Literature DB >> 11740042

Test of "Light" cigarette counter-advertising using a standard test of advertising effectiveness.

S Shiffman1, S L Burton, J L Pillitteri, J G Gitchell, M E Di Marino, C T Sweeney, P A Wardle, G L Koehler.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate systematically the effectiveness of six advertising strategies (two message strategies presented in three different contexts) designed to promote smoking cessation by addressing smokers' misperceptions about Light cigarettes.
DESIGN: Smokers viewed one of six, 30 second test television concept advertisements, which varied by message (one emphasising how the sensory effects of Lights can be deceptive, the other describing the effects of vent blocking) and by ad context (non-commercial public service announcement (PSA), promotion of unbranded nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), or promotion of branded NRT). The effectiveness of each advertisement was determined using a validated advertising testing system in which ads were viewed in the context of reviewing a pilot television programme. Response to ads is assessed through shifts in subject choices of products offered as prizes before and after viewing the test advertisements. Included among the possible prizes were cigarettes and various pharmacotherapies for smoking cessation.
SUBJECTS: Daily smokers (n = 1890) of Regular (34%), Light (47%), and Ultra Light (19%) cigarettes recruited from eight US cities. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome of interest was the shift away from cigarettes as the selected prize following exposure to the test advertisements. Secondary outcomes of interest included movement away from Light cigarettes and movement towards assisted quitting products.
RESULTS: Smokers who saw the advertisement emphasising the sensory characteristics of Light cigarettes were more likely than subjects who saw the advertisement emphasising the effect of vent blocking to move away from cigarettes (OR = 1.97, 95% confidence interval CI 1.25 to 3.09; chi(2)(1) = 8.69, p = 0.003). Similarly, subjects who saw the advertisement framed as a PSA, rather than as a promotion for either a branded or unbranded NRT product, were also somewhat more likely to move away from cigarettes (OR = 1.51, 95% CI 0.94 to 2.40; chi(2)(1) = 2.97, p = 0.085). The effect was observed regardless of sex, age, or type of cigarette smoked.
CONCLUSIONS: Addressing smokers' sensory perceptions of Light cigarettes and presenting this information in an impartial way is likely to be an effective communication strategy for counter-marketing Light cigarettes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11740042      PMCID: PMC1766051          DOI: 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i33

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Tob Control        ISSN: 0964-4563            Impact factor:   7.552


  4 in total

1.  Smoker reactions to a "radio message" that Light cigarettes are as dangerous as Regular cigarettes.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; M E Goldberg; C T Sweeney; R F Palmer; J L Pillitteri; B A Yost; E L White; M M Stine
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.244

2.  Smokers' beliefs about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes.

Authors:  S Shiffman; J L Pillitteri; S L Burton; J M Rohay; J G Gitchell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

3.  Effect of health messages about "Light" and "Ultra Light" cigarettes on beliefs and quitting intent.

Authors:  S Shiffman; J L Pillitteri; S L Burton; J M Rohay; J G Gitchell
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Prying open the door to the tobacco industry's secrets about nicotine: the Minnesota Tobacco Trial.

Authors:  R D Hurt; C R Robertson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-10-07       Impact factor: 56.272

  4 in total
  8 in total

1.  Do "Light" cigarettes undermine cessation?

Authors:  J R Hughes
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

2.  Concluding remarks.

Authors:  J Wilkenfield
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 7.552

Review 3.  "Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product.

Authors:  L T Kozlowski; B Q Edwards
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.552

4.  Cessation among smokers of "light" cigarettes: results from the 2000 national health interview survey.

Authors:  Hilary A Tindle; Nancy A Rigotti; Roger B Davis; Elizabeth M Barbeau; Ichiro Kawachi; Saul Shiffman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-06-29       Impact factor: 9.308

5.  Impact of corrective health information on consumers' perceptions of "reduced exposure" tobacco products.

Authors:  Lois Biener; Karen Bogen; Gregory Connolly
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 7.552

6.  Using eye-tracking to examine how embedding risk corrective statements improves cigarette risk beliefs: Implications for tobacco regulatory policy.

Authors:  Kirsten Lochbuehler; Kathy Z Tang; Valentina Souprountchouk; Dana Campetti; Joseph N Cappella; Lynn T Kozlowski; Andrew A Strasser
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.492

7.  Antismoking advertisements for youths: an independent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry approaches.

Authors:  Cornelia Pechmann; Ellen T Reibling
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 9.308

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

Authors:  Patricia A McDaniel; Ruth E Malone
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 7.552

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.