Abstract
This ad watch details new L&M cigarette marketing in the United States that now features the terms “simple” and “tobacco and water”, while continuing to highlight its affordable and premium qualities. This implicitly positions L&M as an affordable natural brand, which is new for the brand. From a public health standpoint, this warrants attention and raises concern because of the commercial success of brands positioned as “natural”, the well-documented misperceptions of “natural” tobacco as presenting fewer health risks, and the potential to attract vulnerable populations who are both cost and health conscious.
The cigarette brand L&M appears to be piloting new marketing in the United States that notably changes its packaging and point-of-sale (POS) advertising. A key transformation is L&M’s implicit positioning as an affordable yet premium natural brand, with an emphasis on cigarette composition. The new L&M packs have been spotted among Reddit users in multiple U.S. regions as early as February 2022.[1,2]
The new tagline on L&M packs is “Simple tobacco”,[1] with POS ads heralding “Simple ingredients” (Figures 1, 2). Packs and POS ads also specify, “Tobacco Ingredients: Tobacco & Water”, connoting a simple, natural composition. The pack design features a single leaf in blue, yellow, orange or green, evoking nature themes with tones reminiscent of water, sun, nature and earth. The new terminology and visuals are distinct from traditional L&M packs featuring block colors with the L&M logo (Figure 2), which as of December 2022 are still featured on the brand’s website, suggesting the new design is not yet fully launched.
Figure 1: L&M Pilot Cigarette Packaging.
Image sources: https://www.andronicos.com/shop/product-details.970304349.html, https://www.shaws.com/shop/product-details.970304323.html
This image depicts L&M’s pilot packs in orange and yellow. The pack fronts state “SIMPLE TOBACCO”, with respective descriptors of “SMOOTH MELLOW TASTE and “SMOOTH RICH TASTE”. The pack backs state, “Enjoy premium tobaccos packed tightly for slow, long-lasting flavor. It only tastes expensive. TOBACCO INGREDIENTS: TOBACCO & WATER”. For additional images of the pilot L&M packs, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cigarettes/comments/t83mr3/lm_simple_tobacco_review_nys_999_i_tried_the/
Figure 2: L&M Pilot Point-of-Sale Advertising.
Image credit: Ollie Ganz
This image depicts L&M’s pilot point-of-sale marketing and packs, alongside other brands (including Natural American Spirit) as well as traditional L&M packs. The pilot marketing advertises “SIMPLE INGREDIENTS THAT ONLY TASTE EXPENSIVE” and “Tobacco Ingredients: Tobacco and Water”.
For additional images of L&M’s traditional packs, see: https://www.lm.com
For additional images of L&M’s pilot point-of-sale marketing, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/Cigarettes/comments/sd0of4/new_lm_simple_tobacco_now_product_testing_in_vt/
L&M’s new marketing is consistent with the brand’s positioning as a premium yet affordable product, maintaining a previous tagline that it “only tastes expensive”.[3] Yet the emphasis on affordability of a simple product made of just “tobacco & water” is new for L&M. Indeed, L&M advertising from recent years has featured tips on how to “live a richer life for less” (e.g., staycations) and imagery of everyday pleasures like coffee.[4] However, the use of nature/fauna imagery and references to simple ingredients, as found on the new packaging and advertising, are new themes for L&M.
The brand’s evolution is significant for multiple reasons. First, its emphasis on “simple” composition harkens to other brands’ “natural” claims, which are linked to misperceptions about reduced health risks and product intentions and use.[5-10] Most notably, Natural American Spirit (NAS), historically marketed as “natural”/“additive-free” and with associated visual imagery,[11-13] is often misperceived by its smokers as less harmful.[14] While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has taken some steps to regulate the term “natural” in cigarette marketing, its use is subject to little regulatory constraint as a whole (e.g., a 2017 agreement with NAS’s manufacturer barred “natural”/“additive-free” terms from NAS marketing but permitted the company to retain “natural” in its brand name)[15]. In fact, recent NAS marketing prominently employs other suggestive terms now featured by L&M, including “simple”, “smooth”[16-18] and “Tobacco Ingredients: Tobacco & Water”.[19, 20] This latter phrase remained allowable under the 2017 agreement, essentially replacing the synonymous “additive-free” claim in NAS post-agreement marketing.
Second, L&M’s move is significant because of recent commercial success of brands using “natural” marketing, as well as success of discount brands. Between 2014 and 2019, market share decreased for most cigarette brands but increased for three discount brands, including L&M, as well as premium brands NAS and Winston,[21] both of which have historically used implicit or explicit claims of naturalness (Winston has previously used claims including “additive-free” and “naturally smooth”, and more recently “tobacco and water”). By exploring repositioning L&M as an affordable and “natural” brand, L&M may seek to maximize both types of market growth trends. L&M’s new positioning raises the potential to attract people from price-sensitive populations including those of lower socioeconomic status and youth/young adults, the latter of whom are especially attracted to “natural” products.[20, 21] L&M is already most popular with individuals under 50 who smoke daily and are often more nicotine dependent and price sensitive.[21]
The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control banned use of “light”, “low”, and “mild” descriptors from tobacco marketing, given their effect on lowering harm perceptions and intention to quit.[22, 23] Similarly, cigarette brands marketed using “natural” themes could potentially reduce or delay motivations to quit. L&M’s new marketing approach, particularly if implemented nationally, may attract a vulnerable segment of consumers who are health- and cost-conscious by offsetting two important motivators for cessation– price and health concerns. L&M’s growing popularity and evolving marketing tactics point to a need for continued study of the brand and other brands that may be following suit. For example, during the publication process of this Ad Watch, we identified new pack designs for Basic, another value brand, using colors similar to the new L&M packs and to NAS (e.g., sky blue, yellow, orange) and employing the phrase “simple tobacco”.[24]
More broadly, these trends highlight a potential need for additional regulatory action to address misleading tobacco marketing. For example, FDA can send warning letters to companies using unauthorized claims that suggest reduced risks (as it has done previously), directing companies to submit “modified risk tobacco product” applications or discontinue use of those claims. Implementation of stalled and challenged regulations (i.e., large graphic warning labels on packs/ads) or more sweeping measures like mandatory plain packaging may also be helpful in disrupting the effects of persistently misleading advertising.[25]
Funding:
Funding for SKG, OG, ET, JLP, CDD and OAW was provided by NCI and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under U54CA229973. OG was also supported in part by the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey under P30CA07270-5931. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the NIH or FDA.
Footnotes
Declaration of Interests:: JP is a paid expert witness for the Plaintiffs in a MultiDistrict Litigation involving Natural American Spirit Cigarettes.
Research Reporting Checklist: This ad watch does not fall into any of the research categories requiring a reporting checklist.
Ethics Approval: This manuscript did not require Institutional Review Board approval, as it is an ad watch that did not involve human or animal subjects.
Image Permissions: Figure 1 is a composite image we created from different public images on the internet; they were retrieved from public online sources (i.e., websites for tobacco retailers, which have been individually credited) and used in accordance with the guidelines of Fair Use, for educational purposes. Images in Figure 2 are credited to Ollie Ganz, an author on this manuscript.
References
- 1.reddit.com. L&M Simple Tobacco Review. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cigarettes/comments/t83mr3/lm_simple_tobacco_review_nys_999_i_tried_the/. Accessed 17 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 2.reddit.com. New L&M Simple Tobacco now product testing in VT, upstate NY, and UT. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cigarettes/comments/sd0of4/new_lm_simple_tobacco_now_product_testing_in_vt/. Accessed 17 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Trinkets & Trash. 2020. L&M e-mail ad example with the “it only tastes expensive” slogan included, https://trinketsandtrash.org/detail.php?artifactid=15393&page=1. Accessed 11 December 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Trinkets & Trash. 2019. L&M e-mail ad example. ‘What do you think goes great with a rich cup of coffee?’ https://trinketsandtrash.org/detail.php?artifactid=14545&page=1. Accessed 11 December 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kelly KJ, Manning K. The effects of natural cigarette claims on adolescents' brand-related beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. J Health Commim 2014;19(9):1064–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Iles IA, Pearson JL, Lindblom E, Moran MB. “Tobacco and water”: Testing the health halo effect of Natural American Spirit cigarette ads and its relationship with perceived absolute harm and use intentions. Health Commun 2021;36(7):804–15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Byron MJ, Baig SA, Moracco KE, Brewer NT. Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers. Tob Control 2016;25(5):517–20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Pearson JL, Johnson A, Villanti A, et al. Misperceptions of harm among Natural American Spirit smokers: results from wave 1 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) study (2013–2014). Tob Control 2017;26(e1):e61–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.O’Connor RJ, Lewis MJ, Adkison SE, Bansal-Travers M, Cummings KM. Perceptions of “natural” and “additive-free” cigarettes and intentions to purchase. Health Educ Behav 2017;44(2):222–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Gratale SK, Maloney EK, Sangalang A, Cappella JN. Influence of Natural American Spirit advertising on current and former smokers’ perceptions and intentions. Tob Control 2018;27(5):498–504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Moran MB, Pierce JP, Weiger C, Cunningham MC, Sargent JD. Use of imagery and text that could convey reduced harm in American Spirit advertisements. Tob Control 2017;26(e1):e68–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gratale SK, Ganz O, Wackowski OA, Lewis MJ. Naturally leading: a content analysis of terms, themes and word associations in Natural American Spirit advertising, 2000–2020. Tob Control/Published Online First: 12 January 2022. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Epperson AE, Henriksen L, Prochaska JJ. Natural American spirit brand marketing casts health halo around smoking. Am J Public Health 2017;107(5):668–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Pearson J, Ganz O, Ohman-Strickland P, Wackowski OA. Shifts in preference for Natural American Spirit and associated belief that one’s own cigarette brand might be less harmful than other brands: results from Waves 1–4 of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study (2013–2018). Tob Control/Published Online First: 24 December 2021. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Truth Initiative. Agreement on American Spirit cigarettes fails to protect public from misleading claims, https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/agreement-american-spirit-cigarettes-fails-protect. Published 3 March 2017. Accessed 11 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Green AC, Fong GT, Borland R, et al. The importance of the belief that “light” cigarettes are smoother in misperceptions of the harmfulness of “light” cigarettes in the Republic of Korea: a nationally representative cohort study. BMC Public Health 2015;15(1):1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.King B, Borland R. What was “light” and “mild” is now “smooth” and “fine”: new labelling of Australian cigarettes. Tob Control 2005;14(3):214–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Pearson J, Giovenco DP, Lewis MJ, Moran M, Ganz O. Natural American Spirit launches ‘Sky’, the brand’s first commercial organic cigarette with a charcoal filter. Tob ControlPublished Online First: 30 September 2021. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056731. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Trinkets & Trash. https://trinketsandtrash.org/detail.php?artifactid=13052&page=1. Accessed 11 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Trinkets & Trash. https://trinketsandtrash.org/detail.php?artifactid=15532&page=1. Accessed 11 August 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Miller Lo EJ, Young WJ, Ganz O, et al. Trends in overall and menthol market shares of leading cigarette brands in the USA: 2014–2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19(4):2270. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Gilpin EA, Emery S, White MM, et al. Does tobacco industry marketing of'light' cigarettes give smokers a rationale for postponing quitting? Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4 Suppl 2:147–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Kozlowski LT, Goldberg ME, Yost BA, et al. Smokers' misperceptions of light and ultra-light cigarettes may keep them smoking. Am J Prev Med 1998;15:9–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.reddit.com. New Basics versus old. https://www.reddit.com/r/Cigarettes/comments/x6u99d/new_basics_vs_old/. Accessed 13 December 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Leas EC, Pierce JP, Dimofte CV, et al. Standardised cigarette packaging may reduce the implied safety of Natural American spirit cigarettes. Tob Control 2018;27:e118–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]