House of Commons - Health

Select Committee on Health Second Report

II MEASURES AGAINST SMOKING

Measures to restrict marketing

78. The principle of controlling tobacco marketing was recognized as long ago as 1965, when the Government banned cigarette advertisements from television under the terms of the Television Act 1964.[146] Then in 1991, following prompting from a European Directive, the Broadcasting Act 1990 was used to remove advertisements for all tobacco products from television, cinema and radio. In 1998 a further European Directive was passed, calling for the removal of all tobacco advertising and sponsorship by 30 July 2006.[147] The White Paper Smoking Kills indicated the Government's commitment to end all tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

79. Advertising has also been controlled by an extensive set of voluntary regulations on the location and content of adverts, agreed between the DoH and the tobacco industry, and administered by an industry funded body, the Committee for Monitoring Agreements on Tobacco Advertising and Sponsorship (COMITAS) established in 1986, and comprising Government and industry members.

80. Cigarette advertising is governed by the cigarette code which was agreed between the DoH, manufacturers and importers of cigarettes (represented by the TMA and Imported Tobacco Products Authority Council) and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA is final arbiter of the rules. It deals with complaints about advertisement content and supervises the preclearance procedure for cigarette adverts operated by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). The CAP rules are as follows:

No advertisements should incite people to start smoking.
Advertisements should not encourage smokers to increase their consumption or smoke to excess.
Advertisements for coupon brands should not feature products unless these can be obtained through the redemption of coupons collected over a reasonable period of average consumption.
Advertisements should never suggest that smoking is safe, healthy, natural, necessary for relaxation and concentration, popular or appropriate in all circumstances. Cigarettes should not be shown in the mouth and advertisements should not associate smoking with healthy eating or drinking.
No more than half of those shown in groups should be smoking; smoking should not be shown in public places where it is usually not permitted.
People can be shown smoking while engaged in work or leisure activities provided that the situation does not illustrate inappropriate smoking situations.
Smoking should not be associated with social, sexual, romantic or business success and advertisements should not be sexually titillating, though the choice of a particular brand may be linked to taste and discernment. In particular, advertisements should not link smoking with people who are evidently wealthy, fashionable, sophisticated or successful or who possess other attributes or qualities that may reasonably be expected to command admiration or encourage emulation.
Advertisements should not contain actual or implied testimonials or endorsements from well-known people, famous fictitious characters or people doing jobs or occupying positions which are generally regarded as admirable.
No advertisement should play on the susceptibilities of those who are physically or emotionally vulnerable, particularly the young or immature. Advertisements should therefore avoid employing any approach which is more likely to attract the attention or sympathy of those under the age of 18.
Anyone shown smoking should always be, and clearly be seen to be, over 25.
No advertisement should exaggerate the pleasure of smoking or claim that it is daring or glamorous to smoke or that smoking enhances people's masculinity, femininity, appearance or independence.
Advertisements that employ outdoor locations or those that depict people or animals should avoid any suggestion of a healthy or wholesome style of life. Any locations, people and objects depicted should not have undue aspirational, historical or cultural associations.
Advertisements should not associate smoking with sport or with active or outdoor games.

81. Advertisements for sports sponsorship are covered by a separate voluntary agreement between the Department for Culture Media and Sport and the tobacco industry. The most recent agreement, concluded in 1995, stipulated, amongst other things, that:

Of total expenditure on sports sponsorship by any company in any financial year not more than 15% may be spent on media advertising and promotional material directly related to the event excluding any advertisements or promotional material at the venue

Press and poster advertisements should carry the Chief Medical Officer's health warnings

Advertisements should not be displayed within 200 metres of the front entrance of schools

Displays of sponsors signs and other aspects of publicity should be compatible with the cigarette code contained in the British Code of Advertising and Sales Promotion.[148]

82. As part of our inquiry, we obtained a substantial quantity of internal documents from five of the advertising agencies who have accounts with the UK tobacco industry. The advertising papers we obtained thoroughly discredit this voluntary approach: they show that commercial and competitive imperatives make the industry antithetical to its spirit, and provide numerous examples of concrete efforts to circumvent its letter. For example, in a memorandum from the agency CDP in April 1996 it is suggested: "Thought should also be given to style press specific concepts. Gallaher are keen to develop a B&H conversation with this target. Therefore scenarios and people (as young as we can push them with the ASA) to appeal to the 20-25 year olds should be considered".[149] Musto, Merriman, Herring & Levi, in a creative brief from 1998 noted that "CAP's rules and regulations considerably restrict what we can do in the UK ... But CAP rules don't apply outside the UK. There are some very good media opportunities targeting UK consumers abroad - particularly aimed at holiday charter flight traffic. We want some executions using our characters that don't need to go through CAP's vigorous approval process and that can be tailored to British smokers abroad".[150] Similarly, CDP assessed the advantages of using British editions of newspapers such as the Sun or the News of the World produced in Spain as one of the ways round the proposed UK ban on tobacco advertising.[151]

83. The rules relating to sports sponsorship are also seen as susceptible to ingenious manipulation. In a creative brief written in 1997 CDP discussed some suggestions for the promotion of Benson and Hedges:

(1) We feel if we can legally say the words 'A Special F1' [as in Special Filter] then we could utilise the area behind the driver's head - as you see - to attempt to get a little closer to more 'overtly' implying the brand on the car. Do you think we could get this past the various legal bodies? If Rothmans can get away with 'Racing' in the brand typeface, I think we may have a case!

(2) We wonder if you could slightly corrupt the Jordan logo to include a large 'ampersand' [from B&H]. I think that this would be sailing very close to the wind."[152]

84. Mr Chris Macleod, Chief Executive of CDP defended this proposal claiming that it had "the slight exuberance of an advertising agency".[153] He argued that it was reasonable for an advertising agency to take account of the parameters within which it had to work in drawing up its creative strategy. Our impression is that the purpose of the CAP rules in discouraging consumption and youth smoking has often been ignored by the advertising agencies who seem to pay attention solely to the letter rather than the spirit of the restrictions.

85. Elsewhere there are many papers which look at ways of mitigating the impact of a possible UK wide advertising ban. One brainstorming session at M&C Saatchi mooted the idea of attacking the then Health Minister, Tessa Jowell:

154

Mr Moray MacLennan, Joint Chief Executive of M&C Saatchi dismissed the document as one of a "list of ideas" none of which saw the light of day.[155] However, as the memorandum from the Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the University of Strathclyde (hereafter CTCR), which analysed these memoranda at our request noted, "a range of such ideas were taken into consumer research and one directly attacking Tessa Jowell was only dropped because it was felt to be ineffective".[156] Elsewhere in Saatchi brainstorming sessions, suggestions for getting round the ban ranged from advertising using billboards outside foreign embassies in the UK since these were not "UK territory", organizing competitions with lavish prizes, starting Pirate Radio stations and using Silk Cut to sponsor Elastoplast.[157] The fact that many of these suggestions are patently absurd and unworkable does not mean their appearance in the advertising papers is irrelevant. We accept that the advertising agencies, and their clients in the tobacco companies, have an obvious incentive to take whatever legal measures they can to achieve their commercial objectives. But in our view the many references in the papers to ways of getting round the advertising ban all serve to indicate a complete lack of any ethical perspective at the heart of the companies, and scant regard for the intent underlying the regulation.

86. In several instances we found advertising agencies actively striving to keep health issues out of the minds of smokers. For example, a proposal by CDP to feature bungee jumping in an advertisement for Hamlet cigars met with opposition from the client, Gallaher:

158

Again, efforts were made to ensure that advertisements for Sovereign did not appear opposite the Health section of the Daily Mirror. Mr MacLennan of M&C Saatchi defended this as "entirely ethical" contending - in our view entirely illogically - "the only words on many advertisements say that smoking kills ... to put an image in there which encourages people to think of other aspects of health would be a strange way to advertise".[159]

87. Equally, on some occasions it appeared to suit the agencies to use health concerns to their, and their clients', advantage. Market research on Silk Cut packaging illustrated this with comments such as "white signals the low tar category" ... "low tar ('healthy') quality". One advertising debrief remarked that "the emotional territory of 'very low' [tar] is ownable as a higher-level benefit which cannot be usurped by rivals".[160] Another asked:

"Who are we talking to? The core low tar (and Silk Cut) smoker is female ... upmarket, aged 25 plus, a smart health conscious professional who feels guilty about smoking but either doesn't want to give it up or can't. Although racked with guilt they feel reassured that in smoking low tar they are making a smart choice and will jump at any chance to make themselves feel better about their habit."

The triumphant conclusion followed: "low tar cigarettes can be associated with higher self-esteem".[161]

88. The evidence we have reviewed from the advertising agencies leads us to conclude that, once more, voluntary agreements have served the industry well and the public badly. Regulations have been seen as hurdles to be overcome or side-stepped; legislation banning advertising as a challenge, a policy to be systematically undermined by whatever means possible. We recommend that any future regulation of marketing should be statutory, and overseen by an independent and powerful regulatory body which has the consumer's interest at heart, such as the Tobacco Regulatory Authority which we propose below at paragraph 189.

89. Most of the tobacco companies have sought to challenge the Government's commitment to introduce an advertising ban in advance of the date for implementation set by the EU directive. The argument they have repeatedly advanced is that tobacco advertising does not increase consumption, it merely persuades smokers to switch brands. However, looking through the documents that the agencies themselves produced, this view is completely discredited.

90. The CTCR analysis pointed to material which it believed suggested that "specific campaigns are deliberately designed to support the idea of smoking, rather than individual brands".[162] They cited a document produced for Japan Tobacco which puts forward a campaign to promote the idea that "smoking can be a delight for everyone if it is done right".[163] Another report submitted by CDP on the cigar market emphasised "the need for the reinvigoration of the cigar market".[164] Lamenting the demise of "the tobacco culture" the strategy document - in flagrant violation of the CAP - urged the need to "step up our [Hamlet's] presence amongst younger and potential cigar smokers" or else risk losing "a whole generation of smokers, hastening the decline of the market and our brand".[165]

91. Furthermore, in both the cigar and cigarette markets the recruitment of "new entrants" is a key strategy. For example, Lambert & Butler and Marlboro are envied their success in this respect, but Silk Cut need to improve their performance. This was the conclusion reached in a Rothmans Consumer Research Department document from 1998:

166

A Silk Cut planning meeting noted that "Ultra has yet to demonstrate a consistent ability to attract new smokers" and posed the question "can we expect the brand to appeal to new entrants - or is there a positioning that we can adopt that makes the brand more attractive to entrants?"[167] Given that most new recruits to smoking will in fact be children this preoccupation with attracting them is doubly concerning.

92. The issue of how the tobacco companies find replacement customers is crucial to our report. We have already drawn attention to the stated position of the tobacco companies that they totally oppose children smoking. The tobacco advertising papers on the whole are scrupulous in referring to "young adult" smokers although references are occasionally made to "the youth market" and more often to "young people".[168] We were startled to come across a piece of market research which did include 15 year olds amongst the sample consumers of Silk Cut smokers. The advertising agency concerned, M&C Saatchi, told us that the data involved came from Target Group Index and represented a standard industry resource which covers all products, not just tobacco. As Mr MacLennan explained:

169

Gallaher subsequently confirmed in written evidence that neither they nor their advertising agencies had any control over the methodology of the survey which was extremely widely used throughout industry.[170]

93. We have not found any explicit evidence to suggest that tobacco companies specifically and knowingly target children. What the papers make abundantly clear, however, is the primacy of the youth market for the tobacco companies and the importance of emotional messages and imagery. As the Centre for Tobacco Control Research noted: "the documents make it clear time and again that people, especially young people, smoke for emotional reasons, and that branding is being used to cater for these needs".[171] This confirms independent research which reveals a clear preference among child smokers for premium and heavily advertised brands.[172] A large proportion of the evidence deals with this market. Yet, as we have noted above, all research shows that only a small percentage of smokers start their smoking career after the age of 18.

94. The evidence we analysed led us to conclude that much of the very considerable ingenuity that went into the marketing of tobacco products to "young adults" would also hold appeal for those aged under 16. Whilst the tobacco companies ostensibly deplore the young aping their elders in choosing to smoke, the advertising agencies evince a mature understanding of the way in which this market works. A memorandum from Karen Rickards to Christine Barrass of Gallaher well demonstrates this:

173

95. A Mustoe Merriman Herring & Levy memorandum (in response to the proposed advertising ban) notes that, for "new smokers ... smoking ... is still a badge. A sign of maturity, discernment and independence".[174] A CDP presentation for Gallaher explained that the goal of the Benson and Hedges SF [Special Filter] advertising campaign was to "cement the brand into the repertoire of the experimental smoker".[175] TBWA concluded that the success of Marlboro Lights derived from its being "the aspirational lifestyle brand ... the Diet Coke of cigarettes".[176] A creative brief for Rothmans asked: "How do we want to change what people think, feel or know? We want to engage their aspirations and fantasies - 'I'd like to be there, do that, own that".[177] Another advertising executive bemoaned the fact that the "imagery" surrounding Silk Cut remained "unaspirational for the style conscious ... user imagery has become the very young (starter cigarette) and middle aged (part time, health freak, not a real smoker)".[178]

96. Campaigns aimed to provide what the CTCR described as "appropriate psychological support" to the young smoker. CDP in one brief described the client (Gallaher for Benson and Hedges) as being "adamant that she wants the shot to mirror the original, primarily because it researched so well against the younger style press target". The aim of a 1998 CDP/Gallaher campaign was to "boost B&H's image with style conscious 18-24s".[179] An exuberant - and to our minds utterly callous and offensive - creative brief for CDP epitomises the absence of any ethical dimension in the quest to promote a brand of cigarettes:

We want to see Great, British B&H in the Ben Sherman shirt pockets of Brit-popped, dance-crazed, Tequila drinking, Nike kicking, Fast Show watching, Loaded reading, Babe pulling, young gentlemen.

So what we need is the coolest, most exciting, white knuckle ride of a campaign ever."[180]

97. We pressed Mr Paul Bainsfair, Chairman of TBWA GCT Simons Palmer Ltd. on how his company simultaneously sought to engage the "aspirations and fantasies" of 18-24 year olds and to avoid engaging those of 15 year olds. He told us that creative teams were not asked to work to a specific age but that the age bands indicated the "direction" of those people they felt would be interested in their advertising. He felt it was significant that the age band was as broad as it was and he noted "there is a huge difference between the 24-year-old and the 15-year-old". He suggested that the CAP rules prevented them from producing material which might appeal to children and that it was "unlikely that the kind of advertising we come up with would particularly appeal to a 15-year-old".[181]

98. We found Mr Bainsfair's argument inconsistent. He seemed to imply that the appeal of the marketing could stretch upwards, to engage the aspirations of the 24 year old, but not downwards to entice 15 year olds. We wondered why the subject matter mentioned in the briefs - and forming the subject matter of the style magazines to which the advertisements were directed - comprising as it did of "rock, cult, bikes, cars" would appeal to 18-year-olds but not to 15-year-olds. Mr Bainsfair was unable to offer any reasons why it should not and in the end conceded that "it is common sense that there is going to be an overlap. Some 15-year-olds are going to be more sophisticated than others".[182]

99. Our review of the copious evidence from the advertising agencies, which includes substantial quantities of market research, leads us to conclude that the advertising agencies have connived in promoting tobacco consumption, have shamelessly exploited smoking as an aspirational pursuit in ways which inevitably make it attractive to children, and have attempted to use their creative talents to undermine Government policy and evade regulation. We welcome the Government's commitment to end all forms of tobacco advertising and sponsorship.

146 Ev., p.5. Back

147 Smoking Kills, p.49. Back

148 Fourth Agreement on Sponsorship of Sport by Tobacco Companies in the UK (1995). Back

149 Ev., p.554. Back

150 Ev., p.298. Back

151 Ev., p.554. Back

152 Ev., p.303. Back

153 Q729. Back

154 Ev., p.314. Back

155 Q707. Back

156 Ev., p.550. Back

157 Ev., pp. 312-14. Back