Gerard Hastings, Lynn MacFadyen and Lisa Palleson-Stallan

The Need to Control Tobacco Promotion
Gerard Hastings, Lynn MacFadyen and Lisa Palleson-Stallan
Centre for Tobacco Control Research
Mandate: Academic research unit, at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow
Funding: The Centre is core funded by The Cancer Research Campaign
THE CENTRE FOR TOBACCO CONTROL RESEARCH
UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE
STENHOUSE BUILDING
173 CATHEDRAL STREET, GLASGOW G4 0RQ
The Centre for Tobacco Control Research is part of the Centre for Social Marketing
The Centre for
Tobacco Control Research
Core funded by
Tel: (44) 141-548 3192
Fax: (44) 141-553 4118
http://www.ctcr.strath.ac.uk
Director: Professor Gerard B Hastings

Summary and Recommendations
Tobacco control research has now established that:
Tobacco promotion increases overall consumption, as well as brand share.
Promotion comprises many forms of communication as well as advertising.
Creative and marketing skills are used to minimise the impact of regulation.
Targeting is crucial, and the poor, the young and women are key sub-groups.
The industry operates internationally.
It is driven by a commercial imperative that completely disables any attempts at voluntary regulation.
The recent release of internal documents by the UK House of Commons Select Committee [1,2] confirms that the
industry itself accepts these facts, and behaves accordingly.
The implications for tobacco control are clear:
1. Controls on tobacco promotion will reduce the prevalence of smoking and therefore save lives.
2. These controls need to cover all forms of marketing communications, not just advertising; sponsorship
and packaging are particularly important.
3. They also need to be continually renewed and updated to respond to the industry’s ingenuity.
4. Vulnerable groups, including the young, the poor and women, need special protection.
5. Regulation needs to be international.
6. It also has to be statutory, well policed and include penalties that will deter transgression.
The Framework Convention provides an ideal opportunity to meet these criteria.
In the Industry’s Own Words
During its recent inquiry into the tobacco industry, the House of Commons Health Select Committee on Health
identified the five UK advertising agencies with tobacco industry clients and, using its statutory powers,
formally requested internal documents concerning their previous five years of tobacco business. In response the
agencies sent, between them, 16 large boxes containing several thousand pages of material. These documents
cover all matters to do with tobacco marketing, and therefore shed a unique light on the methods and tactics
used to promote tobacco. In the process they also reveal much about the motivations and mindset of the tobacco
industry.
The documents confirm six key points about tobacco promotion:
1) It increases overall consumption as well as brand share. Research has long demonstrated that advertising
has an effect on overall levels of tobacco consumption, and not just the relative share of particular brands.
Studies have modelled: fluctuations in tobacco spend with changes in smoking prevalence [3,4,5] ; differences in
smoking prevalence in countries with varying levels of advertising controls [6,7] and changes in smoking
prevalence after the introduction of an advertising ban [8,9] . A review of these studies undertaken by the
Economics & Operational Research Division (EORD) of the UK Department of Health concluded that
advertising encourages consumption as well as brand switching among current smokers, and may assist in
recruiting young people to the habit [9] .
Despite this evidence, the industry continues to make public denials of any link between advertising and tobacco
consumption. However, the documents show that in private they work on the assumption advertising does
increase consumption, and use all their creativity to maximise the effect. They understand that people smoke for
emotional reasons, and branding is used to cater for these needs. For example it provides reassurance to the
health conscious feeling guilty about their smoking; or the poor, anxious about having to trade down to a cheap
brand. Above all, it adds positive associations to tobacco that are particularly attractive to the young. As the
documents state, smoking is a ‘rite of passage’ behaviour, taken up by young people ‘searching for an identity’.
Branding provides it.
In each of these instances the effect is not just to increase the appeal of a particular brand, but of smoking per se.
It provides the smoker - and would be smoker - with palpable benefits for taking up or continuing with the habit.
Put simply, branding increases consumption.

The industry also makes direct efforts to promote tobacco consumption. For example, one company regretted
the fact that “The smoker is under siege” and suggested a campaign that would promote the idea that: “Smoking
can be a delight for everyone if it is done right.” [10]
Similarly careful consideration is given to expanding particular sectors of the market. A consultant’s report
emphasises the need for “...reinvigoration of the cigar market” It goes on to state that
“There needs to be an attitudinal shift towards cigars, from a target group who are otherwise
put off by 1. a product that is too difficult to trial and 2. the image baggage that the market
has to date.” [11]
Finally, efforts are made to recruit new smokers and retain potential quitters.
“Ultra has yet to demonstrate a consistent ability to attract new smokers. The key question is
“can we expect the brand to appeal to new entrants - or is there a positioning that we can
adopt that makes the brand more attractive to entrants?” [12]
“In conclusion, the ‘threat’ to the existing smoker base for the brand seems more likely to
come from a desire to give up smoking (which is more strongly held by the SCUL [Silk Cut
Ultra Light] smokers than the SCEM [Silk Cut Extra Mild] smokers), rather than from
competitor brands.” [13]
2) Marketing communications, not just advertising. Main stream advertising is undoubtedly the most potent
weapon in the industry’s arsenal, and needs immediate removal. However, even though the documents come
from advertising agencies – and therefore one would expect them to emphasise the role of advertising - it is very
apparent that all types of marketing communication play a crucial role in the effort to increase sales. Sports
sponsorship, the pack, point of sale promotional material, direct mail, and the internet are all emphasised in the
documents. The first two of these are particularly important.
Sponsorship provides an ideal vehicle for enhancing brand image. For example, Formula 1 has been
carefully selected because it is “international, glamorous, challenging, fast, furious, dangerous, living
life to the full and living life on the edge” and therefore has the “potential to create a more dynamic,
exciting brand image”. Sponsorship provides an ideal vehicle for approaching the young, image
conscious consumer, not least because it’s potential to be “subliminal” means that it get through to a
discriminating audience that is:
“…very advertising literate, and consequently very wary of big brands latching on to
aspects of their lifestyle and exploiting them.” [14]
The pack carries brand imagery directly to the smoker, and, as the documents make clear, is a great
reinforcer of the habit:
“...the easiest way to communicate with current smokers is through the pack and
through our extensive direct communications activities...” [15]
“Remember this campaign has its origins in a very simple truth, the smokers of B&H
when they put their pack on the pub table, will always have it noticed by their friends.
It is their badge and all we are trying to do is celebrate it.” [16]
The industry’s own consultants emphasise the range of communication options that are available, even
in the event of an adban:
“Even in the presence of an advertising ban it is possible, through intensive point of sale
efforts, price discounting and use of new communications media (see Appendix), to reinforce
the image of existing brands with the consumer and to launch new brands, eg. Price, L&M,
Horizon.” [17]

3) Continuous efforts are made to undermine regulation. Government public health policy is directly
challenged: serious consideration is given to attacking Tessa Jowell, the then UK Minister of Public Health and
other out-spoken critics; ideas for resisting and circumventing an adban are explored and campaigns that will
undermine budget price rises are developed and run.
“Possible Routes
1. Undermine Jowell, position her as the Minister of Bans, undemocratic and rash/ hasty
decisions. Undermine other supporters eg. Branson (cite connections with
Rizla/Virgin)” [18]
“The role of the mailing is to ‘disguise’ the duty increase (15p) on a packet of fags.” [19]
Not surprisingly, given this rather cavalier attitude to government policy, the voluntary codes also come in for
some cynical treatment. Various references are made to “stepping close the legal rulings”, “pushing the ASA 1 ”
and “sailing very close to the wind”, and the strategies proposed clearly deserve these labels. For example,
suggestions for Formula 1 include sneaking parts of the ‘B&H Special Filter’ name and logo into camera shot
and corrupting the Jordan logo.
“As you will see we have a couple of thoughts:
1) We feel if we can legally say the words “A Special F1” [as in Special Filter]then we could
utilise the area behind the driver’s head – as you see – to attempt to get a little closer to
more “overtly” implying the brand on the car. Do you think we could get this past the
various legal bodies? If Rothman’s can get away with “racing” in the brand typeface, I
think we may have a case.
2) We wonder if you could slightly corrupt the Jordan logo to include a large “ampersand”
[from B&H]. I think this will be sailing very close to the wind. Our reasoning for
suggesting it is that the ampersand is not actually part of your logo though if it were to
appear I believe people would recognise it as being so.” [20]
4) Vulnerable groups are targeted. The documents show that the industry has a text book approach to
marketing: the population as a whole is divided into smaller, more homogenous segments; the viability of each
group is then analysed to determine if they are worth targeting; finally, customised marketing strategies are
devised for those groups that hold most promise.
However, unlike text book marketing, no reference is made anywhere to the ethics of targeting particular groups
or using particular strategies. This is of particular concern, as the young, the poor, women and students all
emerge as front runners. The young are susceptible to evocative brand imagery, as noted above, and the poor
can be reached by a combination of price offerings, gift schemes and reassuring branding to make inferior
products feel better. A specifically female brand is also felt to have potential:
“Smoking remains marginally female in profile, a bias which is slightly increasing ... Women
are heavier smokers of certain niche brands, but there are none which are overtly female in
attitude and approach .... Opportunity possibly exists for overtly female targeted cigarette,
(perhaps tapping into female cigar smoking trend?)” [21]
5) This marketing activity is increasingly international. The documents disclosed by the committee
specifically related to the UK, but even here the international nature of the industry’s marketing is made clear: a
new brand of hand rolling tobacco is launched onto the UK market through campaigns targeting bootleggers in
Belgium; British tourists are targeted at overseas holiday destinations where promotional regulation is less strict
and Formula 1 presents global marketing opportunities.
These clues are backed by market trends, which show that major tobacco brands are crossing boarders.
Research by the international advertising agency BBDO [22] , for example, makes it clear that brands are a crucial
element of tobacco marketing and can be used to prise open developing and transition economies. Marques
such as Marlboro have now become global entities with almost iconic status.
1
The ASA is the Advertising Standards Authority which oversees the voluntary code on tobacco advertising through its
Committee on Advertising Practice.

6) The tobacco industry is driven by a commercial imperative. The marketing practices discussed in this
submission are underpinned by powerful commercial forces. In a competitive market companies will always do
their utmost to survive and succeed. Arguably, they have no choice - the commercial pressures are an
imperative. The problem is that this imperative runs directly contrary to public health. It also makes voluntary
regulation completely unworkable. The UK experience puts this beyond doubt.
The only solution is statutory control: the FCTC, as Martin Khor [23] suggests, must be given real teeth and
energy. This requires three steps. First, confirmation is needed that article 8 of TRIPS, which outlaws any
WTO rule that threatens public health, applies to tobacco. This will ensure that the tobacco companies cannot
hide behind WTO. Second, there needs to be a transparent and effective dispute resolution mechanism, much as
with WTO, where individual member states can force tobacco firms to comply with the FCTC or face serious
financial penalties. Finally, these measures need to be backed by capacity building on a micro and macro level.
Individuals, NGO’s and civil society need to informed and empowered to stimulate action by their
Governments.
References
1. Hastings GB (2000). Keep smiling. No one’s going to die. Appendix 26 in The tobacco industry and the
health risks of smoking, Second Report, Volume II. London: Health Committee, House of Commons.
2. Hastings GB and MacFadyen L (2000). A day in the life of an advertising man: Review of internal
documents from the UK tobacco industry’s principal advertising agencies. British Medical Journal, 321(5
August): 366-371.
3. McGuiness T and Cowling K (1975). Advertising and the aggregate demand for cigarettes. Eur Eco Rev,
6: 311-328.
4. Witt SP and Pass CL (1981). The effects of health warnings and advertising on the demand for cigarettes.
Scot J Pol Econ, 28: 86-91.
5. Radfar M (1985). The effect of advertising on the total consumption of cigarettes in the UK. Eur Econ
Rev, 29: 225-231.
6. Cox H and Smith R (1984). Political approaches to smoking control: a comparative analysis. Appl Econ,
16: 569-582.
7. Laugensen M and Meads SC (1991). Tobacco advertising restrictions, price, income and tobacco
consumption in OECD countries, 1960-1986. British Journal of Addiction, 86: 1343-1354.
8. Perkurinen M (1989). The demand for tobacco products in Finland. British Journal of Addiction, 84: 1183-
1192.
9. Economics and Operational Research Division (EORD) (1992). Effect of tobacco advertising on tobacco
consumption: a discussion document reviewing the evidence. London: Department of Health.
10. Submission from CDP to the Health Committee House of Commons - Gallaher Briefs 1996.
11. Submission from CDP to the Health Committee House of Commons - Gallaher Memo’s 1998.
12. Silk Cut 1998 Planning Day: Report, 1998.
13. Market Trends Ltd. Silk Cut Research: Prepared for Gallaher Ltd, November 1995.
14. M&C Saatchi. Renaissance/Silk Cut: Creative Brief for Gallaher, 7 May 1996.
15. Advertising Support For Gratis II Catalogue Agency Recommendation. Submission from CDP to the
Health Committee House of Commons - Gallaher Strategic Analysis Papers 1995.
16. Benson and Hedges Special Filter: Creative Brief, 22 May 1997. Submission from CDP to the Health
Committee House of Commons - Gallaher Briefs 1997.
17. The Impact of Advertising Bans on Product Promotion, Memo from General Manager, Corporate Affairs,
Gallaher Ltd, 14 July 1997.
18. Gallaher/TMA. Awareness of Communications Ban Campaign.
19. Benson and Hedges Special Filter Mailshot: Creative Brief, 1 September 1997. Submission from CDP to
the Health Committee House of Commons - Gallaher Briefs 1996.
20. Memo from Simon North to Barry Jenner, 22 April 1996. Submission from CDP to the Health Committee
House of Commons - Gallaher Internal Memos 1996.
21. Potential Areas for Research: Slides, 2 October 1997, Gallaher NPD.
22. Paliwoda SJ and Ryan JK (1995). International Marketing. Routledge.
23. http.//tobacco.who.int