“Light” and “mild” reasons to butt-out
When variants known as “light” or “mild” cigarettes were actively promoted by cigarette companies as alternatives to quitting in the 1960s, many smokers believed that they would be less likely to suffer from diseases linked to regular tar products.
Subsequent research has shown that smokers of light and mild cigarettes do not suffer fewer health problems when compared with regular cigarette smokers. The research shows that smokers of light and mild variants often engage in compensatory behaviours such as inhaling more deeply or frequently, or (deliberately or inadvertently) blocking air holes in filters designed to reduce tar intake.
Despite these findings, a recent study into people’s perceptions of “light” cigarettes has revealed that smokers are twice as likely as non-smokers to believe that cigarettes labelled “light” offer a less harmful alternative to regular cigarettes.
The study was done by Associate Professor Rachel Kennedy from UniSA’s Ehrenberg-Bass Marketing Science Institute, Jeremy Tustin from UniSA’s Centre for Regulation and Market Analysis and Professor Janet Hoek from New Zealand’s Massey University. It involved telephone interviews with 788 respondents from South Australia and New South Wales, and won a Best in Track award at the recent Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy conference.
Tustin said some smokers mistakenly thought that smoking light cigarettes was a good way to quit smoking, or an alternative to quitting altogether.
“Overall, the evidence suggests that smokers generally were confused over the (light) variant’s true characteristics. We found that smokers were significantly more likely than non-smokers to associate ‘light’ with health benefits, although it seems that different smokers expect different benefits,” Tustin said.
“Smokers of light and mild cigarettes in particular were more likely than regular cigarettes smokers to believe that they would be less likely to suffer from the diseases linked to regular tar products.
“Some smokers thought that ‘light’ meant less nicotine, but more tar, which doesn’t make sense. There wasn’t any single clear association held by all people,” Tustin said.
“While there is no evidence to suggest that smoking light cigarettes is any better than smoking regulars, a fact that has been well documented in medical journals since the 1970s, a large proportion of the general public, and an even larger proportion of the smoking public, according to our research, still thought ‘lights’ were a lesser evil.”
“Light” and “mild” labels have now been largely removed from the marketplace following undertakings accepted last year by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The descriptors have been replaced by others such as “smooth” and “fresh”.
“These new labels are now quite common on the shelves and it will be interesting to see whether these changes are enough to break down the existing perception that some cigarettes are better than others. We will need to let the changes ‘bed down’ for a while before we can consider this question,” Tustin said.