GfK GfK bluemoon Market Research to Determine Impact of Plain Packaging on other tobacco products Report Prepared for: Department of Health and Ageing Simon Cotterell Tobacco Control Taskforce Prepared by: Victoria Parr Benita Tan Patrick Ell December 2011 GfK Blue Moon Sydney L2 71-73 Chandos St St Leonards NSW 2065 AUSTRALIA Tel +61 2 9460 6555 Fax +61 2 9460 6293 Melbourne 407 Bridge Rd Richmond VIC 3121 AUSTRALIA Tel +61 3 8415 9555 Fax +61 3 8415 9599 www.gfkbluemoon.com.au page 1 GfK bluemoon TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Background, Objectives and Methodology .................................................................. 5 1.2 Roll Your Own Smokers ............................................................................................... 6 1.3 Cigarillo Smokers ......................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Premium Cigar Smokers .............................................................................................. 9 1.5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 11 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Previous Research ....................................................................................................... 12 2.2 The Current Need for Research ................................................................................... 12 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Policy Objectives .......................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Research Objectives for Plain Packaging of Other Tobacco Products ........................ 13 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 14 4.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................14 4.2 RYO Smokers ................................................................................................................14 4.3 Cigarillo/little Cigars .......................................................................................................16 4.4 Premium Cigars ........................................................................................................... 16 4.5 Recruitment of Respondents ....................................................................................... 17 4.6 Quantitative Questionnaires ......................................................................................... 17 4.7 Qualitative Discussion Guides ..................................................................................... 17 4.8 Stimulus .........................................................................................................................18 4.9 Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 19 ROLL YOUR OWN (RYO) .......................................................................................................... 21 5.1 About the Qualitative Sample ...................................................................................... 21 5.2 Overall Appeal ...............................................................................................................22 5.3 Quality of Cigarettes .................................................................................................... 24 5.4 Harm to Health ............................................................................................................. 25 5.5 Ease of Quitting .............................................................................................................26 5.6 Noticeability of Health Warning .................................................................................... 29 CIGARILLO / LITTLE CIGARS ................................................................................................... 31 6.1 About the Sample ........................................................................................................ 31 6.2 Overall Appeal ...............................................................................................................32 6.3 Quality of Cigarillos ........................................................................................................33 6.4 Harm to Health ............................................................................................................. 34 6.5 Ease of Quitting .............................................................................................................35 6.6 Noticeability of Health Warning .................................................................................... 36 GfK bluemoon 7 page 2 PREMIUM CIGAR SMOKERS ................................................................................................... 38 7.1 About the Sample ......................................................................................................... 38 7.2 Perceived Appeal and Attractiveness ............................................................................ 40 7.3 Perceived Quality of the Tobacco ................................................................................. 44 8 9 10 11 102 12 13 106 page 3 7.4 Perceived Ease of Quitting ........................................................................................... 45 7.5 Noticeability of the graphic health warning ................................................................... 46 CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A: ROLL YOUR OWN (RYO) ................................................................................. 48 9.1 Population targets (RYO daily and Weekly Smokers) for Weighting ........................... 48 9.2 Quantitative Online Questionnaire ................................................................................. 49 9.3 Stimulus (Quantitative and Qualitative) .......................................................................... 69 9.4 Quantitative Maximum Difference Scaling Question Example ..................................... 70 9.5 Quantitative Respondent Smoking Behaviour and Profiles ......................................... 72 9.6 Qualitative Discussion Guide ......................................................................................... 75 APPENDIX B: CIGARILLOS/LITTLE CIGARS ......................................................................... 80 10.1 Quantitative Self Completion Questionnaire ................................................................. 80 10.2 Quantitative Self Completion Respondent Profile ........................................................ 89 10.3 Stimulus (Quantitative and Qualitative) .......................................................................... 90 10.4 Qualitative Discussion Guide ......................................................................................... 91 APPENDIX C: PREMIUM CIGARS ............................................................................................. 97 11.1 Qualitative Discussion Guide.............................................................................................. 97 11.2 Qualitative Stimulus ..................................................................................................... APPENDIX D: QUALITATIVE RECRUITMENT SCREENER .................................................. 103 APPENDIX E: USING THIS RESEARCH .................................................................................. GfK bluemoon LIST OF TABLES Page Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table page 4 4.2.1: RYO Quantitative Sample Profile ........................................................ 15 4.2.2: RYO Qualitative Sample Structure ...................................................... 15 4.3.1. Cigarillos/little Cigars Qualitative Sample Structure ............................... 16 4.4.1. Premium Cigars Qualitative Sample Structure ...................................... 17 5.2.1: RYO Overall Pack Appeal ................................................................... 23 5.3.1: RYO Quality of Tobacco ..................................................................... 24 5.4.1: RYO Perceived Harm to Health .......................................................... 26 5.5.1: RYO Perceived Ease of Quitting ......................................................... 28 5.6.1: RYO Noticeability of Health Warning .................................................. 30 6.2.1. Cigarillos Overall Appeal ................................................................... 32 6.3.1. Cigarillos Quality of Cigarillos ............................................................. 33 6.4.1. Cigarillos Harm to Health ................................................................... 34 6.5.1. Cigarillos Ease of Quitting ................................................................. 36 6.6.1. Cigarillos Noticeability of Health Warning ........................................... 37 GfK GfK bluemoon 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background, Objectives and Methodology The National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health has set the aim of reducing the proportion of Australians who smoke daily to 10% by 2018. Based on recommendations by the Preventative Health Taskforce, the Australian Government announced on 29 April 2010 that it would introduce legislation to ensure all cigarettes will be sold in plain packaging by 1 July 2012. Australia will be the first country in the world to mandate plain packaging. The objectives of plain packaging as announced by the Australian Government are to: • reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to consumers, particularly young people; • reduce the ability of the tobacco product to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking; and • increase the noticeability and effectiveness of mandated health warnings. The legislation ‘will restrict or prohibit tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and promotional text, other than brand and product names in a standard colour, position, font style and size'. Following market research for cigarette packaging the Department of Health and Ageing (the Department) commissioned research on the impact of plain packaging in regards to tobacco products other than cigarettes. This included premium cigars, roll your own tobacco (RYO) and cigarillos / little cigars. The primary aims of this round of market-testing were focused on evaluating the performance of plain packaging designs for RYO tobacco, cigarillos/little cigars and premium cigars (single cigars) on the measures that were tested in earlier plain packaging research. The key measures tested were overall appeal, quality of tobacco, ease of quitting, perceived harm to health and noticeability of graphic health warning. Based on the initial hypotheses of the research and results from earlier plain packaging testing, the research sought to test the hypotheses that a plain packaging pack would: • have lower appeal; • have lower perceived quality of tobacco; • be perceived as harder to quit; and • have higher perceived harm to health. Although no previous testing had been conducted comparing the noticeability of a 75% graphic health warning on branded packs and plain packaging packs, initial hypotheses were that a plain packaging pack could result in higher noticeability of graphic health warning. page 5 GfK GfK bluemoon A predominantly quantitative methodology was used for cigarillo / little cigar and RYO smokers. For RYO smokers, this consisted of an online survey with n=209 RYO smokers across Australia. For cigarillo / little cigar smokers, a self complete quantitative questionnaire was administered through five qualitative discussion groups with n=30 cigarillo / little cigar smokers. In addition, two qualitative discussion groups were conducted with RYO smokers. The methodology for premium cigar smokers was qualitative due to the difficulties in recruiting large numbers of this group in Australia. Eight qualitative in-depth face-to-face interviews were held with smokers of premium cigars. The research program ran from 27 July to 1 August 2011. The qualitative discussions were held in metropolitan areas of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Consistent with previous rounds of research the plain pack mock up products used in the research were branded as ‘Mayfair'. This brand name was chosen as there is currently no other similarly named tobacco product in the Australian market and there would be no latent association with the brand name among the research audiences. 1.2 Roll Your Own Smokers Attitudes and Behaviours to Tobacco Products The qualitative group discussions with RYO smokers demonstrated that they were a more homogenous group in their attitudes and behaviour than both cigar and cigarillo smokers. RYO tobacco was chosen by these respondents over pre-manufactured cigarettes for a number of reasons, primarily that it: • tastes better than pre-manufactured cigarettes; • costs less than pre-manufactured cigarettes; • affords some ‘distinction' from pre-manufactured cigarettes; and • lasts longer than pre-manufactured cigarettes. RYO smokers tended to have a relationship with a particular brand and held strong associations with others, both positive and negative. They tended to have tried a number of brands and so have some knowledge of brands they preferred or disliked. Reactions to Plain Packaging of Roll Your Own The results from the quantitative pack evaluation comparison show that a plain packaging RYO pack design were in line with the hypotheses for overall appeal, quality perceptions, ease of quitting and highest perceived harm to health. Overall, the Mayfair plain pack was seen to be the least attractive than current branded packs. It was seen to be: • the least appealing pack overall; • to contain the lowest quality cigarettes; page 6 GfK GfK bluemoon • be the pack which contained cigarettes that would be the hardest to quit;1 and • the pack which was seen to contain the second most harmful cigarettes, after White Ox. Appeal, quality and harm to health In the qualitative research respondents universally found that the plain pack design, including colour, font and layout, was unappealing and unattractive. The plain pack colour gives off the impression of a low quality and harmful product, and there are no pre-existing brand associations which smokers can attribute to it which would distract them from the graphic health warning. For RYO smokers low quality was consistently equated with increased harm. Ease of quitting The perception from respondents was that the plain pack would be harder to quit if taken up than the majority of the other brands. This was due to their feeling the product contained a strong tobacco which would only be smoked by highly ‘addicted' smokers. As such they felt that those who did smoke it would find it harder to give up. This perception contributed to the low appeal of the plain pack for respondents. While the White Ox pack was seen to be the second least appealing pack, contain the second lowest quality cigarettes and be the most harmful to health, it was also seen to be the easiest to quit. This was in contrast to previous studies where those packs deemed less appealing, to have lower quality cigarettes and be more harmful to health were seen to be harder to quit. This difference appears to be a result of differing interpretations of the question and the qualitative discussions found that some respondents would answer this question thinking about which brand is easiest to quit as the one they felt least palatable and would least want to smoke themselves. Others considered the question in regards to which brand they felt was the most ‘addictive' and therefore hardest to quit. Noticeability of health warnings In the quantitative research the noticeability of the health warning did not seem to differ significantly across pack designs (including plain packaging) when a 75% health warning coverage is used. At 75% health warning coverage, there was also no evidence that higher contrast between the background pack colour and health warning would result in higher noticeability of the health warning. Qualitatively the findings indicate that the size of the graphic health warning at 75% of the front of pack is so large as to be unavoidable. As such respondents found it hard to differentiate against which pack background or brand they felt the graphic health warning stood out the most. Given the size of the graphic health warning they felt it stood out similarly across the different pack backgrounds. The qualitative discussions made clear that the way in which RYO smokers interpreted the question was the determinate of how they answered the question. Many thought the plain pack to contain low quality and high strength cigarettes which they felt would only be smoked by highly addicted smokers who would therefore find them the hardest to quit. Therefore they felt this pack would be hardest to quit as they answered the question from the point of view of a plain pack smoker. 1 page 7 GfK GfK bluemoon Overall, the qualitative findings demonstrated that the plain RYO pack will strongly communicate to smokers the product contained within is harmful to health and undesirable. 1.3 Cigarillo Smokers Attitudes and Behaviours to Tobacco Products Two distinct types of cigarillos / little cigar smokers were identified. The first of these were those who also smoked premium cigars as well as cigarillos / little cigars, rather than cigarettes or other tobacco products. Cigarillos / little cigars were chosen by these respondents over cigars as a means of enjoying the taste of cigar smoke, while not being as expensive or taking as long to smoke. These cigarillo / little cigar smokers would often enjoy a full size premium cigar with others in a social setting. This group tended to be very similar in attitudes and behaviours to more frequent premium cigar smokers (discussed later in this report). The other type of cigarillo / little cigar smokers were typically also cigarette smokers or had been so in the relatively recent past. This group claimed to smoke cigarillos for a number of reasons: • they taste better than cigarettes; • felt they smoked fewer cigarillos than they would smoke cigarettes, therefore felt to be not as bad for their health; • the act of smoking a cigarillo held an element of occasion; • for a small few it was associated with a sense of status, with it being perceived as more refined / sophisticated than smoking cigarettes. Cigarillo smokers in this study tended to have established brand relationships, only smoking specific brands. That said, while there was some sense that some brands were of higher quality than others, cigarillo smokers did not generally have a large amount of previous knowledge of brands other than their preferred brand. Reactions to Plain Packaging of Cigarillos / little Cigars The quantitative results indicate the cigarillo packs which were seen to be less appealing were also seen to contain lower quality cigarillos and be more harmful to health. There were mixed responses in terms of which packs were harder or easier to quit. The larger packs (square boxes) were seen to have the most noticeable health warnings whilst the narrower rectangular packs had the least noticeable health warnings. In the quantitative testing, the plain packaged tin was seen to be: • the least appealing pack; • the pack containing the lowest quality cigarillos; and • the third most harmful to health out of six packs tested, after Cafe Creme and Wee Willem, the brands seen to be second and third least appealing. page 8 GfK GfK bluemoon On the measure of ease of quitting, there was no obvious consistency in how the different packs were ranked on perceived ease of quitting and the Mayfair pack was seen to contain cigarillos that were easiest to quit.2 This result appeared to be influenced by varied interpretation of the question, as seen for RYO smokers. By nature of being a larger pack, hence a larger health warning relative to rectangular packs, the Mayfair plain package pack (square) was also seen to have a more noticeable health warning than the rectangular shape packs and was considered to be the pack with the third most noticeable health warning of the six packs tested. The qualitative discussions made clear that cigarillo smokers have strong associations with particular brands, both positive and negative. They consistently found the Mayfair plain pack to be unappealing and unattractive which was strongly tied to perceptions of low quality. It was felt the plain packaging has a significant effect in lowering the appeal of cigarillo smoking. 1.4 Premium Cigar Smokers Attitudes and Behaviours to Tobacco Products Smokers of premium cigars differed considerably in their attitude to cigars compared to smokers of other tobacco products. Smoking cigars is felt to be a choice rather than an addiction or habit. It is seen as a luxury and occurs most often in conjunction with a specific activity, for a specific occasion, or in a specific location. The research found two very different types of cigar smokers. The first of these, more frequent cigar smokers, were often extremely knowledgeable about the different types of cigars, and regularly smoked different brands of cigars for enjoyment and as a learning activity. Preference for a specific brand was driven by a combination of factors such as best value for money, the amount of time available to enjoy the cigar, the company and the perceived quality of the tobacco used in the cigar. The brand name and variant of the cigar provides an indication of this type of product information. The more frequent cigar smokers interviewed did not smoke any other tobacco product. The less frequent smokers of premium cigars in the study tended to smoke a premium cigar about twice a month on average (smokers who smoked cigars less frequently than this were excluded from participating in the study). Some of the less frequent cigar smokers were smokers of other tobacco products, including cigarettes. While they felt driven by habit to smoke cigarettes, cigar smoking was seen an occasional pleasure. Their cigar smoking was generally associated with a specific activity, such as a card game, or a specific occasion such as a success at work. These cigar smokers were less knowledgeable about premium cigars and how to determine quality so were more influenced by brand names. They were more likely to assume quality based on origin, rather than have more detailed understanding of difference that the more frequent cigar smokers had. The qualitative discussions made clear that similarly to RYO smokers the way in which cigarillo / little cigar smokers interpreted the question was the determinate of how they answered the question. The Mayfair was seen as the easiest to quit as it was the pack that participants felt was least palatable and that they would least want to smoke themselves. 2 page 9 GfK GfK bluemoon All smokers of premium cigars claimed to not inhale the tobacco smoke. Inhaling smoke from a premium cigar, or any cigar type product, was perceived as something only the naive or inexperienced would do. The pleasure of the cigar was felt to be in tasting the smoke. Reactions to Plain Packaging of Premium Cigars More so than the more frequent smokers, the less frequent smokers take particular interest in the branding and packaging of cigar tubes. Their smoking is largely driven by social occasions within which the ‘presenting' or giving of cigars can play a major role in the perceived appeal. The branding also has a strong effect on their perceptions of quality in regards to their purchases and as such the plain packaged tube has a marked effect on the perceived appeal of cigar smoking. It significantly deglamourises the event and reduces their appeal as gifts or when presenting them to friends. The lack of brand association for the plain packaged products, in contrast with existing products, leaves them nothing ‘to go on' bar the colour of the tube. This was described as ‘muddy', ‘tar like' and highly unappealing. This lack of appeal is strongly tied to a perception of low quality. For more frequent and connoisseur cigar smokers the tubes did not have the same impact in terms of lowering appeal or attractiveness of cigar smoking. This is because they judge the quality of a cigar on criteria other than the branding, which can include the type of tobacco, the roll, the age and particular country and region of origin. The brand name is taken as a sign of authenticity or legitimacy of the product. This information is most often contained on the cigar band. As such a plain pack band (which did not display any information) obscuring the branded band has a more significant impact as it deprives them of the product information which they use to inform their purchases. This lowers the desirability of any given particular cigar as they are unable to verify the product they are receiving as opposed to lowering the overall appeal of cigar smoking which remains high. For both types of cigar smoker there was little perceived need to ‘quit' smoking. They did not see themselves as ‘addicted' to their habit in the same way they perceived cigarette smokers to be ‘addicted'. As there was no perceived ‘addiction' there was also no need to quit. Both types of cigar smoker also had low perceptions of any health risks connected with their cigar smoking, which further contributed to the lack of perceived need to quit.3 As most did not smoke daily but rather weekly or once every two weeks they also did not feel their frequency of smoking warranted concern about health implications or a need to quit. Although there was little perceived need to quit, less frequent smokers felt that if cigar smoking is made to be less appealing, and products to be seen as lower quality, it would be easier to quit. As much of their cigar smoking was occasion based and current branding played an important role in the purchasing and appeal of cigar smoking at those occasions, the plain packaging did increase their perceived ease of quitting. However, for frequent smokers the plain packaging had minimal effect on their perceptions of the ease of quitting as it did little to lower the overall appeal of cigar smoking. In relation to cigar packaging, the impact of plain packaging on noticeability of health warnings was not tested in this research. 3 This is talked about in detail in the report on graphic health warnings. page 10 GfK GfK bluemoon 1.5 Conclusions The clear evidence emerging from both the quantitative and the qualitative findings points to the plain packaging colour and design, across RYO, cigarillos and premium cigars, as: • minimising appeal and perceptions of quality; and • maximising perceptions of harm to health. There were varying impacts of plain packaging on perceptions of 'ease of quitting'. Products in plain packaging can be viewed as being 'harder to quit' if seen to be a stronger more addictive product (if one is already smoking them) or as 'easier to quit' if seen to be so unappealing that one would not consider smoking them. There were also differences across the product and audience range. For example, whereas less frequent premium cigar smokers felt the plain packaging significantly lowers the appeal and suitability for specific occasions (such as gift giving) and were thus more likely to quit, frequent premium cigar smokers felt largely unaffected by plain packaging and therefore unlikely to quit because of it. In terms of ease of quitting for RYO and cigarillo smokers, although there was no consistency in the plain pack performance quantitatively (‘hardest to quit' for RYO and ‘easiest' to quit' for cigarillo smokers) the qualitative research suggests that these ‘extremes' are driven by low desirability of the pack. The only area where the plain pack did not perform consistently better than other packs was on the impact of noticeability of the health warnings for RYO and cigarillo / little cigar smokers. When the graphic health warning has 75% pack coverage, plain packaging had limited additional impact on the noticeability of health warnings for RYO and cigarillo / little cigars. The findings indicate that once a 75% coverage is used the health warning was very noticeable regardless of whether the pack was branded or not. The impact of plain packaging on noticeability of health warnings for cigars was not tested in this research. However, given the strong effect plain packaging had on all other measures this is not to say that it should not be implemented or that this would reduce the effect on those other measures. As with other plain packaging research, existing associations had a significant impact on how smokers viewed particular brands. In particular, packaging is a significant means of informing these perceptions. This is the case for RYO, cigarillo / little cigar and less frequent premium cigar smokers. For more frequent cigar smokers, rather than the packaging it is the cigar bands which act as markers of legitimacy and carry essential product information, in particular for single sale loose cigars. As such, introduction of the plain pack band was felt likely to lower the ability of consumers to purchase products they felt informed about and felt confident were legitimate. This suggests a need to make product information available by some other means at and after point of sale. Overall, the quantitative and qualitative results indicate that in minimising the existing brand associations by introducing plain packaging measures, the proposed Mayfair plain pack performs strongly on the key measures identified by the Department across the products under research, in particular in reducing overall appeal and perceived quality of tobacco, and increasing perceived harm to health. GfK bluemoon 2 BACKGROUND page 11 2.1 Previous Research The Department of Health and Ageing is planning on revising or updating the current graphic health warnings appearing on tobacco product packaging with the intent that these changes would be implemented alongside changes addressed in the Plain Packaging legislation in July 2012. A series of seven research studies have already been conducted to determine effective plain packaging of manufactured cigarettes. This previous market research was to assess the potential plain packaging design elements to determine which plain packaging options were optimal to achieve the policy objectives. More specifically, the research sought to identify the optimal combination of plain packaging design elements in terms of background plain packaging colours, font style and size for brand name and graphic health warning design (size and layout). In summary, the research sought to identify one plain packaging design (colour, font type, font size) that would minimise appeal and attractiveness, whilst maximising perceived harm and the noticeability of the graphic health warnings. The outcome of these seven studies was a plain packaging design for all tobacco products that would include: • drab dark brown colour for plain packaging; and • 'Lucida sans' font syle with a maximum font size of 14pt for brand names. Other design elements of the packaging will vary depending on the type of tobacco product due to various packaging sizes and formats. 2.2 The Current Need for Research This phase of the research is to measure consumer perception and reaction to various types of tobacco product plain packaging, other than cigarette packaging, carrying the proposed new health warnings. The types of packaging that will be tested will include packaging for a range of tobacco products. This research will be qualitative and quantitative in nature. The findings will be utilised to determine the size, placement and content of the graphic health warnings to be considered for use on tobacco product packaging other than cigarettes. In addition to this, the research will also identify the optimal plain packaging design on tobacco product packaging other than cigarettes, specifically roll your own (RYO) tobacco, cigarillos/little cigars and premium cigars. This report specifically focuses on the findings from the plain packaging design research. Findings relating to graphic health warnings are reported separately in another document. GfK bluemoon 3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 3.1 Policy Objectives The plain packaging legislation ‘will restrict or prohibit tobacco industry logos, brand imagery, colours and promotional text, other than brand and product names in a standard colour, position, font style and size'. The objectives of plain packaging as announced by the Australian Government are to: • reduce the attractiveness and appeal of tobacco products to consumers, particularly young people; • reduce the ability of the tobacco products to mislead consumers about the harms of smoking; and page 12 GfK • increase the noticeability and effectiveness of mandated health warnings. 3.2 Research Objectives for Plain Packaging of Other Tobacco Products The primary aims of this round of market-testing were to determine the impact of plain packaging in comparison to existing packaging. Specifically, the research focused on evaluating the performance of plain packaging designs for RYO tobacco, cigarillos/little cigars and premium cigars (single cigars) on the measures that were tested in earlier plain packaging research. The key measures tested were overall appeal, quality of tobacco, ease of quitting, perceived harm to health and noticeability of the graphic health warning. Based on the initial hypotheses of the research and results from earlier plain packaging testing, the research sought to test the hypotheses that a plain packaging pack would: • have lower appeal; • have lower perceived quality of tobacco; • be perceived as harder to quit; and • have higher perceived harm to health. Although no previous testing had been conducted comparing the noticeability of a 75% graphic health warning on branded packs and plain packaging packs, initial hypotheses were that a plain packaging pack could result in higher noticeability of the graphic health warning. page 13 GfK GfK bluemoon 4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 4.1 Overview There were three products of interest in this research - RYO tobacco, cigarillos and premium cigars. Different methodologies were used to address each product. The research methodology used was primarily quantitative for the RYO and cigarillo products with qualitative findings drawn from a short discussion on plain packaging conducted during qualitative group discussions for graphic health warning research. 4 The methodology used for the premium cigar smokers was predominantly qualitative due to the low incidence of these smokers. All research was conducted between 27 July 2011 and 1 August 2011. Further details of the methodologies used for each product are as follows: RYO - comprised an online survey of n=209 RYO smokers plus a short discussion in 2 qualitative group discussions among RYO smokers; Cigarillo/little cigars - n=30 self completion surveys conducted among cigarillo smokers administered in 5 qualitative group discussions, including a short discussion on plain packaging; and Premium cigars - 8 qualitative in-depth interviews among premium cigar smokers. It should be noted that this research was conducted in conjunction with research into graphic health warnings. The findings of that research are detailed in a separate report. 4.2 RYO Smokers This research targeted Australians aged 18-65 years of age who smoked roll your own (RYO) cigarettes from RYO tobacco packs at least weekly in the last 12 months. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. Firstly, a quantitative online survey methodology conducted among (n=209) Australians aged 18-65 years old who were current RYO smokers. Online panel members were invited to participate in the survey and screened for age, gender and smoking status. The average time taken to complete the survey was just under 16 minutes. The survey asked respondents to evaluate six pack designs based on measures specified in the Research Objectives in Section 3. The quantitative results were supplemented with qualitative findings from group discussions conducted for graphic health warnings research, run concurrently with the second phase of plain packaging research. These group discussions were predominantly focused on addressing the objectives for graphic health warnings research, which have been reported on separately. A short discussion around plain packaging was also conducted during the group discussions and findings have been included in Research into graphic health warnings have been conducted concurrently with this research and reported in a separate document. 4 page 14 GfK bluemoon this report to provide further insights into the quantitative results. Although a self-completion questionnaire was administered to RYO group participants in the group discussion sessions to rank the pack designs, this was to stimulate discussion rather than to report quantitative findings as the low sample size prevents reporting of these numbers. Sample The final sample size for the quantitative study was n=209 who smoked RYO cigarettes at least weekly. Soft quotas were set on age and gender to ensure representativeness and sufficient sample sizes for subgroup analysis. The table below details the sample achievements and profile this study. Table 4.2.1: RYO Quantitative Sample Profile Target Groups Target Quotas Male 18-24 year olds Male 25-44 year olds Male 45-65 year olds Female 18-24 year olds Female 25-44 year olds Female 45-65 year olds Other Gender 18-65 year olds Total Sample size min n=30 min n=30 min n=30 min n=30 min n=30 min n=30 No quotas set n=200 n=24 n=34 n=44 n=35 n=35 n=35 n=0 n=209 Note, due to the difficulties in recruiting 18-24 year old male RYO smokers, quotas were opened to allow for a higher sampling of other male age groups. The qualitative discussions were conducted in metropolitan areas of New South Wales and Queensland, lasting one and a half hours in length. Two groups were conducted with RYO smokers who smoked RYO cigarettes at least once a week if not more often, and there were 4-8 respondents in each group. The groups were split by age with one comprised of respondents aged 18-30 and the other of those 30 and over. The groups were of mixed gender and socio-economic criteria was stipulated for recruitment. The sample structure of the group participants are shown in the table below. Table 4.2.2: RYO Qualitative Sample Structure Group 1 2 Smoking behaviour RYO tobacco weekly or more Age 18-30 30+ Location Metro State NSW QLD GfK bluemoon 4.3 Cigarillo/little Cigars A quantitative self completion survey was administered to cigarillo smokers participating in group discussions under the graphic health warning research. A total of n=30 participants completed the 10 minute survey. page 15 Respondents were asked to rank a total of six pack designs including a mock up plain packaging pack (featuring the brand 'Mayfair') on the key measures addressed in the Research Objectives in Section 3. The quantitative results were supplemented with qualitative findings from the group discussions conducted for graphic health warnings research that was run concurrently with this research project. These group discussions were predominantly focused on addressing the objectives for graphic health warnings research, which have been reported on separately. A short discussion around plain packaging was also conducted during the group discussions and findings have been included in this report to provide further insights into the quantitative results. Five qualitative group discussions were conducted among the cigarillo/little cigar smokers. The qualitative discussions were conducted in metropolitan areas of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, lasting one and a half hours in length, and consisted of 4-8 respondents in each group. All the cigarillo / little cigars smokers were recruited as smoking those products at least once a week if not more often. The groups were of mixed gender and socio-economic status, and included Australian adults 18 and over. The sample structure of the group participants is shown in the table below. Table 4.3.1. Cigarillos/little Cigars Qualitative Sample Structure Group 1 2 3 4 5 4.4 Smoking behaviour Location State NSW Smoke cigarillos / little cigars weekly or more Metro VIC QLD Premium Cigars In-depth interviews were conducted with eight premium cigar smokers in metropolitan areas of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Each interview was conducted face-to-face and was of 40-50 minutes duration. All the respondents were recruited as willing to spend $25 or more on a premium cigar at least once a fortnight or more frequently. There was no gender or socio-economic criteria for recruitment. The sample structure of the participants is shown in the table below. page 16 GfK bluemoon Table 4.4.1. Premium Cigars Qualitative Sample Structure Interview 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4.5 Smoking behaviour Location State NSW Smoke premium cigars once a fortnight or more frequently Metro VIC QLD Recruitment of Respondents Recruitment for the online quantitative RYO survey was via online panel members. 5 Respondents were screened for demographic and smoking behaviour. Any respondents working in or in close contact with conflicting industries were excluded. Recruitment for the discussion groups was completed through Interviewer Quality Control Australia (IQCA) accredited recruitment specialists. A recruitment screener including all relevant demographic variables was provided to use for recruitment. A copy of the recruitment screener is at Appendix D. 4.6 Quantitative Questionnaires There were two types of surveys used for the quantitative analysis, an online survey for RYO smokers and a self completion paper and pen survey for cigarillo/little cigar smokers. Both questionnaires asked respondents to evaluate (rate or rank) six pack designs according to the key measures outlined in the research objectives. As the cigarillo questionnaire was a paper and pen survey, the design was a very simplified version of the online quantitative survey. Full questionnaires can be found in Appendices A and B. 4.7 Qualitative Discussion Guides Semi-structured discussion guides were developed for use during the qualitative discussions with each of the target audiences and all were approved by the Department prior to use. The general structure of each guide was as follows: Research Now provided the online panel for this study. Research Now's panels are research only, that is their members are contacted for research purposes only. Their panellists are recruited from multiple sources and through double opt-in process. Email invitations are sent to panellists when relevant surveys are launched and participation is voluntary. Panellists are incentivised for their completion of surveys and provided a reward consistent with the survey length. The rewards are in the form of reward points that can be redeemed for vouchers. 5 page 17 GfK GfK bluemoon • introduction; • exploring views on plain packaging of tobacco products (premium cigar smokers only); • understanding existing smoking and purchasing behaviour; • exploring participant relationships with brands (if any); and • administering self completion questionnaire (for cigarillo / little cigar and RYO smokers only). Full discussion guides can be found in Appendices A, B and C. 4.8 Stimulus A graphic designer was employed to create plain pack mock-up designs for the different tobacco products. The specifications for the plain pack mock-up designs were provided by the Department and the final materials were approved prior to their use in the research. These included: • images of plain pack cigar tubes, loose single-sale cigars with a plain pack ‘band', and a plain pack ‘bag' for cigars; and • a mock up plain packaging RYO pouch featuring the brand name 'Mayfair' plus images of 75% graphic health warning coverage on five existing branded RYO pouches; • a mock up plain packaging cigarillo square box featuring the brand name 'Mayfair' plus images of 75% graphic health warning coverage on five existing branded cigarillo boxes; The mock up packs were designed according to the intended plain packaging specifications and the graphic health warning design recommendations were applied to the pack images of existing brands. Each RYO and cigarillo pack featured the same graphic health warning, "Smoking causes mouth and throat cancer", which covered 75% of the front of pack. The images of mock up cigar tubes only featured the health warning statement ‘Smoking cigars causes lung cancer'. The mock up cigar bag image features the graphic health warning ‘Smoking cigars causes lung cancer' covering 75% of the front of the bag. Images of the stimulus used can be found in Appendix C. Stimulus developed for testing across the range of tobacco products included a mix of actual physical mock ups and images on boards. For RYO tobacco and cigarillo packs, physical plain packaged mock ups were prepared to determine optimum layout and format for health warnings on the packaging of those products, primarily for the separately reported graphic health warning research. To achieve the plain packaging research objectives, health warnings were digitally imposed on images of existing tobacco products with the branding made visible on them in accordance with the specifications set out by the Department. In the case of cigar tubes it was not possible to produce images of branded products that would show both the health warning in full as well as the brand. This was due to the specification that the health warning take up 60% of the circumference and 95% of the length of the tube. It was determined that images showing only the health warning or branding in part would not be useful for research purposes. In addition, time constraints meant it was not possible to create physical mock ups of cigar tubes. page 18 GfK GfK bluemoon Therefore, the comparison was between images of a digitally created plain packaged cigar tube with the full health warning and images of existing branded cigar tubes with no health warning. Consistent with previous rounds of research the plain pack mock up products used in the research were branded as ‘Mayfair'. This brand name was chosen as there is currently no other similarly named tobacco product in the Australian market. Therefore there would be no latent association with the brand name among the research audiences. As mentioned above, existing branded products for RYO tobacco, cigarillos / little cigars, and premium cigars were employed as comparative products to the plain pack ‘Mayfair' mock up products. These products were chosen in conjunction with the Department as representative of a range of well known and recognisable brands to which it was felt respondents would have some current association. Wherever possible, a range of colours and price points (‘value', ‘mainstream' and ‘premium') were also selected for each product type. 4.9 Analysis Significance Testing Analysis focused on identifying the best and worst packs on the criteria of appeal, quality of cigarettes, perceived harm to health, ease of quitting and noticeability of the health warning. This has been done through ordered ranking and comparisons between the existing packs and the mock up plain package design. Significance testing was also applied to test for statistical differences between different packs and different age groups, specifically to compare the performance of the mock-up plain packaging pack against existing branded packs. Maximum Difference or ‘Best' - ‘Worst' Scaling Analysis Maximum Difference Scaling (Max-Diff), also known as 'Best-Worst' scaling, is a technique whereby respondents are shown a subset of the possible combinations of items being tested in the study. They are asked to indicate the best and worst items (or most and least important). This approach can be thought of as a more sophisticated extension of the Method of Paired Comparisons where each item can be compared to every other item being tested. Max-Diff is appropriate when researching a larger number of test items. The scores obtained from the survey were analysed to obtain a composite score for each dimension using Hierarchical Bayes estimation (HB). In the Maximum Difference exercise, respondents evaluated three out of the total six test packs. For each set of three packs, the respondent indicated the 'best' and 'worst' pack on a given dimension. Individual respondents' responses are analysed using HB techniques to derive attribute importance or preference scores at the individual respondent level. In this case, a single score is calculated that indicated performance of a pack in terms of the key dimensions. This is discussed in further detail in Appendix A: Roll your own (RYO). page 19 GfK GfK bluemoon Weighting As there was no population data available for RYO smokers in the public domain, the population profile for RYO smokers was derived from the quantitative data for Study 2. Using this population profile, the data from this study has been post-weighted to the RYO daily and weekly smoking population for representativeness. 6 Data has been weighted using age, gender and smoking frequency. Refer to Appendix A: Roll your own (RYO). It is worth noting that there was only population data available for the age bracket 45-64 years old. However as our sample included smokers aged 65 years old, weights relating to the smokers 45-64 years old were applied to the sample data for 45-65 year olds. Data from the self completion questionnaires for cigarillo smokers was not weighted due to the low sample size. Findings from this section are reported using unweighted data and the sample may not be representative of all cigarillo smokers. Qualitative Analysis A thematic analysis model was used for the qualitative research. This involves participant views and opinions being analysed to find common themes and patterns. All researchers on the project contributed to the analysis by referring to their notes and transcripts and developing hypotheses based on the interviews and group discussions they conducted. Following this all project members participated in numerous debriefing sessions to discuss and plan analysis of the results. Within these, data was collated into potential themes using all the data relevant to each and identifying frameworks for further in-depth analysis. Ongoing analysis sessions refined the specifics of each theme and ensured the analysis addressed the research objectives. This was an iterative process that continued through the writing of the report. For this project the analysis referred to the full range of data sources collected throughout the project including self complete forms used during group discussions and the notes, audio tapes and transcripts emerging from them. A further note on the use of qualitative and quantitative research is included in Appendix E. 6 Research to determine effective plain packaging of cigarettes, Study 2 page 20 GfK 5 GfK bluemoon ROLL YOUR OWN (RYO) The findings from this section of the report are drawn from the online quantitative survey (n=209). The quantitative results are supplemented by the short qualitative discussion on plain packaging conducted in the group discussions for the graphic health warning research. 5.1 About the Qualitative Sample Two qualitative discussion groups were held in addition to the quantitative survey (see section 4.2 of this report for further details about the sample and methodology). These were used to explore some of the attitudes of RYO smokers to the issue of plain packaging and of how they viewed their own smoking behaviours. The findings from these shed some light on the quantitative survey results and will be discussed as appropriate throughout this section. Overall, few participants had given the plain packaging issue much thought assuming that it would affect mostly pre-manufactured cigarette smokers. The lack of consideration for how it might be implemented on RYO packs may stem the little media attention this aspect has been given. “You only hear about them talking about normal packs. I don't think I've heard anything about roll your own really.” There was in general low knowledge or active consideration of plain packaging. While the participants had heard of it there was a significantly less vehement reaction to the proposal than that recorded among cigarette smokers in previous studies, and among cigarillo smokers in this study. This somewhat reflects how RYO smokers view themselves apart from smokers of other types of tobacco, including that the proposed changes are really aimed at the pre-manufactured cigarette smokers who they feel are the main target. “It's not really for us, we're getting swept up in it, but I think people have an issue with straight cigarettes which stink more and more people smoke. So that's the target really. I hadn't thought about it affecting us too much before.” Compared with the cigar or cigarillo smokers, the RYO smokers taking part in the research were a much more uniform audience with relatively similar views, habits and behaviors in regards to their own smoking. The reasons why RYO smokers chose to smoke RYO cigarettes rather than premanufactured cigarettes that were consistently voiced by the majority of respondents include: “A budget / cost analysis. RYO tobacco is cheaper than pre-manufactured cigarette packs and yield a greater number of cigarettes.” “You get so much more for your money. I can get 40 or 50 cigarettes out of a pack for half of what that would cost me with pre-made ones.” “Tailored cigarettes are so expensive! I get more out of my rollies for sure.” GfK bluemoon page 21 GfK The taste is preferable. In particular this was articulated in relation to being able to taste ‘the chemicals' in pre-manufactured cigarettes, which led them state they significantly preferred RYO cigarettes. “They taste so much better. Once you've had them for a while and you try and normal cigarette you can just taste the chemicals in them...pretty disgusting actually.” Feeling ‘distinct' from pre-manufactured cigarette smokers. RYO smokers felt themselves, in comparison to pre-manufactured cigarette smokers, to be ‘more relaxed' and ‘easy going'. “I think roll your own smokers are a bit more chilled out, less stressed. They probably enjoy it more too because you've actually got to bother to roll a cigarette you know, you can't just pull it out the pack. If I actually bother to roll one I'm going to enjoy it you know.” Duration. RYO cigarettes last longer than pre-manufactured cigarettes which many smokers enjoy and gives the feeling that they may smoke less because of it. “They definitely last longer. I can have one while my friends have two normal ones.” “I probably smoke less because they last longer I reckon.” 5.2 Overall Appeal There was a clear divide between the packs in terms of appeal. Three packs, Mayfair (plain package), White Ox and Winfield Gold were seen to be the least appealing packs whilst Golden Virginia, Champion and Drum were the most appealing packs. The Mayfair (plain package) pack was seen to be the least appealing pack (6.7%). It scored significantly lower on appeal than three other packs, Drum (27.3%), Champion (21.7%) and Golden Virginia (21.0%). The relative appeal of the different packs was consistent across different age groups. The overall appeal of the packs was also influenced by existing brand associations which became evident in the qualitative findings. In particular White Ox had extremely low appeal as a product and was felt to be one only consumed by people they would not want to be associated with. Most often this association was with prison populations and homeless people. It was also felt to be smoked by people who were highly addicted as it is known as an extremely strong tobacco. “Hobos and prisoners smoke that...not for me, never, no thanks.” “That stuff is so strong, you're a proper addict if you smoke that.” The Mayfair pack performed strongly on all the measures identified by the Department. It was seen as highly unappealing and unattractive. Equally, as will be demonstrated below, the quality of cigarette was deemed as likely to be very low. The plain packaging colour and design, described as ‘dull', ‘tar- page 22 GfK bluemoon like' and ‘uninteresting' was primarily responsible for this perception of low quality. This was tied to the level of perceived harm to health which was high. Table 5.2.1: RYO Overall Pack Appeal Pack Least Mayfair (plain appealing package) overall White Ox Winfield Gold Golden Virginia Study RYO Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-65 Total (n=209) years (n=61) years (n=79) years (n=69) % % % % 6.7 5.6 7.8 5.0 11.6 11.7 10.8 16.6 11.2 11.9 12.5 21.0 ▲ 17.7A 20.9A 22.4A 9.6 Most Champion 21.7A 22.1A 22.3A 20.3A appealing Drum 27.3A 27.2A 25.8A 30.2A overall P1A. Looking at these three roll you own tobacco packs, please indicate which pack you think is the... Most appealing overall and the Least appealing overall? Composite score calculated using both most and least scores /\ V Significantly higher / lower than other age groups at 95% c.i. ▲ Significantly higher than Mayfair (plain package) at 95% c.i. The table above shows the Maximum-Differences scores for each branded pack. Each score is a composite score that is calculated based on the proportion that selected the pack as 'most' or 'least' on the dimension measured compared to the other packs. In the table, the packs with the lowest percentage scores are those that were less likely to be selected as 'most appealing' and more likely to be selected as 'least appealing'. So the Mayfair (plain package) pack which had the lowest percentage score overall (6.7%) was seen to be the least appealing whilst the Drum (27.3%), Champion (21.7%) Golden Virginia pack (21.0%) had the highest scores and were therefore more appealing. Significance testing has also been applied. 7 GfK bluemoon 5.3 Quality of Cigarettes In line with appeal, three packs, Mayfair (plain package), White Ox and Winfield Gold were seen to contain the lowest quality cigarettes. Golden Virginia, Champion and Drum, the packs which were seen to be most appealing were also seen to contain higher quality cigarettes. As shown in the table below, across the total sample, the Mayfair (plain package) pack was seen to contain Significance testing has been applied to show significant differences between the Mayfair (plain package) pack compared to other packs. The solid triangle denotes that a pack scored significantly higher than the Mayfair (plain package) pack. 7 page 23 the lowest quality cigarettes (8.0%). The White Ox pack was also seen to contain lower quality cigarettes (10.6%) compared to the other packs. The packs which were seen to contain the highest quality cigarettes were Champion (23.9%), Drum (22.6%), Golden Virginia (21.1%) and these packs scored significantly higher than the Mayfair (plain package) pack on perceived quality. There were some statistical differences observed for the different age groups. Older RYO smokers aged 4565 years old were even more likely to consider the Mayfair (plain package) pack to have lower quality cigarettes with a score of 4.4% compared to 8.0% across the total sample. Table 5.3.1: RYO Quality of Tobacco Pack Mayfair (plain Lowest quality package) cigarettes White Ox Winfield Gold Golden Virginia Study RYO Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-65 Total (n=209) years (n=61) years (n=79) years (n=69) % % % % V 8.0 5.7 10.3" 4.4 10.6 11.9 9.7 11.7 13.9 22.9A " 13.8 11.0 18.3A 21.0 22.4A 21.1A 22.6A 20.0A 20.6“ 27.3"A Highest Drum quality Champion 23.9A 21.3A 24.6A 23.3A cigarettes P2A. Now you are going to see another six screens with the same roll your own cigarette packs. We'd now like you to indicate which pack looks like it contains the... Highest quality and Lowest quality roll your own cigarettes? Composite score calculated using both most and least scores /V V Significantly higher / lower than other age groups at 95% c.i. ▲ Significantly higher than Mayfair (plain package) at 95% c.i. page 24 GfK GfK bluemoon The qualitative findings reveal that the plain pack colour and design was largely responsible for the perception that the quality of cigarettes or tobacco would be very low in the Mayfair pack. The drab dark brown colour was off putting and communicated to respondents that the product contained within would likely be of poor quality. “It doesn't make you think ‘smoke me, I'll be good'. It's off putting and looks like it'll probably just be rubbish in there.” 5.4 Harm to Health In line with previous findings from earlier plain packaging research, darker colours, in this case White Ox, Mayfair (plain package), were seen to be more harmful to health than lighter colours.8 There is also evidence of a link between appeal, quality and perceived harm. Those packs seen to be less appealing and contain lower quality cigarettes (Mayfair (plain package), White Ox and Winfield Gold) were also seen to be more harmful. As shown in the table below (Table 5.4.1), the White Ox pack was seen to contain the most harmful cigarettes (25.6%) although this score was not significantly higher than Mayfair (plain package) (20.0%). The Mayfair (plain package) was seen to contain the second most harmful cigarettes. In comparison to Mayfair, there were differences in the scores that indicated that Champion (13.2%), Golden Virginia (13.0%) and Drum (9.9%) contained less harmful cigarettes, however only the Drum pack had significantly lower scores on harm to health. There were no significant differences in the pack evaluation ratings of perceived harm to health across the age groups. The only exception observed was for younger 18-24 year olds who rated the Winfield Gold pack lower on harm to health than the other age groups did (12.0% compared to 18.3% across the total sample). The qualitative finding that White Ox holds some extremely negative brand associations goes some way to explaining why it was perceived as more harmful to health than the Mayfair. However, that it only does so by a small margin is testament to the perceived low quality of the tobacco, which is often equated to harm, that the plain pack would contain. Overall, White Ox was felt by respondents to only be smoked by highly addicted smokers who most likely smoked heavily. It is also known as a very strong tobacco and as such was felt by most to be the most harmful, both by its strong nature and because of the behavioural habits of those that smoke it. GfK bluemoon Table 5.4.1: RYO Perceived Harm to Health 8 Study 2 Plain packaging research and Study 5 Face-to-face Plain packaging research. page 25 Pack Study RYO Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-65 Total (n=209) years (n=61) years (n=79) years (n=69) % % % % White Ox Most harmful cigarettes Mayfair (plain package) 25.6 29.0 26.0 23.7 20.0 17.8 20.6 19.5 Winfield Gold 18.3 12.0^ 17.8 21.7 Champion Least harmful Golden Virginia cigarettes 13.2 14.4 13.8 11.6 13.0 13.7 12.2 14.3 Drum 9.9V 13.1 9.6V 9.2 P3A. Now you are going to see another six screens with the same roll your own cigarette pack. We'd now like you to indicate which roll pack looks like it contains roll your own cigarettes that are the...Most harmful and the Least harmful to health? Composite score calculated using both most and least scores /\ V Significantly higher / lower than other age groups at 95% c.i. ▼ Significantly lower than Mayfair (plain package) at 95% c.i. 5.5 Ease of Quitting This question was open to a degree of interpretation. In previous research, including the earlier plain packaging studies on manufactured cigarettes, those packs that were seen to be less appealing, have lower quality cigarettes and higher perceived harm to health were also seen to be harder to quit. This was not as consistent when talking to RYO smokers in this study. The qualitative discussions made clear that some respondents would answer this question thinking about which brand is easiest to quit as the one they felt least palatable and would least want to smoke themselves. Others thought about the questions in regards to which brand they felt was the most ‘addictive' and therefore hardest to quit. This may account for why there were no packs that emerged as being perceived particularly easier or harder to quit. Quantitatively, across all the packs tested, there were no statistically significant differences in the pack evaluation ratings for perceived ease of quitting, as shown in Table 5.5.1 below. While not statistically significant, the Mayfair (plain package) was seen to contain the cigarettes that would be the hardest to quit. page 26 GfK GfK bluemoon Interestingly, the White Ox pack, which was seen to perform similarly to the Mayfair (plain package) pack in terms of having low appeal, lower quality cigarettes and higher harm to health, was seen to be the ‘easiest' of the packs to quit (15.0%) (although again this was not statistically significant). In the qualitative discussions with RYO smokers it emerged that White Ox has some specific brand associations which likely explain why it was seen as being easier to quit. “That's what you smoke if you're in lock up.” “It's just dirty. It's so strong, you only hear about prisoners or bums smoking that.” As such respondents talked about it as something less palatable which they would avoid and therefore be easier to quit. Those that felt it would not be easy to quit based this on the strength of the tobacco. Therefore, it scored as ‘easier' to quit than Mayfair as it was so undesirable but still gathered some scores of being hard to quit as it was seen as ‘strong' and therefore ‘addictive' or more likely smoked by ‘addicted' smokers who would find it hard to give up. Overall both the qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that respondents were likely to see all RYO cigarettes as being hard to quit. There is an acknowledgement that tobacco products are addictive and therefore by their nature hard to quit. page 27 GfK bluemoon Table 5.5.1: RYO Perceived Ease of Quitting Pack Hardest to Mayfair (plain quit package) Study RYO Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-65 Total (n=209) years (n=61) years (n=79) years (n=69) % % % % 18.2 20.1 16.7 20.5 Drum 17.2 14.9 18.8 15.0 Golden Virginia 17.1 16.1 19.2" V 13.7 Winfield Gold 17.1 19.8 15.2 19.9 15.3 14.0 15.6 15.2 15.0 15.1 14.5 15.8 Easiest to Champion quit White Ox P4A. Now you are going to see another six screens with the same roll your own cigarette pack. We'd now like you to indicate which pack looks like it would contain roll your own cigarettes that would be... Easiest to quit and Hardest to quit Composite score calculated using both most and least scores /V V Significantly higher / lower than other age groups at 95% c.i. ▼ Significantly lower than Mayfair (plain package) at 95% c.i. page 28 GfK 5.6 GfK bluemoon Noticeability of Health Warning The scores for ‘noticeability of health warning' suggest that there were no pack designs in which the health warning stood out significantly more or less than the others. This is not a surprising finding in that all packs featured a 75% coverage health warning, coverage that is considerably larger than current health warnings and which dominates the space on the front of the pack. The Mayfair (plain package) pack did not appear to have a health warning that stood out more or less than any of the other packs, as shown in the table below (Table 5.6.1). At 75% health warning coverage, there was also no evidence that higher contrast between the background pack colour and health warning would result in higher noticeability of the health warning. Champion with a yellow pack was seen to have the health warning that stood out the most (17.5%) meanwhile Winfield Gold which also had a lighter coloured background was seen to have the health warning that stood out the least (15.4%), as shown in the table below (Table 5.6.1). There was only one age group which showed significantly different perceptions in terms of the noticeability of health warnings. Relative to other age groups, younger smokers aged 18-24 years old were less likely to consider the Drum pack (14.5%) as having a health warning that stood out. page 29 GfK bluemoon Table 5.6.1: RYO Noticeability of Health Warning Pack Stand out the Champion most Drum Study RYO Age 18-24 Age 25-44 Age 45-65 Total (n=209) years (n=61) years (n=79) years (n=69) % % % % 17.5 17.7 16.7 19.1 17.5 14.5~ 17.8 17.9 White Ox 17.3 18.7 17.7 16.1 Mayfair (plain package) 16.5 16.7 17.2 15.2 Stand out Golden Virginia 15.7 14.2 15.2 17.3 the least Winfield Gold 15.4 18.2 15.5 14.4 P5. Now looking at these six cigarette packs, we'd like you to indicate how noticeable the graphic health warnings are on each of these packs. That is, whether there are any differences in how much the graphic health warning stands out on these different packs. To do this, we'd like you to allocate a score based on the notice-ability of each pack so that all scores add to 100. Significantly higher / lower than other age groups at 95% c.i. ▼ Significantly lower than Mayfair (plain package) at 95% c.i. AV page 30 GfK 6 GfK bluemoon CIGARILLO / LITTLE CIGARS The findings in this section of the report are drawn from the quantitative self completion questionnaires (n=30). They are supplemented by qualitative findings from the short qualitative discussion on plain packaging conducted in the group discussions for the graphic health warning research. 6.1 About the Sample Five qualitative group discussions were conducted among the cigarillo/little cigar smokers (see section 4.3 of this report for further details about the sample and methodology). The qualitative research suggests that there are two distinct types of cigarillos smokers. The first of these were those that also smoked premium cigars as well, rather than cigarettes or other tobacco products. This group tended to be very similar in attitudes and behaviours as the more frequent cigar smokers. They may have a cigarillo on a daily basis or a couple of times a week. Rather than a social occasion, smoking a cigarillo was more likely to be a part of their routine, for example, what they did at the end of work every day or a couple times a week to relax. Cigarillos were chosen over cigars as a means of enjoying the taste of cigar smoke, while not being as expensive or taking as long. These cigarillo smokers would often enjoy a full size premium cigar with others in a social setting. They bought their cigarillos from specialist cigar stockists and / or directly from overseas. The other type of cigarillo smokers was typically also a cigarette smoker or had been so in the past. This group claimed to smoke cigarillos for a number of reasons: • perceived to taste better than cigarettes; • reportedly smoked less cigarillos than they would smoke cigarettes, therefore it was seen as more affordable and ultimately not as bad for their health; • the act of smoking a cigarillo held an element of occasion, which many found enjoyable and relaxing as part of a routine, such as after dinner of an evening; and • for a small few it was associated with a sense of status, with it being perceived as more refined / sophisticated than cigarettes. While this group identified that cigarillo smoking was likely to have health effects, these were seen to be less than would occur with cigarettes. They saw smoking cigarillos as a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. Interestingly, while some did not inhale the smoke, other did so and were even surprised at hearing that it was not normal practice to do so. These cigarillo smokers tended to have established brand relationships, only smoking specific brands (although this was often a matter of convenience, that is, being able to commonly buy these brands). That said, there was some sense that some brands were of higher quality than others, although this was often related to familiarity, with cigarillo smokers generally not having a large amount of previous knowledge of other brands than their preferred. page 31 GfK bluemoon This group of cigarillo smokers customarily purchased their preferred brands from local tobacconists, with some brands available in other places that stocked cigarettes such as newsagents, bottleshops and supermarkets. 6.2 Overall Appeal There appeared to be a divide between the packs tested with four brands (Mayfair (plain package), Wee Willem, Cafe Creme and Henri Wintermans) being less appealing. Meanwhile, the other two brands (Davidoff and Captain Black) were seen to be more appealing. As shown in the table below, the Mayfair (plain package) pack was seen to be the least appealing pack (average rank 4.3 out of 6). Wee Willem, Cafe Creme and Henri Wintermans were also seen to be relatively less appealing (average ranking 3.8-3.9 out of 6). The Davidoff pack was the most appealing pack (average ranking of 2.4 out of 6) followed by Captain Black (average ranking of 2.8 out of 6). The table below shows the average ranking of each pack ordered from least appealing to most appealing. Table 6.2.1. Cigarillos Overall Appeal Ordered Ranking (average ranking) Ranked (average ranking) Total sample (n=30) Mayfair (plain package) (square Least appealing box) Wee Willem (square box) Cafe Creme (square Box) Henri Wintermans (rectangular box) Captain Black (rectangular box) Most appealing Davidoff (square box) 4.3 3.9 3.8 3.8 2.8 2.4 P1A-P5A. Looking at these six cigarillo packs, please rank each of these packs in terms of 'appeal', 'quality of cigarillos', 'harm to health', 'how hard it would be to quit', 'noticeability of health warning'. Please write the number '1' next to the pack you think is 'most...' and '2' next to the pack you think is 'second most... and so on until all the packs have a number from 1 to 6 next to it. From the qualitative discussions it was clear that respondents found the plain packaged cigarillo to be highly unattractive. The colour in particular was off putting. A number of respondents felt their cigarillo smoking distinguished them from cigarette smokers and actively reported the current packaging plays some role in this. “The packs look better, they're pretty cool and if you offer a chick one of those it looks good.” page 32 GfK bluemoon “They just look classier than cigarettes to me. its a metal tin, it's a bit more respectable.” The plain pack, however, removed any positive associations they made with their, or any other, brand. The plain pack significantly took away from the appeal of the cigarillo packs. “In comparison that's horrible...it's horrible on its own too. I wouldn't want one of those.” 6.3 Quality of Cigarillos Those cigarillo packs which were seen to be less appealing were also seen to contain lower quality cigarillos and visa versa. As shown in Table 6.3.1 below, the Mayfair (plain package) pack was seen to contain the lowest quality cigarillos (average rank 4.5 out of 6). Cafe Creme and Wee Willem were also seen to contain relatively lower quality cigarillos (average ranking 3.8 and 3.7 out of 6, respectively). The Davidoff pack, which was the most appealing pack was seen to contain the highest quality cigarillos (average ranking of 2.4 out of 6). The table below shows the average ranking of each pack ordered from lowest quality cigarillos to highest quality cigarillos. Table 6.3.1. Cigarillos Quality of Cigarillos Ordered Ranking (average ranking) Ranked (average ranking) Total sample (n=30) Mayfair (plain package) (square Lowest Quality box) Cafe Creme (square Box) Wee Willem (square box) Henri Wintermans (rectangular box) Captain Black (rectangular box) Highest Quality Davidoff (square box) 4.5 3.8 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.4 P1A-P5A. Looking at these six cigarillo packs, please rank each of these packs in terms of 'appeal', 'quality of cigarillos', 'harm to health', 'how hard it would be to quit', 'noticeability of health warning'. Please write the number '1' next to the pack you think is 'most...' and '2' next to the pack you think is 'second most... and so on until all the packs have a number from 1 to 6 next to it. Emerging from the qualitative discussions it was clear that existing brand associations have a significant impact on perceptions of quality. The perceptions come from either having tried the brand themselves or having heard about them from others. However, even though they had not tried one the respondents felt that the Mayfair plain pack would most likely contain a very low quality cigarillo. This was largely communicated by the colour and unattractive design. page 33 GfK GfK bluemoon “Nothing here says quality at all...its the opposite. It says ‘I'm horrible, I'm brown, I taste awful.'” 6.4 Harm to Health Those cigarillos which were seen to be less appealing and with lower quality cigarettes were also seen to be more harmful to health and vice versa, suggesting a link between appeal, quality and perceived harm. As shown in the table below, the Mayfair (plain package) pack was seen to contain the third most harmful cigarillos (average rank 3.5 out of 6) after Cafe Creme and Wee Willem (average ranking 2.9 and 3.2 out of 6, respectively). The Davidoff pack, which was the most appealing pack and seen to contain the highest quality cigarillos, were seen to be least harmful to health (average ranking of 4.1 out of 6). The table below shows the average ranking of each pack ordered from most harmful to less harmful. Table 6.4.1. Cigarillos Harm to Health Ranked (average ranking) Total sample (n=30) Most harmful to health Cafe Creme (square Box) Wee Willem (square box) Mayfair (plain package) (square box) Captain Black (rectangular box) Henri Wintermans (rectangular box) Least harmful to health Davidoff (square box) Ordered Ranking (average ranking) 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 P1A-P5A. Looking at these six cigarillo packs, please rank each of these packs in terms of 'appeal', 'quality of cigarillos', 'harm to health', 'how hard it would be to quit', 'noticeability of health warning'. Please write the number '1' next to the pack you think is 'most...' and '2' next to the pack you think is 'second most... and so on until all the packs have a number from 1 to 6 next to it. In the qualitative discussion respondents reported that not having tried a ‘Mayfair' plain pack cigarillo a number felt it was difficult to decide how harmful they would be in comparison to those known brands. In particular Cafe Creme and Wee Willem's were felt to be low quality cigarillos which were extremely ‘harsh' to smoke. The majority of respondents equated ‘harshness' or how ‘smooth' a cigarillo was with how harmful it was. This mirrors what was found in previous rounds of research with cigarette smokers. As such they scored those brands as being the most harmful to health. However, the plain packaging colour, font, and layout do give the impression of a harmful cigarillo. The ‘muddy', ‘tarry' colour was described as highly unappealing and indicating a likely cheap and ‘harsh' product. This is further demonstrated by its position behind those two brands in the questionnaire results for ‘low quality' cigarillos. This gives a positive indication that the plain pack will be perceived as harmful to health which is reinforced by the strong opinion that they would contain low quality cigarillos. page 34 GfK GfK bluemoon “Those [Cafe Cremes] are harsh and burn your throat, they've got to be among the worst...But these Mayfairs, I've not tried one so how would I know?” “The pack does look like it would be a bit cheap and nasty.” “Just from the colour you'd assume they were going to be harsh. It's a tar colour kind of, looks gross.” 6.5 Ease of Quitting Although previous plain packaging testing with manufactured cigarette smokers showed a link between low appeal, low perceived quality of tobacco, high perceived harm to health and perceptions that a pack would be harder to quit, this was not the case with cigarillo smokers. Overall, the quantitative research found little differentiation between the different packs on ease of quitting. As with RYO qualitative findings, there were mixed perceptions about what would make a brand or pack harder or easier to quit. Some participants considered a brand or pack harder to quit if it was seen to be ‘more addictive' and some considered it easier to quit if it was so unpalatable, they wouldn't want to smoke it. The interpretation may also have been influenced by the smoking behaviour of cigarillo smokers. The research uncovered two clear types of smokers, those that smoked cigarillo / little cigars almost exclusively and treated them much in the same way as normal cigarettes, and those who were more occasional cigarillo / little cigar smokers who typically smoked less often and were prompted more by occasion, thereby having different views towards addiction and ease of quitting. As shown in Table 6.5.1 below, quantitatively, the Mayfair (plain package) pack, which was seen to be the least appealing and contain the lowest quality cigarillos, was seen to contain cigarillos which would be easiest to quit (average rank 4.0 out of 6). Meanwhile the Davidoff pack, which was the most appealing pack, seen to contain the highest quality cigarillos and be least harmful to health, was seen to be the hardest of the packs to quit (average ranking of 2.9 out of 6). The Cafe Creme pack, which was seen to be lower on appeal, quality and higher on perceived harm to health (performing similarly to the Mayfair (plain package) pack) was seen to be harder to quit relative to the other packs (average ranking 3.2 out of 6). page 35 GfK bluemoon Table 6.5.1. Cigarillos Ease of Quitting Ordered Ranking (average ranking) Ranked (average ranking) Total sample (n=30) Hardest to quit Davidoff (square box) Cafe Creme (square Box) Wee Willem (square box) Henri Wintermans (rectangular box) Captain Black (rectangular box) Mayfair (plain package) (square Easiest to quit box) 2.9 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.7 4.0 P1A-P5A. Looking at these six cigarillo packs, please rank each of these packs in terms of 'appeal', 'quality of cigarillos', 'harm to health', 'how hard it would be to quit', 'noticeability of health warning'. Please write the number '1' next to the pack you think is 'most...' and '2' next to the pack you think is 'second most... and so on until all the packs have a number from 1 to 6 next to it. It is worth noting that in the questionnaire for cigarillo smokers, they were asked to think about which pack would contain cigarillos that would be 'hardest to quit'. In the RYO questionnaire, respondents were asked the question from the perspective of being 'easiest to quit'. Overall the qualitative discussions found that that ease of quitting was somewhat tied to perceptions of quality and perceived harm. The cigarillos perceived as less harmful and higher quality were also perceived as harder to quit. However, these views were also mediated by respondents interpretation of the questions which could lead them to answer based on the type of smoker they associated with that brand. For example, the majority did not consider Cafe Creme as attractive or high quality. However, they felt that Cafe Creme smokers were so dedicated to their brand and addicted, given that it was seen as a high strength cigarillo, that it would be harder to quit. 6.6 Noticeability of Health Warning There is a clear pattern that suggests larger packs (square box vs. narrow rectangular packs) had more noticeable health warnings, by nature of being larger. That is, the larger the health warning, the more noticeable the health warning. As shown in the table below (Table 6.6.1), the square box packs (Cafe Creme, Wee Willem, Mayfair (plain package) and Davidoff) were ranked as having the most noticeable health warnings whilst the rectangular packs, which were narrower, were ranked as having less noticeable health warnings. The Mayfair (plain package) pack was rated as having the third most noticeable health warning (average ranking of 3.0 out of 6) sharing relatively similar rankings to the other square box packs tested. Table 6.6.1 below shows the average ranking of each pack ordered from most noticeable health warning to less noticeable health warning. The Mayfair (plain package) pack did not appear to have a health warning that stood out more or less than the other square box packs. This is not a surprising finding in that all of these packs featured a page 36 GfK bluemoon 75% coverage health warning, coverage that is considerably larger than current health warnings and which dominates the space on the front of the pack. Table 6.6.1. Cigarillos Noticeability of Health Warning Ranked (average ranking) Total sample (n=30) Cafe Creme (square Box) Health warning stands out the most Wee Willem (square box) Mayfair (plain package) (square box) Davidoff (square box) Captain Black (rectangular box) Health warning stands out the least Henri Wintermans (rectangular box) Ordered Ranking (average ranking) 2.2 2.7 3.0 3.1 4.9 5.0 P1A-P5A. Looking at these six cigarillo packs, please rank each of these packs in terms of 'appeal', 'quality of cigarillos', 'harm to health', 'how hard it would be to quit', 'noticeability of health warning'. Please write the number '1' next to the pack you think is 'most...' and '2' next to the pack you think is 'second most... and so on until all the packs have a number from 1 to 6 next to it. page 37 GfK GfK bluemoon 7 PREMIUM CIGAR SMOKERS 7.1 About the Sample Eight in-depth individual interviews were conducted with smokers of premium cigars (see section 4.4 of this report for further details about the sample and methodology). Premium cigar smokers differ considerably in their attitude to cigars compared to smokers of other tobacco products. They identify their smoking of cigars as a choice rather than an addiction. Most claimed that they could, and do, easily refrain from smoking cigars if they chose to. Instead, it is seen as a luxury, or even a guilty pleasure that is an indulgence for themselves. The sense of it being a shared social experience was also highly apparent. Interviews with premium cigar smokers indicated that premium cigar smoking is a very occasion based behaviour. Rather than driven by habit, all respondents saw it as a behaviour that was primarily undertaken and shared with others in a social situation, often in conjunction with a specific activity, for a specific occasion, or in a specific location. Some examples of these types of situations provided by respondents included: • smoking cigars with a group of friends when they get together for a regular fortnightly or monthly activity such as playing cards or watching sports (specific activity); • as a conclusion to the day or week, or part of a celebration, such as the birth of a child, a marriage, an employment success (specific occasion); • as a member of a club that caters for cigar smokers, providing a place where they can enjoy smoking cigars with others and can discuss and learn about different cigars (specific location) These prompts toward cigar smoking are not mutually exclusive from one another and cigar smokers are not exclusively motivated to smoke by one or the other. For example, some smokers who mostly smoke for specific activities such as a fortnightly card game, may also be prompted to smoke a cigar if an occasion, such as a wedding or christening, occurs. That said, the interviews indicated there are two different types of cigar smokers. While all premium cigar smokers were recruited as smoking a premium cigar at least once a fortnight, within this there was a range of behaviours. The research encountered two distinct types of premium cigar smokers: • those that smoke frequently (at least once if not several days a week); and • those that smoked less frequently (once a fortnight and occasionally more often). page 38 GfK GfK bluemoon Frequent Smokers More frequent cigar smokers, those that smoked on a daily basis or a couple of times a week, were often extremely knowledgeable about the different types of cigars. These cigar smokers tended to visit specialist cigar lounges and bought their cigars from specialist cigar stockists. While they may have specific brands that they tended to smoke, they would regularly try others. In fact, trying other brands and learning about different cigars was one of the key drivers of continuing to smoke cigars. Any preference for a specific brand may be driven by best value for money, the time cigar smoker had to enjoy the cigar, the company and the perceived quality of the tobacco used in the cigar. These types of cigar smokers tended to be well aware of what constituted a quality product, and while they had associations of quality with different brands, they were also other factors that influence the quality of each cigar. They would judge a cigar based on: • how long it had been aged; • colour of the tobacco and the leaf wrapping; and • region of origin. The brand name and variant of the cigar provides an indication of this type of product information. Brand names are essential in providing cigar smokers with region of origin, and therefore the type and grade of tobacco that the product contains. However, the relationship is with ‘cigars' and the notion of smoking ‘cigars' rather than with particular brands. The variety, choice and experiencing of new ones is part of the appeal. This is in contrast to the vast majority of cigarette smokers who tend, as previous research has shown, to have dedicated brand associations. None of the more frequent cigar smokers interviewed smoked any other tobacco product. Some admitted to smoking cigarettes when they were younger, but had given them up after taking up premium cigar smoking. These cigar smokers would occasionally smoke a cigarillo, but only one bought as a single sale at their preferred cigar stockist. The reason for smoking a cigarillo instead of a premium cigar was time. For example, they may only have fifteen minutes to spend relaxing with a cigar, so they choose a smaller product that takes less time to smoke. Less frequent smokers Less frequent smokers of premium cigars tended to smoke these about twice a month on average. Their smoking was generally associated with a specific activity, such as a card game, or an occasion, such as a success at work. These cigar smokers were less knowledgeable about premium cigars and how to determine quality so were more influenced by brand names. However, it was apparent that again, these brand names were seen as an indication of origin of the cigar which these smokers tended to link to quality. For example, less frequent smokers consistently associated quality cigars as being from Cuba, whereas more frequent and knowledgeable smokers of premium cigars would discuss regions within Cuba and were also be able to identify high quality cigars from other countries such as Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. page 39 GfK GfK bluemoon Some of these less frequent cigar smokers were often smokers of other tobacco products, including cigarettes. These cigar smokers identified cigar smoking as a different experience to cigarettes. While they felt driven by habit to have a cigarette, cigar smoking was seen an occasional pleasure. 7.2 Perceived Appeal and Attractiveness The qualitative findings suggest that the proposed plain packaging has an impact on both frequent and less frequent cigar smokers in relation to the appeal and attractiveness of cigars in comparison to how they are currently packaged. There are, however, differences in the strength of this impact depending on the types of cigar smokers involved. In general the connoisseurs and more frequent cigar smokers reported feeling that the plain packaging would be more of an inconvenience but ultimately not affect their smoking behaviour. In contrast the less frequent and more occasion based cigar smokers reported a much stronger feeling that plain packaging may have a significant effect on their smoking behaviour due to lowering the appeal of cigars. These differences will be highlighted below as each of the plain packaging elements tested in the research are discussed. Plain Pack Tube Frequent smokers Among more serious or frequent smokers the tubes were disregarded in terms of having any bearing on quality and were seen as a practical device for carrying cigars if necessary. Overall, many frequent smokers actually saw them as a hindrance as they could not see or smell the cigar, which were key drivers of purchase. They reported largely buying loose cigars: “The tubes don't mean anything to me. I want to see the cigar, the colour, texture, feel it in my fingers...all of that is obscured by the tube. I rarely ever buy them like that.” Two versions of a digitally created plain pack mock up tube were presented, along with a number of other existing cigar tubes, as images on a board to the respondents. Images of these can be found in Appendix C. The frequent cigar smokers did report that they felt the overall appeal and attractiveness of the tubes was decreased. However, their perception on how it would affect their smoking pleasure was minimal. In general they had little to no concern regarding the packaging of cigars. Their criteria for appeal and attractiveness are based on the perceived quality of the tobacco and knowledge of the cigar's origins (not only including where it was made, but how long ago, and in what region of a particular country). They also felt that given their preference to buy loose cigars, the impact of the plain pack tube on their perceptions of appeal and attractiveness were slight. “Well, I don't care much for the tubes. I'm really concerned about what's in them. The appeal of a cigar is the quality of the tobacco, the roll, where it's from, is it something I've had before or not, maybe something I've been told page 40 GfK GfK bluemoon about. All those things make much more difference than what packaging it comes in.” However, frequent cigar smokers did feel that the plain pack tube would have an impact on their purchasing enjoyment and the appeal of cigar smoking in general. They felt it would render the tobacconists and cigar sellers less appealing and inviting as places to stop and shop. Some reported that it might push their purchases online. “It wouldn't be as pleasurable. Walking into a tobacconist and being surrounded by those. No thanks.” Less frequent smokers In contrast the less frequent smokers had a stronger reaction to the plain pack tube. Currently, cigar tubes were seen by the less frequent cigar smokers as a potential sign of a quality product, and were often felt to look ‘cool' and increase the sense of occasion when smoking cigars “The tubes are good. They look flash. You'd give one of those as a gift, you can't really give a loose one as a gift can you.” “I tend to think the tubed ones are maybe a bit higher quality. They've gone to the effort. It looks nice you know.” When presented with the plain pack tube they reported feeling the appeal and attractiveness of the tubes had been severely decreased. They reported feeling that part of the ‘fun' had been removed. Standing out most was the size of the health warning which was unavoidable. “No, no, no, no, just no. That is horrible. It's taking all the fun out it!” “That really isn't very pleasant is it. It's quite ‘in your face', you can't really escape it ................. just dull, simply dull.” “The writing is massive, you've kind of got to read it it's so big...I don't want to be reminded of that.” Less frequent smokers reported that currently the purchasing of cigars was part of the ritual and enjoyment involved in cigar smoking. They reported that the ‘revealing' of the cigars on a social occasion was one of the highlights of the process. A number of respondents reported paying particular attention to the tubes and packaging, and often spending more than they would normally, in order to impress guests, friends, or to give as gifts. The plain packaged tube was felt to take away this aspect of cigar smoking which was often cited as a main driver in their smoking behaviours. “You know, you go into the tobacconist and they're all there lined up looking amazing and you pick out a few that look good, bring them home, and when you're mates are over that bit where you bring them out, it's about impressing them isn't it really, but it's fun.” page 41 GfK GfK bluemoon “I've spent more than I wanted to because I wanted to impress someone before. I bought some really fancy cigars in a nice tube and gave them as a gift.” “This plain tube, you're hardly going to want to get that out and give it as a gift are you? It's horrible. You actually wouldn't want to give that to someone, not at all.” Plain Pack Band Both frequent and less frequent smokers reported currently leaving the band on their cigars with none reporting that they removed it. However, there were differing perceptions of the purpose of the band, and reactions to the plain pack band were largely driven by those perceptions. As shown to respondents, the plain pack band had no warning statement or image on it but rather consisted only of the a band in the plain pack colour obscuring the branded band underneath. Both frequent and less frequent cigar smokers reported that it stands out significantly, especially in comparison to the existing bands. Frequent smokers In contrast to the plain packaged tube it was the more frequent and connoisseur cigar smokers who had the stronger negative reactions to the plain packaged band. This audience considered the band as a vital part of their smoking experience. It was seen as the primary provider of product information and at a minimum told them about where the cigar was made, what type and brand it was. For frequent smokers the band is one of the first places they go to when looking at a cigar, so they immediately noticed the difference with the plain pack band. Therefore, it was felt that if plain packaged bands were to be implemented there would be a need to be able to ensure a means of product identification after the point of sale for single sale cigars “I instinctively go to loo...
Purchase answer to see full attachment