A Case Analysis Of A Public Tobacco Campaign

8 Pages 2100 Words

ected the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate regulating tobacco. RJR immediate began paying for advertisements that claimed government regulation of tobacco would lead to higher crime, cost taxpayers billions of dollars to enforce regulations, and would impinge upon individuals’ basic civil rights. These appeals are entirely consistent with the difficult rhetorical position occupied by RJR in the face of rising public and political pressure for regulation. The first barrier or constraint RJR faced was the issue of their public credibility – or lack thereof. Cigarettes are known to cause cancer and efforts to forestall regulation are only going to increase the morality and morbidity of consumers. RJR, in this sense, is NOT a good corporate citizen and lacked the good name to present themselves credibility in public. In addition to a credibility crisis, RJR faced mounting public criticism and pressure for reform. The continued attacks on their name and reputation further meant that the company needed to mount a vigorous defense. Thus, facing a potential sea-change in their business environment, RJR had to really work hard. Finally, RJR faced the barrier of apathy or ignorance. To much of the public, regulation of RJR and the tobacco industry was not only a good idea but they likely could not see any immediate impact on their lives – particularly if they were non-smokers. In short, RJR faced a number of hurdles to the effective receipt of their message. The following section will outline how RJR confronted these barriers.
One particular affective appeal used by RJR to arose public attention to the issue of regulation was based on the experience of Canada when they increased tobacco taxes and experienced a growth in crime. The advertisement noted that Canada rolled back its taxes on cigarettes it passed two years prior to the massive upsurge in smuggling and organized crime...