Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of tobcontTobacco ControlVisit this articleSubmit a manuscriptReceive email alertsContact usBMJ
Tob Control. 2005 October; 14(5): e3.
PMCID: PMC1748101

Tobacco industry consumer research on socially acceptable cigarettes


Objective: To describe tobacco industry consumer research to inform the development of more "socially acceptable" cigarette products since the 1970s.

Methods: Analysis of previously secret tobacco industry documents.

Results: 28 projects to develop more socially acceptable cigarettes were identified from Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, British American Tobacco, and Lorillard tobacco companies. Consumer research and concept testing consistently demonstrated that many smokers feel strong social pressure not to smoke, and this pressure increased with exposure to smoking restrictions. Tobacco companies attempted to develop more socially acceptable cigarettes with less visible sidestream smoke or less odour. When presented in theory, these product concepts were very attractive to important segments of the smoking population. However, almost every product developed was unacceptable in actual product tests or test markets. Smokers reported the complete elimination of secondhand smoke was necessary to satisfy non-smokers. Smokers have also been generally unwilling to sacrifice their own smoking satisfaction for the benefit of others. Many smokers prefer smoke-free environments to cigarettes that produce less secondhand smoke.

Conclusions: Concerns about secondhand smoke and clean indoor air policies have a powerful effect on the social acceptability of smoking. Historically, the tobacco industry has been unable to counter these effects by developing more socially acceptable cigarettes. These data suggest that educating smokers about the health dangers of secondhand smoke and promoting clean indoor air policies has been difficult for the tobacco industry to counter with new products, and that every effort should be made to pursue these strategies.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (188K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Barnes DE, Hanauer P, Slade J, Bero LA, Glantz SA. Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995 Jul 19;274(3):248–253. [PubMed]
  • Hong Mi-Kyung, Bero Lisa A. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ. 2002 Dec 14;325(7377):1413–1416. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Barnes DE, Bero LA. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996 Fall;21(3):515–542. [PubMed]
  • Ong EK, Glantz SA. Constructing "sound science" and "good epidemiology": tobacco, lawyers, and public relations firms. Am J Public Health. 2001 Nov;91(11):1749–1757. [PubMed]
  • Neilsen K, Glantz SA. A tobacco industry study of airline cabin air quality: dropping inconvenient findings. Tob Control. 2004 Mar;13 (Suppl 1):i20–i29. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, Repace JL. The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health. 2001 Sep;91(9):1419–1423. [PubMed]
  • Glantz SA. Achieving a smokefree society. Circulation. 1987 Oct;76(4):746–752. [PubMed]
  • Ong EK, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts subverting International Agency for Research on Cancer's second-hand smoke study. Lancet. 2000 Apr 8;355(9211):1253–1259. [PubMed]
  • Magzamen S, Glantz SA. The new battleground: California's experience with smoke-free bars. Am J Public Health. 2001 Feb;91(2):245–252. [PubMed]
  • Trotter L, Chapman S. "Conclusions about exposure to ETS and health that will be unhelpful to us": how the tobacco industry attempted to delay and discredit the 1997 Australian National Health and Medical Research Council report on passive smoking. Tob Control. 2003 Dec;12 (Suppl 3):iii102–iii106. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Muggli Monique E, Hurt Richard D, Becker Lee B. Turning free speech into corporate speech: Philip Morris' efforts to influence U.S. and European journalists regarding the U.S. EPA report on secondhand smoke. Prev Med. 2004 Sep;39(3):568–580. [PubMed]
  • Drope J, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry efforts to present ventilation as an alternative to smoke-free environments in North America. Tob Control. 2004 Mar;13 (Suppl 1):i41–i47. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Dearlove JV, Bialous SA, Glantz SA. Tobacco industry manipulation of the hospitality industry to maintain smoking in public places. Tob Control. 2002 Jun;11(2):94–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pilkington P, Gilmore AB. The Living Tomorrow Project: how Philip Morris has used a Belgian tourist attraction to promote ventilation approaches to the control of second hand smoke. Tob Control. 2004 Dec;13(4):375–378. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. The dark side of marketing seemingly "Light" cigarettes: successful images and failed fact. Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 (Suppl 1):I18–I31. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pollay RW, Dewhirst T. A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s. Tob Control. 2003 Sep;12(3):322–332. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Leavell NR. The low tar lie. Tob Control. 1999 Winter;8(4):433–437. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pauly JL, Mepani AB, Lesses JD, Cummings KM, Streck RJ. Cigarettes with defective filters marketed for 40 years: what Philip Morris never told smokers. Tob Control. 2002 Mar;11 (Suppl 1):I51–I61. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • King W, Carter SM, Borland R, Chapman S, Gray N. The Australian tar derby: the origins and fate of a low tar harm reduction programme. Tob Control. 2003 Dec;12 (Suppl 3):iii61–iii70. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Connolly GN, Wayne GD, Lymperis D, Doherty MC. How cigarette additives are used to mask environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 2000 Sep;9(3):283–291. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Assunta M, Chapman S. A "clean cigarette" for a clean nation: a case study of Salem Pianissimo in Japan. Tob Control. 2004 Dec;13 (Suppl 2):ii58–ii62. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Malone RE, Balbach ED. Tobacco industry documents: treasure trove or quagmire? Tob Control. 2000 Sep;9(3):334–338. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Francey N, Chapman S. "Operation Berkshire": the international tobacco companies' conspiracy. BMJ. 2000 Aug 5;321(7257):371–374. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Holm AL, Davis RM. Clearing the airways: advocacy and regulation for smoke-free airlines. Tob Control. 2004 Mar;13 (Suppl 1):i30–i36. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Toll BA, Ling PM. The Virginia Slims identity crisis: an inside look at tobacco industry marketing to women. Tob Control. 2005 Jun;14(3):172–180. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Murphy Sarah Anne, Bedard Martha A, Crawley-Low Jill, Fagen Diane, Jette Jean-Paul. Standards for the academic veterinary medical library. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005 Jan;93(1):130–132. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fichtenberg Caroline M, Glantz Stanton A. Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. BMJ. 2002 Jul 27;325(7357):188–188. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Farkas AJ, Gilpin EA, White MM, Pierce JP. Association between household and workplace smoking restrictions and adolescent smoking. JAMA. 2000 Aug 9;284(6):717–722. [PubMed]
  • Farkas AJ, Gilpin EA, Distefan JM, Pierce JP. The effects of household and workplace smoking restrictions on quitting behaviours. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn;8(3):261–265. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Biener L, Siegel M. Behavior intentions of the public after bans on smoking in restaurants and bars. Am J Public Health. 1997 Dec;87(12):2042–2044. [PubMed]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group