|
MARKETWATCHNew Cigarette Brands With Flavors That Appeal To Youth: Tobacco Marketing Strategies
Tobacco manufacturers have recently introduced a proliferation of exotic brands featuring candylike flavors. We reviewed internal tobacco industry documents and patents to assess the role of flavored cigarettes in the targeting of young smokers. This research revealed the development of flavor delivery technologies hidden from consumers and public health professionals, including the use of a plastic pellet placed in the cigarette filter. These findings raise concerns as to the potential added health risks associated with using new flavored tobacco products, and they underscore the need for effective assessment and monitoring of tobacco products.
Despite assurances that they no longer target youth either directly or indirectly, cigarette manufacturers have recently introduced a range of candy-and liqueur-flavored tobacco products, with alluring names such as Dark Mint, Cool Myst, Midnight Berry, and Mocha Taboo, and seasonal variations such as Bayou Blast and Midnight Madness (Exhibit 1  ). These brand extensions are being heavily marketed to youth and racial/ethnic groups, with colorful and stylish packaging and flavors that mask the harsh and toxic properties of tobacco smoke.1 While overall cigarette sales have fallen, RJ Reynolds’ (RJR’s) Camel brand family experienced a 9.8 percent sales volume increase during the past year, coinciding with the introduction of flavored brand extensions.2
The purpose of this study was to review internal industry research to provide insight into flavored cigarettes and novel flavor technologies that are being used to capture the youth market. First, we reviewed internal documents to examine the use of flavors to target youth, including differences in flavor preferences among this target population, as well as industry product design and marketing strategies. Second, we assessed internal industry research as well as U.S. patents to identify the use of new and nonconventional flavor delivery systems in cigarettes, including the possible effects on product delivery. Finally, we considered the incorporation of new technology in recent products and policy implications based on their potential role in targeting new smokers.
The study draws on findings from internal tobacco industry documents, U.S. patent awarded and pending applications, and a physical examination of Camel Exotic Blend cigarettes. Internal document research was conducted through a Web-based search of tobacco industry document collections made publicly available through the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between the state attorneys general and major U.S. tobacco manufacturers. The collections are updated on an ongoing basis and as of December 2004 housed more than seven million documents.3 We used the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Web site to obtain issued patent awards and published patent applications. Documents were identified through word searches (such as flavor, young, youth, candy, sweet, taste, pellet, preference) on both an index and the full text of the documents. A document was considered relevant if it described the use of flavors and flavor technology in the development of products targeting new and younger smokers. Identified documents were surveyed for recurring authors, named persons, keywords, and project names and codes that might reveal further avenues for retrieval. These searches resulted in a final set of approximately 120 relevant documents, ranging in date between 1969 and 2001. Patents were identified using keyword searches (such as flavor delivery, filter) and were considered relevant if they described flavor delivery systems used to mask the taste or odor of tobacco smoke. A physical examination of the filters of various Camel Exotic Blend cigarettes was performed to identify the presence of a unique flavor-delivery pellet as described in U.S. patents and within the internal documents.
Using flavors and flavor concepts to target youth. Cigarette manufacturers apply a variety of flavor additives to nearly all products, but only menthol, which "redefine[d] the smoking experience" more than forty years ago, has proved successful as a basis for marketing a cigarette brand by its flavor.4 Nonetheless, the concept of flavored cigarettes as a strategy for expanding the cigarette market has been revisited periodically over many years. For example, an internal Philip Morris (PM) presentation in 1992 discussed the benefits of flavored cigarettes, noting that there has been a flavor-variety explosion in virtually every category of consumables except cigarettes. ...New flavors could cut across current and menthol segments, creating a new category. ...The concept (new flavors) could have the potential to be the most innovative change in cigarette marketing, reviving taste enjoyment and conscious purchase—selection excitement."5
Exhibit 2
Internally, the appeal of flavored cigarettes has long been associated with specific consumer populations, particularly young and novice smokers.6 For example, Brown and Williamson’s (B&W’s) consumer research in 1984 revealed notable agreement among respondents that flavored cigarettes would be much more popular among young and inexperienced smokers.7 Echoing the sentiments of the PM presentation quoted above, a 1993 Lorillard document observed: "Growing interest in new flavor sensations (i.e. soft drinks, snack foods) among younger adult consumers may indicate new opportunities for enhanced-flavor tobacco products that could leverage Newport’s current strength among younger adult smokers."8 As summarized in an undated RJR document describing the early development of flavored cigarettes: "Flavored cigarettes appeal to women...[and] younger smokers."9 Internal studies of differences in taste and flavor preferences by age group confirmed that younger smokers are more open to unique and exotic flavors than their older counterparts. A 1984 B&W Taste Segmentation study suggested that 28 percent of young smokers (under age 35) preferred robust tastes, compared with 21 percent and 12 percent of smokers ages 35–54 and age 55 and older, respectively. Younger smokers (22 percent) preferred fruit flavors more than those ages 35–54 (20 percent) and age 55 and older (13 percent).10 Industry research findings suggest that young and novice smokers also might be especially vulnerable to product benefits related to flavored cigarettes. In 1992 PM tested several flavors among young adult smokers (male, ages 18–24; female, ages 18–34) and identified a number of possible consumer benefits, including increased social acceptance via pleasant aroma and aftertaste, increased excitement (for example, sharing flavors), smoking enjoyment, and a "high curiosity to try factor."11 Young adult smokers represented an emerging "corporate priority" beginning in the late 1980s as an engine for industry market growth.12 In a report titled "Products of the 90’s," RJR authors emphasized the need to target products toward young smokers, and specifically to ensure "that conventional products have appeal to 18–24 year olds," as well as to provide "choices which are very different from current products."13 RJR’s flavor development targeted full-flavor low-tar (FFLT) male and female smokers ages 18–34, "given their demonstrated behavior in compromising traditional tobacco taste and the strategic opportunity to the company presented by younger adult smokers."14 Likewise, Lorillard’s 1991 proposal for a flavor-enhanced refreshment line of Newport for young adult smokers stated: "Given young adults [sic] proclivity towards flavors in other categories (i.e. soft drinks, wine coolers), a flavor enhanced menthol product may appeal to these smokers."15 Next-generation flavor technologies. Flavors are traditionally added to tobacco or to cigarette paper, where they are then burned with the tobacco column in an attempt to enhance the tobacco flavor, mask unpleasant odor, and deliver a pleasant cigarette pack aroma.16 However, the tobacco industry pursued a wide range of newer nonconventional flavor technologies to address the goal of unique flavor delivery. Researchers of RJR’s Project CT (New Cigarette Taste/Sensation) recognized that "conventional products fall short on satisfying ideal smoker wants" in the area of new taste and/or sensation.17 Industry patents and patent applications describe a range of new technologies to deliver flavors for use in tobacco products. For example, a 2001 U.S. patent awarded to RJR describes substances that can be used as cigarette filter additives in the form of polyethylene strands or as cigarette wrapper or packaging additives.18 A 2003 patent awarded to B&W describes a flip-open box with micro-encapsulated flavor release.19 RJR patents highlight technology including pellets and low- and high-density rods inserted in cigarette filters that contain smoke-modifying agents such as flavorants and provide for well-controlled flavor delivery.20 New flavor delivery systems were hypothesized to be more effective than traditional top-dressing methods (that is, flavors added directly to the tobacco) by increasing stability, consistency, and shelf life.21 For example, filter flavor delivery systems may impart flavors more efficiently because the flavors are not altered by combustion.22 A 1986 document ascribes a variety of other advantages to "new generation" flavor-enhancing technologies including selective placement within the cigarette and controlled (timed) release.23 In a 1988 RJR report identifying young adult smokers as RJR’s "most critical strategic need," product concepts targeted at smokers ages 18–24 included after-taste, tobacco satisfaction, and menthol aftertaste and aroma. The product technology proposed to address these areas included nonconventional methods such as polymer pellet technology (PPT).24 A flavored pellet (polyethylene bead) inserted in the filter was designed to provide controlled release of flavor for delivery to the smoker.25
Filter pellet technology and today’s cigarettes.
This past research on flavor technology was directly linked to the development of today’s flavored cigarettes. In 1994, an RJR researcher wrote: "We worked on this [high density polyethylene (HDPE) filter pellet] for Chelsea [brand] in 1989. ...Sometimes old projects are worth recycling as the marketplace changes."26 RJR used filter pellet technology under several projects (such as Fresh Aftertaste [FAT], New Cigarette Taste/Sensation [CT], and Tomorrow’s Female [TF]), many of which targeted young adult smokers (Exhibit 3
Early prototypes using embedded spearmint pellets increased the perceptions of sweetness in sidestream and exhaled mainstream smoke.27 In 1989, however, aging studies under Project TF indicated problems with flavor migration, and the pellet was not pursued beyond prototype testing.28 RJR revisited PPT in the early 1990s, exploring ways to deter flavor migration.29 By 1999 a flavored pellet filter prototype had been developed, which included traditional cocoa top dressing in combination with an orange-flavored high-density pellet.30
Flavor filter pellets were a key technology enabling the introduction of a variety of "exotic" Camel flavors in 2000, pursued internally as the "Camel Twist Project."31 A 2001 RJR document, prepared to respond to consumer inquiries regarding flavor delivery in the Camel Exotic Blends, describes the pellet as intended "to protect the flavor" and as made of "the same material that milk jugs are made of."32 Although these pellets are not visible to the consumer, a physical examination of the filter confirms the placement of the pellet in certain Camel Exotic Blends such as Twist (Exhibit 4
Camel Exotic Blends that contained a blue flavor-delivering pellet were Twist, Mandarin Mint, Izmir Singer, Dark Mint, and Aegean Spice. The pellets present in these different brands had the same appearance (color, size, and shape) and could not be distinguished with the naked eye. Unfortunately, our review of internal documents identified few internal evaluations of the new product technologies used in recent flavored brands. In 2000, PM conducted a competitive subjective evaluation of certain Camel Exotic Blends (for example, Crema, Twist). Among the characteristics reported were consistently low impact and low or medium mouth and throat response, as well as specific points of product differentiation including sweet, creamy vanilla notes (Crema); citrus notes (Twist); low in tobacco character (Samsung); or nondistinctive, bland, and smooth (Rare).33 In 1996, RJR evaluated the possibility of accidental dislodging of the pellet with high air flow, finding that increased air volume reduced movement of the pellet.34 In earlier research (1987), precise placement of a polyethylene bead in the filter was recommended: "Optimal location is required in order to prevent possible inhalation of the intact bead by the consumer."35
The proliferation of new flavored brands comes at a time when advertising and marketing restrictions in the 1998 MSA have made it more difficult to target young smokers. These increased restrictions may be prompting manufacturers to turn to product innovations to attract new smokers. As observed by Gregory Connolly, the packaging and imagery of flavored products serve as powerful new sources of promotion and advertising, particularly when coupled with tailored advertising and marketing found on interactive Web sites (such as Camel Smokes and Salem Access) that further capitalize on product novelty.36 The limited seasonal availability of these flavored products provides further evidence of their role as "starter" cigarettes rather than as regular brands intended to create and foster brand loyalty. Published research demonstrates a compelling link between youth-targeted product innovations and smoking behavior.37 For example, flavored cigarettes can promote youth initiation and help young occasional smokers to become daily smokers by reducing or masking the natural harshness and taste of tobacco smoke and increasing the acceptability of a toxic product.38 Yet the potential influence of flavored cigarettes on youth initiation might go unrecognized without efforts to increase awareness. Coordinated public education and community action are needed to inform youth about tobacco industry deception and confront the tobacco industry, especially in the absence of governmental regulation. A recently produced anti-smoking advertisement on flavored cigarettes released by the American Legacy Foundation as part of its "Truth" mass media campaign provides one example of aggressive public awareness strategies. Community groups must also be vigilant and fight back against manufacturers who target high-risk groups with flavored brands. As evidenced by the recent success of the Chicago-based coalition that ended B&W’s Kool Campaign promoting flavored brands, community action can be powerful and effective. Regulatory action is an appropriate response to the serious public health concerns raised by the introduction of new product delivery technologies, such as the flavor pellet in the Camel Exotic Blend Twist filter. Little is known regarding the delivery characteristics or possible health risks associated with these products. The use of flavor technologies has not been disclosed to public health officials, and in the case of the flavored pellet, the device is concealed from the consumer, unless the pellet is dislodged from the filter and exposed.39 The limited availability of internal industry testing clearly underscores the need for independent studies to assess the effects of new technologies on the delivery and toxicity of these new products. Pending federal legislation would require disclosure of additives to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and regulation of tobacco products, including a prohibition of candylike flavors. A number of states (including New York, Minnesota, West Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois, North Carolina, and Texas) have also introduced legislation to ban candy-flavored cigarettes. Regulation of product additives or technologies also could be warranted in the case of evidence substantiating increased health risks or influence on youth smoking. Although the MSA ban on youth targeting was designed to protect youth, past research suggests that major tobacco manufacturers have failed to comply with the MSA’s youth-targeting prohibitions regarding magazine advertising of cigarettes.40 Evidence demonstrating that new brands and promotions target and promote youth smoking could prompt the state attorneys general to investigate violations of the MSA and determine whether the sale of such products violates fair trade practices under state consumer protection law. Thus, in addition to promoting public awareness and taking action at the community level in response to youth-targeted products, policymakers should support legislation prohibiting manufacturers from adding these candylike flavors to tobacco products.
Carrie Carpenter (ccarpent{at}hsph.harvard.edu) is a research analyst in the Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston, Massachusetts. Geoffrey Ferris Wayne is research manager there. John Pauly is a cancer research scientist in the Department of Immunology, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, in Buffalo, New York. Howard Koh is the Harvey V. Fineberg Professor of the Practice of Public Health, Division of Public Health Practice. Gregory Connolly is a professor of the practice of public health in that division. The authors are grateful to Mitch Zeller for his suggestions with regard to the discussion. This research was conducted at the Harvard School of Public Health and funded through National Cancer Institute Grant no. R01 CA87477-05 and American Legacy Foundation Grant no. 6212.
This article has been cited by other articles:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Top
Study Methods
Results
