“When an industry has been lying for more than half a century, then announces it is going to tell the truth but only tells a fraction of the truth, the impact can be as bad as or worse than the original lie.”

“Philip Morris wants you to believe that it is now open and candid, allowing customers to make fully informed decisions, but in reality they have cleverly muddied the waters further…”

American Council on Science and Health
http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.461/healthissue_detail.asp

> I see no evidence of overt deception in
> the ads

Then you’re looking for the wrong thing. Philip Morris PR is much too clever to fall into overt deception.

Instead, it muddies the waters. Tells a fraction of the truth. Frames the situation in ways that make it look good. And drowns out the truth, the facts that don’t make it look good.

> [where is] any kind of recent
> advertisement targeted at children

Been in a convenience store lately? Seen the POS advertising? Tobacco’s new billboards.

Care to estimate how many Marlboro logos and ads an American kid sees by the time he’s 18?

Seen a recent issue of People? Rolling Stone?

http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/addicting/

Who are candy-flavored cigarettes for?

Who does hip-hop appeal to?

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/targeting/

http://tobaccofreekids.org/Script/DisplayPressRelease.php3?Display=472

> [where is] a recent public statement from
> the industry denying that smoking is
> risky/dangerous.

http://democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20040827162948-44223.pdf

Good point. So why don’t you actually cover DeNoble’s testimony? Are you even attending the trial? Isn’t that the whole point of this website? I was under the impression that this site was a forum to cover the trial, rather than a springboard to launch polemics against industry marketing practices. Oh well. . .fooled again.

Getting back to the trial for a moment, your observations about PMUSA’s ad campaign are quite interesting, but frankly irrelevant. Do you think PMUSAs ads constitute ongoing legal fraud as the government (ridiculously) alleges? Do you think Judge Kessler is watching these ads or that they will even be admitted as evidence during the trial?

I for one, do not. Elementary criteria for fraud have not been met. You may not like their PR campaign but I see no evidence of overt deception in the ads you despise. The ads may softpedal quitting and not even mention addiction, but I don’t see how anyone could watch them and come away with any conclusion other than that cigarettes are harmful and quitting smoking is a good idea. If tobacco once denied that smoking was harmful, they sure aren’t denying it any more.

Relevant to the trial, with PMUSA actively advertising in the national media that smoking is harmful, and encouraging people to quit (however obliquely), the gov’ts allegation that tobacco has engaged in an ongoing conspiracy to hide the risks of smoking from the public becomes more and more absurd. Yes. . .they’ve hid the dangers of smoking so well that they are telling people to quit in a national media campaign!

Is PMUSA’s ad campaign purely self serving? Of course it is. (As if that’s a shock). Is it racketeering? Nope. Not even close. Again, relevant to the trial, I’m still waiting for the gov’t to produce any kind of recent advertisement targeted at children. I’m waiting for them to produce a recent public statement from the industry denying that smoking is risky/dangerous. These sorts of things would be interesting, damning evidence. In fact, if tobacco actually is doing the kinds of things the gov’t claims, they should be trivial to produce in court to show the world. The gov’t has had 5 years of preparation, spent untold millions of the taxpayers dollars, and has spent 12 weeks presenting its evidence. So where are they?

To paraphrase another popular PR campaign, where’s the beef?

My item is intended to show the connections between the trial, Philip Morris’s recent PR, and its overall PR design and goals.

For instance, in the trial Victor DeNoble is about to testify on addiction, nicotine, and engineering of tobacco product for addiction. Is it an accident that recent Philip Morris PR downplays nicotine addiction? Probably not. Is it a coincidence that it’s running now? Probably not. Is Philip Morris throwing its money down a hole by running this particular ad in major media? That wouldn’t be my guess.

My guess is Philip Morris aims to drown out the facts coming out of the trial. My guess is for every news report the public sees covering DeNoble’s testimony, the public will see 10 Philip Morris ads. Those ads will be filled with happy talk about quitting. Those ads will omit all mention of nicotine, addiction, and Philip Morris engineering of product for addiction.

That’s the trial connection.

Perhaps the webmaster can dedicate a page of *Tobacco on Trial* for “I hate the tobacco industry” purposes?