Widdick v. Brown & Williamson
"The Tobacco Conspiracy Trial"
Marketing Expert Establishes Plaintiffs' Conspiracy Theory
(May 18) Plaintiff allegations of a widespread conspiracy theory by tobacco companies against the public and the media gained some momentum as a marketing expert testified that various tobacco ads and company memos indicate that Big Tobacco knew about the hazards of smoking --- and sought to minimize the problem through an aggressive and detailed public relations campaign.
Marketing professor Richard Pollay came to the stand for the family of deceased smoker Richard Maddox and commented on the various advertisements that Brown & Williamson used to promote Lucky Strike and its other cigarette products. Jurors saw television commercials from the 1950s featuring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnez and NY Giants star Frank Gifford endorsing Lucky Strike and Brown & Williamson cigarettes. Among other things, jurors also saw commercials in which Brown & Williamson promoted their brand of products as "clearing up parched throats" and implied that smokers became healthier by using their brand.
 |
|
Dr. Richard Pollay: Plaintiff marketing expert who testified that tobacco companies spent millions on an advertising campaign designed to counter scientific findings on smoking's hazards. |
Plaintiff attorney Norwood Wilner also led Pollay and jurors through several Brown & Williamson documents and memos to the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton. In these memos, the tobacco company appeared to give the impression that they wanted both to stir doubt about the scientific findings linking cancer to smoking and promote this doubt to the public through a marketing campaign through public relations firms and various newspapers such as The Washington Post.
According to Professor Pollay, the pro-smoking ads featuring glamorous celebrities such as Lucille Ball, athletes like Gifford, and the controversy over the alleged hazards of smoking all helped promote smoking and gave consumers the impression that smoking was not really dangerous. Pollay added that the marketing and public relations at least created doubt about the dangers of smoking. The plaintiffs focused on the memos of John Hill of Hill & Knowlton, the public relations firm Wilner says Brown & Williamson recruited to respond to the Surgeon General's Report in the 1950s on the smoking's hazards.
 |
|
One of the pro-smoking ads Dr. Pollay claimed influenced smokers like Roland Maddox. |
It remains to be seen how Pollay's testimony will affect the Maddox family's case against Brown & Williamson. While the ads, commercials, and Pollay's observations suggest that the tobacco company pursued an aggressive campaign to possibly deceive the general public, it may not completely prove a particular conspiracy against Roland Maddox. In addition, the testimony of Margaret Maddox, the late smoker's widow, may prove problematic because she claimed that her husband never knew about the dangers of smoking and never watched news reports about the smoking. [And Roland Maddox would have to be aware of various ads and pro-smoking pamphlets in order to be a victim of an alleged widespread tobacco conspiracy.]
Pollay will return to the stand to resume his direct examination by the plaintiffs and cross-examination by Brown & Williamson attorneys when court resumes Tuesday morning.
top of page
|
