HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Read responses to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Offen, N Articles by Malone, R E Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Offen, N Articles by Malone, R E

The perimetric boycott: a tool for tobacco control advocacy

University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
Naphtali Offen
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences Box 0612, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA; naphtali.offen{at}ucsf.edu

Objectives: To propose criteria to help advocates: (1) determine when tobacco related boycotts may be useful; (2) select appropriate targets; and (3) predict and measure boycott success.

Methods: Analysis of tobacco focused boycotts retrieved from internal tobacco industry documents websites and other scholarship on boycotts.

Results: Tobacco related boycotts may be characterised by boycott target and reason undertaken. Most boycotts targeted the industry itself and were called for political or economic reasons unrelated to tobacco disease, often resulting in settlements that gave the industry marketing and public relations advantages. Even a lengthy health focused boycott of tobacco industry food subsidiaries accomplished little, making demands the industry was unlikely to meet. In contrast, a perimetric boycott (targeting institutions at the perimeter of the core target) of an organisation that was taking tobacco money mobilised its constituency and convinced the organisation to end the practice.

Conclusions: Direct boycotts of the industry have rarely advanced tobacco control. Perimetric boycotts of industry allies offer advocates a promising tool for further marginalising the industry. Successful boycotts include a focus on the public health consequences of tobacco use; an accessible point of pressure; a mutual interest between the target and the boycotters; realistic goals; and clear and measurable demands.

Abbreviations: ACT-UP, AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power; APHA, American Public Health Association; BAT, British American Tobacco; B&W, Brown and Williamson; CLASH, Coalition of Lavender-Americans on Smoking and Health; GASP, Georgians Against Smoking Pollution; GLAAD, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender; PM, Philip Morris; RJR, RJ Reynolds; STAT, Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco

Keywords: advocacy; boycotts; industry documents; tobacco control

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Wander and R. E Malone Making Big Tobacco Give In: You Lose, They Win Am J Public Health, November 1, 2006; 96(11): 2048 - 2054. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N Wander and R E Malone Fiscal versus social responsibility: how Philip Morris shaped the public funds divestment debate Tob. Control, June 1, 2006; 15(3): 231 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

eLetters: