of Smokers and Non-smokers

(1)

\ ou#(_,

¹

^{0 ~} ⁰ :i-

^C>~

Canadian Opinion on the Removal of L & M Labels from Cigarette Packages: A Survey

of Smokers and Non-smokers

Prepared for HEAL TH CANADA

Tobacco Control Programme

POR 02-93 H4097-02-S028

March,2003

LES ÉTUDES DE MARCHÉ CRÉATEC +

206, Avenue des Pins East - Montreal (Quebec) H2W 1P1 Tel.: (514) 844-1127 - Fax: (514) 288-3194 Email: info@createc.ca / Web Site: www.createc.ca

(2)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 PROFILE OF THE WEIGHTED SAMPLE 19

TABLE 2 METHODS CONSIDERED FOR QUITTING SMOKING (SMOKERS) 20

TABLE 3 PERCEIVED CIGARETTE TYPE OF USUAL BRAND (SMOKERS) 24

TABLE 4 BRAND CHOICE (SMOKERS) 25

TABLE 5 REASONS FOR CHOOSING USUAL BRAND (SMOKERS) 27

TABLE 6 SWITCHING TO L & M CIGARETTES (SMOKERS) 30

TABLE 7 REASONS FOR SWITCHING TO A LIGHTER TYPE OF CIGARETTE (SMOKERS WHO SWITCHED

TO A LIGHTER TYPE) 31

TABLE 8 MEANING OF L & M LABELS ON CIGARETTES PACKAGES - UNAIDED (TOTAL SAMPLE) ... 34

TABLE 9 PERCEIVED DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN L & M AND REGULAR CIGARETTES - UNAIDED

(TOTAL SAMPLE) 42

TABLE 10 PERCEIVED DIFFERENCES BETWEEN L & M AND REGULAR CIGARETTES - AIDED (TOTAL

SAMPLE) : 43

TABLE 11 CHANGE IN OPINION ON LOWER HARMFULNESS OF L & M CIGARETTES (TOTAL SAMPLE) ... 44

TABLE 12 BELIEF ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF STANDARDS THAT REGULATE THE USE OF L & M LABELS

(TOTAL SAMPLE) 46

TABLE 13 PERCEIVED RELEVANCE OF L & M LABELS TO CONSUMERS (TOTAL SAMPLE) .49

TABLE 14 AWARENESS OF L & M LABELS REMOVAL ISSUE AND SUPPORT FOR FEDERAL LEGISLATION

(TOTAL SAMPLE) 53

TABLE 15 ANNOYED IF L & M LABELS WOULD BE REMOVED (TOTAL SAMPLE) 56

TABLE 16 PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF L & M LABELS REMOVAL (TOTAL SAMPLE) 62

(4)

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1. Overview

Although most smokers perceive L & M cigarettes are as damaging to their health as regular cigarettes, the results of this survey confirm that a substantial number of smokers are still confused or mislead by L & M labels.

The L & M label is relevant information to many smokers:

.... > Half of smokers surveyed consider it important, and

One in five smokers even consider the label more useful than the list of chemicals.

... )-

It confirms the qualitative findings of phase 1 focus groups that for a substantial number of smokers, L & M labels are not just another marketing tactic but information that reflect true product differences.

The L & M label means a safer / healthier cigarette to a substantial proportion of smokers. This perception plays an important role in their brand choice (adoption or switching).

.} L & M cigarettes are perceived as safer (Jess damaging ta hea/th ar eantaining /ess taxie ehemiea/s) by roughly one in four smokers, not only on an aided basis but also top-of-mind (unaided).

--> Perception of a healthier choice is the main reason smokers switched to a lighter

cigarette for 15 percent of current L & M smokers.

.). Perception of a healthier cigarette is still the main reason for 12 percent of current L & M smokers to justify why their current usual brand is a L & M.

Smokers in general, and L & M smokers in particular, are unlikely to be very surprised to hear that the government is discussing the removal of L & M labels from cigarette packages or is on its way to doing it.

Half (46%) of smokers say they heard the government wants to remove the L &

M labels.

Half (49%) of smokers think the government will actually go ahead with the decision to remove them, should the issue be discussed.

CRÉATEC + (March, 2003) 574-044 QT

:::::::.:.::.::::::;:::.:::;:.:-:.:.:-:

II) 1...

~ Q)

o E

II) 1

C o

Z

"C

ra C

~ Q)

~ o

VI

E

....

_o

>

Q)

e

::::J

. VI

'c:(

II) Q)

.Cl ra

~ u c. ra ,

... _...

Q)

,~

Q)

!Cl

'u

E o

1...

....

II)

.c Q) ..J ra

z

c1j

...J

....

_o

ra >

o E

Q)

Cr!

.s:

...

Q)

o e

.2

e e

o

Co

e ra

."C

ra C

ra

U

(5)

• However, more smokers oppose (45%) than approve (37%) the idea of a federal regulation that will ban any L & M labels From cigarette packages.

Significantly more smokers (45%) than non-smokers (26%).

--,

Significantly more L & M smokers (50%) than smokers of other brands (30%).

... » Overall, when including non-smokers, a majority (53%) approve than oppose (26%).

•

The main unaided reasons to justify approval or opposition to the idea of a Federal regulation that will ban L & M labels are:

--') Approval: "Misleading information has a negative influence on young people".

-} Opposition: Freedom of choice (brands).

..

₃₆percent of smokers say they will be annoyed if L & Mare removed (16% - very).

Significantly more L & M smokers (40%) than non-smokers (28%)

-> but overall, a majority of smokers (61 %) will not be annoyed, including L & M

smokers (58%).

--') Overall, these findings indicate the L & M removal issue will encounter some

resistance among smokers but this resistance will be moderate. However, other findings indicate level of resistance could become stronger than was measured by this survey.

When respondents assessed a series of potential side effects that could result From label removal, the level of concern and emotion increased substantially.

--} These reactions indicate that although the level of resistance to a removal is initially moderate or limited, there are reasons to believe it is more likely to grow than decline.

Therefore, despite several signais reflecting moderate resistance to a removal, other findings indicate that a removal decision should be communicated

1

explained and not just announced Ca consistent finding with phase 1 focus groups) .

The following results on the perceived potential effects of a removal illustrate the risk of growing resistance, should a removal be not properly communicated or explained.

Will make people realise that cigarettes labelled as L & M are as damaging to health as any other type of cigarettes (64% smokers

1

71% non- smokers).

People will feel that it's going too far (72% smokers

1

54% non-smokers).

II) 1.0 CI) .::t.

o E

II) 1

o C

Z

'tI C ra

II) 1.0 CI) .::t.

o

E ...

III

o >

CI) >

.1.0

:::J III

ct

II) CI) CI

!~

V ra

C.

'CI)

.... _....

e

ra

·U CI

'0 E

... L.

II)

Qj .0 ra

...1

l':

ôIS

...1

...

o ra >

o

E

cr: CI)

..c

....

CI)

o e e o c

o

Co

c ra

'tI ra

lU c

U

(6)

Smokers will feel betrayed because they thouçht cigarettes labelled as Light were healthier (55% smokers / 64% non-smokers).

Light and Mild cigarettes will gradually disappear from the market (48%

smokers / 54% non-smokers).

Smokers of any brand will have difficulty ta get their usual brand (57%

smokers /43% non-smokers).

2. Key Findings

Smoking Habits and L & M Popularity

L & M brands were the favourite usual brands of a large majority of the overall weighted sample.

-) 65 percent reported smoking a usual brand labelled as a L & M vs. 32 percent smoking a usual brand not labelled as a L & M and 3 percent smoking no regular brand.

» Potential quitters (69%) were more likely to regularly smoke a brand labelled L

& M than other smokers (58%).

-} Half (51 %) of the smokers said they also smoked a secondary brand. Brands labelled as L & M were significantly less popular as a secondary brand than any other type of cigarette (42%), which contrasted with their high popularity among usual brand smokers.

;; Most popular usual brands were labelled as light.

Player's Light / Extra Light (24%);

DuMaurier Light / Extra Light / Ultra Light (19%);

No other brand captured more than 10 percent.

Smokers of L & M brands tended to smoke significantly fewer cigarettes per day (16.3) than those favouring a regular brand (18.3).

Many more L & M smokers (68%) were seriously thinking about quitting than smokers of another type of brand (57%).

Brands labelled as L & M were not necessarily considered to be a Iight or mild type of cigarette by ail smokers.

-> 18 percent of smokers with a usual brand displaying the L & M label did not consider it to be a light or mild type but rather a regular type of cigarette.

25 percent of smokers with a usual brand no't displaying the L & M label nonetheless considered it to be a light or mild type.

CRÉATEC + (r'larch, 2003) 574-044 QT

:;:::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::.:::

VI J..

~ QI

o E

VI 1

C o

Z

1J C lU VI J..

~ QI

o E

II)

~ o

>

QI

e

:::J II)

<

VI QI

tn

~ lU V lU Q.

...

QI

:QI

...

J..

lU tn

U o E

~ J..

VI .QI

.Q ...J lU

~

c?j ...J

~ o

,lU >

o

E

D! QI

.c

...

QI

c o

.2

c c

C-

O

C lU 1J

lU C U III

(7)

Reasons for Adopting L & M Brands

Results indicated taste was the primary reason (38%) mentioned (unaided) by ail types of smokers to justify why they adopted a particular brand for everyday smoking.

However:

-) L & M smokers (34%) mentioned taste significantly less often than smokers of other brands (45%).

L & M smokers (12%) mentioned hea/th / damage to heelth as a reason for adoption significantly more often than smokers of other brands (3%).

-> L & M smokers (12%) also mentioned a /ighter impact on /ungs or throat significantly more often than smokers of other brands (5%).

Reasons for Switching to Lighter Cigarettes

.. On average, three in ten smokers (30%) reported switching from their previous usual brand for a type of cigarette they considered "Iighter".

-} 40 percent of current L & M smokers reported such a switching.

Among previous "stronger" cigarette smokers who are now current L & M smokers, the primary reason mentioned to justify switching to a lighter cigarette was "hea/th / damage to hea/th" (37%), followed by "taste" (22%) and "trying to quit" (11%).

-rr These results indicate that although taste is the primary reason that current L &

M smokers report to justify regular usage of a L & M brand, perception of a safer cigarette is nonetheless the primary reason why they tried and then switched to a cigarette they considered lighter.

Unaided Meaning of L & M Labels

In response to an open-ended question about the meaning of the Light and of the Mild label, a substantial number of respondents appeared confused or mislead by these labels.

SAlO THAT THE LABEL MEANS LESS TAR, NICOTINE, ETC.

Unaided Total smokers L & M smokers Other smokers Non-smokers

% % % %

30 34 30 26

13 15 14 13

L,ight label Mild label

However, most respondents defined the Light or the Mild label as a "marketing" tactic instead of a real or perceived product feature.

l- III

~ Q)

o E

III 1

C o

Z

"C C ta

III l-

~ Q)

o

E

....

II) _o

>

Q) >

l-

::::J II)

ct

III Q) Cl ta

~ U

c.. ta

...

Q)

...

_Q)

l-

ta Cl

u

E o

....

l- III

.c Q) ...J ta

~

...J

....

_o

ta >

o

E

~ Q)

.c

...

Q)

c o c o e

o

c..

C ta

"C ta C U ta

(8)

SAlO THAT THE LABEL Is JUST A MARKETING / AOVERTISING TACTIC

Unaided Total smokers L & M smokers Other smokers Non-smokers

% % % %

42 45 38 58

52 55 46 65

Light label Mild label

Percelved Difference between L & M and Regular Cigarettes Overall Differentiation

• A large majority of smokers believed that Light cigarettes (77%) as weil as Mild cigarettes (68%) were different than regular cigarettes.

There was no significant variation between L & M smokers and other smokers.

-"--, Significantly more smokers than non-smokers (53% - Light / 48% - Mild)

believed L & M were different.

Significantly more smokers believed a Light was different (77%) than smokers who perceived a Mild was different (68%), compared to a regular cigarette.

Perceived Differences - Unaided

.. For a substantial number of smokers as weil as non-smokers, a brand labelled as a Light or as a Mild type of cigarette indicated, top-of-mind, that it was perceived as a safer or healthier cigarette.

SAlO THAT L & M CONTAINS LESS TOXIC CHEMICALS / LESS DAMAGING TO HEALTH TH AN REGULAR CIGARETTE

Unaided Light cigarette Mild cigarette

Total smokers L & M smokers Other smokers Non-smokers

% % % %

22 25 17 27

22 23 19 20

Perceived Difference - Aided

.. There was little difference between aided and unaided response as to what differentiates L & M From a regular cigarette.

One in four smokers believed that a Light (28%) or a Mild (24%) cigarette contained less toxic chemicals than a regular cigarette, wh en asked if they thought they contained more, as much as or less of these substances.

-, Significantly more L & M smokers shared this belief than smokers of other brands (respectively 31% vs. 24% for a Light and 28% vs. 17% for a Mild).

II) 1-

~ 41

E o

II) 1

1: o

Z

'C 1: ra

II) 1-

~ 41

o

E

VI ~ o

>

41 >

1-

::::1 VI

«

II)

41 CI ra

~ u e, ra

"41

:t::

41 l-

ra CI U

E

o

~ 1- II)

41 .0 ra

...J

~

...J

~ o ra >

o

E

41 0::

.!:

...

41 1: o

1: o e

o

C.

1:

.!:!!

'C ra

1: ra

U

(9)

.. One in ten smokers also believed that a Light (12%) or a Mild (11%) was less damaging to health than a regular cigarette.

-1 These results indicate that many more smokers believe that a Light <?r a Mild contains less toxic chemicals than smokers who believe they are less damaging to health (perception about quantity of chemicals was not highly correlated with damage to health).

Note that 22 percent of smokers thought at some point in time that L & M cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes but have since changed their view (they now think they are as harmful).

COMPARED TO A REGULAR CIGARETTE

Aided

Non- smokers

0/0

"'"""""",~

..

10

These results confirmed the qualitative findings of phase 1 focus groups:

-4 For most smokers, L & M cigarettes were seen as damaging to health as regular cigarettes.

Some smokers previously thought they were less damaging but have since changed their opinion.

-> There were still some smokers who believed that L & M cigarettes were less

damaging and more who thought they contained less toxic ingredients.

Awareness of L & M Regulations

..

Four in ten smokers believed that cigarette manufacturers could label a brand as a Light or a Mild only if their cigarettes met sorne regulated standards.

..

"

No significant difference between smokers (38%) and non-smokers (39%)

but significantly more L & M smokers (41%) than smokers of other brands (33%).

VI 1...

~ CIl

o E

VI 1

C o

Z

"C C ra

VI 1...

~ CIl

o E

....

(J)

o

>-

CIl

e

:::J (J)

ct

VI CIl Cl

~ ra u ra c..

±::

CIl CIl 1...

ra Cl

U

E

o

....

1..

VI

.c Qi

-1 ra

~ c!:I

...1

....

o

> ra o

E

~ CIl

..c: CIl

...

c o e o c

o

c.

.~

c

"C

ra c

U ra

(10)

Relevance of L & M Labels to Consumers

Usefulness

e For one in five smokers, L & M label information was considered more useful than the list of chemicals.

} No significant difference between smokers (21 %) and non-smokers (21 %).

-? No significant di'fference between L & M smokers and smokers of other brands (21 %).

Relevance of L & M labels significantly higher in females and lower educated smokers.

Importance.

'" Half of smokers considered L & M labels important information to be placed close to

the brand name.

> No significant difference between smokers (50%) and non-smokers (49%).

.} Significantly more L & M smokers (53%) than smokers of other brands (45%).

Removal Issue Awareness

'" Almost half of smokers said they had heard there might be a new federal regulation

banning any label saying "Light" or "Mild" on the packages of tobacco products, including cigarettes.

.} Significantly more smokers (46%) than non-smokers (25%).

). Significantly more L & M smokers (54%) than smokers of other brands (32%).

Perceived Likelihood

Half of smokers thought the government would actually go ahead with the decision to remove L & M labels From cigarette packages.

... } Significantly more smokers (49%) than non-smokers (39%).

No significant difference between L & M smokers (51%) and smokers of other brands (46%).

CRÉATEC + (Mareil, 2003) 574-044 QT

III

J...,

~ (11

o

E

III 1

C o

Z

"0 C ra

III J...,

,~ (11

:0 (/)

E

....

o

>-

(11

e

:::J (/) oC(

III (11

ra CI

~ u

c. ra

t:

(11 ₍₁₁ J...,

ra

'CI 'U

E

o

J...,

....

III (11

oC ra

...1

~

c2j ...1

....

o

ra >

o

E

(11

0::

.c

....

(11

e o c o e

o

c.

c ra

"0 ra c

U ra

(11)

Approval of Banning Regulation

Approval of a banning regulation among smokers was divided, with a stronger tendency to oppose it than approve it.

-} 37 percent approved.

)0 45 percent opposed.

--'Jo Many more L & M smokers (50%) were against a regulation for removing L & M

labels than smokers of other brands (34%) and 27 percent of L & M smokers were "strongly" against its removal.

However, when non-smokers were included, a majority (53% for, 26% against) approved a federal regulation that would ban any label saying "Light" or "Mild" on the packages of ail tobacco products, including cigarettes.

-7- Only 14 percent of ail respondents opposed it "strongly".

--} However, smokers (37% approve) and non-smokers (57% approve) held opposite views on this issue.

Primary reasons (unaided) in favour of a removal were cause "L & M is misleading

information" and "young people would be less influenced to start smoking".

e Main reasons (unaided) against a removal were related to concerns about brand / product access: "reduced freedom of choice".

Annoyed if L & M Removed?

.. A clear majority (61 %) of smokers said they wou Id not be annoyed (46% - not at ail) if L & M labels were removed from cigarette packages.

----} Significantly more non-smokers (74%) would not be annoyed than smokers ~

(61%). ~

However, a substantial number of smokers (36%) said they would be annoyed (16% - very).

). Significantly more L & M smokers (40%) than smokers of other brands (28%).

Unaided reasons to justify why they would be annoyed were mainly related to brand / product access ("reduced freedom of choice" and "hard to differentiate L

& M with regular brand").

:::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:::;:;:::;:

1/1 J..

~ QJ

E o

1/1

1

C o

Z

'tl C

ra

1/1 J..

~ QJ

o E

....

fi) _o

>

QJ

~ :::1 fi)

<C

1/1 QJ CI ra

~ u

c.. ra

t:

QJ _QJ

J.. ra

U

CI

E

o

....

J..

1/1

Qi J:I ..J ra

....

..J

o

> ra o

E

QJ

~

QJ J:

...

C o .!:! c

e

o

Q.

e ra

'tl ra e ra

U

(12)

Perceived Effects of l & M label Removal

As in qualitative phase 1 focus groups, smokers saw both benefits and drawbacks resulting From a removal. However, results indicated that when asked about a series of potential effects (aided), the level of concern among smokers increased, with some strong emotions emerging.

)0 Most smokers thought that it would make smokers realise that L & M were as damaging as any other type of cigarettes (64%). Even a substantial minority thought that it would have a deterrent effect on smoking habits.

. -> But most smokers also worrv about the ability to find their favourite brand

(64%), and many thought smokers would feel betrayed because they had believed L & M meant a healthier cigarette (55%).

)0 And a large majority of smokers (as weil as non-smokers) thought removal was going too far (72%).

These results indicate that despite a moderate level of resistance, a removal should be appropriately communicated and not just announced, because there are some risks to see this resistance become stronger and more emotional if a removal is not c1early explained.

'- III CI)

.::t

o

E

III 1

c:: o

Z

"C

e ra

III '- CI)

.::t

o

E

U) ,

....

o

>

CI)

>

'- :::J U)

ct

III

CI)

Cl ra

.::t

ra u e,

....

CI)

....

CI)

'- ra

Cl

U

E

o

....

'- III

CI) .Q ..J ra

~

..J

....

o ra >

o

E

CI)

0::

CI)

J:

....

e o e o c::

ï5.

o

e .!!!

"C

ra e

U m

(13)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

..

A quantitative study conducted by Créatec

+

in January 2002 measured the effects of

"Light" and "Mild" labels on the perceived strength and brand image of cigarettes

packaged that way.

Applying an experimental design in which respondents were exposed ta differing stimuli ta which their perceptions werethen measured, findings demonstrated that the sole presence of L & M labels significantly influenced bath the sensory profile of the cigarette and the personality of the brand.

Moreover, respondents in this study clearly ascribed a great deal of importance ta the presence of the labels.

} In fact, a majority said that they would be upset if the lightjmild labels were removed from cigarettes packages, including those who did not believe that these labels made a difference.

..

Overall, the results obtained lead ta the hypothesis that an eventuel removal of L & M

labels would not be understood by consumers or would be interpreted in an

unexpected or undesirable way.

..

Consequently, the purpose of the present study was ta verify more in-depth the meaning consumers would associate ta a removal of the L & M labels from the cigarette packages.

Would removal of L & M labels annoy consumers? How wou Id consumers feel if the L

& M labels were ta be removed?

Would consumers approve a legislation that would ban L & M labels from the cigarettes packages?

Have consumers' perceptions on the differences between cigarettes labelled as L & M and regular cigarettes evolved?

What impacts do consumers expect from a removal of the L & M labels?

..

Accordingly, a series of focus groups were first conducted ta deal with the more difficult or impossible ta quantify aspects related ta the removal issue. Some of these findings were incorporated into this quantitative second phase of the study.

This second quantitative phase took place from February 14-26, 2003. Telephone

interviews (N

=

1,198) with selected segments of smokers (500) as weil as with non-

smokers (698) were conducted, from ail parts of the country.

J., III

~ 111

o

E

III 1

1: o

Z

'C 1:

III III J.,

~ 111

o E

1/)

"- o :>

,> 111

!5

1/)

<C

III 111 Cl III

~ U

C. III

:t

111 111 J.,

III Cl

u E

E

"- Ill·

Qj ..c

III ..J

~

..J

"- o

III >

'E o

, 0:: 111

111

d3

o 1:

1: o

1:

o

C.

1:

III 'C ltI

1:

U III

(14)

The survey questions dealt with brand choice and type of cigarette smoked, meaning and perceived differences associated with the L & M label; relevance and importance associated with the presence of the L & M label on cigarette packages; awareness;

approval; and, expected impacts of an upcoming federal legislation that would ban the L & M label from cigarette packages.

METHODOLOGY

3.1 TARGET GROUPS

This study targeted four groups of smokers, in addition to non-smokers.

1. Regular smokers of L & M cigarettes

1.1 who were not seriously thinking about quitting (LM1) 1.2 who were seriously thinking about quitting (LM2) 2. Regular smokers of regular cigarettes

2.1 who were not seriously thinking about quitting (Ri) 2.2 who were seriously thinking about quitting (R2) To be considered a "smoker", respondents had to:

1. smoke cigarettes everyday;

2. usually smoke a regular, lightjmild, extra lightjextra mi Id brand (which determined the segment to which they were assigned); and,

3. be at least 16 years old.

3.2 SAMPLE DESIGN

The sampling method was entirely random and non-proportionally stratified by target group and region, to provide reasonable sample sizes for analysing results at the national level, at the regional level and at the target group level.

Respondent selection was randomized within each household.

"

Because the target groups had different incidence rates, a multi-stage sampling

procedure was required.

..

Seven possible attempts were made to contact the selected respondent, without substitution, before classifying it as a "no answer".

CRÉATEC + (Mareh, 2003) 574-044 QT

1/) L.

~ a)

o

E

1/) 1

s::::

Z o

l'C s::::

ra

1/) L.

~ a)

o

E

....

1/)

o

>

CIl

e

.:::1 .1/)

«

1/) a)

ra CI

~ u c. ra

oIJ CIl

oIJ a) L. ra

CI

U

,E o

'.!:

,1/) l-

.c a) ....1 ra

~

clj

....1

....

o

ra >

E o

a)

"

^a)

i~

s::::

o e o e

o

e,

e ra

'C ra e ra u

(15)

In the data analysis, results were weighted to reflect the actual proportion of over and under-sampled segments in the population.

Additional screening was performed to exclude households in which a respondent or a family member worked in advertising, market research, the media, Health Canada or a provincial health ministry or a tobacco company.

Once completed, the samples were weighted by region and target group, gender and age to provide an accurate representation of the Canadian population aged 16 years or more.

3.3 SAMPLE SIZE

N

=

1,198 interviews were completed, as shown in the table below.

• It should be noted that the sample was representative of the target groups able to respond to a telephone interview in French or English, who had direct dialling telephone service (but people in an institutional setting were excluded).

Table A Distribution of the completed sample

Margin

of error " ± 9.7 ± 7.8 ± 9.8 ± 8.3 ± 4.4

3.4 MARGIN OF ERROR AND RESPONSE RATE

TOTAL

MARGIN' OF ERROR

± 7.5

± 7.3 45 _~,- 70

27 51

193 332

210 355

99 160

25 46

31

-

43

23 37

20 34

698 1,198

± 3.7 ± 2.8

±5.4

± 5.2

± 7.7

± 2.8

Results of any survey are likely to contain some errors. Ninety-five percent of the time, error due to the random selection process was no greater than 2.8 points for the overall sample, 4.4 points for the smoker sample and 3.7 points for the non-smoker sample, plus or minus the percentage reported.

CRÉATEC + (March, 2003) 574-044 QT

VI L.

..l:: aJ

o E

VI 1

1: o

Z

"CI

ra 1:

VI L. aJ ..l::

o E

II)

....

_o

>

aJ >

L.

::J II)

ct

VI

aJ Cl ..l:: ra

u ra c.

:t::

aJ aJ L.

ra Cl

U

E

o

....

L.

VI .0 aJ ..J ra

~

..J

....

o

> ra

o

E

0:: aJ aJ J:

..

1: o

1:

"~

C

o

c..

t:: ro

"CI

ra

1: ra U

(16)

Error for smaller sub-groups was somewhat larger.

Other sources of error included refusai by potential respondents to participate and the interviewer's inability to connect with the selected number.

Every feasible effort was made to obtain a response and reduce error. However, the reader should be aware that some level of error is inherent in ail research.

A 42% response rate was achieved, calculated according to AIRMS standards (see the table on the following page).

3.5 QUESTIONNAIRE

The average interview with smokers took about 20 minutes to complete and with non- smokers, about 15 minutes (see Appendix).

Following client approval and before going into the national field, the questionnaire was pre- tested with a sample of 20 smokers and 20 non-smokers, evenly distributed by language, to ensure that:

.. wording of questions was c1ear

.. sequence of questions was appropriate .. response categories were appropriate

.. English and French versions were comparable.

3.6 DATA COLLECTION

Ali interviews were conducted from February 14-26, 2003, via a CATI system from Créatec's central telephone facility, according to AIRMS norms.

.. Créatec's fulHime supervisors continuously monitored ail interviews. At least 10 percent of the interviews were monitored in real time to ensure interview consistency and qua lit y in accordance with the standards set out by the association of market research firms.

.. Interviews in the various regions took place simultaneously across the country.

3.7 DATA PROCESSING

.. The overall sample was weighted by age, gender, region, smoking prevalence, incidence of L & M brands among smokers before the production of tables. Figures used to weight the data were based on Statistics Canada and other Health Canada surveys.

Detailed computer tables and an SPSS data bank have been provided under separate coyer.

,.:: .. :::,:;:,:::::::,:.:::::. , :.

III 1....

..!I:: CIl

o

E

III 1

C o

Z

'0 C ra

III 1....

..!I:: CIl

o

E

CIl

....

o

>

CIl

e

CIl ::s

<

III CI) CI ra

..!I::

u ra

0-

....

CIl

....

CIl 1....

.~

ra

U

E o

1....

....

III

..c CI) ...J ra l:

~

...J

....

o ra >

o

E

~ CIl

~

....

CIl

o c c o e

o

c.

e ra

'O.

ra e

U ra

(17)

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT OF CONTACTS AND RESPONSE RATE*

D.

l'J. u m !>.e

rS .: ~,~.!'1 .. ~.r.~.t.~ .. ~

A. Invalid numbers Out of service Non-residential

B. Numbers not in sample Language problem Age, sickness Duplicate Not eligible

c. Numbers in sample for which eligibility could not be established

No answer**

. ., ,~=.t~_8!"i

^or

!Q~.~l~~!!.~!:!~~~~~~lll!t.", ... _~ ~

Eligible numbers in sample for which an interview could not be completed

Absent for a long period Incomplete questionnaire Call-back not completed

~~. =~ - === •.

_R~!~_:;~2..._~fter _._!L~~!:1.~ eli~lJlty= ..

~=-~_-.-..c",~., .• "" •. "

E.

=

^42%

C x (E.R.)*** + D + E

*

Presented as per AIRMS standards.

**

For a number to be considered "No answer", there must be no answer at the number throughout the period of data collection. Thus, for example, an appointment for which there is no answer when called back must be consideted "Call-back not completed" and not "No answer".

***

Eligibility rate D+E

22%

B+D+E

"'';. ", ;.:.;.;.;.'

III 1-

QI .!il::

o

E

III

r: 1

Z o

"tJ lU r:

~ QI .!il::

o

E

U)

....

_o

>

QI >

1-

::::J U)

ct

III CI QI lU .!il::

U lU C.

...

QI

...

_QI

1- lU CI

U E o

....

1- III QI .0 lU ..J

z

~

....

..J

o

> lU

o

E

"

QI ^QI J:

...

o r:

r: o r:

o

0.

r:

lU

"tJ lU r:

lU

U

(18)

:::::::::::::::;:;:::;:::;:::;:;:;:::;:

~

~ QJ

o

E

II) 1

C o

Z

"C lU C

~ QJ

~ o

II)

E

....

o

>

QJ >

1-

:::J II)

<C

DETAILED RESULTS

II) QJ CI

~ lU U lU C.

t:

QJ QJ 1-

lU CI

U E o

....

1- II)

.c QJ ...J lU

~ olS

...J

....

_o

> ra o

E

QJ

c:é ..c QJ oiJ

C o e c:

C

o

0- C lU

"C lU C U ra

(19)

4.1 SMOKING BEHAVIOUR

Profile of the weighted sample is presented at Table 1, at the end of this section.

Sample Characteristics

The sampling method was designed to complete approximately 1,100 telephone interviews with everyday smokers (500) and non-smokers (600) randomly selected in the 10 provinces.

The stratification of the population was not proportionate and the results of the survey were therefore weighted to reflect the actual proportion of over and under-sampled segments. In this survey, weighting was by age, gender, region, prevalence of everyday smoking and popularity of L & M brands. Weights were drawn from Statistics Canada (population) and Health Canada past surveys (smoking related variables).

Prevalence of Everyday Smoking

Ql At the present time, do you smoke cigarettes every day, occasionally, or not at ail?

Eighteen percent (18%) of the overall sample (16 years old and +) report that they smoke cigarettes on a daily basis.

• Note that respondents who smoke occasionally (5%) were screened out of the smoker sample and included in the non-smoker sample, for the purpose of this study.

Throughout the report, everyday smokers are referred as smokers, and non-smokers and not everyday smokers are referred as non-smokers.

.. Smoking was more prevalent among men (20% vs. 16% women), those between the ages of 16-34 years (22%), in Quebec (21%), Atlantic (22%), Prairies (20%) and those with less than a post-secondary education (24%).

A large majority of smokers (87%) started smoking more than 5 years ago.

The proportion of smokers of a L & M brand (88%) and smokers of another type of brand (84%) who started smoking more than 5 years ago were statistically the same.

III l..

~ CIl

o

E

III 1

C o

Z

"C C III

III l..

~ CIl

'0

E

....

III

,0 ,>

CIl >

l..

:::1 III

<1:

III CIl 0'1

~ III U

0. III CIl

~ CIl

l..

III '0'1

U

E

o

....

l..

III CIl J:I ...1 III

z

~

...1

....

o

,> ra

o

E

Il:: CIl CIl oC

....

C o e o

,.-

e

,e.

o

e

.!2

"C

ra e

U ra

(20)

Number of Cigarettes Smoked per Day

Q3 On average, how many cigarettes do you smoke per day? (Probe for a precise number - e.g. 10 cigarettes a day, 25 cigarettes a day. .. If respondent says "One pack a dev", ask for number of cigarettes in a pack)

On average, smokers in the sample smoked 17.0 cigarettes a day.

,. 25 percent of smokers reported that they smoke more than 20 cigarettes a day and 5 percent, more than 25 cigarettes a day.

Heavy smokers (20 cigarettes and more) were found among smokers of a brand other than a L & M (30%), older smokers (37% - 55 years +) and smokers with lower levels of education (29%).

-} Note that prevalence of smoking was lowest among smokers aged 55 years or more but also that this segment had the highest average of cigarettes smoked daily (18.9 cigarettes).

"

Younger smokers

«

35 years old) tended to smoke less per day (14.4 cigarettes)

than respondents aged 35-54 years (18.5 cigarettes) or 55 years and more (18.9 cigarettes).

..

There was a positive correlation between length of time smoking and the average daily number of cigarettes smoked:

-? 84 percent of those who smoked 20 cigarettes or less everyday started their habit more than 5 years ago, compared to

> 94 percent and 100 percent respectively for those smoked between 21-25

cigarettes daily, and more than 25 cigarettes a day.

"

Smokers of a L & M brand tended to smoke significantly fewer cigarettes per

day (16.3 cigarettes) than those favouring a regular brand (18.3 cigarettes).

Potential Quitters

Q13 Are you seriously thinking of quitting smoking?

.. Almost two thirds (64%) of smokers said they were seriously thinking of quitting smoking.

Slightly less among the oldest smokers (58% vs. 64% < 35 years).

The difference between smokers of a L & M brand and smokers of other brands was highly significant.

Many more L & M smokers (68%) were seriously thinking about quitting than smokers of another type of brand (570/0).

II) L.

~ QI

o

E

II) 1

1: o

Z

'C 1: ra

~ QI

~ o

U1

E

....

_o

>-

QI

e

:::1 U1

ct

II)

QI CI

I~ u

c. ra

s ....

QI L.

CI ra U

E

o

....

L.

II)

QI Jl ra

...1

~ cll

...1

....

_o

ra >

o

E

c::: QI

s:

....

QI 1: o

1:

'0 1:

o

C.

1: ra

'C ra

1: ra

U

(21)

Quitting Strategy

Q14 If you were to quit smoking at some point in time in the future, what ways or methods do you think you would use?

Note that this question about ways of quitting smoking was open-ended (answers were unaided - see Table 2 at the end of this section).

If they were to quit smoking at some point in the future,

the majority of smokers (55%) said they wou Id use will-power to quit "cold turkey";

almost half of the smokers (48%) wou Id also use a nicotine aid, whether patch (37%) or gum (11%);

Zyban (13%) seemed to be as popular as nicotine gums (11%);

a substantial proportion (17%) would cut back gradually;

--> only 2 percent said they would switch to a Light or Mild type of cigarette

to help them quit.

The switch to a L & M type of cigarette was not statistically significant between potential quitters (2%) and smokers who did not seriously intend to quit (1 %).

..

On average, smokers gave two mentions for their quitting strategy.

Ail quitting aids were more popular among potential quitters, especially nicotine patches (42% vs. 29%).

CRÉATEC + (r-1arch, 2003) 574-044 QT

III 1...,

~ cu

o

E

III 1

.r::

Z o

'tl r::

RI

I!!

cu

~ o

U)

E

...

_o

>

e

cu :::s

U)

<C

III cu

RI CI

~ U

c.. RI

t:

cu cu 1...,

RI CI

U

E o

1...,

...

III .0 cu

.J RI

z

~

...

.J _o RI >

o E

~ cu ..r:: ... cu

e o e .S! e

:.- Q.

o

e

RI 'tl RI

r::

u RI

(22)

TABLE 1 PROFILE OF THE WEIGHTED SAMPLE

SMOKERS TOTAL

(1198)

0/0

Smokers Non-smokers

(500) (698) ^L&M (230)

Other (270)

0/0 0/0

Language of interview

-} French 26 30 25 25 38

.:>

E_~,Çjli~h.".= . 74 70 75 75 62

~a::NtCC" l.r~~ ~ __ ^rc ^~o ⁱⁱ ^~;o

,,,:,C:;;:~';:,~;,~:,';:::,,,?,';;;;;;;;,,,.,,.,.,,,,,,,,....

.~_§I_ir.~ __ ~_ ~

Average number of cigarettes a

l~r~ -~~~:~. ^-l~:" ^;~'.; ^r ^.,_

. _ .. ,~A, ... ^J~dr~ ^_.

. - ,,~~~~~,~!~tr;~Lt~_~~~~'''''7=~ -,~~r:~co§1==~I-="I8~'="~ir

=: i~~i~ ^il ^;

^1: ^~ ^li ^~

-7 20-24 8 . 11" 7

} 25-34 15 20 13

--. 35-44 24 24 24

-7 45-54 17 Il 18 17

_...

.. ,.,cc""Ed·~~~ti'~n

" 55 and over --=~""'="'''=--==='''''''''==CiF~'''''''''''''' . ", 27 ... "'1,-'

"L.

¹⁹

""~lr""" -",32,=".

. > Some elementary (grades i'

1-6) 1 1 11

Completed elementary (grade 7 or 8)

Some high school up to grade 10

High school (grade 11, 12 or 13)

Some community college, vocational, trade school Completed community college, vocational, trade school

Some university Completed university (bachelor's degree) Post-graduate / professional school (Master's degree, Ph.D.)

9_k/~.~.

"

..

3

1

o

3 3 1

...

.,

10

5

14 9 12

33 44 31 46 42

5 6 5 6

20 19 20 20 17

-)

6 5 7 6

17 8 19 8

4 1 5 1

2 1 2 1

49 55 48 54

51 45 52 46

8 9 7 10

24 28 23 22

38 35 39 40

16 18 16 18

13 10 14

9 38 25 19

3 7 2

Gender

---) Male

-7 Female

57 43

o

"

^Region

-) Atlantic -. Quebec

-7 Ontario

" Prairies

:::::;:;:::;:;:::;:;:;:::::::::::::::;:

III 1- (II

.!é o

III

E

1

C o

Z

"C C 10

~

(II

.!é o

II)

E

....

o

>-

(II

è:

:J II)

ct

III

(II

C'I 10 .!é u

10 C.

:t

(II (II 1- 10 C'I

U

E

o

....

1- III

..c (II rtI ...J

~

...J

....

o

10 >

o

E

(II

0::

..c: (II

....

e o c o c

o

c..

III e

"C rtI C rtI

U

of Smokers and Non-smokers

\ ou#(_,

0 ~ 0 :i-

Canadian Opinion on the Removal of L & M Labels from Cigarette Packages: A Survey

of Smokers and Non-smokers

Prepared for HEAL TH CANADA

Tobacco Control Programme

March,2003

LES ÉTUDES DE MARCHÉ CRÉATEC +

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1. Overview

E

....

e

... ...

,~

'u

....

z

....

...

.2

o

--,

•

..

1

1

1

E ...

.... ....

e

...

E

....

o

2. Key Findings

e

<

...

...

E

...

.2

E

....

...

...

u

....

....

E

...

o

E

«

:t::

E

E

...

o

..

..

"

....

e

±::

E

....

....

E

...

o

.~

E

E

....

e

^{0 ~} ⁰ :i-

... _...

.... _....