Health concerns

Health concerns are one of the primary reasons smokers quit. The Sherman Group Inc. conducted a reconnaissance study of Lorillard's Newport for RJR in 1976 and found:

In rejecting the ‘regular’ cigarette taste, the smokers are referring back to their own experiences. These young smokers began smoking the ‘popular’ brands, Winston, Marlboro, Tareyton and Kents, etc, and moved to menthols for a variety of reasons or circumstances; the rejection of tobacco taste, the search for a ‘milder’ cigarette, personal influence, or the circumstances of having a cold and wanting to continue smoking, but being unable to ‘handle’ the hot taste of cigarettes in an already irritated throat.36 (Emphasis added.)

Menthol imparts cooling and anaesthetic sensations that allow some smokers dissatisfied with the smoking experience to continue smoking. This effect of menthol was viewed as a potential opportunity for tobacco companies; The Landis Group reported to PM in 1992 that:

Over half of the people interviewed were non-menthol smokers first, and changed to menthol for a variety of reasons: ‘during an illness the non-menthol was too harsh’, ‘tried a friend's menthol, and realized the taste was better’, ‘got tired of the tobacco taste’, etc. In view of these findings, it appears there may be an opportunity to convert non-menthol smokers to menthol cigarettes.32

A 1972 study conducted by Lorillard's Market Research Department37 affirmed that menthol smokers believe menthol alleviates the harshness of smoking non-menthol styles. Statements by those who switched from a non-menthol to a menthol brand were as follows:

(switcher from Camel to Kool): ‘I switched for taste—it seemed milder and less burning in my mouth. The Camels began to taste harsh and bitter and hot to smoke.’

(switcher from Marlboro to Kool): ‘I found that I liked the taste and flavor much better. It was more soothing to my throat that's all. I had a cold and I decided to switch to Kools.’

(switcher from Pall Mall to Kool): ‘I started smoking Kools when I had a cold. It felt good so I kept on smoking them. I like the taste of menthol.’37

An undated report by Brown & Williamson (B&W) on ‘lapsed/quitting smokers’ noted that ‘health-related reasons are by far the most prevalent’ reasons to quit and observed that the reasons for consumers' awareness of ‘less strong’ cigarette brands including Salem and Newport were ‘taste/flavor, tar/nicolene (sic), (and) throat related’.38 The report found an ‘increase in concern (about health issues) but decline in desire to give up’.38

The advertising firm Cunningham & Walsh compiled a report for B&W in 1980 in which they observed that Kool's ‘(r)emedial specialty brand image’ (ie, a brand that offers a remedy to the harshness and burn of smoking) in the early 1950s ‘benefits (the b)rand as smokers perceive menthol as less harmful’.39 In a 1960s brand evaluation, B&W noted that ‘(e)mphasis on the throat, with its important health implications, has… been an important part of Kool advertising since 1960. In light of the ‘smoking climate’ in recent years this could very well have benefitted the brand’,40 the ‘‘smoking climate’ in recent years’ referring to growing smoking-related health concerns. The Creative Research Group perhaps described the soothing qualities of menthol and its potential role in discouraging concerned smokers from quitting most plainly in a 1986 report for Imperial Tobacco:

Quitters may be discouraged from quitting, or at least kept in the market longer, by either of the two product opportunities noted before. A less irritating cigarette is one route. (Indeed, the practice of switching to lower tar cigarettes and sometimes menthol in the quitting process tacitly recognizes this.) The safe cigarette would have wide appeal, limited mainly by the social pressures to quit.41 (Emphasis added.)

These statements explicitly recognize menthol's ability to sooth irritation as a barrier to quitting.

According to a 30 May 1973 Lorillard meeting agenda to discuss ‘Kent Menthol 100′s’, the objective of a menthol line extension of Lorillard's ‘low tar’ Kent brand was to ‘convince smokers of competitive menthols (as well as smokers contemplating entering the category) that Kent menthol is the menthol that offers refreshing menthol smoking satisfaction and health reassurance’.42 One of B&W's major objectives at the beginning of the 1980s was to ‘obtain at least 12% share of market for KOOL by 1985’.43 In delineating steps to achieving that objective, B&W listed as one of the ‘key obstacle to overcome’ that ‘KOOL must move into the health reassurance segment so that 45% of KOOL business will be in the perceived product safety arena by 1982’.43

According to this B&W brand planning document in 1978 (estimated date), a prime Kool objective for 1979–1985 was also to ‘(p)rovide product safety reassurance while enhanc(ing) the satisfaction and refreshment perception of the appropriate KOOL styles, through the successful, national launch in 1979 of either: 1. Low-‘tar’ parent (or) 2. Repositioned KOOL Milds’.43 This emphasis on ‘product safety reassurance’ points to the explicit role of menthol, like ‘low tar’ and ‘mild’, in the company's efforts to overcome consumers' perception of the dangers of smoking.

The question arises whether beliefs about the health benefits of mentholated cigarettes may discourage potential quitters from quitting in favour of switching to a mentholated brand or style. A focus group study conducted for American Tobacco in 1969 tested, in part, perceptions of a new menthol product. It was observed that:

Menthol smokers indicated that they smoked menthol cigarettes because they were ‘mild’, ‘cooling’, ‘refreshing’, and ‘soothing to the throat’. They considered non-menthol cigarettes to be irritating and-strong…. There were indications that the menthol smokers subconsciously perceived menthol cigarettes as being healthier. There was somewhat of a ‘health image’ associated with menthol, related to its masking of the tobacco taste, and its association with medicine, colds, and sore throats.44 (Emphasis added.)

This complements the William Esty study for RJR in 1973 that stated, ‘(s)ometimes respondents saw smoking a mentholated brand as the only alternative to giving up smoking altogether’.35

Lorillard observed in 1972 that ‘(b)rand-switching has resulted in a 13% gain for Menthols which is larger than the 8% for Hi Fi (‘high filtration’) brands, the only types gaining from claimed switching’, and cited a research participant's explanation that ‘I started smoking Kools when I had a cold. It felt good so I kept on smoking them’.45 In 1976, B&W noted that ‘evidence indicates that a pseudo-health image has accrued to mentholated cigarettes’.46 Then, 2 years later, B&W explicitly acknowledged its Kool franchise ‘(r)ides on the connotation that menthol has health overtones’.47

Following the 1952 Readers Digest article ‘Cancer by the Carton’,48 which marked widespread and growing public awareness of the health dangers of smoking, a concurrent change in smoking rates and in cigarette style offerings took place. This ‘health scare’ marked a brief decline in per capita cigarette consumption in the US in 1953–1954.49 Declines in smoking rates accelerated in the latter half of the 1960s after the 1964 US Surgeon General's Report ‘Smoking and Health’50 and the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act,51 according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).52

This reduction in per capita smoking especially in the late 1960s corresponded to a shift in the design and marketing of cigarettes, particularly to an increase in filtered and ‘low-tar’ cigarette styles and brands.53 As B&W observed in a lengthy 1979 study of the ‘History and Key Trends in the US Cigarette Market’, ‘(t)he intense growth of [RJR's] Salem from 1957 thru (sic) 1961 coincided with another major development—the Tar Derby’.54 (The Tar Derby refers to the efforts of the major cigarette companies in the 1950s to manufacture and promote low tar and nicotine cigarette brands55 to ‘smokers who can't kick the habit but are worried about their health’.56 Tobacco companies attempted to position ‘low-tar’ cigarettes as an alternative to quitting, as in RJR's 1970s Vantage brand ad campaigns that suggested to health-concerned smokers, ‘If you’re like a lot of smokers these days, it probably isn't smoking that you want to give up. It's some of that ‘tar’ and nicotine you've been hearing about.57

Mentholation of cigarettes was another design feature important in this era. The 1979 B&W study asserted:

(t)he Tar Derby was a major factor in Salem's growth (following its introduction in 1956). Salem was perceived to have more taste than competitive (non-menthol ‘low-tar’) offerings, which resulted in the coincident growth…. Newport, introduced in 1957, also grew during the Tar Derby'.54

Whereas ‘low-tar’ cigarette brands aimed at health-concerned smokers were often derided as ‘hot air brands’ with no taste according to RJR in 1970,58 menthol brands and styles are perceived as milder and lighter, and yet flavourful. An international qualitative study by PM in 1991 affirmed, ‘(t)he desire for a ‘lighter’ cigarette was an important underlying motive for switching to menthol cigarettes. In some cases, the ‘menthol’ was viewed as compensation for the ‘lack of taste’ of light cigarettes’.59

Due in part to perceptions that menthol is a solution to sore throats caused by smoking, some marketers have assumed menthol smokers were more health oriented. In 1975, RJR stated in an internal marketing presentation that ‘(m)enthol 85 smokers are more concerned about the alleged hazards of smoking than other smokers (except low flavor)’.60 It may be more often the case that menthol smokers are convinced of the soothing throat sensation menthol imparts and are not necessarily likely to seek ‘light’ or ‘low-tar’ products. A 1972 Lorillard study of the menthol market noted:

(w)hile health is an important reason for switching, health in terms of throat irritation is more important to Menthol, Lo Fi (low filtration) and taste conscious people…. Menthol smokers are attracted by taste with mildness appealing to the health oriented and with the lack of throat irritation appealing to the taste oriented.45

Jay Faberman of the PM Market Research Department observed in his 1969 letter to Al Udow of the PM Marketing Department that ‘(o)nce the habit is perceived as bad, the smoker thus becomes susceptible (sic) to brand appeals that promise less tar or nicotine, or to products which make smoking seem more pleasant’.31 (Emphasis added.)

Although non-menthol smokers typically would not, or would only very reluctantly, smoke a menthol cigarette, and that the reverse is true for menthol smokers,30 industry executives nevertheless recognised the potential for conversion of a non-menthol smoker who may consider quitting into a menthol smoker instead. In 1985, Myron Johnston of the PM Marketing Department analysed quitting patterns among younger and older menthol and non-menthol smokers and was puzzled by self-reports among menthol smokers regarding their quit attempts. He noted:

It is also possible that the larger proportion of menthol smokers who report having tried to quit is an artefact, for in the focus groups some people have reported that they switched to a menthol thinking that it would be easier to quit from something they did not really like, only to wind up liking menthol.61

In this case, Johnston found smokers switching to menthol in an attempt to quit ended up abandoning their desire to quit.

Health concerns often act as a driver of changes in smoking behaviour and desire to quit, with switching to either ‘low tar’ or menthol as one response to health concerns. Nevertheless, menthol smokers speak positively about their cigarettes more consistently than ‘low-tar’ smokers. B&W contracted Kapuler & Associates, Inc., in 1981 to research consumers' responses to advertising campaigns for Barclay, a B&W ‘low-tar’ brand, including a campaign with the tagline ‘The Pleasure is Back’.62 Some respondents ‘did not feel that they smoked for pleasure at all, but simply out of habit—perhaps out of guilt. They had an almost masochistic need not to enjoy smoking. These were mostly hi-fi smokers who wanted to quit and who did not want a more pleasurable cigarette which would make it harder to quit’.62 Conversely, a Roper Organization study prepared for PM in 1979 stated that menthol smokers:

…are very positive about menthol cigarettes. They describe them as refreshing, satisfying, good tasting, mild tasting, less irritating, as having good tobacco flavor and as leaving less tobacco breath…. (Menthol smokers) are slightly less concerned than non-menthol smokers about the health and social aspects of smoking.30 (Emphasis added.)

A 1980 focus group report for W K Neher of RJR's Marketing Department pointed to even a kind of disdain for quitting among menthol smokers: ‘These menthol smokers were not aware of the tar level of cigarettes and they disliked ‘light’ brands because they were ‘like smoking air’ or ‘for smokers who wanted to quit’’.63 Menthol smokers tend to be lighter smokers than their non-menthol counterparts, light smokers referring not to smokers of ‘low-tar’ brands but those who smoked half a pack or less per day. The low consumption group, also called ‘casual smokers’, contained a higher percentage of young adults, females and more menthol cigarette smokers.64 Such casual smokers typically felt ‘in control’ of their smoking, unlike ‘guilt-laden’ smokers who want to quit but feel they can't.65

In studies PM conducted in the mid-1980s, smokers were divided into different segments based on their attitudes about smoking.66 The group with the most negative views about smoking—‘potential quitters’ or ‘guilt laden’ smokers66 67—were embarrassed about their smoking and uncomfortable smoking around non-smokers, and they were admittedly trying to quit or cut down. Contrary to the experience of ‘guilt laden’ smokers, the subjective perception of a pleasurable menthol smoking experience appeared to help menthol smokers feel better about their smoking, more comfortable smoking around non-smokers and less in need of quitting.

Social unacceptability of smoking

Another motivation for quitting is the social unacceptability of smoking. Booz. Allen, & Hamilton's 1990 report to RJR stated:

Recent RJR focus group research indicates smokers are feeling increasing pressure from non-smokers and are interested in products to make the smoking experience more enjoyable by reducing smoker/non-smoker tension…. (S)mokers may be concerned about the externally perceived effects of smoking and resulting pressures. Eighty-five per cent believe smoking can be very bothersome to some people. Seventy-five per cent think ‘a lot of people view smoking as a-negative habit.’ Almost 50% believe ‘non-smokers would complain less if smoke were reduced’. Fifty to Eighty per cent agree with various statements that the smell of smoke has negative effects on hair, clothes, cars, etc.28

Market research on menthol smokers conducted in Japan for PM in 1991 revealed that one major objection to smoking around others that respondents in this study cited was:

• –The smell itself is unpleasant. The smell gets in your hair and clothes (frequent complaint heard from women). It causes bad breath.59

Marketing Decision Research (Pacific) Ltd. found menthol was a solution to this problem in a 1992 Hong Kong study for PM:

• Overall, menthol cigarettes are seen to be lighter in strength and cigarette taste than non-menthol and full-flavoured cigarettes. The ‘cooling’ and ‘refreshing’ abilities of menthol have the following advantages:

  • –make smokers feel comfortable

  • –less easy to cause throat discomfort

  • –won't give bad breath

  • –has no/less cigarette smell & won't stink the environment.68

Addressing social acceptability concerns, RJR noted in a 1990 brand positioning report that for the (RJR) Salem and (Lorillard) Newport brands, ‘menthol (served) to lower risk of offending others with odor/smoke’.69 The report observed:

• Another potential example of recent success among ‘menthol’ brands may be (RJR's)

• Horizon

  • –Horizon is not a menthol-based proposition; it is positioned much more broadly to address social concerns about smoking

  • –Yet 40% of its franchise in test market smokes the menthol styles, an index of 133

  • –Menthol may support Horizon's positioning as a brand with a solution to social concerns.69

Interestingly, RJR's brand Horizon, first introduced as Chelsea70–72 was advertised explicitly as a cigarette with ‘improved lingering aroma via delivery of a pleasant aroma from the lit end’,72 but was rejected because mentioning odour served only to emphasise the problem. A 1991 report of focus group testing of Horizon for RJR revealed that:

(t)elling smokers that Horizon will make them and/or their surroundings smell better implies they currently smell unpleasant and offensive. Smokers may privately acknowledge and even openly admit this, but… may prefer not to smoke a cigarette that blatantly brands itself as a solution to an odor problem.73

Conversely, menthol, not advertised overtly as a solution to malodorous cigarette smoke, appears to be more readily embraced by menthol smokers who express cosmetic concerns as more socially acceptable to be around relative to non-mentholated smoke. As the Roper Organization's 1979 report prepared for PM on smokers’ habits pointed out, ‘(m)enthol smokers are slightly less inclined than non-menthol smokers to feel uncomfortable about smoking around others’.30 As the social unacceptability of smoking motivates quitting behaviour, the perception of menthol as more socially acceptable or less offensive to others may indirectly contribute to a lack of motivation to quit smoking among menthol smokers.