“Blue,” “Red”: How do smokers perceive brand descriptors?

The research has identified the packaging of tobacco packets as a real advertising showcase, particularly among young people, justifying the adoption of plain packaging. Furthermore, most countries have banned the use of descriptors deemed misleading or incentivizing, such as "light" cigarettes. Despite these restrictions, manufacturers' marketing strategies appear to remain effective today. With this in mind, an American study sought to assess smokers' perceptions of different brand descriptors, regardless of their packaging.[1].

A panel of 98 American daily smokers, aged 18 to 38, were interviewed by a team of researchers between 2018 and 2019. Each brand descriptor was classified into four categories (see table at the end of the article): those referring to the prestige of the brand (Premium, Distinct, etc.), those mentioning a taste (Smooth, Robust), a color (Red, Blue, etc.), or a particular connotation (Classic, Ultra, etc.). Each descriptor was rated from 1 to 10 for each of these three criteria: harmfulness, attractiveness, and its incentive to consume.

Prestige-related descriptors

For descriptors referring to brand prestige, Real is the one most perceived as being the least harmful. Conversely, the Prime descriptor is considered by respondents to be the most dangerous to health. Regarding the attractiveness of the descriptor, Real and Premium are the most cited in their category, while the Reserve descriptor appears to be the least attractive. Finally, the Real and Reserve descriptors are respectively designated by respondents as being the most and least incentivizing to consumption.

Taste-related descriptors

For flavor descriptors, Mellow was ranked as the least harmful by half of the participants, while Bold was considered more dangerous to health. As the researchers note, the choice of flavor descriptor appears to have a strong influence on the perception of tobacco's harmfulness, but also on its attractiveness. Indeed, Smooth was designated as the most attractive by more than 42% of respondents, and as the least attractive by only 2.3%. Conversely, 27.3% of respondents considered Robust tobacco to be the least attractive in its category. Similarly, Smooth and Full Flavor were considered the most attractive descriptors, while Bold was the opposite.

Color-related descriptors

For color descriptors, White was considered by participants to be the least harmful to health (53.4%). This is the descriptor with the greatest influence on the perception of harmfulness, all categories combined. On the other hand, the Red and Black descriptors were very widely considered to be the most harmful to health (45.4% and 40.9% respectively). However, the researchers emphasize that no color descriptor particularly stands out in terms of attractiveness, even if Black and White were considered the least attractive by 24.1 and 20.7% of respondents. In the same vein, no color seems to be particularly more attractive than the others: Gold and Purple obtained the highest scores, and Red, Orange and Pink the lowest.

Descriptors linked to a particular connotation

For descriptors referring to specific connotations, Balanced was perceived by smokers as the least harmful, and Ultra as the most harmful, even though the variables were less significant than for the other categories. According to the results, Unique was designated by respondents as the most attractive. Conversely, Ultra, Midnight, Balanced, Super, and Bright were ranked as the least attractive. Finally, Classic was considered the most attractive by 29.5% of respondents, while Bright, Super, Ultra, Infinite, and Midnight were judged as the least attractive.

These perceptions, however, differ depending on the generational, socio-demographic, sexual, ethnic, or educational level or nicotine dependence of the person interviewed. However, the study data demonstrate that the tobacco industry has adapted its strategy following the various marketing restrictions. Thus, through their influence on consumer perceptions, these descriptors must be considered as advertising and promotional vectors for smoking, and as a circumvention of current regulations.

[1] Felcione NJ, Norton KJ, Bansal-Travers M, Rees VW, Cummings KM, O'Connor RJ. Smokers' perceptions of different classes of cigarette brand descriptors. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation. 2021;7(February):9. doi:10.18332/tpc/131243.

National Committee Against Smoking |