Introduction
A leading US cigar brand Black & Mild recently emailed customers to promote its newest blend, Royale, in purple packaging. Previously, the company sold the same cigar in a blue pack (promoted on its website in 2011–2016). This shift is notable since pack color influences consumer perceptions, including of flavor,1–3 and certain colors are associated with specific flavors (eg, green with menthol).2 We hypothesized that consumer flavor perceptions differ for blue vs purple cigar packaging.
Methods
The Rutgers University Institutional Review Board deemed this online survey study exempt because of minimal participant risk. Participants provided consent before survey completion. The study followed the AAPOR reporting guideline.
We examined the association of cigar pack color with consumer flavor perceptions using data from 1 wave of the Rutgers Omnibus Study (a quarterly Amazon Mechanical Turk [mTurk] survey of US adults aged 18–45 years) collected in August 2022. Respondents were randomized to view a cigar with blue or purple packaging and asked if the cigar was flavored (yes or no) and, if yes, what flavor. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association of condition (pack color) with cigar use, self-reported demographic characteristics (age, sex, and race and ethnicity), and flavor perceptions. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05 (2-tailed) and analyses were conducted in October 2022 using Stata/MP, version 17 (StataCorp).
Results
There were 2541 survey respondents, including 1546 female (60.8%) and 979 male (38.5%) individuals (Table 1). The mean (SD) respondent age was 33.1 (6.6) years; 278 (10.9%) self-identified as Hispanic, 289 (11.4%) as non-Hispanic Black, 1722 (67.8%) as non-Hispanic White, and 235 (9.2%) as other non-Hispanic race. There were 1035 ever cigar users (40.7%) and 457 current users (18.0%). More participants randomized to purple vs blue believed that the product was flavored (69.2% vs 50.8%; Table 2). Independent of condition, previous cigar smoking and female sex were associated with believing that the cigar blend was flavored. Significant differences were observed for perceived flavors by color, with blue evoking vanilla (adjusted odds ratio, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.09–3.95), blueberry (7.33; 4.16–12.92), or mint/menthol (2.61; 1.59–4.29) and purple evoking grape (11.37; 8.21–15.73), wine (8.32; 4.22–16.39), or berry/cherry (5.72; 3.74–8.72). Flavor perceptions for blueberry, grape, and wine were independently associated with cigar smoking.
Table 1.
Sample Characteristics Overall and by Cigar Experiences
| Characteristic | No. of respondents (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (N = 2541) | Ever use of cigars (n = 1035) | Current use of cigars (n = 457) | Current B&M user (n = 126) | |
| Age, y | ||||
| 18–25 | 366 (14.4) | 93 (9.0) | 64 (14.0) | 10 (7.9) |
| 26–35 | 1177 (46.3) | 483 (46.7) | 228 (49.9) | 75 (59.5) |
| 36–45 | 998 (39.2) | 459 (44.3) | 165 (36.1) | 41 (32.5) |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sex | ||||
| Male | 38.5 (979) | 401 (38.7) | 248 (54.3) | 70 (55.6) |
| Female | 60.8 (1546) | 632 (61.1) | 202 (44.2) | 55 (43.6) |
| Missing | 0.6 (16) | 2 (0.2) | 7 (1.5) | 1 (0.8) |
| Race and ethnicity | ||||
| Hispanic | 278 (10.9) | 112 (10.8) | 60 (13.1) | 18 (14.3) |
| Non-Hispanic Black | 289 (11.4) | 90 (8.7) | 75 (16.4) | 29 (23.0) |
| Non-Hispanic White | 1722 (67.8) | 748 (72.3) | 278 (60.8) | 70 (55.6) |
| Other non-Hispanic racea | 235 (9.2) | 83 (8.0) | 37 (8.1) | 8 (6.3) |
| Missing | 17 (0.7) | 2 (0.2) | 7 (1.5) | 1 (0.8) |
| Cigar useb | ||||
| Current | 457 (18.0) | NA | NA | NA |
| Ever | 1035 (40.7) | NA | NA | NA |
| Never | 1049 (41.3) | NA | NA | NA |
| Missing | 0 | NA | NA | NA |
| B&M smokerc | ||||
| Yes | 126 (5.0) | NA | NA | NA |
| No | 2415 (95.0) | NA | NA | NA |
| Missing | 0 | NA | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: B&M, Black & Mild; NA, not applicable.
Other non-Hispanic race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or other not specified here.
Categories are mutually exclusive and were defined as follows: never use of any cigar product (ie, traditional or premium, filtered, or cigarillo), ever but not current use of any cigar product, or current use of any cigar product (use every day, some days, or rarely).
Defined as those who reported B&M as their regular or last brand for any cigar product (ie, traditional or premium, filtered, or cigarillo); all B&M smokers were current smokers.
Table 2.
Association of Pack Color With Cigar Use Behaviors, Demographic Characteristics, and Flavor Perceptions
| Characteristic (No. of respondents) (N = 2541) | Believes product is flavored | Perceived flavor | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vanilla | Blueberry | Mint/menthol | Grape | Wine | Berry/cherry | |||||||||
| No. (%) | AOR (95% CI)a | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | No. (%) | AOR (95% CI) | |
| Condition | ||||||||||||||
| Blue (n = 1319) | 670 (50.8) | 1 [Reference] | 155 (11.8) | 2.87 (2.09–3.95) | 102 (7.7) | 7.33 (4.16–12.92) | 60 (4.6) | 2.61 (1.59–4.29) | 46 (3.5) | 1 [Reference] | 10 (0.8) | 1 [Reference] | 29 (2.2) | 1 [Reference] |
| Purple (n = 1222) | 846 (69.2) | 2.22 (1.88–2.62) | 5 (4.5) | 1 [Reference] | 14 (1.2) | 1 [Reference] | 22 (1.8) | 1 [Reference] | 346 (28.3) | 11.37 (8.21–15.73) | 68 (5.6) | 8.32 (4.22–16.39) | 131 (10.7) | 5.72 (3.74–8.72) |
| Cigar useb | ||||||||||||||
| Never (n = 1049) | 535 (51.0) | 1 [Reference] | 82 (7.8) | 1 [Reference] | 30 (2.9) | 1 [Reference] | 35 (3.3) | 1 [Reference] | 110 (10.5) | 1 [Reference] | 15 (1.4) | 1 [Reference] | 56 (5.3) | 1 [Reference] |
| Ever (n = 1035) | 667 (64.4) | 1.74 (1.45–2.09) | 89 (8.6) | 1.15 (0.84–1.59) | 51 (4.9) | 1.95 (1.21–3.12) | 29 (2.8) | 0.79 (0.47–1.32) | 211 (20.4) | 2.31 (1.77–3.03) | 35 (3.4) | 2.32 (1.24–4.32) | 72 (7.0) | 1.27 (0.87–1.84) |
| Current (n = 457) | 314 (68.7) | 1.86 (1.42–2.43) | 39 (8.5) | 1.10 (0.69–1.77) | 35 (7.7) | 2.77 (1.53–5.00) | 18 (3.9) | 0.98 (0.51–1.91) | 71 (15.5) | 1.83 (1.25–2.66) | 28 (6.1) | 2.77 (1.28–6.01) | 32 (7.0) | 1.30 (0.77–2.20) |
| B&M smokerc | ||||||||||||||
| Yes (n = 126) | 93 (73.8) | 1.43 (0.90–2.28) | 13 (10.3) | 1.33 (0.65–2.71) | 14 (11.1) | 1.52 (0.71–3.22) | 5 (4.0) | 0.86 (0.30–2.51) | 14 (11.1) | 0.63 (0.32–1.22) | 15 (11.9) | 3.68 (1.63–8.29) | 8 (6.4) | 1.10 (0.47–2.60) |
| No (n = 2415) | 1423 (58.9) | 1 [Reference] | 197 (8.2) | 1 [Reference] | 102 (4.2) | 1 [Reference] | 77 3.2 | 1 [Reference] | 378 (15.7) | 1 [Reference] | 63 (2.6) | 1 [Reference] | 152 (6.3) | 1 [Reference] |
| Sexd | ||||||||||||||
| Male (n = 979) | 619 (63.2) | 1 [Reference] | 73 (7.5) | 1 [Reference] | 34 (3.5) | 1 [Reference] | 46 (4.7) | 1 [Reference] | 154 (15.7) | 1 [Reference] | 34 (3.5) | 1 [Reference] | 58 (5.9) | 1 [Reference] |
| Female (n = 1546) | 890 (57.6) | 0.84 (0.71–1.00) | 137 (8.9) | 1.28 (0.94–1.74) | 81 (5.2) | 1.83 (1.19–2.81) | 36 (2.3) | 0.47 (0.30–0.74) | 237 (15.3) | 0.99 (0.78–1.26) | 44 (2.9) | 0.93 (0.57–1.51) | 100 (6.5) | 1.13 (0.80–1.60) |
| Race and ethnicitye | ||||||||||||||
| Hispanic (n = 278) | 173 (62.2) | 1.08 (0.83–1.42) | 25 (9.0) | 1.06 (0.68–1.67) | 14 (5.0) | 1.09 (0.60–1.99) | 11 (4.0) | 1.53 (0.78–3.04) | 54 (19.4) | 1.38 (0.96–1.97) | 6 (2.2) | 0.61 (0.25–1.48) | 16 (5.8) | 0.83 (0.48–1.44) |
| Non-Hispanic Black (n = 289) | 178 (61.6) | 1.14 (0.88–1.50) | 19 (6.6) | 0.69 (0.41–1.14) | 21 (7.3) | 1.39 (0.82–2.35) | 15 (5.2) | 2.22 (1.20–4.11) | 41 (14.2) | 1.04 (0.70–1.53) | 12 (4.2) | 1.31 (0.66–2.60) | 13 (4.5) | 0.67 (0.37–1.22) |
| Non-Hispanic White (n = 1722) | 1020 (59.2) | 1 [Reference] | 147 (8.5) | 1 [Reference] | 76 (4.4) | 1 [Reference] | 46 (2.7) | 1 [Reference] | 268 (15.6) | 1 [Reference] | 52 (3.0) | 1 [Reference] | 118 (6.9) | 1 [Reference] |
| Other non-Hispanic race (n = 235)f | 137 (58.3) | 0.99 (0.74–1.32) | 19 (8.1) | 0.97 (0.58–1.60) | 4 (1.7) | 0.40 (0.14–1.13) | 10 (4.3) | 1.58 (0.78–3.22) | 27 (11.5) | 0.70 (0.44–1.09) | 8 (3.4) | 1.15 (0.52–2.52) | 11 (4.7) | 0.68 (0.36–1.29) |
Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; B&M, Black & Mild.
Adjusted analyses controlled for age and all variables presented here.
Defined as follows: never use of any cigar product (ie, traditional or premium, filtered, or cigarillo), ever but not current use of any cigar product, and current use of any cigar product (use every day, some days, or rarely).
Defined as those who reported B&M as their regular or last brand for any cigar product (ie, traditional or premium, filtered, or cigarillo); all B&M smokers were current smokers.
Missing for 16 participants (0.6%). Missing data were handled using listwise deletion.
Missing for 17 participants (0.7%).
Other non-Hispanic race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or other not specified here.
Discussion
Although previous studies have investigated the association of cigar pack color with consumer perception,1–3 our survey study is the first, to our knowledge, to report its association with specific flavor perceptions. The results suggested that purple communicated the product was flavored more so than blue. While this perception was universal regardless of respondent cigar smoking status, it was more common among cigar smokers and likely reflects their familiarity with the flavored cigar marketplace.
Cigar smokers tended to indicate specific flavors that reflected existing color and flavor combinations (eg, blue/vanilla). This is known as sensation transference, a marketing strategy used by tobacco companies.4 Individuals who use the brand we studied reported higher odds of perceiving purple as wine (a popular flavor), whereas never cigar users and users of other brands rarely suggested wine. Grape, one the most popular cigar flavors, was the most endorsed perceived flavor for purple packaging regardless of cigar smoking status.
The use of mTurk is a study limitation, as mTurk is a nonprobability online survey and therefore may underestimate or overestimate prevalence. Indeed, current cigar use prevalence was higher in our sample compared with national estimates,5 although definitions of “current use” differ. However, mTurk samples yield generalizable findings for split-sample experiments such as ours.6 In addition, we focused on a single cigar brand; thus, our findings may not generalize to other brands.
Our findings are timely, given that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plans to ban flavored cigars. Pack color will likely become increasingly important for tobacco companies to communicate product attributes to consumers. Our study suggests that color can convey distinct messages to different audiences, including product users and nonusers, and to users of specific brands. Further, given the association of pack color with perceived flavor, the FDA should consider tobacco products with pack-color changes as new products that are subjected to rigorous product review.2
Supplementary Material
Funding/Support:
This research was funded by the Tobacco Centers of Regulatory Science under NCI and FDA award U54CA229973 and by the Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey under NCI award P30CA07270.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor:
The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Delnevo reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) during the conduct of the study. Dr Delnevo also reported serving as the chair of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Tobacco Product Scientific Advisory Board.
Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NCI or FDA.
SUPPLEMENT.
Contributor Information
Cristine D. Delnevo, Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, New Jersey; Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Ollie Ganz, Rutgers Center for Tobacco Studies, Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, New Brunswick, New Jersey; Department of Health Behavior, Society and Policy, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, New Jersey.
Data Sharing Statement:
See the Supplement.
REFERENCES
- 1.Young WJ, Ganz O, Jeong M, Wackowski OA, Delnevo CD. Perceptions of Game cigarillo packaging among young adult tobacco users: the effect of package color and the “natural leaf” descriptor. Addict Behav. 2022;132:107334. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107334 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Meernik C, Ranney LM, Lazard AJ, et al. The effect of cigarillo packaging elements on young adult perceptions of product flavor, taste, smell, and appeal. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0196236. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Avishai A, Meernik C, Goldstein AO, Lazard AJ, Ranney LM, Sheeran P. Impact and mechanisms of cigarillo flavor descriptors on susceptibility to use among young adult nonusers of tobacco. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2020;50(12):699–708. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12706 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lempert LK, Glantz S. Packaging colour research by tobacco companies: the pack as a product characteristic. Tob Control. 2017;26(3):307–315. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052656 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cornelius ME, Loretan CG, Wang TW, Jamal A, Homa DM . Tobacco product use among adults—United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71(11):397–405. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7111a1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jeong M, Zhang D, Morgan JC, et al. Similarities and differences in tobacco control research findings from convenience and probability samples. Ann Behav Med. 2019;53(5):476–485. doi: 10.1093/abm/kay059 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
See the Supplement.