1

Media Advocacy to Change Public Policy

Communities Putting Prevention to WorkWashington, DC

June 3, 2010

Danny McGoldrickVince Willmore

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Erika ViltzSave the Children

2

Integrated Advocacy Campaigns

• ADVOCACY: Direct efforts to pass public policies that reduce tobacco use (educating policy makers, etc.)

• MEDIA ADVOCACY/COMMUNICATIONS: Conduct media campaigns to support policy change, keep tobacco issue visible to public and framed as a serious public problem, and expose the tobacco industry.

-- Earned Media-- Paid Media (Advertising, etc.)

• RESEARCH: Serve as the information resource to drive advocacy and communications efforts

• COALITIONS & GRASSROOTS: Mobilize organizations and individuals to join the fight

3

Science+

Communications+

Advocacy+

Coalition building=

Policy Action, Environmental Change and Behavior Change

Goals of Media Advocacy

A steady drumbeat to:

• Keep our issue in the news and framed as a serious public health problem that requires action

• Provide communications support for specific policy campaigns at the local, state, federal and international levels

The Drumbeat

• Constantly publicize the problem and solutions – new data, personal stories, etc.

• Be a resource for media – proactive and reactive

• Track and expose tobacco industry’s harmful actions – marketing, targeting of children and women, products, deception, etc.

• Track and publicize new research on your issue

• Conduct and promote your own special reports and events

• Always relate to your policy goals

Keys to Success• Establish self as trusted resource for the press

• Develop relationships with reporters, ed boards, etc. so you can be proactive

• Provide accurate and up-to-date information

• Localize everything

• Act quickly, opportunistically and strategically

• Coordinate with other campaign elements – paid media, policy maker contact, grassroots, etc.

• Use research-based messages and materials

• Stay on message; when you think you can’t possibly repeat the same message one more time – you’re just starting; someone is hearing it for the first time

• Always relate to your policy goal

• Coordinate with partners

Plan Ahead…

NOVEMBER

16TH—ACS-The Great American Smokeout Mid—CDC Release of Adult Smoking Rate Data

DECEMBER

Early—TFK State Report (state by state data) Mid—Monitoring the Future Report (national data)

JANUARY

Early—ALA Report-State of Tobacco Control Early—Opening state legislative sessions Mid—State of the State addresses by Governors

OCTOBER

31st —New AJPH study on tobacco industry ads

Always Ask

• Who is the target?

• What do we want them to do as a result of the communication?

Earned Media

Tactics include:

• Press releases and statements

• Press events

• Op-eds and letters to the editor

• Ed Board Memos

• Video news releases

• TV and radio media tours

• Serving as a resource to the media

10

Expose the ProblemNumbers Tell; Stories Sell

11

“I am grateful to be here today and to be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults.” – Surgeon General Richard Carmona, June 27, 2006

12

Letter to the editor from a restaurant worker

Cancer patient a rallying pointfor foes of casino smoking

February 3, 2007

SOMERS POINT, N.J. - Driving to work one morning, Vince Rennich had no time to react as an oncoming van slammed head-on into his own vehicle, leaving him bleeding and dazed in the gutter. It was the luckiest day of his life, insists the veteran Atlantic City casino worker, who knows a thing or two about luck.

For it was at the hospital where he was taken for treatment for injuries from the accident that doctors discovered something far more deadly: spots on his right lung.

"If it weren't for that accident, I would probably be dead now," he said. "I had no idea I had cancer."

But he has a pretty good idea how he got it. Rennich blames the secondhand smoke he had to breathe during his 25 years as a table games supervisor at the Tropicana Casino and Resort for causing his illness.

He has become a rallying point for those who want to see smoking eliminated in New Jersey's 11 casinos, and who oppose a compromise proposal that would set aside 25 percent of each casino's floor for smokers. The city had been set to enact a total ban on smoking in casinos, but relented under pressure from the casino industry.

At a meeting last month at which the compromise received initial approval, scores of casino workers wore bright orange shirts in support of Rennich and a total smoking ban. "It's an emotionally charged issue," said Rennich, who will turn 49 next month. "The vast majority of us feel like we've been sold out."

Regina Carlson, executive director of the New Jersey Group Against Smoking Pollution, said Rennich has become one of the human faces of the casino smoking debate. "He's a forceful person, one of the most visibly suffering," she said. "His is a particularly dramatic story; he's one of the biggest victims of all.”

Human stories put a face on the program and the toll of tobacco

15

16

BE A RESOURCE FOR MEDIA

Ed Board Memos

Win-Win-Win!

Raising Cigarette Taxes is Good Fiscal Policy, Good Public Health Policy, and Good Politics – It’s a Win-Win-Win Solution for Georgia’s Fiscal Challenges

EDITORIALThere's still time to pass cigarette tax increase 5 April 2007Indianapolis Star“The combination of a higher cigarette tax and a low-income insurance plan is a win-win for Hoosiers' health. Legislators shouldn't leave town without it. “

EDITORIALWin, winTobacco tax hike: Too good not to come true 27 March 2004Daily Press (Virginia)“It doesn't get much better than this: a recent report confirming that one specific tax -- a 50-cent-per-pack hike in the state cigarette tax -- would be a good thing for the state's coffers, its citizens, its workers, its businesses and its public health.”

Costly cigarettes seen as win, win 9 February 2007The Oregonian“An independent health economist, Jeffrey Fellows of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, said he thinks the state's projections of how much smoking would decrease and how much tax revenues would increase are sound. "Increasing taxes on cigarettes is one of the most effective ways of reducing smoking rates," he said.”

Proposed fee on cigarettes wins two ways 5 February 2005Stevens Point Journal (Wisconsin)“As far as we're concerned, the extra buck a pack is a win-win proposition. It means more money to treat smoking-related illnesses and more money to promote smoking cessation. It means fewer kids who'll start smoking. Sounds like a bargain.“

Resource for Media -- Fact Sheets

Editorial: The Tobacco TaxThe benefits of a proposed increase go way beyond funding children's health

insurance.Wednesday, October 17, 2007; A16

TOBACCO USE is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the United States, killing more than 400,000 Americans each year. Half of all long-term smokers will die early from a disease caused by tobacco. One answer to this scourge is imposing higher taxes: According to one recent report, increasing tobacco taxes has "proven highly effective in reducing tobacco use."

For every 10 percent increase in tobacco prices, the number of adult smokers drops by 1.5 percent and overall consumption drops 2 percent. Young smokers are much more responsive to price increases than adults, so higher tobacco taxes are particularly effective in preventing youths from moving beyond experimentation to habitual smoking. Pregnant women are similarly affected; a 10 percent price increase produces a 5 to 7 percent reduction in smoking.

. . .

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids estimates that the 61-cents-a pack increase would result in a 9.2 percent decline in youth smoking. Some 1.9 million children alive today would not become smokers, and 1.2 million adult smokers would quit. The administration argues that because tobacco taxes are effective in reducing smoking, the increase would not produce enough to fund SCHIP after the first five years. That's true -- but it's an argument for the tax, not against it.

21

22

Exposing the Tobacco Industry

The Wall Street JournalJuly 16, 2001

“Did you hear the one about the company that emphasized how efficiently its product kills its customers?”

--Dan Rather

CBS Evening News July 17, 2001

Increased Nicotine Levels in CigarettesAverage Nicotine Yields Per Cigarette 1997-2005

Massachusetts Department of Health & Harvard School of Public Health, 2007

1.84

1.901.91

1.82

1.681.68

1.82

1.731.70

1.55

1.60

1.65

1.70

1.75

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Mill

igra

ms

per

cig

aret

te

11.8% increase from 1997 to 2005

Editorial: Big Tobacco, Lawless as EverProfiting by manipulating addictions that kill

The Washington Post

September 2, 2006 Today's editorialStrike back against tobacco tacticsThe Indianapolis Star (IN) 

   

Our position: Indiana legislators should increase the cigarette tax as way to fight against rising nicotine levels.

Editorial: A killer of a businessTobacco companies have gradually increased nicotine levels

The TennesseanPublished: Tuesday, 09/05/06

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)Sunday, September 3, 2006 

Editorial: Addicted to addiction

Editorial: More nicotine for your moneySt. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO)

Friday, Sept. 1, 2006

September 3, 2006Florida Today (Melbourne, FL)

Our view: Florida should fight tobacco addictionFlorida should fight tobacco addiction with more education for youth

The New York TimesEditorial: Raising Nicotine Doses, on the Sly

Published: August 31, 2006

industry ads directed at kids have no effect on youth smoking

Youth with more exposure to parent targeted ads had:

• Lower perceived harm of smoking

• More positive perceptions about smoking

• Stronger intentions to start smoking in the future

• Were more likely to have smoked in the past month

PRESS RELEASES

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE CONTACT:Joel Spivak 4 PM Eastern Time, October 31, 2006

New Study Finds Tobacco Industry “Prevention” Ads Don’t Work and Encourage Kids to Smoke

Industry Should Pull Ads and States Should Fund Real Tobacco Prevention

Statement of William V. CorrExecutive Director, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

WASHINGTON, DC – A new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) finds that the tobacco industry’s television ads purporting to discourage youth smoking are ineffective at best and that the industry’s ads targeted at parents actually encourage kids to smoke. Following a federal judge’s ruling in August that the tobacco companies have lied – and continue to lie – about the health risks of their products and their marketing to children, this study is another reminder that the tobacco companies have not changed and continue to mislead the public at every turn. These ads are clearly intended to clean up the industry’s image, not to reduce youth smoking.

This rigorous and carefully controlled study finds that the industry’s “prevention” ads targeted at youth are ineffective and do not change smoking outcomes, while industry ads targeted at parents increase the likelihood that kids will smoke. Among 10th and 12th graders, higher exposure to the parent-targeted ads was associated with lower perceived harm of smoking, stronger approval of smoking, stronger intentions to smoke in the future, and a greater likelihood of having smoked in the past 30 days.

EMBARGOED OFR RELEASE CONTACT: NAME 4 PM Eastern Time, October 31, 2006 PHONE NUMBER

New Study Finds Tobacco Industry “Prevention” Ads Actually Encourage Kids to Smoke

STATE Health Advocates Call on Industry to Pull Ads, Urge State Leaders to Fund Real Tobacco Prevention ProgramsA new study published online today by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) finds that so-called “tobacco prevention” television ads sponsored by the tobacco companies are at best ineffective and that some of the ads actually encourage kids to smoke.

The study finds that the industry ads targeted at youth do not reduce smoking while industry ads targeted at parents have harmful effects on kids. Specifically, 10th and 12th graders exposed to the industry’s parent-targeted ads were more likely to approve of smoking, more likely to say they planned to smoke in the future, and more likely to have smoked in the past 30 days.

STATE health advocates called on the tobacco companies to immediately stop their phony tobacco prevention programs, and they called on STATE leaders to continue funding/increase funding for real tobacco prevention programs.

“This study shows that the tobacco companies’ so-called prevention ads are a fraud. These blatant attempts to reform their image are in fact

Manufacturers' anti-smoking ads

ineffective-study

By Maggie Fox – October 31, 2006

WASHINGTON, Oct 31 (Reuters) - Television ads that tobacco

companies say are designed to discourage teenagers from

smoking do no such thing, and some may actually encourage

youths to smoke, researchers reported on Tuesday. Their study of

more than 100,000 U.S. teenagers show the ads may do more

harm than good, the researchers wrote in the American Journal

of Public Health.

“This study provides more proof that the tobacco industry is all

smoke and mirrors,” said M. Cass Wheeler, Chief Executive

Officer of the American Heart Association. “The tobacco

industry is addicted to lying and in truth wants our kids to

become addicted to tobacco. If they were serious about reducing

smoking rates, they would stop spending $15 billion a year to

promote their deadly products.”

Study snuffs tobacco company's claimsBy Greg Bolt – December 16, 2006 A study by an Oregon State University researcher and his

colleagues suggests that anti-smoking ads paid for by the tobacco

industry and targeted at youth and their parents not only don't

work but might actually encourage teens to smoke.Brian Flay, a professor in OSU's department of public health, was

one of nine researchers who studied tobacco industry ads aimed at

preventing youth smoking and said that at best they don't have any

effect. And he said some, particularly those aimed at parents, had

the opposite effect.“It actually encourages it, especially when kids see those ads

targeted to parents," Flay said. "If they see those, there's a 12

percent increase in the likelihood they'll become smokers.”That's a conclusion that is strongly contested by cigarette maker

Philip Morris USA, which says it not only has spent $1 billion to

develop and disseminate effective advertising aimed at deterring

youth smoking but also has research that shows that it works. It

says the ads are based on widely accepted research and don't carry

any hidden messages. "There's nothing in our research that raises the concerns

Smoke And Mirrors By Matthew Kirdahy – November 1, 2006

Those annoying television commercials that told parents to talk to their teenagers about not smoking were especially annoying to the kids they were meant to help, an upcoming article in the American Journal of Public Health will claim--so annoying that they may have encouraged kids to take up the habit that the tobacco-company-sponsored spots were supposed to deter. While the authors of the article do not go as far as saying the ads were purposely designed to encourage smoking, they do claim there was no benefit to them.

The article was the work of a team of nine doctors, including specialists in psychology, sociology and economics, who studied the influence on teenagers of anti-smoking ads paid for by Altria unit Philip Morris and Carolina Group's Lorillard Tobacco. The research was funded by the National Cancer Institute, the national Institute on Drug Abuse and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which focuses on health issues; all of those groups have an obvious ax to grind with cigarette makers.

Philip Morris and Lorillard did not return phone calls Tuesday afternoon seeking comment. The report was released ahead of its publication by the American Cancer Society. "We must make sure the tobacco industry isn't drafting our health care

When Don’t Smoke Means Do Editorial – November 27, 2006

Philip Morris has adopted the role of good citizen these days. Its Web site brims with information on the dangers of smoking, and it has mounted a campaign of television spots that urge parents, oh so earnestly, to warn their children against smoking. That follows an earlier $100 million campaign warning young people to “Think. Don’t Smoke,” analogous to the “just say no” admonitions against drugs.

All this seems to fly against the economic interests of the company, which presumably depends on a continuing crop of new smokers to replace those who drop out or die from their habit. But in practice, it turns out, these industry-run campaigns are notably ineffective and possibly even a sham. New research shows that the ads aimed at youths had no discernible effect in discouraging smoking and that the ads currently aimed at parents may be counterproductive.

(…)

Philip Morris says it has spent more than $1 billion on its youth smoking prevention programs since 1998 and that it devised its current advertising campaign on the advice of experts who deem parental influence extremely important. But the company has done only the skimpiest research on how the campaign is working. It cites June 2006 data indicating that 37 percent of parents with children age 10 to 17 were both aware of its ads and spoke to their children about not smoking. How the children reacted has not been explored. And somehow the company forgot to tell the parents, as role models, to stop smoking themselves.

Philip Morris, the industry’s biggest and most influential company, is renowned for its marketing savvy. If it really wanted to prevent youth smoking — and cut off new recruits to its death-dealing products — it could surely mount a more effective campaign to do so.

32

35

Study: Camel No. 9 cigarette ads appeal to teen girlsMarch 15, 2010

A recent marketing campaign for Camel cigarettes appears to have attracted the interest of teen girls, a study shows.

The ads for Camel No. 9 cigarettes — which ran in magazines such as Vogue,Cosmopolitan and Glamour — were a hit with girls ages 12 to 16, says a study of 1,036 adolescents published online Monday in Pediatrics.

Camel Cigarette Ads Score Big with Teen GirlsMarch 15, 2010 Study: Ads for Camel No. 9 were aimed at

teenage girlsMarch 17, 2010

Getting Teenage Girls to Smoke?March 15, 2010

36

TRACK AND PUBLICIZE NEW RESEARCH

EVIDENCE

50 State Specific ReleasesFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jennifer Friedman January 26, 2005 / Joel Spivak

202-296-5469Maine Can Keep 19,870 Kids from Smoking and Save 6,350 from Early

Death By Fully Funding Tobacco Prevention, New Research ShowsMaine Will Also Save $238.4 million in Health Care Bills

WASHINGTON, DC (January 26, 2005) – Maine will prevent 19,870 kids alive today from starting to smoke and save 6,350 of them from a premature, smoking-caused death if it continues to fund a tobacco prevention and cessation program at levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to new research data released today by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Maine will also save $238.4 million in long-term, smoking-related health care costs as a result of these reductions in youth smoking.

Nationally, if every state increased funding for tobacco prevention programs to CDC minimum levels, they would prevent nearly two million kids from starting to smoke, save 624,650 of these kids from premature death, and save $23.4 billion in health care costs, according to the new data.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ analysis is based on a new study published in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) that found “clear evidence” of a direct relationship between the

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jennifer Friedman /January 26, 2005 Joel Spivak

202-296-5469

Oregon Can Keep 25,750 Kids from Smoking and Save 8,240 from Early Death By Fully Funding Tobacco Prevention, New Research Shows

Oregon Would Also Save $309 million in Health Care Bills

WASHINGTON, DC (January 26, 2005) – Oregon would prevent 25,750 kids alive today from starting to smoke and save 8,240 of them from a premature, smoking-caused death if it funded a tobacco prevention and cessation program at minimum levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to new research data released today by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Oregon would also save $309 million in long-term, smoking-related health care costs as a result of these reductions in youth smoking.

Nationally, if every state increased funding for tobacco prevention programs to CDC minimum levels, they would prevent nearly two million kids from starting to smoke, save 624,650 of these kids from premature death, and save $23.4 billion in health care costs, according to the new data.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ analysis is based on a new study published in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health

(AJPH) that found “clear evidence” of a direct relationship

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jennifer Friedman / January 26, 2005 Joel Spivak

202-296-5469

Indiana Can Keep 55,870 Kids from Smoking and Save 17,880 from Early Death By Fully Funding Tobacco Prevention, New Research Shows

Indiana Would Also Save $670.5 million in Health Care Bills

WASHINGTON, DC (January 26, 2005) – Indiana would prevent 55,870 kids alive today from starting to smoke and save 17,880 of them from a premature, smoking-caused death if it funded a tobacco prevention and cessation program at minimum levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to new research data released today by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Indiana would also save $670.5 million in long-term, smoking-related health care costs as a result of these reductions in youth smoking.

Nationally, if every state increased funding for tobacco prevention programs to CDC minimum levels, they would prevent nearly two million kids from starting to smoke, save 624,650 of these kids from premature death, and save $23.4 billion in health care costs, according to the new data.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ analysis is based on a new study published in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health

(AJPH) that found “clear evidence” of a direct relationship

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Jennifer Friedman / January 26, 2005 Joel Spivak

202-296-5469

Delaware Can Keep 14,540 Kids from Smoking and Save 4,650 from Early Death By Fully Funding Tobacco Prevention, New Research Shows

Delaware Would Also Save $174.5 million in Health Care Bills

WASHINGTON, DC (January 26, 2005) – Delaware will prevent 14,540 kids alive today from starting to smoke and save 4,650 of them from a premature, smoking-caused death if it continues to fund a tobacco prevention and cessation program at levels recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), according to new research data released today by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Delaware would also save $174.5 million in long-term, smoking-related health care costs as a result of these reductions in youth smoking.

Nationally, if every state increased funding for tobacco prevention programs to CDC minimum levels, they would prevent nearly two million kids from starting to smoke, save 624,650 of these kids from premature death, and save $23.4 billion in health care costs, according to the new data.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids’ analysis is based on a new study published in the February 2005 issue of the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) that found “clear evidence” of a direct relationship between the

Study: Anti-smoking efforts will save thousands (Augusta, ME)

Report: More money spent, more lives saved (Northwest Indiana)

Invest for long-term payback

Report Says Tobacco Prevention Programs Save Lives, Money (DE)

February 15, 2005

January 27, 2005

January 28,2005

January 28, 2005

PRESS COVERAGE

40

PROMOTE YOUR OWN SPECIAL REPORTS AND EVENTS

• Conduct polls to show public support for tobacco control policy

• Release the poll publicly and actively pitch to the press

• Weave polling into other public communications

Using Polling: Earned Media

42

69

10

117

0

20

40

60

80

100

Favor Oppose

Total Favor: 79%

Total Oppose: 18%

Darker shading equals stronger intensityNew HampshireSurvey of registered voters – January 2006

New Hampshire Voters Favor A StatewideSmoke-Free Workplace Law

Would you favor or oppose a state law in New Hampshire that would prohibit smoking in all indoor workplaces, including offices, restaurants and bars?

Poll finds majority favors N.H. smoking ban in restaurants, barsMarch 6, 2006

CONCORD, N.H. -- A majority of New Hampshire residents believe workers should be protected from secondhand smoke and support a ban on smoking in all workplaces, including restaurants and bars, according to a survey released Monday.

The University of New Hampshire Survey Center poll of 402 registered voters between Jan. 20 and Jan. 26 was conducted for Clean Air Works, a coalition of health groups in favor of a smoking ban. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4.9 percentage points.

A House committee last month endorsed a bill prohibiting smoking in all restaurants and cocktail lounges in the state; a full House vote is scheduled for Thursday.

The poll said New Hampshire residents support a workplace smoking ban by a margin of more than four to one. It reported 79 percent favored a ban; 18 percent did not. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats and 72 percent of Republicans polled supported a ban; 80 percent of undeclared voters also supported a smoking ban, the survey said. A strong majority of people polled -- 84 percent -- said they were concerned about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Eighty-seven percent said workers should be protected from secondhand smoke.

Of smokers polled, 58 percent said they believed the right of people to breathe clean air in restaurants and bars outweighed their right to smoke in those places.

More than 20 media hits on the poll in the weeks before the vote

Advertising

45

Merit of workplace smoking ban is a health consideration Tuesday, March 7, 2006 (Editorial)

New Hampshire's motto, "Live free or die," does not apply to smokers — at least not the first option of the motto. A proposed ban on smoking in the workplace is scheduled for a vote in the House of Representatives Thursday.

If lawmakers follow the results of a poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center late last month, it will pass easily. The survey was conducted among 402 registered voters and 79 percent of them were in favor of the ban. Eighteen percent did not favor it, leaving only 3 percent undecided or with no opinion.

It is an understatement to say the ban is supported by a majority of the people surveyed. It is a strong sentiment.

How will the House react to public sentiment when it votes Thursday? A House committee endorsed a ban when it voted last month. In the wake of the usually reliable Survey Center's poll, it will be a real stretch for lawmakers to overturn the committee's report.

A ban on smoking in the workplace has steadily gained strength. The state's hospitality industry, in this case generally restaurants, lounges and bars, has opposed similar legislation on smoking in the past, but this year the association representing many in the industry has taken a hands-off approach — leaving its members to make their choices without being pressured.

Just One Vote . . .

47

Restaurant smoking ban on its wayGovernor next stop after House passage

By LAUREN R. DORGAN – June 1, 2007

By the fall, smoking will be banished from all of New Hampshire's bars and restaurants. With an overwhelming vote of 224-117, the House approved a restaurant smoking ban yesterday. The Senate has already approved the bill, and Gov. John Lynch has said he will sign it. The only question now is when, exactly, the bill will hit his desk; it will take effect 90 days after it is signed.

Proponents of the ban described it as crucial to workplace safety for wait staff, saying it would shield them from the health risks of second-hand smoke. They also cited a University of New Hampshire poll that showed 79 percent of the state's residents support such a ban. "Employees should not be forced to sign away their health to earn a living," said Rep. Tara Reardon, a Concord Democrat. "This bill is not anti-smoker. It is anti-smoke."

Opponents said that market forces do the job: Diners choose where to eat and servers where to work, they argued. Most restaurants have gone smoke-free on their own, they said. "Smokers are the only minority I know of that society throws out into the cold," said Rep. Kenneth Weyler, a Kingston Republican. . . .

39%

48%

49%

60%

61%

62%

63%

69%

75%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Voter Support for theSmoke-Free Workplace Law

New York CitySurvey of registered voters - March 2004

New York Yankees

New York Knicks

David Letterman

Coney Island Hot Dog

A deli cornbeef sandwich

Krispy Kreme donuts

Donald Trump

George Steinbrenner

75% of New Yorkers Support The City’s Smoke-Free Law

The Law is Even More Popular Than a Variety of New York Institutions

Favorable Rating

March 28, 2004

Smoke ban a hit - even outpolls Yanks

Lisa L. ColangeloNew York Daily News

What do New Yorkers like more than the Yankees or a Coney Island hot dog? The smoking ban. Or at least that's the conclusion of a poll of 500 registered voters for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. According to the poll, 61% of people strongly support the ban on smoking in workplaces, including bars, restaurants and offices. That's up from 55% in a similar poll conducted in August. Another 14% said they "somewhat" support the ban. "Those are amazing numbers," said Josh Isay, a spokesman for the campaign. "People should know that contrary to some press reports, this law is very popular ... it's a vocal minority that opposes the law." By comparison, 46% of respondents reported a "very favorable" view of the New York Yankees, and 39% were big fans of Coney Island hot dogs. And 70% of people said the rights of customers to be in a smoke-free restaurant or bar is more important than the right to smoke. Bob Zuckerman of the New York Nightlife Association questioned the validity of the results. "When you group bars and restaurants together, you get a much different result than if you just ask about bars," he said. "We continue to hear from members and even nonmembers that the smoking ban has hurt business and curtailed the bar business." About 80% of the women surveyed support the ban while only 19% opposed it. Meanwhile, 70% of men supported the ban and 29% opposed it.

The poll had a margin of error of 4.5%.

• The SidePak records the levels of respirable suspended particles in the air that contribute to particle pollution

Using Air Quality Monitoring

51

Average Level of Indoor Air Pollution in Each City Sampled

9427

293

392

254 231

25

0

100

200

300

400

500

Los A

ngele

s

Buffa

lo

Baltim

ore

Was

hingto

n, D

C

Philad

elphia

Hobok

en

New Y

ork C

ityAv

era

ge

PM

2.5

lev

el

(μg

/m3 )

53

CASE STUDYTOBACCO TAXES

54

Case Study – Tobacco Tax Campaigns

• The Science

• Developing the Message

• Delivering the Message in Integrated Media and Policy Advocacy Campaigns

• Measuring Success: Media Coverage, Message Impact and Policy Impact

55

Source: Tax Burden on Tobacco, 2010, and author’s calculations

56

53

14

24

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Favor Oppose

Total Favor: 67%

Total Oppose: 31%

Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a one dollar per pack increase in the state tobacco tax, with part of the revenue dedicated to a program to reduce tobacco use, particularly among kids, and the rest dedicated to addressing the state budget

deficit?

Developing the Message:Voters Strongly Favor Tobacco Tax Increases

Darker shading equals stronger intensityTotal numbers are rounded

International Communications Research SurveyJanuary 2010

57

Developing The MessagePolling: Including A Youth Smoking Prevention Component Increases Support For

Tobacco Tax Hikes SubstantiallyThe Exact Wording Of The Question Makes Little Difference

69%

24%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Favor Oppose No Opin

… as part of an effort to help reduce smoking, particularly

among kids

(darker shading=stronger intensity)

70%

22%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Favor Oppose No Opin

18%strong

…if part of the money is used to fund programs to reduce tobacco

use, particularly among kids

52%

34%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Favor Oppose No Opin

58%strong

55%strong

18%strong

41%strong

27%strong

Would you favor or oppose an increase in the state

tobacco tax?

Robert Wood Johnson FoundationNational survey of registered Voters - June 2002

The Mellman Group/Market Strategies

58

Polling: Most Convincing Reasons ToSupport Tobacco Tax Increase

41%

42%

43%

43%

44%

45%

45%

47%

47%

48%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

% very convincing reasons to support tobacco tax increase (top tier)

Even slight decrease in youth smoking makes tax worthwhile – 3 fewer kid smokers = 1 fewer death

Everyday, 5K kids try first cigarette & 2K become smokers

Whole society wins if fewer kids begin smoking

Whole society wins if kids quit smoking

According to ACS & other health groups, everyday, 5K kids try first cigarette and 2K become smokers

Health care costs caused by smoking = $75 billion/ year – increasing taxes will save $ in long run

Health care costs caused by smoking = $3.50/pack of cigarettes – increasing taxes will save $ in long run

ACS/AHA/ALA support higher taxes b/c it keeps kids from smoking -- big tobacco opposes tax for same reason

Scientific evidence proves increasing taxes reduces smoking – 10% price incr = 7% red in youth smoking

Whole society wins if kids smoke fewer cigarettes

Robert Wood Johnson FoundationNational survey of registered Voters - June 2002The Mellman Group/Market Strategies

Virtually all of the top arguments focus on kids and reducing youth smoking

Total numbers are roundedDarker shading indicates stronger intensity

Increasing The Tobacco Tax Is The PreferredWay To Address State Budget Deficits

As you may have heard, virtually all states are currently facing severe budget deficits. I am going to read you a list of proposals that have been suggested as a way to address the state budget deficit. After I read each one, please tell me if you FAVOR or OPPOSE that

proposal.

10 6-60-21

10 7-65-16

6 13-64-16

7 12-57-18

10 10-58-21

10 12-53-20

8 17-54-18

10 17-40-30

47 13-27-11

-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

Reduce funding for education

Increase the state gasoline tax

Increase the state tobacco tax

Oppose Favor

60%

17%

22%74%

International Communications Research SurveyJanuary 2010

Reduce funding for health care programs

Increase the state income tax 20%76%

19%80%

81%

38%

Increase the state sales tax 72% 25%

Reduce funding for Medicaid services

Reduce funding for road maintenance and construction

Reduce funding for state law enforcement

81%

70%

78%

16%

26%

20%

Lessons from Policy Campaigns

What Do Policy Makers Want?

• A new and reliable source of revenue

• Support of the voters

• A way to talk about raising the tax

61

Message Platform WIN, WIN, WIN

The Theme for Legislative Campaigns

• A WIN for public health: prevents kids from smoking and saves lives

• A WIN for the state budget: raises revenue to balance budgets and fund vital programs

• A WIN for politicians: it’s popular with voters

62

Delivering the Message in Media And Policy Campaigns

• Earned media – press releases, editorials, etc.

• Paid media – Advertising & direct mail

• State-Specific Polls

• Direct contact with legislators – testimony, meetings and mobilizing the public to take action

63

New Research Generates Media Coverage

64

Evidence

65

Print CoverageUSA Today - April 24, 2001 New York Times - May 1, 2001

66

Special Reports

67

National Tax Report

• Generate media attention

• Remind policy makers: Increasing the tobacco tax is a win-win-win

• Get state-specific information in front of key policy makers

68

Tax Report on the Web

69

Tax Report: State-Specific Web Page

70

Widget

71

National Press Release

72

State Press Releases

73

U.S. would reap billions from $1 cigarette tax hikeFebruary 11, 2010By Maggie Fox

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Adding a $1 per pack tax to cigarettes could raise more than $9 billion a year for states, health advocates said on Wednesday, and a poll released with the study shows Americans would support such a tax.

The poll, conducted by International Communications Research, found 60 percent of voters would support the tax to help struggling states and would prefer it over other tax increases or budget cuts.

"An increase in tobacco tax rates is not only sound public health policy but a smart and predictable way to help boost the economy and generate long-term health savings for states facing deepening budget deficits," said John Seffrin, chief executive of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

"We have irrefutable evidence that raising the tobacco tax lowers smoking rates among adults and deters millions of children from picking up their first cigarette," Seffrin said in a statement.

The report was released by the Cancer Action Network, the advocacy arm of the American Cancer Society, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. All these non-profit groups have long supported taxing tobacco more as a way to discourage smoking. . . .

74

Report: $1 cigarette tax increase wouldraise $209.4M in S.C.

February 10, 2010

Raising South Carolina’s cigarette tax by $1 would bring in $209.4 million in new annual revenue, helping close the states budget shortfall while also reducing smoking, according to a national report released today by a coalition of public health organizations.

South Carolina’s tax is currently the lowest in the nation, at seven cents per pack. The report comes as states grapple with budget shortfalls and face cuts to education, health care and other essential public services. The report details the revenue and health benefits a $1 cigarette tax increase would give to each state.

According to the report, a $1 cigarette tax increase in South Carolina would also:Prevent 46,700 children from becoming smokers. Spur 25,700 current adult smokers to quit. Save 21,700 residents from premature, smoking-related deaths. Save $1 billion in health care costs. . . .

75

Targeted Online Advertising

• Advertising in selected target states. Ads placed on search engines, local political/policy blogs, Facebook and local newspapers.

• When visitors search for key words or read stories on those topics, they see an ad or sponsored search result leading to the tax report.

• Result: Daily web traffic increased by nearly one-third.

76

Online toolkit for advocates

• Media Materials

• Advocacy Materials

• Grassroots Materials

• Research Materials

http://tobaccofreekids.org/winwinwin/toolkit/

The federal tax last year jumped 62 cents a pack to $1.01.

"Raising the cigarette tax to 57 cents a pack puts us at an economic disadvantage," Rep. Gary Simrill, R-Rock Hill, said Wednesday.

But other legislators, including Reps. Joe Jefferson of Pineville and Anne Peterson Hutto of Charleston, both Democrats, listed several benefits: A higher tax could deter teens from starting to smoke and prompt others to quit, saving them from future heart attacks and cancer and saving the state money in medical bills for lower-income residents.

The tax increase is projected to raise $136 million, which would sit in a savings account until July 2011. At that time, $125 million would go to pay Medicaid costs, $5 million to the Hollings Cancer Center at the Medical University of South Carolina and $5 million toward helping people quit smoking and also keep them from starting. If there was money left, $1 million would be used to market South Carolina-grown crops.

The state could use the money for Medicaid to draw down a 3-to-1 match from the federal government, bringing in a total of $375 million.

Polls have shown that a majority of registered South Carolina voters favor a cigarette tax increase, according to the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative. The group is made up of public health organizations across the state that have fought to increase the tax since 2000.

Research by Frank Chaloupka, an economics professor at the University of Illinois, developed in conjunction with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative, found that money from a cigarette tax is predictable, steady and reliable. The cash flow will lessen over the years as people break the habit but, according to Chaloupka, the decline is "modest, predictable and more than offset by the related reductions in public- and private-sector health care and other economic costs caused by smoking."

Senate overrides veto, raises cigarette tax by 50 cents a packMay 13, 2010

COLUMBIA -- South Carolina lawmakers have overridden Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto and raised what was the nation's lowest cigarette tax by 50 cents a pack.

Today’s vote by the Senate raises the 7 cent tax to 57 cents a pack on July 1 and leaves Missouri with the nation's lowest tax at 17 cents.

The 33-13 vote in the Senate followed a 90-29 vote in the House on Wednesday after the Republican Sanford had said he wouldn't allow a tax increase on cigarettes unless it was offset by some other tax decrease.

The measure raises nearly $125 million to cover the loss of federal bailout cash next year in Medicaid programs for the elderly, disabled and poor. It also is expected to generate $5 million each for cancer research and efforts to curb smoking and $1 million for agriculture marketing.

The years-long tug-of-war over raising the state's 7-cent cigarette tax for the first time in more than 30 years came down to a final vote in the Senate.

Joe Dabit (left) sells cigarettes to Eric Chamness and William Haden on Wednesday at Charlie's Grocery on the corner of Jasper and Radcliffe streets In Charleston. The Senate today voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford's veto of the cigarette tax increase.

The House voted to override the veto Wednesday over the objections of lawmakers from counties along the North Carolina and Georgia borders who argued that the higher tax rate would hurt the competitiveness of convenience stores. The state tax in North Carolina is 45 cents. It is 37 cents in Georgia.

South Carolina's cigarette tax had not been increased since 1977. The national average state tax is $1.41 a pack.

Research by Frank Chaloupka, an economics professor at the University of Illinois, developed in conjunction with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative, found that money from a cigarette tax is predictable, steady and reliable. The cash flow will lessen over the years as people break the habit but, according to Chaloupka, the decline is "modest, predictable and more than offset by the related reductions in public- and private-sector health care and other economic costs caused by smoking."

Polls have shown that a majority of registered South Carolina voters favor a cigarette tax increase, according to the South Carolina Tobacco

Collaborative.

80

Serving as Information Resource for Mediaand Policy Makers

81

Generating Newspaper Editorials

Win-Win-Win!

Raising Cigarette Taxes is Good Fiscal Policy, Good Public Health Policy, and Good Politics – It’s a Win-Win-Win Solution for Georgia’s Fiscal Challenges

82

Factsheets

83

Factsheets

84

Our staff provide expert testimony

to legislative committees about

the need for tobacco control

policies

85

Using Advertising to Educate Legislators

86

87

Media Coverage of Ads

Campaign pushes for higher NM tobacco tax

Associated Press - February 23, 2010 6:05 AM ET

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - A national campaign focused on keeping tobacco products out of children's hands is running a series of newspaper advertisements around New Mexico to encourage state lawmakers to consider increasing the tax on cigarettes.

The New Mexico Legislature adjourned Thursday without a plan on how to finance public schools and state government in the coming year. They are scheduled to return Wednesday for a special session.

Legislative leaders have been trying to negotiate a deal to plug the budget deficit with revenues from gross receipts, income and cigarette taxes. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is running ads that favor a $1 increase in the tobacco tax in a handful of New Mexico newspapers this week.

The campaign claims the increase could raise nearly $36 million and keep kids from smoking.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

88

89

90

Using polling to generate media coverage and

demonstrate public support

91

53

16

22

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Favor Oppose

Total Favor: 69%

Total Oppose: 30%

Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a one dollar per pack increase in the state tobacco tax as part of an effort to reduce tobacco use, particularly among kids, with the new revenue used to reduce the state budget shortfall?

Kansas Voters Favor A One Dollar Increasein the State Tobacco Tax

Darker shading equals stronger intensityTotal numbers are rounded

Kansas Statewide Tobacco Tax StudyMarch 2010

92

69

30

73

26

59

39

71

28

0

20

40

60

80

100

All Voters Democrat Independent Republican

Favor OpposeTotal numbers are rounded

Kansas: Support for a One Dollar Tobacco Tax IncreaseRemains Strong Across Party Lines

Kansas Statewide Tobacco Tax StudyMarch 2010

Would you FAVOR or OPPOSE a one dollar per pack increase in the state tobacco tax as part of an effort to reduce tobacco use, particularly among kids, with the new revenue used to reduce the state budget shortfall?

93

94

Survey: 69% back cig tax hike Bipartisan support indicated for increase to avoid deeper budget cuts

March 23, 2010

Two-thirds of Kansans support a $1 per pack increase in the state cigarette tax to generate new revenue to address the state's budget deficit, a new survey said Tuesday.

The telephone survey of 500 likely Kansas voters indicated bipartisan support — 69 percent overall — for a tobacco tax hike rather than deeper cuts to education, transportation and social services. Among 13 budget-balancing ideas presented in the survey, the only options gaining broad support were increases in taxes on tobacco and liquor.

"Kansans understand the difficult choices our leaders face as they deal with the state's budget woes," said Chris Masoner, spokesman for the American Cancer Society in Kansas. "We know that many legislators are reluctant to support any tax increase."

The current Kansas tax on cigarettes is 79 cents a pack. In January, Democratic Gov. Mark Parkinson proposed a tax of $1.34 on a pack to reflect the national average. Rhode Island has the nation's highest cigarette tax at $3.46 per pack, while the lowest is 7 cents in South Carolina. . . .

95

Grassroots and Coalition Building

96

Grassroots Materials: Microsites

97

Grassroots Alert

98

Clerics back Md. tobacco tax increase; Coalition supports $1.50- per-pack rise aimed at teen-agers; `Nobody should smoke'; Denominations' decision termed `a breakthrough'

July 14, 1998

A coalition of religious leaders representing Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans and others lent their support yesterday to an initiative that aims to curb teen smoking by raising the Maryland state tax on cigarettes $1.50 a pack.

The broad-based support of the members of the Central Maryland Ecumenical Council for the Maryland Children's Initiative is considered significant because, while individual religious denominations may have discouraged smoking among their members, they have not been in the forefront of the legal and political anti-smoking movement.

The initiative was endorsed at a news conference yesterday at the council's North Baltimore offices by the local Lutheran and United Methodist bishops, and representatives of the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, Clergy United for the Renewal of East Baltimore, the United Missionary Baptist Convention, the American Baptist Churches of the South and the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"It is a groundbreaking step," said United Methodist Bishop Felton Edwin May of the Baltimore-Washington Conference, which passed a resolution at its annual meeting last month endorsing the initiative. "It shows cohesiveness and collaboration at a level that would move this issue ahead. None of us as individuals or as denominations can do it alone."

Building Coalitions – Faith Community

The broad-based support of the members of the Central Maryland Ecumenical Council for the Maryland Children's Initiative is considered significant because, while individual religious denominations may have discouraged smoking among their members, they have not been in the forefront of the legal and political anti-smoking movement.

99

Impact

100

EDITORIALThere's still time to pass cigarette tax increase 5 April 2007Indianapolis Star“The combination of a higher cigarette tax and a low-income insurance plan is a win-win for Hoosiers' health. Legislators shouldn't leave town without it. “

EDITORIALWin, winTobacco tax hike: Too good not to come true 27 March 2004Daily Press (Virginia)“It doesn't get much better than this: a recent report confirming that one specific tax -- a 50-cent-per-pack hike in the state cigarette tax -- would be a good thing for the state's coffers, its citizens, its workers, its businesses and its public health.”

Costly cigarettes seen as win, win 9 February 2007The Oregonian“An independent health economist, Jeffrey Fellows of the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, said he thinks the state's projections of how much smoking would decrease and how much tax revenues would increase are sound. "Increasing taxes on cigarettes is one of the most effective ways of reducing smoking rates," he said.”

Proposed fee on cigarettes wins two ways 5 February 2005Stevens Point Journal (Wisconsin)“As far as we're concerned, the extra buck a pack is a win-win proposition. It means more money to treat smoking-related illnesses and more money to promote smoking cessation. It means fewer kids who'll start smoking. Sounds like a bargain.“

101

Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN): “We have it in our power to make a huge difference. We know how to reduce smoking, and in particular to dissuade young people from starting to smoke. It starts with a higher price for the product..” [Excerpts from Governor Daniels’ State of the State Speech delivered January 16, 2007, as provided by the Governor’s office]

Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN): “This [cigarette tax increase] will not only increase revenues...but it will also decrease smoking, it will improve health, and not be a drag, or discouragement, to future job growth and investment in our state.” [Press Conference by Governor Pawlenty and Republican legislators, 2005]

Governor John Lynch (D-NH): Governor Lynch has proposed a cigarette tax increase to fund the state’s budget and reduce youth smoking, stating in his budget address that raising the cigarette tax would not only raise $87 million over two years but “also allows us to accomplish an important public health goal - deterring young people from smoking.” [The Concord Monitor, February 16, 2007]

Political Leaders Echo The Message

102

Success

• 47 states, Washington DC, and Puerto Rico have increased their cigarette tax more than 100 times since January 1, 2002

• 14 states, Washington, DC, and the federal government increased tobacco taxes in 2009

• 5 states have increased tobacco taxes so far in 2010

103

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Federal Cigarette Tax State Cigarette Tax federal rate ($1.01) + current state

average ($1.42): $2.43 per pack

2008 federal rate (39¢) + state average ($1.19)

$1.58 per pack

May 2010

2001 federal rate (34¢) + state average (43¢):

77¢ per pack

Federal Cigarette Excise Tax + Average State Cigarette Tax

Total Projected Health Benefits from State & Federal Cigarette Tax Increases since January 2008*

Federal + State Average Cigarette Tax Rate at the beginning of 2008: $1.46 per pack

Federal + State Average Cigarette Tax Rate by July 2010: $2.43 per pack

Fewer Future Youth Smokers 2,809,800

Fewer Adult Smokers 1,464,100

Future Smoking Deaths Avoided 1,282,700

* States included: AR, CT, DC (2008 & 2009), DE, FL, HI (2008, 2009, 2010), KY, MA, MD, MS, NH (2008, 2009), NJ, NM, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, UT, VT (2008 & 2009), WA, WI (2008 & 2009).

Total Projected Health Care Savings from State & Federal Cigarette Tax Increases since January 2008*

* Long-term savings accrue over lifetimes of persons who stop smoking or never start because of tax increase.

5-Year Heart & Stroke Savings $712 million

5-Year Smoking-Births Savings $578 million

Overall Long-Term Health Savings* $63 billion

We estimate that the states that increased their cigarette taxes during this period have collected or will collect a total of more than $4.2 billion in new cigarette tax revenue in just the first year after the increase was/is effective. Does not include revenue from the federal increase.

Federal + State Average Cigarette Tax Rate at the beginning of 2008: $1.46 per pack

Federal + State Average Cigarette Tax Rate by July 2010: $2.43 per pack

* States included: AR, CT, DC (2008 & 2009), DE, FL, HI (2008, 2009, 2010), KY, MA, MD, MS, NH (2008, 2009), NJ, NM, NY, NC, PA, RI, SC, UT, VT (2008 & 2009), WA, WI (2008 & 2009).

Look Familiar?

Look Familiar?

108

Campaign for Healthy Kids CampaignforHealthyKids.org

Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax (Soda Tax)

• Polls

• Statements

• Media Monitoring

• Spokesperson

•Communications Materials

• Social networking

Childhood Obesity Tactics in Action

109

Polls

110

Statements

111

Media Monitoring

112

Spokesperson

113

Communications Materials/ Research

????

Tobaccofreekids.org