to be ].aid down based on the research and other data that had been accumulated. The principal problem was to determine what the response of the tobacco .industry should be to the new thrust of anti-tobacco propaganda and legis- lative initiative. The questions were to whom should this response be directed, the form the response should take, and what should be the source of the response. " It was generally agreed that the principal burden of response would of necessity be through the Tobacco Institute, although RJR had undertaken to develop such a response on its own initiative. The Tobacco Institute had already undertaken an advertising campaign in tobacco-growing states wh~.ch was apparently effective in reinforcing public .I attitudes toward the economic significance of the industry. It is doubtful, however, that the campaign addressed itself specifically to anti-legislation and propaganda.