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! ! ! ! ! GFK Blue Moon (fieldwork agency contracted by DoHA)! 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%

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% shortlist%of% potenFal% plain% packaging% colours%

• Online%study%among%(n=409)%at%least%

weekly%smokers,%aged%18S65%years%

• RaFng%task%used%BestSWorst%

methodology%with%8%pack%colours%

• Smokers%shown%4%pack%images%at%a%

Fme,%%select%best%and%worst%on%each% dimension,%then%repeat%with% different%subset%unFl%all%packs%rated% 13%S%23% Dec%2010%

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%

• pFmal%

combinaFon%of% design%elements% (font%size,%font% colour)%for%legibility% and%ease%of% idenFficaFon% amongst%potenFal% retailers%

• FaceStoSface%

interviews%of%10% respondents%aged%≥40% years%

• The%test%used%

‘eyeboards’%S%boards% with%brand%names%in% decreasing%font%size%

• Also%used%mock%up%

packs%with%brand% names%in%different% font%sizes% 17S21% Dec% 2010%

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% plain% packaging% colours%that% minimise% brand%impact%

• ‘FaceSoff’%between%Dark%

Brown%and%Mustard%

• Online%survey%among%455%

at%least%weekly%smokers% aged%18S64%years%

• BestSWorst%methodology,%

with%5%common%Australian% brand%names%covering%the% three%main%market% segments%

• Used%two%exisFng%health%

warnings% 19%Dec% 2010%–26% Jan%2011%

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% (faceS toS face)% To%idenFfy%the%

• pFmal%plain%

packaging%designs% in%combinaFon%with% the%new%front%of% pack%graphic%health% warnings:% % IdenFfy%exact%shade%

• f%plain%pack%colour%

% IdenFfy%opFmal%new% GHW%size%

• 20%faceStoSface%group%clinics%

involving%a%selfScompleFon% quesFonnaire%and%short%group% discussion%among%193%at%least% weekly%smokers%aged%16S64% years%

• Tested%3%different%shades%of%

brownSolive%background%colour% and%3%different%HW%sizes%

• Used%mockedSup%pack%

protoypes%

• BestSWorst%comparisons,%pack%

raFngs%and%qualitaFve% comments% 14%–% 22%Feb% 2011%

Study 5a: Face-to-Face, new HW size!

Mocked up versions of Dark Brown, Dark Olive (matching

• nline 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% (online)% To%idenFfy%the%opFmal% plain%packaging%designs% in%combinaFon%with%the% new%front%of%pack% GHWs% % IdenFfy%GHW%size%and% placement%to%maximise% noFceability%and%impact%

• Online%survey%among%

409%at%least%weekly% smokers%aged%18S64%

• Used%pack%images%in%

Dark%Olive%colour%for% each%of%2%HWs%–%‘lung% cancer‘%and%‘smoking% harms%unborn%babies’%

• Individual%pack%raFngs%

and%BestSWorst%raFngs% % % 18%–%23% Feb%2011%

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% (online)% To%idenFfy%the%

• pFmal%

plain%packaging% designs% in%combinaFon%with% the% new%front%of%pack% GHWs:% % Rate%the%75%%split% design%against%other%

• pFons%

Online%survey%among% (n=205)%at%least% weekly%smokers%aged% 18S64%years% % As%for%Study%5%online% 18%–%23% March% 2011%%

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 23rd World Cancer Congress

3-6 December 2014