Prospective longitudinal study of tobacco company adaptation to standardised packaging in the UK: identifying circumventions and closing loopholes

Abstract

ObjectivesUK standardised packaging legislation was introduced alongside pack size and product descriptor restrictions of the European Union Tobacco Products Directive to end tobacco marketing and misinformation via the pack. This paper aims to assess compliance with the restrictions and identify attempts to continue to market tobacco products and perpetuate misperceptions of harm post legislation.Design, setting and interventionA prospective study of the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products to the UK.Participants and outcomesWe analysed commercial sales data to assess whether the legally required changes in pack branding, size and name were implemented. To explore any adaptations to products and packaging we analysed sales data, monthly pack purchases of factory-made (FM) cigarettes and roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco, tobacco advertisements from retail trade magazines and articles on tobacco from commercial literature (retail trade, market analyst and tobacco company publications).ResultsOne month after full implementation of the UK and European Union policies, 97% FM and 98% RYO was sold in compliant packaging. Nevertheless, tobacco companies made adaptations to tobacco products which enabled continued brand differentiation after the legislation came into force. For example, flavour names previously associated with low tar were systematically changed to colour names arguably facilitating continued misperceptions about the relative harms of products. Tobacco companies used the 1-year sell-through to their advantage by communicating brand name changes and providing financial incentives for retailers to buy large volumes of branded packs. In addition, tobacco companies continued to market their products to retailers and customers by innovating exemptions to the legislation, namely, filters, packaging edges, seals, multipack outers, RYO accessories, cigars and pipe tobacco.ConclusionsTobacco companies adapted to packaging restrictions by innovating their tobacco products and marketing activities. These findings should enable policy makers globally to close loopholes and increase the potential efficacy of standardised packaging policies.

‘The last line of marketing’: Covert tobacco marketing tactics as revealed by former tobacco industry employees

“…Whilst there is no guarantee that these marketing activities persist, we strategically selected employees who worked within the tobacco industry within the previous five years (2014-2019). We also have no reason to believe that the information provided was not current or accurate, particularly given some of the marketing strategies have also been reported in other recent studies (Evans-Reeves et al, 2019;Stead et al, 2018;Watts et al, 2020).…”

Standardised packaging, minimum excise tax, and RYO focussed tax rise implications for UK tobacco pricing

“…In 2016 and 2017, there were also four tax changes. Given the late appearance of standardised packs in the implementation period and removal of non-compliant SKU (Figure A in S1 Appendix and [33,59]), it is not possible to distinguish statistically between effects of standardised packaging, minimum pack size, and taxation changes. In addition, FM subvalue prices rose as soon as the MET was announced rather than when it was implemented.…”

Longitudinal evaluation of the impact of standardised packaging and minimum excise tax on tobacco sales and industry revenue in the UK

“…By mid-2017, the UK government had fully implemented two policies that may address these pricing strategies: standardised packaging [14][15][16] for factory-made cigarettes (FM) and roll-your-own tobacco (RYO) and a minimum excise tax (MET) on FM products. 17 The industry's ability to create a price gap depends on signalling the premium connotations of its more expensive brands, and conversely indicating that other products are cheap.…”