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

Electronic Letters to:

Articles: C Mekemson and S A Glantz How the tobacco industry built its relationship with Hollywood Tob Control 2002; 11: i81-91i [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

Correcting the Record

Norman F. Sharp   (16 March 2002)

Movie Tobacco; How Long Has This Been Going On?

James Rowland   (23 April 2002)

Correcting the Record 16 March 2002
Norman F. Sharp, President Cigar Association of America, Inc. Send letter to journal: Re: Correcting the Record nfs1cigar{at}aol.com Norman F. Sharp	March 14, 2002 To the Editor: Maybe the fact that I am writing to you indicates that I still haven’t learned my lesson, but I thought I would give it a try. In 1996, I met with a young reporter from the Baltimore Sun who wanted to do an article on the resurgence of cigar sales in the U.S. I told him, “Alec, the real story here is that the resurgence has taken place in spite of the cigar industry. Faced with an unrelenting decline in cigar sales, the Cigar Association of America embarked on a public relations campaign in 1981 in which it tried to improve the image of the cigar and the cigar smoker. In spite of our efforts – which resulted in much positive publicity – cigar sales continued to plunge and so the campaign was discontinued in 1988. Then, when cigar sales began to increase in 1994 – six years after the our public relations campaign was discontinued – it caught the industry completely by surprise. That is the real story.” And I gave him some examples of the types of programs we funded during the 1980s because I was proud of their creativity and what we had accomplished with limited funds. Two years later no one was more stunned than I when Alec Klein’s series on our so-called stealth marketing campaign appeared in the Baltimore Sun. On one hand it made us look like marketing geniuses. But on the other hand, its distortions are now embodied as gospel by the anti-tobacco movement. The misperceptions are evident in the article “How the tobacco industry built its relationship with Hollywood”. But first, I want to address the FTC report cited in the article. That report indicated that total advertising and promotional expenditures for cigars increased 32% – from $30.9 million in 1996 to $41 million in 1997. This is only .6% of the more than $5 billion spent by the cigarette industry. According to the FTC, 40% ($16.3 million) of cigar company advertising and promotional expenditures in 1997 were for promotional allowances – that is, discounts and other incentives given to retailers – and 24% ($10 million) was for magazine advertising in publications such as Cigar Aficionado and Smoke magazines. Point of sale advertising amounted to $5.2 million. But only $339,000 was reportedly spent on celebrity endorsements and appearances, and payments for product placements in movies and television. Of course, it is much more dramatic to indicate that these latter expenditures “more than doubled”. But how unfair not to have mentioned how small the base was in the first place. We are flattered by the description of our public relations campaign as having been well thought out. The fact is, it was a shoe string operation whose expenditures between 1981 and 1987 averaged only about $350,000 a year. It was hardly the “massive public relations campaign” which the article described it as being. And it pails in comparison to the millions spent annually by others, such as the coffee and milk industries, which also were experiencing significant sales declines during that period. And there is no truth in the claim that the majority of role models were to be Hollywood personalities and that paid product placement would be used to help with the casting. Very few companies used product placement. In fact, it was much more common for studios to call our members for free product much like the requests we receive to contribute product for silent auctions to raise money for charitable events. And when Alec said that product was placed in the movie “Independence Day”’ he was flat out wrong. The cigar industry does not use product placement in the entertainment industry. Although there may be isolated instances, it is wrong to tar an industry on the basis of activities by a few companies. Furthermore, the article seems to blur the fact that the Cigar Association of America and Cigar Aficionado magazine are separate entities. And while there is no denying that the magazine helped promote the interest in cigars, its emphasis was almost exclusively on the premium, hand-made segment which makes up less than 6% of cigars sold currently. Years of fighting the cigarette industry have predisposed many in the anti-tobacco movement to conspiracy theories. But the cigar industry is not the cigarette industry. Unfortunately articles such as yours and Mr. Klein’s continue to serve to blur the distinctions between these two very different products. There was nothing “stealthy” about our public relations campaign in the 1980s. Our activities were those used by a number of industries. Of course we now realize that such activities are acceptable when used by other industries but not when they are used by a tobacco industry. We have learned over the years that when it comes to tobacco, different standards apply. Alec Klein never mentioned that we discontinued our public relations campaign in 1988, nor did he mention that during the eight years of that campaign unit sales of large cigars declined 34% to 2.5 billion cigars. Sales were not to reach bottom until 1993 at 2.1 billion units. (In 1964, the peak year, nine billion were sold.) But the fact remains that the resurgence of interest in cigars – which has since run its course – took the cigar industry by surprise and it happened in spite of the industry, not because of it. Norman F. Sharp President Cigar Association of America, Inc. Washington, D.C.
Movie Tobacco; How Long Has This Been Going On? 23 April 2002
James Rowland, writer none Send letter to journal: Re: Movie Tobacco; How Long Has This Been Going On? jrowland{at}nctimes.net James Rowland	Very much enjoyed this article. Was hoping to learn whether product placement tactics were used in "early" films (pre-1950), because in viewing films from the 30's and 40's, I find it almost impossible to find a scene without smoking. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks, James Rowland