When criticism in PR attracts criticism, we’ll always be there to expose it..
Look at Hill&Knowlton this time…
cheers..George.K
————
Some PR executives take citizens for complete idiots.
Almost three weeks ago a local branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union (AFSCME) called on the University of California to dump the giant PR firm Hill & Knowlton (H&K). In a letter to the university, AFSCME and other groups pointed to H&K’s work for the tobacco industry, its attack on research pointing to the impact of exposure to lead on children, and its work for “some of the worst human rights abusing states in the world.” In a statement emailed to the trade publication PR Week, H&K’s Executive Vice-President and Chief Operating Officer Mark Thorne claimed that the union’s criticism “is directed to work done more than 50 years ago. While we disagree that H&K ever was engaged in any improper conduct, our current firm policy is that we will not provide services in any way related to tobacco, anywhere in the world.”
Sorry, Mark, but you can’t get away with a fudge like that quite so easily.
First, AFSCME’s criticism of H&K indicated that the company’s work for the tobacco industry commenced in the 1950’s. While not explicitly mentioning H&K again, the letter clearly stated that the industry’s disinformation strategy continued for decades. Second, H&K’s work for the tobacco industry continued at least into the early 1990’s, as is documented in the industry documents archived online by UC-San Francisco.
H&K’s Advice on Not Talking About the Death Toll
For example, in February 1993 H&K drafted a 16-page memo for the world’s largest private tobacco company, Philip Morris (PM), on the challenges it was facing to its operations in Asia. In its report, H&K was open about tobacco’s deadly toll. “Overall, the current three million global deaths (mostly in the wealthier nations of the world) attributed to smoking will rise to 10 million by 2025. Seven of these 10 million will be in the developing countries and most will be in Asia, activists claim,” the firm wrote. Significantly, H&K didn’t dispute the numbers or address the moral dimensions of PM’s share of the death toll. The firm simply flagged that the “challenge for the tobacco industry is maintaining its customer base in the face of strong challenges.”
H&K’s advice with regards to the growing evidence of serious health impacts was to avoid the issue altogether: “Medical evidence, rightly or wrongly, supports the anti-smoking campaign. It is our opinion that Philip Morris and the tobacco industry should avoid being drawn into discussion on medical issues wherever possible. We also firmly believe that Philip Morris and the industry should refrain from prolonged discussion of the medical evidence especially when it concentrates on the ‘case not proven’ angle which is perceived by the public as ’splitting-hairs’.”
H&K also advised that it would be “unwise to concentrate on” the issue of environmental tobacco smoke, or secondhand smoke. To delay or avoid bans on smoking indoors, H&K suggested that PM undertake a “smoker courtesy” campaign. “By dealing with the social aspect” — the annoyance felt by non-smokers — “Philip Morris can deflect to some extent criticism on the health issue,” counseled the PR firm.
To rehabilitate PM’s image, the PR firm suggested emphasizing the non-tobacco products and brands produced by the diversified company. It also argued that the company should equate smoking regulation with the curtailment of individual liberty. “Concentrating on the social issues rather than scientific issues, takes the fight to the anti-smoking lobby,” H& K argued. They also proposed that PM sponsor a “Freedom Seminar” or “town meeting” which “should be open to all points of view, but heavily influenced by civil libertarians.”
All of the quotes above come from just one of the numerous strategy documents produced by H&K for its tobacco clients. The firm’s dissembling on tobacco issues apparently continues today — at least with its implied denial of the fact that they only stopped working for the tobacco industry in the last decade or so. (Exactly when H&K’s policy came into effect is unclear.)
H&K’s Thorne and his colleagues should admit that their firm helped craft deceptive pro-tobacco campaigns for decades. They should also admit the impact their campaigns had on millions of people who started smoking or stayed hooked, while PM and other companies were dutifully “avoid[ing] being drawn into discussion on medical issues wherever possible.” Will H&K do the right thing, or will it take losing the University of California account to realize the firm’s complicity?
Unmasking the Tobacco Spinners
Of course, H&K were just one of the many PR and lobbying firms that helped Big Tobacco’s decades-long campaign of denial and delay. Some have now adopted a policy of not accepted tobacco industry clients. Other PR and lobbying firms are still addicted to the tobacco industry’s fat fees.
One of the purposes of SourceWatch, the Center for Media and Democracy’s online database that anyone can add to, is to document the past and present campaigns of the PR and lobbying industries. Our aim is to ensure that the next time that someone from H&K or another firm seeks to fudge their record on working for the tobacco industry, anyone with Internet access can find detailed, referenced information that sets out exactly what they did.
Please help us document H&K and other PR or lobbying firms work — for the tobacco industry, or other clients. We’d love to have you join us. You can become a SourceWatch volunteer contributor and add to or edit articles. It’s free, easy and fun.
http://www.prwatch.org/node/6356
