News | More Resources | Home | Conferences

Annotations of documents gleaned from the British American Tobacco Company (BATCO) and BAT Industries documents at the Minnesota Tobacco Industry Document Depository. There are twenty-six boxes, (18 from BATCO, and 8 from BAT Industries (mainly financial statements, which should be of interest to those tracking industry structure). The material in Minnesota represent about ten percent of a larger cache in Guildford, England, also now open to the public. The box numbers here refer only to this Minnesota Select Set but the Bates numbers should be equivalent.

1. 6 February 1986, memo, hand-written, from Colin Greig (BAT R&D) to R.E. Thornton (BAT Director of R&D) with copy to Alan Heard (R&D and BAT Southampton), "Intelligence - or what do we know about ‘them’?" BAT (file no. J2223) 100509036 - 037.

   A proposal, it seems, to spy on ATP, the Texas tobacco company that was producing the prototype artificial cigarette FAVOR, as a possible source of anti-tobacco sentiment.

   Notable quote: "A topic of increasing concern to business organisations is the question of competitor intelligence. Although the more common view is that this is exercised mainly for marketing purposes there is nevertheless a spectrum of knowledge to be gained from a variety of sources, the extreme of these being a ‘spy in the other camp.’ BAT Co takes care to ensure that communications involving trade secrets, such as recipes, are protected by code names, but gnerally adopts an ethical stance in that it collects, in a variety of ways, only those pieces of information that are generally available. The purpose of this note is to suggest that BAT Co should become more active in intelligence gathering in another area of competition, namely that between the company (and the industry) and its critics. The basis for this is what seems to me to be a possible tie-up in San Antonio, Texas. This would not perhaps have come to light if we had not recently been interested in San Antonio as the home of ATP and FAVOR. There is a research institute (the Southwest Research Institute) in San Antonio whose staff publish papers with a distinct anti-smoking stance. The local hospitals seem to have more than a normal share of medics interested in smoking. A local medic was the first (to my knowledge) to publish on ‘vaping’ which may be associated with ATP. All these may be coincidence or the result of an over interpretation by me. What I would like to address is whether we have a way of finding out whether this is the case, and if so, how I would go about it."

2. Circa 1980s, strategic essay by C.C. Greig, "Structured creativity group...marketing scenario,"

   BAT (J83) 100515899 - 910.

   "Blue sky" vision of the future for the industry. He ultimately argues for a return to the cigarette of old, a high tar/high taste cigarette, using the concept of "elasticity" whereby the smoker can easily draw to a high value, the Barclay being a prototype. [Kamel Red is a higher tar brand by RJR, with World War I scenario advertising.]

   Notable quotes: "A cigarette as a ‘drug’ administration system for public use has very very significant advantages: i) Speed Within 10 seconds of starting to smoke, nicotine is available in the brain.... Other ‘drugs’ such as marijuana, amphetamines, and alcohol are slower and may be mood dependent. ii) Low dosage The delivery of nicotine from the puff of a UK middle tar (US full flavour) is about 0.1mg or 100ug of the active agent.... [Compared to alcohol, aspirin] nicotine is about the lowest dose ‘common’ drug available. Cost The unit cost of a 10 minute ‘high’ from tobacco is , in UK terms, about 6 pence.... This sum is about 40 seconds pre tax earnings at the UK average wage or about 1 minute after tax! The Future? Thus we have an emerging picture of a fast, highly pharmacologically effective and cheap ‘drug’, tobacco.... However, it has drawbacks. The major one is that it has a ‘health shadow’ over it which is not easy to dispel. Secondly, it is a messy habit, polluting the non-smokers breathable atmosphere, and leaving ash and debris, not to mention smells, around for hours or days. Thirdly, carelessly used, it sets fire to things." "It is a moot point whether actual deliveries to humans have ever really dropped across the vast majority of the smoking population.... [T]he immediate conclusion is that puff volumes have risen as inexorably as machine deliveries have declined.... Many people will tell you authoritatively that, on a sound statistical analysis of well designed experiments, low tar smokers do not compensate. Rubbish.... People will want the ‘highest’ delivery for a unit price...it is more liable to be a ‘medium’ delivery compensatable product."

3. 13 January 1970, memo from D.J. Wood (Research and Development Establishment) to R. Ferris, "Consumer reaction in the U.K. to recued tar and nicotine," BAT (File no. K1311) 109062215-216.

   Notes that smokers do not appear to compensate for lower tar, but do for lower nicotine. This was written in 1970! A hand-written note to Ferris says, "retain or destroy."

4. Circa early 1980s, research review by R.P. Ferris, "Assessment of the ‘nuisance’ aspects of smoking," BAT (File no. K749) 109453431 - 443.

   Considerable research going into the sidestream smoke, to reduce its visibility, odor and irritating ingredients, to make the cigarette and the smoker less socially a pariah. It would also help the so-called "dissonant" smokers who feel guilty about smoking.