Theme
What Do Cigarette Pack Colors Communicate to Smokers in the U.S.?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.019Get rights and content

Background

New legislation in the U.S. prohibits tobacco companies from labeling cigarette packs with terms such as light, mild, or low after June 2010. However, experience from countries that have removed these descriptors suggests that different terms, colors, or numbers communicating the same messages may replace them.

Purpose

The main purpose of this study was to examine how cigarette pack colors are perceived by smokers to correspond to different descriptive terms.

Methods

Newspaper advertisements and CraigsList.org postings directed interested current smokers to a survey website. Eligible participants were shown an array of six cigarette packages (altered to remove all descriptive terms) and asked to link package images with their corresponding descriptive terms. Participants were then asked to identify which pack in the array they would choose if they were concerned with health, tar, nicotine, image, and taste.

Results

A total of 193 participants completed the survey from February to March 2008 (data were analyzed from May 2008 through November 2010). Participants were more accurate in matching descriptors to pack images for Marlboro brand cigarettes than for unfamiliar Peter Jackson brand (sold in Australia). Smokers overwhelmingly chose the “whitest” pack if they were concerned about health, tar, and nicotine.

Conclusions

Smokers in the U.S. associate brand descriptors with colors. Further, white packaging appears to most influence perceptions of safety. Removal of descriptor terms but not the associated colors will be insufficient in eliminating misperceptions about the risks from smoking communicated to smokers through packaging.

Introduction

Product packaging is an important tool for producers to communicate with consumers.1 Tobacco manufacturers have effectively used cigarette pack design, colors, and descriptive terms to communicate the impression of lower tar or milder smoke while preserving taste “satisfaction.”2, 3, 4, 5 Smokers' beliefs about a given product are likely to be shaped in part by the descriptors, colors, and images portrayed on the pack and in related marketing materials. The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (Article 11) calls for a ban on misleading descriptors in an effort to address consumer misperceptions about tobacco products.6 New regulations contained in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (FSPTCA) prohibit tobacco companies from labeling cigarette packs with terms such as light, mild, or low after June 2010.7 However, experience from countries that have removed these descriptors suggests that cigarette marketers circumvent the intended goal of the regulation by using different terms, colors, or numbers to communicate the same messages.8, 9 Recent research has shown that consumers in the United Kingdom and Canada, which have removed “light” and “mild” descriptors, perceive cigarettes in packs with lighter colors as less harmful and easier to quit compared to cigarettes in packs with darker colors.10, 11

The main purpose of the present study was to examine how different pack colors are perceived by U.S. smokers to correspond to different descriptors. Participants were shown a series of packs for a brand with which they are familiar as being heavily marketed and sold in the U.S. (Marlboro, Philip Morris USA) as well as a brand with which they are unfamiliar (Peter Jackson, Philip Morris International), sold in Australia. The purpose of selecting the unfamiliar Peter Jackson brand was twofold: first, participants were not expected to know, in advance of completing the survey, which descriptor terms matched which pack. Therefore, the current study tested the participant's ability to match the descriptor terms with packs and colors that are completely foreign to them.

Second, the present study hypothesized that participants would be more likely to correctly match descriptors for a brand of cigarettes with which they are familiar, given the marketing they are exposed to with relation to that brand and the conditioning that occurs among the population from that marketing, compared to a brand for which they never see marketing materials. This hypothesis tests the value of removing the descriptor terms (such as light and ultra light) from packs that participants are familiar with and can identify as such, absent of the term explicitly obvious on the pack.

Section snippets

Survey Administration

Data collection occurred from February through March 2008. Participants were recruited using newspaper advertisements and postings on CraigsList.org, which directed interested respondents to a survey website. A brief screening survey was used to determine eligibility for participation. Eligible participants were defined as current smokers (a yes response to the question Have you smoked at least 1 cigarette, even a puff in the last 30 days?), aged ≥18 years, and not color blind. Colorblindness

Participant Characteristics

A total of 193 participants were eligible for and completed the web-based survey, with a median completion time of 23 minutes. Participants had a median age of 29 years (interquartile range [IQR]=18 years), 57% were female, and 89% were non-Hispanic white. The three most commonly reported usual cigarette brands were Marlboro (32%); Camel (20%); and Newport (14%). Eighty-one percent reported smoking 20 cigarettes or fewer per day, and 62% reported smoking within 30 minutes of waking.

Discussion

Overall, this survey found that smokers in the U.S. associate brand descriptors with colors when they are familiar with the brands, even when controlling for person-level covariates. Further, whiter packaging appears to most influence perceptions of safety. This finding is not unique to this study as demonstrated by unpublished internal marketing research conducted by Philip Morris nearly 2 decades ago.17, 18 Therefore, removal of descriptor terms but not the associated colors may be

References (25)

  • R.L. Underwood et al.

    Is your package an effective communicator?A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging

    J Market Commun

    (1998)
  • R.W. Pollay et al.

    Marketing cigarettes with low machine-measured yields

  • R.W. Pollay et al.

    The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact

    Tob Control

    (2002)
  • J. Slade

    The pack as advertisement

    Tob Control

    (1997)
  • M. Wakefield et al.

    The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents

    Tob Control

    (2002)
  • WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

    (2005)
  • Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, H.R.1256, H.R.1256−111th Congress

    (2009)
  • B. King et al.

    What was “light” and “mild” is now “smooth” and “fine”: new labelling of Australian cigarettes

    Tob Control

    (2005)
  • J. Peace et al.

    Survey of descriptors on cigarette packs: still misleading consumers?

    N Z Med J

    (2009)
  • D. Hammond et al.

    Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth

    Eur J Public Health

    (2009)
  • D. Hammond et al.

    The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk

    J Public Health (Oxf)

    (2009)
  • M.J. Manfredo et al.

    A model for assessing the effects of communication on recreationists

    J Leisure Res

    (1991)
  • Cited by (59)

    • Intention to purchase alternative tobacco products as a function of smoking status and responses to advertising, packaging, and sensory experiences

      2022, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Yet despite being perceptions of lowered health risks, reduced risk claims in CS advertisements were viewed as less truthful and evoked greater skepticism (Fix et al., 2017). Even so, product advertising and marketing, while a longstanding strategy used by manufacturers to enhance appeal, comprise only part of an overall strategy (Bansal-Travers, O'Connor, Fix, & Cummings, 2011; Smith, Bansal-Travers, O'Connor, Goniewicz, & Hyland, 2015). Products themselves are designed by manufacturers to enhance appeal through manipulation of sensory experiences, and the interplay between consumers’ perceptions of marketing and response to product use may drive initial and future intentions to use those products (Hatsukami, Zhang, O'Connor, & Severson, 2013).

    • Tobacco harm reduction: Past history, current controversies and a proposed approach for the future

      2020, Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      In 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act prohibited descriptors on tobacco packaging or in advertising that convey messages of reduced risk or exposure, including the descriptors “light,” “mild,” and “low” (Congress and Congress US, 2009). Unfortunately, the cigarette manufacturers still use colors (e.g., silver, gold) to depict “lightness” and use terms such as “smooth” or “fine” perpetuating misbeliefs of less harm (King and Borland, 2004; O'Connor et al., 2008; Hammond et al., 2005; Bansal-Travers et al., 2010; Connolly and Alpert, 2014; Lempert and Glantz, 2017; Bansal-Travers et al., 2011). In light of the ill-fated attempt to create and market less harmful cigarettes, Michael Russell from the United Kingdom (U.K.) was advocating for the reduction in tar but maintenance of moderate nicotine levels because “People smoke for nicotine but they die from the tar” (Russell, 1976).

    • Smokeless tobacco product design and marketing: Targeting new populations in a changing regulatory environment

      2020, Smokeless Tobacco Products: Characteristics, Usage, Health Effects, and Regulatory Implications
    • A cigarette pack by any other color: Youth perceptions mostly align with tobacco industry-ascribed meanings

      2019, Preventive Medicine Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      To combat the influence of such descriptors, Article 11, Section 1a of the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) states that “tobacco product packaging and labelling” may not “create an erroneous impression” including use of descriptors such as “low tar,” “light,” “ultra-light,” or “mild.” More recently, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (FSPTCA) banned the use of “…explicit or implicit descriptors that convey messages of reduced risk including “light,” “mild,” and “low…” (Ashley and Backinger, 2012; Borland et al., 2008; Doxey and Hammond, 2011; Evans et al., 1995; Ford et al., 2013; Greenland, 2015; Moodie et al., 2011; Moodie et al., 2012; Prevention FS, 2009) In response to implementation of the FCTC and FSPTCA, the tobacco industry has instituted a wide range of pack colors to circumvent these new restrictions (Bansal-Travers et al., 2011a; Bansal-Travers et al., 2011b; Connolly and Alpert, 2014; Cummings et al., 2002; Doxey and Hammond, 2011; Hammond and Parkinson, 2009; Moodie and Ford, 2011; Prevention FS, 2009; Wakefield et al., 2002). Industry documents show tobacco companies intentionally leveraged the influence pack colors have on people to attract new customers and instigate brand loyalty (Cheskin, 1965; Connolly and Alpert, 2014; Pugh, 2010).

    • U.S. adult perceptions of the harmfulness of tobacco products: descriptive findings from the 2013–14 baseline wave 1 of the path study

      2019, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      All categories and reference groups for each variable are provided in Table 2. Consistent with existing research (Popova & Ling, 2013), we constructed a knowledge index examining whether the respondent believed that cigarette smoking causes: (Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, n.d.) stroke, (Hyland et al., 2017) lung cancer, (Bansal-Travers et al., 2011a) heart disease, (Kaufman et al., 2011) blindness, (Costello et al., 2012) poor circulation, (Pollay & Dewhirst, 2002) bladder cancer, (Hammond & Parkinson, 2009) mouth cancer, (Elton-Marshall et al., 2010) lung disease, (Bansal-Travers et al., 2011b) lung disease in non-smokers, (Hastrup et al., 2001) heart attack in non-smokers, and (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Monograph 13, 2001) fetal harm. All respondents to the survey were asked these questions.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text