From the DOJ’s witness list:
Krugman, Dean M., Ph.D.
US Expert Witness
Dr. Krugman, Professor and Head of the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Georgia.. Over his distinguished career, Dr. Krugman has held positions including:
–1975-1978: Assistant Professor of Marketing, Illinois State University
–1979-1983: Associate Professor, Michigan State University
–1983-1996: Professor, University of Georgia
–1996 to present: Department Head, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia.
Dr. Krugman has published over thirty scholarly, peer-reviewed articles in the area of marketing and mass communications and is the author of a book entitled Advertising: Its Role In Modern Marketing. Dr. Krugman has published articles on tobacco marketing, including an article entitled “Teenage Exposure to Cigarette Advertising in Popular Consumer Magazines” published in 2000. Dr. Krugman has served as a reviewer for numerous scholarly journals, including the Journal of Broadcasting, Electronic Media and the Journal of Marketing Research, and is currently a Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Advertising. Dr. Krugman has served as a consultant on marketing and mass communication to numerous companies, including Caterpillar Inc. and Texas Instrument.
As presented in Dr. Krugman’s Direct Written Testimony, his “overall conclusion is that the tobacco industry knowingly targeted adolescents under 18 years of age. The marketing strategies of the tobacco industry have been effective, thorough and well-planned efforts to attract teenagers to cigarettes and contribute to the continuance of teenage smoking.”
Dr. Krugman will address the 1964 Cigarette Advertising Code, cigarette warning labels and various high-visibility advertising venues (corner markets, billboards, etc.) as venues that help establish ubiquity, ie, that help normalize tobacco use in the minds of under-18-year-olds. He will emphasize the power of the industry’s advertising campaigns in developing images and peer influences that strongly affect young peoples’ decisions to smoke.
As with Drs. Dolan and Chaloupka, Dr. Krugman, in reaching these conclusions, “relied upon my educational background, my own research and peer reviewed publications, my understanding of the academic research in these areas, and the tobacco companies’ internal marketing documents and advertising campaigns.”
Dr. Krugman was presented as an expert in mass communication and marketing communications. Defense attorney Ken Bass took the unusual step of not accepting Dr. Krugman as such an expert because, “we believe he has not applied the tools of marketing communications to reach his opinions.”
Upon taking the stand, DOJ attorney Renee Brooker presented Dr. Krugman with 2 huge binders –the largest I’ve ever seen. The rings were about 3-4″ in diameter, and the leafs were the size of, say, a Rolling Stone tabloid sheet. And in fact, the binders held every tobacco ad ever placed in Rolling Stone Magazine, 1973-October, 2004. (There may have been some regional differences.)
We will get to these after lunch. . .
Selections from Dr. Krugman’s Direct Written Testimony:
My overall conclusion is that the tobacco industry knowingly targeted adolescents under 18 years of age. The marketing strategies of the tobacco industry have been effective, thorough and well-planned efforts to attract teenagers to cigarettes and contribute to the continuance of teenage smoking. Contrary to the public statements and advertisements of the tobacco industry claiming that they did not target teenagers or want teenagers to smoke, cigarette companies have specifically targeted teenagers in their marketing efforts.
My overall conclusion about the tobacco companies’ cigarette brand marketing is based upon six sub-conclusions.
The tobacco companies state plainly in numerous internal documents that they need to market to teenagers, that they are researching and collecting research on teenagers, and that they are designing their marketing to appeal to teenagers. Furthermore, you simply cannot direct advertising and promotion at the level and consistency that the tobacco companies have over the years and only confine your approaches to targeting adult smokers who are continuing to smoke at their same rate. It defies logic and my experience to believe that the cigarette industry has spent approximately $12.5 billion on advertising and promotion in 2002, and $175 billion on well-crafted advertising and promotion from 1964 to the present, only to market to their existing adult smokers . . . .
Cigarette advertising can act to help bypass logical analysis for new smokers and current smokers. People do not necessarily think through the logical consequences of a decision.
Also, as noted in my textbook, advertising and sales promotion imagery and messages are used by consumers to confirm, rationalize or justify an earlier decision, which would include smoking behavior. . Tobacco industry documents confirm the role of rationalization as a mechanism in image building for cigarettes. . . .
A Philip Morris U.S.A. “Five Year Plan 1982-1986” dated March 1982 stated:
–First, I concluded that the tobacco companies’ cigarette advertising and promotion expenditures, historically and currently, remain high on an absolute basis and relative to other industries.
–Second, I concluded that the tobacco companies’ use of advertisement and promotion play an important role in selling cigarettes.
–Third, I concluded that the monies spent by the tobacco companies on advertising and promotion are inextricably linked and are coordinated for maximum impact.
–Fourth, I concluded that the ubiquitous nature of the tobacco companies’
cigarette advertising and sales promotion normalizes and socially sanctions smoking among teenagers.
–Fifth, I concluded that, contrary to the tobacco companies’ public statements, cigarette advertising and promotion stimulate primary demand by attracting new users who are predominantly under the age of 18.
–Sixth, I concluded that contrary to their public statements, the tobacco industry has been effective in the planning and execution of cigarette advertising and promotion to teenagers. . . .
Philip Morris sees advertising as a key ingredient in reinforcing existing images. The brand image is a valuable asset in the creation of, and acceptance of new products.
“PM-USA’s on-going advertising strategy has been to maintain consistent imagery for our major brands. PM-USA capitalizes on a brand’s heritage by establishing complementary images for line extensions. This is a major reason for PM-USA’s advertising efficiency. Advertising expenditures are directed at reinforcing already well-established images, rather than developing new images. . . . “
Philip Morris’ conclusion in this document is consistent with my own – that the tobacco companies’ advertising and promotion works. . . .
Philip Morris is constantly looking to update and contemporize the campaign. This confirms my conclusion that advertising and promotion are successful in selling cigarettes. . . .
I have created a chart, Demonstrative 17,499, that provides some examples of how the tobacco companies used advertising to obtain certain goals, including the creation of awareness, the creation and development of brand image, targeting of teenagers, appealing to peer groups, generating trial and/or selling cigarettes, and convincing starters to use a brand. I would emphasize that these documents in the chart are not the only documents that I have reviewed that make these points, but rather are examples. . . .
Tobacco companies’ plans indicate that they intend for their cigarette brands to be an ever-present part of the culture. For example, a Philip Morris mission statement in a 1996 Marlboro Community Event Marketing Plan states: “Continue to build brand equity over an extended period of time while becoming a fabric of the community.” . . .
[S]ome vehicles by nature offer a more wide range of viewers, readers or customers than other vehicles. Those are: television, outdoor advertising (billboards), and in-store displays. . . .
[P]eople, in part, learn about how to act by observing what happens in the media therefore media often help set the tone for how we act. . . . Teenagers have a heightened sensitivity to image and promotion themes at a time when they are struggling to define their own identities. (Institute of Medicine, 1994, p.106) (U.S. Exhibit 64,276). A textbook entitled “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having, and Being” states that teenagers actively search for cues in advertising and peers for the “right” way to look and behave. Teenagers are more sensitive and responsive to cigarette advertising, and actively search for cues in advertising that conform to peer relations that result in the ‘right’ way to look and behave. . . .the images convey experiences that are attractive to teenagers and associate smoking with those attractive experiences . . . .
Advertising industry professionals understand that advertising stimulates new demand. In a survey, advertising professionals reported they understand that advertising increases primary demand and entices teenagers to smoke. . . .
Q. Do professionals in your field make a distinction between advertising and promotion that appeal to existing customers versus new or potential customers?
A. Yes, at times we consider the development of “primary demand” advertising which covers strategies aiming at gaining new or potential users versus “selective demand” advertising which covers strategies only oriented toward gaining share of the existing market. However, in my judgment, this distinction does not apply to cigarette advertising and promotion. So in many cases, selective demand advertising that appeals to existing customers (this would include teenagers who already smoke) can certainly be a factor in attraction of new teenage customers . . .