Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Influence of premium versus value brand names on the smoking experience in a plain packaging environment: an experimental study
  1. Gemma Skaczkowski1,
  2. Sarah Durkin1,
  3. Yoshihisa Kashima2,
  4. Melanie Wakefield1
  1. 1Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Professor Melanie Wakefield; melanie.wakefield{at}cancervic.org.au

Abstract

Objective To examine the effect of branding, as indicated by brand name, on evaluation of the cigarette smoking experience.

Design Between-subjects and within-subjects experimental study. Participants were randomly allocated to smoke a cigarette from a pack featuring a premium brand name and a cigarette from a pack featuring a value brand name. Within each condition, participants unknowingly smoked two identical cigarettes (either two premium or two value cigarettes).

Setting Australia, October 2014, 2 years after tobacco plain packaging implementation.

Participants 81 current cigarette smokers aged 19–39 years. From apparently premium and value brand-name packs, 40 smokers were allocated to smoke the same actual premium cigarettes and 41 were allocated to smoke the same actual value cigarettes.

Primary outcome measures Experienced taste (flavour, satisfaction, enjoyment, quality, liking, mouthfeel and aftertaste), harshness, dryness, staleness, harm/strength measures (strength, tar, lightness, volume of smoke), draw effort and purchase intent.

Results Cigarettes given a premium brand name were rated as having a better taste, were less harsh and less dry than identical cigarettes given a value brand name. This pattern was observed irrespective of whether the two packs actually contained premium or value cigarettes. These effects were specific: the brand name did not influence ratings of cigarette variant attributes (strength, tar, volume of smoke, lightness and draw effort).

Conclusions Despite the belief that brand names represent genuine differences between cigarette products, the results suggest that at least some of this perceived sensory difference is attributable to brand image.

  • Tobacco Products
  • Branding
  • Taste Perception
  • Sensation Transfer

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors MW, SD and GS conceived the study. MW, SD and GS designed the survey questions and study protocol. GS coordinated fieldwork and undertook data analysis, and SD and YK supervised these study phases. GS drafted the manuscript and MW, SD and YK revised the content. All authors approved the final submitted version.

  • Funding This work was supported by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) grant number 623203. GS was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award. MW is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Principal Research Fellowship.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Ethical approval for the study was provided by the Human Research Ethics Committee of Cancer Council Victoria.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.