A Case Analysis Of A Public Tobacco Campaign

R.J. Reynolds (RJR) is one of many cigarette companies working toward the government’s continued deregulation of tobacco. One affective strategy employed by RJR was to place public informational advertisements in major national newspaper and magazines. It is important to study the public texts produced by RJR as they reveal a complex and evolving public campaign to influence public health policy. The following is an analysis of the constraints facing the tobacco industry, ways it confronts this impediments, theoretical perspectives apply to evaluate their effectiveness and draw some lessons for the practice of organizational communication.

Richard Joshua Reynolds of Winston, North Carolina, founded RJR in 1875. Some general facts and goals at RJR are described in their mission statement. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJRT) is the second largest cigarette manufacturer in the Untied States, with four of the nation’s 10 best selling brands … W e will continually strive to meet the preference of adult …[w]e conduct our business responsibly and ethically, recognizing the risks associated with the use of cigarettes, and committed to being a constructive participant in various public policy issues involving smoking.

Thus, RJR focuses its attention on product development and market expansion, while at the same time acknowledging their complicity in the public health issues surrounding smoking. The following section analyzes the informational advertisements placed by RJR between 1993 and 1998 to show how the affective elements in the advertisements changed over time to combat obstacles they faced and acknowledge the organizational culture.

From 1993 to 1995, RJR places many information advertisements in newspapers such as USA Today and The New York Times to oppose government regulation of tobacco. This began when William Jefferson Clinton was elected President and directed 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….