Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Standardised snus packaging reduces brand differentiation: a web-based between-subject experiment

Authors: Torleif Halkjelsvik, Janne Scheffels

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Perceptions of tobacco packaging may be consequential for consumption and initiation. We explored the potential effect of standardised packaging on young adults’ ratings of the appeal of brands of snus (Swedish moist snuff) and on their perceptions of typical users of these brands. We were interested in both the effects on average levels of ratings and on the within-subject variability of the ratings. The latter was used as a measure of the extent to which individuals can differentiate between brands.

Methods

A sample of 625 Norwegians aged 16–30 were randomly allocated to one of three between-subject conditions: Branded Packaging, Standardised Packaging, or Standardised Packaging with Health Warnings. The participants rated 10 snus brands on measures of general appeal and on their perceptions of the typical brand user (e.g., “… is sporty and active”).

Results

The standardised packages (without health warnings) were not rated more negatively than the branded packages, while the standardised packages with health warnings were rated slightly more negatively than the branded packages. However, in terms of within-subject standard deviations, the variability of the brand ratings across the packages was substantially lower for standardised packaging types in comparison to branded packages.

Conclusions

Even in cases where standardised tobacco packaging appears to have little overall effect on the valence of the average ratings, it can have a strong effect on the variability of the ratings. This suggests that standardised packaging can reduce the potential for brand differentiation.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
4.
go back to reference Difranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention. Tob Induc Dis. 2002;1(2):97–109.CrossRef Difranza JR, Clark DM, Pollay RW. Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention. Tob Induc Dis. 2002;1(2):97–109.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference World Health Organization. Plain packaging of tobacco products: evidence, design and implementation. Geneva: World Health Orgianization; 2016. World Health Organization. Plain packaging of tobacco products: evidence, design and implementation. Geneva: World Health Orgianization; 2016.
6.
go back to reference Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L, McNeill A, Thomas J, et al. Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75919.CrossRef Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, Bauld L, McNeill A, Thomas J, et al. Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with framework convention on tobacco control guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(10):e75919.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Wakefield MA, Coomber K, Zacher M, Durkin S, Brennan E, Scollo M. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 2):ii17–25.CrossRef Wakefield MA, Coomber K, Zacher M, Durkin S, Brennan E, Scollo M. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 2):ii17–25.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference White V, Williams T, Wakefield M. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands? Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 2):ii42–i9.CrossRef White V, Williams T, Wakefield M. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands? Tob Control. 2015;24(Suppl 2):ii42–i9.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference McNeill A, Gravely S, Hitchman SC, Bauld L, Hammond D, Hartmann-Boyce J. Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4. Art. No.: CD011244. McNeill A, Gravely S, Hitchman SC, Bauld L, Hammond D, Hartmann-Boyce J. Tobacco packaging design for reducing tobacco use. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4. Art. No.: CD011244.
10.
go back to reference Levitt T. Marketing success through differentiation --of anything. Harv Bus Rev. 1980;58(January/February):83–91. Levitt T. Marketing success through differentiation --of anything. Harv Bus Rev. 1980;58(January/February):83–91.
11.
go back to reference Dickson PR, Ginter JL. Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy. J Marketing. 1987;51(2):1–10.CrossRef Dickson PR, Ginter JL. Market segmentation, product differentiation, and marketing strategy. J Marketing. 1987;51(2):1–10.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Rompay Thomas JL, Veltkamp M. Product packaging metaphors: effects of ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand perception. Psychol Mark. 2014;31(6):404–15.CrossRef Rompay Thomas JL, Veltkamp M. Product packaging metaphors: effects of ambiguity and explanatory information on consumer appreciation and brand perception. Psychol Mark. 2014;31(6):404–15.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Aaker DA. Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press; 1991. Aaker DA. Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press; 1991.
14.
go back to reference Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference: young adult smokers’ accounts of cigarette brands and package design. Tob Control. 2008;17(2):118–22.CrossRef Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference: young adult smokers’ accounts of cigarette brands and package design. Tob Control. 2008;17(2):118–22.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Scheffels J, Lund I. Cute as candy: a qualitative study of perceptions of snus branding and package design among youth in Norway. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012837.CrossRef Scheffels J, Lund I. Cute as candy: a qualitative study of perceptions of snus branding and package design among youth in Norway. BMJ Open. 2017;7:e012837.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Goldberg ME, Liefeld J, Kindra G, Madill-Marshall J, Lefebvre J, Martohardjono N, et al. When packages Can't speak: possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. Expert Panel Report. Canada: Health Canada; 1995. Goldberg ME, Liefeld J, Kindra G, Madill-Marshall J, Lefebvre J, Martohardjono N, et al. When packages Can't speak: possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. Expert Panel Report. Canada: Health Canada; 1995.
17.
go back to reference Gendall P, Hoek J, Edwards R, McCool J. A cross-sectional analysis of how young adults perceive tobacco brands: implications for FCTC signatories. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:796.CrossRef Gendall P, Hoek J, Edwards R, McCool J. A cross-sectional analysis of how young adults perceive tobacco brands: implications for FCTC signatories. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:796.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Adkison SE, Bansal-Travers M, Smith DM, O’Connor RJ, Hyland AJ. Impact of smokeless tobacco packaging on perceptions and beliefs among youth, young adults, and adults in the U.S: findings from an internet-based cross-sectional survey. Harm Reduct J. 2014;11:2.CrossRef Adkison SE, Bansal-Travers M, Smith DM, O’Connor RJ, Hyland AJ. Impact of smokeless tobacco packaging on perceptions and beliefs among youth, young adults, and adults in the U.S: findings from an internet-based cross-sectional survey. Harm Reduct J. 2014;11:2.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Wakefield MA, Germain D, Durkin S, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Borland R. Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction. 2012;107(6):1159–67.CrossRef Wakefield MA, Germain D, Durkin S, Hammond D, Goldberg M, Borland R. Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction. 2012;107(6):1159–67.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Germain D, Wakefield MA, Durkin SJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(4):385–92.CrossRef Germain D, Wakefield MA, Durkin SJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(4):385–92.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Scheffels J, Lund I. The impact of cigarette branding and plain packaging on perceptions of product appeal and risk among young adults in Norway: A between-subjects experimental survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003732.CrossRef Scheffels J, Lund I. The impact of cigarette branding and plain packaging on perceptions of product appeal and risk among young adults in Norway: A between-subjects experimental survey. BMJ Open. 2013;3(12):e003732.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Scheffels J, Sæbø G. Perceptions of plain and branded cigarette packaging among Norwegian youth and adults: a focus group study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:450–6.CrossRef Scheffels J, Sæbø G. Perceptions of plain and branded cigarette packaging among Norwegian youth and adults: a focus group study. Nicotine Tob Res. 2013;15:450–6.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):674–82.CrossRef Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, Cummings KM. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the U.S. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40(6):674–82.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Hammond D, Eker F, Beguinot E, Martinet Y. Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: a comparison of regular, limited edition and plain packaging. Tob Control. 2011;21:502–6.CrossRef Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Hammond D, Eker F, Beguinot E, Martinet Y. Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: a comparison of regular, limited edition and plain packaging. Tob Control. 2011;21:502–6.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Wakefield MA, Germain D, Durkin SJ. How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tob Control. 2008;17(6):416–21.CrossRef Wakefield MA, Germain D, Durkin SJ. How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tob Control. 2008;17(6):416–21.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Andrews JC, Netemeyer RG, Burton S, Kees J. Effects of plain package branding and graphic health warnings on adolescent smokers in the USA, Spain and France. Tob Control. 2016;25:e120–6.CrossRef Andrews JC, Netemeyer RG, Burton S, Kees J. Effects of plain package branding and graphic health warnings on adolescent smokers in the USA, Spain and France. Tob Control. 2016;25:e120–6.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;103(1):54.CrossRef Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;103(1):54.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Wells GL, Windschitl PD. Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25(9):1115–25.CrossRef Wells GL, Windschitl PD. Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 1999;25(9):1115–25.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control. 2011;20:353-360. Doxey J, Hammond D. Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tob Control. 2011;20:353-360.
30.
go back to reference Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(7):579–88.CrossRef Hammond D, Doxey J, Daniel S, Bansal-Travers M. Impact of female-oriented cigarette packaging in the United States. Nicotine Tob Res. 2011;13(7):579–88.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference White CM, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. The potential impact of plain packaging of cigarette products among Brazilian young women: an experimental study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:737.CrossRef White CM, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, Fong GT. The potential impact of plain packaging of cigarette products among Brazilian young women: an experimental study. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:737.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Lund I, Scheffels J. Young smokers and non-smokers perceptions of typical users of plain vs. branded cigarette packs: a between-subjects experimental survey. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1005.CrossRef Lund I, Scheffels J. Young smokers and non-smokers perceptions of typical users of plain vs. branded cigarette packs: a between-subjects experimental survey. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1005.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Prop. 142 L. Endringer i tobakksskadeloven. 2016. Norwegian Ministry of Health and Care Services. Prop. 142 L. Endringer i tobakksskadeloven. 2016.
Metadata
Title
Standardised snus packaging reduces brand differentiation: a web-based between-subject experiment
Authors
Torleif Halkjelsvik
Janne Scheffels
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7763-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue