Does the Kindly Reminder on the Package of Cigarette Affect the Customer-Buying Cigarette - Research Proposal Example

Research Proposal Topic Does the "kindly reminder" on the package of cigarette affect the buying cigarette? Introduction Social marketing isnot in itself a theory. Instead, social marketing is a framework that includes a variety of bodies of knowledge including sociology, psychology, communications theory, and anthropology to help understand the way to influence the behavior of people (Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). While there are different definitions of social marketing, social marketing can best be defined as “the application of commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning, execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary behaviour of target audiences in order to improve their personal welfare and that of society” (Andreasen, 1995, p. 7). There are eight principles of social marketing namely “customer orientation, insight, segmentation, behavioural goals, exchange, competition, methods mix, and [social marketing] is theory based” (Janssen et al., 2013). Stead et al (2007) found that social marketing can be used to develop an effective framework directed at interventions in behavioral change and can serve as a toolkit that can help organizations change health behaviors. One of the basic principles of social marketing is focus on the audience. Marketing mix cannot be useful until each of its four P’s are designed with the preferences, attitudes, behaviors, and characteristics of the target audience in mind. An example of the significance of perspective of the audience during the intersection of environmental and cultural contexts is provided by Romer et al (2009) who have examined the mass media’s contribution in a campaign for prevention of HIV in sexually active high-risk African American adolescents while addressing misconceptions regarding the use of contraception. The strategy of segmentation, like many marketing interventions, particularly addresses the social desires and norms of cultural subgroup. Literature Review Behavioral change interventions can be classified according to a plethora of frameworks, though none can be considered as conceptually coherent and comprehensive (Michie, Stralen, and West, 2011). For example, the UK’s Institute of Government’s MINDSPACE is a very influential report meant to serve as a checklist to guide policymakers with the most important behavioral influences (Institute for Government, 2010). MINDSPACE is the acronym that represents the initial letters of these influences i.e. “messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitment, and ego” (Michie, Stralen, and West, 2011). However, all important types of intervention are not encompassed by MINDSPACE framework. In addition, the list consists of a combination of delivery modes e.g. stimulus attributes, recipient characteristics, policy strategies, related psychological constructs, and mechanisms of action, which deprives the list of coherence. While MINDSPACE identifies two systems of influence of human behavior i.e. reflective and automatic, its focus is more on automatic systems without adequately linking behavioral influences with the two systems. Packs that are displayed with fewer design elements of branding progressively are considered to be less appealing. People have less positive view of the attributes of smokers of such packs (Germain et al., 2009). Consumers rate packages carrying the terms ‘light’, ‘mild’ or ‘smooth’ as containing cigarettes with less tar and lower risk to health in comparison to the packages carrying ‘regular’ or ‘full-flavor’ labels (Hammond and Parkinson, 2009). Likewise, lighter colored packages and packages carrying picture of a filter are perceived to be less harmful for health than dark colored packages (Hammond and Parkinson, 2009). Smokers’ view of health risk of cigarettes is generally more optimistic than that of non-smokers (Hammond and Parkinson, 2009). Consumers find branded packs more attractive and popular than plain packs (Germain et al., 2009). Plain packs’ smokers are rated as less stylish and mature and cigarettes from plain packs are perceived to be less satisfying and containing tobacco of lower quality (Germain et al., 2009). Branding activities influence consumers’ attitudes toward smoking as well as their intentions to smoke (Grant et al., 2007). Warnings on general packages are more capable of drawing consumers’ attention to health warnings compared to warning on regular packages (Goldberg et al., 1999). Packaging enhances the attractiveness of packaging particularly for youth that contemplates smoking, though the effect is lower for both youth and adults that are regular smokers (Center for Health Promotion, 1993). Recollection of health warnings upon familiar brands are not heightened by generic packaging (Beede et al., 1992). Consumers’ awareness is increased through bigger health warnings that are more elaborative with respect to health risks compared to standard health warnings (Centre for Behavioral Research in Cancer, 1992). Beede and Lawson (1991) found that brand packs cluster into distinct user profile groups whereas there is no association between generic packs and user profiles. Adolescents’ tendency to smoke specific brands is increased by brand promotion. Cigarette package is a compelling product design’s aspect which can attract the attention of smokers in a matter of hours. It was reported in Kool USA (2003) business plan that “on-pack communications” serve as discount coupons for the smokers as well as a strategic and aggressive platform which appeals to the smokers who may otherwise not pay attention to the bar campaigns. Smokers’ choices are reinforced with cigarette packages. Scientific theories, methods, and principles from the fields of social marketing and health communication are often applied for the improvement of public health. Incorporation of verified methods from the cause and commercial marketing contributes to the rigor of this multidisciplinary practice area. “A central tenet of these intervention approaches recognizes that changing complex behaviors starts with multiple levels of influence: addressing barriers in the environment, enabling policies and laws, shifting social norms, and adapting to the context in which people live to support the adoption of new, healthy behaviors” (Daniel, Bernhardt, and Eroglu, 2009). In order for this approach to be successful, it has to be supported with sufficient resources. Placing a kindly reminder on the packaging of cigarettes that speaks about the health risks associated with smoking or emphasizes upon a need to keep the cigarettes out of the reach of children is a contextual change that the manufacturers make in an attempt to make the environment safer. However, in order for these reminders to be effective, it is imperative that the consumers are free from the various environmental and social factors that trigger their desire to smoke. These days, smoking has become more of a fashion than a habit. It is, indeed, hypocritical, that on one hand, media shows documentaries and TV shows targeting cigarettes and projecting them as the cause of a variety of health risks including lungs cancer and on the other hand, famous celebrities and top models can be seen on the covers of popular fashion magazines, newspapers, and on billboards carrying cigarettes in their hands while being photographed. Celebrities and models have an overwhelming effect on common man. People determine the latest trends and culture by following these celebrities and models. The kindly reminders on cigarette packaging will not be effective until smoking is criticized and expelled from fashion at all levels. Social cognitive theory (SCT) describes consumers’ behavior through triadic reciprocality wherein a variety of interpersonal and cognitive factors, behavior, and environmental factors mutually function as each other’s interacting determinants. SCT states that it is not just intrinsic factors that determine consumers’ behaviors, but that an individual is their environment’s product. Observational learning is an environmental variable that is a key concept in SCT (Lefebvre, 2000). Smetters and Gravelle (2001) found that nearly 75 per cent secondary schools show reluctance to the vigorous enforcement of bans on smoking because of a variety of social pressures whereas 10 per cent secondary schools have no bans on smoking at all. School-based regulations for smoking have empirically proven ineffective at reducing smoking amongst the teenagers and instead, have a tendency to increase teenage participation in smoking (Smetters and Gravelle, 2001). In terms of the level of enforcement, teenage smoking participation is seemingly non-monotonic which, as a pattern, was explained by Smetters and Gravelle (2001). Ban on smoking provides the less popular students with an exchange opportunity. They acquire the friendship of existing smokers by executing the risk-taking behavior of smoking. The enforcement serves as a glue that sticks the group together. Most of the research on the effectiveness of social marketing in creating awareness about the health risks of smoking is based on primary studies and systematic reviews using predefined criteria of search and inclusion. Interventions of social marketing have been defined as measures employing adoption of particular principles of social marketing in their development and implementation. Janssen et al (2013) tried to carry out a systematic review to study the effectiveness of interventions in alcohol prevention on the basis of social marketing principles but could not assess the effect of applying the social marketing principles in alcohol prevention in altering the behavior related to alcohol consumption. They advocated the need for further research that attempts to study the effect of applying social marketing principles using randomized control trial and assessment of its short-term, medium, and long-term effects on behavioral change. Conclusion Research shows that ban on teenage smoking, unless vigorous, serves to increase their participation in smoking. This makes quite unlikely for the kindly reminders on cigarette packaging to deter people from smoking. References: Andreasen, A 1995, Marketing Social Change: changing behavior to promote health, social development, and the environment, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Beede, P, and Lawson, RW 1991, Brand Image Attraction: The Promotional Impact of Cigarette Packaging, New Zealand Family Physician, Vol. 18, p. 175. Beede, P et al 1992, The Effects of Plain Packages on the Perception of Cigarette Health Warnings, Public Health, Vol. 106, p. 315. Centre for Behavioral Research in Cancer 1992, Adolescents’ reactions to cigarette packs modified to increase extent and impact of health warnings, In Health Warnings and Contents Labelling on Tobacco Products, Prepared for the Australian Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy Task Force on Tobacco Health Warnings and Contents Labelling, pp. 121-125. Centre for Health Promotion 1993, Effects of Plain Packaging on the Image of Tobacco Products Among Youth, Canadian Cancer Society, [Online] Available at http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2504106502-6535.html [accessed: 7 December 2014]. Daniel, KL, Bernhardt, JM, and Eroglu, D 2009, Social Marketing and Health Communication: From People to Places, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99, No. 12, pp. 2120-2122. Germain, D, Wakefield, M, and Durkin, S 2009, Adolescents’ Perceptions of Cigarette Brand Image: Does Plain Packaging Make a Difference? Journal of Adolescent Health, October: 1-8. Goldberg, M et al 1999, The Effect of Plain Packaging on Response to Health Warnings, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 89, p. 1434. Grant, IC, Hassan, LM, Hastings, GB, MacKintosh, AM, and Eadie, D 2007, The influence of branding on adolescent smoking behavior: exploring the mediating role of image and attitudes, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 275-285. Hammond, D, and Parkinson, C 2009, The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk, Journal of Public Health, July 1-9. Institute for Government 2010, MINDSPACE; Influencing behaviour through public policy, Institute for Government, the Cabinet Office. Janssen, MM et al 2013, Effectiveness of alcohol prevention interventions based on the principles of social marketing: a systematic review, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, Vol. 8, No. 18, doi:10.1186/1747-597X-8-18. Kool USA 2003, Kool Business Review 2003, Market: USA., Bates No. 532370631/0689. [Online] Available at http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/udp27a00/pdf?search=%22kool%20usa%20business %20review%22 [accessed: 7 December 2014]. Kotler, P, Zaltman, G 1971, Social marketing: an approach to planned social change, Journal of Marketing, Vol 35, pp. 3-12. Lefebvre, RC 2000, In PN Bloom & GT Gundlach (Eds.), Handbook of Marketing and Society, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Michie, S, Stralen, MM, and West, R 2011, The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions, Implementation Science, Vol. 6, No. 42, [Online] Available at http://www.implementationscience.com/content/6/1/42 [accessed: 7 December 2014]. Romer, D, Snitzman, S, and DiClemente, R, et al. 2009, Mass media as an HIV-prevention strategy: using culturally sensitive messages to reduce HIV-associated sexual behavior of at-risk African American youths, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 99, No. 12, pp. 2150–2159. Smetters, K, and Gravelle, J 2001, The Exchange Theory of Teenage Smoking and the Counterproductiveness of Moderate Regulation, IDEAS, [Online] Available at https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/8262.html [accessed: 8 December 2014]. Stead, M et al 2007, A systematic review of social marketing effectiveness, Health Education, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp. 126-191. Read More