Research to determine the look of Australian plain packs ! Melanie - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Research to determine the look of Australian plain packs ! Melanie Wakefield PhD, Cancer Council Victoria, Australia

Research approach ! Department of Health & Ageing : Simon Cotterell, Kylie Lindorff and other key staff ! Expert Advisory Group ! Prof%Ron%Borland%%% Mr%Jonathan%Liberman% ! Prof%Mike%Daube% Dr%Caroline%Miller% ! Prof%Mark%Davidson% Prof%Andrew%Mitchell% ! A/Prof%David%Hammond%% Prof%Melanie%Wakefield%% Prof%Janet%Hoek% ! GFK Blue Moon (fieldwork agency contracted by DoHA) !

Overview of studies ! Identify one plain packaging design (colour, font) that would minimise appeal and attractiveness, while maximising perceived harm and noticeability of HWs ! A series of iterative studies were conducted to determine: ! • Optimal colour for plain packaging; ! • Optimal font and font size for brand name; ! • Graphic health warning (GHW) size and layout ! (Selection of content of new health warnings subject to their own testing process) !

Study 2: pack colour shortlist ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%2% To%idenFfy%a% • Online%study%among%(n=409)%at%least% 13%S%23% shortlist%of% weekly%smokers,%aged%18S65%years% Dec%2010% potenFal% • RaFng%task%used%BestSWorst% plain% methodology%with%8%pack%colours% packaging% • Smokers%shown%4%pack%images%at%a% colours% Fme,%%select%best%and%worst%on%each% dimension,%then%repeat%with% different%subset%unFl%all%packs%rated%

Study 2 ! Shortlist of potential plain package colours ! • 8 colours tested ! • Darker colours perceived to be more harmful and more difficult to quit ! • Dark brown colour: perceived to be least appealing; the lowest quality cigarette; most harmful to health; hardest to quit !

Study 3: readability test ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%3% To%idenFfy%the% • FaceStoSface% 17S21% opFmal% interviews%of%10% Dec% combinaFon%of% respondents%aged%≥40% 2010% design%elements% years% (font%size,%font% • The%test%used% colour)%for%legibility% ‘eyeboards’%S%boards% and%ease%of% with%brand%names%in% idenFficaFon% decreasing%font%size% amongst%potenFal% • Also%used%mock%up% retailers% packs%with%brand% names%in%different% font%sizes%

Study 3 ! Readability of fonts for potential retailers ! • Test used Dark Brown and Mustard colours from Study 2 ! • Tested smallest font able to be read at 1 metre distance ! • Size 14 Arial or Lucida Sans font style ! • BUT some favourable comments about Dark Brown colour (“chocolate”) and unfavourable about Mustard (“sickly”) when viewed in the flesh ! !

Study 4: online “Face-off” ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%4% To%shortlist% • ‘FaceSoff’%between%Dark% 19%Dec% plain% Brown%and%Mustard% 2010%–26% packaging% • Online%survey%among%455% Jan%2011% colours%that% at%least%weekly%smokers% minimise% aged%18S64%years% brand%impact% • BestSWorst%methodology,% with%5%common%Australian% brand%names%covering%the% three%main%market% segments% • Used%two%exisFng%health% warnings%

Study 4 ! Consumer perceptions of Dark Brown vs Mustard ! • Dark Brown - most reported seeing “Dark Olive” colour on screen ! • Mustard - half reported seeing ‘gold’…viewed as ‘striking’, ‘prestigious’, similar to premium brands B&H, Dunhill ! • Dark Brown colour - rated as less appealing, most harm, lower quality, want to smoke them less, with similar results across all 5 brands tested ! • Noticeability of GHWs: darker colour did not detract from noticeability of GHW !

Study 5a: face-to-face, new HW size ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%5% To%idenFfy%the% • 20%faceStoSface%group%clinics% 14%–% (faceS opFmal%plain% involving%a%selfScompleFon% 22%Feb% toS packaging%designs% quesFonnaire%and%short%group% 2011% face)% in%combinaFon%with% discussion%among%193%at%least% the%new%front%of% weekly%smokers%aged%16S64% pack%graphic%health% years% warnings:% • Tested%3%different%shades%of% % brownSolive%background%colour% IdenFfy%exact%shade% and%3%different%HW%sizes% of%plain%pack%colour% • Used%mockedSup%pack% % protoypes% IdenFfy%opFmal%new% • BestSWorst%comparisons,%pack% GHW%size% raFngs%and%qualitaFve% comments%

Study 5a: Face-to-Face, new HW size ! Mocked up versions of Dark Brown, Dark Olive (matching online perception), and Medium Olive with 30%, 60% or 75% GHW ! • All three colours perceived as unappealing; Dark Olive more so ! • Dark Olive had no positive associations: “death”, “dirty”, “tar” ! • Dark Brown some positive associations: “classy”, “rich”, “chocolate”, “upmarket” ! • 75% GHW had significantly stronger impact than 30% !

Study 5b: online, new HWs placement ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%5% To%idenFfy%the%opFmal% • Online%survey%among% 18%–%23% (online)% plain%packaging%designs% 409%at%least%weekly% Feb%2011% in%combinaFon%with%the% smokers%aged%18S64% new%front%of%pack% • Used%pack%images%in% GHWs% Dark%Olive%colour%for% % each%of%2%HWs%–%‘lung% IdenFfy%GHW%size%and% cancer‘%and%‘smoking% placement%to%maximise% harms%unborn%babies’% noFceability%and%impact% • Individual%pack%raFngs% and%BestSWorst%raFngs% % %

Study 5b: Online ! Identify GHW size and layout to maximise noticeability and impact ! • 4 packs using the Dark Olive colour for 2 HWs ! • 30%, 60%, 75% and split 60% ! • 75% had highest noticeability and strongest “stop and think” impact ! • Split 60% warning no better than 30% !

Study 6 ! Study& Objec,ves& Methodology& Timing& Study%6% To%idenFfy%the% Online%survey%among% 18%–%23% (online)% opFmal% (n=205)%at%least% March% plain%packaging% weekly%smokers%aged% 2011%% designs% 18S64%years% in%combinaFon%with% % the% As%for%Study%5%online% new%front%of%pack% GHWs:% % Rate%the%75%%split% design%against%other% opFons%

Study 6: Online ! Compare 75% to split 75% GHW ! • Non-split 75% GHW was more noticeable and had highest impact !

Australian plain packs ! • Dark Olive colour ! • Brand name 14 point Lucida Sans font ! • 75% non-split GHW ! ! ! ! ! Full report (and report on testing of other tobacco products) at: ! http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/ mr-plainpack !

Lessons learned ! • Best-Worst methodology was highly efficient, enabling multiple pack colours or pack HW configurations to be tested on several key outcome variables ! • Studies were progressively designed, to check previous results and advance knowledge on the next research issue ! • Colours can appear different on screen vs in person! ! • Online method of pack comparisons provided very quick turnaround in a tight time frame; important to also do some face-to-face testing to confirm ! http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-plainpack !

MELBOURNE WELCOMES 23 rd World Cancer Congress 3-6 December 2014