1. 6
Tobacco Companies’ Public
Relations Efforts: Corporate
Sponsorship and Advertising
Tobacco industry advertising and promotional efforts often are aimed directly toward
the sale of industry products. However, corporate public relations activities also can have
an important impact on the public images of and attitudes toward individual tobacco
companies. This chapter examines the nature and potential impact of such efforts,
including
n Corporate sponsorship of events and organizations, the latter of which often
target key segments of the public in areas such as the arts, minority interests,
or community relief
n Corporate advocacy advertising in areas such as youth smoking, which has
been shown to favorably influence public attitudes toward individual tobacco
companies
n Corporate image advertising, ranging from spotlighting charitable assistance to
rebranding the image of a tobacco company and/or its parent corporation, which
has also been shown to favorably influence public attitudes toward individual
tobacco companies
Further research is needed on the impact of these types of public relations efforts on
antismoking efforts and public attitudes, as well as on how such activities affect global
markets for tobacco products.
179

2. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Szczypka and colleagues,11 Philip Morris’s
Introduction first campaign began in October 1999
with the slogan, “Working to make a
This chapter describes the tobacco industry’s difference: The people of Philip Morris.”
use of sponsorship, corporate advertising, It portrayed the company as providing
and public relations advertising in the charitable contributions to community-
United States, particularly when it is intended based organizations and preventing the
to cultivate a favorable image of corporate sale of cigarettes to minors. Another
social responsibility. It complements the campaign, with the slogan, “Things are
discussion of the industry’s relationship with changing,” began in July 2000, one day
the news media provided in chapter 9. after the punitive damages verdict in the
Engle class-action trial in Miami, Florida.12
Since the 1988 Master Settlement In June 2003, a series of advertisements
Agreement (MSA), corporate sponsorship focused on www.philipmorrisusa.com,
and corporate advertising have become directing viewers to Philip Morris’s
increasingly important for tobacco corporate Web site for information about
companies. Tobacco companies, as with youth smoking prevention, quitting
many companies, are interested in furthering smoking, and the health effects of smoking.
their public images and interests, as well Corporate image advertising of Philip Morris
as in building their corporate and product was considerably greater in 1998 and 1999
brand identities. Corporate image campaigns as compared with advertising of its leading
have been on the rise among U.S. companies. brand, Marlboro.13 Examples of corporate
Corporate social responsibility initiatives, image campaigns used by Philip Morris are
such as corporate philanthropy, community discussed throughout this chapter.
involvement, cause-related marketing, and
support for minority programs,1–4 have The relative newness of the topic posed
increased in particular. This trend is also certain limitations in preparing this chapter.
described in Fortune magazine’s cover story First, corporate expenditure data are difficult
in 2004 on “Corporate America’s Social to determine. A footnote to the Federal
Conscience”5 and the billions spent annually Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) annual report
by companies on social causes.6 The Web on cigarette advertising and promotion
sites of more than 80% of Fortune 500 summarizes the tobacco industry’s
companies were found, in 1998, to address expenditures on public entertainment
corporate social responsibility issues,7 events that display corporate brand names
and efforts have increased since then. but not cigarette brands or logos ($806,000
The perception among business leaders is in 2005).14 The FTC report also includes
that corporate social responsibility is an sponsorship of sports teams and athletes
economic necessity in today’s national and ($30.6 million in 2005)14 but does not
international marketplace.8,9 Compared with distinguish dollars spent on events bearing
product-based advertising (discussed in the name of a company (e.g., Philip Morris
chapters 3, 4, and 5), these types of public Mixed Doubles bowling championship) from
relations efforts generally focus on raising those bearing the name of a cigarette brand
the visibility of and defining how the public (e.g., Virginia Slims Women’s Legend Tennis
views the organization itself.10 Tour). As Cruz15 reports, sponsorship data
for individual tobacco companies can be
Although corporate advertising by tobacco obtained through commercial marketing
companies has been around for many firms, but such data are expensive to
decades, corporate image campaigns have customize and are frequently incomplete.
become more integrated. As reviewed by Other sponsorship sources (e.g., newspaper
180

3. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
advertisements, corporate Web sites, and trustworthiness, social responsibility, and/or
state tobacco control programs) do not attitudes concerning tobacco companies;
reflect systematic monitoring of events.15 (2) whether enhancing these perceptions
Another difficulty is separating corporate of tobacco companies increases sales of
advertising from brand expenditure data. tobacco products or reduces the likelihood
Although tobacco company names typically or urgency of quitting among smokers;
differ from their cigarette brands, in and (3) whether corporate sponsorship and
some cases the corporate entity and its corporate advertising have effects on jury
products share the same name (e.g., Fortune perceptions and public or legislative support
cigarettes, sold outside the United States, for tobacco control policies. This chapter
are manufactured and sold by the Fortune also describes how some of the industry’s
Tobacco Company). public relations messages are tailored
and targeted to opinion leaders, ethnic
In addition to accurately accessing minorities, and women. The perceptions
expenditure data, the newness of the topic of these groups could improve tobacco
of corporate image campaigns poses the companies’ success with the financial
problem of limited academic research. Unlike community, in state legislatures, during
many of the tobacco topics addressed in trials, and in the court of public opinion.
other chapters of this monograph, answers This chapter examines these key questions
to questions about the effectiveness of these in the context of two elements of corporate
campaigns are often inconclusive. In fact, brand image and public relations that are
only recently have companies (whether in becoming increasingly common among
tobacco or other industries) shown increased U.S. companies and that represent two of
interest in promoting their company images, the more visible approaches used by tobacco
and most of the available academic research companies: corporate sponsorship and
occurs outside the domain of tobacco corporate advertising.
marketing. To provide additional insight
into corporate public relations strategies for For this review, the literature in electronic
which tobacco industry data are lacking, this databases such as PsycINFO and MEDLINE
chapter includes a description of research was examined by using the search terms,
findings on corporate social responsibility “tobacco industry attitudes,” variations of
about companies other than those in the “tobacco corporate industry with image,”
tobacco industry. A call for more research “public opinion sponsorship,” “social
on the tobacco companies’ public image responsibility,” and “corporate advocacy.”
campaigns is emphasized throughout this The same search terms were used in
chapter as well as in chapter 15. tobacco industry documents until the term
PM21 (“Philip Morris in the 21st Century,”
Despite the limitations of reviewing research a public relations campaign) was obtained,
on corporate public relations campaigns, and then that name was searched as well.
this topic and its potential impact on Other source materials were forwarded
tobacco product sales and on resistance to by knowledgeable reviewers. Advertising
tobacco policy legislation warrant careful expenditure data came from Advertising Age
attention. In addition to an analysis of and the annual FTC reports on cigarette
expenditures by tobacco companies on marketing. To locate research outside of the
public relations campaigns, key questions tobacco industry on corporate sponsorship,
to be addressed in this chapter include corporate advertising, and corporate social
(1) whether tobacco corporate image responsibility, the three primary journals
campaigns are successful in improving in the marketing discipline (Journal of
the public’s perceptions of the credibility, Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research,
181

4. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
and Journal of Consumer Research) were tobacco industry are Philip Morris USA
searched for the 1995–2005 time period. (owned by Altria Group); R.J. Reynolds,
The search was supplemented with a small which bought Brown & Williamson to
number of additional papers referenced in form Reynolds American; the Lorillard
selected marketing and advertising articles. Tobacco unit of Loews Corporation; and
Liggett Group, owned by Vector Group.
Public-Image Few Americans connect these companies
with the tobacco products they produce and
Problems of the market. Henriksen and Fortmann conducted
a study about young adults’ opinions of
Tobacco Companies Philip Morris and its television advertising.22
They found that between 36% and 43%
Negative images of the tobacco industry in of the 218 participants failed to identify
the United States and other countries are the corporation with tobacco products,
well documented. An annual Harris public depending upon how this knowledge was
opinion poll (2004) comparing U.S. adults’ measured.22 Some respondents mistakenly
perceptions of 15 industries found that the associated Philip Morris with light bulbs
tobacco industry was ranked the lowest in and electronics (Philips), tools (Phillips
the public’s esteem.16 In another survey in head screwdriver), the talent agency
California (2002), 83% of 7,000 adults agreed (William Morris), or stomach medication
that tobacco companies generally provide (Phillips’ Milk of Magnesia). In an opinion
some dishonest information about their poll commissioned by Philip Morris in
products to the public.17 In the same study, September 1999, between one-third and
88% of the 15,000 students in grades 8 and one-half of 2,078 adults said they had never
10 who were surveyed agreed that tobacco heard of the company or its competitors
companies try to get young people to start (figure 6.1).23 Although relatively few adults
smoking by using advertisements that are expressed favorable opinions of any tobacco
attractive to youth. The American Legacy company, R.J. Reynolds fared better than
Foundation’s (Legacy’s) survey (2004) of the others. Its relative popularity in this and
approximately 10,000 U.S. adolescents other polls has been attributed to aligning
(aged 12–17 years) conveyed a similar its corporate identity with Nabisco, its
impression.18 Of those surveyed, 78% agreed nontobacco subsidiary until 1999.24
that tobacco companies lie and 67% said they
try to get people to start smoking. In data In addition to negative public opinion,
from Australia published in 1999, 80% of tobacco companies have faced increasing
800 adults expressed their belief that tobacco litigation and have come under greater
companies either mostly do not or never scrutiny with the release of corporate tobacco
tell the truth about smoking and tobacco’s documents under the Master Settlement
addictiveness.19 In Ontario, Canada, 75% of Agreement. As Szczypka and colleagues state,
1,600 adults (2003) reported that the tobacco two lawsuits filed in 1999 placed significant
industry never or rarely tells the truth about pressure on the industry, particularly on
the health effects of smoking.20 In addition, Philip Morris11—(1) a multibillion dollar suit
adolescents in Ontario surveyed in 2003 were was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice
more distrustful of the tobacco industry than against the tobacco companies and industry
those surveyed two years earlier.21 groups for costs due to diseases caused by
smoking and (2) the Engle class action suit
Public opinion about individual tobacco in Florida asked jurors to award $200 billion
companies is not as uniformly negative. in punitive damages to people suffering
The four largest companies in the U.S. from diseases caused by tobacco. In 2006,
182

5. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
Figure 6.1 Public Opinion of Tobacco Companies: Roper Poll of 2,078 Adults, September 1999
100%
Favorable
90% Unfavorable
80% Never heard of
70%
60%
52%
Percent
50%
41%
40% 38%
34% 33% 35%
30% 26% 27%
20% 14%
10%
0%
Brown & Williamson Philip Morris R.J. Reynolds
Companies
Note. A random-digit-dial survey asked respondents whether or not they had heard of the companies and, if so, whether their
opinion was favorable or unfavorable. From Roper Starch Worldwide. PM21 progress to date: A summary of survey findings from
September 1999 to August 2001. Oct 2001. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2085220338/0414. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fav12c00.
a U.S. District Court25 ruled in the first of individual tobacco companies have
case that the tobacco industry defendants been less negative, partly due to the
had violated federal racketeering laws and lack of awareness by the general public
engaged in deceptive practices to market about tobacco company names and their
a highly addictive product causing human connection to individual cigarette brands.
suffering and loss, but that judgment is Finally, increased litigation against tobacco
under appeal. In the Engle case, although the companies and potential punitive damage
Florida Supreme Court26 in 2006 upheld a awards made by jurors also has threatened
ruling against “excessive” punitive damages the industry’s reputation.
and against filing class-action suits against
the industry, the court approved findings that Against this backdrop of negative public
smoking causes cancer and other diseases perceptions of the tobacco industry in
and that tobacco companies marketed general, low awareness of individual
“defective and unreasonably dangerous” tobacco companies, and increased litigation,
products. These trials were well publicized corporate public relations activities on
and placed additional pressure on the tobacco the part of individual tobacco companies
industry to improve its public image. represent a means to enhance the public
image of the companies and influence public
In summary, the public has held the tobacco perception. In tobacco trial testimony,
industry in low esteem and perceived it to Roy Marden, then-director of external
be dishonest in communicating information affairs of Philip Morris Companies, stated
about its products. Adolescents, too, that increasing communications efforts
report being distrustful of the industry. was “particularly imperative in light of the
They believe the industry is dishonest facts that the antis’ vilification ads are back,
about tobacco’s addictiveness and that our negative numbers are up, & the next
tobacco companies try to entice young round of PM 21 [Philip Morris campaign]
people to start smoking. Public perceptions ads will not be tobacco-related.”27
183

6. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Building a corporate brand image through marketing, such as giving money or gifts to
public relations is an effort to strengthen charity organizations each time consumers
and change public perceptions of the purchase a company’s product or service
company, variously referred to as corporate (e.g., a charitable donation contingent on
image, reputation, and brand equity.10,28–30 a consumer’s cigarette pack purchase).33,34
The primary tools of public relations include According to an Independent Evaluation
publications, events, news, speeches, Group (IEG) Sponsorship Report, a leading
lobbying, public service activities, and national resource for sponsorship research,
identity media.29,30 In much the same way spending on sponsorship by North American
that tobacco companies use marketing companies increased from $850 million in
media to portray positive product imagery 1985 to $10.3 billion in 2003.35 As noted
(described in chapter 3), they use public earlier, separating corporate and brand
relations media to portray positive corporate sponsorship expenditures is difficult.
imagery. A tobacco company, for example, Data that combine them indicate that
might use public relations media to improve Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds ranked 20th
its corporate image by neutralizing negative and 41st among the top 80 companies for
opinions, by persuading those without annual sponsorship expenditures in 2003,
opinions of the company to think favorably each spending between $25 million and
of it, and/or to improve its company’s image $50 million.35
relative to competitors or to the industry
overall. A tobacco company might also aim Much research addresses the costs and
to enhance its credibility and legitimacy consequences of cigarette product advertising
by redefining or obscuring its association and promotions (see chapters 4 and 7).
with tobacco products. Industry documents However, comparatively little is known about
for Philip Morris describe corporate tobacco industry sponsorship. In one of the
objectives to improve company image, more comprehensive studies, a 2001 review
increase company credibility, and establish by Rosenberg and Siegel,36 data purchased
“a foundation of acceptability” for company from the International Events Group were
actions.31 One strategy was to “enhance the combined with Internet research to describe
position of Philip Morris as the reasonable/ tobacco sponsorships from 1995 to 1999.
responsible industry leader and work to The five largest tobacco companies at the
give the company a legitimate ‘seat at time spent a minimum of $365.4 million
the table.’”31(Bates no. 2073434686) to sponsor at least 2,733 events or causes,
with four times as many sponsorships
for Philip Morris as for the other tobacco
Corporate Sponsorship companies combined. Rodeo, motor, and
other sports attracted the largest investment
The sponsorship of sports, arts, ($226.8 million), antihunger organizations
entertainment, and social causes (also received the second largest investment
called event marketing) is an established ($104.2 million), and the remainder
communications tool used by both tobacco supported a variety of special audiences
and nontobacco companies for building (e.g., youth, women, and minorities) or
brand equity. Sponsorship refers to issues (e.g., acquired immune deficiency
investments in causes or events to support syndrome, domestic violence, education,
corporate objectives, such as increasing the environment, and government).
brand awareness or enhancing corporate
image.32 Creyer and Ross33 note that Chapter 4 reviews sponsorship activities
sponsorship is viewed more favorably by that promote cigarette brand names
consumers than other forms of cause-related (e.g., Marlboro, Camel, Newport, and Kool).
184

7. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
The remainder of this section focuses on the Brown & Williamson Club. Other
sponsorship that promotes corporate brand sponsorships with title associations
names (e.g., Brown & Williamson, Lorillard, include the R.J. Reynolds Forest Aviary at
Philip Morris, and R.J. Reynolds). the North Carolina Zoological Park, the
Philip Morris Mixed Doubles Championship
For decades, tobacco companies have bowling tournament, the Brown &
sponsored philanthropic events and causes, Williamson Derby Fest at the Kentucky Derby
such as the arts and minority organizations.37 Festival, and the Philip Morris Center for
For example, Philip Morris reported grants Organizational Renewal at Catawba College.36
totaling $9.3 million to 295 arts and
cultural organizations in 2003, including The rationale behind corporate sponsorship
recipients with obvious appeal to ethnic/ activities is to (1) promote awareness of
racial minorities (e.g., Grupo de Artistas tobacco company names and/or logos
Latinoamericanos, Alvin Ailey American among people in attendance at sponsored
Dance Theater, and Asia Society) and to events, (2) increase perceptions that
children (e.g., Big Apple Circus).38 In 1998, the company is socially responsible and
Philip Morris contributed $2.1 million to decrease perceptions that the company is
57 organizations in the United States to socially irresponsible, (3) increase overall
fund meals for the elderly. The program liking for the company, (4) create or
partnered with the National Meals on strengthen the identity of the company as
Wheels Foundation.36 Some sponsorships being associated with a particular target
have led to naming rights. For example, market or lifestyle, (5) show support for
Brown & Williamson made a $3 million a social issue or community, (6) increase
contribution to Kentucky’s University favorable associations with the company’s
of Louisville’s athletic department in products, and/or (7) increase merchandising
1996 for completion of the club level or promotional opportunities.29 It may
and a training facility, which led to the also generate media exposure to reach a
naming of the stadium’s club facility as considerably larger audience.
Big Tobacco and Vatican Art
A 1983 grant in excess of $3 million for the Vatican art treasures exhibition at New York City’s
Metropolitan Museum of Art garnered much publicity for Philip Morris. A company document
describes the significance of Philip Morris’s sponsorship:
Explaining the exhibition to the general public proved to be an unparalleled opportunity to promote
Philip Morris as well as the Vatican Collections. We did it through radio and television interviews,
feature stories in newspapers and magazines, public service announcements, films run by the Public
Broadcasting Service and placed in over 70 movie houses, and in a brochure given to museum visitors.a
The year-long exhibit was seen by 2 million people.b
When the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York, Terence Cardinal Cooke, led a prayer at a
banquet celebrating the Vatican exhibit, a Philip Morris vice president remarked, “We are probably
the only cigarette company on this Earth to be blessed by a cardinal.”c
Philip Morris Corporate Relations and Communications. 1983. Washington relations summer jobs ’83.
a
http://tobaccodocuments.org/usc_tim/2048090822-0833.html.
b
Blum, A., and K. Fitzgerald. 1985. How tobacco companies have found religion. NY State Journal of Medicine
85: 445–50.
Rosenblatt, R. 1994. How do tobacco executives live with themselves? New York Times, March 20.
c
185

8. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Perceptions that the public has about a perceptions and negative publicity about the
company, called corporate brand image industry,40 particularly among consumers
associations, can be formed or strengthened who may be otherwise difficult to reach.
when a brand becomes linked to a sporting
event, social issue, or other sponsorship One type of tobacco sponsorship has
element. In the process, the tobacco involved community and educational
company becomes linked with causes or programs for youth, including partnerships
events that are important to a particular with the 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs of
target group. The pre-existing associations America, baseball camps, and other
people have about the sporting event or community organizations. In one case,
social issue may become connected in Philip Morris provided schools throughout
memory to the company or brands that the country with covers for school books
sponsor that event. This is similar to the with the message, “Think. Don’t Smoke.”
way an image of a brand benefits from and the name of Philip Morris.41 The book
the positive attributes of a celebrity who covers were criticized by some schools as
endorses it (see chapter 10) or an appealing delivering an underlying message about
lifestyle associated with the branded a cigarette, which generated considerable
product (see chapter 3). The corporate news coverage. In a systematic review of
brand associations that transfer from tobacco industry transcripts from tobacco
the sporting event or social cause to the litigation cases from 1992 to 2002, Wakefield
company sponsor could include general and colleagues42 present industry responses
affective associations (such as fun, exciting, to this issue. Ellen Merlo, Vice President of
and liking) or more specific associations Corporate Affairs at Philip Morris, reported
(such as credible, rugged, health-conscious, that even though the company had changed,
and compassionate). they would “think long and hard because
maybe people are not yet ready for us to
In the special case in which the company supply something like a book cover.”43 The
name is the same as its product name implication was that the problem rested with
(e.g., the Philip Morris brand of cigarettes the community, who had not yet accepted
is sold in the Philippines), advertising and the new, responsible tobacco company
sponsorship using the corporate name may policies.42 The book covers were not
benefit the cigarette sales of the brand that portrayed as a merchandising tool associated
shares the corporate name. (See chapter 3 with corporate sponsorship, yet regardless
for a discussion of “shell” companies with
cigarette brand names and how corporate
sponsorship can be used to promote a brand
if the brand and company names are the
same.) By associating tobacco companies
with positive social values and institutions,
corporate sponsorship also is expected to
cultivate goodwill for perceived generosity.
For instance, Yerger and Malone report
that radio programming to honor Black
History Month associated Philip Morris with
African-American accomplishments, and
billboards for the National Urban League
advertised the R.J. Reynolds logo with that “Think. Don’t Smoke.” book cover
of a prominent civil rights organization.39 from Youth Smoking Prevention by
Such associations serve to counter negative Philip Morris
186

9. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
of intent, providing book covers to youth if people support a social cause, sporting
would have similar effects as other forms of event, or cultural activity sponsored by a
merchandising: favorable associations with particular company, they are more likely
the book covers (such as education-focused to view the company’s social responsibility
or health-conscious) could extend to the favorably. People attending events (whether
tobacco company sponsor. sponsored by tobacco or other companies)
are likely to be strong supporters of those
Tobacco Corporate Sponsorship causes and may transfer those positive
feelings to the sponsoring company.
Effects on Consumer Perceptions Consumers attending the event may also
and Sales identify with the cause as having traits that
overlap with the consumer’s self-concept
A question raised at the start of this chapter (e.g., civic-minded, or compassionate).9,49
is whether and how tobacco corporate To the extent that the corporate image
sponsorships benefit the tobacco companies. campaign signals that the company has
Unfortunately, research has not adequately the desired traits of the cause and the
addressed this issue. In particular, more consumer’s self-image, the consumer is more
research is needed on whether tobacco likely to favorably evaluate the company.
corporate sponsorships have been successful Overall, when a company behaves in a way
in enhancing the public’s perception of that is viewed as socially responsible, people
the credibility, trustworthiness, and social often infer that the company has desirable
responsibility of the tobacco sponsors. traits that resemble their own sense of self.1
Studies of industries other than tobacco
suggest that a company’s association A second question posed earlier is whether
with positively perceived events or enhancing corporate social responsibility,
causes enhances consumers’ perceptions trustworthiness, credibility, or attitudes
of corporate social responsibility.44–47 toward the tobacco company increases sales
For example, research on event sponsorships of tobacco products. Further research is still
in domains other than tobacco has found needed in this area, and data pertaining to
that sponsorships increase people’s favorable effects of corporate sponsorships on sales
associations to the company sponsor.46,47 of individual branded tobacco products
Socially responsible corporate activity may were not identified in the literature search.
also represent a competitive advantage However, research in other industries shows
because of its positive effects on company that a positive relationship exists between a
reputation,48 setting apart one company company’s socially responsible actions and
from others. As Bhattacharya and Sen9 consumers’ attitudes toward the company
argue, efforts by companies to engage in and its products.33,50,51 Further, the link
socially responsible actions are more likely between corporate social responsibility and
to have a positive effect, and set the company financial performance, while mixed, is mostly
apart from competitors, when people view favorable.52 Brown and Dacin50 found that
the company as a pioneer in its socially a company’s record of social responsibility
responsible policies and when the company’s positively increased people’s attitudes toward
integrated marketing communications the company, which, in turn, increased
create a consistent message. people’s preferences for a new product by
the company. Creyer and Ross33 found a
Bhattacharya and Sen9 also note that a key positive relationship between consumers’
determinant of the success of corporate preferences for a company’s products and
social responsibility activity is whether the extent to which the company’s ethics
consumers support the cause. For example, exceeded their expectations.
187

10. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Just as corporate social responsibility can of a company on the basis of its reputation.
enhance a company’s image and product Another study, by Creyer and Ross,33 found
sales, the reverse effects may occur when a that when a hypothetical cereal company
company is viewed as socially irresponsible. was described as having deliberately deceived
In fact, when people are exposed to events or consumers, subsequent publicity about the
causes sponsored by a company, sometimes company’s sponsorship of a children’s charity
they engage in causal attributions about the increased the amount of money consumers
motives of the company or message source. were willing to pay for the company’s
In such cases, the positive effects of corporate products.33 Clearly, more research is needed
social responsibility may be reduced or on tobacco sponsorship to determine when
reversed when consumers are suspicious such campaigns improve a company’s
about corporate motives.32,48,53 For example, reputation and credibility and when they do
Szykman and colleagues54 found that when harm. Using media to increase the public’s
people viewed a message discouraging awareness of corporate sponsorship may
drinking and driving that was sponsored by serve to minimize the public’s perceptions
the nonprofit organization Mothers Against of a tobacco company’s lack of social
Drunk Driving (MADD), they rated the responsibility in the marketplace.
motives of the sponsor as generally positive
and serving the society. However, those who Some organizations have refused tobacco
viewed the same advertisement sponsored industry sponsorship. According to Stone
by Anheuser-Busch for Budweiser beer and Siegel,58 organizations cited two reasons
rated the sponsor’s motives as negative and for their opposition: (1) concern that tobacco
self-serving. Consumers’ overall attitudes funds undermine a mission to improve
toward the sponsors, that is, overall attitudes overall health, and (2) concern that public
toward MADD or toward Budweiser, were association with a tobacco company would
left unchanged by the drinking-and-driving damage the organization’s credibility.58
advertisement.54 Other research is more Future research should examine whether
cautionary and finds that consumers feel pairing a tobacco company sponsor with
less favorably toward spokespersons they a well-liked cause or event harms the
regard as having self-serving or suspicious recipient’s reputation as much as it is
motives.55,56 It is, therefore, in the interest believed to help that of the sponsor. If so,
of companies—tobacco companies, in such evidence may further discourage
this case—to neutralize negative public organizations from accepting tobacco money.
opinion and make people less skeptical of
their motives. In summary, while research on the effects of
tobacco corporate sponsorships is limited,
Negative corporate social responsibility research on other industries suggests that
associations have also been found to have a sponsorships not only enhance perceptions
negative effect on the company’s products.50 of the company but also that companies
Goldberg and Hartwick,57 in an experiment perceived as socially responsible benefit
analyzing the combined effects of a through more positive perceptions of the
company’s reputation and advertisements company’s products. Research on companies
on product evaluations, found that when with negative reputations is only suggestive.
participants had a negative evaluation of While one study suggested that a negative
a company because of a bad reputation, reputation hurts the consumers’ perceptions
advertisements by the company were of the company’s products, another study
viewed as less credible and the products suggested that these negative perceptions
advertised were rated less favorably than can be offset by perceptions of a socially
when participants had a positive evaluation responsible sponsorship. On the basis of
188

11. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
findings reported earlier that the public have a lot of credibility. Our short-term goal
views tobacco companies as dishonest and is to make people aware of our position on
is distrustful of their motives, tobacco youth smoking. Our long-term goal is to
companies may have much to gain in raise the credibility of this company.”62 Even
changing these perceptions and presenting when consumers do not explicitly connect
their companies as socially responsible. a company’s products to the company
name, corporate image advertising may be
Tobacco Corporate Sponsorship beneficial to a company. In addition to the
findings reported about the benefits to the
Effects on Tobacco Control Policy company regarding corporate sponsorship,
including building awareness and favorable
A third question posed at the beginning image associations, corporate advertising
of this chapter is whether corporate may also be used to influence public opinion
sponsorships have effects on jury perceptions on issues and make a favorable impression
and other forms of public support for on the financial community.29 Corporate
tobacco control policies. While research is advertising by cigarette companies can
limited in this area as well, some evidence also have a broad reach. According to
exists that tobacco companies have used U.S. Nielsen data for 1999–2003, the
corporate sponsorship to influence opinion mean number of monthly exposures to
leaders. In opposition to a New York City antismoking advertisements was greater
proposal to ban smoking in most restaurants for those sponsored by tobacco companies
and public places, Philip Morris threatened than for those sponsored by public health
to relocate its corporate headquarters and agencies by a factor of 1.57:1 among
persuaded art institutions to lobby the households and 1.11:1 among youth.63
city council.59 Although many arts groups
felt obliged to voice support for their Typologies of corporate advertising
corporate patron, the smoking ban passed. distinguish between corporate image/
In other efforts to defeat tobacco control institutional advertisements, which aim
legislation and promote its policy agenda, to establish or enhance the sponsor’s
the industry has compelled the organizations reputation as a good corporate citizen, and
it supported to write letters on its behalf.39 corporate advocacy advertisements, which
Corporate philanthropy has been described aim to influence public opinion and policy
as improving a company’s strategic focus on issues that concern the corporation.64–66
and competitive context.60 These examples However, the two categories are not
of sponsorship by the tobacco industry were mutually exclusive as advertisers expect
more strategic than philanthropic. audiences to think well of organizations
that take appropriate stands on key issues.67
Indeed, the broad aim of all corporate
Corporate Advertising advertising is to create an environment that
is more favorable to the sponsor.68,69
Corporate advertising is often designed
to promote an organization’s image or Direct advocacy takes the form of a
viewpoint, rather than to sell particular persuasive argument, presenting facts or
products or services.61 Statements from the arguments that portray the sponsor positively
senior vice president for communications and its opponent negatively.64 An example
at Philip Morris serve to illustrate the value is the 1954 newspaper advertisement, titled
of advertising a youth access program: “A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers,”
“It wouldn’t be a bolt out of the blue that a in which the tobacco industry questioned
tobacco company like Philip Morris doesn’t research implicating smoking as a cause of
189

12. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
cancer, promised consumers that cigarettes both with regard to the youth smoking
were safe, and pledged its cooperation to prevention advertisements and with regard
safeguard the public’s health.70,71 To defuse to other corporate image advertising.
negative publicity surrounding accusations Also addressed in this section is whether
that tobacco companies manipulated nicotine corporate advertising influences sales
in cigarettes, Philip Morris sponsored a of tobacco products, intentions to start
newspaper advertisement that dismissed smoking, or intentions to quit smoking.
the allegations as innuendo and offered its
denials as “facts smokers and nonsmokers Youth Smoking Prevention
should know.”72,73
Advertisements
Indirect advocacy typically characterizes The tobacco industry’s forays into youth
a corporation as serving a public interest smoking prevention, and the criticisms of
and its activities as the preferred solutions these efforts, are not new.75–78 Mass media
to issues of public concern.64 For example, campaigns focusing on youth smoking
newspaper advertisements that unveiled prevention have been sponsored by both
a youth access program to enhance the Philip Morris and Lorillard. In 1998,
public’s perception of the credibility of Philip Morris launched a $100 million
Philip Morris would be considered indirect campaign consisting of several television
advocacy ads. These advertisements helped and magazine advertisements aimed
Philip Morris avoid strong legislation on at youth with the slogan “Think. Don’t
sales to minors and attempted to persuade Smoke.” and advertisements targeting
lawmakers and opinion leaders that the parents with the slogan “Talk. They’ll
company did not want minors to have Listen.” These campaigns portray the first
access to cigarettes.74 positive images of tobacco companies on
television in the more than 30 years since
The next sections review the few published televised cigarette advertisements were
studies on this topic to address whether banned on January 2, 1971.22 The target
the tobacco industry’s youth smoking audience for the “Think. Don’t Smoke.”
prevention advertisements have succeeded
or failed as public relations tools as well
as consider the impact of corporate image
advertising on charitable assistance.
Tobacco Corporate Advertising
Effects on Company Perceptions
and Sales
The first issue addressed in this section
is whether corporate image advertising
has been successful in enhancing the
public’s perceptions of the credibility,
trustworthiness, social responsibility, and/or
attitudes concerning tobacco companies.
Although this question was difficult to
answer for corporate sponsorship (due to “Think. Don’t Smoke.” from Youth
the paucity of research), a few studies have Smoking Prevention campaign by
been conducted on corporate advertising, Philip Morris
190

13. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
campaign, according to
Philip Morris, was youth
aged 10–14.78 In 1999,
Philip Morris launched a
campaign with the slogan,
“Talk. They’ll Listen.” focused
on parental responsibility
for talking to children
about smoking. In court
testimony on the tobacco
company youth smoking
campaign, Philip Morris
witnesses stressed the
seriousness of their efforts
in trying to reduce smoking
among youth, rather than “Talk. They’ll Listen.” from Youth From “Tobacco Is Whacko if You’re a
their use of the campaign Smoking Prevention campaign by Teen” campaign by Lorillard
for public relations Philip Morris
purposes.42 As evidence for
the seriousness of their efforts, witnesses campaign featured the slogan, “Parents.
pointed to the amount of funding given to The best thing between kids and cigarettes.”
youth smoking prevention. Increases in According to Nielsen data, the tobacco
funding, however, have tended to coincide companies’ prevention advertisements
with increases in tobacco litigation cases.42 aimed at youth appeared as often in all
television households as in households
In 1999 and 2000, Philip Morris was the with the “target” adolescent audience63
single largest antismoking advertiser (see chapter 5). The fact that the youth
in the United States, even in states with smoking prevention advertising targeted
aggressive antitobacco media campaigns.79 all television households rather than solely
Although the “Think. Don’t Smoke.” youth, along with the emphasis placed
advertisements ceased in 2002, similar on the amount of money spent on youth
prevention advertisements appeared on smoking prevention, seem to indicate
Music Television (MTV) in Europe and the advertising campaign, was, at least in
Australia. part, a public relations strategy intended
to reduce the general public’s negative
Between 1999 and 2004, Lorillard’s perceptions of the tobacco companies.
prevention advertisements with the
“Tobacco Is Whacko if You’re a Teen” slogan Consistent with the goals of corporate image
appeared widely in teen magazines and advertising, the youth smoking prevention
on cable television, including the most advertisements promoted more positive
popular shows for adolescents on ESPN attitudes toward tobacco companies. In a
(Entertainment and Sports Programming telephone survey of a representative sample
Network), MTV, and Warner Brothers of U.S. adolescents (aged 12–17 years),
stations.77 The budget for this campaign sponsored by the Legacy Media Tracking
was about $13 million.80 Eventually, the Studies and analyzed and reported by Farrelly
company replaced its advertisements aimed and colleagues,81 those who reported seeing
at youth with advertisements targeting any one Philip Morris advertisement were
parents. Formerly known as “Take 10,” significantly less likely than unexposed peers
the subsequent Lorillard prevention to agree with statements, such as “cigarette
191

14. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Youth Smoking Prevention: Researching the Tobacco Industry Agenda
Analysis of tobacco industry documents identifies several motivations for tobacco industry youth
smoking prevention programs. For example, Landman and colleaguesa reveal that the industry
promoted its youth smoking prevention programs to discourage restrictions on marketing and
other legislation that it found threatening. In one case, in 1991, Philip Morris stated that “youth
initiatives,” if successful, would lead to a “reduction in legislation or banning our sales and
marketing activities.”b
Landman and colleagues also found that industry program themes and messages consistently
downplayed the health effects of smoking to frame it as an “adult choice.” As one example,
Tobacco Institute Vice President Anne Duffin, in 1985, sought advice from a tobacco industry law
firm about how to avoid mentioning the health consequences of smoking in a brochure, called
“Helping Youth Decide.” “Because of criticism from the antis [antismokers] on HYD [Helping
Youth Decide], I’d like to get our own scenario in on cigarettes—not touching on any health
implications, but positing that youngsters don’t need to smoke to look ‘grown up,’ needn’t blindly
follow the examples of others, etc.” [italics added by Landman and colleagues].a(p.919) Documents
revealed that motivations for youth smoking campaigns also included (1) building alliances with
third parties, such as youth and tobacco control groups, which had the “youth credibility” that
the industry itself lacked, and (2) giving Philip Morris a legitimate reason to continue its research
on teenage smoking patterns.c
Carter’s analysis showed that international efforts with identical strategies were being deployed
in Australia, with an ultimate aim of creating a “global brand” for industry youth smoking
prevention efforts, with tangible benefits for tobacco industry stakeholders.d
Landman, A., P. M. Ling, and S. A. Glantz. 2002. Tobacco industry youth smoking prevention programs:
a
Protecting the industry and hurting tobacco control. American Journal of Public Health 92 (6): 917–30.
b
Slavitt, J. J. TI youth initiative. Philip Morris. 12 Feb 1991. Bates No. 2500082629/2634. http://legacy.library
.ucsf.edu/tid/sj119e00.
Philip Morris. 2004. Welcome to Philip Morris USA Youth Smoking Prevention’s Teenage Attitudes and
c
Behavior Study. http://www.philipmorris.com/policies_practices/ysp/research.asp.
d
Carter, S. M. 2003. From legitimate consumers to public relations pawns: The tobacco industry and young
Australians. Tobacco Control 12 Suppl. 3: iii71–iii78.
companies deny that cigarettes cause tobacco use prevention advertisements
disease,” and “I would like to see cigarette expressed significantly greater sympathy
companies go out of business.”81(p.904) toward the tobacco industry than did
Moreover, exposure to additional comparison group members who viewed
Philip Morris advertisements reinforced either antismoking advertisements from
these attitudes. Because the data are cross- Legacy or advertisements about drunk
sectional, it also is plausible that adolescents driving.82 Industry sympathy was measured
who held more favorable opinions about by agreement with statements such as
cigarette companies were more attentive “cigarette companies get too much blame
to Philip Morris advertisements (an effect for young people smoking” and “cigarette
of selective exposure). However, the companies should have the same right to sell
survey results are consistent with those cigarettes as other companies have to sell
of a randomized controlled trial, reported their products.”82(p.15)
by Henriksen and colleagues,82 in which
California adolescents (aged 14–17 years) Wakefield and colleagues42 argue that,
who viewed Philip Morris or Lorillard given the sophisticated methods available
192

15. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
to these companies for determining the advertisements increase credibility of the
effectiveness of advertising campaigns, the advertising message, which could increase
considerable funding of the youth smoking positive attitudes toward the tobacco
prevention programs, and the companies’ industry and, in turn, reduce criticism from
insistence on the seriousness of their efforts, youth groups in the community.
one source of data for the effectiveness of
these programs should be the cigarette Other Corporate Image Advertising
companies themselves. However, according
to court testimony from 1992 to 2003, the Most of the available data on other corporate
companies did not make any assessments image advertising involves analysis of
about the effects of their campaign on various Philip Morris campaigns. In 1999,
youth smoking. Instead, company witnesses Philip Morris launched a $250 million
focused on advertising reach as a measure media campaign to advertise its charitable
of effectiveness (for example, 90% of 10- to assistance for the elderly and for homeless
14-year-olds had seen the advertisements) adolescents, as well as for victims of
and on qualitative data.42 Industry documents domestic violence, midwestern floods, and
in the 1990s, reported by Landman and war-torn Bosnia.88 Featuring the slogan,
colleagues,77 also show evidence that tobacco “Working to make a difference. The people
companies measured media “hits,” program of Philip Morris,” television and magazine
awareness, and corporate image perceptions, advertisements promoted the corporate
rather than the effectiveness of their name and logo, flanked by the more
programs in reducing teen smoking.77 recognizable symbols of its Kraft Foods and
Miller Brewing subsidiaries. Combining
Academic research exists, however, on these advertisements with those about
the effectiveness of these youth smoking youth smoking prevention accounted for a
campaigns in curbing smoking intentions dramatic increase in Philip Morris corporate
and behavior. Evidence reviewed in advertising, peaking at $317.5 million in
chapter 12 suggests that the tobacco 2000 (figure 6.2).13,89,90 Between 1999 and
companies’ prevention advertisements 2001, following the MSA, Philip Morris
have failed as antismoking messages.82–85 spent three to five times more money to
Even worse, in the case of advertisements advertise its corporate brand name than it
targeting parents, the messages succeeded spent to advertise its top-selling brand of
as prosmoking messages.81,86 Following cigarettes. The quantity and content of its
exposure to these advertisements, youth in advertising suggested an unprecedented
grades 10 and 12 showed stronger approval effort to increase the company’s visibility
of smoking, stronger intentions to smoke and cultivate a new corporate image.
in the future, and increased likelihood
of smoking.86 In an experimental study, reported by
Henriksen and Fortmann,91 testing
In other research, by Donovan and the effectiveness of the Philip Morris
colleagues,87 of Western Australian youth, corporate advertisements, young adults
tobacco industry youth smoking prevention (aged 18–27 years) in California evaluated
advertisements showed mixed support in corporate advocacy advertisements from
effectiveness on reducing desire to smoke Pfizer and Chevron followed by either four
in the future, with results varying by Philip Morris advertisements about youth
message theme and smoker status. However, smoking prevention, four Philip Morris
across both smoker and nonsmoker advertisements about community service,
groups, message believability was high. or four Anheuser-Busch advertisements
The authors conclude that these corporate about preventing underage drinking.91
193

16. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
Figure 6.2 Philip Morris’s Annual Advertising Expenditures for its Corporate and Marlboro
Brands
$350
Marlboro Cigarettes $317.5
$300 Philip Morris Corporate
$250
$200 $178.6
Millions
$153.6
$150 $134.6
$114.5
$100 $94.7 $94.5
$50 $33.0
$17.1
$5.9
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Think. Don’t Smoke. Work to Make a Difference.
Note. Expenditure data for measured and unmeasured media were estimated (by Advertising Age ) but did not include cigarette
marketing expenditures such as price discounts or promotional allowances (which comprise more than one-half of the annual
marketing budget). Also note that these data are considerably lower than FTC expenditure data for the same years because the
figure estimates expenditures for a single brand from only one of the five tobacco companies summarized in the annual FTC report.
Advertising Age ceased reporting annual expenditures for Marlboro in 2002. The numbers in the figure do not include marketing
expenditures at the point of sale.
Adapted from Advertising Age. 1999. The 100 leaders. Advertising Age, September 27; Advertising Age. 2000. The 100 leaders.
Advertising Age, September 24; Advertising Age. 2002. Advertising Age’s 100 leaders national advertisers report: Advertiser
profile edition. Advertising Age, June 24.
Although Philip Morris smoking prevention increased beliefs that “Philip Morris is
advertisements were perceived to be less working to change for the better,” and
credible than the company’s community “Philip Morris is open and honest about
service advertisements, the two types of their products and business practices.”
advertisements improved corporate image After launching its Web campaign in
perceptions almost equally well. Groups June 2003, Philip Morris’s public relations
exposed to any Philip Morris advertisements firm collected opinion survey data
rated the company’s image more favorably among U.S. adults, oversampling certain
than did the comparison group. The target groups (e.g., African Americans,
advertisements were most effective among Hispanics, and opinion leaders). The first
those who were unaware that Philip Morris reported that 81% of people who saw the
is a tobacco company. advertisements had a positive impression
of them, and 55% gave Philip Morris a
Tobacco industry documents, too, show favorable rating for addressing tobacco
improved corporate image perceptions issues. The advertisements also were
due to Philip Morris’s corporate reported as more credible than anti-industry
advertisements.11 Before launching their advertising and as creating an impression
“Things are changing” advertisements, of responsible marketing practices. On the
focus group data reported in company other hand, the public relations firm stated
documents in May 2000 showed that “acknowledging health risks” is a key
194

17. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
Health-Risk Promotion: A New Tobacco Industry Strategy
In a more radical step for the tobacco industry, particularly relative to older internal documents,a,b
self-imposed health warnings have begun to appear. A Philip Morris cigarette pack insert explicitly
stated that “Smoking causes many serious and fatal diseases including lung cancer, heart
disease, and emphysema. Your risk of getting a disease from smoking is very high. Do not think
that smoking won’t affect your health.”c An accompanying advertisement argues that “it also
requires education about the serious health effects of smoking, including addiction.”d Another
advertisement explicitly states that low tar is not a safer option and quotes the World Health
Organization in support.
Marc Fritsch, Philip Morris head of corporate communications, spelled out the strategy behind
this latest campaign: “We are providing information to respond to consumer concerns which is
good for long-term business. We’re not telling them something they don’t already know. They
simply want us to be more transparent. Yes, it’s frank, but why should we say anything different?”e
a
Nicoli, D. P. Memorandum. 14 Feb 2000. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2073073375. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/
tid/ssf60c00.
b
Philip Morris. “Steve” PM21 research overall objective. Dec 1999. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2073074117.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yiv27d00.
c
Philip Morris. 2000. Pack “Onsert.” http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/global/downloads/SH/Feature
_30_Swiss_onsert.pdf.
d
Philip Morris. 2003. Press ads. http://www.philipmorrisinternational.com/global/downloads/SF/Feature_30
_press_comms.pdf.
Jones, M. C. 2003. What doesn’t kill you might even make you stronger. Brand Strategy 177:10–11.
e
driver of corporate reputation and still must by distinguishing the company from
be addressed before other messages can competitors and forging alliances with
improve reputation.92(Bates no. 3000176517) certain tobacco control organizations.
McDaniel and colleagues93 analyzed Finally, in April 1998, four of the five largest
industry documents and reported that tobacco companies began a $40 million
overall favorability ratings of Philip Morris advertising campaign (including print,
increased from 23% in 1997 to 39% radio, and television advertisements) “to
in 2000, mostly due to changes in the inform the American people about both the
18–34-year age group (an increase from proposed national tobacco resolution and
19% to 45%). In January 2004, 58% agreed proposed legislation before Congress.”94(p.135)
that the tobacco industry was acting more A survey conducted in August 1998 by
responsibly than in the past. Philip Morris Princeton Survey Research Associates,
fared better than others; 41% said that working under the direction of the
Philip Morris was more responsible than University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg
other companies. It is difficult to discern Public Policy Center led by Communication
which particular campaign may have led Professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson,94
to the increases. The authors chose to analyzed public opinion in response to the
discuss the changes in connection with a industry’s campaign as a function of whether
long-term Philip Morris program, called media markets received light exposure
“Project Sunrise.” This project aimed (an average of 9 exposures), moderate
at countering threats to the company’s exposure (an average of 25), heavy exposure
public credibility and financial success (57 exposures), or no exposures, during
195

18. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
a period of three and one-half months. as discussed in chapter 12, has shown
The survey found that individuals exposed effects on smoking behavior. In a couple
to heavy advertising judged three of the five of studies, youth showed increased rates of
message claims as more accurate than did smoking, increased intentions to smoke,
those with less or no advertising exposure, and increased approval of smoking following
even after controlling for behavioral, exposure to the tobacco industry’s youth
attitudinal, and demographic factors. For smoking prevention advertisements
example, 43% of those exposed to heavy targeting parents.
advertising, as compared with 31% exposed
to no advertising, agreed that “the tobacco Future research should investigate the
plan Congress considered would create possibility that corporate advertising
the largest consumer tax in history.”94(p.138) reduces the effectiveness of ongoing
It appears that exposure to protobacco antismoking campaigns by making
advertisements changed the public’s audiences more resistant to criticism of
perceptions about claims concerning the the tobacco industry. Evidence for this
tobacco debate in 1998.94 Those changes inoculation effect has been demonstrated
may have enhanced the industry’s image in other contexts.95,96 For example,
and bargaining power as it negotiated the attitudinal and corporate image effects
MSA (signed in November 1998) with state were measured after varying young adults’
attorneys general. exposure to advocacy advertisements from
a Mobil Oil campaign and antiadvocacy
In summary, the research on the tobacco advertisements on behalf of an opposing
industries’ youth smoking prevention and position. Consistent with the inoculation
other corporate image campaigns finds theory,97,98 prior exposure to advocacy
that while public opinion of the industry advertising yielded more favorable attitudes
has been very poor (as described earlier toward Mobil’s position and more favorable
in this chapter), corporate advertisements impressions of the company.95 In the context
garnered support for the industry, including of antismoking campaigns, understanding
rating the companies as less dishonest, inoculation effects may improve the design
less culpable for adolescent smoking, and placement of specialized counter-
more responsible, and more favorable advertising.99 Finally, more research is
overall. Company data from Philip Morris needed on the tobacco industry’s outreach
also indicate that this advertising to tobacco control organizations—such as
increased company credibility and gave appearances at public health conferences,
the impression of responsible marketing. support for potential reduced exposure
Corporate image advertising benefits from products (PREPs) as part of industry
association with prosocial issues in much strategy, and links to tobacco control
the same way that corporate sponsorship organizations on tobacco industry Web
benefits from association with prosocial sites—and the effects these efforts have on
issues.45 Adolescents and young adults the favorability of tobacco corporate images.
transfer favorable image associations
from the prosocial issue to the tobacco Tobacco Corporate Advertising
companies. As discussed for corporate Effects on Tobacco Control Policy
sponsorship, more research is needed to
determine whether the increased support The evidence for the effects of corporate
for the tobacco companies translates advertising on tobacco control policy is
into increased sales of tobacco company limited, but analysis of industry documents
products. However, research on youth shows that influencing legislation is a goal
smoking prevention programs, in particular, of corporate advertisements. According to
196

19. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
industry documents, tobacco companies Corporate Advertising on
conceived of youth smoking prevention
programs as public relations campaigns
Tobacco Company Web Sites
aimed at generating positive news coverage,
encouraging support from business and from The corporate Web sites of the major
parent and teacher groups, and discouraging tobacco companies, such as Philip Morris,
legislation that would restrict or ban tobacco provide a wealth of information about the
sales or marketing activities.77 In lawsuits companies’ social-responsibility policies and
filed by people who believed they were actions. Information includes positions on
affected by problems caused by smoking, the health consequences of smoking, youth
tobacco company executives testified about smoking prevention initiatives, rationales for
their youth smoking prevention programs support or nonsupport for advertising bans,
to convince jurors that the companies and other social-responsibility positions.
should be viewed sympathetically and to
reduce or eliminate punitive damages.100 One of the message elements appearing in
Despite the myriad ways in which tobacco corporate advertisements by Philip Morris
companies benefit from their prevention in their “www.philipmorrisusa.com”
advertisements, participants of focus groups campaign has been an invitation to visit
convened to gauge public opinion of the its corporate Web site. Also advertised on
advertisements perceived them to contradict prime-time television, in magazines, in
the industry’s interests.77 As such, the public newspapers, and on inserts tucked in its
response to these advertisements, in some cigarette packs, the corporate Web site has
cases, may be suspicion. Alternatively, since attracted approximately 250,000 visits per
audiences perceive statements against month.38 To the extent that consumers are
self-interest to be particularly persuasive,101 persuaded by corporate advertising to visit a
the advertisements could potentially tobacco company Web site address, they will
enhance the company’s ability to garner be exposed to further corporate advertising
public sympathy. information. As reported by Szczypka and
colleagues,11 a company memo in 2001,
Future research is needed to measure the written by a public relations company
relationship between corporate advertising hired to review the Philip Morris Web site,
exposure and public support for tobacco- suggested that Internet information is
control policies and to more directly more credible than paid media. In 2003,
assess the role of corporate advertising in Philip Morris created a search engine plan
gaining opposition to more restrictive laws to increase traffic flow to their Web site,
and regulations. Studies of the tobacco and include a range of information on health
companies’ prevention advertisements have issues, addiction, and Philip Morris products,
focused primarily on adolescents’ reactions but to do so in “a more user friendly,
to television advertisements aimed at youth. transparent, credible voice.”102(Bates no. 3001113881)
However, since the tobacco industry has This redesigned Web site targeted opinion
shifted its resources for youth smoking leaders and adults 18 years of age and older.11
prevention messages from targeting Philip Morris characterizes, on the Web
adolescents to targeting parents, the site, the company’s positions on the risks of
effects of the messages on adults becomes smoking, without compromising its legal
important. Research with adult respondents defenses.71 It seems reasonable to speculate
should address whether this shift represents that, in addition to targeted opinion leaders,
a more effective strategy to forestall consumers likely to visit the corporate
legislation that would restrict industry sales Web site would be smokers seeking help
and marketing activities. in quitting smoking. As such, the Web site
197

20. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
provides the tobacco company with a means In the next section, the PM21 integrative
for targeting specific audiences. marketing campaign is described as a
case study of corporate public relations
Media Literacy and Corporate campaigns.
Advertising
One means of countering the effects of PM21: An Integrated
corporate advertising is media literacy, an
“ability to access, analyze, evaluate, and
Public Relations
create messages in a variety of forms.”103(p.7) Campaign
Unfortunately, little research has been
identified that examines media literacy Although typically regarded as distinct
in the context of corporate advertising. campaigns, Philip Morris advertisements
However, research sponsored by Legacy104 about youth smoking prevention and
suggests that youth who were exposed to community service were part of a
more Legacy advertisements (critical of the coordinated public relations campaign called
tobacco industry) had more skeptical views PM21 or “Philip Morris in the 21st Century.”
about tobacco companies. Furthermore, This multifaceted campaign included paid
path analytic data among adolescents media, a corporate Web site, a charitable
aged 12–17 showed that mistrust of giving program, a speakers’ bureau, and
individual tobacco companies was linked an internal toolkit to enhance employee
to mistrust of the tobacco industry overall, morale.40 A 1999 company document
that mistrust of the tobacco industry was summarizes the corporate image advertising
linked to more negative attitudes toward and illustrates the central role of its youth
the tobacco industry, and that negative smoking prevention advertisements in the
industry attitudes were linked to a lower company’s image “makeover”105 (figure 6.3).
likelihood of smoking.104 Research is needed
to determine whether these effects also
are found for adults. Teaching audiences Objectives of the PM21
about the advertiser’s identity and motives Advertising Campaign
may encourage more skeptical responses
to the tobacco companies’ advocacy A primary objective of PM21 was to move
advertisements.22 However, advertisements the public’s opinion of Philip Morris
that have been designed to discredit the (its corporate image) closer to the
tobacco industry do not typically name company’s view of itself (its corporate
a specific company or specific brand. identity), a process the company referred
For example, advertisements from the to as “societal alignment.”105(Bates no. 2081609499)
California Department of Health Services The public relations campaign had four
refer to “Big Tobacco.” These advertisements target audiences: African Americans (aged
mock what a tobacco company might say: 25–54 years), Hispanics (aged 25–54 years),
“We don’t say anything about cigarettes opinion leaders, and active mothers. Opinion
on the tube. We talk about beer, we talk leaders were defined as adults who voted in
about cheese, and we talk about community the past year; belonged to a club; and either
service.” Research is needed to determine led a company or worked for the federal,
whether these types of oblique references state, or local government. Active mothers
to a particular cigarette company, such had at least one child under age 18 in their
as Philip Morris, are understood and are households and either voted in the past year,
sufficient to engender skepticism about a entertained guests two to three times per
company’s television advertising. month, held a position on a school/college
198

21. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
Figure 6.3 Overview of PM21 Advertising Campaign
PM Corporate Image Advertising Communications Architecture
Societal Alignment
Corporate Image Advertising
Image Building
Communication Objective:
Audience: Opinion Leaders African Americans
Active Mothers Hispanics
Responsible
Normalization
Strategy: Shared Values Marketer/Manufacturer
of Tobacco (Just Another Fortune 500
(…And acts on them)
Company)
(Open and Honest)
Primary Strengthening
Making a Informed More Than a
Campaign Efforts to
Difference Choices Tobacco Company
Messages: Protect Kids
Note. From Philip Morris. 1999. PM corporate image advertising audience groups. Bates No. 2081609502.
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/clr65c00.
board, took part in a civic issue, influenced smoking prevention advertisements; and
others’ purchase decisions, or engaged in (4) “More than a tobacco company” refers
fundraising. to advertisements that linked Philip Morris
with its nontobacco subsidiaries and
products. PM21 advertisements used
Targeted Advertisements different execution styles, slogans, and
Created for PM21 source attributions. Nonetheless, all
portrayed reasons for audiences to “connect
As shown in Figure 6.3, PM21 was with Philip Morris on a positive emotional
designed to persuade target audiences level.”106(Bates no. 2081613330) For example, a
that Philip Morris shares their social company document described its “desired
values; is an open, honest, responsible mindset” for active mothers as follows:
marketer/manufacturer of tobacco products;
and is just like any other Fortune 500 I understand they make risky products, but
company. Four types of advertisements I see in the past few years PM has gotten
represented these key messages: (1) “Making its act together. They aren’t so duplicitous
a difference” refers to advertisements and they’re being more responsible.
about Philip Morris’s community service; They’re actually doing something to help
(2) “Strengthening efforts to protect kids and their futures. Working together
kids” refers to advertisements about we’re going to get there. There’s some
the company’s support of the MSA common ground … we want some of the
(“At Philip Morris, we’re changing the way same things.107(Bates no. 2081235877)
we do business”) and restricting youth
access at the point of sale (“We card”); Company documents also quote several
(3) “Informed choices” refers to the youth major Wall Street analysts as praising the
199

22. 6 . To b a c c o C o m p a n i e s ’ P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s E f f o r t s
campaign, predicting that the corporate peaked at 45%, and advertisement awareness
advertisements for “a kinder, gentler was associated with more favorable
Philip Morris”108(Bates no. 2071041508) would move impressions of the sponsor. For example,
the company toward the mainstream of compared with other adults, more adults
corporate America, improve its government who recalled PM21 advertisements agreed
lobbying efforts, and reduce the risk the company “is changing for the better,”
of large-scale punitive damage awards “becoming a more responsible corporate
during trials.108 citizen,” and “offering solutions to issues
related to its products.” 23(Bates no. 2085220389)
Evaluation of the PM21 However, advertisement awareness also was
Advertising Campaign associated with an increase in unfavorable
opinions of Philip Morris (from 37% to
As reported in tobacco industry documents, 44%), signaling a possible backlash against
a market research firm evaluated the campaign.
the PM21 campaign by conducting
random-digit-dial telephone surveys of a The campaign’s most dramatic impact
nationally representative sample of adults was on African Americans, among whom
18 years and older almost quarterly from favorable opinions of Philip Morris increased
September 1999 to September 2001.23 from 18% to 40%.23 Smaller increases in
The survey asked whether respondents had favorable impressions among active mothers
heard of “Philip Morris companies” and, (32% to 37%) and Hispanics (31% to 33%)
if so, whether their opinion was favorable and a decrease among opinion leaders (41%
or unfavorable. It also measured agreement to 38%) did not exceed the poll’s margin of
with specific positive statements about error (±6 points). In advertisements about
the company’s image and its defense in food banks for the elderly and scholarship
lawsuits. Data collection was suspended programs for youth, PM21 depicted tangible
on September 11, 2001, before oversample benefits to African Americans and used
interviews of the four target audiences psychographic research about the lifestyles,
had begun. Thus, the margin of error activities, and passions of this audience to
was ±2 percentage points for all adults strengthen the emotional impact of these
(N = 2,078), but ±6 points for subsamples messages.106
of active mothers, African Americans,
Hispanics, and opinion leaders. PM21 culminated with the company’s
decision to rename itself the Altria Group,
PM21 persuaded adults without pre-existing which went into effect in January 2003.24
opinions of Philip Morris to think favorably The name change represented the logical
about the company. However, the campaign conclusion of the long-term efforts by
failed to convince those with negative Philip Morris to reposition its company in
opinions to think otherwise. Between a more favorable light.
September 1999 and August 2001, the
number of adults with favorable opinions of Hostility toward Philip Morris and the
Philip Morris increased from 26% to 38%, industry it represents appears to be
but unfavorable opinions were unchanged softening. In an annual survey of corporate
(41% to 42%).23 Throughout the campaign, reputations that evaluates products
approximately 50% of respondents said the and services, financial performance,
positions the company takes when defending workplace environment, leadership, social
itself in lawsuits were somewhat or very responsibility, and emotional appeal of the
believable. Unaided recall of television 60 most visible U.S. corporations, ratings
advertisements for Philip Morris companies for Philip Morris have improved. From
200

23. Monograph 19. The Role of the Media
PM21: Preparing for a Backlash
Philip Morris believed criticism of its PM21 public relations campaign was inevitable, and its
strategic response plan offered vivid descriptions of what might happen.a So-called firestorm
scenarios anticipated media events, such as the following:
n State attorney general convenes a press conference to “denounce PM21 advertisements
as a PR scam, a back-door effort to advertise tobacco products, and a violation of the
MSA [Master Settlement Agreement].”a He demands that television networks refuse
to run the advertisements or provide equal, free time for antitobacco advertising, and
prohibits sports facilities that receive public funding from selling any Philip Morris
products (e.g., Miller, Kraft, and Oscar Mayer).
n Prominent political and public health figures convene a press conference to announce
a lawsuit to ban the advertisements, subpoena all records related to the effort, and
propose legislative efforts to increase tobacco excise taxes to pay for new antismoking
advertisements.
n Popular daytime talk show host devotes an entire week of shows to ask the question,
“who are the people of Philip Morris?” and sponsors a “give back dirty money”
fundraiser to collect money for organizations that receive Philip Morris contributions.
n Popular nighttime talk show host attacks the advertising campaign by producing
mock advertisements with the tagline, “The people of Philip Morris—Sick, fat,
drunk & dead.”a
In fact, a Tonight Show spoof of Philip Morris advertising portrayed the demise of an American
family brought about by corporate donations of Marlboro cigarettes, Miller beer, and Kraft cheese,
but it preserved the original tagline (“Working to make a difference”).b In addition, the American
Legacy Foundation produced a parody of the advertisement about Philip Morris’s support for the
MSA, refuting the company’s claim to have significantly changed its business practices.c
Other media also criticized the hypocrisy of the corporate image advertising. A single television
commercial, estimated to cost $1 million, dramatized the company’s food donation for Kosovar
refugees—a five-ton food drop of Kraft macaroni and cheese that was valued at approximately
$125,000.d Moreover, the company spent substantially less money on annual charitable
contributions than it spent to advertise its largesse: $60 million versus $108 million, respectively,
in 1999;e and $125 million versus $142 million, respectively, in 2000.f,g Ultimately, this type of
negative publicity did not engender the boycotts, lawsuits, or tax increases that Philip Morris
feared most.
a
Philip Morris. PM21 overview. 4 Sep 1999. Philip Morris. Bates No. 207823617/6287. http://legacy.library.ucsf
.edu/tid/gds75c00.
b
Tonight Show NBC. 2001. Request line/tobacco companies. Videocassette. San Francisco: Video Monitoring
Services of America.
c
Healton, C. 2001. Big tobacco’s broken vows. Advertising Age, February 5.
d
Branch, S. 2001. Philip Morris’ ad on macaroni and peace: Kosovo tale narrows gap between philanthropy,
publicity. Wall Street Journal, July 24.
Dorfman, L. 2001. Polishing its image or preventing domestic violence: What’s Philip Morris really doing?
e
Off Our Backs, November.
f
Bruno, K. 2001. Philip Morris: Killing to make a difference. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=217.
g
Chronicle of Philanthropy. 2001. Gifts and grants: Charitable giving at 96 major corporations. http://
philanthropy.com/premium/corpgiving/2001corp_page.php?Corp_ID-1009.
201