Splitting off tobacco industry allies
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. |
Who undertook action: Naphtali Offen, individual subscriber to KQED (public TV station)
Type: Tobacco control advocate
Size: 1 person
Years: 2003
Scope: Regional, San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA
Targeted companies: Philip Morris (PM)
Focus of action: Pressured KQED public television (San Francisco) to stop airing ads for PM's website
Concurrent events: PM and other tobacco companies wanted the public to see them as responsible corporations. Public TV station was extremely sensitive to negative publicity affecting its ability to raise money from individual donors.
Industry behavior change sought: None
Smokers / smoking a focus? No
Main strategy: Threat of perimetric boycott (boycott of those on the perimeter of the industry, e.g., retailers or beneficiaries) At stake was the good will and reputation of TV station.
Supporting strategies: Email and phone call exchanges with station executives announcing intention to make public issue of KQED running tobacco ad if not withdrawn
Well-funded? No
Breadth of campaign: Some letters were generated to station.
Evidence of effectiveness: KQED board agreed to suspend ads. Correspondence leading to change in policy
Industry response: This action bypassed the industry. No response was sought from industry and none was forthcoming.
Resolution: KQED capitulated and ended ads.
Industry gains/losses: One less venue to mislead public; industry further isolated
Community gains/losses: Public TV station protected interests of public by not giving PM a forum; good example of potential impact of sole advocate
Good for tobacco control? Yes, marginalizing industry helps denormalize smoking; industry is held accountable for its actions
Observations: Organizations that depend on good will of the public for their funding may be persuaded to sever ties to tobacco industry.
Who undertook action: Simon Chapman
Type: Tobacco control advocate
Size: 1 person
Years: 2006
Scope: Sydney, Australia
Targeted companies: British American Tobacco (BAT)
Focus of action: To get BAT disinvited from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) conference
Concurrent events: CSR movement growing, tobacco industry sponsorships banned in Australia a decade earlier
Industry behavior change sought: None
Smokers / smoking a focus? No
Main strategy: Appeal to companies that were to be on the podium with BAT to refuse to do so; implicit threat of bad publicity for those who helped legitimize the industry (perimetric boycott.)
Supporting strategies: Persuading a colleague with great business connections to make some phone calls
Well-funded? No funding needed
Breadth of campaign: Several phone calls
Evidence of effectiveness: All 4 presenters refused to appear with BAT
Industry response: BAT did not get to appear at conference
Resolution: BAT was disinvited by organizer
Industry gains/losses: Industry is censured, isolated, delegitimated
Community gains/losses: Industry was denied CSR cover; good example of potential impact of sole advocate
Good for tobacco control? Yes, delegitimation an important tool in tobacco control
Observations: When Big Tobacco is unwelcome at the table, industry loses credibility, harder to do business; one person can accomplish this; severing industry connections to its associates very effective
