Up in smoke
Ad Cancellation In response to an article about the Swiss cigarette lobby, Philip Morris canceled two ads it had already booked in the news magazine *Facts*. However, the tobacco company does not want this to be seen as a boycott.
Advertising freeze In response to an article about the Swiss cigarette lobby, Philip Morris has removed two already
canceled advertisements booked in the news magazine Facts. However, the tobacco company does not want this to be understood as a boycott.
Advertising boycotts are not only a powerful tool, they are also extremely rare. It has been more than twenty years since the ominous term last made official headlines in media circles (see box). This made a note in the Tages-Anzeiger last Friday, prominently placed on the front page of the Wirtschaftsbund, all the more surprising. It literally read: "In response to an article about the cigarette industry, the tobacco company Philip Morris has imposed an advertising boycott on the news magazine Facts." To back up the statement, it was added that this had been confirmed by a spokesperson for the tobacco company in question.
However, when asked by Werbewoche, Philip Morris did not want to know anything about a boycott or an attempt at discipline. "The term boycott is wrong. We have only decided to postpone the planned advertising placements in this magazine until further notice," explained Raymond Pantet, press spokesman for Philip Morris. However, the postponement is not to be understood as a punitive action; it is solely due to technical advertising aspects. "By using one of our brands in an unauthorized and negative way for the front page and by including factual inaccuracies in the reporting, Facts has created an environment that is unfavorable for the promotion of our products."
In principle, Facts remains an interesting title for Philip Morris, according to Pantet. However, he did not want to specify how long the advertising break in the news magazine would last.
Conciliatory tones
The two other tobacco companies explicitly mentioned in the article in question are similarly conciliatory. "Even if we are not satisfied with an article, we naturally respect the freedom of the press," emphasizes British American Tobacco media spokesman Claudio Rollini. Instead of stopping advertising orders, the company seeks dialog with the editors in question. "We hope that Facts is now open to a discussion so that we can make our opinion and our policy clear."
JT International also relies on dialog rather than punitive measures. "We are not reacting because of a critical article," explains Jacqueline Erb, press spokesperson for the tobacco company. She also emphasizes that the Facts story will have no influence on the future advertising strategy.
The fact remains: None of the three tobacco companies in question is demanding a correction or even a counterstatement to the published article. There are no reasons for this, explains Tamedia spokeswoman Eta Pavlovic. Like many other articles, this one was also checked by Tamedia's legal service before publication. "There are no untruths or speculations in this text," says Pavlovic. And she adds: "It doesn't even contain anything really new. After all, the study mentioned on the subject of passive smoking has already been discussed by other media." Furthermore, the company had ensured in advance that the use of elements from the Marlboro and Marylong packs would not infringe any trademark rights.
Counterproductive approach?
The current case will be discussed in Tamedia's editorial offices. "But we certainly won't be intimidated. Because then we would no longer be able to fulfill our task - critical reporting," explains Pavlovic.
For Jürg Siegrist, Managing Director of the Swiss Advertisers' Association (SWA), the fact that editorial freedom must not be infringed is paramount. However, he shakes his head at the Tages-
Anzeiger note that publicized the alleged boycott. "In view of the fact that many advertisements are now being canceled or postponed by media agencies, I don't understand why the matter was published so prominently in the Wirtschaftsbund. Especially as it is not a boycott. This advance could be counterproductive."
Boycotts are rareThe last major advertising boycott was over twenty years ago: from 1979 to 1999, the Emil Frey Group boycotted the Tages-Anzeiger in response to a critical article in the magazine on the subject of "The Swiss car lobby". Negotiations between the TA management and the Emil Frey Group did not take place until the end of the 1990s. The two parties came to an agreement,
to stop using the term boycott. Instead, the Tages-Anzeiger certified in the columns of the business section that the car dealer had merely "made use of the freedom of an advertiser,
to do without a suitable advertising medium".
Nowadays, threats of boycotts are no longer usually made openly. Pragmatic solutions are preferred - which in the vast majority of cases are not made public. "I can well imagine that the one or other advertiser will occasionally
is once again annoyed by what has been published - and then at the
advertising simply takes a break without making a big deal of it. But then we don't find out," explains Jürg Siegrist,
Managing Director of the Swiss Advertising Client Association. (dse)
Daniel Schifferle
canceled advertisements booked in the news magazine Facts. However, the tobacco company does not want this to be understood as a boycott.
Advertising boycotts are not only a powerful tool, they are also extremely rare. It has been more than twenty years since the ominous term last made official headlines in media circles (see box). This made a note in the Tages-Anzeiger last Friday, prominently placed on the front page of the Wirtschaftsbund, all the more surprising. It literally read: "In response to an article about the cigarette industry, the tobacco company Philip Morris has imposed an advertising boycott on the news magazine Facts." To back up the statement, it was added that this had been confirmed by a spokesperson for the tobacco company in question.
However, when asked by Werbewoche, Philip Morris did not want to know anything about a boycott or an attempt at discipline. "The term boycott is wrong. We have only decided to postpone the planned advertising placements in this magazine until further notice," explained Raymond Pantet, press spokesman for Philip Morris. However, the postponement is not to be understood as a punitive action; it is solely due to technical advertising aspects. "By using one of our brands in an unauthorized and negative way for the front page and by including factual inaccuracies in the reporting, Facts has created an environment that is unfavorable for the promotion of our products."
In principle, Facts remains an interesting title for Philip Morris, according to Pantet. However, he did not want to specify how long the advertising break in the news magazine would last.
Conciliatory tones
The two other tobacco companies explicitly mentioned in the article in question are similarly conciliatory. "Even if we are not satisfied with an article, we naturally respect the freedom of the press," emphasizes British American Tobacco media spokesman Claudio Rollini. Instead of stopping advertising orders, the company seeks dialog with the editors in question. "We hope that Facts is now open to a discussion so that we can make our opinion and our policy clear."
JT International also relies on dialog rather than punitive measures. "We are not reacting because of a critical article," explains Jacqueline Erb, press spokesperson for the tobacco company. She also emphasizes that the Facts story will have no influence on the future advertising strategy.
The fact remains: None of the three tobacco companies in question is demanding a correction or even a counterstatement to the published article. There are no reasons for this, explains Tamedia spokeswoman Eta Pavlovic. Like many other articles, this one was also checked by Tamedia's legal service before publication. "There are no untruths or speculations in this text," says Pavlovic. And she adds: "It doesn't even contain anything really new. After all, the study mentioned on the subject of passive smoking has already been discussed by other media." Furthermore, the company had ensured in advance that the use of elements from the Marlboro and Marylong packs would not infringe any trademark rights.
Counterproductive approach?
The current case will be discussed in Tamedia's editorial offices. "But we certainly won't be intimidated. Because then we would no longer be able to fulfill our task - critical reporting," explains Pavlovic.
For Jürg Siegrist, Managing Director of the Swiss Advertisers' Association (SWA), the fact that editorial freedom must not be infringed is paramount. However, he shakes his head at the Tages-
Anzeiger note that publicized the alleged boycott. "In view of the fact that many advertisements are now being canceled or postponed by media agencies, I don't understand why the matter was published so prominently in the Wirtschaftsbund. Especially as it is not a boycott. This advance could be counterproductive."
Boycotts are rareThe last major advertising boycott was over twenty years ago: from 1979 to 1999, the Emil Frey Group boycotted the Tages-Anzeiger in response to a critical article in the magazine on the subject of "The Swiss car lobby". Negotiations between the TA management and the Emil Frey Group did not take place until the end of the 1990s. The two parties came to an agreement,
to stop using the term boycott. Instead, the Tages-Anzeiger certified in the columns of the business section that the car dealer had merely "made use of the freedom of an advertiser,
to do without a suitable advertising medium".
Nowadays, threats of boycotts are no longer usually made openly. Pragmatic solutions are preferred - which in the vast majority of cases are not made public. "I can well imagine that the one or other advertiser will occasionally
is once again annoyed by what has been published - and then at the
advertising simply takes a break without making a big deal of it. But then we don't find out," explains Jürg Siegrist,
Managing Director of the Swiss Advertising Client Association. (dse)
Daniel Schifferle
