Beyond light and mild: cigarette brand descriptors and perceptions of risk in the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey

Abstract

Aims To examine perceptions of risk related to type of cigarette brand. Design and Setting Cross-sectional findings from Wave 5 of the ITC Four Country Survey, conducted with nationally representative samples of smokers in 2006. Participants 8,243 current and former adult (≥ 18 years) smokers from Canada (n=2,022), US (n=2,034), UK (n=2,019), and Australia (n=2,168). Measurements Outcomes included beliefs about the relative risks of cigarettes, including perceptions of “own” brand. Correlates included socio-demographic, smoking-related covariates and brand characteristics. Findings One-fifth of smokers incorrectly believed that “some cigarette brands could be less harmful” than others. False beliefs were higher in both the US and UK compared to Canada and Australia. Smokers of “light/mild”, “slim”, and, 100mm/120mm cigarettes were more likely to believe that some cigarettes could be less harmful (OR=1.29, 95%CI=1.12-1.48) and that their own brand might be a little less harmful (OR=2.61, 95%CI=2.01-3.41). Smokers of “gold”, “silver”, “blue”, “purple” brands were more likely to believe their “own brand might be a little less harmful” compared to smokers of “red” or “black” brands (OR=12.48, 95%CI=1.45-107.31). Conclusions Despite current prohibitions on the words “light” and “mild”, smokers in Western countries continue to falsely believe that some cigarette brands may be less harmful than others. These beliefs are associated with descriptive words and elements of package design that have yet to be prohibited, including the names of colours and long, slim cigarettes.

Relationship of Cigarette-Related Perceptions to Cigarette Design Features: Findings From the 2009 ITC U.S. Survey

“…Although some might consider these findings moot in light of the fact that light and mild descriptors have now been banned in the United States, the experience in countries that banned these misleading descriptors earlier is that beliefs about "lighter"/"smoother" cigarettes being less harmful persist. First, the banned terms have been replaced by other terms (e.g., smooth; fine) or by color coding (gold, blue, and silver) that are evidently also able to produce or reinforce the beliefs of some smokers that their usual brands are less harmful (Bansal-Travers, O'Connor, Fix, & Cummings, 2011;Hammond, Doxey, Daniel, & Bansal-Travers, 2011;Mutti et al, 2011). It is likely that where a set of descriptive terms has long been established, and along with them sensory and cognitive expectancies about the products (O'Connor et al, 2007), the simple removal of particular terms will be insufficient to alter consumer perceptions, especially since the design features themselves are correlated with the original label remain in effect.…”

“…Longitudinal evidence shows that the removal of these misleading terms in other markets has not had a sustained impact on smokers' beliefs, with many smokers Advance Access publication August 13, 2013 nicotine & tobacco research, Volume 15, number 11 (november 2013) 1943-1947 continuing to believe that "lighter" cigarettes are less harmful (Borland et al, 2008;Yong et al, 2011). This is likely to be because manufacturers simply replaced the banned terms with new ones (e.g., smooth, fine), as well as using pack colors, to suggest "lightness"/"smoothness" (Bansal-Travers, Hammond, Smith, & Cummings, 2011;King & Borland, 2005;Mutti et al, 2011). However, consumer perceptions depend not only on descriptors and pack colors but also on how the product is engineered to impact on sensory responses to the smoke (Rees et al, 2009).…”

Slim cigarette smoking prevalence among Canadian youth smokers: Implications for federal standardized packaging legislation

“…4 Despite dramatic declines in smoking among Canadian youth, 11% of those aged [15][16][17][18][19] in Canada are current smokers. 5 Adolescence is a critical time for smoking initiation, and therefore policy interventions targeting and protecting youth are a crucial element of tobacco control efforts.…”

“…16 Borland and Savvas 17 found that cigarette rod design features have measurable effects on participant perceptions of product attractiveness, quality, and taste. Slim cigarettes are perceived to be less harmful than regular cigarettes by youth and women, 18 and are more likely to be described by consumers as mild or low-tar relative to regular cigarettes.…”

“…18 These misconceptions are worrying, given that slim cigarettes are at least as harmful as regular cigarettes. 15,21 Slim cigarettes are specifically promoted to females and youth 18,22 using themes and imagery from historic advertisements, 18,23 which associate slim cigarette smoking with body weight maintenance. 20,12 Evidence from tobacco industry documents suggests that pack structure is used to attract young consumers.…”