RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
Reinforcement of Smoking and Drinking: Tobacco
Marketing Strategies Linked With Alcohol in the
United States
Nan Jiang, PhD, MS, and Pamela M. Ling, MD, MPH
Smoking remains the leading preventable
cause of premature mortality in the United
States, accounting for more than 440 000
deaths annually.1 Alcohol consumption is the
third-leading cause of mortality in the nation.2
Each year, approximately 79 000 deaths are
attributable to excessive alcohol use.3 The con-
current use of cigarettes and alcohol further
increases risks for certain cancers, such as cancer
of the mouth, throat, and esophagus.4,5 In addi-
tion, the use of both tobacco and alcohol makes
it more difficult to quit either substance.6
Smoking and drinking are strongly associ-
ated behaviors.7---13 Smokers are more likely to
drink alcohol,11 drink more frequently,8,11 con-
sume a higher quantity of alcohol,8,11,14 and
demonstrate binge drinking (5 or more drinks
per episode) than are nonsmokers.9,11,12 Alcohol
drinkers, especially binge drinkers, are also more
likely to smoke7,8,10 and are more likely to smoke
half a pack of cigarettes or more per day.10
The association between tobacco use and
alcohol use becomes stronger with the heavier
use of either substance.8,15,16 Alcohol consump-
tion increases the desire to smoke,17,18 and
nicotine consumption increases alcohol con-
sumption.19 Experimental studies have demon-
strated that nicotine and alcohol enhance each
other’s rewarding effects.16,18 Alcohol increases
the positive subjective effects of smoking,8,15,16,20
and smoking while using alcohol is more rein-
forcing than is smoking without concurrent
alcohol use.8 Smokers smoke more cigarettes
while drinking alcohol,8,15,18 especially during
binge-drinking episodes.8,15 This behavior has
also been observed among nondaily smokers8,15
and light smokers.17
The concurrent use of alcohol and tobacco is
common among young adults,8,10,12,21 including
nondaily smokers,19,22---24 nondependent
smokers,8 and novice smokers.13 Young adult
smokers have reported that alcohol increases
their enjoyment of and desire for cigarettes8,25
1942 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
Objectives. We investigated tobacco companies’ knowledge about concurrent
use of tobacco and alcohol, their marketing strategies linking cigarettes with alcohol,
and the benefits tobacco companies sought from these marketing activities.
Methods. We performed systematic searches on previously secret tobacco
industry documents, and we summarized the themes and contexts of relevant
search results.
Results. Tobacco company research confirmed the association between
tobacco use and alcohol use. Tobacco companies explored promotional strat-
egies linking cigarettes and alcohol, such as jointly sponsoring special events
with alcohol companies to lower the cost of sponsorships, increase consumer
appeal, reinforce brand identity, and generate increased cigarette sales. They
also pursued promotions that tied cigarette sales to alcohol purchases, and
cigarette promotional events frequently featured alcohol discounts or encour-
aged alcohol use.
Conclusions. Tobacco companies’ numerous marketing strategies linking
cigarettes with alcohol may have reinforced the use of both substances.
Because using tobacco and alcohol together makes it harder to quit smoking,
policies prohibiting tobacco sales and promotion in establishments where
alcohol is served and sold might mitigate this effect. Smoking cessation
programs should address the effect that alcohol consumption has on tobacco
use. (Am J Public Health. 2011;101:1942–1954. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2011.
300157)
and that tobacco enhances the effect of alcohol: We used tobacco industry documents to
it ‘‘brings on the buzz’’ or ‘‘gave you a double explore tobacco companies’ knowledge re-
buzz.’’13,23,26 Young adult nondaily smokers de- garding linked tobacco and alcohol use and the
scribed the pairing of alcohol and cigarettes as companies’ marketing strategies that linked
resembling ‘‘milk and cookies’’ or ‘‘peanut butter cigarettes with alcohol. We were interested in
with jelly.’’24 Young adults have also been the 3 basic issues: (1) what tobacco companies
focus of aggressive tobacco promotional efforts knew about the association between drinking
in places where alcohol is consumed, such as bars and smoking, especially about smokers’ drink-
and nightclubs.27,28 ing behaviors, (2) how tobacco and alcohol
Consumer products often fall into cohesive companies developed cross promotions fea-
groups (sometimes referred to as ‘‘Diderot turing cigarettes and alcohol, and (3) how
unities’’) that may reinforce certain patterns of tobacco companies linked cigarettes with alco-
consumption,29 and these groupings may be hol in their marketing activities and the benefits
influenced by marketing activities. In the case of they expected to gain from those activities.
tobacco and alcohol, these product links may
have been further enhanced by cooperation METHODS
between tobacco and alcohol companies (e.g.,
cosponsorship) or corporate ownership of both From July 2009 through July 2010 we used
tobacco and alcohol companies (e.g., Philip Mor- the Legacy Tobacco Document Library (http://
ris’s past ownership of Miller Brewing Company). legacy.library.ucsf.edu) to systematically search
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10

archived internal tobacco industry documents.
Tobacco industry document research presents
unique methodological challenges,30 and we
followed standard techniques to conduct docu-
ment research that combined traditional quali-
tative methods31 with iterative search strategies
tailored for this data set.32
Document research is typically not a hy-
pothesis-driven experiment. Thus, we ini-
tially posed exploratory, open-ended re-
search questions, such as ‘‘What did tobacco
companies know about people’s preferences
and patterns of alcohol use?’’ or ‘‘What did
tobacco companies understand about the
relationship between alcohol use and smok-
ing?’’ Previous studies have documented
increasingly frequent tobacco promotional
activities in bars during the last few de-
cades,27,28,33 so exploratory research questions
related to marketing activities included such
questions as ‘‘Was it a coincidence that tobacco
and alcohol companies seemed to sponsor sim-
ilar special events, or was it an intentional
marketing strategy?’’ and ‘‘What marketing ac-
tivities did tobacco companies conduct featuring
alcohol?’’
Initial keyword searches combined terms
related to:
d
marketing activities, such as joint sponsor-
ship, cosponsor, joint promotion, cross pro-
motion, tie in, plan, strategy, proposal, pre-
sentation, benefit, policy, guideline;
d
promotional events, such as spring break,
resort program, sports, soccer, softball, ski,
golf, volleyball, auto racing, ethnic sports,
concert, festival, bar night, nightclub;
d
marketing research, such as focus group,
qualitative, quantitative, research, study,
consumer profile;
d
concurrent use of tobacco and alcohol, such
as co-use, cross usage, drinking, life styles,
‘‘drinking and smoking’’;
d
types of alcoholic beverage, such as beer, liquor,
wine, cocktail, vodka, whiskey, champagne;
d
alcohol brands, such as Miller, Budweiser,
Olympia, Jack Daniel’s, Canadian Mist, Coors,
Schlitz, Southern Comfort;
d
alcohol companies, such as Miller, Miller
Brewing Company, Anheuser-Busch, Brown-
Forman, Olympia;
d
tobacco companies, such as Philip Morris, R.J.
Reynolds, Brown and Williamson, British
October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
American Tobacco, American Tobacco, Lor-
illard; and
d
cigarette brands, such as Marlboro, Virginia
Slims, Benson & Hedges, Camel, Winston,
Salem, Kool, Misty, Capri, Lucky Strike, GPC,
Viceroy.
Initial searches yielded thousands of docu-
ments. For example, a search of all tobacco
industry document collections on the Legacy
Tobacco Documents Library for the keyword
‘‘cosponsor’’ yielded 10172 documents. Addi-
tional keywords were added to narrow
searches. For example, a search of ‘‘cosponsor’’
and ‘‘Miller’’ yielded 1734 documents, and ‘‘co-
sponsor’’ and ‘‘Miller’’ and ‘‘soccer’’ yielded 164
documents. Searches were narrowed until they
generally yielded fewer than 400 documents.
After we narrowed the searches, we read all
the documents retrieved to determine their
relevance to the exploratory research ques-
tions. We removed duplicate documents and
documents that were clearly unrelated to our
research questions (such as tobacco companies’
research on behaviors other than alcohol con-
sumption and tobacco companies’ joint spon-
sorship with companies that did not sell alco-
hol). Documents containing the same text but
different marginalia were counted as separate
documents instead of duplicates.
Both authors then reviewed the documents
in detail to discern their themes and contexts,
such as the names of marketing studies, mar-
keting promotional project titles, the time lines
of these activities, and the relations between
marketing studies and promotional activities.
We wrote summary memoranda while reading
the documents and listed more specific search
terms from the documents retrieved, such as
study titles (e.g., Multi Marketing Inc. Lifestyle
Research, Promotional Services Center Survey,
General Food Survey), marketing promotional
project titles (e.g., Marlboro Soccer Cup,
Winston-Budweiser Heritage Cup World Soft-
ball Tournament, Canadian Mist and Viceroy
Rich Lights Designer Fashion Showcase), and
other important information (e.g., key individ-
uals responsible for these activities, third
parties involved, dates of meetings, locations
and dates of events).
We then asked a series of subsequent ques-
tions to guide further searches to help us better
understand the context and implications of
Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1943
each document, such as ‘‘What was the purpose
of the GF study?’’ ‘‘Did the results of this study
affect marketing and promotional activities?’’
‘‘What criteria did tobacco companies use to
select alcohol companies and types of alcoholic
beverage for joint sponsorship and joint pro-
motion?’’ ‘‘What benefits did tobacco compa-
nies expect to gain from alcohol co-marketing
activities, and did they obtain these benefits?’’
and ‘‘What were the job titles of the individuals
mentioned in the documents, and what were
the relationships among those people?’’
We followed reviews of relevant documents
with ‘‘snowball’’ searches to find related docu-
ments using additional search terms such as
consecutive reference (Bates) numbers, file
locations, dates, and individuals’ associates.
Through iterative searches, we attempted to
gain a more comprehensive understanding of
the research and marketing activities. We
wrote additional memos incorporating the
newly retrieved documents, noting the theme
and context of each document, and we orga-
nized the documents in clusters by topic (e.g.,
research study, promotional project, guideline
for marketing activities).
We repeated the iterative search process
until we reached saturation of both keywords
and documents. We based the present analysis
on a final collection of 128 documents relevant
to tobacco companies’ research on alcohol
consumption, concurrent use of tobacco and
alcohol, and joint promotion of cigarettes and
alcohol, and 358 documents related to mar-
keting activities that linked cigarettes with
alcohol. The documents we located ranged in
date from 1974 to 1999. We limited our
analysis to documents describing marketing
activities in the United States.
To triangulate findings in the documents, we
used additional data that we obtained from
general online search engines (e.g., Google),
news coverage (e.g., Google News or Lexis-
Nexis), and advertising archives (e.g., the Trin-
kets and Trash archive at the School of Public
Health of the University of Medicine and
Dentistry of New Jersey, or the Pollay adver-
tising collection at http://tobaccodocuments.
org). We used these adjunctive sources to
validate and contextualize the marketing ac-
tivities discussed in tobacco industry docu-
ments. Triangulation is a standard method that
qualitative researchers use to check for validity

and consistency of information among various
independent sources; specific triangulation
strategies using tobacco industry documents
and advertising archives have been described
previously.34
Conversely, we also retrieved advertise-
ments with alcohol-related content from ad-
vertising archives; then, to find plans for these
campaigns, we searched tobacco industry doc-
uments for these advertisements’ taglines,
slogans, or other descriptors. To build a com-
prehensive picture of how the different activi-
ties were related to each other both historically
and conceptually, we made a summary of all
research memos containing all major clusters of
documents, summaries of all relevant docu-
ments, and direct quotes from the documents.
The following criteria guided iterative anal-
yses to maximize our confidence in the credi-
bility, dependability, and confirmability of the
findings: we emphasized activities that were
conducted repeatedly over time, activities that
were pursued by multiple tobacco companies,
plans that were created by or sent to people in
positions of power within the tobacco compa-
nies (and thus were more likely to be carried
out or to be representative of company policy),
and activities that were supported both by
internal documents and outside data sources.
We selected quotes that were consistent with
the general themes across the multiple tobacco
companies, that were consistent with their
specific context in a document cluster, and that
represented themes that were discussed re-
peatedly. We conducted this analysis to gain
a greater understanding of tobacco industry
research and marketing activities related to
tobacco and alcohol, rather than to generate
theory or to test specific hypotheses about
these activities.
RESULTS
We found that tobacco companies did ex-
tensive research on smokers’ alcohol-related
behaviors, and they pursued a wide variety of
marketing strategies to capitalize on those
behaviors.
Research on Alcohol and Tobacco Use
Research on cross usage of cigarettes and
alcohol. Tobacco companies researched the
cross usage of cigarettes and alcohol and the
1944 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
impact of the 2 substances on each other. In
1974, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Com-
pany (B&W) hired Kenyon and Eckhardt Ad-
vertising to conduct a consumer research study
to investigate ‘‘the perceptions, attitudes and
behavior of younger, recently starting smokers
regarding initial products usage, current
smoking and health concerns.’’35 They found
that smoking increased with consumption of
alcoholic beverages and that beer and cigarettes
could each enhance the taste sensations of and
increase the desire for the other.35---37 Kenyon
and Eckhardt observed concurrent use most
frequently at social events, and they used the
term ‘‘social smoking’’35 to describe this phe-
nomenon of smoking with alcohol use:
Almost all of the respondents claimed an in-
crease in smoking when at parties or on dates. In
most cases, this increase in smoking was related
to consumption of alcoholic beverages, most
particularly beer. The general feeling seemed to
be that the two tastes and sensations tended to
enhance one another, making each more plea-
surable when done together. In these social
smoking situations, the cigarette was described as
a contributor to their relaxation and enjoyment.37
In 1986, Philip Morris (PM) hired Callé and
Company to conduct a qualitative study among
menthol smokers to learn about their needs
and lifestyles, including behaviors related to
drinking and smoking together. PM intended
this study to identify a framework of consumer-
desired products for future menthol cigarettes
and other cigarette products, and to identify
potential new cigarettes that would extend the
perceived benefits of existing menthol products
to ‘‘go beyond the existing menthol/regular
product categories.’’38,39 Callé and Company’s
research summary included the finding that
smoking menthol cigarettes while drinking alco-
hol served to ‘‘greatly reduce perceived harsh-
ness and to increase the ‘throat moisturizing’
effects desired.’’38,39 The summary included
discussions about smoking and drinking, say-
ing that a menthol cigarette, in particular, ‘‘goes
with drinks better. A nice sensation––like a
chaser.’’38,39 The summary also included the
observation that ‘‘possibly drinking acts as a cig-
arette stimulant.’’38,39
From November 1988 to May 1989, PM
used the General Foods Corporation (GF)
consumer database to conduct 3 analyses of
cross usage of cigarettes, beer, and other food
products. PM acquired GF in 1985.40 The
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10
purpose of these analyses was to determine cross
usage and ‘‘investigate potential promotional
tie-in partners’’ if any cross-usage links were
identified.41---44 The database size ranged from
131000 consumers in 1988 to 199 000 con-
sumers in 1989. PM found that ‘‘monthly
household beer consumption predicted inci-
dence of smoking.’’41,45 People whose house-
holds consumed smaller quantities of beer were
less likely to smoke than were households
consuming larger quantities of beer; as house-
hold beer consumption increased, the percentage
of smokers increased.44---50 Nonsmoker house-
holds consumed the smallest quantities of beer,
full-flavor-smoker households consumed the
largest quantities of beer, and low-tar-smoker
households were in between.47,51
R . J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (RJR) also
researched the cross usage of alcohol and
cigarettes. In November 1980, RJR conducted
a qualitative study to ‘‘investigate consumer
attitudes and perceptions toward menthol and
non-menthol cigarettes, reasons for smoking
a menthol, and level of interest in ‘menthol-
alternatives.’’’52 While investigating menthol
alternatives, RJR asked about reactions to li-
queur, liquor (bourbon, rum), or a white wine
taste in a cigarette. They found that the responses
were mixed:
‘‘Good idea––drinks and cigarettes go together!’’
‘‘White wine and tobacco––sounds awful.’’
‘‘I wouldn’t like an alcohol flavor in my
cigarette.’’
‘‘Liqueurs are too sweet to smoke.’’52
In June 1990, an RJR memo noted that
Simmons Market Research Bureau had con-
ducted an analysis finding that among both
genders and across almost all age groups,
smokers showed a positive index of alcohol
consumption.53 RJR planned to ‘‘utilize this
learning which might enhance our marketing
efforts’’ and ‘‘to develop ways to leverage the
alcoholic beverage/tobacco use correlation
among adults.’’53
Research about smokers’ drinking behavior.
Tobacco companies also investigated specific
drinking behaviors, such as the types and
brands of alcoholic beverages that smokers
usually drank and the locations where drinking
occurred. For example, in 1980, RJR hired
Multi-Marketing, Inc, to conduct a study during
promotional events among young adults on
spring break in the area of Daytona Beach/Fort

Lauderdale, Florida.54,55 The study found that
98.3% of 1574 respondents spent money on
alcoholic beverages, and 97.1% consumed alco-
holic beverages. Alcoholic beverages ranked
second after food in the average amount of
money spent per month among both men and
women. The study found that beer was the pre-
ferred type of alcoholic beverage, the most pop-
ular brands of beer were Miller and Budweiser,
Riunite and Lambrusco were the top 2 favorite
wine brands on campus, and Jack Daniel’s was
the number 1 brand of liquor on campus. About
69.3% of respondents purchased beer in bars/
taverns, 14.2% consumed beer daily, and 51.9%
consumed beer a few times a week.55
In March 1981, Leferman Associates con-
ducted a qualitative study for RJR to evaluate
the reactions of young male smokers (18---24
years) to Camel Lights’ participation in Expo
America, which was a traveling exposition
combining showmanship and salesmanship
targeting young adults.56---58 The study found
that free or discounted beer was welcome
among young male smokers, although free soft
drinks might have been just as well received.56
The report included several quotes from the
participants:
‘‘It would have been nice had they had some-
thing like free beer.’’
‘‘After going on the bull, I was sweating so much I
had to go out and get a beer.’’
‘‘I came for the cheap beer and music.’’
‘‘Free beer would have gone over real good.’’56
In 1983, RJR mapped adults’ use of ciga-
rettes and other products, including many
different alcoholic beverages, by age and edu-
cation level (Figure 1). They reported that
smokers of Benson & Hedges (the most ‘‘highly
educated’’ cigarette brand in this exercise)
shared a similar education level with Budwe-
iser drinkers. Wine drinkers and imported beer
drinkers were much more educated than were
cigarette smokers.59 In the same year, research
conducted to solicit RJR advertising in RockBill
magazine (a free magazine distributed at bars
and clubs) also noted that
our affluent, out-going, sociable audience regu-
larly consumes alcohol beverages as part of their
lifestyle––especially when they’re out with friends
at ‘our’ clubs . . . and most specify the spirit by
brand.60
Around 1983 and 1984, RJR conducted
a study of the purchases and other activities of
October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
young adults (18---24 years), and they found
that young adults had above-average con-
sumption of many types of alcoholic beverages
compared with all adults.61,62 In 1988, RJR
studied the lifestyles of young adult smokers
(18---24 years) and found that popular alcohol
drinks among this population were regular beer,
vodka, rum, tequila, gin, bubbly wines, and sweet
wines; less popular alcohol drinks were light
beer, scotch, and traditional wines.63 In 1989,
RJR investigated the lifestyles of less educated
smokers64 and found that a higher percentage of
young adult smokers with low education levels
attended bars and discos compared with young
adult smokers who had graduated from col-
lege.64 Many other studies also showed that
young adult smokers enjoyed going to bars and
discos and drinking beer.65---68
PM conducted similar studies with young
smokers. In 1999, the research company
Golden Door, Inc, conducted a study to assist
PM in generating a stronger understanding of
young adult male culture and smoking experi-
ences.69---73 They found that young adult male
smokers frequently visited bars and clubs and
that different cigarette brands were associated
with different types and brands of alcohol.69 For
example, Newport smokers were associated
with ‘‘40s’’ (40-oz beers) and Hennessey, Marl-
boro Red was associated with whiskey and
moonshine, and Marlboro Light was associated
with wine coolers.69
Formative Research on Potential
Joint Promotions
Tobacco companies researched the potential
effect of promoting cigarettes in conjunction
with alcohol. In April 1987, PM developed
a Joint Consumer Promotions Research pro-
gram to investigate the feasibility of running
joint consumer promotions that featured
brands from GF, PM, and Miller Brewing
subsidiaries; these companies were all owned
by PM.74,75 PM confirmed that there were risks
associated with promoting cigarettes with beer
and other food products.76,77 In market research
on the concept, both smokers and nonsmokers
had negative reactions, and PM noted that
‘‘cigarette inclusion in joint programs could
potentially have negative impact on other
brands,’’ particularly food brands.76 PM subse-
quently considered pursuing promotional activi-
ties that only indirectly linked PM, GF, and Miller
Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1945
Brewing Company products via ‘‘‘masked’ prod-
uct linkage,’’ such as shared free-standing inserts,
shared efforts to populate direct mailing lists, or
retailer-implemented corporate promotions.76,77
In August 1987, RJR studied promotion
concepts appealing to young males,78 and they
found that 2 of the 8 concepts with above-
average appeal involved alcohol paraphernalia:
‘‘free beverage holder and mug at retail with
2-pack purchase’’ and ‘‘four mugs with different
Camel designs free at retail with 2-pack pur-
chase.’’78
Marketing Strategies and Expected
Benefits
We identified 3 main types of marketing
strategies that tobacco companies used to link
cigarettes with alcohol: (1) joint sponsorship, (2)
joint promotion, and (3) cigarette promotions
featuring alcohol or alcohol paraphernalia.
Joint sponsorship. Tobacco companies jointly
sponsored many special events with alcohol
companies. These special events mainly in-
cluded sporting events (e.g., auto racing, soccer,
softball, golf), art events (e.g., concerts, fashion
shows, festivals), ethnic events (e.g., Hispanic
and Black festivals and sporting events), resort
programs (e.g., spring break), and bar and
nightclub programs. Sporting events and bar
nights were the most frequently sponsored
events. Table 1 lists some examples of the joint
sponsorship efforts involving tobacco and al-
cohol companies.
PM expected joint sponsorship to lower the
cost of special event sponsorship, appeal more
to consumers, extend the outreach of brands’
special event involvement, reinforce brand
identification, and generate increased sales of
cigarettes.136,137 PM reported that as a result of
joint sponsorship, Marlboro was able to reduce
the fee for Miller’s sponsorship of the Marlboro
Grand Prix in 1988 by more than 25%, which
benefited PM, the owner of both Marlboro and
Miller at the time.87 In November 1988, PM
stated that the joint sponsorship of bar nights at
spring break sites in Daytona Beach, Florida, and
South Padre Island, Texas, between Marlboro
and Miller might save ‘‘over $50,000 for both
Miller and Marlboro on materials, fees, etc.’’130
RJR expected joint sponsorship to increase
the awareness of their promotional events,
lower the cost of event sponsorship, provide
entertainment for the audience, and extend the

Source. Figure was obtained from R.J. Reynolds internal documents held at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library.59
FIGURE 1—R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company’s map of consumer cigarette, alcohol, and other product use by age (vertical axis) and education level
(horizontal axis): United States, 1983.
outreach of their special event involve-
ment.138---140 For example, RJR’s 1975 plans to
cosponsor California Beach Volleyball with
Olympia beer mentioned that the joint sponsor-
ship would improve event organization, garner
a better reception for the event, ease promotion,
and lock out any competitive cigarette or beer
companies from becoming involved with beach
volleyball.79
B&W also showed interest in lowering the
cost of promotional events by jointly sponsor-
ing them with alcohol companies. For example,
in July 1978, Action Marketing suggested that
in Kool Jazz Festival preliminary promotions,
B&W should tie in with the manufacturers of
liquor, liqueurs, wine, beer, and other products
to maximize awareness of the festival, decrease
costs, and ‘‘extend Kool direct purchase in-
centive programs to other types of retail out-
lets.’’112 In January 1979, B&W reported on the
conclusion of their 1978 Rich Lights Disco Pro-
gram, stating that tying in with a liquor company
1946 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
‘‘could be potentially beneficial in terms of cost
sharing for future promotions.’’141
Joint promotion. Tobacco and alcohol com-
panies often jointly promoted their products at
their jointly sponsored events. Through joint
promotion, PM expected to receive substantive
benefits, such as increased sales impact, lower
costs, and reinforced brand identity.76,77 For
example, in a PM document reporting on the
conclusion of a 1982 Marlboro spring/summer
resort program that aimed to maximize Marlboro
brand exposure and stimulate interest and trial
among the brand’s young adult target audience,
the topic of ‘‘a joint promotion between Miller
and Marlboro’’ was broached as a possible im-
provement.142 The document stated that ‘‘this
would enhance the bar program and increase
sales on both products while establishing brand
loyalty and awareness.’’142
RJR also expected joint promotion to in-
crease the awareness of their promotions,
lower the cost of promotion, appeal more to
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10
consumers, and extend brand exposures.139,140
In 1989, RJR listed a series of creative marketing
ideas, including ‘‘promotions in convenience
outlets which offer a ‘specified amount off’ the
price of a six-pack of beer with 2 pack or 3 pack
purchase [of cigarettes].’’143 An RJR memo said
such a promotion could affect a consumer in the
following ways:
(1) Consumer who intended to purchase only one
pack of cigarettes may purchase two or three
packs in order to get discount on beer. (2)
Consumer who intended to purchase beer and
no cigarettes may purchase cigarettes to get
discount on beer. Therefore, offering the dis-
count on beer may significantly increase the
number of packs of cigarettes sold.143
B&W also showed an interest in joint pro-
motion of their cigarettes with alcohol and
expected that joint promotion would lower the
cost. For example, in August 1978, B&W
discussed a promotional concept for ‘‘Kool
Super Lights Black Market Promotions.’’ The
concept was that the consumer would get a free
 TABLE 1—Examples of Joint Sponsorship Between Tobacco and Alcohol Companies: United States, 1976–1997

Event Year Tobacco Company Tobacco Brand Alcohol Brand (Alcohol Company)

Sporting events
California Beach Volleyballa,79,80 1976 RJR Winston Olympia
Winston-Budweiser Heritage Cup World Softball Tournament81–84 1985 RJR Winston Anheuser-Busch
Winston-Budweiser Heritage Cup World Softball Tournament83,85 1986 RJR Winston Anheuser-Busch
Golf outing86 1988 PM Brand not specified Miller
Marlboro Soccer Cup87–90 1988 PM Marlboro Miller
CART Indy car auto racinga,87 1988 PM Marlboro Miller
Marlboro Grand Prix87 1988 PM Marlboro Miller
Miller High Life Thunderbird Classic Hydroplane Racinga,91 1989 PM Marlboro Miller
Marlboro Auto Racing—Miller High Life 20092,93 1989 PM Marlboro Miller
Circle K LPGA Tucson Golf Opena,94 1990 PM Brand not specified Miller
VIP golf tournament95 1994 PM Marlboro Miller
Marlboro Auto Racing—Miller Genuine Draft 20096–98 1996 PM Marlboro Miller
Indy racesa,99 1997 B&W Kool Jack Daniels (Brown-Forman)

October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health

Art events
Canadian Mist and Viceroy Rich Lights Designer Fashion Showcase100–111 1978 B&W Viceroy Canadian Mist (Brown-Forman)
Kool Jazz Festivala,112 1978 B&W Kool NA
National Rib Cook-Off88 1988 PM Marlboro Miller
Shriners National Convention entertainment activities (e.g., concert, 1990 PM Benson & Hedges Miller
bowling, golf tournaments)113,114
Houston International Festival115–117 1992 PM Benson & Hedges Miller
Smokin’ Joe’s Country Saloon ‘‘Wagon Train Pull’’ Competition118 1993 PM Marlboro Miller
Public affairs program community ‘‘clean-up’’a,119 1993 PM Brand not specified Miller
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Rock concerta,99 1997 B&W Lucky Strike Jack Daniels (Brown-Forman)

Jazz concerta,99 1997 B&W Kool Fetzer Wine (Brown-Forman)
Country concerta,99 1997 B&W GPC Southern Comfort and Jack Daniels
(Brown-Forman)
Ethnic events
Mississippi Delta Blues Festival120,121 1989 PM Benson & Hedges Miller
Folklore Festival122 1989 PM Marlboro Miller
Carnival Miami International Concert123 1990 PM Marlboro Miller
Calle Ocho Festival114,123 1990 PM Marlboro Miller
Golf at North Carolina Association of Minority Business114 1990 PM Marlboro Miller
Miami/Bahamas Goombay Festival114 1990 PM Marlboro Miller
Hispanic World’s Faira,113 1990 PM Brand not specified Miller
African World Festival—Benson & Hedges Blues Concert124–126 1990 PM Benson & Hedges Miller

Continued

Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1947

 RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

6-pack of Budweiser beer when purchasing

a carton of Kool Super Lights. ‘‘Costs for this

Brand not specified (Brown-Forman)

Canadian Mist (Brown-Forman)

Jack Daniels (Brown-Forman)
promotion would be shared between Bud-
weiser and B&W––with each participant
covering one-half the cost of the refund.’’144

Bacardi
Miller
Miller
Miller

Miller
Miller
Miller

Miller
Miller
In 1997, Gray Advertising suggested many
comarketing ideas for B&W and a spirits and
wine company named Brown-Forman Corpo-
ration. One of the comarketing ideas was
‘‘Catalina Supermarket Coupon Program: pur-
chase Jack Daniel’s Country Cocktails and get
a coupon for $3 off a carton of any B&W
brand.’’99
Lucky Strike, Kool, Capri,

Cigarette promotions featuring alcohol or

Misty, Carlton, GPC

alcohol paraphernalia. Tobacco marketing

Lucky Strike
Marlboro
Marlboro
Marlboro

Marlboro
Marlboro
Marlboro

Marlboro
Marlboro
Kool

Kool

activities, particularly promotional events,

often included

1. discounted or free alcohol,

2. special drinks featuring tobacco promotion
These jointly sponsored events were planned by tobacco companies. However, we found no evidence that these events were actually carried out.

themes,
3. alcohol-related contests,
4. cigarette-branded gifts with alcohol pur-
Note. B&W = Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company; NA = not applicable; PM = Philip Morris; RJR = R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

chases or alcohol-related contests, and

B&W

B&W

B&W
B&W
PM
PM
PM

PM
PM
PM

PM
PM

5. discounted or free alcohol paraphernalia.

Many tobacco companies offered discounted

or free alcohol at tobacco-company-sponsored
bar nights, nightclub events, and other pro-
motional events. At several Marlboro promo-
1991
1991
1994

1984
1988
1989

1978
1989
1993
1997

1997
1997

tional events in the late 1970s and early 1980s,

PM planned to offer free beer to the audience
to generate excitement and please the partici-
pants.145---148 RJR also offered discounted or free
beer and liquor at their bar nights and pro-
motional events in the 1980s and 1990s,149---152
Marlboro New Music Showcase Program at Marlboro Spring Resorta,129

which they expected would not only provide

prizes to the consumers but would also provide
benefits to the managers of the bars and night-
clubs, so that these managers would allow RJR to
conduct their marketing activities.150,151 Similarly,
Marlboro/Miller Rock n’ Roller Beach Weekends88

B&W also offered discounted and free alcoholic

drinks at their disco nights in 1978.153---155,134
Marlboro bar/restaurant program118

Tobacco companies also sometimes devel-

Bar nights at spring break sites130

oped special alcoholic drinks for their promo-

Spring break programa,130–133
Carnaval Miami Festival127

tional events. The name, color, taste, or con-

Bar and nightclub programs,a
Calle Ocho Festival127,128
TABLE 1—Continued

Bacardi KOOL Night134

tainer of these special drinks usually would

Calle Ocho Festival95

match the promotional theme and the charac-

Resort programs

teristics of the promoted brands. For example,

Bar night135
Bar night135
Bar night99

in the 1980s, RJR conducted many Salem bar

nights that featured a special drink named
‘‘Salem-Sling’’; this drink was colored green to
a

match the Salem logo, and it was flavored with

1948 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10

mint to match Salem’s menthol flavoring.156,157
Special drinks were also offered at RJR’s Salem
Ski Scene.158,159 Similarly, B&W was encouraged
to develop an official Kool ‘‘Jazz Fizz’’ drink in
1978 for their Jazz Festival to increase attendees’
interest in and enthusiasm for the festival
and to provide a unique way to tie Kools in
with wine, liquor, or soft drink companies.112
In 1978, B&W developed a Rich Lights drink
for the Rich Lights Disco Program.153 The
marketing firm hired by B&W to develop the
special Rich Lights drinks160---163 provided
specific requirements that the drinks should
meet:
The drink should enhance and reinforce the
positioning of Rich Lights cigarettes which is
distinctive in packaging and positioning, and rich
in tone and manner, packaging and imagery. The
drink should be light in taste and visual appear-
ance. The drink should be rich in appearance (not
thick or heavy in taste). A thin blue float, blue
garnish, or blue ice cubes would be ideal.
Because of our desire to compliment [sic] the
light nature of the Rich Lights cigarette product,
we would prefer to use a drink based on: Gin,
Vodka, Rum, Tequila, Champagne, or White
Wine. We do not feel that drinks based on the
use of Whiskey, Bourbon, Scotch or other dark
liquors would be appropriate.160
Tobacco promotional events often included
alcohol-related contests, such as beer-chugging
competitions. For example, in May 1989, PM’s
bar night program included the following beer-
chug contest:
Miller Beer Chug Contest: Sign up ten people to
compete against each other. The winner would
be the first one to drink all the beer and place the
mug upside down on his/her head and yell
‘‘MARLBORO IS NUMBER 1.’’164
Variations of beer-chug contests included
a Wild West Contest (PM)165 and a team com-
petition (RJR).166,167
Wild West Contest was designed to fit the
Marlboro image in a bar setting. The contest was
a cross between a wild bull ride and a beer
chugging contest. Since health rules prohibited
a bull in the bar, a tricycle was substituted
on a marked course with a beer chugging stop
in the middle. Very popular contest.165
Tent Stuff: . . . Each participant is given a stein of
beer. The first person on each team must chug
his/her beer and then enter the tent, followed by
the second person doing the same.166,167
Beer-chug contests were conducted in many
of PM’s and RJR’s sponsored bar nights and
nightclub events.151,166---174 These contests were
October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
usually targeted at young males. Tobacco com-
panies expected the contests to reinforce brand
image, enhance visibility, increase brand aware-
ness, generate entertaining excitement, provide
branded incentives, and generate increased sales.
PM marketers noted that a beer-chug contest was
‘‘easy to run, does not need many participants
and is exciting to watch.’’170 RJR noted that beer-
chug contests involved skill, dexterity, strength,
and other masculine qualities169,172,173; gener-
ated ‘‘peer pressure’’ to win Camel prizes175; and
were exciting and easy to understand.176 In
addition to bars and nightclubs, Lorillard con-
ducted beer-chugging contests during Newport
promotions held at the Fort Bragg army base
in April 1983.177,178
Tobacco companies often provided ciga-
rette-branded gifts to those who purchased
special drinks or who won alcohol-related
contests.151,156,166---169,172---174,179 For example,
with alcohol purchases, RJR distributed Camel
game cards that gave customers a chance to win
Camel merchandise,151,169 and RJR provided
Camel beach towels to participants who won
Camel beer-chug contests.174 Cigarette-branded
gifts included lighters, key chains, game cards,
beach towels, T-shirts, and coasters.151,169,174,180,181
These gifts were intended to increase visibility,
appeal more to the consumers (especially
young adults), extend awareness of the brand,
and provide branded incentives.147,151,169,182,183
Cigarette-branded gifts frequently were al-
cohol-related paraphernalia, such as bottle
openers, beer mugs, beer coolers, wine skins,
shot glasses, and champagne glasses.180,181,184
For example, in January 1974, PM provided
a discounted wine rack to consumers who
bought 2 packs of Parliament cigarettes.145 Dur-
ing the 1980s, PM included beer mugs in several
resort promotions.171,185---187 At RJR’s promo-
tions, consumers could exchange packs of ciga-
rettes for a free beer mug.181,188 In 1997, Gray
Advertising suggested comarketing ideas for
B&W and Brown-Forman Corporation, includ-
ing a promotion in which customers would
‘‘collect Kool UPC’s and get Lenox Glassware Set
(shot glass, snifter, wine glass, martini glass,
champagne flute, etc.).’’99
DISCUSSION
We found that tobacco companies re-
searched the concurrent use of alcohol and
Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1949
cigarettes, understood the high prevalence of co-
use of cigarettes and alcohol (especially beer),
and intended to use these findings to enhance
their marketing efforts. Tobacco companies’
marketing strategies linking cigarettes with al-
cohol were elaborately planned and carefully
executed both to connect tobacco sales with
alcohol purchases and to increase cigarette sales.
The link between smoking and drinking might
have been strengthened by these marketing
activities. This finding is consistent with previous
research showing that tobacco manufacturers
incorporated images of and references to alcohol
in cigarette advertisements in magazines target-
ing young adults.189
Young adults are the most frequent target of
tobacco companies’ marketing activities fea-
turing alcohol. Since at least the 1980s, tobacco
companies expressed special interest in this
population in both their research studies and
their marketing activities.25,27,28,33,190 The
companies understood that young adults spent
time in bars and nightclubs and enjoyed social
activities such as drinking and partying with
friends in these places.36,37,54,59,60,63---69 The
tobacco companies’ marketing activities linked
with alcohol were targeted at both male and
female young adults, which is consistent with
previous research on bar and nightclub
events.25,27,28,33,190 Significant numbers of
young adults continue to be exposed to these
promotions.25 Thus, young adults should be
a priority for tobacco control and cessation
interventions, because young adulthood repre-
sents a unique period in the life cycle in which
patterns of behaviors are established that will
affect both current and future health.
Tobacco company sponsorship that involves
using a tobacco brand’s name, logo, symbol,
motto, selling message, recognizable pattern of
colors, or any other indicia of product identifi-
cation of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco was
recently prohibited for athletic, musical, artistic,
or other social or cultural events.191 However,
tobacco companies still conduct promotional
events at bars and nightclubs, which represent
fun, smoker-friendly places for young people to
initiate and enjoy smoking in the context of
drinking. These promotional events continue
even after implementation of smoke-free policies
in bars.
Tobacco promotions in these venues may
be partly responsible for the creation and

reinforcement of links between smoking and
drinking by encouraging nonsmokers to initiate
smoking, encouraging social and nondaily
smokers to smoke more frequently, or en-
couraging former smokers to relapse. Nichter
et al.24 found that young adults perceived
smoking to be more acceptable at parties with
concurrent alcohol use. Also, studies have sug-
gested that discontinuing or reducing alcohol
consumption predicts the success of smoking
cessation.6,192 Therefore, tobacco control efforts
should prioritize venues and settings where
alcohol use is frequent, such as bars and night-
clubs. Studies are needed to monitor tobacco
companies’ marketing activities linking tobacco
with alcohol products and to determine those
activities’ effects on the concurrent use of the 2
substances.
Although tobacco companies have aggres-
sively pursued joint promotion of tobacco and
alcohol products, it is worth noting that PM
found that negative associations with cigarettes
threatened the effectiveness of joint promotion
of cigarettes with other products, particularly
food brands. This finding suggests that cam-
paigns that denormalize smoking and the to-
bacco industry and that create negative asso-
ciations with tobacco brands will limit the
tobacco industry’s ability to cross promote
cigarettes with other products or to attach
cigarette brands to other products; this effect
is in addition to the strong relation that
denormalization campaigns have with smok-
ing status and intentions to quit.193 Such
effects may be particularly important in countries
where indirect advertising and cobranding are
common.194,195
A limitation of the present study is that the
internal documents we located were primarily
from the 1980s and the 1990s. To the best of
our knowledge, this is the first study to use
internal tobacco industry documents to inves-
tigate tobacco companies’ research on the
concurrent use of cigarettes and alcohol, their
research on smokers’ drinking behaviors, and
their marketing strategies linked with alcohol.
Tobacco marketing reinforces the links be-
tween smoking and drinking, and these mar-
keting activities continue today; therefore, the
prevalence of tobacco and alcohol comorbidity
may continue to increase.
On the basis of these findings, we make 3
recommendations. First, it should be prohibited
1950 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
to tie in any tobacco products, tobacco para-
phernalia (such as lighters and ashtrays), or
tobacco-branded products with alcohol pur-
chase. Second, tobacco sales and promotions
should be prohibited in any establishments
serving or selling alcohol, including adult-only
venues. The use of alcohol impairs one’s ability
to make an informed choice about tobacco use,
and the use of both tobacco and alcohol may
enhance the addictive potential of both sub-
stances, so the US Food and Drug Adminis-
tration’s prohibition of tobacco sponsorship
should be extended to include venues and
events where alcohol is served or sold. Third,
given the strong association between smoking
and drinking, smoking cessation programs
should address the use of alcohol, and binge-
drinking interventions should consider
addressing tobacco use, such as evaluating
tobacco-use behaviors among binge drinkers
and alcoholics and including tobacco cessation
strategies in drinking interventions. New efforts
to break linkages between tobacco use and
alcohol use are needed. j
About the Authors
Nan Jiang and Pamela M. Ling are with the Center for
Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of
California, San Francisco. Pamela M. Ling is also with the
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of
Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Correspondence should be sent to Pamela M. Ling, MD,
MPH, Associate Professor of Medicine, Box 1390, 530
Parnassus Ave, Suite 366, University of California San
Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-1390 (e-mail:
pling@medicine.ucsf.edu). Reprints can be ordered at
http://www.ajph.org by clicking the ‘‘Reprints/Eprints’’ link.
This article was accepted December 30, 2010.
Contributors
P. M. Ling conceptualized and supervised the study. N.
Jiang collected documents and led the writing of the
article. Both authors participated in the review, revision,
and approval of the final draft of the article.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Cancer
Institute (grant CA-87472).
This work was presented at the 2010 Annual Meeting
of the American Public Health Association.
The authors wish to thank the members of the
University of California, San Francisco Writer’s Task
Force for their helpful comments on the article.
Note. The funding agency had no involvement in the
conduct of the research or preparation of the article.
Human Participant Protection
No protocol approval was necessary because no human
research participants were involved.
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10
References
1. American Heart Association. Smoking & cardiovas-
cular disease. Available at: http://www.heart.org/
HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/QuitSmoking/Quitting
Resources/Smoking-Cardiovascular-Disease_UCM_
305187_Article.jsp#. Accessed July 7, 2011.
2. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL.
Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA.
2004;291(10):1238---1245.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol-
related disease impact (ARDI) software. Available at:
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/ardi.htm. Accessed May 10,
2010.
4. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Alcohol alert. Available at: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/
publications/aa39.htm. Published January 1998. Ac-
cessed June 23, 2010.
5. American Cancer Society. Alcohol use and cancer.
Available at: http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/Cancer
Causes/DietandPhysicalActivity/alcohol-use-and-cancer.
Revised May 5, 2010. Accessed June 30, 2010.
6. Hymowitz N, Cummings KM, Hyland A, Lynn WR,
Pechacek TF, Hartwell TD. Predictors of smoking cessa-
tion in a cohort of adult smokers followed for five years.
Tob Control. 1997;6(suppl 2):S57---S62.
7. Bobo JK, Husten C. Sociocultural influences on
smoking and drinking. Alcohol Res Health. 2000;24(4):
225---232.
8. McKee SA, Hinson R, Rounsaville D, Petrelli P. Survey
of subjective effects of smoking while drinking among
college students. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(1):111---117.
9. Schorling JB, Gutgesell M, Klas P, Smith D, Keller A.
Tobacco, alcohol and other drug use among college
students. J Subst Abuse. 1994;6(1):105---115.
10. Weitzman ER, Chen Y- Y. The co-occurrence of
smoking and drinking among young adults in college:
national survey results from the United States. Drug
Alcohol Depend. 2005;80(3):377---386.
11. Harrison ELR, Desai RA, McKee SA. Nondaily
smoking and alcohol use, hazardous drinking, and alco-
hol diagnoses among young adults: findings from the
NESARC. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32(12):2081---
2087.
12. McKee SA, Falba T, O’Malley SS, Sindelar J,
O’Connor PG. Smoking status as a clinical indicator for
alcohol misuse in US adults. Arch Intern Med. 2007;
167(7):716---721.
13. Acosta MC, Eissenberg T, Nichter M, Nichter M,
Balster RL; Tobacco Etiology Research Network (TERN).
Characterizing early cigarette use episodes in novice
smokers. Addict Behav. 2008;33(1):106---121.
14. Batel P, Pessione F, Maı̂tre C, Rueff B. Relationship
between alcohol and tobacco dependencies among alco-
holics who smoke. Addiction. 1995;90(7):977---980.
15. Harrison ELR, McKee SA. Young adult non-daily
smokers: patterns of alcohol and cigarette use. Addict
Behav. 2008;33(5):668---674.
16. Rose JE, Brauer LH, Behm FM, Cramblett M, Calkins
K, Lawhon D. Psychopharmacological interactions be-
tween nicotine and ethanol. Nicotine Tob Res. 2004;6(1):
133---144.
17. King AC, Epstein AM. Alcohol dose-dependent
increases in smoking urge in light smokers. Alcohol Clin
Exp Res. 2005;29(4):547---552.

18. Glautier S, Clements K, White JA, Taylor C, Stolerman
IP. Alcohol and the reward value of cigarette smoking.
Behav Pharmacol. 1996;7(2):144---154.
19. Barrett SP, Tichauer M, Leyton M, Pihl RO. Nicotine
increases alcohol self-administration in non-dependent male
smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;81(2):197---204.
20. Sher KJ, Gotham HJ, Erickson DJ, Wood PK. A
prospective, high-risk study of the relationship between
tobacco dependence and alcohol use disorders. Alcohol
Clin Exp Res. 1996;20(3):485---492.
21. Falk DE, Hsiao-Ye Y, Hiller-Sturmhöfel S. An
epidemiologic analysis of co-occurring alcohol and to-
bacco use and disorders. Alcohol Res Health. 2006;29(3):
162---171.
22. Dierker L, Lloyd-Richardson E, Stolar M, et al. The
proximal association between smoking and alcohol use
among first year college students. Drug Alcohol Depend.
2006;81(1):1---9.
23. Nichter M, Nichter M, Lloyd-Richardson EE, Flaherty
B, Carkoglu A, Taylor N. Gendered dimensions of smok-
ing among college students. J Adolesc Res. 2006;21(3):
215---243.
24. Nichter M, Nichter M, Carkoglu A, Lloyd-Richardson
E; Tobacco Etiology Research Network (TERN). Smoking
and drinking among college students: ‘‘It’s a package
deal.’’ Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;106(1):16---20.
25. Gilpin EA, White VM, Pierce JP. How effective are
tobacco industry bar and club marketing efforts in reaching
young adults? Tob Control. 2005;14(3):186---192.
26. Stromberg P, Nichter M, Nichter M. Taking play
seriously: low-level smoking among college students. Cult
Med Psychiatry. 2007;31(1):1---24.
27. Sepe E, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Smooth moves: bar and
nightclub tobacco promotions that target young adults.
Am J Public Health. 2002;92(3):414---419.
28. Katz SK, Lavack AM. Tobacco related bar pro-
motions: insights from tobacco industry documents. Tob
Control. 2002;11(suppl 1):i92---i101.
29. McCracken G. Diderot unities and the Diderot effect:
neglected cultural aspects of consumption. In: Culture and
Consumption. 1st ed. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press; 1990:118---129.
30. Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry docu-
ments: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000;
9(3):334---338.
31. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis:
An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications; 1994.
32. Bero L. Implications of the tobacco industry docu-
ments for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public
Health. 2003;24:267---288.
33. Sepe E, Glantz SA. Bar and club tobacco promotions
in the alternative press: targeting young adults. Am J
Public Health. 2002;92(1):75---78.
34. Anderson SJ, Dewhirst T, Ling PM. Every document
and picture tells a story: using internal corporate docu-
ment reviews, semiotics, and content analysis to assess
tobacco advertising. Tob Control. 2006;15(3):254---261.
35. Brown Williamson. Young adult smoker life styles
and attitudes. 1976. Bates no. 680141012/1021.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/viy40f00.
Accessed May 5, 2010.
36. Kenyon and Eckhardt Inc. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Company new ventures project. Consumer
October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
views. The ‘‘new’’ smoker. September 1974. Brown &
Williamson. Bates no. 170052291/2325. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qnq83f00. Accessed
May 5, 2010.
37. Kenyon and Eckhardt Inc. Brown & Williamson
Tobacco Company new ventures project. Stage II. The
‘‘new’’ smoker. September 1974. Brown & Williamson.
Bates no. 170052326/2365. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/rnq83f00. Accessed May 5, 2010.
38. Callé and Company. Philip Morris, Inc. new menthol
cigarette ASSAY. October 1986. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2041137501/7658. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/wbz67e00. Accessed May 9, 2010.
39. Callé and Company. Philip Morris, Inc. new menthol
cigarette ASSAY. October 1986. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2042854700/4728. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/xdb37c00. Accessed May 1, 2010.
40. Philip Morris. Philip Morris Companies Inc. annual
report 1986. 1986. Bates no. 2048000568/0618.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lac84e00.
Accessed June 30, 2010.
41. Filak J. Memorandum: relationship between coffee
drinking and smoking. May 16, 1991. Philip Morris.
Bates no. 2049173019. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/lpe98a00. Accessed July 31, 2009.
42. Guglielmone L. PSC survey smoker names. Decem-
ber 13, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2044998266/
8268. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
crh06e00. Accessed September 2, 2009.
43. Guglielmone L. December 30, 1988. Philip Morris.
Bates no. 2044998293/8294. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dvx48a00. Accessed Septem-
ber 2, 2009.
44. McMath C. GF survey of smokers. May 4, 1989.
Philip Morris. Bates no. 2041830455/0456. Available
at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/frp26e00. Accessed
September 2, 2009.
45. McMath C. GF survey of smokers follow-up. May 16,
1989. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2044998218/8224.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lrh06e00.
Accessed September 2, 2009.
46. Guglielmone L, Lynch M, Romer D. Tabulations GF
cross promotional. February 8, 1989. Philip Morris.
Bates no. 2041830394/0451. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yqd82e00. Accessed Septem-
ber 3, 2009.
47. Philip Morris. Caffeinated coffee consumption at
home. May 1989. Bates no. 2041830459/0460.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/irp26e00.
Accessed September 6, 2009.
48. Philip Morris. Beer consumption at home. May
1989. Bates no. 2041830461. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ard82e00. Accessed Septem-
ber 1, 2009.
49. Romer D GF. promotion analysis. June 15, 1989.
Philip Morris. Bates no. 2044998225. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mrh06e00. Accessed
September 1, 2009.
50. Philip Morris. Age and sex profiles of smoker/coffee
drinking households. June 14, 1989. Bates no. 2044998226/
8255. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
frh06e00. Accessed September 2, 2009.
51. Philip Morris. General Foods Corporation promo-
tional services center fall 88 questionaire brand report
for merged tapes all smokers. November 17, 1988. Bates
Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1951
no. 2044998271/8286. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/cvx48a00. Accessed September 2,
2009.
52. Andrews A. Report of individual and group in-
terviews on a new cigarette. November 1980. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 501366486/6542. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jbj49d00. Accessed
May 1, 2010.
53. Troutman GA. Idea generation meeting - alcoholic
beverage/tobacco use correlation. June 28, 1990. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 507399390/9391. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gmy24d00. Accessed
March 2, 2010.
54. Patterson DM. MMI lifestyle research. December 10,
1980. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 501293101/3103.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ftp49d00.
Accessed February 2, 2010.
55. R . J. Reynolds. Expo America 1980 collegiate
lifestyle research report highlights. 1980. Bates no.
500686358/6388. Available at: http://legacy.librar-
y.ucsf.edu/tid/unp69d00. Accessed June 1, 2010.
56. Leferman Associates Inc. A qualitative assessment of
participant reactions to Expo 1980-81. March 1981. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 503471613/1654. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zgf95d00. Accessed
April 4, 2010.
57. Expo America Inc. Expo America national tour.
1980. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 506079703/9714.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
raz18c00. Accessed June 28, 2010.
58. Expo America Inc. Final report Camel Lights Expo
America 1980. 1980. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 505776941/
6946. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
hbs05d00. Accessed June 28, 2010.
59. R . J. Reynolds. Less-educated: today’s trend tomor-
row’s market??? 1984. Bates no. 504616783/6808.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qnf65d00.
Accessed July 2, 2010.
60. Simmons Market Research Bureau. A RockBill
magazine readership profile and advertising proposal for
the Salem brand of the R.J. Reynolds Co. May 1983. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 503113267/3282. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ipk68d00. Accessed
February 4, 2010.
61. R . J. Reynolds. New brands research: the younger
adult smokers of the ’80’s. 1983. Bates no. 503004505/
4579. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
ixr68d00. Accessed February 4, 2010.
62. R . J. Reynolds. Project YAX (XG). Storyfinder. 1984.
Bates no. 504653831/3842. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/vtb65d00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
63. R . J. Reynolds. Effective marketing to younger adult
smokers. September 19, 1988. Bates no. 507241690/
1774. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
bin76b00. Accessed March 15, 2010.
64. R . J. Reynolds. Lesser educated smokers. 1989. Bates
no. 507182933/2956. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/gph28c00. Accessed January 12, 2010.
65. R . J. Reynolds. Strategic research report: the 1981
brand family segmentation study. April 14, 1982. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 502035398/5486. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lcj29d00. Accessed
June 23, 2010.
66. Whaley J. Input received in meetings with pro-
motions, marketing and brand research RE: younger

adult smokers. June 26, 1984. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
503497627/7633. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/phd95d00. Accessed April 16, 2010.
67. Promotional Marketing Inc. Camel tie-in promotions.
February 14, 1988. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 506882997/
3000. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
vvd44d00. Accessed September 2, 2009.
68. Long Haymes Carr Lintas Inc. Generation XYZ.
September 26, 1995. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
522694402/4454. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/hak56d00. Accessed March 4, 2010.
69. Golden Door Inc. A look at the smoking culture of
young adult males: presented to Philip Morris - USA.
1999. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2079128804/8883.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lrq91c00.
Accessed April 2, 2010.
70. Golden Door Inc. Philip Morris Incorporated. Marl-
boro young adult male consumer research. April 20,
1999. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2064983915/3922.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ldx94a00.
Accessed May 17, 2010.
71. Golden Door Inc, Philip Morris. April 15, 1999.
Philip Morris. Bates no. 2064983923/3924. Available
at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kdx94a00. Ac-
cessed May 7, 2010.
72. Golden Door Inc, Philip Morris. Marlboro young
adult male consumer research II. July 30, 1999. Philip
Morris. Bates no. 2064983908/3914. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mdx94a00. Accessed
May 17, 2010.
73. Golden Door Inc. Qualitative research proposal for
Philip Morris USA. April 6, 1999. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2072468551/8578. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/lnk27a00. Accessed May 17, 2010.
74. Schumacher W. PMC joint consumer promotions.
April 7, 1987. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2044733910/
3911. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
mxp83e00. Accessed August 8, 2009.
75. Philip Morris. PM corporate leverage: proposal for
research on joint consumer promotions. April 1987.
Bates no. 2044733913/3935. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bfl11b00. Accessed January
4, 2010.
76. Philip Morris. Philip Morris Companies corporate
leverage project: consumer promotion. May 1987. Bates no.
2049020468/0558. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/phj93e00. Accessed September 18, 2009.
77. Philip Morris. Philip Morris Companies corporate
leverage: joint sponsorships and joint promotions. May 5,
1987. Bates no. 2043645360/5412. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gmq81f00. Accessed
August 18, 2009.
78. Snyder SL. Promotion research report: Camel 75th
birthday promotion ideas. August 27, 1987. Research.
Bates no. 509230963---509230976. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vnf76b00. Accessed
January 4, 2010.
79. Dixon D, Dancer Fitzgerald Sample Inc. Summer
volleyball 1976. October 10, 1975. R.J. Reynolds. Bates
no. 500734136/4143. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/oyl69d00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
80. Standen CC. California beach volleyball. October
23, 1975. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 500734135. Avail-
able at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyl69d00.
Accessed June 23, 2010.
1952 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
81. Lewis CE. Tobacco public relations second quarter,
1985. 1985. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 505476804/
6811. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
bas15d00. Accessed March 3, 2010.
82. Fishel DB. Tobacco management report. June 21,
1985. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 505439632/9635.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
qhw15d00. Accessed March 3, 2010.
83. Aprati FP Jr. April 4, 1986. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
505477491. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/hfy77c00. Accessed March 3, 2010.
84. Lewis CE. External affairs plan for 1986 public
relations proposal. July 1985. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
505463822/3829. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/vct15d00. Accessed March 3, 2010.
85. Fishel DB. Weekly report: domestic tobacco. June 6,
1986. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 505485394/5397.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jjr15d00.
Accessed March 3, 2010.
86. Philip Morris. Status report for September - national
accounts. October 1988. Bates no. 2043853631/3658.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cmv03e00.
Accessed June 22, 2010.
87. Leiber CL. Event promotion synergy results. March
11, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048578598/8599.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zvb92e00.
Accessed October 18, 2009.
88. Philip Morris. Corporate synergy issues. May 11,
1988. Bates no. 2048641563/1564. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vxe22d00. Accessed
June 15, 2010.
89. Ewers A, Cohen M. Marlboro Soccer Cup of Los
Angeles - #2. July 28, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2048576974/6981. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/qst75e00. Accessed December 16, 2009.
90. Vera G. Marlboro Soccer Cup/Giant Stadium. May
31, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048641578/1579.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/riy68a00.
Accessed March 4, 2010.
91. Berner V. Recommended events - Marlboro target
marketing. January 31, 1989. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2048670975/0978. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/zzw88a00. Accessed June 22, 2010.
92. Yodice F. Event calendar/corporate synergy. De-
cember 7, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048514483.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fxe22d00.
Accessed June 15, 2010.
93. Championship Auto Racing Teams Inc. 1989 PPG
Indy Car world series schedule. December 1988. Philip
Morris. Bates no. 2048514484. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cip98a00. Accessed June 15,
2010.
94. Philip Morris. Philip Morris U.S.A. trade relations
1990 schedule of events. December 18, 1989. Bates no.
2047926127/6140. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/eys52d00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
95. Philip Morris. Calle Ocho Festival. February 3, 1994.
Bates no. 2040562647/2650. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/plc66e00. Accessed June 22, 2010.
96. Vichich E. Project agreement No. 4. February 13,
1996. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2065160255/0261.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/pmq73c00.
Accessed July 2, 2010.
97. Courtney K. Welcome to the Marlboro Grand Prix of
Miami presented by Toyota. 1996. Philip Morris. Bates
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10
no. 2083793885/3919. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/ypx48c00. Accessed July 1, 2010.
98. Philip Morris. 1996 Marlboro auto racing schedule.
1996. Bates no. 2060287826/7831. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/exf40b00. Accessed
July 1, 2010.
99. Grey Advertising Inc. Brown & Williamson and
Brown-Forman co-marketing ideas. 1997. Brown &
Williamson. Bates no. 210431280/1281. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nsu12d00. Accessed
February 17, 2010.
100. Brown Williamson. Chicago designer fashion
showcase merchandising program. 1978. Bates no.
794003917/3919. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/zvg00c00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
101. Brown & Williamson. Canadian Mist and Viceroy
Rich Lights designer fashion showcase. September 26,
1978. Bates no. 690141075. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vam40f00. Accessed Febru-
ary 19, 2010.
102. Brown & Williamson. Canadian Mist Viceroy Rich
Lights designer fashion show. September 26, 1978. Bates
no. 690141054. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/cam40f00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
103. Brown & Williamson. Canadian Mist Viceroy Rich
Lights designer fashion show. September 26, 1978. Bates
no. 690141055. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/dam40f00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
104. Brown & Williamson. You are cordially invited to
attend the Canadian Mist and Viceroy Rich Lights de-
signer showcase. September 26, 1978. Bates no.
690141084/1085. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/zam40f00. Accessed February 24, 2010.
105. Arnold F. Canadian Mist designer fashion showcase.
October 2, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
690141069. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/pam40f00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
106. Jones D. Canadian Mist designer fashion showcase.
September 1, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
690141079/1080. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/xam40f00. Accessed February 16, 2010.
107. Jones D Canadian Mist & Viceroy Rich Lights.
September 18, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
690141074. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/uam40f00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
108. Jones D. November 14, 1978. Brown & William-
son. Bates no. 690141053. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/bam40f00. Accessed February 19,
2010.
109. Jones D. September 1, 1978. Brown & Williamson.
Bates no. 690141078. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/wam40f00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
110. Jones D. November 14, 1978. Brown & William-
son. Bates no. 794003887/3891. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/awg00c00. Accessed Febru-
ary 19, 2010.
111. Walls VA. September 12, 1978. Brown &
Williamson. Bates no. 690141076/1077. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hzq93f00. Accessed
February 24, 2010.
112. Copello V, Action Marketing Ltd. Kool Jazz Festival
preliminary promotion recommendations. July 25, 1978.
Brown & Williamson. Bates no. 685087457/7526.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ysc91d00.
Accessed March 2, 2010.

113. Leonard E. Consolidated calendar of events 1990.
1990. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048629768/9813.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
jau75e00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
114. Philip Morris. Events 1990 community marketing
programs schedule. January 26, 1990. Bates no.
2041964633/4641. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/gib79a00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
115. Philip Morris. The 1992 Houston international
festival: a salute to the arts of Spain and the new world.
January 22, 1992. Bates no. 2043671514/1524.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mpt48a00.
Accessed September 29, 2009.
116. Philip Morris. CMP: festival sponsorship 1992
contracts/PO’s. 1992. Bates no. 2043678461. Available
at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bxe18a00. Ac-
cessed July 1, 2010.
117. Philip Morris. Contract subject matter cross di-
rectory 1992. 1992. Bates no. 2065029388/9423.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/giv04c00.
Accessed July 1, 2010.
118. Berstling J. May/June report for bar and restaurant
program. June 29, 1993. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2070483091/3095. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/gln97a00. Accessed September 29, 2009.
119. Philip Morris. Corporate affairs 1994 budget pre-
sentation. October 21, 1993. Bates no. 2045521070/
1111. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
gkr81f00. Accessed June 22, 2010.
120. Philip Morris. Black national/local events - exhibits
1989 minority business development schedule. 1989.
Bates no. 2077910507/0515. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyx29a00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
121. Philip Morris. Minority business development
schedule. May 1989. Bates no. 2077910516/0518.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
hlm39a00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
122. Biedermann E. Minority business development
calendar of events. April 11, 1989. Philip Morris. Bates
no. 2046794562/4564. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/xkd45d00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
123. Biedermann EM. Calle Ocho. February 16, 1990.
Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048653882/3884. Available
at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ybd78a00. Ac-
cessed June 23, 2010.
124. Hall Y. African World Festival - proposal. February
7, 1990. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2046794325. Avail-
able at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tgb42d00.
Accessed June 23 2010.
125. Robinson JY. African World Festival - Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. July 11, 1990. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2046794324. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/sgb42d00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
126. Robinson JY. African World Festival Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. July 16, 1990. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2046794299/4300. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/jgb42d00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
127. Font CA. Carnaval Miami. January 24, 1991. Philip
Morris. Bates no. 2065034929/4934. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uxs04c00. Accessed
June 23, 2010.
128. Philip Morris. Community marketing programs
status report. January 1991. Bates no. 2041923231/
3232. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
lff59a00. Accessed September 29, 2009.
October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10 | American Journal of Public Health
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
129. Metacorp Inc. 1984 Marlboro spring resort field
marketing opportunities. 1984. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2044390059/0073. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/ukf66b00. Accessed June 22, 2010.
130. Vera G. Miller brewing/Marlboro synergy. No-
vember 16, 1988. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2048641677. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/wxe22d00. Accessed September 24, 2009.
131. Vera G. Marlboro soccer, ski, menthol and target
markets meeting review. October 19, 1988. Philip
Morris. Bates no. 2048641737/1739. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xxe22d00. Accessed
June 22, 2010.
132. Vera G. 1989 target marketing. October 26, 1988.
Philip Morris. Bates no. 2048641678. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/evl78a00. Accessed
June 22, 2010.
133. Vera G. Status report. October 31, 1988. Philip
Morris. Bates no. 2048641735/1736. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/kqv87a00. Accessed
June 22, 2010.
134. Action Marketing Ltd. Brown & Williamson disco
promotion events preliminary recommendations. Sep-
tember 18, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
680123304/3361. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/ilu08c00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
135. Stowe R. Brown-Foreman opportunities. November
17, 1997. Brown & Williamson. Bates no. 210431706/
1708. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
xpu12d00. Accessed July 1, 2010.
136. Leiber C. Corporate synergy project - event promotion
subcommittee report. November 9, 1987. Philip Morris.
Bates no. 2049004217/4221. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/hze22d00. Accessed August 25, 2009.
137. Philip Morris. Promotion presentation to corporate
planning committee: part of corporate leverage project.
June 10, 1987. Bates no. 2049004258/4269. Available
at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/csu95e00. Ac-
cessed September 20, 2010.
138. R.J. Reynolds. Meeting notes. April 16, 1980. Bates
no. 500088502/8510. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/kdz89d00. Accessed February 16, 2010.
139. R.J. Reynolds. Position paper: Winston special event
tie-ins. November 25, 1975. Bates no. 500208607/
8609. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
fbm89d00. Accessed September 24, 2009.
140. Williams CA. Tie-in opportunities. April 27, 1988.
R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 506759341/9343. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jee28c00. Accessed
September 30, 2009.
141. McCafferty BL. Rich Lights disco program. January
12, 1979. Brown & Williamson. Bates no. 680116770/
6773. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
onz11c00. Accessed January 4, 2010.
142. Troupe JM. 1982 Marlboro spring/summer resort
program. October 13, 1982. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2043793593/3596. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/lws03e00. Accessed September 14, 2009.
143. Hribar JR. 1990 creative marketing ideas. February
10, 1989. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 507203478/3483.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hgm54d00.
Accessed February 2, 2010.
144. Brown & Williamson. August 1978. Bates no.
689012717/2794. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/uhc91d00. Accessed October 18, 2009.
Jiang and Ling | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 1953
145. Philip Morris. Philip Morris, Inc. January, 1974. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 501116463/6482. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/olc59d00. Accessed
November 12, 2009.
146. Roper RP Jr.. Marlboro resort/promotional events.
November 16, 1981. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2045226450/
6451. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
srr92e00. Accessed November 12, 2009.
147. Ambrosino F. Marlboro resort program. December
11, 1981. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2045385670/5671.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/syp65e00.
Accessed December 16, 2009.
148. Ambrosino F. Special summer programs - recom-
mendations. June 17, 1982. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2049005153/5155. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/bve01b00. Accessed December 16, 2009.
149. R.J. Reynolds. Camel bar program Richmond
market visit. November 9, 1999. Bates no. 527814771.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
epd08c00. Accessed February 2, 2010.
150. Multi-Marketing Inc. M-2 program development
action plan. December 30, 1980. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
502043922/3948. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/xti29d00. Accessed December 17, 2009.
151. R.J. Reynolds. Camel Expo America spring break
program description. February 25, 1982. Bates no.
505771430/1464. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/uus05d00. Accessed November 22, 2009.
152. Bowling JS. Field trip report - Salem spirit winter
resort program - Snowshoe, WV. December 27, 1982.
R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 507577944/7945. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xok24d00. Accessed
December 16, 2009.
153. Outlaw PK. October 11, 1978. Brown & Williamson.
Bates no. 680080613. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/jsy14f00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
154. McCafferty BL. Update on Rich Lights’ pilot disco
effort. October 18, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
680116800/6801. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/tjz11c00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
155. McCafferty BL. Rich Lights/Peter O’s disco pro-
motion. December 6, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates
no. 680116794/6796. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/nkv04f00. Accessed March 2, 2010.
156. R.J. Reynolds. Salem spirit field marketing promo-
tional activities. April 8, 1982. Bates no. 503028639/
8642. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
leq68d00. Accessed January 20, 2010.
157. Multi-Marketing Inc. Salem spirit field marketing
program promotions. 1982. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
505718475/8478. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/ybv18c00. Accessed January 20, 2010.
158. R.J. Reynolds. Salem spirit ski scene tactical plan
exhibit I: Salem winter resort market schedule. October
13, 1982. Bates no. 500862281/2290. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fkx51c00. Accessed
February 26, 2010.
159. R.J. Reynolds. Salem spirit ski scene ‘84. 1984.
Bates no. 502191064/1090. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/jqv19d00. Accessed February 13,
2010.
160. Mills RA. January 11, 1979. Brown & Williamson.
Bates no. 660069510/9511. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cin89e00. Accessed June 23,
2010.

161. Copello V. Viceroy Rich Lights drink promotion.
January 29, 1979. Brown & Williamson. Bates no.
660069509. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.
edu/tid/ttl14f00. Accessed June 23, 2010.
162. Copello V. Contact report 1/25/79 meeting with
the Bartending School of Mixology, Inc. February 5,
1979. Brown & Williamson. Bates no. 660069508.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/stl14f00.
Accessed June 23, 2010.
163. Mundy P. Rich Lights drink promotions. December
4, 1978. Brown & Williamson. Bates no. 680116768/
6769. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
pnz11c00. Accessed December 16, 2009.
164. Philip Morris. May 1989. Bates no. 2048646272/
6286. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
wtz26c00. Accessed February 15, 2010.
165. Love JL. Marlboro resort program - 1982. June 23,
1982. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2045385415/5417.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/mld87a00.
Accessed December 16, 2009.
166. R.J. Reynolds. Salem field marketing activities
associated with high country. 1981. Bates no.
505777188/7189. Available at: http://legacy.librar-
y.ucsf.edu/tid/dcs05d00. Accessed March 3, 2010.
167. Multi-Marketing Inc. 1981 Salem high country field
marketing rollout executional plan. August 11, 1981. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 505777213/7228. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fcs05d00. Accessed
March 31, 2010.
168. Multi-Marketing Inc. 1981 Camel Lights military
programs summary report. December 22, 1981. R.J.
Reynolds. Bates no. 505776993/7002. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lbs05d00. Accessed
March 1, 2010.
169. R.J. Reynolds. Camel field marketing promotions.
1981. Bates no. 505718470/8472. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/acv18c00. Accessed March 1,
2010.
170. Philip Morris. November 16, 1982. Bates no.
2045385850/5854. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/str92e00. Accessed October 28, 2009.
171. Philip Morris. Marlboro resort program. December
1982. Bates no. 2045385810/5842. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/cib88a00. Accessed
December 16, 2009.
172. R.J. Reynolds. Objectives of Camel field marketing
promotions. November 29, 1984. Bates no. 502175832/
5836. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
jqw19d00. Accessed March 1, 2010.
173. Gilleland JT. Camel field marketing. January 18,
1985. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 503709047/9052.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
aul85d00. Accessed February 1, 2010.
174. Advanced Promotional Concepts Inc. RJR master
paperwork/program guidelines. 1989. R.J. Reynolds.
Bates no. 507357779/7835. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/lob34d00. Accessed February 3,
2010.
175. Malcolm CB. Trip report: Camel high impact club
program. February 23, 1982. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
505771560/1561. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/ejs05d00. Accessed March 1, 2010.
176. Marketing Outreach Inc. Camel filter hardpack field
marketing program Los Angeles, San Diego, Denver.
December 21, 1982. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no. 505771422/
1954 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Jiang and Ling
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
1428. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/ 193. Ling PM, Neilands TB, Glantz SA. Young adult
tid/tus05d00. Accessed February 26, 2010. smoking behavior: a national survey. Am J Prev Med.
177. Lorillard Tobacco Company. Newport 1983 mili- 2009;36(5):389---394.e2.
tary program. May 13, 1983. Bates no. 85280405/ 194. Assunta M, Chapman S. ‘‘The world’s most hostile
0410. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ environment’’: how the tobacco industry circumvented
zxx88c00. Accessed February 26, 2010. Singapore’s advertising ban. Tob Control. 2004;13(suppl 2):
178. Lindsley VD. Newport’s Fort Bragg military pro- ii51---ii57.
motion. April 25, 1983. Lorillard. Bates no. 85280416/ 195. Assunta M, Chapman S. The tobacco industry’s
0420. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ accounts of refining indirect tobacco advertising in
byx88c00. Accessed February 26, 2010. Malaysia. Tob Control. 2004;13(suppl 2):ii63---ii70.
179. R.J. Reynolds. 1983 Camel field marketing pro-
motions for nightclubs, pool decks, and beaches. 1983.
Bates no. 504061737/1738. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqf75d00. Accessed February 26,
2010.
180. R.J. Reynolds. Camel ski adventure. December 17,
1982. Bates no. 503913118/3137. Available at: http://
legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/tqs75d00. Accessed Febru-
ary 26, 2010.
181. R.J. Reynolds. 1985 summer resort development
plan. 1985. Bates no. 505767179/7180. Available at:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/wys05d00. Accessed
March 31, 2010.
182. Blair WA. High impact Camel club program.
November 25, 1981. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
505771562/1567. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/fjs05d00. Accessed January 25, 2010.
183. R.J. Reynolds. Salem spirit ski scene ‘83 presenta-
tion. September 10, 1982. Bates no. 503828147/8174.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsz75d00.
Accessed February 26, 2010.
184. R.J. Reynolds. Program overview. 1994. Bates no.
509371924/1927. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/ytn73d00. Accessed May 10, 2010.
185. Miranda M. October 6, 1983. Philip Morris. Bates
no. 2044390322/0323. Available at: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/zkb70b00. Accessed February 19,
2010.
186. Scully JA. Spring resort - Ft. Lauderdale. September
29, 1982. Philip Morris. Bates no. 2044390319/0320.
Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/flb60b00.
Accessed February 19, 2010.
187. Scully J. November 3, 1982. Philip Morris. Bates no.
2045226464/6465. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/pud11b00. Accessed February 19, 2010.
188. Church CK. Salem full flavor promotion test.
December 21, 1978. R.J. Reynolds. Bates no.
500853866/3867. Available at: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/mbd69d00. Accessed March 31, 2010.
189. Belstock SA, Connolly GN, Carpenter CM, Tucker L.
Using alcohol to sell cigarettes to young adults: a content
analysis of cigarette advertisements. J Am Coll Health.
2008;56(4):383---389.
190. Ling PM, Glantz SA. Why and how the tobacco
industry sells cigarettes to young adults: evidence from
industry documents. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(6):
908---916.
191. US Food and Drug Administration. Frequently
asked questions: protecting kids from tobacco. Available
at: http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Protecting
KidsfromTobacco/RegsRestrictingSale/ucm204589.
htm. Updated June 10, 2010. Accessed June 29, 2010.
192. Breslau N, Peterson E, Schultz L, Andreski P,
Chilcoat H. Are smokers with alcohol disorders less likely
to quit? Am J Public Health. 1996;86(7):985---990.
American Journal of Public Health | October 2011, Vol 101, No. 10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.