Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
Tobacco Control 2006;15(Supplement 4 ):iv54-iv67; doi:10.1136/tc.2006.017947
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPER

The role of tobacco advertising and promotion: themes employed in litigation by tobacco industry witnesses

Marvin E Goldberg1, Ronald M Davis2, Anne Marie O’Keefe3

1 Smeal College of Business, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
2 Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan, USA
3 Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Morgan State University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Marvin E Goldberg
Smeal College of Business, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA; mgold{at}psu.edu

Objectives: To identify key themes related to tobacco advertising and promotion in testimony provided by tobacco industry-affiliated witnesses in tobacco litigation, and to present countervailing evidence and arguments.

Methods: Themes in industry testimony were identified by review of transcripts of testimony in the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta) from a sample of defence witnesses, including three academic expert witnesses, six senior executives of tobacco companies, and one industry advertising consultant. Counterarguments to the themes embodied in defence testimony were based on information from peer-reviewed literature, advertising trade publications, government reports, tobacco industry documents, and testimony provided by expert witnesses testifying for plaintiffs.

Results: Five major themes employed by defence witnesses were identified: (1) tobacco advertising has a relatively weak "share of voice" in the marketing environment and is a weak force in affecting smoking behaviour; (2) tobacco advertising and promotion do not create new smokers, expand markets, or increase total tobacco consumption; (3) the tobacco industry does not target, study, or track youth smoking; (4) tobacco advertising and promotion do not cause smoking initiation by youth; and (5) tobacco companies and the industry adhere closely to relevant laws, regulations, and industry voluntary codes. Substantial evidence exists in rebuttal to these arguments.

Conclusions: Tobacco industry-affiliated witnesses have marshalled many arguments to deny the adverse effects of tobacco marketing activities and to portray tobacco companies as responsible corporate citizens. Effective rebuttals to these arguments exist, and plaintiffs’ attorneys have, with varying degrees of success, presented them to judges and juries.

Abbreviations: DATTA, Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive; FCTC, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; FDA, US Food and Drug Administration; FTC, Federal Trade Commission; IOM, Institute of Medicine; MSA, Master Settlement Agreement; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; RJR, RJ Reynolds; STMSA, Smokeless Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement; USST, United States Smokeless Tobacco Company

Keywords: tobacco; smoking; marketing; advertising; legal cases


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • McLeod, K, Wakefield, M, Chapman, S, Smith, K C., Durkin, S (2009). Changes in the news representation of smokers and tobacco-related media advocacy from 1995 to 2005 in Australia. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 63: 215-220 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Davis, R M (2008). British American Tobacco ghost-wrote reports on tobacco advertising bans by the International Advertising Association and J J Boddewyn. Tobacco Control 17: 211-214 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Blanke, D D., Humphrey, H. H III (2006). Putting truth into action: using the evidence for justice. Tobacco Control 15: iv1-iv3 [Full Text]  
  • Milberger, S., Davis, R. M, Douglas, C. E, Beasley, J. K, Burns, D., Houston, T., Shopland, D. (2006). Tobacco manufacturers' defence against plaintiffs' claims of cancer causation: throwing mud at the wall and hoping some of it will stick. Tobacco Control 15: iv17-iv26 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
  • Wakefield, M., McLeod, K., Perry, C. L (2006). "Stay away from them until you're old enough to make a decision": tobacco company testimony about youth smoking initiation. Tobacco Control 15: iv44-iv53 [Abstract] [Full Text]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.