Perceptions of Plain and Branded Cigarette Packaging Among Norwegian Youth and Adults: A Focus Group Study

Abstract

The findings indicate that packaging is vital to consumer identification with and differentiation between cigarette brands and that a policy of plain packaging could be useful in reducing the impact of packaging in promotion of tobacco products.

The impact of cigarette branding and plain packaging on perceptions of product appeal and risk among young adults in Norway: A between-subjects experimental survey

“…The results indicate further that a shift from branded to plain cigarette packaging could lead to a reduction in positive perceptions of cigarettes among adolescents, also in a context where marketing of tobacco as well as extensive use of innovative pack design to attract the consumers is already highly regulated. The result that the respondents so clearly make distinctions regarding harmfulness and ease of quitting between the brand varieties based upon colours and descriptors confirms the findings from a previous qualitative research in Norway16 and points towards the conclusion that cigarette descriptors such as ‘rounded taste’ (in contrast to ‘rough taste’) and colour codes such as ‘gold’ or ‘pale blue’ are perceived in a similar way as the prohibited terms ‘light’ and ‘mild’. The use of these terms thus appears to violate the guidelines of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty, which forbids information that directly or indirectly creates the false impression that a particular tobacco product is less harmful than other tobacco products.…”

“…Studies from other countries evaluating the suitability of different colours have, for example, concluded that grey is perceived less negatively than brown 24. This concern is, to some extent, reduced by findings from qualitative studies indicating that grey plain cigarette packages are perceived negatively in Norway 16. The between-subjects design also carries with it some challenges, predominantly the risk of uncontrolled variation between the groups, or in this case, between the conditions.…”

“…In this section, males and females were shown different pack selections, the males’ selection consisting of supposedly ‘male-oriented’ packs, and the females’ selection consisted of supposedly ‘female-oriented’ packs. The distinction between male and female brands was based on previous qualitative studies from Norway,22 16 as well as presumptions about gender-coded colouring (eg, lighter pack=feminine) and descriptors (eg, rough taste=masculine). Four of the brand varieties were the same for both genders.…”

“…While it is still early to draw conclusions about the real-life effect of plain packaging, a growing body of experimental evidence supports the potential public health benefits of plain packaging. Studies have, for example, demonstrated that pack colours and brand imagery such as symbols and graphics can influence consumers’ perceptions of the risk involved in using tobacco products,13 and that the removal of brand images from cigarette packaging can reduce the appeal of packs and products 14–16. Experimental research has also indicated that plain packaging can significantly reduce false beliefs about health risks and ease of quitting,13 17 promote cessation behaviour18 and increase the salience of health warnings 19.…”

Analysis of the Paternalistic Justification of an Agenda Setting Public Health Policy: The Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging

“…The public health debate addresses three main themes: (i) reduction of the symbolic value of tobacco packaging (Wakefield et al, 2012;Borland et al, 2013;Ford et al, 2013a;Moodie and MacKintosh, 2013;Scheffels and Saebø, 2013); (ii) reinforcement of consumers' health attitude towards smoking, increased recall and perceived seriousness of health messages (Hammond et al, 2009;Munafò et al, 2011;AlHamdani, 2013;Maynard et al, 2013;Moodie and MacKintosh, 2013); (iii) evidence of behavioural change (e.g., attempts to quit, quit-line calls, reduced consumption; Moodie et al, 2012Chantler, 2014;Maynard, 2014). For a systematic review of plain packaging conducted from a public health perspective, see Moodie et al (2012.…”