"Philip Morris more likely to advocate no cinema advertising".
Louis Paquier of Philip Morris Switzerland on advertising for non-smoking and for cigarettes
Louis Paquier: Cigarette advertising, like advertising for other products, is a competitive tool designed to move consumers from product A to product B. Contrary to popular belief, however, cigarette advertising does not encourage people to smoke. There are usually social reasons why people smoke. This is also shown by the WHO study "Health and Health Behavior 2000": there are significantly more young smokers in Norway and Finland than in Switzerland, for example. In these countries, all forms of cigarette advertising were banned over 20 years ago.
Cigarette advertising not only shows products and a supposedly corresponding attitude to life, but sometimes also defames non-smokers as uptight, sociable types. That really hits home with young people.
Paquier: I don't buy that. Of course cigarette advertising wants to convey an image, but without discriminating against non-smokers.
In Germany and other countries, PM is now promoting non-smoking in movie theaters. Why?
Paquier: I've heard about it, but I don't know anything more specific about it. However, there is a similar project by the Swiss Cigarette Industry Association (CISC). We will be able to say more about it in the middle of the year. We are in talks with various institutions, including the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). Because without the FOPH, of course, something like this won't work.
Did Philip Morris also provide the impetus for this?
Paquier: He came from the CISC.
In mid-February, Geoffrey C. Bible, CEO of Philip Morris (PM) International, told the German magazine Focus that Marlboro would be withdrawing almost completely from sponsoring Ferrari and thus from Formula 1. On February 23, however, it was announced that Marlboro would continue to sponsor Ferrari until 2006 with over 500 million Swiss francs. How do these reports fit together?
Paquier: What is certain is that Ferrari's sponsorship will continue. I was also surprised by the Focus report at the time. But as far as I was informed, Focus didn't speak to Bible at all.
Does this mean that the Bible quotes from Focus were made up?
Paquier: I suppose so.
What is certain, however, is that PM Switzerland has applied to the CISC to completely dispense with cinema advertising in Switzerland in future. Why?
Paquier: Firstly, because audiences cannot escape advertising in cinemas. Secondly, there is an agreement between the CISC and the Commission for Fairness in Advertising, according to which cigarette advertising may only be shown after 8pm. This is intended to prevent young people under 18 from being exposed to cigarette advertising. In recent years, however, the audience at evening screenings has become younger. In addition, there are repeated complaints because some operators also show advertising films in the afternoon. All of this led to our proposal. This was very well received within the CISC, but has not yet been fully discussed.
Is the consideration for young people really genuine? Isn't it more about polishing up the image of the cigarette industry?
Paquier: When young people smoke, it's a real social problem. We cigarette manufacturers don't want that. I have two daughters who are now adults. At the time, we agreed a smoking ban with them until the age of 18. I was lucky: neither of them smoked before the age of 20.
It is reported that British American Tobacco in particular is opposing the PM proposal in the CISC.
Paquier: That's their right. Opposing opinions are what make discussions exciting.
What do you think of the theory that PM's proposal to do without cinema advertising is primarily aimed at cementing its own position as the number one cigarette supplier in Switzerland?
Paquier: No, that's not what we're about. For more than three years, PM has generally no longer distributed cigarette burger samples. Nevertheless, our market share in Switzerland has continued to grow. What's more, our proposal is not about a total ban on advertising. But the tobacco industry must decide whether or not it wants to consider rejuvenating the movie-going public. In any case, PM is more in favor of dispensing with cinema advertising.
Could PM imagine withdrawing from cinema advertising on its own?
Paquier: We are not ruling that out, but we would prefer an industry solution. Another option would be to only allow cigarette advertising to be shown after 10 p.m. in future, if we could then really guarantee that we would only be targeting adults.
Does PM only make such considerations in Switzerland, or are they made on a European or even global scale?
Paquier: As far as I know, such considerations are only being made in Switzerland, but it is quite possible that this will spread to other countries. But it should be noted that we are not against cinema advertising per se, but against young people being exposed to cigarette advertising in cinemas.
However, it is now being reported that not only PM, but the entire CISC is discussing the possibility of doing without any kind of advertising in future. The impetus for this is said to come from Germany.
Paquier: That is clearly wrong. The CISC is of the opinion that cigarette advertising should continue to be permitted and also
is an important competitive tool. But it should be aimed at adults, not young people. And it should only reach adults.
And PM alone is not aiming to do away with advertising completely?
Paquier: No. A total renunciation of advertising is not the way our company sees it. The market continues to develop and new products, including those from PM, should be able to be shown. But we are always ready to discuss the issue of cigarette advertising with interested parties.
Interview: Markus Knöpfli
