4.5 Review

I always thought they were all pure tobacco'': American smokers' perceptions of natural'' cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies

期刊

TOBACCO CONTROL
卷 16, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/tc.2006.019638

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [CA120138, R01 CA095989, CA095989, R01 CA095989-04, R01 CA120138, R01 CA120138-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine how the US tobacco industry markets cigarettes as natural'' and American smokers' views of the naturalness'' (or unnaturalness) of cigarettes. Methods: Internal tobacco industry documents, the Pollay 20th Century Tobacco Ad Collection, and newspaper sources were reviewed, themes and strategies were categorised, and the findings were summarised. Results: Cigarette advertisements have used the term natural'' since at least 1910, but it was not until the 1950s that natural'' referred to a core element of brand identity, used to describe specific product attributes (filter, menthol, tobacco leaf). The term additive- free'', introduced in the 1980s, is now commonly used to define natural cigarettes. Tobacco company market research, available from 1970 to 1998, consistently revealed that within focus group sessions, smokers initially had difficulty interpreting the term natural'' in relation to cigarettes; however, after discussion of cigarette ingredients, smokers viewed natural'' cigarettes as healthier. Tobacco companies regarded the implied health benefits of natural cigarettes as their key selling point, but hesitated to market them because doing so might raise doubts about the composition of their highly profitable regular'' brands. Conclusion: Although our findings support the idea advanced by some tobacco control advocates that informing smokers of conventional cigarettes' chemical ingredients could promote cessation, they also suggest that such a measure could increase the ubiquity and popularity of natural'' cigarettes. A more effective approach may be to denaturalise'' smoking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据