Abstract
Objective: To use the product launch of Player's Premiere as a case study for understanding the new cigarette product development process during the 1990s. We determine the (in)validity of industry claims that: (1) development of the physical product preceded the promotional promise of "less irritation"; (2) "less irritation" was actually realised; (3) advertising informed consumers; and (4) advertising regulations caused the product's failure in the marketplace.
Setting: Court proceedings assessing the constitutionality of Canada's Tobacco Act, which substantially restricts cigarette advertising. The 2002 Quebec Superior Court trial yielded a new collection of internal documents from Imperial Tobacco Ltd (ITL), including several about the development and marketing of Player's Premiere.
Method: Trial testimony and corporate documents were reviewed to determine the validity of the industry representations about the new cigarette product development process, focusing on the case history of Player's Premiere.
Results: In direct contradiction to industry testimony, the documentary evidence demonstrates that (1) communications for Player's Premiere, which claimed less irritation, were developed long before finding a product that could deliver on the promise; (2) ITL did not sell a "less irritating" product that matched its promotional promise; (3) the advertising and other communications for Player's Premiere were extensive, relying on the hi-tech appearances ("tangible credibility") of a "unique" filter, yet were uninformative and vague; and (4) Player's Premiere failed in the marketplace, despite extensive advertising and retail support, because it was an inferior product that did not live up to its promotional promise, not because of regulation of commercial speech.
Conclusions: New product development entails extensive consumer research to craft all communications tools in fine detail. In the case of Player's Premiere, this crafting created a false and misleading impression of technological advances producing a "less irritating" cigarette. This product was solely a massive marketing ploy with neither consumer benefits, nor public health benefits. The industry attempted to deceive both consumers and the court.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (286.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Canova D., Myers M. L., Smith D. E., Slade J. Changing the future of tobacco marketing by understanding the mistakes of the past: lessons from "Lights". Tob Control. 2001;10 (Suppl 1):i43–i44. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.suppl_1.i43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Kozlowski L. T., O'Connor R. J. Cigarette filter ventilation is a defective design because of misleading taste, bigger puffs, and blocked vents. Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 (Suppl 1):I40–I50. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pollay R. W., Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact. Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 (Suppl 1):I18–I31. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pollay R. W. Export "A" ads are extremely expert, eh? Tob Control. 2001 Mar;10(1):71–74. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.1.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pollay R. Zebras in Russia! Where next? Tob Control. 2003 Mar;12(1):89–90. doi: 10.1136/tc.12.1.89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Slade J., Connolly Gregory N., Lymperis D. Eclipse: does it live up to its health claims? Tob Control. 2002 Jun;11 (Suppl 2):ii64–ii70. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_2.ii64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wayne G. Ferris, Connolly G. N. How cigarette design can affect youth initiation into smoking: Camel cigarettes 1983-93. Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 (Suppl 1):I32–I39. doi: 10.1136/tc.11.suppl_1.i32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]