Tobacco On Trial

B&W lawyer David Bernick questioned Dr. Anthony Biglan, an expert on youth smoking prevention programs. Mr. Bernick discussed teen smoking initiation as a behavior having multiple causal factors; he emphasized the importance of peer influence.

He asked about evaluating smoking interventions according to scientific principles, and specifically about evaluating Life Skills Training, which is supported by Brown & Williamson and Philip Morris.

Much was made of proper scientific methodology in evaluating both smoking interventions and cigarette advertising’s relation to smoking initiation. The term “cause” as opposed to “causal relationship” or influence was debated.

Philip Morris lawyer Dan Webb (who answered Judge Kessler’s first comment by assuring her he had not picked up her cold, and that, however raspy his voice might sound now, he was almost better) took over to ask Dr. Biglan about Philip Morris specifically. He asked about the company’s Youth Smoking Prevention Program, in place since 1998, and there was an entirely separate high-level department at Philip Morris (20 people). He emphasized the amount of money Philip Morris spends on it, and the degree of testing and evaluation the company does on YSP commercials.

Mr. Webb asked if Mr. Biglan had learned that Philip Morris had spent more on youth smoking prevention ($657M, or roughly $100M/ a year since 1998) than any other entity in the US. Mr. Biglan said he wasn’t familiar with what other entities had spent–NIH, SAMSHA, CDC, the states, American Legacy, etc. Mr. Webb noted that Legacy’s money came from the MSA–ie, “that’s tobacco money, isn’t it?”

Mr. Webb showed that Philip Morris had in recent years been spending more on youth smoking prevention media advertising than it has been spending on Marlboro media advertising–the most striking figure to Judge Kessler was the 2004 spending bars, which showed that Philip Morris spent $2.49M on youth smoking prevention, and $0 for Marlboro.

Mr. Webb, in trying to get an answer on this from Dr. Biglan, said he was just trying to compare apples to apples, ie, media advertising to media advertising. Dr. Biglan disputed that this was apples to apples, as the “media advertising” figures don’t include all the things Philip Morris does to promote Marlboro, including ads in “Unlimited Magazine” (which is sent via direct mail).

We saw in court Philip Morris’ Superbowl “My Life” ad, and other youth smoking prevention material, in tv, print ads and brochures. The material talked either directly to underage youth or to parents about how to talk to their kid about not smoking.

The evaluations, focus groups with parents and kids and “mall interventions” seemed quite extensive. (If anyone said, “I don’t want a tobacco company within 1,000 yards of my kid for any reason whatsoever,” we didn’t hear about it.)

Mr. Webb talked about Philip Morris’ youth smoking prevention grants –$110M to 139 organizations, including grants to

Life Skills training
National 4-H council
Boys & Girls clubs
Girl Scouts
YMCA
Women’s Sports Foundation
Kids Peace
Caron Foundation

Mr. Webb also produced a series of contrasting ads that he said conflicted with Dr. Biglan’s previous testimony on what appeals to young people.

A Marlboro “old person” ad was contrasted with a “young person” ad from Virginia Slims.

An “adventure, excitement” Marlboro ad was contrasted with a similar-themed ad from Vantage, an unpopular brand with youth.

A “tranquility” Marlboro ad featuring a mountain lake was contrasted with a similar scene from an off brand. (It contained a canoe, not horses and riders.)

A remarkable contrast was made between a spectacular Vigiinia Slims “Find Your Voice” 2-page ad featuring a woman’s face. Mr. Webb contrasted this with another ad featuring an “independent” woman. This Merit ad featured a woman jumping up in joy on a beach to “Of course You Can!” copy.

The difference between the two women was certainly striking. The woman in the Slims ad was glamorous, sexy, mysterious. The woman in the Merit ad was in fine shape, and obviously a professional model, but something about her screamed out: drab, staid, established and middle-aged. She was much more like a mom than anyone a teenager might find fascinating.

About the discrepancies –whether teens look for excitement, independence, tranquility or even sociability with dogs (as in two contrasting ads), Mr. Biglan made the point that some segments of the underage market are looking for stress reduction, some for excitement, others for other psychological needs–and that some might even look for different needs at different times.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 11th, 2005 at 2:29 pm and is filed under Notes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.