Show-Me a Brighter Future

Campaign Evaluation
July 24, 2013

Contact Person:
Sarah Shelton
George Warren Brown School of Social Work
Washington University in St. Louis
700 Rosedale Avenue, CB 1009
St. Louis, MO 63112
sshelton@brownschool.wustl.edu
314.935.3723

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Table of Contents
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Campaign Development and Structure ........................................................................................................ 7
Resources .................................................................................................................................................. 7
Ballot Development and Certification .................................................................................................... 10
Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Campaign Network ................................................................................................................................. 12
Campaign Messages and Reach .................................................................................................................. 13
Message Development ........................................................................................................................... 13
Message Distribution .............................................................................................................................. 14
Message Awareness & Effectiveness ...................................................................................................... 17
Environment ............................................................................................................................................... 20
Opposition............................................................................................................................................... 20
Campaign Response to the Opposition .................................................................................................. 22
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 24
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
Evaluation Methods ................................................................................................................................ 25
Data Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 26
References .............................................................................................................................................. 27

Page | 2

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Executive Summary
Show-Me a Brighter Future was a coalition of Missouri organizations and individuals led by the American
Cancer Society, the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City and other educational and health
organizations. They developed and supported Proposition B to increase the tobacco tax in Missouri. The
initiative faced many challenges and was rejected by a small margin when 50.8% of voters in Missouri
voted against the tobacco tax increase.
Although the effort to raise the tobacco tax in Missouri was unsuccessful this past election cycle, ShowMe a Brighter Future came closer to passing a tobacco tax increase than the previous two campaigns,
which shows that there is hope, and voters are coming to terms with the need to increase the tobacco
tax. However, voters still need convincing.
The Center for Public Health Systems Science (CPHSS) conducted a retrospective evaluation of the ShowMe a Brighter Future campaign. CPHSS used a mixed method approach, and the evaluation findings are
based on the following data sources:
Global Prairie media tracking
Qualitative interviewing of campaign members with social network analysis
Polling records
Financing records
Public Opinion Strategies post-election survey
A more detailed list of data sources can be found in the appendix.
This report presents key findings from each of the following campaign areas: 1) campaign development
and structure, 2) partnerships, 3) campaign messages and reach, and 4) environmental influences.
Quotes used throughout the report were chosen to provide additional detail. At the end of the report,
the conclusion and recommendations provide suggestions for strengthening future efforts.
Campaign Development and Structure
Show-Me a Brighter Future developed their campaign structure methodically and thoughtfully. The
campaign was strategically designed to have a small core group of stakeholders to avoid conflicts. The
strength of this decision was that the core group remained cohesive throughout the campaign. The
decision of including the Missouri School Boards Association as a key stakeholder was based on polling
results that showed the most popular allocation of the tax revenue to be education. The core leaders
felt that they had reached out to involve education-based grassroots, but never received the support
that they were hoping for. Unfortunately, faith-based grassroots and other tobacco control groups
outside the core campaign felt underutilized due to insufficient communication and coordination with
people outside the core group.
Ballot Language Development and Certification
The law firm in charge of the ballot language did a great job transitioning leadership and developing the
ballot language so that it disengaged potential opponents, such as Big Tobacco and right-to-life groups.
A critical decision to hire a signature gathering company was made early on, which paid off because the

Page | 3

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

opposition was very aggressive during the signature gathering phase, and several other measures did
not make it on the ballot in November 2012.
Message Development and Dissemination
Campaign messages were developed based on polling data and focus groups. In addition, the campaign
field tested their messages against accurately predicted opposition messaging. Several campaign
messages were implemented, which led to a lack of consensus among interviewees regarding the main
campaign message. This was also a source of confusion for voters because it was not clear that the
measure was a tobacco tax, and people were easily convinced by the opposition that the money would
not be spent as intended. In addition, there was poor mobilization and little financial investment in
grassroots efforts, which resulted in weakened dissemination of the campaign messages. This
insufficient grassroots mobilization has been a theme across failed tobacco tax initiatives in Missouri.
Financial Resources
Show-Me a Brighter Future accrued a budget of about $5 million. The campaign had ample financial
resources compared to the opposition.
Environmental Influences
The main opponents of the initiative were the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store
Association and the non-participating tobacco manufacturers. The pro-life groups were also against the
tobacco tax, but they were not as active as in prior campaigns. Several environmental factors influenced
the campaign, including: the presidential election, with President Obama not campaigning heavily in
Missouri, which lead to little get out the vote effort and the campaign had not planned to invest in this;
Senator McCaskill ran a different campaign than anticipated because of the failing Akin campaign; and
several Missouri legislators and the Governor opposed any tax increase. In addition, there is a strong
anti-tax sentiment and distrust of politicians in Missouri that the campaign was unable to overcome.
Conclusion
Despite methodical selection of the core campaign group, strategic ballot language, a large TV media
campaign, and more funds than the opposition with big tobacco sitting out, Show-Me a Brighter Future
failed to pass a tobacco tax increase. There were several environmental challenges that were
unexpectedly detrimental to the campaign as well as a lack of planning and coordination with grassroots
organizations. Based on the key findings, the following recommendations were identified.
Recommendations
Pay attention to the political climate (e.g., early support from potential voters, support from
politicians in the state) when planning strategies for a campaign.
Ensure buy-in early on from major stakeholders and their coalitions that stand to benefit from the
tobacco tax increase.
Include grassroots organizations and utilize their networks to educate voters and disseminate their
message to both rural and urban voters.
Create clear and concise messages that indicate the campaign is a tobacco tax and not a general tax
increase.

Page | 4

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Keep the number of messages to a minimum and consider utilizing the youth health message, which
resonated most with voters.
Campaign early and budget voter outreach so that there are enough resources to mount a
concerted response to the opposition in order to limit voter confusion and the effectiveness of
misinformation closer to the election.
Stress the health messaging around tobacco tax, specifically the impact on teens.

Page | 5

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Introduction
In spring of 2010, after Missouri became the state with the lowest tobacco tax in the country, the
tobacco control community met to discuss whether or not to attempt another campaign to increase
Missouris tobacco tax. At this meeting, it was decided to pursue the tobacco tax increase and that
American Cancer Society (ACS) would take the lead on the campaign, with financial and staff support
from the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City (HCF). After this meeting, ACS, HCF, and key
stakeholders formed a core group which utilized polling data and focus groups to develop the Show-Me
a Brighter Future campaign. The group developed and supported Proposition B, a state-wide ballot
measure that called for a $.73 tax increase per pack of cigarettes and an increased tax on other tobacco
products.
Overseen by ACS and HCF, the
campaign had a fluid and flat structure.
Figure 1: Voting outcome by county
The campaign was divided into several
sectors, which included fundraising,
grassroots, and advocacy. Throughout
the campaign, Show-Me a Brighter
Future encountered challenges such as
the anti-tax environment in Missouri, a
decreased budget due to fundraising
shortfalls, and legal issues with the
ballot measure that were taken to the
Missouri Supreme Court. Despite having
a larger budget than the opposition and
Big Tobacco sitting on the sidelines,
voters narrowly rejected the ballot
measure on November 6, 2012; 50.8% voted against the tax and 49.2% supported the tax, with
significant losses in rural Missouri (see Figure 1). Figure 2 below presents a timeline of the campaign.
Figure 2: Timeline of Show-Me a Brighter Future campaign

Page | 6

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

The Center for Public Health Systems Science (CPHSS) conducted a retrospective evaluation of the ShowMe a Brighter Future campaign. CPHSS used a mixed method approach, and the evaluation findings are
based on the following data sources:
Global Prairie media tracking
Qualitative interviewing of campaign members with social network analysis
Polling records
Financing records
Public Opinion Strategies post-election survey
A more detailed list of data sources can be found in Appendix A.
This report presents key findings from each of the following campaign areas: 1) campaign development
and structure, 2) partnerships, 3) campaign messages and reach, and 4) environmental influences.
Quotes used throughout the report were chosen to provide additional detail. At the end of the report,
the conclusion and recommendations provide suggestions for strengthening future efforts.

Campaign Development and Structure

In April 2010, Missouris tobacco tax of $.17 per pack of cigarettes became the lowest in the nation
when South Carolina passed a $.50 tax increase, raising the states cigarette tax to $.57 per pack. This
brought Missouri tobacco control advocates together to discuss whether a clean air initiative or an
increased tobacco tax should be pursued. After reviewing polling data that favored a tobacco tax
increase, the American Cancer Society (ACS) took the lead in moving forward with the campaign and the
Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City (HCF) served as the lead funder.
The key stakeholders were representatives from ACS and HCF, the major funders of the campaign. Also
included were representatives of K-12 and higher education. The structure of the campaign was
described as being flat and consensus based, and the leadership remained consistent throughout the
campaign.
I would say the different groups that came together in the campaign was a positive. I don't think
there was a lot of infighting or extraordinary disagreement about the course of the campaign.
And so I thought there was a wide range of stakeholders that worked collaboratively well
together.
The core leaders of the campaign felt that they reached out to education-based grassroots, but never
received the support that they were hoping for. Unfortunately, faith-based grassroots and other tobacco
control groups outside the core campaign felt underutilized due to insufficient communication and
coordination with people outside the core group.

Resources
Significant financial resources were used to implement the Show-Me a Brighter Future campaign. The
prior 2006 campaign was able to raise $6.9 million, and this figure informed budgeting for the 2012
campaign.

Page | 7

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

The campaign was able to raise approximately $5 million of the $6.5 million target (see Figure 3). Key
stakeholders had mixed opinions about the budget shortfall and the use of resources. Many
interviewees reported that they thought the budget and finances were adequate for the campaign
despite not being able to raise enough funds to meet budget targets. Some interviewees thought that
the way the campaign deployed their capital, not the total amount of finances, was a more important
reason for the failure of the campaign. Others thought the money was used efficiently and that if more
funds were raised, the campaign would have been successful.
The largest contributors to the campaign were foundations and charitable organizations, which donated
almost $3.5 million. A majority of these funds were from three organizations, American Cancer Society,
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, and The Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas
City. Other gifts and in-kind contributions added $800,000 to the budget.
Corporations and individuals contributed
$870,000. The budget target for
individual and corporate contributions
was 2.3 million dollars.
One challenge for Proposition B was a
lack of leadership and financial support
from the St. Louis area. Kansas City took
the lead in the campaign and even
though the measure saw support from
St. Louis on Election Day, there were far
fewer fundraising dollars from the St.
Louis area than in previous campaigns.

Figure 3: Funds raised for Show-Me a Brighter Future

Corporate
Contributions
$733,450

Foundations
and
Charitable
Organizations
$3,463,031

Gifts, In Kind Goods &

Services
$803,457
Individ,
Business
Contributions
$137,800

Unfortunately, because the

medical/hospital sector did not stand to
benefit financially from the proposition,
they were mostly absent during the
campaign, only contributing a fraction of what they had given to past attempts at a tobacco tax increase.
In addition, the main beneficiaries of the proposition were unable to bring the expected level of support.
The campaign partnered with the Missouri School Boards Association; however, it was not able to
motivate groups such as teachers unions, parent-teacher organizations, and school administrators in
creating support for ballot issues across the state.
And our hope was that the K to 12 folks would be very powerful allies in this endeavor. And while
we knew obviously we were going to lose in rural Missouri, we thought we could keep the
numbers down because our school, and potentially our hospital population, in rural
communities, would help us. AndI didn't see that happen.

Page | 8

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Another group whose involvement was lacking from the campaign was the community grassroots effort.
The coordination and involvement of grassroots organizations was one area that some people viewed as
a challenge. Those outside of the core group did not feel like they were utilized to their full potential and
some believed that focusing on promotional media and paid canvassers kept the campaign from being
able to make use of community stakeholders. One of the campaign managers explained that there just
werent enough resources to spend the money to organize and manage the grassroots efforts. This
insufficient grassroots mobilization has been a theme across failed tobacco tax initiatives in Missouri.
I think for the urban community there was no execution of volunteers on the ground.
I think it underused volunteers by not allowing a clear message of when they were going to be
needed. I think if you're going to use volunteers you can't say, well, we need you tomorrow.
You've got to get people to tell them one week in advance or two weeks in advance, and then
people on this issue are passionate and they'll block a half of a day or whatever to go do it, but
they can't block a half a day the next day. So that was some of the stumbling challenges.
Early on in campaign development, ACS and HCF used evaluations from past tobacco tax efforts as a
resource. Although they reviewed the evaluations in an attempt to learn from previous successes and
challenges, some of the lessons learned from those evaluations also apply to the 2012 campaign.
Specifically, Show-Me a Brighter Future did not engage the faith community, and grassroots
organizations were not utilized to their full potential.

Page | 9

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Ballot Development and Certification
The core constituencies of Show-Me a Brighter Future worked with a law firm to draft the ballot
language for Proposition B. The language was based on the 2006 tobacco tax campaign and modified
based on what polls reported would create a successful ballot measure. When developing the language,
there was an effort made to neutralize some opposition and to be cognizant of the lessons learned from
the 2002 and 2006 campaigns. Figure 4 below shows the support for an increase in Missouris tobacco
tax over time by political party of respondents, as well as all voters regardless of political party.
Figure 4: Support for an increased tobacco tax leading up to the election

Leading up to the election, support from Republican and Independent voters decreased, whereas
support from Democratic voters remained well above 50%. When looking at all voters in Figure 4,
support for the tobacco tax decreased in the months leading up to the election. According to an analysis
of tobacco tax campaigns conducted between 1988 and 2007, voter support for tobacco tax increase
ballot initiatives typically decreases over the course of a campaign (Lum et. al., 2009).
Overall, the campaign made good use of research and data to guide the ballot development. After
multiple polls and focus groups, the language was adjusted to create a measure that seemed likely to be
supported by voters.
And so we made our determination of how to distribute the funds, not based on who gotthe
most money, but what our polling said would enable us to have a successful ballot.

Page | 10

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Decisions had to be made about:

The exact amount of the tax

The American Cancer Society wanted a significant tax increase in order to have a public health
benefit. Many different amounts were tested to try to find a number that voters would support.
Based on data and internal negotiations with key stakeholders, it was decided to increase the
tax by $.73/pack.
The primary beneficiaries of the tax revenue
Based on focus group research and polling, the campaign decided that 50% of the revenue
would go to elementary and secondary education, 30% to higher education, and 20% to
tobacco control. Dedicating the tax revenue primarily to education was a significant shift from
2006, when the revenue was dedicated to healthcare. The campaign made a strategic decision
to not focus on health in order to prevent the Show-Me a Brighter Future from being associated
with Obamacare.
Whether the tax should be a constitutional amendment or a statutory initiative
The campaign chose a statutory ballot initiative because multiple polls showed that there would
not be enough support for a change to the Missouri constitution.
Pursuing a tobacco tax in a presidential election year
The decision to go forward during a presidential election year was based on the assumption
that there would be more of a turnout by voters overall, and particularly Democrats.
Unfortunately, Obama did not run an extensive campaign in Missouri. Additionally, McCaskill
ran her campaign differently than expected, due to controversial comments from Todd Akin
that afforded her a great advantage.

Utilizing lessons learned from the 2006 campaign, an attempt was made to neutralize the opposition by
adding specific language stating that the money would not be used to support abortions or stem cell
research. The pro-life groups were not satisfied, but were not as active as in prior campaigns. With help
from attorneys at Husch Blackwell, the ballot was worded to minimize legal challenges.
I would say that the development of the ballot language was about as sophisticated and
successful as it could have been.
To assure that the measure would be certified, Show-Me a Brighter Future hired Fieldworks, a reliable
firm, to gather signatures. Even though this was more expensive than utilizing volunteers, this turned
out to be an improvement from previous tax increase attempts and a strength of the campaign. The
opposition used some scare tactics and intimidation to try to keep Show-Me a Brighter Future from
collecting enough valid signatures. There were two other measures that relied mostly on volunteer
efforts for signature gathering, and they were unable to get certified.
Another bright spot in the certification process was the law firm hired by the campaign. Although there
was a change in representation, all of the legal issues were attended to, and the transition was
seamless. The attorneys at Husch Blackwell were praised for their legal maneuvering. Lawsuits brought

Page | 11

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

by the opposition were taken all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court before Proposition B was finally
certified by the Secretary of State.
I would say that the development of the ballot language was as perfect as human beings are
capable of producing. I would say the final phase, the campaign, the home stretch was like all
campaigns...some good things and some things that we didn't get done.

Partnerships
Campaign Network
In order to understand the structure of Show-Me a Brighter Future, we conducted a network analysis
with campaign staff and key stakeholders that were involved with tobacco control in Missouri and
contributed to our key informant interviews. As a part of the key informant interviews, we asked each
participant to name the five people they collaborated with most for the Show-Me a Brighter Future
campaign. Fourteen people participated, which resulted in a network of 29 people (see Figure 5). In the
network graphic on the next page, individuals with the most connections are placed toward the center
of the diagram while those with fewer connections are on the periphery. The size of the circle is
determined by the number of connections. The most connections that any one person had was twelve.
The groups with the most connections were ACS, campaign staff, and HCF. The yellow rings indicate
people who were considered to be
Figure 5: Show-Me a Brighter Future partnership network
part of the Show-Me a Brighter
Future leadership team. The network
can be interpreted in several
different ways. One interesting
finding is that there is a relative lack
of education stakeholders in the
campaign, considering that the
primary messages of the campaign
were related to funding for
education. Our key informant
interviews included a representative
from higher education and one from
primary school education; there are
many more representatives from
organizations related to health, such
as ACS and HCF.
This lack of educational representation may have prevented the generation of support from key
constituent groups in education, such as school administrators, teachers and parents. The campaign
partnered with the Missouri School Boards Association; however, school boards represent only a small
part of the education landscape. While school boards are critical for local policy, they have not been
agents of change in the past to turn out voter support in state elections.

Page | 12

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Campaign Messages and Reach

Message Development
Show-Me a Brighter Future developed campaign messages based on focus groups and polling data.
According to these sources, the following messages resonated well with voters:

Additional funds for education

Prevent youth from smoking
Encourage people to quit smoking
Smoking leads to increased healthcare costs

According to Public Opinion Strategies, who implemented the polls, the campaign needed to develop a
message that focused on the benefits of the increase, rather than comparing Missouri to the rest of the
country.
The campaign chose to focus on funding for elementary and secondary education because polling data
showed that voters who supported a tobacco tax increase also backed funding for education. However,
preventing Missouri teenagers from smoking was the message that resonated most with voters,
according to polls. From previous tobacco tax increase campaigns and the polling data, Show-Me a
Brighter Future knew that the issue of safeguards to ensure the money would be spent as intended
needed to be addressed in the campaign messages.
So the poll that we did I think reinforced the direction that they headed around making sure that
the schools were the safest play, keeping it from being, for lack of a better way of describing it,
lining the pockets of the rich.
The polling and the ad testing told us that as soon as you say funding for schools, people's
immediate next question is like, how can you guarantee that it'll get there?

Focus groups, polls, and message testing guided the development of the following campaign messages:
1. Proposition B will dedicate $223 million in new revenue to Missouri public schools.
2. Proposition B includes safeguards to ensure that revenue is spent as voters intend.
3. Missouri taxpayers are subsidizing the costs of tobacco use in Missouri. Medicaid costs
associated with tobacco use cost $532 million each year.
4. 8,600 Missouri kids become daily smokers each year. Are you ready to vote yes on Proposition B
to create a brighter future for Missouri kids by raising our lowest in the nation tobacco tax?
5. Proposition B will save lives.
According to the post-election survey voters, thought message number 4 to be the most accurate
campaign message.

Page | 13

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Message Distribution
Dissemination of the messages is a major effort of any campaign. Accordingly, Show-Me a Brighter
Future used the majority of its financial resources on voter contact.
The Show-Me a Brighter Future campaign attempted to utilize multiple media sources (TV, newspapers,
social media, and grassroots). Most of the message communication was disseminated via television
commercials and a newspaper media push.
According to the post-election survey, 41% of the people polled saw information on television asking
them to vote Yes on Proposition B (see Table 1). Of all people polled, the television and internet were
preferred news sources (see Table 2). Below, each media source used to disseminate the messages is
described in detail.
Table 1: Source of pro Proposition B
message (from Post-Election Survey)
Source
Television
Newspapers
Radio
Yard Signs
Mail to your home
Internet Sources
Billboards
Gas Stations
School Bus Tour

% respondents
41%
11%
9%
9%
7%
6%
6%
2%
1%

Television- Television reached the most people,

according to the post-election survey conducted by
Public Opinion Strategies. Show-Me a Brighter
Future did not focus their television campaign in
rural Missouri, which is demonstrated by a lack of
purchased television time in the Joplin and St.
Joseph media markets and a large amount of
television purchases in the St. Louis, Kansas City,
and Springfield markets (see Figure 7). In the last
three weeks of the election, Show-Me a Brighter
Future spent $100,000 a day on TV. Over the course
of the campaign, Show-Me a Brighter Future did
not change their TV ads. They were designed to be
pre-butted for the opposition message.

Table 2: Preferred media source for

news (from Post-Election Survey)
Source
Television
Internet
Radio
Newspaper
Friends/Family

% respondents
42%
30%
11%
9%
6%

Figure 7: Television budget spent by media market

Note: Show-Me a Brighter Future spent no money on

television ads in the St. Joseph and Joplin markets.

Page | 14

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Newspapers- Overall, the campaign was successful at obtaining endorsements from newspapers to
support the campaign, with editorial endorsements from several newspapers, including: Springfield
News Leader, KC Star, St. Louis Post Dispatch, St. Joe News Press, Kirksville, Chillicothe, St. Louis
American, and others.
Figure 8: Newspaper article publication by week

Between July 2012 and November 6, 2012, 36.4% of newspaper

items analyzed were pro-tobacco tax (see Table 3). Figure 8
shows that 84% of newspaper items reviewed were published in
October 2012. This is the timeframe that the School Bus Tour
occurred as well as the increase in opposition. The larger
increase in articles occurred in the last three weeks of the
election, when the opposition was making a big push.
I think the traditional media, we had almost every
newspaper op-ed editorial board, any print media, we
had them all in our favor. So I think that was really solid.
Internet and Social Media- Global Prairie Social Media
Dashboards indicate that coverage began to increase after the
Missouri Supreme Court approved the ballot measure. Most
spikes in Facebook and Twitter social media activity were driven
by traditional news outlets posting links to news articles in their
social media feeds. The campaign placed paid Facebook ads in
October promoting the School Bus Tour, which corresponded
with a spike in Facebook activity. Figure 10 shows that Twitter,
Facebook, and news story activity significantly increased as the
bus tour began.

Table 3: Newspaper article characteristics

Article type
Editorial
Op-ed
Letter to the editor
News story
Position
Pro-tobacco tax
Anti- tobacco tax
Neutral
Mixed
Dominant frame
Political
Education
No clear frame
Economic
Health
Arguments
At least 1 pro-tax argument
At least 1 anti-tax argument

%
7.2
28.7
20
44.1
%
36.4
22.6
21.5
19.5
%
31.8
29.2
20
10.8
8.2
%
59.5
51.3

Page | 15

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Example Show-Me a Brighter Future Tweets:

Did you know that Prop B will

dedicate $223 million in new
revenue to Missouri public schools?

8,600 Missouri kids become daily

smokers each year. Are you ready to vote
#YesonPropB in November to create a
brighter future for Missouri kids by raising
our lowestinthenation tobacco tax.

EVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT in Missouri will

benefit from new revenue with the
passage of Prop B. Find out how voting
#YesonPropB will help your Missouri
school district.

Tobacco use costs each Missouri

household $565 annually in
expenditures.

Prop B includes SAFEGUARDS to ensure

that revenue is spent as voters intend,
including regular public audits and ballot
language that ensures this money will
ADD to existing funding.

Grassroots- The grassroots effort consisted of over 300 presentations statewide, letters to the editor,
and action alert emails. Phone-banking grassroots efforts consisted of ACS staff making 5,000 reminder
calls to vote, and the grassroots door-to-door campaign covered 14,000 doors in one week. One major
sector of the grassroots effort included the School Bus Tour.
We had the bus tour, which was a school bus tour [that visited] 24 cities across the state, and
in each of those cities we had school leaders and volunteers and community folks join us, and we
would have press events and talk about the benefits of Proposition B and asked people to
support it. In every one of those markets we got incredible media coverage and those areas
that we stopped in we saw a bump in support from previous campaigns.

Figure 9: School Bus Tour stops

Page | 16

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

The campaign implemented a two week School Bus Tour between October 1st and October 15th and
visited 24 cities throughout Missouri to promote the local school benefits of Proposition B (see Figure 9).
According to the interviewees and the social media dashboard, there was an increase in support and an
increase in social media coverage on Facebook and Twitter in places where the School Bus Tour visited.
Figure 10 shows the earned media generated by the School Bus Tour.
Figure 10: School Bus Tour amount of earned media by media type

Mail- Mail was thought to be an effective supplement to other media sources and was focused in rural
areas where television messaging was not predominant. Only 7% of people surveyed in the post-election
survey reported seeing the campaign messages in the mail.
Radio- The campaigns use of radio was limited. According to the School Bus Tour report completed by
Global Prairie, the tour earned three radio reports in rural Missouri.

Message Awareness & Effectiveness

Overall, the education message was not well received by Missouri voters. While the polls revealed that
funding education was something Missourians were concerned about, the campaign was unable to
overcome the anti-tax sentiment and skepticism among voters regarding appropriate allocation of the
funds. In addition, according to Public Opinion Strategies post-election survey of 600 people, when
voters were asked whether or not they felt a message was accurate, the youth smoking rate message
was thought to be slightly more accurate than the money for schools message (see Table 4). Some
interviewees thought that Proposition B should have been promoted as a tobacco tax, instead of just
saying it raised money for education. Although the post-election survey showed that the campaign
messages were heard by voters, the opposition was able to capitalize on voter skepticism and fear
related to taxes, since neither campaign said it was a tobacco tax.

Page | 17

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Table 4: Proposition B message awareness and accuracy (from Post-Election Survey)
Campaign Message

Heard
Message

Felt Message
was Accurate

$223 Million in new revenue to schools

Safeguards

67%
47%

53%
48%

Prop B will save lives

8,600 kids become daily smokers each year
Medicaid costs associated with tobacco use cost $532
million each year

31%
28%

48%
58%

23%

55%

*see page 13 for complete messages

I still think the opposition was somewhat successful in confusing people and making it seem like
everybody would pay higher taxes related to this and not just smokers, not just having it be a user
fee, so to speak.
If anything, I probably in retrospect would have spent more of our messaging time and resources
focusing on the health side because the education side was something that was new and something
we were kind of banking on to gain some additional votes.
I think it was a real challenge because we had a situation where we were leading on a particular
issue around raising the tobacco tax but with a very different message [about education]. And
so...yeah, I think that the efficacy of how that was advanced through the macro level made sense. It
just wasn't on the ground.
According to the post-election
Table 5: Inclusion of campaign messages in newspaper articles
survey, television was the dominant
*
Campaign Message
Verbatim Paraphrased
source of campaign messages for both
Safeguards
21.5%
1%
the pro-tax and anti-tax campaigns. In
8,600 kids become daily smokers each
20.5%
5.1%
year
a separate question, participants were
$223 Million in new revenue to schools
14.9%
41%
asked about their primary news
Medicaid costs associated with tobacco
11.3%
7.2%
sources. The Internet played a large
use cost $532 million each year
role as a preferred news source second Prop B will save lives
3.1%
6.2%
*see page 13 for complete messages
only to television (see Table 2). While
people do not always identify newspapers as their source of news, newspapers feed news to the
Internet, which is a predominant source of news. According to the post-election survey, television was
the main source where people heard the campaign messages; however, the actual advertisements were
not compelling. It is important to note that, television messaging may have been drowned out by all of
the other campaign and election messaging already on television. Several interviewees felt the
newspaper media push was successful, but they were unsure how effective newspaper endorsements
were, given the reduction in print media. All five messages appeared in the newspaper articles at
varying frequency and accuracy (see Table 5). In addition, many of the articles were pro-tobacco tax, but
the sample of articles reviewed was limited.

Page | 18

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

We got 90 percent of newspaper endorsements, and that didn't prove to be very helpful. I'm not
sure newspaper endorsements matter too much on a statewide race.
The utility of the School Bus Tour should be considered in the light of the different media that it
generated, not as a source by itself. While only 1% of people identified the School Bus Tour as a source
of information (see Table 1 on page 15), the tour generated earned media activity that added to the
overall impact of the bus tour. Without the School Bus Tour, there may have been a lower percentage of
pro-tax messages in the newspaper, internet, and television media (see Figures 10 & 11).
Interviewees mentioned the social
Figure 11: Facebook reach throughout the campaign
media strategy was well executed.
Throughout the campaign there
was a steady increase in media
coverage with a notable increase
in Facebook activity during the
School Bus Tour, the paid
Facebook Ad, and as the election
drew closer. According to the
Missourians for Health and
Education post-election analysis,
Twitter constituted the top social
media coverage source during the
final two weeks of the election,
driving 47% of the social media coverage, followed by Facebook with 25%. These spikes in social media
activity were driven by increased news coverage from newspapers and traditional media sources. It is
unclear whether this increase represents supportive or oppositional social media activity.
There was a limited amount of billboards, radio, and grassroots organizing, which inhibited effective
message distribution in rural areas. In addition, there was no television coverage in the St. Joseph and
Joplin media markets. These areas were supplemented with mail. Overall, the grassroots efforts had a
lower turnout than was expected by the campaign. Both formal grassroots organizations and the
education sector grassroots groups were poorly mobilized. Several interviewees indicated that
education did not pull their weight in mobilizing their grassroots such as engaging parent-teacher
associations, teachers unions, and administrators. One person indicated that superintendents were
engaged too late in the game.
The campaign stood to benefit from implementing more health messages and focusing on the youth
smoking rate, as early polls and the post-election survey showed this message to resonate with voters,
and this was the more believable message. In addition, there was not enough education of the public
about the actual proposition: that it was a tobacco tax, how it would benefit the health of Missouri, and
that there were safeguards in place to ensure the money was spent as intended. The campaign felt they
anticipated the opposition strategy well with pre-butted television advertisements and therefore there
was not as much of a need for a response to the opposition or communication change. However, due to

Page | 19

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

unclear messaging surrounding what type of tax Proposition B was and why it was important, the
opposition was able to confuse voters.

Environment
Based on the polling data collected early in the campaign, it appeared that Missouri would be in support
of a tobacco tax increase by an approximate 8% margin (Figure 4, Page 10). Since it was a presidential
election year and the ballot language was worded such that big tobacco was unmotivated to strongly
oppose the initiative, it was assumed that the 8% margin, rather than the traditional 10%, was a high
enough starting point to win the election. However, there were several unforeseen environmental
changes; for example, President Obama did not heavily campaign in Missouri and Senator McCaskill did
not have to extensively campaign due to Akins presumed failed campaign. Furthermore, the campaign
did not anticipate Governor Nixon coming out against any tax increase, thereby disowning the tobacco
tax increase campaign by its association with a tax. Similarly, most Missouri legislators were not in
support of the tobacco tax. There was also a lack of support in fundraising and grassroots leadership
from the education fields, which stood to benefit the most from the tax passing. In addition, the St.
Louis area and the medical and health fields were less supportive than anticipated.
I think that the local school districts who would have been the primary beneficiaries of Prop B
were not successful in organizing at all. And as a result we had hoped and intended to get very
substantial grassroots support from local school districts through their boards and local school
boosters and that just did not materialize at all.
I think we were hopeful that hospitals and affiliated health groups, drug companies, insurance
companies, et cetera, et cetera, would be helpful
According to interviewees, there was little support from Missouri voters for the oppositions cause;
Missourians do not support tobacco companies. However, there was strong anti-tax sentiment and
skepticism about where the revenue would go, causing voters to side with the opposition. Early polls by
Public Opinion Strategies indicated that leading up to the election, Show-Me a Brighter Future was
aware of the skepticism and anti-tax sentiment in Missouri. It was easier to mount a no campaign given
the anti-tax climate in Missouri and the lack of support from legislators in the state.
People kind of understood this at a very gut level. Tobacco tax is low. What's the money going
to go to? Oh, it's going to go to schools. Well I wonder if it will really go there.

Opposition
The main opponents to the tobacco tax increase were the
Table 6: Funding spent by opposition
Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store
Major Donors
Association (MPCA) as well as the non-participating
Cheyenne International
$968,742
manufacturers. The pro-life groups were also against the
X Caliber International
$748,000
U-Gas
$326,000
tobacco tax, but they were not as active as in prior campaigns,
LPC Inc
$100,000
due to the ballot language excluding funding of stem cell
research. In addition, the MPCA was a strong opponent in the media.

Page | 20

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

According to Missouri Ethics Commission reports, the opposition spent approximately $2.4 million
during this election cycle. The primary funders of the election were two non-participating
manufacturers, Cheyenne International and X Caliber International. Cheyenne contributed almost
$970,000 and X Caliber gave almost $750,000, for a total of $1.7 million. More than $400,000 was also
contributed by gas station and convenience store chains, U-Gas, and LPC Inc (see Table 6).
I would say that they ended up fundraising more than we expected them to. I think that they
probably were doing ongoing polling and once they saw that they were in striking distance were
able to pull out a lot more fundraising stops than we expected them to.
They [the opposition] weren't going to outspend us, but they were going to spend just enough.
And then you've got to tip your hat, they effectively used their limited resources. I think their kind
of guerilla-war campaign in rural Missouri was effective. Their billboards in rural Missouri, their
gas station signage, their robo-calls and mailings in conservative rural Missouri, I think they were
effective. Those are low-cost ways to gin up suspicion by naturally suspicious voters. And they
didn't have too much money, but they had just enough.
The opposition proved to be more effective than expected. They were able to garner resources and
make a strong finish in the last few weeks of the campaign. Their message was simple, yet powerful. The
opposition communicated their messages via television
Table 7: Source of anti Proposition B
advertisements, robo-calls to voter homes, billboards, gas
message (from Post-Election Survey)
station pumps, flyers, newspapers, radio and other media. In
% respondents
Source
the last three weeks of the election, the opposition spent
Television
35%
$40,000 to $60,000 a day on TV ads. When asked where
Yard Signs
12%
survey participants saw the opposition message, television
Billboards
12%
Gas Stations
12%
was the top response, followed by yard signs, billboards, and
Newspapers
9%
gas stations (see Table 7). The oppositions main approach
Radio
7%
was to instill doubt in voters that the tax dollars would not be
Mail to your home
5%
spent as promised and to confuse voters by advertising
Internet Sources
3%
Proposition B as a tax increase and not only a tobacco tax.
they had a very effective TV spot thatwas simpleit was easy to understandit created a lot
of doubt about the diversion of funds, and they never deviated from their message. They ran it,
and that's the only commercial they ever had, and it was effective, and people believed it.
Through following a simple messaging strategy, the opposition was able to leverage the skepticism and
anti-tax sentiment of Missourians and prevent the tobacco tax from succeeding.
Opposition Messages:
760% Tax Increase! Enough is enough.
Prop B will Fund Obamacare.
Education money from Proposition B will be diverted. Remember the broken funding
promises that came with the lottery and casinos.

Page | 21

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Campaign Response to the Opposition
When developing their messaging strategy, Show-Me a Brighter Future accurately anticipated and
tested the opposition messages. Based on the message testing, the campaign pre-butted the television
advertisements, which reiterated the safeguards in place to ensure the tax dollars were spent as voters
intended. However, the campaign was unable to adequately counter the opposition in the end due to
campaign funding shortfalls and internal difficulties with quickly disseminating the messages. One
interviewee mentioned that the campaign designed a television response ad, but was unable to fund
significant dissemination of the message.
The best strategy was that the ballot language was crafted strategically and put the tax money into a
trust fund for education. However, several interviewees agreed the opposition messages were very
strong and effective, and well placed on billboards and gas stations. Most people interviewed said that
the campaign did a good job responding to the opposition, but some thought that there was not
adequate engagement of educators and school resources. Others thought that the campaign could have
better used the health messages and the strength of American Cancer Societys name instead of ShowMe a Brighter Future to get the message out. For example, the early polling data showed that
Missourians trusted the ACS brand the most, with 59% of respondents indicating they trust the brand.
Whereas, in the post election survey, when asked how trustworthy did you find the source asking you to
pass or vote yes on Prop B, only 42% of respondents indicated the brand was trustworthy. Although the
campaign tried to counter the opposition via newspapers and social media as Election Day approached,
there was poor response to the political climate change and the oppositions anti-tax messages.
We pre-butted that argument [that the revenue generated will not be spent as intended] and we
designed the ads to anticipate that that was coming and to try and reassure people
preemptively.
One, if you're able to play to that voter fear, if it is something they already think to be true, the
opposition can win. So I don't feel like we did an adequate job, honestly, in responding to the
opposition. I think we tried, but I don't think it was strong enough.
the campaign just stuck with the same message and kind of added a tag line saying, this
external board had been set up to do X, Y and Z, and to make sure that it's going to be used, and
there was specific language. I think that that was the most important message because that's
what voters needed to hear, but I don't think that it was communicated as effectively, and I think
that continually showing commercials of kids in schools raising their hands, was just too soft of
an approach.

Conclusions
Retrospectively evaluating a campaign exposes several problems that are difficult to solve in the
bounded rationality of a fast paced campaign. Although the effort to raise the tobacco tax in Missouri
was unsuccessful this past election cycle, Show-Me a Brighter Future came closer to passing the tobacco
tax than the previous two campaigns, losing by only 20,000 votes.

Page | 22

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

It was really, really close and really narrow. And I think we ran a pretty solid campaign. And
I'm sure there [are] places we could've done better, but on the whole I'm really proud of the
work we did.
Although Missourians have an anti-tax sentiment, there is hope that the voters are coming to terms with
the need to increase the tobacco tax. However, voters still need convincing. Based on the analysis of the
campaign, the Center for Public Health Systems Science derived the following conclusions and
recommendations for future efforts to increase the tobacco tax.
Good Strategic Planning
The campaign was successful at strategically developing the ballot language to neutralize some
opposition from the start of the campaign. The attorneys at Husch Blackwell who developed the ballot
language were very effective at designing the ballot language to minimize litigation. In addition, the
strategic decision to hire Fieldworks for signature gathering was a strength of the campaign and
minimized the effect of the opposition scare tactics during the ballot certification process.
Poor Coordination
Overall there was a lack of coordination with core grassroots groups and the K-12 coalitions.
Additionally, there was delayed and insufficient engagement and buy-in from K-12 coalitions to rally
support for a ballot measure to fund education. Grassroots organizations are well suited to provide
education to voters, which is incredibly important in an issue campaign where the opposition is using
misinformation and scare tactics to cast doubt for voters (Lum et. al., 2009 & Ponier, 2003). Missouri
could benefit from a statewide education campaign about the negative effects of smoking on Missouris
health and economics leading into and during the next campaign to increase Missouris tobacco tax.
Weak Messaging
The campaign did not produce a penetrating and resonating campaign message that voters bought into.
There were too many messages that made it unclear that this was a ballot initiative to increase the
tobacco tax for education funding, and the opposition was able to capitalize on this ambiguity. Voters
were easily misled by the opposition that the tobacco tax was an overall tax increase, due to the mixed
messages from Show-Me a Brighter Future.
Uneven Allocation of Funds
Not enough funds or efforts were distributed to a wide variety of media engagement. The majority of
the campaign money was allocated to TV, but the campaign was not able to adequately respond to the
opposition via TV due to the pre-spent dollars on the already rolled out ads. In addition, the ads did not
make it clear this was a tobacco tax, which incited suspicion among voters.
Small Core Group
While the small core group successfully prevented the internal conflicts that permeated previous
campaigns, it failed to engage and poorly coordinated with organizations outside the core group that
were willing to contribute to the campaign effort.

Page | 23

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Recommendations

Pay attention to the political climate (e.g., early support from potential voters, support from
politicians in the state) when planning strategies for a campaign.
Ensure buy-in early on from major stakeholders and their coalitions that stand to benefit from the
tobacco tax increase.
Include grassroots organizations and utilize their networks to educate voters and disseminate their
message to both rural and urban voters.
Create clear and concise messages that indicate the campaign is a tobacco tax and not a general tax
increase.
Keep the number of messages to a minimum, and consider utilizing the youth health message,
which resonated most with voters.
Campaign early and budget voter outreach so there are enough resources to mount a concerted
response to the opposition in order to limit voter confusion and the effectiveness of misinformation
closer to the election.
Stress the health messaging around tobacco tax, specifically the impact on teens.

Page | 24

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Appendix
Evaluation Methods
The Center for Public Health Systems Science (CPHSS) conducted a retrospective evaluation of the ShowMe a Brighter Future campaign. In collaboration with the Health Care Foundation of Greater Kansas City,
we identified key evaluation questions and corresponding data sources to help answer these questions.
The table below displays the evaluation questions and data sources. Following the table is a description
of each data source. Some data were collected by CPHSS, however we relied heavily on currently
existing data provided by HCF and the campaigns marketing firm, Global Prairie.
Campaign Topic
Evaluation Questions
Data Sources
Development and
Structure

Partnerships

Ballot Development
and Certification

Messaging and
Reach

Environment

1. What was the process for the development of the campaign

plan and how did it evolve over time?
2. What resources (i.e., financial, informational, human) were
utilized to implement the tax initiative campaign?
a. Financial
b. Information/Data
c. Human/Social
3. How were the grassroots/volunteers involved in the
campaign?
4. Who were the major stakeholders and leaders of the
campaign? Who were most involved/useful/effective?
a. Collaboration how integrated?
b. Communication effectiveness of communication?
5. How did the campaign membership evolve over the course
of the campaign?
6. What agencies or individuals were missing from the
leadership of the campaign?
7. What was the process for ballot development and
certification?
8. What was the level of support for the tax initiative?

9. What were the primary messages of the campaign and

which resonated most or least?
10. How effective was communication and dissemination of the
messages to the public?
11. What communication strategies were most effective (web,
social networking, TV, Print, radio, etc.)
12. Who were the primary organizations/individuals opposing
the tax increase?
13. What was the level of support for the opposition by the
media and the public?
14. How did the campaign respond to the environmental
influences?

Qualitative
Interviews
Financing
Records
Focus Groups
Polling Records
Qualitative
Interviews
Network Analysis
School Bus Tour

Qualitative
Interviews
Polling Records
Focus Groups
Post-Election
Survey Data
Media Tracking
Focus Groups
School Bus Tour
Post-Election
Survey Data
Polling Records
Media Tracking
Polling Records
Post-Election
Survey Data

Page | 25

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

Data Sources

Global Prairie media tracking

The following data were collected by the Show-Me a Brighter Future public relations company,
Global Prairie. These data were utilized in the analysis of the campaign messaging methods and
reach.
o Social Media Dashboard Presentations
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Traditional Media
o School Bus Tour Presentation
Earned media per stop
Key informant interviews with social network analysis
CPHSS staff conducted 15 key informant interviews from February 2013 to March 2013 with
campaign stakeholders involved at various levels in the campaign. The topics covered included:
the campaign development and structure, partnerships, ballot development and certification,
messaging and reach, as well as the campaign environment. These interviewees were recorded,
transcribed, coded, and analyzed for primary themes and social network analysis.
Polling data presentations from Public Opinion Strategies
Polling data were collected and reported by a polling vendor hired by Show-Me a Brighter
Future. Public Opinion Strategies conducted polls to determine what type of voter would
support a tax on tobacco in Missouri, what language for the initiative would be the strongest,
and what effect the political climate would have. These data were provided to CPHSS and used
to analyze the ballot and message development as well as the campaign environment. Polls
were conducted at the following time points:
o May 2010
o March 2011
o August 2011
o September 2011
o August 2012
o October 2012
Post-election survey data presentation from Public Opinion Strategies
The Post-Election survey gave details about the key findings from a statewide survey of 600
Missouri voters on November 14, 2012.
Missourians for Health and Education post-election analysis
This was a post-election post-mortem analysis of the campaign, which was presented in a
PowerPoint. It summarizes the endorsing organizations, various media, field campaign aspects,
campaign fundraising, and the voting outcomes.
Newspaper content analysis

Page | 26

Show-Me a Brighter Future Evaluation

CPHSS assessed a limited number of newspaper articles about Proposition B from across
Missouri. The sample consisted of 196 articles supplied by Global Prairie published between July
11, 2012 and November 26, 2012.
Financing records
The campaign budget for Proposition B was analyzed along with the money spent by both ShowMe a Brighter Future and the opposition.

References
Lum KL, Barnes RL, Glantz SA. Enacting tobacco taxes by direct popular vote in the United States: lessons
from 20 years of experience. Tobacco Control. 2009;18:37786.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19556615
Poniers,A. Strategic Thinking on State Tobacco Tax Increases. 2003 American Medical Association.
PD09:03-044:3M:3/03 All rights reserved. http://www.rwjf.org/content/dam/webassets/2003/01/strategic-thinking-on-state-tobacco-tax-increases

Page | 27