Article Text
Abstract
Background Despite Singapore’s strict tobacco control policies, smoking rates have not decreased since 2004. We examined the primary targets, motivations and strategies behind targeted marketing activities in Singapore from the tobacco industry’s perspective to understand how tobacco companies continue to target people in their marketing.
Methods Snowball search in the Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library for documents covering the industry’s targeted marketing activities in Singapore. Information from the documents was subsequently triangulated with market data obtained from the Euromonitor Passport database, analysed for trends by tar segment and data from cigarette packs purchased from Singapore retailers, analysed in terms of product positioning.
Results In the 1970s and 1980s, as young people in Singapore became more health-conscious, tobacco companies positioned ‘light’ cigarettes for growth in the 1990s. Many of these ‘lights’ contained similar tar and nicotine levels as regular brands; they were only light in their branding. In the 1990’s, ‘lights’ became more popular in Singapore and this demand was largely youth driven. Into the 2010s, while the low tar (<6 mg) segment comprised only a small portion of Singapore’s cigarette market, most cigarette variants were marketed as ‘lighter’ or as having harm reductive benefits to appeal to more health-conscious people.
Conclusions The differentiation of ‘lighter’ cigarettes remains an important marketing tool for tobacco companies amidst Singapore’s strict regulations. Legislation to remove all remaining avenues for tobacco companies to make harm reduction claims on their products, explicit or implicit, coupled with improving health literacy and exposing industry deception, could help to further bring down smoking prevalence in Singapore.
- tobacco industry documents
- tobacco industry
- advertising and promotion
- priority/special populations
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data used in our analysis of tobacco industry documents is publicly available at: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Introduction
Singapore, a city-state in Southeast Asia with a population of 5.8 million people, has been a leader in tobacco policy by global standards, especially with tobacco advertising bans. In 1970, Singapore implemented its Smoking (Control of Advertisements and Sale of Tobacco) Act,1 the world’s first ban on tobacco advertising.2 The Act was progressively expanded to include vehicles and non-tobacco products in 1989,3 foreign publications in 19934 and sponsorships in 2011.5 In 2017, Singapore also banned the display of tobacco products at the point of sale (POS).6
In addition, Singapore implemented warning labels on tobacco packs in 1980,7 graphical health warnings covering 50% of the pack face in 20048 9 and plain packaging in 2020.10 11 Singapore restricted the tar content in cigarettes to 15 mg in 199012 and 10 mg in 2013,13 and in 2013 also banned the use of misleading descriptors including ‘light’, ‘mild’ and ‘low tar’ on tobacco packs.5 14 Singapore has also progressively increased taxes and restricted smoking in public places.15 16 As of April 2020, smoking was banned in nearly all indoor public places and some outdoor areas, including National Parks and Orchard Road, a popular shopping district.16
Despite Singapore’s strict tobacco regulations, tobacco companies managed to target youth with indirect marketing tactics (cross-border advertising and ‘brand stretching’, in which tobacco brands are advertised using non-tobacco products), novel pack designs and ‘mini packs’ of 10.17 Tobacco companies also used product design novelties and menthol-flavoured cigarettes to target youth, which resulted in the growth of Singapore’s menthol segment from 14% (1983) to 48% (2018).18 Notably, amidst Singapore’s strict regulatory climate, smoking rates have not decreased since 2004 and, as at 2017, remained at 12%.19 Our goal was to understand more about the primary targets, motivations and strategies behind tobacco companies’ targeted marketing activities in Singapore.
Methods
Internal tobacco industry documents
The Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library, an online archive of over 14 million tobacco industry documents released through litigation against tobacco companies, provides unique insights from the tobacco industry’s perspective.20 We conducted searches in the Library from April to December 2019 using a snowball search technique,21 starting with the initial search string: ‘Singapore AND (“market segment” OR psychographic)’. This yielded 2616 documents. We conducted extensive follow-up searches to answer more specific questions that arose when reading the first documents with adjacent documents in the collection (by Bates numbers) and keyword searches of key individuals, organisations, project code names and industry terminologies until we reached saturation. We reviewed and organised the documents chronologically to assess internal consistency. After filtering out duplicates and irrelevant documents, we examined relevant document excerpts (any excerpts describing industry marketing strategies in Singapore) in a final set of 113 documents, for emerging ideas and themes to understand the tobacco industry’s targeted marketing strategies in the Singapore context.
To further contextualise the information found in documents, we triangulated our documents data with cigarette market data and data from cigarette packs we purchased from Singapore retailers.
Cigarette market data
We obtained cigarette market data for Singapore from the Euromonitor Passport Global Market Information Database (GMID), which includes trend data on annual sales volumes of cigarettes for individual countries by company, brand, flavour category and tar category. Euromonitor collects these data from company reports, store checks, customer surveys, official statistics, trade associations, trade interviews and trade press.
Analysis of cigarette packs purchased from Singapore retailers
In March 2019, using the Tobacco Pack Surveillance System (TPackSS) approach,22 we purchased one of each available cigarette variant from nine different retailers, covering the main types of tobacco retailers (convenience store, mainstream supermarket, premium supermarket, independent shop, gas station) and geographical regions (East, West, North, Central) in Singapore. We purchased a total of 114 different flavour variants from 35 parent brands. We photographed the packs and recorded detailed information on the flavour (descriptors, scents), packaging/product design and branding features such as colours, descriptors and promotional cellophane stickers, using a standard template (see online supplemental file). Our photography template was adapted from the TPackSS 2013 Photography Protocol.23
Supplemental material
Based on this information, we coded each variant as positioned as a ‘regular’ (not flavoured, not light), flavoured (non-capsule), capsule and/or ‘light’ cigarette (see online supplemental file for codebook). ‘Flavoured’ cigarettes were identified based on distinct scents (while unlit) such as fruits, menthol and mint, along with green or blue colour coding and/or descriptors describing added flavours such as ‘mint’. Variants of the same brand were compared with one another, to determine variant positioning. ‘Light’ cigarettes were identified with blue or pale colours (typically silver, gold, green or blue) and/or variant names/descriptors that imply ‘lightness’ such as ‘wind blue’, and, with the exception of variants clearly positioned as ‘Menthol Lights’, did not have a strong, distinct scent. ‘Menthol Lights’ fell into both the flavoured and ‘light’ categories. Both authors coded the packs independently and double checked the codes for consistency. Inconsistencies were resolved via discussion between the authors until consensus was reached. We used descriptive statistics to summarise our data.
Results
Most of the industry documents we analysed were dated from 1972 to 2001, and from Philip Morris Asia (PMA—now part of PMI), RJ Reynolds (RJR—now JTI), or Singapore Tobacco Company (STC—later BAT Singapore).
Tobacco industry’s target market was teenagers and young adults
In 1972–1994, tobacco companies collected detailed statistics on the brand preferences and characteristics of Singapore smokers.24–35 Tobacco companies also ran several lifestyle segmentation studies to get more detailed pictures of the kinds of brands and products they could target to different groups in Singapore.36–38 In particular, the companies carefully researched Singapore youth (age 15–24) as their target market,26 34 39–42 and considered them crucial to the long-term survival of their business.32 34 36 39 41 43–46
The companies knew that brands such as Marlboro, Salem, Lucky Strike and Kent, which were popular or growing in share, were doing so primarily because they were reaching youth.32 34 39 43–45 They also noted that, while Singapore’s overall smoking prevalence in 1987–1990 decreased, it increased among youth.47–50 Tobacco companies attributed the increase in youth smoking prevalence to their success in ‘attracting new young smokers’, and concluded that this was an important target group, to be carefully monitored and researched.47
Youth were health-conscious and believed ‘lights’ were less harmful
Tobacco companies researched Singapore youth in terms of their lifestyle, aspirations and product and brand image preferences. As early as 1972, an STC study found that ‘starters’ preferred filtered cigarettes as they perceived them as ‘milder’.40 Later industry studies (1984–1991) found that youth preferred ‘light’ cigarettes for the same reason.33 50 Tobacco companies also observed that Singapore youth gravitated towards well-known international brands such as Marlboro.26 51–53
In the 1980s, tobacco companies noted that smokers in Singapore were becoming more health-conscious, and that those more concerned about their health smoked fewer sticks per day. Health reasons were also cited as a top reason for quitting.35 43 According to industry research, Singaporeans believed that brands perceived as ‘light’ were less harmful to their health.43 54 55 While Singapore’s ‘lights’ segment (cigarettes positioned as light) was still small (0.5% of the total market share in 1980),55 tobacco companies anticipated that it would grow as smokers looked for alternatives perceived as less harmful.26 54 55
In 1985, Norsearch International, a market research company working for PMA, studied the psychographics of 100 Singapore smokers age 16 and above. The study included an in-depth profile of younger smokers (age 16–25), which found that they were more concerned about the health and social implications of smoking, tried harder to quit and looked for harm reductive features such as smoothness, filters and control over nicotine delivery. In terms of brand imagery, they wanted an American brand with a youthful, unpretentious image.56 By 1986 PMA had identified 4 segments of smokers age 16–25 in Singapore: (1) social and carefree; (2) sporty and health-conscious; (3) ambitious and independent and (4) insecure, conformist smokers.36 Segments (1, 2) and (4) (equivalent to three quarters of all smokers age 16–25) wanted a product they perceived as ‘milder’, for a smoother taste or to address health concerns.36
Branding regular cigarettes as ‘lights’ to create perceptions of mildness
In the mid 1980s, tobacco companies found that Singaporeans wanted a ‘mild’ cigarette they perceived as less harmful, but without the mild taste. This presented a dilemma as cigarettes with a lower tar content also had a mild taste.47 57 The industry’s solution was to rebrand regular cigarettes (with regular tar and nicotine levels, eg, Marlboro Red which contained 15 mg tar) as ‘mild’ or ‘light’. Even if tar and nicotine levels were disclosed on packs, tobacco companies did not expect this to affect consumer perceptions because Singapore consumers were, in the words of Daniel Tso (New Products Director, PMA, 1985): ‘totally ignorant about (tar/nicotine) delivery numbers, unlike the US consumers who have been educated to understand them’ (p.2).57
In the 1980s–1990s, tobacco companies developed several ‘light’ brands to target health-conscious Singaporeans. These included ‘superslim’ brands targeting young women such as Virginia Slims Lights and Capri,58 brands such as Salem,41 Newport,59 Lucky Strike Lights60 and Marlboro Lights,61 which targeted youth with a young and Westernised brand image, and brands such as Lark that claimed to benefit health with new filtering technology.62
Many of these products were not actually light as they had similar tar and nicotine deliveries as ‘regular’ cigarettes such as Marlboro Red.63 Their perceived mildness was a result of brand imagery, added flavours or filtering gimmicks. Lark, a brand developed by PMA for the Singapore market, had a high tar and nicotine content but a white filter marketed as an ‘American Triple Crystal Filter’ to convey mildness.62 64 65 The idea was that Lark would have a similar taste to Marlboro Red, but with ‘a special filter, providing an implied mild and health benefit’ (p.2),66 to take advantage of ‘a growing health-consciousness trend among young smokers in Singapore’ (p.2).66
One of the most detailed brand development stories available in the Singapore documents is that of Kent. In the 1980s, as STC anticipated growth in Singapore’s mild segment,67 68 STC positioned Kent as a ‘smoker reassurance brand’ (p.1)69 using the ‘fresh, calm, mild’ marketing concept to target young professionals.69–73 In a 1980 letter to colleagues, GC Reynolds (Marketing Director, STC) noted that Kent’s ‘mild’ positioning was important due to ‘…mildness/health reassurance being the key to future success’ (p.1).71 STC launched several Kent variants, some which were very low in tar (eg, Kent III, 3 mg tar), others which had higher tar content (eg, Kent Deluxe, 14 mg). STC used opportunities to publicise the tar content of low-tar Kent variants such as Kent III, in order to give other Kent variants an image of reduced harm by association.67 71 74–77 Although Kent’s market share grew, it was unable to compete with Marlboro and Salem which had more youthful brand images.74 78–82
BAT documents from 1993 to 1995 further describe how ‘mild’ or ‘light’ did not necessarily refer to low tar and nicotine levels, but also ‘those brands which have a higher tar delivery which include ‘lights’ in their brand name and which are perceived to be light by smokers’ (p.1).83 Tobacco companies thus predicted that a growth in Singapore’s lights segment would be a result of changes in branding and consumer perceptions rather than changes in the actual products.54 84 BAT’s corporate plan for 1992–1996 predicted that the ‘lights’ segment would grow from 3.8% (1991) to 6.2% (1996), and that this growth would be ‘driven by imagery rather than by product performance or health concerns’ (p.11).85
Using packaging to convey lower health risk and target youth
Tobacco companies also considered packaging an important marketing medium. In the words of a 1984 PMA note:
…tools for marketing communication are virtually non-existent in the Singapore market…Therefore, the positioning and consumer proposition of a new brand should be self-evident in its packaging (p.4).86
Packs for cigarettes positioned as ‘light’ or ‘mild’ typically used blue, green, white and pastel colours to convey a lower health risk.87 88 Tobacco companies also developed packaging novelties to target youth, including transparent packs89 and hologram, glow in the dark packs90 91 to be promoted in karaoke lounges and nightclubs.92
Using indirect advertising and promotions to target youth
Singapore’s marketing restrictions presented a challenge for tobacco companies in reaching youth.93 The companies planned to grow more established brand families with line extensions, indirect advertising and the product itself.94 Tobacco companies marketed their cigarettes using ‘brand stretching’,53 70 ‘independent companies’ named after their brands,95–101 and spill-over advertising from Malaysian television broadcasted in Singapore.63 73 102–108 Tobacco companies also made heavy use of POS advertising,109 110 and line extensions to increase brand visibility at POS.63 98 105 111–115 The companies nurtured relationships with retailers94 by distributing educational booklets, organising seminars,93 and giving them promotional items,116 sales incentives and holidays to Malaysia.117 118
Tobacco companies also focused heavily on nightlife promotions to normalise smoking among Singapore youth.47 119 120 From the late 1980s into the early 1990s, RJR, PMA and STC all had schemes promoting their cigarettes to youth in Singapore nightlife spots,110 116 117 121 122 with games, fashion shows, free sampling and lucky draws.110 123 Many of these nightlife promotions were deliberately conducted on a ‘low profile basis’ (p.11),116 117 as Singapore had prohibited free sampling and restricted POS displays of tobacco products; this ban was so broad that the nightlife promotions could have been seen as violating the law.1 3 92
1990s: Increased demand for ‘lights’ driven by youth
In the early to mid 1990s, Singapore’s ‘lights’ segment (‘lights’ by the industry’s definition, which is cigarettes positioned as ‘light’) grew.124–127 In 1995, BAT reported an existing trend towards ‘lights’ and expected it to grow further, from 8% market share to 9.4% by 1998 .128 PMA observed from its data that Singapore’s ‘lights’ segment had grown by 19.6% points in 1989–1995, and this growth drove increases in Singapore’s smoking incidence by 2.9% points overall, and 12.9% points in young adults.129 Tobacco companies knew that the demand for lighter cigarettes in Singapore was youth driven.116 In a 1993 note to colleagues, Paul McPhail (Marketing Director, STC) observed: ‘In Singapore also, Lights are increasingly the choice of the young adults. They don’t want to sacrifice taste, but do seek the image differentiation that a Lights product gives’ (p.2).130
The Marlboro Lights brand had been particularly successful in targeting Singapore youth. By 1994, Singapore was one of the countries with the fastest growing demand for Marlboro Lights among youth, from 0.4% (1989) to 8.3% (1994),131 and by 1995 the smoking rate among youth was 38%, more than double that of the general population (17%).132 According to PMA data the overall smoking prevalence in Singapore also increased around this time, from 14.6% (1993) to 17.1% (1995).133 PMA noted: ‘What makes us feel most confident regarding the future potential of the (Marlboro) franchise is its share among Young Adult Smokers’ (p.76).134 In Singapore, Marlboro’s young adult share was almost 50% to which PMA commented: ‘You really can’t get much more positive signs about the brand than you see here in… Singapore’ (p.79).134
2007–2019: medium/high tar cigarettes still marketed as ‘mild’ or ‘light’
Cigarette market data from Euromonitor (figure 1) show that, in 2007–2017, Singapore’s cigarette market was dominated by medium tar (6–10 mg) and high tar (>10–15 mg) cigarettes. In 2013, when tar levels were restricted to a maximum of 10 mg, all high tar cigarettes, which comprised around 50% of the total cigarette market, were shifted into the medium tar category after which the medium tar segment (6–10 mg) comprised almost 100% of Singapore’s cigarette market. Meanwhile, low tar (4 to <6 mg) and ultra low tar (<4 mg) cigarettes consistently held a small market share. This indicates that cigarettes with a low tar content (<6 mg) comprise only a small minority (<10%) of Singapore’s tobacco market.135
Yet our survey of 114 brand variants purchased from Singapore retailers in March 2019 showed that 26% of the variants were positioned as ‘lighter’, with a light flavour and/or harm reductive benefit conveyed with pale or cool colours and descriptors that evoke mildness (eg, ‘wind blue’) or health benefits (eg, ‘bamboo charcoal’). While menthol-flavoured cigarettes are not specifically positioned as ‘light’, we observed overlaps between the menthol and light categories. Eleven per cent of the variants were positioned as ‘menthol lights’, and the menthol (non-capsule) variants, which comprised 42% of all variants, typically used cool or metallic colours (green, blue, silver) and descriptors such as ‘smooth’ and ‘fresh’ to convey a milder flavour sensation.
This suggests that tobacco companies have added ‘lighter’ line extensions to give their brands a lighter image by association or that, along with low tar variants, many of the medium/high tar cigarettes sold in Singapore are positioned as lighter or as having a harm reductive benefit. This fits with our observation that tobacco companies define ‘lights’ rather broadly.136 PM defined ‘lights’ as <15 mg,129 while BAT defined them as brands with a ‘light’ descriptor in the brand name or a tar delivery of up to 10 mg.137 By these definitions, all cigarettes on the Singapore market could, with ‘lighter’ branding, be considered as ‘lights’.
Discussion
Our results show that, from 1972 to 2000, much of the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts in Singapore targeted youth. As young Singaporeans became more health-conscious, the companies anticipated a trend towards ‘lights’ and positioned this segment for growth in the 1990s. Many of these ‘lights’ contained similar tar and nicotine levels as regular brands; they were only light in their branding. In the 1990s, ‘lighter’ cigarettes became more popular in Singapore and this demand was driven largely by the young people. Into the 2010s, while the low tar (<6 mg) segment comprised only a small portion of Singapore’s cigarette market, many cigarette variants were marketed as ‘lighter’ to appeal to more health-conscious smokers.
Youth smokers are crucial to the tobacco industry’s survival.138 The experience of Singapore shows that, even with the strictest regulations, tobacco companies will find ways to target youth, sometimes turning regulations into long-term marketing opportunities. The Singapore government’s strict tobacco regulations made young people more health-conscious; tobacco companies took this as an opportunity to grow their ‘lights’ segment. As of 2019, ‘lights’ constituted the largest segment in the global cigarette market.139 Consistent with our finding that tobacco companies used ‘lighter’ cigarettes to target Singapore youth, tobacco companies have noted more generally that older consumers are less likely to initiate with lights,140 and that cigarettes offering a milder, less irritating smoke appeal more to starters.141 ‘Lighter’ cigarettes are also perceived by adolescents as less harmful and less addictive than ‘regular’ cigarettes.142
This highlights the importance of measures that restrict the industry’s ability to differentiate ‘lights’. While the tar and nicotine delivery of ‘lights’ is often similar to regular cigarettes, perceptions of mildness are created and reinforced with light colour coding and descriptors such as ‘smooth’ and ‘fine’ where the descriptors ‘light’ and ‘mild’ are banned.143–145 Mildness is also conveyed with product features such as novelty filters and white-coloured tips, and additives such as low levels of menthol to mask harshness.18 146 While Singapore has implemented plain packaging and banned descriptors such as ‘light’ and ‘mild’, tobacco companies may continue to differentiate ‘lighter’ cigarettes with product design features or variant names that convey mildness (eg, ‘Wind Blue’). Following the implementation of plain packaging, it is important to monitor these changes and to consider further regulations on product design, flavours and nomenclature.144 147
Our study also highlights the blatant manner in which tobacco companies deceived Singapore consumers, describing them as ‘totally ignorant’57 in their interpretation of tar and nicotine deliveries, and readily marketing medium and high tar cigarettes to them as ‘lights’. Meanwhile, tobacco companies also knew from their own research that low tar cigarettes have no health benefits, as smokers tend to compensate by blocking air ventilation holes and taking longer, deeper puffs which results in higher tar exposures.148 In other countries, tobacco companies have also misled smokers into believing that ‘lights’ are less harmful and easier to quit than ‘regular’ cigarettes,149 150 to allay their health concerns and keep them in the market.151–155 The fact that tobacco companies targeted Singaporeans based on their health concerns and so-called ‘ignorance’ indicates that improving health literacy, as well as exposing the industry’s propensity to deceive people, could be a focal area in future smoking prevention efforts. Campaigns that denormalise the tobacco industry, by exposing the tobacco industry’s deceptions and targeting of vulnerable populations, have been effective in preventing smoking in other countries.156–158
Limitations
The Truth Tobacco Industry Documents Library is an incomplete collection of documents released through litigation against tobacco companies. There was little information on targeted marketing by RJR, and no information on events after 2001. To address this limitation, we analysed Singapore market data from Euromonitor, and cigarette packs purchased from Singapore retailers in March 2019.
Conclusion
In adapting to Singapore’s strict tobacco control policies, tobacco companies have heavily invested in ‘lights’ to maintain a consumer base in Singapore. Although these ‘lights’ were often medium or high tar cigarettes branded as ‘lights’, they appealed to health-conscious youth. Legislation to remove all remaining avenues for tobacco companies to make harm reduction claims on their products, explicit or implicit, coupled with improved health literacy and exposing industry deceptions, could help to further bring down smoking prevalence in Singapore.
What this paper adds
Previous studies have documented how tobacco companies undermined Singapore’stobacco advertising ban with indirect marketing tactics and menthol-flavoured cigarettes. Less is known about the tobacco industry’s targeted marketing activities in Singapore, and how the industry continues to maintain a stable cigarette market amidst Singapore’sstrict regulations.
Tobacco companies targeted young people with ‘lighter’ cigarettes, taking advantage of a growing health-consciousness trend among young Singaporeans. The companies branded these cigarettes as ‘lights’ despite knowing they had a tar content similar to ‘regular’ cigarettes. The differentiation of ‘lighter’ cigarettes in branding remains an important marketing tool in the Singapore context.
Policies to improve health literacy, expose tobacco industry deceptions and remove all remaining avenues for tobacco companies to make harm reduction claims on their products could help to reduce smoking prevalence in Singapore.
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. Data used in our analysis of tobacco industry documents is publicly available at: https://www.industrydocuments.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chia Kee Seng, Jason Yap, Ruth Lewis, Lavinia Lin, Lee Jeong Kyu, Yang Qian and Aw Su for their helpful feedback on an earlier draft.
References
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Contributors YvdE conceptualised the project, analysed the data and wrote the first draft. GPPT collected and analysed the data. Both authors were involved in writing and revision of drafts, and both authors reviewed final drafts prior to submission.
Funding This research was funded by a grant from the Ministry of Education of Singapore (R-608-000-226-114).
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.