The prevalence of brand switching among adult smokers in the USA, 2006–2011: findings from the ITC US surveys

Abstract

Background Recent studies have suggested that about 1 in 5 smokers report switching brands per year. However, these studies only report switching between brands. The current study estimated the rates of switching both within and between brand families and examining factors associated with brand and brand style switching. Methods Data for this analysis are from the International Tobacco Control 2006–2011 US adult smoker cohort survey waves 5–8 (N=3248). A switch between brands was defined as reporting two different cigarette brand names for two successive waves, while switching within brand was defined as reporting the same brand name, but a different brand style. Repeated measures regression was used to determine factors associated with both switch types. Results A total of 1,475 participants reported at least two successive waves of data with complete information on brand name and style. Overall switching increased from 44.9% in 2007–8 to 58.4% in 2010–11. Switching between brand names increased from 16% to 29%, while switches within the same brand name to a different style ranged from 29% to 33%. Between-brand switching was associated with younger age, lower income, non-White racial group, and use of a discount brand, whereas, within-brand switching was associated with younger age and the use of a premium brand cigarette. Conclusions Nearly half of smokers in the US switched their cigarette brand or brand style within a year. Switching between brands may be more price-motivated, while switching within brands may be motivated by price and other brand characteristics such as product length.

US Smokers’ Beliefs, Experiences and Perceptions of Different Cigarette Variants Before and After the FSPTCA Ban on Misleading Descriptors Such as “Light,” “Mild,” or “Low”

“…The reported usual sub-brand style smoked was categorized as "full flavor/regular," "light," or "ultralight" based on how the sub-brand style was labeled prior to the descriptor ban or on its current color coding, with those that could not be classified because of insufficient information coded as "other." Strength coding was based on Cornelius et al 31 and guided by our US investigators. For those without a usual brand and variant, last purchase brand and variant was used.…”

Price-Minimizing Behaviors in a Cohort of Smokers before and after a Cigarette Tax Increase

“…Although higher prices motivate some to quit, it is common for other smokers to find ways to reduce their cost of smoking and thus minimize the effect of a cigarette price increase [ 5 ]. There is an established body of literature that has detailed the price-minimizing behaviors of smokers including buying cheaper brands [ 3 , 6 , 7 ], buying cigarettes from low-tax or untaxed sources [ 7 , 8 ], using loose tobacco to roll their own cigarettes [ 7 , 9 , 10 ], using coupons and other discounts [ 4 , 11 ], buying different quantities to save money [ 5 , 7 , 10 , 12 ], and finding less expensive places to buy cigarettes [ 3 , 12 ]. A much smaller body of literature explores reducing the number of cigarettes smoked to save money [ 4 , 9 ].…”

“…The influence of taxes on price-minimizing behaviors is largely based on cross-sectional population-based survey data [ 4 , 7 , 13 ]. Other types of studies such as longitudinal cohort studies have been limited to exploring the incidence of specific price-minimizing behaviors such as discount cigarette use [ 14 ] and brand switching [ 11 ], as well as the impact of price-minimizing behavior on subsequent smoking behavior [ 10 ]. Despite a call for qualitative exploration of price-minimizing behavior [ 6 ], the authors are aware of only one such study, which focuses on low-income smokers’ experiences of financial deprivation and smoking [ 9 ].…”

Is Every Smoker Interested in Price Promotions? An Evaluation of Price-Related Discounts by Cigarette Brands

“…Third, NATS questions assessed the most recent cigarette brand purchase and thus may not necessarily reflect smokers overall purchasing behaviors, who may switch between generic and premium brands depending on the discounts offered by manufactures. 13,20 Since smokers’ self-reported use of price-related discounts in the 2009–2010 NATS reflects only direct-to-consumer discounts from the industry, the discount measure in the analysis does not include tobacco industry’s promotional allowances directly paid to cigarette retailers or wholesalers. Finally, the NATS is a cross-sectional survey; therefore, causal or temporal relationships cannot be established.…”

“…11–13 As a result, a large proportion of US adult smokers (18%–49%) today have used multipack discounts, rebates, and coupons during purchases to reduce the costs of cigarettes, whereas another increasing fraction of US adult smokers (10%–34%) have used generic cigarette brands. 7,12–20 The use of these strategies may mitigate the public health impacts of raising unit price of cigarettes, as studies have shown that smokers who used these pricing strategies are less likely to make quit attempts and to succeed in quitting in the future. 7,21,22 …”