Tobacco Industry Consumer Research on Socially Acceptable Cigarettes P M Ling, S a Glantz
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1of16 Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2005.011239 on 23 September 2005. Downloaded from RESEARCH PAPER Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes P M Ling, S A Glantz ............................................................................................................................... Tobacco Control 2005;14:e3 (http://www.tobaccocontrol.com/cgi/content/full/14/5/e3). doi: 10.1136/tc.2005.011239 Objective: To describe tobacco industry consumer research to inform the development of more ‘‘socially acceptable’’ cigarette products since the 1970s. Methods: Analysis of previously secret tobacco industry documents. Results: 28 projects to develop more socially acceptable cigarettes were identified from Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, British American Tobacco, and Lorillard tobacco companies. Consumer research and concept testing consistently demonstrated that many smokers feel strong social pressure not to smoke, and this See end of article for authors’ affiliations pressure increased with exposure to smoking restrictions. Tobacco companies attempted to develop more ....................... socially acceptable cigarettes with less visible sidestream smoke or less odour. When presented in theory, these product concepts were very attractive to important segments of the smoking population. However, Correspondence to: Pamela M Ling, MD MPH, almost every product developed was unacceptable in actual product tests or test markets. Smokers Box 1390, 530 Parnassus reported the complete elimination of secondhand smoke was necessary to satisfy non-smokers. Smokers Avenue, Suite 366, have also been generally unwilling to sacrifice their own smoking satisfaction for the benefit of others. University of California Many smokers prefer smoke-free environments to cigarettes that produce less secondhand smoke. San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143- Conclusions: Concerns about secondhand smoke and clean indoor air policies have a powerful effect on 1390, USA; pling@ the social acceptability of smoking. Historically, the tobacco industry has been unable to counter these medicine.ucsf.edu effects by developing more socially acceptable cigarettes. These data suggest that educating smokers Received 21 January 2005 about the health dangers of secondhand smoke and promoting clean indoor air policies has been difficult Accepted 19 May 2005 for the tobacco industry to counter with new products, and that every effort should be made to pursue these ....................... strategies. oncern about the dangers of secondhand smoke research used to develop them. The consumer research on (SHS)—both among smokers and non-smokers—has socially acceptable products provides important insights into http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ been critically important to the tobacco industry for smoking behaviour and how social pressures motivate C 1 decades. The industry responded with efforts to undermine smokers. the science on the dangers of SHS,2–7 campaigns to fight clean The tobacco industry documents reveal that substantial indoor air policies, and efforts to portray those who wished to segments of the smoker population are very concerned about address secondhand smoke from a public health perspective the social acceptability of smoking. These smokers also tend as extremists.8–12 Tobacco companies also promoted ‘‘accom- to be very supportive of smoking restrictions. Many smokers modation programs’’ as an alternative to clean air policies, were very interested in the concept of a socially acceptable which had some success in delaying clean indoor air cigarette, such as a cigarette with no sidestream smoke, no legislation in some parts of the world.11 13–15 At the same odour, a pleasant aroma, or a product that improved breath/ time, the tobacco industry launched major product develop- clothing/household odours for smokers. However, tobacco ment and marketing efforts to address smokers’ and non- companies failed to develop products that could actually smokers’ concerns about SHS. One of the strategies to deliver on the concept. Most smokers were unwilling to on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. ‘‘solve’’ this problem was to develop more socially acceptable compromise ‘‘taste’’ for such a product, because the benefit products that would mask or eliminate SHS. (less sidestream smoke) offered was for someone else, not Since the 1970s, tobacco companies developed, tested, and the smoker. In addition, smokers knew that cigarette smoke marketed a myriad of cigarette products designed to increase is so noxious to non-smokers that no less than a 100% the social acceptability of smoking. None of these ‘‘low odor’’, reduction in sidestream smoke or odour was likely to yield a ‘‘low sidestream’’ or ‘‘good smelling’’ products held a more acceptable product. With a few exceptions,27 28 these 16 significant market share in 2003. In the late 1990s, tobacco products failed in test markets. In the 1990s, tobacco companies started to offer ‘‘potentially reduced exposure companies started to bundle product benefits together; as products’’ (PREPs) which claimed to offer benefits to the of 2005, most of the cigarette products that claim to have non-smoker as well as the smoker, such as Omni (which ‘‘less smoke’’ offer both reduced harm for the smoker and claimed fewer carcinogens in its mainstream and sidestream less sidestream smoke to affect the non-smoker. This smoke) or Eclipse (which claims potentially reduced harm, research underscores the importance of educating smokers 17 18 less sidestream smoke, and no lingering odour). There has and non-smokers about the dangers of SHS and promoting been much prior research on how ‘‘light’’ and ‘‘mild’’ smoke-free policies. cigarettes provided reassurance to smokers about the health risks of smoking.19–24 While the technological development and use of additives to create some of these products25 and some studies on the health effects of SHS and testing of low Abbreviations: BAT, British American Tobacco; FDA, Food and Drug 26 smoke products have been described, there has been little Administration; PREPs, potentially reduced exposure products; RJR, RJ focus on the marketing of these products and the consumer Reynolds; SHS, secondhand smoke www.tobaccocontrol.com 2of16 Ling, Glantz Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2005.011239 on 23 September 2005. Downloaded from Virginia Slims Eclipse test Superslims markets Project VISA, Trend Capri Premier, Chelsea Eclipse Project Barclay Ultra Salem national Airbus Pianissimo distribution Project XA 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Merit LS Accord Passport Benson & Horizon Hedges LVS Project SS Sienna, Favor Vista, Claremont Vantage Excel Monterey Figure 1 Timeline of introduction of potentially more socially acceptable cigarette products. METHODS acceptable products? (4) What types of cigarette products and We analysed tobacco industry documents focusing on the benefits have been developed, and which concepts are most tobacco industry’s attempt to ‘‘solve’’ the problem of social attractive to smokers? (5) Which of these products been acceptability by developing new products. To address these successful in the marketplace, and how does the tobacco issues, we collected marketing research on social accept- industry account for its successes and failures? ability, consumer concept testing of socially acceptable Documents were analysed using repeated iterative reviews product concepts, consumer testing of prototype socially to construct coherent accounts of the marketing projects acceptable products, the history, success, or failure of these identified. Common principles, strategies, and themes that products in the marketplace, and strategic plans addressing were replicated over several studies, and duplicated by several social acceptability future strategies in this arena. tobacco companies were identified and discussed by both Initial searches were performed using tobacco industry authors. Questions were resolved by gathering additional document archives from the Legacy Tobacco Documents data, and by triangulation with outside sources such as Library (legacy.library.ucsf.edu) and the British American advertising archives, tobacco company websites, former employees, annual reports, news coverage, and trade press. Tobacco Documents Archive (bat.library.ucsf.edu) at the http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ University of California, San Francisco. Tobacco industry documents internet sites (Phillip Morris, www.pmdocs.com; RESULTS RJ Reynolds (RJR), www.rjrtdocs.com; Lorillard, www. Scope of documents analysed lorillarddocs.com), Tobacco Documents Online (www. Tobacco companies recognised the importance of social tobaccodocuments.org), and the Minnesota Select Set acceptability in numerous countries worldwide, monitored (outside.cdc.gov:8080/BASIS/ncctld/web/mnimages) were the public perception of social acceptability in different searched for supplemental information. countries, and pursued political and public relations strate- Searches were conducted between June 2003 and October gies to combat growing unacceptability of smoking inter- 2004. Initial search terms were related to social acceptability, nationally, including ‘‘Operation Berkshire’’ and the Social such as ‘‘social accept*’’, ‘‘less smoke’’, ‘‘low sidestream’’, or Acceptability Working Party arm of the International ‘‘low odor’’, combined with search terms that identify Committee on Smoking Issues formed by international 30–34 research, such as ‘‘study’’, ‘‘research’’, or ‘‘marketing