PrNfAND A COH HDfre~TIoN BAN IABIET SCEI~B~O O Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 VOLUNTARY INDUSTRY AGREEMENTS ON ADVERTISING RESTRICTIONS BEFORE TOBACCO 1A~ CINEMA . ' ''· i969 (TOTALLY BANNED) vourss MAGAZINES ' 1959.,: DIRECT MAIL 1969 " TV 1971 AGREE~E~TS ON RESTRICTING TOTAL VOLUPIE OF ADVERTISING IN NEWSPAPERS AND MAGAZINES 1970- 1974 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 _ _ TOBACCO IEGISLATION ·· TOBACCO LAW (U\bl ON MEASURES TO REDUCE SMOKING), AUGUST ~3THI i976 · '· - STATUTES TO THE.TOBACCO 1I,'FEBRUARY 25TH,.1971 ':I ' .' . - DECREE OF THE MINISTRY FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS AND HEALTH ON THE RDKI#6 ACCESSORIES, FEBRUARY 25TH; 1977 - STATE COUNCIL DECREE ON ~HE HIGHEST A1LO?IABLE CONTENTS OF 'n~E SUBSTANCES I# ME TOBACCO PRODUCTS OR PRODUCED IN SROKING CAUSING HEALTH RISKS OPI HA~RDSI FEBRUARY 25TH, 1977 - STATE COUNCIL DECREE O# MAXIMUM ALlOtlABtE DELIVERIES OF DETIIIHEHTAI~ SUBSTANCES IB TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ON CLASSIFIGATT04 OF SELF-BURNING #BIOFACTURED CltAI1ETTES, 3179 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 ~1N CON1ENTS r3F TOBACCDIEGISU~TION - as# o# ADVERTISING OF NEW BRANDS FROM ~RCH IST, 1977 - TOTAL BAR ON ADMRTISIC AND [ONSURER-ORIENIED PROMOTIONS FROM MARCH 1STI 1978 COMMUNIUITIONS HITH THE·TRADE RESTRICTED TO PROOU[T · INFORYATION ONLY. .: ~ i . · ·. · ·: "' BAN O~ SELLING TOBACCO·PRODUCTS·TO CHILDREN UNDER RGE 3r6 ~'~ ·. · - SMOKING IN PULIC PIACES SEVERELY BESTRICTUI ~ . TO OBTAIN AN INSPECTION CERTIFICATE FROA THE STATE BOARD OF HEblTH TOBACCO PRODUCTS MUST: ]., BE ANALYSED BY THE STATE 1AB9.9ATORY, CIGARETTES IN asPBT O~CHIIDIIK IH BL~NO)DPn. NIIOTINt RIID CARBON MONOXIDE DELIVERIES FROA THE SMOKE8 OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN RESPECT OF NICOTINE 1N BLEND ONLY, ONCE ON'THE E1ARKET, DELIVERY ANALYSES TO BE UNDERTAKI'N BY THE STATE BOA4D OF HEALTH T~ICE A YEAR TO MEET [IUALIN CONTROL:REQUI RESENTS, 2, CARRY ON RETAIL PACKS - #ARNING TEXT - iHE DATE OF IHE INSPECTION CERTIFICATE - DECLARATION OF CONTENTS [CIGARETTESI D/1P NIC, hbl, CARBON IIONOXIDE; OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS1 PIICOTIII IN BLEND ONLY) Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 !2: Z ID I~ PIP 888 iP,, I.·~ · i::. ···~91 '"1" M'~~ 'O 1 ~N. I TIT O 03110 I E I c r= .rP L h 131 13 M M N SI~ U r Ia NIM v vvv w 8 ~iw LL I 81 r w I rI w ~I > z U· n oi wl. n( · W ~I W r U Z or X w W JI O hi X ul (Iw C O t I E zI~ 3 Z 31 WIW Tla r O UI w ~I ar4 x Wlw rul W ATU AI> O O W W ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni ANII-SMOKING ENVIRONMENT =-~~~=~==========c;=:~-~-= AUTHORITIES · NISTRY FOR SOCIAL AFFAIRS I~D HEALTH .:"~I· OF HEALTH .. TH EDUCATION' )-3 ( B OFFICERS ~.· ]· '· ARTMENT ~ - MoaFi SPENT ON ANTI-SMOKING ACTIVITIES · 0,5 X (0,3) OF THE TOTAL TOBACCIJ EXCISE TPX R~ENUE MUNICIPAl GOVERNMENT LOCAL HEALTH COMMITTEES zI COMMUNAL HEALTH INSPECTOR 'VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS - VARIOUS TG"IPERANCE SOCIFIIES - UNION OF 1UNG AFFECTm - NATIONAL CANCER SOCIETY - HEALTH EDUCATIONAL: ORGANIZATIONS va 'p Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 _ ----~-~--~~ TARGET PROGARM~E FOR REDUCIRti S~KIMG IH 1981· 1985 TOBACCO POLICY WORKIEj6 GROUP MEMORANOUM A, IHE MI~ ISSUES OF THE ~E~OR~DU~ ARE: OBJECTIVES " UC~I uimr a r n~·lr 8h HAZADS CAUSED BY S~OKIHG'I SPECIFIC 60A~ FOE THE 1980'S ARE: HEALTH EDUCalOl TO COMYIICE CDMIMG GEWER~IOMS 10 8E NON-SMOKERS 3 REUOtTION OF SMOKING OF SHI1DREN dND YOUNG PFOFLF, THIS YOUU IMCLUDE nlR[~ISi#ti THE 'ADDlalK' ~ER~S 1M S~KE C) REDUCTIOR OF SMOKING OF AOUU~ BY MOTIVATIRG AAD SUP~BI16 DECISIONS TO STOP SMOKING P) REDUCTIOI Of SD(lg6 AMONG POPUlATlON CBOUPS ii YHICH THE PROPOSAL CONTENDS THE RISK DF HEALTH HAZARDS IS HIGH, E,6, PREGNANT YO~EM ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni I ~· (FIEMORANDUM) RUANTIFIU) TARGETS M4 1981 · 1985 AE: i, A 3 X ANNUAL REDOCTIOH II COHSUAPTION OF TOBACCO P~DUCTS 2, A 10·4 ANNUAL REDUCTION IN EXPOSURE TO "HAIFUL AGENTS IR TOBACCO SMOKE" II THE PROGRAMME 10 ACHIEVE THESE TARGETS HAS FOUR I~IN FEATURES: 11 HEALTH EDUCATION 2, MARKETING RESTRICTIONS 3,· LIMI'IAIIONS ON SMOKIIJIj IN WORKIWG PRiEMISES 4, DISCRIMINATORY PRICING.POLICI Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 iMwopMna , B, THE DST IRORTAIT P~~ FOR LlE IOBAIO ~~DUSTRY CAI BE FOID UIDEB 1E RE~IISS OF'IPK~IIS RESTRICTla~' ~D "PRICIB~ POII~' MI~TIMG RESTRICIIORS II PUALITY CDHTROL THE PPPOSAL S~S TI~I ' IT ADDITIOI 10 '~AR'I CIO# ~OIOXIDE AMD MI~TIIE, S~OKE SHOUU BE AIAUSED FOR HIDSO~'H CYAIIDEI FOm~UMYDEI~ ACDIEII, BEBZOPYEIE, PBTI[IDES ~IU HE~ ~EBI DELIVERIES, PUALITY COITROL ~1SO SHOULD BE EXTMDEQ TO PHISICR PR~E~IES, SUCB.AS FI~ERS ~O C16ARETTE P~ER PORDSIM'I :: ~i: ' .· · I, 9; ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni J V)% 7 e: O a a Wa >W a a 09 10 f: V U rl ~ V) W WM Zo)OnJ -I ;0 U W 00 ~D U ~ Wcl 3 3V) a ~2000 a ~W a ~ a V)g p~ nd r~oao p: a a a 3 W a C EI a NU w " 61~ CI Zr Z4 u)N e wB v, =3 e3W a a a a flCI a a ~ 3~ a ~ a a 10 a a 4 U N ~ rl O X Z W ~ V)c* a W ~J vl~ e"w U 10 IY Fl Z r U " ri ri r; r J w z v, r;; a V)a3 U w a -~a 3 Mm~i a mxm ao I31 c, Nrlrl a ~B " a cn z -w cr rl o Ta u a u ~ a IU vl 13 W eO W a w rO wa WClb a VIZm a ~ v) O Q W ~J >c* 2 W V)Z a a cn~ ~ at r WW ~ > h U r cna~ rlMUI ~JP: U. 00 03 ~ V)W 3 a~o~~ m s v, Ilrl Z~ 0)33 ' '" ' ' CIIW W OC#l a: I riir; WW t- Q a u C· 2E9 w II W 4 V N · O O rL 3: CIJ 03 Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 *I _· ( MWO~MDUn II PRICING PO1ICY TIE ORKING 6ROIP PROPOSES 1~ I EXCISE TAX BE 1BIB 01 GICAR~TES BASED UWN TAR, CARBON MDNOXI AND NICOTINE CO#II~l IN CONTWT 1N CONFORMITY WITH THE " DETRIMENTAL " AND " ~1~ DDRllaTK ' t~SIFIC~IOMS, THEY PROPOSE rHRT THE ' REW' COST OF CIGARmES SHOUU BE IMCRBSB~AS FOLIOYSI ... .. ·.~EI~Ma~L " C~~O~·10 ~G~SE APPROXlMBTElY. · .. 5 a PER YEAR STARTIIC IR 1980 'KW DEIIIEBIL' UiTEGORY - TO' UeEIE 61PUI~ - SO TRnT lr 1 JIDRI~ 1985 THIS Cl4S8lFIcATlON unl nE 15 I HISHER THAN ME ' DETRlMENTAl 'OaE RyO TOBACCO · P BE INCREASED SO BAT BY 1 JAIUlnl 1982 ITS PRICE WILL BE AT LEAST 75 I OF THE PRICE OF ~~~~· PRODUCED ' DETRIERT~1 ' CIGARETTES ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni _· tr~8rIr ~t~~~q ABOUT nib ---------- ail %uRveu CltrIed out it Slpteltr 1919 40 ;lepth ~tl~ilv~ Lllrictioll of g~t~ bnl of th llokere rpecifieolly lEntioned the ~ttirudl t~~rdr the caulie~tiap bel. Yell vote note eaaclnll ebout the other li-litltiorc direetl]r Iffeetiol ~~k ~D~ir, In lenerll there liniretlonl vere e·lr~~la to he ~eq;lll endil lone call se further rn~Ltiol~ Wore IPUll~d, Sociol Prcssureo nl IPt(ll LAI oonotantiY been fnCed WithooitnatiOn ~ othor people try to eleke ~~klrl~ ('tol Ilinl. The rurvey did not revlel eny erpecto of rrilll to moke Hokell to svitoh their brlnd, Su!prifinll~ Lnough the prlrrure to Ivitch in loocrll to lildlr brlndt uol not lontionod lithar, ~I ~ti'~diPt Colpoiane (Citltion) " ' "" ~* ~~ uel Iml~n~~o~~ thltthell oenpeiBnr ~t~~ld oore intenlively e fcv ynn ela, definitely not lore then ]-5 yeerl eyo, sDokerr thoulht thot bclild rlell "uopoiBno woo ~ "Officl for llrolth Ctrl" I Lbleco rnduttry I loord of le~lt Sookere often MntioPld thet they in ~cner~ ~re not too keen on follPvinl thc~ EqllpS, on the other hlPdl sone lnoherl rmticald, thet thy clnool ~void neticinl thee end the rolult ie tnornoul dclire to grit ~~~llt, 'f heve not ~csn there mti-rakinl oenpoiioe, ble~ull I dole a arll on purpoll trot then to Ivoid the tcqtltien to quit HOk~~ Oe the other hid IVO~d ~~(O ~~e~ but I telonils the eoornoue ant~l diffieultiel, I hew oftl~~rild to Itol. r ten Pn~l,'hlif o dey end end up not Itinl ~1, to control alelf. After. thet I jult hlve to I~ks~' ' O ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni me smokers of milder eigarrl.trs vcre clnrly boiler avJrtl of tile anti-smoking campaigns than the smokers of full-Ilnvalr brands, gore of these mild smokers accepted the campaigns as tty wore, the others had some trJcrvotions~ Also among these smokers the rain ~nrri was the quieting of smoking, These smokers also were better aware of the mild brands on the market, They had also tried several other mills and vould possibly select in the future even a milder bread, Ihe moke!s of the lild.bnndr ~urprilingl often found the Eull-flavour smokers disapproving their habit of smoking these lover delivery products, Other Smokers' Influence' cn!8rmd Choice (Citation) nSmpken rather colmaonly Igrcid that there ii very little discurrioa among friends about various brands, Only vheo somebody o~fer~ a cigarette, then is little discussion about the suitability of that specific brand for himlheraelf, - Other rmokan' opinions have importance to young smokers, If you are 16 yeats old and belong to a specific group, it: is utterly important to be 16 similar as possible, because the group dOesPlt approve anomalies," 22.1.1982 E1ISHc . · v; . .· .. b Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 1(2) S~R SURVEY Carried out November 1980 301 Smokers 1 294 Non-Smokers "9" Smoking has recently been restricted by legislation, What restrictions are you aware off Smokers Non-Smokers X 11 Smokin'g forbidden at public places ' 56 52 2, Cigarette sales forbidden to smokers under 16 yrs, 31 IS 3, Smoking forbidden in buses 35 29 1, Tobacco advertising forbidden 22 23 5, Smoking restricted in working rooms 18 If · 6, Smoking forbidden in waiting rooms 16 16 7, Smoking forbidden in public offices 18 ,113 8, Maximum delivery levels 1 a s, DK 21 23 "9" What is your opinion about these r#trictionsl (eerd: I·Ycry Necessa~ylllCompletely Uone#ssary) 11 Smoking forbidden It public placer 1,17 1,25 2, Cigarette Sales forbidden to smokers under 16 yn, 1124 1,13 3~ Smoking forbidden in buses 1.24 1,10 4, Tobacco edvett'fling forbidden 1,87 1,42 5, Smoking restricted in working rooms 1~80 1,41 6, Smoking forbidden in waiting roams 1,24 1,11 7, Smoking forbidden in public offices 1,30 1,16 8, Haximiua dcliCe'rjl levels ' '` 1,54 1';3t· "9" Have you seen anti-smoking campaigns during the last fwe ycall X 2 · in Television ·' 30 31 · - poster at Ilealth CefirerslPublie Offices 19 20 · In Newspapers 9 10 · In Fagazines 7 7 - Do the Walls Ct Work 13 7 " IDutdoor ' 3 5 -Other · a 4 - DI I Not Seen 46 SO O ,1II a Ct~i 9,: a' Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 "9" Yhst cm you rcne~tr about those cJo~~isnl 1 Smokers NorSlwkrn 2 3 Cilting Course in felevisioP B 10 ·DrngaJ of Smoking 11 9 - Omgacll for pttpant vo~eo 4 6 - klktion "Pleon Don't Smoke n 6 d -DI(INotbinl 54 66 p" IIPV much vould you think rlleae eampaipl hue m effect on people's ati·sa~king opinionll (Clrd: l~verl much I I·Ner st an) Pvenge 3177 3.63 "8" nnd hov much you uould rhinl: they have an effect on slen luLnge ~~19 puestion to the smokers of ~ild brands: "Uhrre did you get inforwrioo that your brsnd exiltll" Total FcmPs · from Advertising (prc-ba) 39 37 41 · Sew in the Shop 32 29 38 · from PriendelAcpullinru~eu 23 29 12 ·Other B 11 3 22,111982 EtlSD .. ' "'' '....':l*iE~ ' · · I ~~· F.~ *n**h·.i L L'L**: k Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 i. Average Awareness I pre Ban 3 months after launch b__no~t~h~ff launch Brands with ops ( IS 1 I brands) 12 \ i 9 brands) 13 \ Brands with DPH ) 15 ( 6 brands) 13 \ ( 8 brands) IS \ 2, Average Awareness I post Ban Dttxincntsd~DPH( 15) (12 brands) 9 I (14 brands) Ii \ veiy Detrlmentall(DPH) 15) ( 3 brands) 16 \ ~( 2 brands~ 29 \ Excl, ARM~ROs DPIS( iS (11 brands) 7 I (13 brands) 9 \ Extl, ~RHIROs DPH) i5 ( 2 brands) Il \ ( I brand ) 13 I Io the p~ hen ~ituat~l~n, there Is no dgnificant dfIferenee betveen the awareness leveli of three months and 6 months after launch, Since Harch 77, 18 brand launches have been made into the mild segment and 5 launches into the full·flavour segment, Bare the awareness data available to us is incomplete and only gives the number of C15~nds as shown in the tabl~~ In the mild segment, the awareness growth from 9 I to II I from 3 to 6 months is well in line with the figures before the ban although the third month is marginally lower here as mil as In the full· flavour segment before ban. Excluding ARHlRO HTtS and ARHIRD nILD nrratlDL, the awareness percentages would be 1 for 3 months and 9 for six monts, In the wry' detrimental Segment, any conclusions are uncertain owing to the slnall number of brand entries and inadequate records, Also the high figures ARHIRO has achieved In this segment make the result analysis difficult, As a conclusion it could be laid that advertising stems to have had I relatively small impact on Be awareness Ievsle as Ithe differences before and after the ban are surprisingly amalle ~urthrrmon, the awareness levels are remarkably low in general, 28,1,82 .,..,: ··;~. ..:* ·~;·H:~~l·I;·l:··l I-11~*·· ·C ) .I·· ~··;·C···ikli\*·· +·4*·i·l··~LiL.* ~1(1·r· · ~L· ·. Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111 DEVELOPBENT OF SPONTANEOUS BRAND AWARENESS AFTER IAUNCI · 1(2) A, BRAND AWARENESS RELATED TO NEW VERSOS SPIN-OFF BRANDS I, Average Awareness a pre Advertising Ban 3 months after launch 6 monthslaft~f_la~ Rva)enesg of new brands (6 brands) If \ ( 7 brands) 15 \ Awareness of spin-offs (6 brands) 10 \ (10 brands) Il \ 2, Average Aw~:ene# I port Advertising Ban Awareness of new brands ( 6 brands) 5 A ( b brands) 9 1 ·Awareness of spin-offs (Ilbrands) 14 I (10 brands) 16 \ (Without ARMIROs ( B brands) 10 I (10 brands] 10 \) Before the advertising ban, genuinely new brands used to achieve an awareness level of 17 \ and IS I after three and six months from launch, respectively, The level is higher than the average for the spln·oIfs desplte.the increase in their awareness up to 6 months, One reason for this may be the fact that new brands were heavily advertised immediately after launch whereby the I~diate impact was st the highest, Depending on the success or the failure re consumer purchase behaviour, the msnufacturers tither continued the brand support or, gradually towards the end of the first year, decreased advertising support for brands not taking off as expected, The set-off brands were often launched with smaller advertising support, and the apparent strategy was to let the newcomer enjoy the goodwill of the parent brand, Not seldom was a whole brand family exposed to consumers in the advertising, Ihe ii no extensions were often milder versions thusznabling ~the mild segment to become established more pulckly than through launches of genuinely new brands only, As expected, the advertising ban made introductions of genuinely new brands mote difficult, This is clearly seen In the awareness figures of new v, spin-off br~nds~ the new ones reached 5 \ and 9 I afid the spin-offs 14 \ and 16 \ after three and 6 months from Lunch, respectively, ~oveve~l the high spindfs figures are much effected by the high awareness level of the ~IMIRO:famlly with 26 \ fox three and 31 \ for 6 months after launch, When excluding these brands ~the ARHIRO family are neither genuine spin-offs nor new brands as the brand had existed on the market in the 50't and CO's)~ this segment would average 10 \ for both three and six months, Even so thC establishment of spin-offs would seem to be quicker than for new brands though the progress levelled off by the sixth month, 8, BRAND AWARENESS RELATED TO DPII DELIVERY I~EVEL Since October 1974, 18 brand introductions had taken place before the ban entered into force in Hatch, 1917, A of them Lre mild brands and 9 full-flavwr brands, .I,.' I~ ·~I i. ·. rc· n*lv ·I· I~··.I·· I I' ~.: ··~..L~Cy. I YC+' ""L("' I·.1 r*···· Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: Dill