Health Marketing Quarterly, 29:117, 2012 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0735-9683 print=1545-0864 online

DOI: 10.1080/07359683.2011.623087

Five Decades of Promotion Techniques in Cigarette Advertising: A Longitudinal Content Analysis

HYE-JIN PAEK
Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Hanyang University, Ansan, South Korea

LEONARD N. REID
Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

HYUN JU JEONG
School of Journalism and Telecommunications, College of Communications and Information Studies, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky

HOJOON CHOI and DEAN KRUGMAN

Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

This study examines frequencies and types of promotion techniques featured in five decades of cigarette advertising relative to five major smoking eras. Analysis of 1,133 cigarette advertisements collected through multistage sampling of 1954 through 2003 issues of three youth-oriented magazines found that 7.6% of the analyzed ads featured at least one promotion technique. Across smoking eras the proportion of promotion in the ads steadily increased from 1.6% in the pre-broadcast ban era to 10.9% in the the pre-Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) era and 9% in post-MSA era. The increased use of sponsorships=events in cigarette ads for youthoriented brands warrants more attention from tobacco control experts and government regulators. KEYWORDS content analysis, advertising, longitudinal research, tobacco, promotion techniques

Address correspondence to Hye-Jin Paek, Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Hanyang University, 55 Hanyangdaehak-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan Kyeonggi-do 426-791, South Korea. E-mail: hjpaek@gmail.com 1

H.-J. Paek et al.

Substantial evidence has documented that cigarette advertising conveys healthful images of smoking (e.g., King, Reid, Moon, & Ringold, 1991) and promotes social images and norms associated with the smoking act (e.g., Paek, 2008). However, with the exception of one study (Pucci & Siegel, 1999), little empirical attention has been paid to the nature and presence of promotion techniques in cigarette advertising. Promotion techniques are the tactical elements deployed in a tobacco marketers consumer-oriented communication strategy and include such things as couponing, sampling, contests, sweepstakes, rebates, premiums, sponsorships, and point-of-purchase materials. Promotion is used by marketers not only to accelerate an already planned purchase by existing customers, but also to attract new customers through brand trial and brand switching (Shimp, 2003). Media advertising often serves as a delivery platform for sales promotion in cigarette marketing and various promotion techniques are used in cigarette advertisements to encourage immediate product purchase and trial (Pucci & Siegel, 1999) with the goal of producing short-term sales. Because of a potentially more direct impact of promotion in cigarette advertisements on cigarette purchase and consumption, Pucci and Siegel recommended that researchers focus more of their attention on the promotional aspects of cigarette advertising. In response to Pucci and Siegels recommendation, this study analyzed 1,133 cigarette ads, selected by a multistage sampling method from 1954 through 2003 issues of consumer magazines popular with young readers, to systematically and extensively address: (a) what types of promotion techniques have tobacco marketers used in cigarette ads and (b) how the frequency of the featured promotion techniques has changed over time. The frequencies and types of promotion techniques were compared over time relative to five major smoking eras associated with cigarette advertising (e.g., King et al., 1991). Examination of the five decades of cigarette advertisements will allow the determination of the trajectory of promotion techniques featured in cigarette advertising across the five major eras of smoking indentified and studied in previous research (e.g., King et al., 1991). By focusing on contemporary cigarette advertising, the analysis will document if and how tobacco advertising practices have changed following the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). A study that compared tobacco advertising and promotion spending before and after the MSA reported that advertising spending decreased, but spending for sport or event sponsorship increased (Lewis, Yulis, Delnevo, & Hrywna, 2004). We suspect similar patterns in tobacco marketing practices may be exhibited for promotion techniques featured in cigarette advertisements across smoking eras. Our examination of promotion techniques in cigarette ads placed in magazines with youth audiences is especially important. Studies have established the powerful and consistent impact of tobacco promotions in youth smoking initiation and progression (DiFranza, Wellman, Sargent, Weitzman,

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

Hipple, & Winickoff, 2006). Research indicates that youth are more susceptible than adults to tobacco sales promotions and sponsored events (Biener & Siegel, 2000; Gilpin, Pierce, & Rosbrook, 1997). Thus, we take the position that research is needed to examine the frequencies and types of promotion techniques featured in cigarette ads for brands seen by and targeted to the young.

LITERATURE REVIEW Synergistic Effects of Advertising and Promotion

Tobacco control experts and government regulators have long scrutinized cigarette advertising for targeting the young with positive and healthful images of smoking. Their concern is based on the assumption that advertising is image-based and primarily serves to form favorable beliefs and attitudes toward advertised cigarette brands in the long term. However, less attention has been paid to the fact that promotion in cigarette advertising serves to more immediately boost consumer trial and purchase in the short term (Pucci & Siegel, 1999). That is to say, advertising is used to influence beliefs and attitudes about a brand, while sales promotions are used to maximize the probability that a purchase-related act will be performed (Ray, 1982). In cigarette advertising specifically, one analysis of tobacco industry documents has established that advertising and promotion work together to generate both trial and sales of cigarette brands among new and existing consumers (Krugman, Quinn, Sung, & Morrison, 2005). The nature of the cigarette product itself provides reason to believe that cigarette advertising combined with sales promotional messages may be especially effective persuasion. According to a popular consumer-based planning model (Vaughn, 1980), consumer purchase decisions can be classified on two basic dimensions: think=feel and involvement (called Foote, Cone and Belding [FCB] model). In the model, cigarette products are categorized as a feel and low involvement product. Ratchford (1987) empirically validated the categorization in his research on the FCB model. As a result, the argument is made that consumers tend to make quick and less reasoned purchase decisions for cigarettes based on feelings and desire for immediate satisfaction. The nature of the cigarette product as described in the decision model also seems consistent with arguments in the risk perception literature. According to Slovics affect heuristic argument (2001), cigarette advertising and use of cigarette products fall in the experiential rather than the rational model. Accordingly, people (especially the young) tend to make smoking decisions based on feelings and without careful consideration of long-term consequences such as harmful health effects (see Krugman et al., 2005). Thus, cigarette advertising that includes promotion-based messages and techniques may assist quick and feeling-based trial and purchase decisions.

H.-J. Paek et al.

Research has established that various types of promotion techniques appear in cigarette advertisements. Each type offers different benefits to consumers and influences their purchase decisions in different ways (Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000). The major types of consumer sales promotion featured in cigarette ads include monetary, nonmonetary, and event sponsorship offerings. Monetary promotion techniques include coupons, refunds, rebates, and cents-off promotions. These techniques offer utilitarian benefits such as convenience and savings. Nonmonetary techniques include contests or sweepstakes and free gifts with purchases, and do not offer a lower purchase price (Lichtenstein, Burton, & Netemeyer, 1997). These techniques offer hedonic benefits and sense of social affiliation or recognition. Use and effectiveness of monetary and nonmonetary techniques depend on benefit congruence with the product, consumer, or purchase occasion (e.g., Chandon et al., 2000), whereas the sponsorship technique involves an event connection with emphasis on boosting brand and corporate images as well as sales (Meenaghan, 1991). Particularly when embedded in advertisements, sponsorships=events technique can produce synergistic effects that not only generate and reinforce favorable attitudes toward the brand, but also can lead to consumer participation and behavior in the promoted way.

Tobacco Industrys Program Activities and Their Impact

A major legal battle regarding advertising and promotion began in 1994 when the Surgeon Generals report associating tobacco marketing with youth smoking was published (Borio, 1997). The resulting actions were based in part on criticism of cigarette advertisings conveyance of positive and healthful smoking imagery. However, the events helped to move contemporary tobacco marketing more toward sales promotion activities. In 1998, the landscape for cigarette advertising in the United States changed dramatically with the 46-state MSA. The agreement awarded a damage sum of $246 billion (Paek, Reid, Choi, & Jeong, 2010) and specifically prohibited sponsorship of events with a significant youth audience that includes specialty promotional items identified with a brand (e.g., caps, t-shirts, lighters) and public entertainment (e.g., music concerts). However, an examination of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reports found that tobacco industry spending for advertising and promotions increased 96% between 1995 and 2001, with large increases taking place in 1998 and 1999, as the MSA took effect (Pierce & Gilpin, 2004). Between 1997 and 2001, expenditures for specialty promotional items decreased 41%, while those for sponsoring public entertainment increased 45%. Between 1995 and 1999 alone, tobacco companies spending on sports sponsorship increased from $83 to $113.6 million (Rosenberg & Siegel, 2001). In 2001, the U.S. tobacco industry spent $312.4 million on various public entertainment sponsorships such as concerts, auto racing, and fishing tournaments (Krugman et al., 2005). In 2005, the industry

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

spent approximately $215 million on entertainment and sponsorships (Federal Trade Commission, 2007). These patterns of promotion expenditures suggest that the tobacco industry has changed its current post-MSA marketing communication strategy to focus more on promotion activities using cigarette advertising to communicate promotion-based messages. Substantial evidence has documented the impact of tobacco companies promotion practices on youth smoking. There is little debate that tobaccorelated promotional items reach American youth. Analysis of national youth survey data reported that an estimated 7.4 million young people have either owned a promotional item, had a tobacco promotions catalogue in their possession, or collected coupons such as Camel Cash or Marlboro Miles (Coeytaux, Altman, & Slade, 1995). Perhaps more important, a robust, significant relationship between tobacco promotion and youth smoking has been consistently found with various study methods, in multiple populations, and with various forms of promotion. The California youth survey by Gilpin et al. (1997) reported that adolescents ages 15 to 17 years expressed the highest level of willingness to use a promotional item (e.g., t-shirt, cigarette lighter, mug, poster, sports bags) among other age groups. In addition, the survey reported younger adolescents (12 to 14 years) showed a greater interest in promotion items than adults aged 35 years and older, a finding consistent with other studies (e.g., Evans, Farkas, Gilpin, Berry, & Pierce, 1995). Two longitudinal and population-based studies also support the relationship between tobacco promotional items and youth smoking. Pierce, Choi, Gilpin, Farkas, and Berry (1998) reported from their longitudinal California survey that about 10% (n 172) of adolescents expressed willingness to use a promotional item. Their willingness to use such an item was significantly associated with adolescent smoking progression. In their Massachusetts survey, Biener and Siegel (2000) also found that obtaining a promotional item of clothing, a sports bag, or items with a cigarette brand logo predicted progression to smoking among adolescents, even after other risk factors (e.g., demographic and psychographic factors) were controlled for. Biener and Siegel argued that promotional items and images featured in cigarette ads were particularly appealing to adolescents because owning such items provided the impression of being an independent adult smoker. Lastly, a systematic and extensive review of the existing literature concluded that exposure to tobacco promotions among youth increased the risk of smoking initiation (DiFranza et al., 2006). Perhaps more importantly, tobacco documents reveal that the tobacco industry has made efforts to reach male adolescents through sponsored activities (Dewhirst & Sparks, 2003). One observational study conducted in California reported that among the 58 tobacco industry sponsored events about half seemed to involve youth (Hagaman, 2007), despite MSA marketing restrictions on sponsorships targeting youth. A British study found that tobacco sponsorship of sporting events created positive associations between

H.-J. Paek et al.

smoking and sports among very young children (Aitken, Leathar, & Squair, 1986). Additionally, a U.S. survey reported that promotional events may encourage the initiation or the progression of smoking among college students (Rigotti, Moran, & Wechsler, 2005). In our view, the changes in tobacco company promotion practices and the collective survey data send a clear message. Although evidence of the impact of tobacco sponsorships=events on youth smoking is difficult to determine (Cruz, 2009), sponsorship clearly serves as a sales promotion technique to promote positive images of smoking and facilitate trial of tobacco products. Thus, more research is needed.

The Current Study

In past research, advertising and promotion have been treated somewhat separately without considering the degree to which cigarette advertising is used as a promotional platform to not only communicate positive images of smoking, but also boost purchase and trial of advertised tobacco products (Pucci & Siegel, 1999). As noted earlier, Pucci and Siegel (1999) is the only study to explore promotion featured in cigarette advertising. The researchers examined promotion techniques in cigarette ads published in magazines between 1980 and 1993 and found that the proportion of promotion-oriented advertising appearing in youth magazines (i.e., defined as magazines with a greater than average proportion of youth readers) increased from 7.3% in 1980 to 99.6% in 1987. The research also found that promotional advertising peaked at 8.8% in 1984, and again at 7.6% in 1989. The five cigarette brands categorized as youth brands (i.e., Marlboro, Camel, Newport, Kool, and Winston) were found to account for 58.7% of promotional advertising in all of the magazines and for about 83% of promotional advertising in youth magazines during the study period. Prompted by their findings and the call for additional research, we posed the following research questions for investigation:
RQ1: What types of promotion techniques are present in cigarette advertisement and how frequently are they presented? RQ2: How has the frequency of the types of promotion techniques in cigarette advertisements changed across five smoking eras? RQ3: How have the types of promotion techniques in cigarette advertisements for youth-oriented brands changed across the five smoking eras?

The examination of a half-century of cigarette advertising will show a more complete descriptive trajectory of promotion in cigarette advertising over a longer period of time. Past research has categorized several smoking eras based on historic events and subsequent cigarette advertising efforts by

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

the tobacco Industry. Following the analyses of Calfee (1985, 1986, 1987), King et al. (1991) identified three event eras and conducted a longitudinal analysis of cigarette ads published in 1954 through 1986 issues of magazines. The three eras were: 19541970, the pre-broadcast ban era (i.e., the years following the release of the Sloan-Kettering Report, the Surgeon Generals Report, and the implementation of the Fairness Doctrine); 19711983, the post-broadcast ban era (i.e., the years following the broadcast ban and the mandated health warnings); and 19841986, the anti-smoking ideology era (i.e., the years of escalating concern over passive smoke and of a growing anti-smoking crusade at the state and local government levels (see McGowan, 1989). Our study extends the anti-smoking ideology era until 1993, because significant historical events were absent between 1988 and 1993. It also adds two other eras to the three eras of King et al. (1991): the pre-MSA (or the legal battle and settlement era; 19941998) and the post-MSA era (19992003). Pucci and Siegels study (1999) covers only the years up to the antismoking ideology era. Our study includes the years of the legal battle era represented by the MSA (i.e., cigarette advertisements between 1994 and 2003). We believe it is important to document the patterns of promotion techniques in cigarette advertising between the pre-MSA (19941998) and the post-MSA (19992003) to see how tobacco industry responded to the MSAs regulation of tobacco marketing and advertising practices.

METHOD Sampling
The data were drawn from a database of cigarette ads prepared for the Department of Justice in its litigation against the major tobacco companies (for more details, see Paek et al., 2010). The database contains all cigarette ads placed in three popular magazines, Cosmopolitan, Sports Illustrated, and Rolling Stone, for five decades (19542003). The magazines are also considered youth-oriented following the FDAs proposed standard regarding what constitutes youth-targeted magazines (Krugman, Morrison, & Sung, 2006; Mediamark Research & Intelligence, 2003). Our samples were selected from the universe of cigarette ads (N 13,461) through a multistage sampling procedure (for more details, see Paek et al., 2010). As the first step, ads from the five smoking eras were selected. In the second step, the top 10 brands on the market across all five decades were identified. The brands were: Basic, Camel, Doral, GPC, Kool, Marlboro, Newport, Salem, Virginia Slim, and Winston (The Associated Press, 2000; Tobacco.org, 2000). In the third step, the number of samples needed to represent each smoking era were predetermined and then selected through systematic probability sampling.

H.-J. Paek et al.

Duplicate ads were excluded. As a result, the final sample size was 1,133 cigarette ads: (a) the pre-broadcast ban era (n 61), (b) the post-broadcast ban era (n 439), (c) the anti-smoking ideology era (n 355), (d) the preMSA era (or legal battle and settlement era; n 156), and (e) the post-MSA era (n 122).

Coding Procedure
Based on previous tobacco research (Lichtenstein et al., 1997), the current study categorized promotional features in cigarette ads as follows: (a) monetary promotion itemsprice, rebate, discount=coupon, money-back guarantee, free product trial; (b) nonmonetary promotion itemsfree gift, mail-in offers, retail value-added (cigarette bonus, e.g., buy two packs, get one free; noncigarette, but relevant bonus, e.g., lighter; non-cigarette, non-relevant, bonus, e.g., basket, belt, hat); and (c) sponsorships=eventsmention of sponsorships, mention of promotional events (e.g., game, concerts, sports). Each of the items was coded with 1 (yes or present) and 0 (no or absent) responses. We also categorized cigarette brands featured in the advertisements into youth-oriented and adult-oriented brands based on smoking surveillance data. Pucci and Siegel (1999) defined youth-oriented brands as those that are smoked by at least 2.5% of teenagers in accordance with the 1993 Teenage Attitudes and Practices SurveyII data. However, more recent data show slightly different patterns. For example, in the 1996 National Survey of Tobacco Price Sensitivity, Behavior, and Attitudes among Teenagers and Young Adults, Marlboro (67.2%), Newport (16.4%), and Camel (8.1%) were identified as the only youth-oriented brands (Kaufman et al., 2004). Identification of these youth-oriented brands is also consistent with the results from multiple data sets: the 1998 Monitoring the Future Survey (Johnson, OMalley, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 1999), the 2001 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2002) and the 2002 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2003). Therefore, based on multiple and updated smoking data, we considered only three brands as youth-oriented brands: Marlboro, Newport, and Camel. All other brands were classified as adult brands. Our categorization resulted in 49.9% of the 1,133 ads being coded as youth-oriented brand ads and 50.1% as adult-oriented brand ads. Following determination of the coding items, a standard procedure of content analysis was implemented (for details, see Paek et al., 2010). The procedure includes pretests and refinement of the coding scheme based on the pretest results. For main coding, two pairs of coders (one male and one female in each pair) independently coded the complete samples (each pair coded half of the samples) in order to calculate intercoder reliabilities. Intercoder reliabilities were also calculated between the two coder teams using Perreault and Leighs (1989) P=L Index. Average intercoder reliability was .99 for all the

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

items, and the reliabilities ranged from .98 (sponsorships=events) to 1.00 (rebate). Disagreements were resolved through discussions among the coders.

RESULTS RQ1: Types of Promotional Techniques

RQ1 was asked to determine the frequencies and types of the promotion techniques that appeared in the five decades of cigarette advertising. In the 1,133 cigarette ads, 7.6% (86) were identified as promotional ads (i.e., containing one or more promotional techniques). One promotion item was present in 72% of the 86 promotional ads, followed by two items in 11.6%, three items in 9.3%, four items in 5.8%, and five items in 1.2%. Sponsorships or events were the most frequently appearing promotion technique in the promotional ads (5.6%), followed by nonmonetary (2.8%) and monetary techniques (0.9%). Retail-value-added promotions such as product bonus (e.g., buy two packs, get one free) and nonproduct bonus (e.g., lighter; 2.2%) were the most frequently appearing nonmonetary promotion items in the ads, followed by mail-in offers (1.7%) and free gifts (0.8%). Price reductions (0.6%) were the most often featured monetary promotion; money-back guarantees and rebates did not appear in the ads.

RQ2: Promotion Techniques by Smoking Era

RQ2 was asked to examine how types of promotion techniques in cigarette advertising changed over the five smoking eras. As shown in Table 1, the presence of promotion in the ads differed across the smoking eras, but not at a statistically significant level (v2(4) 8.27, p .08). Promotion increased gradually in ads from the post-broadcast ban era (5.9%) through the pre-MSA era (10.9%), then, slightly decreased in the post-MSA era ads (9.0%). A statistically significant difference was found for sponsorships=events in the ads across the smoking eras (v2(4) 17.87, p < .01). The technique first appeared in post-broadcast ban era ads (3.0%). Sponsorships=events were most prevalent in pre-MSA era ads (9.6%), and its level of frequency remained high (9.0%) in post-MSA era ads. Monetary and nonmonetary promotions appeared most often in anti-smoking ideology era ads (1.6% and 3.9%, respectively). The two techniques disappeared in post-MSA era ads (0% for both). The presence of monetary and nonmonetary promotions in the cigarette ads did not statistically differ across the smoking eras.

RQ3: Promotion Ads for Youth-Oriented Cigarette Brands by Smoking Era

RQ3 was asked to determine how types of promotion techniques in cigarette ads for youth-oriented cigarette brands changed across the smoking eras. As

TABLE 1 Promotional Techniques by Smoking Era Anti-smoking ideology era (19841993) Pre-MSA era (19941998) 13.8% (156) 10.9% (17) 89.1% (139) Post-MSA era (19992003) 10.8% (122) 9.0% (11) 91.0% (111)

Promotional techniques 5.4% (61) 1.6% (1) 98.4% (60)

Pre-broadcast ban era (19541970)

Post-broadcast ban era (19711983)

Total 100.0% (1,133) 7.6% (86) 92.4% (1,047)

Overall promotions Yes No

10 5.4% (61) 1.6% (1) 98.4% (60) 5.4% (61) 0% (0) 100% (61)

Monetary promotions Yes No

5.4% (61) 0% (0) 100% (61)

13.8% (156) 0% (0) 100% (156) 13.8% (156) 1.3% (2) 98.7% (154) 13.8% (156) 9.6% (15) 90.4% (141)

10.8% (122) 0% (0) 100% (122) 10.8% (122) 0% (0) 100% (122) 10.8% (122) 9.0% (11) 91.0% (111)

100.0% (1,133) 0.9% (10) 99.1 (1,123) 100.0% (1,133) 2.8% (32) 97.2 (1,101) 100.0% (1,133) 5.6% (63) 94.4% (1,070)

Nonmonetary promotions Yes No

Sponsorships=events Yes No

38.7% (439) 31.3% (355) 5.9% (26) 8.7% (31) 94.1% (413) 91.3% (324) v2 8.27, df 4, p .08 38.7% (439) 31.3% (355) 0.9% (4) 1.6% (6) 99.1% (435) 98.3% (349) v2 5.67, df 4, n.s. 38.7% (439) 31.3% (355) 3.4% (15) 3.9% (14) 95.6% (424) 96.1% (341) v2 7.39, df 4, n.s. 38.7% (439) 31.3% (355) 3.0% (13) 6.8% (24) 97.0% (426) 93.2% (331) v2 17.87, df 4, p < .01

Note. MSA Master Settlement Agreement.

TABLE 2 Promotional Techniques in Ads for Youth-Oriented Cigarette Brands by Smoking Era Anti-smoking ideology era (19841993) Pre-MSA era (19941998) 14.9% (84) 15.5% (13) 84.5% (71) 14.9% (84) 0% (0) 100% (84) 14.9% (84) 2.4% (2) 97.6% (82) 14.9% (84) 13.1% (11) 86.9% (73) 10.4% (59) 6.8% (4) 93.2% (55) 10.4% (59) 0% (0) 100% (59) 10.4% (59) 0% (0) 100% (59) 10.4% (59) 6.8% (4) 93.2% (55) Post-MSA era (19992003)

Promotional techniques 6.0% (34) 2.9% (1) 97.1% (33) 6.0% (34) 0% (0) 100% (34) 6.0% (34) 2.9% (1) 97.1% (33) 6.0% (34) 0% (0) 100% (34)

Pre-broadcast ban era (19541970)

Post-broadcast ban era (19711983)

Total 100.0% (565) 8.3% (47) 91.7% (518) 100.0% (565) 1.2% (7) 98.8% (558) 100.0% (565) 3.2% (18) 96.8% (547) 100.0% (565) 5.8% (33) 94.2% (532)

Overall promotions Yes No

Monetary promotions Yes No

11

Nonmonetary promotions Yes No

Sponsorships=events Yes No

32.2% (182) 36.5% (206) 7.1% (13) 7.8% (16) 92.9% (169) 92.2% (190) v2 7.53, df 4, n.s. 32.2% (182) 36.5% (206) 1.6% (3) 1.9% (4) 98.4% (179) 98.1% (202) v2 3.30, df 4, n.s. 32.2% (182) 36.5% (206) 3.8% (7) 3.9% (8) 96.2% (175) 96.1% (198) v2 2.71, df 4, n.s. 32.2% (182) 36.5% (206) 3.8% (7) 5.3% (11) 96.2% (175) 94.7% (195) v 2 11.65, df 4, p < .05

Note. MSA Master Settlement Agreement.

12

H.-J. Paek et al.

shown in Table 2, promotion increased in youth-oriented brand ads after the pre-broadcast ban era. The presence of the promotion techniques steadily increased through the first three smoking eras, peaked during the pre-MSA era (15.5%) and then decreased during the post-MSA era (6.8%). Monetary and nonmonetary promotions peaked in youth-oriented ads during the anti-smoking ideology era (1.9% and 3.9%, respectively). Monetary promotion disappeared from youth-oriented brand ads by the pre-MSA era, and both monetary and nonmonetary techniques were absent from the post-MSA era for youth-oriented brands. However, these differences were not statistically significant. A statistically significant difference was found regarding the appearance of sponsorships or promotional events in youth-oriented brand ads across the five smoking eras (v2(4) 11.65, p < .05). Sponsorships=events first appeared in post-broadcast era ads for youth-oriented brands (3.8%), and increased in ads from the pre-MSA eras (13.1%). Overall, the cigarette ads for youth-oriented brands (8.3%) featured promotion more frequently than ads for adult-oriented brands (6.9%). However, the difference did not reach statistical significance. The three promotiontypes (monetary promotions, nonmonetary promotions, and sponsorship= events) exhibited the same patterns of appearance in the ads (monetary promotions 1.2% vs. 0.5%, nonmonetary promotions 3.2% vs. 2.5%, sponsorships=events 5.8% vs. 5.3%) over time.

DISCUSSION
Coordination and integration of promotion and advertising is a common practice in marketing to achieve synergistic communication effects. Considering little is known about the nature and degree to which types of promotion appear in cigarette advertising, this study was conducted to advance the findings of Pucci and Siegel (1999) by examining the presence of monetary, nonmonetary, and sponsorship=event promotion techniques in five decades of cigarette ads. Though there was not much variation in comparisons of promotion techniques in the cigarette advertising across the smoking eras, we would argue that the descriptive findings are important and suggestive. From a heuristic perspective, statistically nonsignificant findings do not mean that findings are insignificant. We believe our findings provide important insights on promotion techniques in contemporary cigarette advertising. First and foremost, the study found that 7.6% of the sampled cigarette advertisements featured promotion. The proportion, though small, is similar to what Pucci and Siegel (1999) found in their analysis of cigarette advertisements appearing between 1980 and 1993. Interestingly, the presence of promotion in our sample of ads was greatest in the most recent yearspromotion appeared in 10.9% of pre-MSA era ads and 9.0% in post-MSA era ads.

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

13

Second, the results indicate that the tobacco industry has increasingly turned to sponsorship=event promotions to affect brand presence, trial, and purchase through the years. Though the industry pulled back a little on sponsorships=events in the post-MSA era, our findings are consistent with analyses of tobacco marketing expenditures. As documented by others, spending on public entertainment sponsorships such as concerts, auto racing, and fishing tournaments, steadily increased between 1997 and 2001 (Krugman et al., 2005; Pierce & Gilpin, 2004). Of special importance, our results indicate that sponsorship=events have become the most used promotion technique in ads for youth-oriented cigarette brands over the years. Even though use of the promotion dropped following the MSA agreement, the decrease was relatively small, and the presence of sponsorships=events in pre-MSA ads for youth-oriented brands was still greater than in ads from the pre-broadcast ban, post-broadcast ban, and anti-smoking ideology eras. In light of research findings which suggest that sponsorships promote positive associations and encourages smoking initiation and progression among the young (e.g., DiFranza et al., 2006; Rigotti et al., 2005), it would appear tobacco advertisers have continually turned to sponsorships=events in recent promotional advertising to communicate positive images of smoking and to facilitate smoking behaviors among the at-risk segment. This promotion trend should be especially troubling to tobacco control experts, anti-smoking advocates, and government regulators. Third, our comparison of ads for youth- versus adult-oriented cigarette brands is inconsistent with Pucci and Siegel (1999). We found no significant difference between the two types of brands with regards to proportion of promotion techniques in cigarette ads. Pucci and Siegel (1999) found that ads for youth brands contained more promotional items than adult brand ads in youth-oriented magazines. The disparity in the two studies does not detract from the fact that sponsorship=event promotion significantly increased in promotional ads for youth-oriented brands in recent years. The finding is important because the MSA specifically prohibited sponsorship of events with significant youth audiences, irrespective of the fact that such promotion increased proportionally in ads for adult-oriented brands also. The inconsistency in the youth- and adult-oriented brand comparisons may be due to the fact that our definition of youth brands included only three major brands, Marlboro, Newport, and Camel and was based on more recent statistical data (e.g., NHSDA, NSDUH). The Pucci and Siegel study (1999) included two more brands, Kool and Winston, and based on definitional decisions represented by data from their study period, 19801993. Another explanation for the inconsistent findings may be that our samples included ads for the top 10 cigarette brands marketed throughout the five decades. It is possible that including more adult brand ads may have resulted in the statistically significant differences. Indeed, when we considered all the same five brands as youth brands, a chi-square test indicated

14

H.-J. Paek et al.

that promotion appears significantly more often in youth brand ads than in adult brand ads. Pucci and Siegel (1999) expressed concern that youth were exposed to kinds of promotions that might be more directly related to product purchase and trial. Broadly speaking, our finding of increased appearance of sponsorships and events in the contemporary cigarette advertising is troubling. Given the documented evidence that young people are more susceptible to promotion items (Gilpin et al., 1997) and that youth smoking is related to promotion item ownership and attendance of sponsored events (Biener & Siegel, 2000), more attention to promotion in cigarette advertising for youth-oriented brands is warranted. As with any social scientific research, our study has methodological and other limitations. First, although our samples of cigarette advertisement were collected by multistage sampling and, thus, represented five decades of cigarette ads, they were obtained from three magazines popular among young readers. Examination of a larger number of both adult- and youth-oriented magazines may have produced different proportions of promotion techniques in cigarette advertising over the five decades and relative to youth- and adult-oriented cigarette brands. Second, though our results address the content properties of promotion in cigarette advertising, they do not speak to the extent to which youth and other consumer segments attend and react to such information. Given the synergistic role that promotion may play in consumer responsiveness to cigarette advertising, future research could examine the relationship between various promotion techniques in cigarette advertisements and smoking-related attitudes and behavior of the young and others. Of special interest would be research that examines if differential effects are produced by promotional versus imagery=attitudinal advertising. In addition, a multimethod study combining content analysis, consumer response measures, and secondary market data would strengthen evidence regarding promotion content and type of cigarette ads that lead to smoking-related outcomes. Despite these limitations, the results of our study have relevant policy implications. As noted previously, promotion-based advertising has not drawn much attention from tobacco control experts and government regulators. Tobacco researchers have already suggested increasing the enforcement of laws regarding the distribution of tobacco products and tobacco promotions to minors, and more tightly regulating the methods of distributing promotional items (e.g., Altman, Levine, Coeytaux, Slade, & Jaffe, 1996). Along with the regulatory efforts, close monitoring is needed regarding the interplay between advertising, promotional techniques, and promotion strategies, especially in sponsorship=event ads for youth-oriented cigarette brands. Acknowledging the difficulty of monitoring tobacco promotion and sponsorship activities, Cruz (2009) proposed developing a national surveillance system that can effectively monitor tobacco marketing practices and

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

15

strategies. We concur and argue that coordinated efforts of promotion and advertising should be identified and closely examined as part of surveillance practices.

REFERENCES
Aitken, P. P., Leather, D. S., & Squair, S. I. (1986). Childrens awareness of cigarette brand sponsorship of sports and games in the U.K. Health Education Research, 1(3), 203211. Altman, D. G., Levine, D. W., Coeytaux, R., Slade, J., & Jaffe, R. (1996). Tobacco promotion and susceptibility to tobacco use among adolescents aged 12 through 17 years in a nationally representative sample. American Journal of Public Health, 86(11), 15901593. Associated Press. (2000, July 14). Top-selling U.S. cigarette brands. Retrieved from http://www.tobacco.org/Resources/mktshr.html Biener, L., and Siegel, M. (2000). Tobacco marketing and adolescent smoking: More support for a causal inference. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 407411. Borio, G. (1997) The history of tobacco part IV. Retrieved from http://www.historian. org/bysubject/tobacco4.htm Calfee, J. E. (1985). Cigarette advertising, health information and regulation, before 1970 (Working Paper No. 134). Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Economics. Calfee, J. E. (1986, November=December). The ghost of cigarette advertising past. Regulation, 10, 3545. Calfee, J. E. (1987). Cigarette advertising regulation today: Unintended consequences and missed opportunities. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 264268. Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 6581. Coeytaux, R., Altman, D. G., & Slade, J. (1995). Tobacco promotions in the hands of youth. Tobacco Control, 4, 253257. Cruz, T. B. (2009). Monitoring the tobacco use epidemic IV: Tobacco industry data sources and recommendations for research and evaluation. Preventive Medicine, 48(1), S24lS34. Dewhirst, T., and Sparks, R. (2003). Intertextuality, tobacco sponsorship of sports, and adolescent male smoking culture: A selective review of tobacco industry documents. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 27, 372398. DiFranza, J. R., Wellman, R. J., Sargent, J. D., Weitzman, M., Hipple, B. J., & Winickoff, J. P. (2006). Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: Assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics, 117, e1237e1248. Evans, N., Farkas, A., Gilpin, E. A., Berry, C., & Pierce, J. P. (1995). Influence of tobacco marketing and exposure to smokers on adolescent susceptibility to smoking. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87, 15381545. Federal Trade Commission. (2007). Cigarette report for 2004 and 2005. Washington, DC: Author. Gilpin, E. A., Pierce, J. P., & Rosbrook, B. (1997). Are adolescents receptive to current sales promotion practices of the tobacco industry? Preventive Medicine, 26(1), 1421.

16

H.-J. Paek et al.

Hagaman, T. D. (2007, October). Tobacco industry sponsorship at California events, 2006. Paper presented at the annual National Conference on Tobacco or Health, Minneapolis, MN. Johnston, L. D., OMalley, P. M., Bachman, J. B., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1999). Cigarette brand preferences among adolescents (Monitoring the future, Occasional Paper No. 45). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Kaufman, N. J., Castrucci, B. C., Mowery, P. M., Gerlach, K. K., Emont, S., & Orleans, C. T. (2004). Changes in adolescent cigarette-brand preference, 1989 to 1996. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(1), 5462. King, K. W., Reid, L. N., Moon, Y. S., & Ringold, D. J. (1991). Changes in the visual imagery of cigarette ads, 19541986. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(1), 6380. Krugman, D. M., Morrison, M., & Sung, Y. (2006). Cigarette advertising in popular youth and adult magazines: A ten-year perspective. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25, 197211. Krugman, D. M., Quinn, W. H., Sung, Y., & Morrison, M. (2005). Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 261278. Lewis, M. J., Yulis, S. G., Delnevo, C., & Hrywna, M. (2004). Tobacco industry direct marketing after the Master Settlement Agreement. Health Promotion Practice, 5(3), S75S83. Lichtenstein, D. R., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1997). Psychological correlates of proneness to deals: A domain-specific analysis. In M. Brucks & D. J. Maclnnis (Eds.), Advances in consumer research 24 (pp. 274280). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research. McGowan, R. (1989). Public policy measures and cigarette sales: An ARIMA intervention analysis. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, 11, 151179. Mediamark Research and Intelligence. (2003). Teenmark 2003. Retrieved from http://ureporter.mriplusonline.com/selectdemo.asp Meenaghan, T. (1991). Sponsorshiplegitimizing the medium. European Journal of Marketing, 25(11), 510. Paek, H.-J. (2008). Mechanisms through which adolescents attend and respond to antismoking media campaigns. Journal of Communication, 58(1), 84105. Paek, H.-J., Reid, L., Choi, H., & Jeong, H. (2010). Promoting health (implicitly)? A longitudinal content analysis of implicit health information in cigarette advertising, 19542003. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 769787. Perreault, W. D., and Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 135148. Pierce, J. P., and Gilpin, E. A. (2004). How did the Master Settlement Agreement change tobacco industry expenditures for cigarette advertising and promotions? Health Promotion Practice, 5(3), S84S90. Pierce, J. P., Choi, W. S., Gilpin, E. A., Farkas, A. J., & Berry, C. C. (1998). Tobacco industry promotion of cigarettes and adolescent smoking. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 511515. Pucci, L. G., and Siegel, M. (1999). Features of sales promotion in cigarette magazine advertisements, 19801993: An analysis of youth exposure in the United States. Tobacco Control, 8(1), 2936.

Five Decades of Promotion in Cigarette Advertising

17

Ratchford, B. T. (1987). New insights about the FCB Grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 2438. Ray, M. L. (1982). Advertising and communication management. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Rigotti, N. A., Moran, S. E., & Wechsler, H. (2005). U.S. college students exposure to tobacco promotions: Prevalence and association with tobacco use. American Journal of Public Health, 95(12), 138144. Rosenberg, N. J., and Siegel, M. (2001). Use of corporate sponsorship as a tobacco marketing tool: A review of tobacco industry sponsorship in the USA, 199599. Tobacco Control, 10, 239246. Shimp, T. A. (2003). Advertising, promotion and supplemental aspects of integrated marketing communications (6th ed.). New York, NY: Dryden Press Slovic, P. (2001). Rational actors and rational fools: The influence of affect on judgment and decision making. In P. Slovic (Ed.), Smoking: Risk, perception, and policy (pp. 97126). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2002). The 2001 national survey on drug use and health. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2003). The 2002 national survey on drug use and health. Rockville, MD: Office of Applied Studies, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Tobacco.org. (2000). U.S. tobacco market share 1995, 2000. Retrieved from http:// www.tobacco.org/Resources/mktshr.html Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 2733.

Copyright of Health Marketing Quarterly is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.