. 2011 May;20(Suppl_1):i2–i8. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.040105

Table 1.

Tobacco industry focus group data

Company	Year	Location	Topic/purpose	No. of groups/respondents	Demographics/methods
Philip Morris (PM)	1997	Boston, Massachusetts	Smoker and non-smoker attitudes/perceptions of litter in general, and a range of issues surrounding cigarette butt litter³²	Six groups	Four groups of smokers: two groups 21–34-year-olds (white collar/blue collar); two groups aged 35+ (white collar/blue collar). Two groups of non-smokers: one group of 21–34-year-olds; one group aged 35+; mix of white collar and blue collar.
RJ Reynolds (RJR)	1992	Santa Fe, New Mexico	Consumer product idea generation³³	Two groups	The two groups contained a cross-section of men and women smokers, 25–49 years of age and a cross-section of income levels, education and employment
		Indianapolis, Indiana	Consumer product idea generation	Two groups
		Boise, Idaho	Consumer product idea generation	Two groups
		Providence, Rhode Island	Consumer product idea generation	Three groups	Two groups as above; third group with women who were primarily housewives
		Dallas, Texas	Product idea generation	Two groups	7-Eleven store managers 7-Eleven store clerks
		Dallas, Texas	Idea generation	One group	A combination of managers and clerks from previous Dallas group
RJR	1993	Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Madison, Wisconsin; St Louis, Missouri	Development of a more environmentally-friendly cigarette³⁴	12 triads and 2 focus groups per city	A cross-section of smokers that included men and women, high, middle and low education, high, middle and low income
PM	1986	Six cities	Evaluate 26 novel product ideas³⁵	693 interviews	Smokers recruited by mall intercept
PM	1995	Chicago, Illinois	Consumers' reactions to environmental issues³⁶	148 self-administered questionnaires	Men and women smokers, aged 18–55 years old
PM	1995	Owings Mills, Maryland	Consumers' reactions to environmental issues³⁶	20 one-on-one interviews	Smokers, men and women, aged 18–55 years old.
Tidy Britain Group	1996	UK (national)	Attitudes of smokers towards cigarette disposal outdoors³⁷	918 interviews face-to-face on the street	A representative number of smokers in each of the categories of nation/region, age, sex and social class
British American Tobacco (BAT)	1980	UK	To provide information on the likely social pressure, if any, against smoking; and what priority anti-smoking feeling had among other social concerns. To explore fully which components of smoking upset or annoy people and whether these differ between smokers and non-smokers. To provide an opportunity for the confrontation of smokers and non-smokers. To determine how smokers actually react to social pressure about smoking.³⁸	Four groups Four mini groups Four mini groups Four groups	Smokers, men 20–40, ABC1; smokers, men 20–40, C2DE; smokers, women 20–40, ABC1; smokers, women 20–40, C2DE. Ex-smokers: two groups men 20–40, ABC; two groups women 20–40, C2DE. Never smokers: two groups men 20–40, ABC1; two groups women 20–40, C2DE. Two groups of men, 20–40, four smokers, two ex-smokers, two never smokers. Two groups of women, 20–40, four smokers, two ex-smokers, two never smokers.
RJR	1978	New York City, New York Cincinnati, Ohio San Francisco, California	The dimensions of consumers' views of the social and regulatory aspects of smoking³⁹	Six groups	All respondents were between 18 and 55 years of age. Men and women were equally represented in the groups held in New York and San Francisco, but in Cincinnati, one group was all men and the other was all women. Smokers and non-smokers.
RJR	1985	Boston, Massachusetts Minneapolis, Minnesota San Francisco, California Los Angeles, California Atlanta, Georgia Dallas, Texas Kansas City, Missouri	Smoking concerns in relation to other issues; meanings of and attributions towards smoking and smokers; responses to smoking in situational contexts; propensity of the anti-smoker to take action; and hypothesised pathological characteristics of the anti-smoker⁴⁰	89 group participants, 93 interviewees	Interviews in group and individual settings, administering written material and addressing parallel issues in both settings. Respondents were selected to ensure reasonable distributions of age, sex, socioeconomic status and smoking status.
RJR	2004	West Coast USA	To meet the group and confirm that the newly formed company (Reynolds American) was committed to continuing the corporate social responsibility engagement and dialogue process⁴¹	One group	Members of a western state public health department and tobacco control group.
		Seattle, Washington		One group	A doctor, a restaurant manager, a police officer, a parent–teacher association representative, a director of a non-profit community organisation, a leader of a local church, a student active in college social and student government affairs and an owner of a local convenience store.
		Southeast USA	To further the company's understanding of the actions expected of a responsible tobacco company⁴¹	One group	Members of the health department.
		Bangor, Maine	Public perceptions of the tobacco industry⁴¹	One group	Members of the greater Bangor, Maine community. That group included a member of the clergy, a parent–teacher association member, a mother of teenagers, an elected council member, a convenience store owner, a restaurant/bar manager, a college student, the director of a non-profit organisation and a police officer.
RJR	2006	West Coast USA	Tobacco control policy issues⁴¹	One group	The head of a county lung association and a retired doctor who chairs a county tobacco control coalition
PM	1998	Dallas, Texas	Clean indoor air policies⁴²	Seven groups	Restaurant owners/managers Managers of manufacturing workplaces Non-smoking consumers Smoking consumers Workplace owners/warehouse companies Workplace owners/manufacturing companies Bar/restaurant managers
Brown & Williamson (B&W)	1996	Minneapolis, Minnesota Los Angeles, California	Identify the most promising selling propositions for ‘natural’ cigarettes⁴³	14 groups	10 groups of smokers, 21–55 Two groups of smokers, 21–39 Two groups of smokers, 40–55
BAT	1993	Switzerland	‘Ecological’ cigarette concept⁴⁴	Nine groups	Mixed sex group, 18–35; non-smokers and ex-smokers Mixed sex, smokers 18–25 Three groups women smokers 18–35 Three groups men smokers 18–35 Mixed sex smokers 18–35; ecological sensitives
PM	1992	Seattle, Washington Atlanta, Georgia	Litter, ashtrays⁴⁵	Six groups	Six groups: three smoker and three non-smoker. The smoking and non-smoking groups were broken into three age brackets: 18–24; 25–34; 35–50.
RJR	1993	Birmingham, Alabama	To explore smokers' reactions to concepts that build on social responsibility, to aid in the development of direct mail pieces⁴⁶	Six groups	Two groups of male and female smokers, 25–60 Two groups of male smokers, 25–60 Two groups of female smokers, 25–60
PM	1986	Atlanta, Georgia Boston, Massachusetts Chicago, Illinois Dallas, Texas Seattle, Washington	The purpose of the social aspect of smoking focus groups was to generate some discussion on concepts for new cigarette ideas that address issues of social and health importance⁴⁷	10 groups	Two groups per city, smokers aged 35 and younger and aged 36 to 65
B&W	1996	Minneapolis, Minnesota	Environmentally-friendly cigarette concepts⁴⁸	Six groups	Two groups of smokers, 21–40 One group of smokers, 40–55 Three groups of smokers, age unspecified