As a result, significant amounts of adult smokers believed that cigarette brands “light”, “soft” and “low tar” reduced health risk and were less addictive than “regular” or “full flavor” brands . Many health-conscious smokers even reported that switching to these brands was an alternative to smoking cessation (Gilpin et al. 2002). “Light” and “light” descriptors may also have promoted the start of smoking among young people; A study found that young Americans believed that “light” and “soft” brands had lower health risks and lower levels of addiction than “ordinary” brand varieties, beliefs similar to those of adults (Kropp and Halpern-Felsher 2004). Similar findings came from an Australian study conducted in 2005 with high school students aged 13 to 15 (Hoek et al. 2006). In the studio, an estimated 50% of students agreed that “light” cigarettes contain less tar than normal cigarettes, 40% believed that “light” cigarettes were less harmful and about 30% believed that ” light “cigarettes are easier to stop.
Elsewhere, in two experimental studies, Students who saw photos of tobacco shops and advertising displays are more likely to overestimate the percentage of teenagers and adults who smoke and believe that tobacco is easier to buy than those who saw photos without retail tobacco materials (Henriksen et al. 2002; Wakefield et al. 2006a). In another study, youth smokers preferred the most advertised and promoted brand near school (Wakefield et al. 2002b). Companies that sell smokeless tobacco participate in many of the same marketing practices used by cigarette manufacturers. In 2008, total marketing costs for smokeless tobacco products amounted to $ 547 million (Table 5.6; FTC 2011b), just under 14% of total revenues from the sale of smokeless tobacco products.
There are indications that the industry is using its pricing strategies to respond to tobacco discouragement efforts in addition to tax increases. Other researchers have used observational and scanners-based data to increase the use of price-reducing promotions after price increases and marketing restrictions as a result of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (Ruel et al. 2004; Loomis et al. 2006); These findings are consistent with trends in the FTC reported cigarette marketing cost data described above. Both Slater and colleagues and Loomis and colleagues found that the prevalence of promotions to lower prices was higher in states with higher spending on comprehensive tobacco discouragement programs. Likewise, Feighery and colleagues have documented the increased use of point-of-sale ads to highlight promotions that lower prices, while Henriksen and colleagues have shown more marketing at points of sale in stores frequented by young people. Given the increased sensitivity to smoking among young people, this marketing pattern suggests that industry-specific pricing and price reduction strategies will have the greatest impact on young people and young adults. The money invested in these campaigns resulted in widespread exposure to the industry’s efforts for youth adults.
The price of tobacco products has become an important marketing strategy in the tobacco industry in recent years. Historically, the markets for tobacco products have been characterized by relatively stable prices, with changes in a company’s prices typically equaling changes Springfield m1a socom in other companies . In recent years, however, promotions to lower prices have been the primary means of price competition between manufacturers, with some evidence that these promotions target specific brands or places that are most important to young people.
Evidence in this chapter indicates that smokeless products are designed based on a “graduation strategy” to encourage new users to start certain products and promote others with a higher level of free nicotine (Figure 5.5; Smokeless tobacco from the USA , USA 1984). This integration of product design with marketing helped to counteract the decline in smokeless tobacco consumption among adolescents and young adults (Slade 1995; Tomar et al. 1995; USDHHS 1986). The latest evidence suggests that a similar integration of product design with marketing to increase attractiveness for teenagers and young adults has continued in cigarettes and new smokeless tobacco products such as bulbs, sticks and strips . There are strong indications that tobacco advertising and promotion, especially those that contain images that associate positive properties with tobacco consumption, they succeed in influencing smoking awareness, recognition of specific brands, attitude towards smoking, smoking intentions and actual smoking behavior among young people. Such images have also proven effective in reducing risk perception in young people (Pollay 2001; Wakefield et al. 2002a).