Page 113 of 182
218
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
-Firstly, its ability to create awareness for the company and its product.
Secondly, its ability to enhance the image of the product, and ----finally, its merit as a link with a prestigious event.
Sponsorship, as stressed by Mr. WHITEHEAD, is a form of advertising which enables them to introduce glamour and excitement.
In addition, the executive of Nanyang Brothers Tobacco Company, Mr. Lam Sai-leung, also publicly stated in Hong Kong Standard on Tuesday, 23 August 1988 that they were launching a relatively new brand into the market at that time and their association with soccer has helped sales. They were promoting the cigarette brand, 'Winner', and the First Division League is named after it.
Perhaps the most damning of all came from the then General Manager of British American Tobacco, Gordon WATSON, as reported in the South China Morning Post of 18 November 1984. Commenting on the sponsorship of the JPS motor racing team in the Macau Grand Prix, he said, of sponsorship: (John Player's Special)
'We're not handing our money for nothing. We have gone into this very thoroughly and the entire JPS publicity is built around motor racing, seen as a fast, exciting, trendy sport for the young, and if you like, the young at heart.' 'That's who we're aiming for in the local market and early indications are that we're on target.'
From these public statements from the tobacco industry, we are certain that sponsorship is a form of advertising.
4. URBAN COUNCIL POLICY
The Urban Council has a long history of deep involvement with public health and hygiene. Whatever Councillors may feel personally about smoking, indeed, whether they themselves smoke or not, in view of the harmful effect of smoking on health, our Council surely has a public duty not to associate itself with tobacco sponsorship.
According to the Council guidelines 1986, the Council will continue 'to accept tobacco sponsorship from companies whose commodities may include but are not exclusively tobacco-related items and where "tobacco" related words or brand names are not used in the consequential advertising produced.'
However, these guidelines were established in 1986 which was before the phased ban of TV cigarette advertising in 1987. Because of the increasing restriction of TV tobacco advertising, cigarette companies may use this loophole of the 1986 guidelines to promote their products.
5. THE LEGAL LOOPHOLE
World experience is becoming a reality in Hong Kong. For example, companies may be using a well-established company name to become a cigarette brand
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
Page 113 of 182
219
and then use the company name to advertise or sponsor an event. This is actually promotion of the company name associated cigarettes. Examples of such company names associated cigarettes can be found even at this stage, such as Cartier, Yves Saint Laurent, Dunhill and Phillip Morris 100 and many more to come.
After 1990, all TV tobacco sponsorship and advertising will be banned and tobacco companies will be using our Council's loophole to promote cigarettes sale. It is therefore important for the Council to review the 1986 guidelines at this stage.
The reason for tobacco sponsorship is to associate their product with the prestigious image of the Council. I certainly do not think that the Council wishes to be used by tobacco firms to link its name together with a hazardous product that causes 3,000 deaths yearly in Hong Kong.
6. MISLEADING THE PUBLIC
In addition, accepting sponsorship from companies that market tobacco products may be viewed by the public as the Council being more interested in money than in promoting public health and hygiene. This view can be deduced by the recent claim from the Executive Director from the Tobacco Institute
that:
'Your Council's recent decision to continue with sponsorship of arts and cultural events by the tobacco industry is a step forward in the right direction and endorsed by the public...'
This statement indicates that the Council has been successful in soliciting and misleading the tobacco industry into belief of support for its promotional activities, and the next logical step will be that the public will also be misled.
7. SHOULD WE WAIT?
One final point that I would like to make is that several Councillors are under the impression that government will legislate shortly on tobacco sponsorship, and there is less urgent need for the Council to take a stand now. The legislative recommendations that have been forwarded to government are yet to be debated by the District Boards and it is expected that it will be some time before full implementation of all the proposals. Thus, the Council need not and should not delay on this matter.
In addition, with the independent status of the Council, it is more appropriate that the Council makes its own decision. Knowing full well that the central government is firmly committed to the anti-smoking stand, and that the Council's move will not be in contradiction to the government's policy, it is not advisable for our Council to wait for the central government to issue a directive. We should act on our own initiative.
Page 113 of 182