Study: Cigarette Packages Can Help Kill Smokers
A new study published in the Journal of Public Health has found that people rate cigarettes in attractive packages as less deadly than others. Or, to put it another way, the study found that people who are asked to compare cigarettes based on their packages are inclined to prefer the smartly packaged ones:
The study - one in a series of papers on cigarette packaging - had more than 600 adults, smokers and non-smokers, rate a variety of fictitious cigarette packages.
Participants were asked to compare packages in pairs and say which they believed would taste smoother, deliver more tar and carry lower health risks.
Eighty per cent of those surveyed said they believed the package labelled "smooth" would be less hazardous than the one labelled "regular."A lighter blue box was also thought to carry a lower health risk than a darker one, while about 75 per cent of respondents found a box with the picture of a charcoal filter likely to be less risky than one without the illustration.
The researchers are from Canada, where cigarette packs are already covered with large, graphic warning labels. While evidence has shown that these labels have helped cut down on smoking, the scholars are pushing for plain, standardized packaging for all brands. That way, teenagers will have to turn to Hollywood and magazine ads to figure out what to smoke.
Snazzy cigarette packaging has consumers thinking the product is less lethal [Canadian Press] (via PR Watch)
(Photo: CeeKay)
Post a comment
Comments:
Some municipal (and soon state) governments ban the use of trans-fats in food products. Why don't they also ban the much more insidious tobacco products?
About 4:30 in. Caution, NSFW if you have speakers. Transcript below:
"There's a guy- I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been on the news a lot lately. There's a guy- he's English, I don't think we should hold that against him, but apparently this is just his life's dream because he is going from country to country. He has a senate hearing in this country coming up in a couple of weeks. And this is what he wants to do. He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger. Yeah! He wants the whole front of the pack to be the warning. Like the problem is we just haven't noticed yet. Right? Like he's going to get his way and all of the sudden smokers around the world are going to be going, "Yeah, Bill, I've got some cigarettes.. HOLY SH!T! These things are bad for you! Sh!t, I thought they were good for you! I thought they had Vitamin C in them and stuff!" You fücking dolt! Doesn't matter how big the warnings are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that come in a black pack, with a skull and a cross bone on the front, called tumors and smokers would be lined up around the block going, "I can't wait to get my hands on these fücking things! I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up! Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm" Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the fücking cigarettes, ok!? There a drug, we're addicted, ok!? Numm Numm Numm Numm Numm *wheeze*"
@Kogenta: Easy fix there, though. Everyone that finds the warning labels disturbing will just use a cigarette case.
The packaging doesn't matter if the teenager is in Ontario where the "display" cases are basically giant cream coloured text-and-graphic-less monoliths. When you don't know what the store sells, they'll show you a list of available cigs (Don't know if that's legal or not, but it's what I've seen).
And, weirdly enough, it seems to be working. I honestly don't get it. I never bought stuff just because of the packaging once I reached age 19 (minimum age to buy cigs here). I guess most smokers must be different, though, since I've never smoked.
@Kogenta: Do a google image search for the warning ads on Thai cigarette packages; they make the ones we have here in Canada look completely tame in comparison (a few are also unintentionally hilarious - like the smoking skeleton wearing sunglasses).
Also, surely the customers not wanting the brains/teeth/lung pictures wouldn't affect what brand they're buying as all the brands have the same ads. is it just that customers are saying: "Matinee extra mild king size, but not the package with the teeth."? Realisitcally, they could sell cigarettes in a package that would administer an electric shock every time you touch it and it probably wouldn't affect sales; you're not going to quit if you're not ready, no matter what the package looks like.
/Hasn't had a cigarette in 11 months - that's probably about an extra $1000 in my pocket by now.
@zacox: Probably for a few reasons: #1 Votes - they have a lot of voters who smoke. #2 Slippery slope - cars, guns, etc. cause death too…are they next? #3 Criminalizing fixing - making it illegal to buy cigarettes won't get rid of them, it will only make a bunch of criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
Just some guesses… I agree though, it doesn't seem to make much sense to ban trans fats and leave something like this.
@zacox: It's simple. Politicians have a much more serious addiction to the tax revenue generated by tobacco sales.
Wo. You transcribed that?
From all the non-video watchers, I thank you.
I heard the rant in my head, clear as day.
@BackOnTheAir_GitEmSteveDave: Hahahaha that is one place I agree that more graphic illustrations do not work. Unlike fast food, where it is easy to wolf down a 2000 calorie salad without realizing, it should be the parents and teachers job to educate teenagers in advance about how bad cigs are, and that they do not actually make you look 10% cooler.
I think the problem is that the kids think that the perceived coolness gained outweighs the alleged risk of a horrible painful death. And we all know how well reasoned and analytical most teens are.
I think this is any different from any other product. Most people will chose a product that "looks better" than on that's in horrible packaging.
There is a lot of psychology behind food presentation. Chefs study for years to get this part of the meal right.
I'd like to hear how they asked these questions. Somehow I suspect it goes something like: "Given these two packs, which one looks like less of a health risk?"
"Ummm, this one."
I'm not sure if that really translates to people actually thinking that some cigarettes are healthier than others, based on the packaging.
@shepd: Actually the packaging is still quite important, having to look at the warning every single time you want a cigarette has a cumulative effect that will wear down smokers much more effectively than simply hiding their cigarettes. For those who don't know, Ontario passed a law roughly a year ago stating that stores can no longer display any kind of tobacco products, they must be behind the counter in unmarked cases (or whatever, you can store them however you like as long as the storage is opaque and unmarked beyond saying just "cigarettes").
@Shadowman615: They're not necessarily claiming that it's a conscious thing so much as a subconscious influence.
If it's a consistent, statistically significant effect, then it's probably valid to question the role of packaging.
If you quit _______, you will never die.
At least that's what I hear when a government official says 'we saved lives with this bill'.
@MostlyHarmless: The problem with that strategy is that parents & teachers telling teenagers how smoking doesn't make them look cool is the exact reason that they think cigs make them look cool...
When I worked retail in college, I knew exactly which brands I'd smoke if I ever started smoking. It was definitely based on how the packages looked. Some were totally badass looking, some looked like you'd get your ass kicked if anybody caught you smoking one. In the end, I never smoked. So I guess I'll never know how my potential selections would've panned out for me.
Another idea: ban "light" cigs. Or at least don't call them that, so people will stop thinking they are better. Let's see them try and market Camel Holes-in-the-filter.
Or we can just hold people responsible for their habits. If I want to kill my own body, I should be able to -- understanding that I sacrifice the right to bitch about lung cancer or emphysema when I get older.
Anti-Tabacco, Picture This! mind yer own business!
Oh, how i love taking the indefensible positions!
Actually, I am NOT for banning anything. I think its much better to allow something and then reasonably tax it. They tax the hell out of cigarettes now, and they should, because we taxpayers wind up shouldering the Medicare costs for smokers with lung cancer and emphysema.
Rather than banning something, some measure of personal responsibility should be required. Insurers already sock smokers with higher rates. Medicare should do the same. If you are/were a smoker and you have lung cancer now as a result, you could be made to pay for a substantial portion of your care. If you're enormous and have obesity-related issues, you could be made to pay for a portion of your care.
I do believe that big tobacco's heyday is long gone. Though Obama may sneak a smoke now and then, I believe he will take the hard line on tobacco, and I think the tobacco lobby and their dollars will be much more futile now than ever before.
Product marketing at work: pretty boxes = sales.
@kraftmayo: OK, we can do that once we're living in a libertarian utopia where smokers' choices don't affect anyone else.
@mizike: Oh, it won't stop the hardcore people, but a number of people would leave if all you had (in the brand and flavour they wanted) was brains, lungs and teeth to go buy smokes at some place that had pictures they felt weren't "disgusting turn offs". I would suppose if they couldn't just conveniently go half a block down to the next place that sells cigs they would take it because they had no choice.
Well, in any case, it's not like it's not like packaging is going to make a huge difference compared to the massive blanket bans on where you can smoke and what stores can sell smokes where I live.
This explains the popularity of "Hello Kitty Heroin" !
for me, it's all about the "recessed filter option". Thanks, Parliament!
@zacox:
Actually, the dirty little secret is that smokers save health care systems money overall. How could they be? Simple--they die. The fact is, the majority of health care dollars are spent treating chronic health problems in the elderly--smokers die instead.
@zacox: Foods in which one would use trans-fats can also be made without them, and I would imagine that there are very few people who eat straight trans-fat. On the other hand, try making a (tobacco) cigarette without tobacco. Unless you're Jesus Christ Himself, you probably can't do it. So, not really an even equation.
@Maurs:
Holes in the paper, actually, and it's already written into law, takes effect in a couple years.
@BackOnTheAir_GitEmSteveDave: Thanks for the transcript, this is really reminescent of the end of Thank You for Smoking. This is exactly what the tobacco industry wants you to think. Advertising is a billion dollar industry. Don't think packaging matters? Tell that to Tropicana.
All the packs should just have a picture of a diseased lung on the package, and require the clerk to throw one on top of the counter for each person that buys one.
I would expect it might get a little tiring, but, it's for the best.
@psm321: Stop kissing me so passionately right after I take a drag--I can only hold my breath so long
@kraftmayo: You can drink your liver to death, but if you go outside and get in a car, you effective affect others around you. You can smoke until your lungs resemble the inside of a grill, but if you're in public, you affect other people.
You must be the guy outside the subway tunnel, puffing away without a care to who is around him. You're the kind of guy I want to lock inside a subway car without air conditioning.
Sure, it's easy to argue the point when you just disregard the point of the article.
I'm not sure what the potential health risks to smokers buying cigarettes has to do with the potential health risks of second hand smoke.
If you're in a public place and someone is smoking, leave -- you have the right to go somewhere that doesn't allow smoking.
Try taking some responsibility, rather than playing the victim.
@Communist Pope: You missed the point though. It was that if they are going to ban something like trans-fats, which we've known for 5 years are dangerous, why not ban tobacco, which we've known causes cancer for 50 years?
@zacox: Because, as has been noted in the thread, trans-fats didn't get banned simply because they're bad for you. They got banned because they're bad for you, they're easily replaceable, they have little tradition in this country, their lobby isn't particularly powerful, and they don't provide that many people with jobs.
@kraftmayo: The home of any kid whose parents smoke, for one. For adults, myriad workplaces until laws began to change about a decade ago, and still plenty of them. And still just at the 20-foot or wherever perimeter of any large facility's doors.
It's changed a lot in my lifetime, and I'm actually fairly okay with where it is, but it's still pretty easy to find situations where people can't really avoid secondhand smoke. It's just that for adults those situations are much fewer and more short-term than they used to be.
@zacox: If you're point is, "trans-fat is bad for you and has been outlawed, tobacco is bad for you so why can't/don't we outlaw that too?," then I haven't missed it at all. I just think you're ignoring or choosing to downplay the sizable differences between the two products that makes it much easier to ban one than the other. Specifically, that trans-fat is not the entirety of the products with which its associated and can easily be replaced by a similar substance, whereas tobacco, with the exception of a thin layer of paper or leaves, is the entirety of its associated products and therefore can't be as easily replaced. Make sense? No? No skin off my nose either way.
@Applekid:
Nope. That wouldn't stop me.
Disclaimer: I only smoke at home on my patio. If you don't like it, don't come over.
My friends who are "real" smokers pick on me because I only smoke a couple of cigs per day. They say, why bother.
@kraftmayo: Right, because on a crowded city street, it's so easy to cross a wide expanse to avoid someone puffing away on a cigarette. I'll just push over some elderly people and tourists with fanny packs so I can get at least six feet from you.
@MostlyHarmless: They make you look 30% cooler.
Everyone knows this.
Add some shades and you;ve increased your cool another 20%
Wear a leather jacket and you've upped another 30%
But if you then give a thumbs up and say Eyyyyyyy. Then you've droped down to 20% cool.
I have to admit, when I worked at a place that sold cigarettes, a lot of customers wouldn't buy any of the packs that had the picture of the brains, lungs or the teeth on them. You'd figure someone in the gov would tweak on this eventually and only use those warning labels.