Document(s) 16 of 37

The impact of sponsorships

Tobacco sponsorship of sporting and cultural events — event marketing — is an extremely sophisticated and effective form of tobacco promotion. The following excerpt from a Maclean’s report describes just how valuable sponsorships can be:

[Imperial Tobacco] company officials said that they value the golf connection — including sponsorship of the $600,000 du Maurier Classic on the pro women’s circuit — because that helps to instil confidence in a brand and spurs positive associations in smokers’ minds with a so-called upscale event. Said Imperial president Wilmat Tennyson: ‘If you stay with it long enough, the benefits are enormous because you are conveying a message to people that is much more memorable’. Donald Brown, Imperial’s vice-president of marketing, said that even less affluent smokers may favor the brand because of its link with a comfortable lifestyle and because that ‘says something about you’.^[373]

In 1977, an executive with The Houston Group expressed a similar view: “Advertising is what you say about yourself. Sponsorship is what other people say about you.”^{[92, p. 14]} RBH spokesperson von Maerestetten stated that “basically it [sponsorship] is part and parcel with the marketing of your product. It is one of a range of tools. No one hands over big cheques just to give themselves a warm fuzzy feeling.”^[450]

Sponsoring an event can give a brand tremendous exposure. A study for CCSH found that sponsorship ads in Ottawa – Hull stores selling tobacco resulted in 280 million exposures (people seeing the ads) a year.^[634] In a different study, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada taped a televised broadcast of a car race held in the streets of Halifax, Nova Scotia. During the 58.5-minute broadcast, the Player’s Ltd name and logo were seen 580 times. The name was easily visible for 9 minutes and 4 seconds of the broadcast. The Sports Network covered the event on a tape-delayed basis, broadcasting the race on Saturday morning (when many children watch television) and rebroadcasting the race on three other occasions.^[475] Clearly, sponsorship advertising is a way to get massive television exposure for a brand despite purported bans on tobacco advertising on TV.

In 1994 a national Youth Smoking Survey commissioned by Health Canada asked those 10–19 years old about the purpose of billboards and signs for sporting and cultural events sponsored by tobacco corporations. Fully 85% of smokers and 83% of nonsmokers agreed that these “billboards and signs are a way of advertising particular brands of cigarettes.” Some 43% of smokers and 58% of nonsmokers agreed that these “billboards and signs are a way of encouraging people to smoke.”^[240]

Sponsorship lends social acceptability to smoking and neutralizes health concerns held by consumers. Tobacco companies associate their products with healthy and desirable activities, instead of with disease and death. Furthermore, no warnings have appeared on these promotions, as is required by law in the United States.

The industry openly acknowledges that sponsorship promotions are a form of brand advertising, but it denies that overall smoking increases as a result.^[97] However, if sponsorships did not increase overall smoking, tobacco companies would not oppose a legislated ban on sponsorship. That way each company could save millions of dollars without worrying that other companies would be trying to take away its market share. Sponsorship advertising is the purest form of lifestyle advertising.

Sponsored events give tobacco executives a forum in which to win new friends, exert influence, and improve a tarnished image. Politicians and other elites are frequently invited as guests. For example, all Ottawa municipal councillors were given free passes to a 1994 du Maurier Ltd Classic golf tournament.

Tobacco companies defend their sponsorships on the basis of freedom, yet they do not always practice what they preach. In 1994, Cathy Rudick, Executive Director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, submitted an advertisement for the program of the du Maurier Ltd Classic golf tournament, the Canadian Open for women. The advertisement presented a factual message: “Last year cigarettes killed twice as many women as breast cancer. Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.” The ad was rejected because du Maurier officials concluded the ad was “inappropriate for the sponsor and the event itself.”^[175] The advertising director at Score magazine, responsible for putting the program together, said the ad was

clearly detrimental to what the sponsor is trying to achieve. Look, there’s no doubt about why companies like du Maurier get involved in sponsorships like this — they do it to get exposure for their brands. It simply doesn’t make sense for them to carry an ad that contradicts those objectives.^[175]

Streetlight poles along the Ottawa roads leading to the tournament site bore red banners promoting the du Maurier Ltd Classic. When Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada put up their own “Cigarettes kill women” posters on poles, tournament personnel took the posters down, even though the poles were on municipal property.

In 1995, Cynthia Callard, the new Executive Director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, entered a team in a white-water rafting race sponsored by Canadian Classics Adventures Inc. Canadian Classics was a new cigarette brand with packages featuring a nature scene of forest and mountains. Callard and her five teammates wore T-shirts saying “Smoke Screen Team” with a picture of a broken cigarette and the message “Promote Health Not Tobacco.” Even though the T-shirts would have been covered by life jackets, event organizers disqualified the team to ensure the race was “safe, professional and fun.”[374]

Sponsorship advertising explodes

During the parliamentary debate over Bill C-51, one of the most troublesome issues for the government was tobacco-company sponsorship of arts and sports events. Arts and sports organizations spoke out against the Bill, thus giving opposition to the Bill a degree of credibility that the tobacco lobby alone could never provide. The possibility that these events would be adversely affected was something that manufacturers exploited, generating some public and political sympathy.

The final version of the TPCA banned tobacco advertising, but exceptions permitted certain forms of sponsorship promotion, in essence a form of tobacco advertising. The TPCA permitted promotion of sponsorships using a corporate name, provided this was not done “in association with a tobacco product,” with the onus on the advertiser to show no such association.

Tobacco companies moved rapidly to take advantage of this exception, something they saw as a major loophole. Even before the Act came into force, Imperial Tobacco incorporated new shell companies, naming them Player’s Ltd, du Maurier Ltd, and Matinée Ltd. RJR – Macdonald soon established Export “A” Inc.; RBH created Rothmans Ltd, Craven “A” Ltd, and Benson & Hedges Inc.^[63] These new companies would do nothing except lend their names to sponsored events.

While Bill C-51 was being debated, Wilmat Tennyson, President of Imperial Tobacco, said on TVOntario that his company would not create companies named after brands because this would be “sleazy” and “I don’t want to do that.”^[133] Given the speedy creation of shell companies, it is evident Tennyson’s promise was not kept.

Because of the shell companies, tobacco sponsorships existing before the TPCA was enacted continued uninterrupted. Over time, sponsorship promotions became so widespread that the advertising ban in the TPCA was significantly undermined.

Whether or not the letter of the law was infringed, the array of sponsorship advertising infringed the spirit of the Act. Tobacco companies spent about $10 million on sponsorship in 1987.^[86] In 1991, according to the industry, that amount had risen to more than $40 million.^[88] By 1995, Imperial Tobacco said it alone was spending $35–40 million on sponsorships.^[109] Just as in 1972 the industry shifted its advertising expenses from radio and television to other media, after the 1989 ban on advertising, the industry shifted its advertising expenses to sponsorship promotions.

The events sponsored have fit nicely with a brand’s image. Export “A” Inc. and Player’s Ltd, both of which have targeted young males, have sponsored car racing and other sports. Matinée, a predominantly women’s brand, has sponsored fashion shows. The Matinée Ltd Fashion Foundation donated $500 000 to fashion designers but seemed to be spending more than this publicizing its donations. Other sponsorships have included auto racing by Rothmans Ltd, fireworks by Benson & Hedges Inc., and country music by Craven “A” Ltd. Some ads promoting Craven “A” Ltd country music have pictured a carefree, energetic young couple, just as lifestyle cigarette ads did before the TPCA was enacted.

du Maurier, which has an upscale status image, has sponsored professional golf and tennis tournaments, jazz festivals, and various arts events through du Maurier Ltd. Historically, du Maurier cigarettes have always been associated with the performing arts. The brand gets its name from Sir Gerald du Maurier, “a leading personality in theatre and a society trend-setter in the early nineteen hundreds,” according to Imperial Tobacco.^{[299, p. 9]} In the 1960s, some du Maurier advertising featured stars such as Robert Goulet (TV, movies, records) and Fred Davis (host of Front Page Challenge).^[379] In 1970, Imperial created the du Maurier Council for the Arts and decided to use arts sponsorship in an effort to revitalize the brand.

Sponsorship promotions use colour combinations similar to those on cigarette packages: blue for Player’s, red for du Maurier, yellow for Matinée, and so on. Logos for sponsored events are typically a variation of brand logos. The largest word in the promotion is typically the cigarette brand name or the name of the shell company, for example, Player’s Ltd. Some promotions have not even had details of the sponsored event, simply stating “Player’s Ltd” in brand colours. Sponsorship promotions have been regularly placed in stores alongside cigarettes and signs indicating the price of cigarettes. So much for not being “in association with a tobacco product.”

Sponsorship promotions have appeared everywhere, including on transit vehicles that transport thousands of children to school daily. Some promotions are strategically placed to gain substantial TV exposure, such as on National Hockey League scoreboards overhanging centre ice or in the outfield at Olympic Stadium, where the Montreal Expos play baseball. Sponsorship promotions have even appeared directly as television commercials, despite the fact that they had been previously prohibited under the voluntary code between 1975 and 1988.

A way to eliminate sponsorships

Some groups on the receiving end of tobacco sponsorships have said that they would be unable to do without tobacco money. These fears may be unjustified. For example, during parliamentary hearings on Bill C-51, the Royal Canadian Golf Association stated that it would not be able to replace Imperial Tobacco as sponsor of its Canadian Open men’s golf tournament.^[218] Yet today the event continues successfully with Bell Canada as the title sponsor instead of du Maurier.

A Tennis Canada spokesperson stated in 1988, just after Bill C-51 was passed by the House of Commons, that replacing Imperial Tobacco as sponsor for the Canadian Open would not compromise the survival of the tournament. “We know other companies want to organize the event,” he said.^[46] Given the history, success, and prestige of the tournament, this is hardly surprising. Notwithstanding this one-time statement from its spokesperson, Tennis Canada normally maintains that Imperial Tobacco cannot be replaced. A new nontobacco sponsor for tennis is highly desirable, especially because the women’s half of the tournament typically has several star teenagers competing. Young sports idols widely admired by teenage girls are being used to promote cigarettes, despite the fact that those players are too young to be sold cigarettes.

Health groups do not object to purely philanthropic donations by tobacco companies, but they do not want these contributions to promote a lethal product. Recognizing that a ban on tobacco sponsorships may affect some groups, the government has some options. Government funding could replace tobacco funding, possibly requiring the events to be named after a “Quit” (antismoking) theme as in Australia. Money for the government contributions could come from a special tax on tobacco-company profits. A variation of this would be to levy a one-time lump-sum tax on tobacco companies of $300–$500 million to create a permanent endowment to fund arts and sports. Canada’s tobacco industry is clearly capable of paying this tax, especially when the companies would be permanently relieved of future sponsorship spending. One way or another, sponsorship promotions must come to an end.

Document(s) 16 of 37