TOBACCO SPONSORSHIP Freedom of Choice Is the Right Choice Ln C) P.M I cc I co i co I BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 The Sponsorship Batt Repeal I - crung ar,,,; SPOnsOfshiP is a =t-~;ally berteficia; arrangementwhere, --.: cultural 'bodies beneft iron funding zrd promotional supccrt and sconsors benefit by -eceivirg aPPrc:raie recognition for te!r suppom Spcnscrship concerns- -~.e freedom -' sporting. recreationai and cuitural groups to ac~ept or reject s.:::;nsorship, from whornnever they wish. As autonomous orgazisations, spor-.: g bodies should bef.-ee of outside interference. 7his freedom 'ndudes the right to seek funding and support from wi~atever legitimate sources are available. Some sporting bodies have -,oluntanly dLw.;ded not to approach toi:acco companies for suppo,-.. Thar is their.-ight. Others have chosen tobacco sponsorship. That shCuld be their 65--t. Sponsorship also corcerns commetal freedom and the rights of legitimate companies ro support the organisations of their choice and to communicate With their cistomes. The Labour Government did not have sufficient evidence to Justify acceptance of the Tmk Substances Scard recommenclauons to ban tobacco advertising or sponsorship. Repealing the ban would remove the '-iyp=isy of having an inefficien: and inexpert statutor~ body replacirii -obacco, sponsorships wich wmer runds. MPs have the opporunicy to use their free vote to reppeal tne sponsorship ban so -.!-at sporting and cultural organisations have returned to them theirfree vote to accept or reject the sponsorships thev choose. Lr. CD CD Co .~ a. rae am$ z- et~:* rz ., tg-atit n-.:zz~: -M~ -~e *.la -,tigicirz.- ~-. :*j;:ne -;rertthci-,- %Z :--e: !u=U-~ -4moaao arc !-.*~;rg -~,e n*uz~:e *ai ~5e. -rc.~erisur-n saU~I~ %.ID ir the rimec, t~ ~nt N .et :-.=r >z ie ~t -4a an- a:. '~!e lismue m re -eei BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 Index The Sponsorship Ban Repeal Inside Front Coyer Summary 2 Right zo Accept or Reject 3 Sporwship - A General Perspecthe 3 Tobacco Sponsorship - A Three 'I* Paramship 6 Sports Sponsorship - History 7 Sports Sponsors-ship - The Reasons a ftacdons Against Sponsorship a 71v Ibr;c Substuxes Board Report 9 Sperm Sponsorship -What Fappens" ) ID Sports Sponsorship - FmaDcial 10 Spam Sponsorship ShoWd the Ga4mffxnt Take Control? 11 Sporm Sponsorship and Children 12 The.Ageement & Code fbr the Ma&edng of Tobacm Products 13 SigracantSponsorships 14 Referemes 15 Notes 16 CD CD 1_~ (DO 0,% CD C) BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Summary 4 Sponsorships are mutually Ceneficialarrangements betweencorporaticris. sporting and recreational groups aimed at ens-uring the highest standards of qualiri in sports and entertainment. The sporting and cultural bodies benefit from funding and promotional support and sponsors benefit byecceiving recognition for their support. a Sports sponsorship in New Zealandwas pioneered by tobacco companies in 1958 and many sporting codes owe their present strength to that ccntinuing support. Support for the fashion industry began in 1964. On the 16th December 1990. Part I I of the Smoke-free Environments Act came into force and the sponsoring of sport and other cultural arid leisure activities by tobacco companies was largely banned. 0 The ban rinnnes the freedom of choice for sporting or other cultmi organisations to dedde for themselves whether ikey are prepared to atcept or reject tobacco sponsorsfilp. In doing so it also makes it extremely difficult for them to ensure a continuing source of funding and other services for their sporting codes and cultural events. The ban further imposes a loss of commercial freedom of chotice for tobacco companies to sponsor recreational pursuits. This ban is based on the assertion that tobacco-sponsored events influence children and adults to start or continue smoking: there is no conciusive evidence to support this assertion. Even the British Medical Association could offer no evidence of a link berveen sponsorship and smoking. JTAC- 1985)) 4 Sponsorship is not a health Issue. But because it was represented to be a health issue- - Sporting and cultural orgainisations; have lost the freedom to choose to receive or reiect- - Tobacco companies have lost the freedom to give or decline to give: - And New Zealander's have lost the freedom to decide for themselves whether an interest or participation in tobacco sponsored events places them in a dilemma- Prior to the commencement of Part I I of the Act sportingbodies were free to choose their sponsors and tobacco companies were free to enter into sponsorship arrangements as long as they complied with the Code of Practice for the Marketing of Tobacco Products. This systern worked for 17 years to the advantage of all parties. a In considering the Smok&free Environments Amendment Bill. MPs AAVC tke OppoftRity to 9W th& free VQt* to Peptaf the spoRgrShip 6dR $0 that sporting and cultural orqanWam have returned to them their free vote to accept or r4ed the sponsors*s tfiq dwm Tfie decision to, acalvt sponsorship from whatew some must be the prerogattiv of W sporting or cuftwd #W concerned. The Order of Eants A Toxic Substances Board report published in May 1989. -Health or 1obamo - An End to Tobacco Adwrtising and Pramotioii* recommended that tobacco advertising and sponsorship in all their forms be eliminated throughout New Zealand from December 1990.2 After a lengthy debate generating more heat than light the Labour Government introduced the Smoke-frea. Environments Actwhich -was passed on August 28th 1990 and the provisions of Part I I of thatAct came into force on the 16th December 1990. On the 28th November 1990 the new Nat! nal Government decided that U-1 a repeal of the tobacco sponsorship ban in the form of a Smoke-free Environments Amendment Bill would be introduced by theMiniste! of C) Health. Simon Upton. and that it would'-e decided on a free voteby co individual National MPs. --~j This paper re-addresses the sponsorsir i.- : ssue arid a number -,f co important qLestions arising from the origm :1 7-1xic Substances Bcaid 0\ recommendation of May 1989 partkularly the question of the right to accept or reject toboaa sponsorship. BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 Right to Accept or Roect The principles of individual c--. :-2and individual responsibility fo. one s own actions are fundamental :- any free socievi - hand in hand with the --linciples of freedom of speech and action. and the freedom zo select or.e:z own style of living. There is a tendency today to E-:~e responsibil iry out of the hands of individuais and to vest it in cent:--sed bodies. to restrict freedom of acr..--n and choice by blanket prohfl.~:ons and controls; to deny the rjec of individuals to decide what suits best and satisfies them most. People must be allowed to ma-age and choose for themselves, even ices that are made. n others may disapprove of the whe., -.0 Increasingly restrictye government legislation is becoming a featL,,,- of our times. Governments today attern.--t to regulate many matters once lert to the as-ood sense, choice and decision i the individual. Where the state controls the ficw of commercial speech, either comprehensively or in specific insta:zes. political and economic democracy are under threat In the Howell Report, research 7ziealed that- "Some people liave quit* attuordinn. :dez of what is good or bd ~r us A6 MLca the question of where the line should ,'* drawn so far as yoventment kterventLon in sports sponsorship is concented."3 The ability of competitive toba-= product manufacturers to communicate with their consumers's a fundamental commercial dghL Denying tobacco companies the dg;-. . oo sponsor denies them an important vehicle of competition. It also denies :hem the right to promote themseives and their brarmis - a right not denied to other legitimate businesses. The ability of a company to communicate-with its customers is an important feature of the general commercial env.ronment, and one which New Zealanders are entitled to expect. Sponsorship - A General Perspective SpwAmfdp is a mubtailly beneW arnmenmt where spwtbW anJ caftuml bodilies beirept ftvm WhW and prowtiml support and sponsors 6mft by Rub* d"roprilate Mofzwon for the* support Corporate advertsing is often used to both promote a sponsored event and to tell the appropriate section of me public about the sponsor's involvement- Companies taking up sponsors,6*9 naturally expect to get fair recognition for iL This may be given 17 a number of ways. They include. for example. signs an perimeter fencing at sporting siedgements in pro venues. signs on a scoreboard. acknc gTammes. use of company logos or names on clothing :r sporting gear, use of advertising in genenall media to draw attention to z~.e event and associate the company name with it~ or presentation of tropNes. it should be recognised that spc--wrship does not carry with it a role in the administration of the sport inv-cived. The sponsor does not benefit financially from events. i.e., there is -.o share of gate receipts or broadcaszing or teievision righm The benefits which sponsorship'--rings to a company are a m ixture ~i intangibles such as enhancement of :.-rporate image and the Upportunizi for a company to be seen as a supporter --f sport and community activities. When a company undertakes an- promotes a corporate sponsorshi; it C:) is saying, in effect. "We have helped ~cmake this happen through our financial C:) or other support". it the audience ag---s this is an appropriate and wort~--Vhile actNicy for the company. then it will tz:ablish and reinforce in their mind; a positive attitude towards the compan! co I > BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 A favourable corporate image will not induce someone to go out and buy :he company's products. but it does influence then attitude wl~er it comes to making a choice between the company's products or services ve!sus those of a competitor. While t4lia" compodes have no exp&-tatleir that people win tdw up smoking as a rmll: of the qwisorskip, thee is a jope that, smLr might Switch to a competitive bmnd rather than stay with an erLding brund. This brand switching expectation would be shared by other sponsors such as airlines, building societies arid banks. What Dm the Sponsored Party get out of Sponsorship? Sponsorship enables the sponsored party to pursue activities that would not otherwise be possible on that scale if at all. It allows spom organisations. cultural and other organisations to satisfy their goals. A highly respecred corporate/brand image can significantly improve the perceived status of an evenL A prestige image base such as Rothmans or Benson & Hedges can favourably~ reflect upon an evenL Sponsorand sponsored partygenerally have a common cause -which is to amrac: and to entertain the largest possible audience.,whatever the event. Promodonalsupport The value of a sponsoiship cannot necessarily be measured in straight Mar terms; as large c4onmercial organisations have the aMty to provide I prof-iond marketing and public rdatilm support beyond the scope of most sporting organisaffons. This additional support ranges across a wide spectrum of activities and is usually developed to the mutual benefit of both parties. Over and above direct financial support a sponsor can offer a range of resources and services. Provide separate marketing support to further increase consumer awareness of the event Provide advice/guidance on the actual promotion of events. Provide additional personnel to help stage the evenL Develop consumer promotion packages that invite consumer participation such as competitions. displays or promotions. Provide a public relations resource. Provide a people resource to place promotional materials such as posters. etc to broaden the communication. All them extin pmodonal activities provide the possibility of bmusing the "no InwaS4 M* aftiiilaw at at event ad Wrasing * tate retelpts, They mud be taken Into account If the onrull value of a sponsorship is bag cakulM lit pure doAar termL The ability to provide this support is often a significant factor in the choice of sponsor. all other aspects, such as the amount of financial support being equal. Economic impact It is difficult to think of a sporting or cultural organisadon. club. team. federation or committee that does not have a friumber of) sponsor(si. *t is nearly as difficult to find initiators or organisers; of an event be it an event on a worldwide scale or a small1ocal event. that are not looking for a sponsor. Sponsorship has shown a dramatic increase over tie last 10 years m Europe. and over an even longer period in the USA. ~-n In the UK sponsorship expenditure by businesses in 1986 festimated at CD 190 million pounds) was five times larger than it was in 1980. and esdraces C) of the direct expenditure worldwide on sponsorship for 1988 range from 03 USS3 :o USS4 billion .4 CC) Sponsarirfi4is total! anomit impact exceeds by far the initial fthajuiai ON support provided by the sponsom 4 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 7' ..-e fnam easons for the growti, in sponsors!"t: have beeen: -1 - . I * ime which '-as led to a z-owinz demand :7e inc-easirg eisure t s.xf -i.~i and c-~Itural activities Griar-sers of all kinds of events are looking for new financial res~l .,ces Mecia. paric;;!arly television. are looking for new everits to atz.-=-.- aud~iences Companies are looking for alternadveways to communicate Wit- meir customm. The growth of Vonsonfilp in New Zealand is me different from the rest of the warfil. For tobaca conipanies, sponsorship was entered into when afl forms of direct media advertising (eccept teLrvision which, had yet to start inNew Zealand) were still available to tobacco companies. Sponsorship was undertaken "as well as" not "instead oCadverz.;sIng. MajorEvents Sporwrship has become essential for maintaining and improving the high~ standards of nearly all major events. from the Olympic Games and the cricket. rugby. and scccer World Cup competitions. to the America's C~;p. the Whitbread Round the World Race and the Commonwealth Games. With the spoasors7 help organisers have been able to market &e--e ever,.ts professionally on a scale that would otherwise be impossible. -,,el benefit not only through reduced financial risk. but also through ot~e~ support. (See Promotional Support). InternationdEvents Many major events also attract large international audiences. Where local restrictive legislation is enacted. as with the Smoke-free Environments Act organisers may avoid particular countries. This would be to the detriment of 4ew Zealanders. It must be remembered that international brands. like Rothmans and Benson & Hedges. have international markets. The recent announcement that Benson & Hedges Australia would contribute SA5.DCO.000 by way of sponsorship to the cost of running the 1992 World Cup Cricket is a classic example of complex. beneficial international agreements which are unable to be accommodated by overly simple local legislation. The prospect of the whithread Round the world Yacht Race avoiding New Zealand on a future occasion was sufficient for an exclusion clause to be granted in the tobacco sponsorship ban for "events of international interesf' originating from other countries. It must be assumed that the IM Vkdd Cup Cricket will be allowed the same exemption. w6fier Quality Competition for money is high and therefore encourages talented people to improve their performance. In a long term strategy. sponsors may provide for often expensive training facilities for promising athletes. like the RothmWs Softball Support. (-M CD (::D CD cc 0II~ CD 4>b 5 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Tobacco Sponsorship A Three Wy Partnership I It is generally agreed that if sport and the arts are to Ourish they need sponsorship. Bec4um commercial sponsorship has helped sport at all levels to flourisk the public gains more enjoyment and in turn the sponsor, who pays for it, legitimately expects some recognition. Sponsorshiplay tobacco companies. like any other sponsorship. is a commercial prcposition of mutual benefit to sponsor and sponsored. Sponsorship is not patronage. Anti-smokirig groups who suggest zhat tobacco companieswere really serious in their stated intentions to assist '~e community theywould simply "give" their money away are naive and cni--.- illustrate their inability to understand the reality of commercial transaccrIs. This may be because the anti-smoking groups' obsession is that Eol:a-c= company sponsorship is a health issue. Sponsorship concerns the freedont of sporting, recreational and cultural groups to accept or reject sponsorship from whomever they ivish. Tobacco companies have sponsored many different sports. marri of which are covefed by the national media. but also a variety of smaller sports which do not attmct national publicity, like the Sports Administrators' Go';,' Tourriament- and smaller clubs like the East Coast Rugby Union and the North Otago Rugby Union. "Ne.v Zealand are the Rugby WOO Champions. The NZRFU turn over millions doll= annually, spimsors ftxk to support our champions ... We are part of that gaml. -At doWt have much of a turnover and we doWt have sponsors t7ocking to support ourwm ... We askrd RAnuz ~r support ... Their support has reflected in our senior Wnis attitude. fitness and per~rmaxcz. North OtW has not been plastered with Rothmans Signs. just discreet little reminders that "Rothmans Supports North OUp Ri4by` arl wt North Otqo Ruqby, artainly support Rothmans." ALC (Tony) Spivey. President and Chairman, North Otago Rugby Football Union. In addition to sporting sponsorships there are also a variety of ar-. and community sponsorships. These groups govern their own affairs and hiSg". value the sponsorship role played by tobacco companies. especially as there have been continued cutbacks in funding from other sources. There has an investment by tiobacco companies in the community over many years starting in New Zealand in 1958. The right to accept or inefed tobacco spoinsorship by these arts and contmunity FroW should be maintained. The tobacco industry has played a very significant role. in sponsoring New Zealand sporting and cultural activities and. in accordance with a ser;es of agreementswith Government. the first signed in 1973. its sponsorship activities have been conducted responsibly. Tobacco company spoiiisorship, has; M been established as a factor in initiating or Increasing tobacco cannniptlax 1 Lri c~ CD Co 1 oz C> BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Sports Sponsorship - History mpaP* -e i more than 30 year history of involvement with spor~ in ';*,,m Zea!ard. -::M prominent activities to those which are less weil-kncwn. As.-Ong e latter ~:s tlht:r~joivemert of Rothmans with coaching. Since 1962 &.e Mew Zealand Rugizi L!ague and New Zealand Cricket have had the advantage of national Clinics. During this time both of these sports have tec-ome ::;rces to --e.,e,-Kcr,-.d with in the international arena. "Evenj ICC membercouismi ~asa tobacco company amongst its majorsponsors. They were in most cases tPe oe4WI sromsors. TWve ban there tkrough the h4hs and km of popularity and at nearly A LnWs of * game In short they have served cricket weff over a very &ang pericd. . .'raiiacco Companies have pwided great support to sporting bodies - that has he* New Zealand gain crafbility and respect all over the sparring wra" Sir Ri&.ard Hadle% Cricketer Rothmans' support for saffball now spans almost 30 years, starring again with Coaching Clinics. Softball's involvement with Rothmans sponsorship has allowed it x compete in international tournaments. 'SoftbaU in New Zwtand !s 52 years otd. For half ofthis to span Rothmans havt been providing a m6nuous sounz 4support that has enabW the ode to estaffish *ilihs and plan -,vd into * fmm Rothmans support has miwd the standards of play that have contributed to die ~ur -px'J littes and six pkcivs achieved since 1966 by Meds, WomeWs and Youth twpa:' lohn ~Aoyle. Executive Officer New Zealand Softball Assodaton Less visible is the contricuton that is channelled into a development fund from which all provincial associations can draw to fund capital development programmes. Since 1960 soccer has beeert supported with floodlit midweek tournaments. a national CoadL and sponsorship of the Nadonal League and Trans Tasman Soccer Ou.c. "The vast gains sow has maie in ft rugby Orientated country during the fat 30 gem capt be attributed to the cmt~tuous financial input of Rothmans . . . I am quite adamant in my beW that a bw==tk &W foundadaff could not have provided a Leyei of support cbs~ w that of Rathmm and artaink not with such fore;ight". John Adshead Ex-Coach: All Whites Apart from the high pnodle sports that most people are aware of. over the last 30 years tobacco companies have supported a variety of sports: among them archery. bowls. c:oquet gliding, gymnastics. orienteering~ netball, paraplegic sports. polo, rugby. shearing. squash, ten-pin bowling, wood- chopping and yachting to na irte but a few. Other sponsorships with a 25 year history include the Benson & Fedges Tennis, Motor Racing and the Fashion Design Awards. CD CD CD --4 cc 7 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Sports Sponsorship - The Reasons The reasons =-:ra toc-acco companies sponsorship aalviry are much e the same as ibse ior any other company which deals with'the public. ,A - Sponsorship '-::es to cmate a positive perception of the comparry, or I brands. Mthi,^,,_'-e community: it also aims to build brand recognition among exist-i smokers, and perhaps corporate recognition in general. The tobacco 7z.,Jacrurers are in rierce competition for market share. By sponsorin; z.';ents I:z is hoped chat brand awareness and brand loyalty will e,;ef=,are among existing smokers. This view is ref-e=ed in a recent publication of the International Advertising Assoc:ar-cn (1AAl entitled 'Sponsonhipt. [is Rok and Effec&. in discussing the role :1 commercial sponsorship the publication states: '~Spowrskip a;;fr~ffy int Imployed to iMpMve corporate amillor bland ,riarenas or to prw. r ; mrtxu~ r image a t dtligr co rpo ra Le or brand level' I The tobacco in=isuy defends its right to support sporting and other community groups ~=ugh sponsorship. The industry believes private enterprise plays a vr-.~;able role in promoting all levels of sport through commercial spons7s~,ip. Without corpowiscmitsorship ... hundA* pe&ps thousands of culturaf and sports zvents,.wuld be 2vt by onit a small percentage of interested pwpk Inded many such events Migiii nor :;i2 place ~ 41, Tobacco com;En.es are quite openly engaged in sponsorshi p !or largely the same reasons a-z -ther corporate enterprises. whether they be merchant bankers, brewers or _-ft-drink companies, car manufacturers, insurance companies or banic- They want to perfectly legitimately. an awareness of their company and its products to --ievant audiences. Any em"M saTal it Legal product should Am tfic right to support cmfitunitzj aeuvideL Md to bqect SM of Its propts be& bite the COMMIlit; They aW hiave the e4k to We that =Wbutin pb&4 akowWqed. Repeaffiv the wnmfilp Jim wiU reatm to the hdartry the freedoin to spow, ad return to sporting or other orpoxilsadonts the right to accept or reject bb-- WMMUP 0 Reactions Against Sponsorship Anti-smoking ;r-ups have been active in lobbying Government for some years now. In 49GO their continued lobbying resulted in the Smoke-free -g passed on August 28th. Environments Act b&. In 1978, public :b1tion findings were presented by key sporting bodies in New Zea6- m. when the anti-cigarette proponents of the day were campaigning vigorcr&y for bans on cigarette sponsorship under the law. ~; ri The great majority d Neiv Zealanders did not want such ban& Similar rvsearc~ ras repeated in 1982,1985, IM and again in 1989: on each occasion New -7-fand opinion was strongly in favour of the status quo.6 In 1985. severai * d-smckingorganisations asked the Sports Deve!opment Inquiry Committee -ecommend to Government that tobacco sponsorshap be banned. In its report to :,-vemment the Committee said that tobacco companies were genemus sponsors of sporting at all levels of sport and often in unheralded and xWWnereas areim The Committee said that to give up CD the sponsorship wo,6~.-_quire a fundamental re-organisation of New Zealand's spotrig structure a:i~ -_he scope of its activities. The Committee smted that it could not interiene berween sports organisations and roonsors in the general community. and poirted CC) to research which sSzwea that the majority of non-smokers; (90%) op;csed 0% res-.;aions on toba= cponsoship of s ' port An overwhelming proporndcn C) of adult smokers di~ -cc be!ie--e that s;onsorshipwoulcl increase the number of cligarens :!e; smcked.7 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Like the Government and Opposition of 1978, AW undertook lot to in terfere with the rights of sporting or cWtuml organisatkiis to accept or refect the sponsorship of their choke. the Sports Development Inquiry Committee of 1985 did not recommend to Government that tobacco sponsorship of sport bebanned. in May 1989 he Toxic SuhStances Board recommended that sponsorship otally elimirated througkout New Zealand from December. 199V Many memi-ers of the New Zealand Assembly for Sport. representing 104 nar;onal sports ~cdies and sports c!ppfisations. expressed concem vier the -4r- an legislation originally pre-,ared !~Ime Coalition against Tobacco A.~-;ertising and ?romotlon. Some members of the Assemb"I accept no tobacco sponsorship while czhers. over a long period (up to 27 years in some casesl have sought. received a~d relied upon tobacco sponsorship -o support the national development -heir sports. The Assemi:iV said: "rim aw~adoxs have taien ;rmt = to use such funds responsibly, for semior sxrt and national teams and have acttyriy xxided creatky any assoi:ladox berAwn tc6mcco products and children's or juxiorspiin thus keeping stria4 ;WM the x7visbits 4 the currmt Code ~r the Marie* of Tbb=4 productr. December 1987. This Code of Practke is -ArkLV -kA and ;ives sporis bi5es Lit Freedom of Choke required vhile -nibling them to develop youP4 sports pwri Commercial sponsorship of the semjor:'A~s of each sport concerned has Provided smiling arganiutm with the AncEbility to.7mup their othier funds to develop and assist ?outh sport This iradom oj choice is a;bdameP:J imocratic r~ht of ad such sport* and c-Aural orgaiiisations and our members are _~n strong agreement that such a r4ht should he retained." The Toxic Substances Board Report The lbxic Substances Board (TS) advisers set out to establish that advertising and sponsorship should '--e banned on the basis that these activities influence children and tewagers. The published literature meant that they could not establish the neceswf causal link and yet they still tried to. The T`SB report was examined *zy an "IndepeidentScientilk Rrvivi's and showed a virtuai absence of any evidence that advertising causes young people to take up smoking The TSB Report was found by the "InLevendent ScLnt* WWII and the "robacco lnsdtuL, Respord*9 to be fauLry. misleading and 'incapable of providing a valid basis for its recommendaticrs w Government The Reportwas full of unterable assumptions. misleading data and faulty statistical methodology. Indhidual1y these various criticisms invalidate large sections of it Collectively they indicate that its conclusions should not have been regarded as a reasonable basis for public policy decision maldrig) The Labw Govermwitt did PA fim sufficient evidence to justify acceptance of the Taxic Substances Board recommendations to ban Wvw advertising or sponsorship. U"I ! C:) 00 --i cc 9 CD 100 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Sports Sponsorship - What Happens? Tobacco s critics cften argue t'4-t were sponsorships to end. therewould ~-e no tortage -,fbig money spence.- -;raiting to step in. particularip with some popular high-proftle events. 7his *new ignores the fact thatmhile sponsorship it growing. the !ocai -.,Ids available at any one time are finite. A loss of vren -zne per cent of ri~e ---ral cash pool would disadvantage many sports. --.---n at the grass.-oc:s and club [eyei. The fira-cial vaiue of zpcnsorship;s very s.rificant. but thebenefits go beyond the critical injec,~Cn of funds. Them aeoenefits to be gained by working with:arge New Zeatiand companies lik_e ',=thmans of Pall Mall lNew Zealandi Ltd. or Wills New Zealand which;-a~ie promotional expertise. ciic relations su Port, b lo d and can provide professional marketing and ;ub p e n the scope of most sporting c. janisations. These'erft!e can dmmadally huprove a spores deveiopment and popuLarily, for the 6aefft of A Sponsorship also allows the organisation to stage events on the international. national. or local stage and gives -.~-em the ability to attrac. and promote some of thebest competition in *.;,eworld. One of 4he mostvaluah;e contributions a gmup can receive is a long term commitment Whatever :.he sums involvec. -xith an assured financiai future, governing bodies are able to plan for ?vw&, in popularity and participation with confidence. Tobacco companies are acknowledged to be particularly loyal to &,e spcr:s with which Ehe/ an! associated. and indeed a long term commitment is essential if a succas:.i and mutually beneficial sponsorship,elationship is zobe achiev ed. Rothmans have sponsored Men's and 'Itmen's Softball since 1963 and the Southland Cycle Tour since 1965. Wills Aaveoeen involved with Fashion since 1964. and Tennis since 1960. As autonamus oryanisaff^ sporting bodies should be free of outside biterfereaL Us keedon bickdes the right to seek fAxd* and support fiven whafew leyttimate smLrm are avolakk Sontesporthig bodles havevoluntarily decided not to approafi tobacce companies for sap"t That is A& right 0 tfiers &ve chom tobacco sponsorship. That skaU be tfi& right Acceptaw or rejection of sponsorship sk=U mubt a decision for the Individual or sport concerned and is not sowtkbW Lid should be subject to Pou" interferew. Sports Sponsorship - F111andal IF 4z X The government derives substantial income from tobacco taxes. -41. Smokers and the industry in New Zealand pay S788 million in taxes each year - around $2.2 million per day.10 C 41: "Where a pursuit is k4t and especially -Am die Gawnment iW brim substantial income from such pursuits thErr can be w okfactlan in pftipk to * W=hfp of sport fmm any sowv- The ftmim 4 smrt ad sporlspw* to delzr?nilte these oestions for themselm must be safquardei- 13 The tobacco industries' contribution-to sporl in New Zealandwas estimated byCoopers and Lybrand to be berNeei 54.5 million and $7.5 million. While it has been suggested that tobacco funded sponsorships might be as high as Sl I million. the setting up of the Health ScOnsorship Council with an initial funding of S6 million was an indicatica that the last Labour Government -believed that -,obacco funding was signific-_-L C) co __~J co C\ C) %-0 [0 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 1 0 lZiutldSl 0 r ipment Take Control? Sn ns S o, C Govern In an effort: to defuse the spcinsorship issue a hypccritical ppian naz - a -.sc~s`'Orn -I--: been devised to take over 5port:r.L -nd cultural spor. Mp ~, --- - companies by imposing yet anoi~e: :ax on smokers and using created as a fund for sponsorship. The Toxic Substances Board --Mmmended a sitni:ar plan for Zealand to the Government. The.-tcorimendadOn 'Was :hat:'The H:;~rj Commissim be associated with any effors to amehomte any offeus oia sponsanii-V ban an bodies at prmnt receiving tobacca sponsorship monies": However, Part I I I of the Smeke-Free EnVironmems Aa se, up a ;--'ealth Sponsorship Council, with an iniz~al fund of S6 million ro provide ai~-.-n-mtnle sponsorship for sporting groups -;;no were deprived c,..!aw ot rocacc.- company sponsorship. Repaling the ban would re7nove tke hypocrisy of having an inefficient and inexpert sWtutary body replacing tobacco sponsorships (private NA"91 with taxpayer funding. sourced from smakers. The Element of H Vpocrisy Yearly, smokers and the ind-~suy pay S788 m filicn in tobacco !ax=-S. 0;e! the next six months this substant:al tax take will he ccosted by Si 2 rn-.-Ton from the CPI linked exdse increase,whi&, took eifert'.'Cim Mach 1. 1. slrniia: boost will take effect from, Seprern~--er 1. Some members of the Government caucus are zrccosing that a 'ea'ah foundation be established. modeded on the Victorian Health Prorrciccin Foundation and funded by a "tagg--d- tax of to cents a packet on rc.azco products which might produce $25 million- Given the level of taxes alreadmir paidby smokers - 25% of Z~e pcculatior. it is extraordinM that caucus would consider a **taiged' tax on -1- 14S same minority to benefit 100% of the population. The Government accepts $788 million from tobacco taxes and -,-,ces it to fund whatever social services need money - edLcadcn. police. justike. sociai welfare. It is hypocritical to consider setting up a Healt!'t Promotion Fcundazicn at the sole Mew of smokerswhen the $788 million ir. tobaicco taxes :S already being used for general social services. The real question is. How is tobacco money "bad" when it goes directly to sponsorship. but -good" when it has been laundem-d through a Gcivernment statutory body7 Undeniably the source is still tobacco money. If the Government is certain that there is a neeedfor some sort cf Health Foundation. then the funding for it should come from 100% of the population. not by-t4' ta;dng 25% of the population. And it a foundation Is necessary why hasn't the Government set up one before. using the existing S788million? New Zealand does not need to establish yet another costly quarsp. The Hillary Commission, the New Zealand Sporm Foundation and the QEII Arts Council already possess the structure. personnel and expertise to carry out Govemmenfs bidding in the Health Promotion area. Health Sponsorshtp Council Replacing tobacco sponsorship is a costly task -Aich cannot be considered just in financial terms. The Health Sponscriship Council has been set up but to date the Council's performance has been anything but promising. Mr K Gray, Chairman of the Council. has -said thiz as the Healt~. I Sponsorship Council was going z0be promoting health messages. :;tneeecieci to have a brand name out there which would promotethe health message. Perhaps this is meant to justify the large amount of moneywh~& has 1 CD already been spent on advertisingthe Council'slcranai' Lifesspar. zazzner tharl addressing its primary function of sponsorship. One of the Council's sponsc.-Nps hasbeen of a 'earn ci.Axnenca- professional cyclists dre4dy spcnsored by a giart Americanbrewer. 00 A television advertisement cam;a4i could have mace - -ou . oe;;eve ::e 0\ team had accepted -Lifespan" spcrisors,hip inst-id cf a RcEhmans :z:.-a-zzo - I: ; CD I BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 spcnsorshi,,. - This was not so The basis for this applicatio~ ci :J;--Iic funds. shl;uld havezeen scrutinised. The spend of S20.000 on &e stc'nsorsnip arc an estimate,; S100.000 on advertising is ne6e., commercial nor 1 assistance I to the sport of a/ling. Is the use of public funds tfi~fi the Health Sponsorskip Council to be Acid less accountable 1an company sfi4reholdlers'funds* Mr Gray has said that tobacco sports sponsorship is not siuuistic . out is simply to encourage young people to take up the habir-12 In its a&ertising the Council's "Brand" Lifespan asse:m- &,aE young New Zealanders pay the price for tobacco sponsorships and L~azt the cost of supporting arts projects is met by young people -who '.-U-1 the sponsoes product. Our evidence is to the contrary! Sport Sponsorship and Children Dm SponsmAlp Couse Juveniles to SxoW. And-smoking groups claim that because people, including children. are exposed to robacco-sponsored events they may be influenced to start or ~-:J continue smoking~ Studies which have been cited are not cniynundamentaNy flawed but relate to "brand recall" rather than any relationship between smoking and sponsorship. The bulk of evidence thraWfiout Lis worg indicates that Like influent-es are varied and coenpleL Tke moor mom for jumites toking up smking are pw pressuire and so&-mamic chrawknem ad advertistap. )W Vatsor%*, and not Moire avaiway of Liu proolud It has also been claimed that cigarette sponsorship ac:ivicies represent a marketing effort directed to children and that sponsored prcgrammes on television are mainly screened during children's peak viewing times. A majority of children do not choose to watch sport during their preferred viewing times and many sporting events are screened in the late evening viewing time when children are only viewing with pareital consent. Wfiat Does The Remnfi Show? Independent research by experts in studying juvenile behmviour shows that- "Paremm siblings and friads appear to be * determining Jamr -win children start to SMOW 13 Even the British Medical Association, anxious to justify a mral ban because of their concern about children smoking could offer no evidence of a link between sponsorship and smoking. (TAC 1985P Ybung people themselves do not support the assertion that there is a link. An overwhelming proportion of both non-smokers and smokers aged 15-24 do not believe that sponsorship would encourage thein to smoke, or increase their cigarette consumpdW Among the adult population (15 and overl in New Zealand cigarette consumption has already declined in the years since 1973 by 2.4% per annum. There is no conclusive evidence to suggest that tobacco company V1 sponsorship of sport contributes to the initiation of smoking, even in young people The US Surgeon General. Dr C Everett Koop recognised this fact in his 1989 report: "Na is 0 scientificauy ligorcus study availcible to W Public LAW Pmvids a deNite answri, to the bast 4uedm of whe*r adwrtising and pmmotion mcma the L-vi co of tobacco consumption ... This influt= relaUve to adher ~iftww cn !cbzw ux suci ds vr pressure and mle models~ is uncertain."" The report of the Western Australian Parliamerifs standini =mmirzeee 12 on legislation in relation to the Tobacco Bill 1990 had this to sa,.w, BATCo I document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 "After receiving evidence from people eminent in rdevant ReW of research, the Committee Is forced to the conclusion that no compelling evidence has been presented that advertising causes people, and Lit particular yowW people. to bqin sotoking. The stragest case presented to the Committee sqgests that a mix of personal dnd social factors acting together causes young people to ezverime"t with smoking." "The Cianmittets conclusion is that any decision to ikn all forms of tobacco advertising, Luludbig Verb sponsorship Is purely a political decision. It is not based upon Irr*t4ble empirical evidence. but upon prevailing ralues which suggest that the societal and flundal mb to Individuals and the community are so great as to justify measures which minhnise the legitimacy of tobacco, pw,"tL1.15 Any attempt to continue to ban tobacco sponsorship of sport is '=h 91-11founded and unlikely to achieve the claimed objective of reducing ,cnsumption which is already being adieved without a ban. The Agreement & Code for the mm- r- Markiting of Waco Products -IWIMP~- New Zealand tobacco manufacturers can point to a long and IPW --,- - :esponsible adherence to undertakings given in respect of their marike=g - Mties. Ministers of Health and officials of the Department of Heair, - cn record as acknowledging that adherence. The 1987 Agreement and Code for the Marketing of Tobacco Prc~---.-s. was by far the most comprehensive and restrictive code of its type in existence for any product in New Zealand. content available media and even ---e The Code covered advertising size and frequency of printed ads. it laid down specific requirements tr sponsorship activities. and made provision for Department of Health. ql warnings on packets and print advertisements. A study of the Code in ~3 entirety demonstrates the restraint of cigarette manufacturers over a wide range of activities and in particular the steer~ing of promotion away km children. Sponsorship was so regulated within the Code that not even c!garette pack or pmdua slogan could be depicted. There were no substantial or significant breaches of the Code. The code covered sponsorship and children in the following war. Tobacco manufacturers agreed not to sponsor events where the audience was expected to be predominantly under the age of 18 -.---ears. Sponsorship of teenage Tod concerts and primary; intermediate cr secondary school events would not be undertaken. The majority of Individuals and (willectin organisadona; In New Zealand do not javour interventim Lit the spomr&* activittes of tobacco ciompanim Tim activitlet positift* support a wide mW ofsporting, cultural a" anummity Interests, usually Without the kkd or Level of publicity at wkich the more mtspokim oppownts 4 tobar- regularly take =kffe- CD C) CC Co ON 13 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 sjyni~cant Sponsorships Began In 1958 Rc- ',-.Ian$ soccer support 1960 Bens-on & Hedges Open Tennis Rc&.,-,ians Under 23 Cricket National Tournament 1962-1980 Benson & Hedges Motor Racing 1963 Wir.field Men's Softball Championships 1963 Winfleld Women's Softball Championships 1963 Wir.fteld Softball Development Fund 1963 Ber= & Hedges Fashion Design Awards 1964 Rothmans cricket Coaching Scheme 1964-1976 Rotinmans Inter-Centre Bowls Championships 1965-1990 Rothmans Lawn Bowls National Championships 1966-1990 Rcthmans Cycle Tour of Southland 1966 Rothmans Amateur Golf Classic 1970 Rcthmans National Soccer League 19-,D-1996 Rothmans Rescue Helicopter Service 1970-1986 Benson & Hedges Gold Cup Horse Race 1972 Benson & Hedges 2 year old Trotting [977 5 R=hmans Cricket Series IV76-1990 Winfield Trotting Cup 1994 John Brandon 30 Triple r-rown (Trot tingi 1984 Winfield Tenpin Bowling Classic 1986 Winfield Trans-Tasman Soccer Cup 1986 DLnhill Theatre Support 19r, Rcthmains Rally of New Zealand 1988 Rrthmans Rugby Provincial Support 1988 Winfield international Softball Series (Men & Women] 1988 Winfield Challenge Shield (Soccerl 1988 )ohn Brandon 30 Trophy (Horse Pacing) 19M Pall Mail Superbowls 1988 kthmans Round the urld Superbike Championships 1988 Winfield Provincial Soccer championship 1990 Rothmans Cycle Classic (Waikato) 1900 0 CD cc BATCo, document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Rqerences 1. Spa, -s Corr:arnes -A Case !or the existing volurtary system. Tcba=-,Advisory Cour.6i. April 1985. /I %'Q 2. Toxi t c Sui-srances Boart - Health or zi.a,= May 1989. 3. CommirLee of Enquirl i;,.-i Sports Sccrisc-ship - The (UK) Howell Report 1983. 4. Sponsorship 1986 -.W~zel Publicatons London. 'World Federacion of Adve,:':sers 1989. 3. sponso,51-4: Its Role and Effects. Gotal Ylecia Commission of che International Advertising Association, 1986 6. MRL Research Grouo 7. Heylen Research Centre Surveys. 8. Independent Scientific Review of the =ic SUbstances Board Report May, 1989. 9. The Tobacco Institute Response to z1he oxic Substances Board Reply Regarding Tobacco Advenising & Prcmot;cn.,kprii 1990. 10- Ernst &YbLng. Chartere,-4.Accountants. Wei:ington. V-4 11. The Wor!d Tbbacco Handizook 1990/91. in-omb. 12. TVI News 29.11.90 13. Children's Research UniLlYhy do juveniles ScartSmoking. New Zealand 1988. 14. Dr C Everett Koop. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking. 25 Years of Progress. 1989. 15. Report of Standing Committee on Legisl- a on in Relation to the Tobacco Bill 1990: Weste-i.Australian Parhament Legislative Council. 1 Ln (D 40 BATCo document for Legal Services: Health Canada 22 October 1999 Notes 4 CYN BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999 Qn I CX) THE TORACCO MSTrrVrEj -a or NEW ZLAUND ath Floor. Dilwnh auilding- enr Queen & C zstoms St East. co Awill d. PO ao. 1581. A"W&M4 1. '1*- Zealand. Itie--hom (D91 797-393. Fln. (091 3~$.0053. ftblication Dart Februarv IiC . C\ CY% 0 BATCo document for Legal Services : Health Canada 22 October 1999