10.8 Trends in products and packaging

RYO pouches in increasingly small sizes have also emerged on the Australian and UK markets—see also Chapter 10, Section 10.9.5.1. Pouches as small as 8 grams (also 9, 10, 12.5, 20, and 25 grams) have been available for sale in the UK. In Australia, traditionally most RYO tobacco pouches were available in 30 gram pouches or larger, with 50 grams the most common RYO pouch size. Since approximately 2013, an increasing number of brands have offered RYO products with increasingly low up-front purchase prices, first 25 gram pouches, then 20 grams introduced in 2015; 27 gram pouches are also available.¹² Online Australian retailers also offer 10 gram ‘sampler’ pouches of flavoured tobacco.¹¹ One RYO brand has also used the variant name to imply value for money: JPS RYO products are available in Eternal Red, Endless Blue, and Abundant Gold—conveying a sense of plentiful numbers of cigarettes that can be made from the tobacco in each pouch—while JPS factory-made cigarettes are available in the more simple variants Red, Blue, and Gold. 

Larger pack and pouch sizes

Australia’s unusual tobacco tax system, amended in 1999, resulted in increasing large factory-made cigarette pack sizes being available on the market: first 25s, then 30s, 35s, 40s, and 50s—see Chapter 13, Section 13.3 for more information. Larger cigarette pack sizes typically offer better value per stick than smaller packs, even for premium brands. Most Australian brands offer packs in at least two sizes, although budget brands typically have a larger range, such as 20s, 25s, 30s and 40s and/or 50s. Since approximately 2015, an increasing number of mainstream (mid-priced) and premium brands have also offered a larger range of pack sizes, including Benson & Hedges 30s in 2015¹² and Winfield 40s and Peter Jackson 40s, seen in supermarkets in 2017.
As noted above, RYO pouches in Australia have typically been available in 50 grams, with a trend toward smaller pouches becoming evident since 2013. In contrast, larger pouch sizes were introduced in the UK around 2010.⁴ Consumers generally perceive that larger pack sizes offer a discounted per unit price compared to smaller packs from the same product,⁴ but this is not necessarily the case for RYO products in Australia. For example, the 2017 per gram recommended retail price of Port Royal 25 gram and 50 gram pouches was $1.33 and $1.32, respectively¹³—a discount of $0.25 compared to buying two 25 gram pouches. 

Pack designs which communicate value

Simply packaged, ‘no frills’ or home-brand style cigarette brands were introduced to the Australian market in 2006 with the brand Choice (Philip Morris). Following a large increase in excise duty in April 2010, and shortly before implementation of plain packaging implementation in 2012, a range of other budget, no frills brands were introduced, including Bond Street (Philip Morris) and Just Smokes (BATA)¹⁴—see Figure 10.8.2. Additional heavily discounted, simply packaged brands including Deal and Easy, were imported by Richland Express exclusively for the national supermarket chain Coles as a ‘home brand’.¹⁵

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection 

Revamping packaging of brands traditionally seen as 'value'

In contrast to using simple pack designs to communicate value in relatively new products, the packaging of well-established value brands may be revamped periodically. Pack redesigns can provide a sense of innovation, that the brand is ‘modern and fresh’.⁴ In the UK, examples include redesign of Gallaher's Mayfair brand and British American Tobacco's Royals and Windsor Blue with a new silver logo in January 2006.

A series of retail trade advertisements in 1997, 2004, and 2008 promoted packaging redesigns for the popular Australian value brand Horizon.^16-18 Each advertisement featured a reassurance message that only the packaging was changing, not the product or flavour, e.g. “Remember, while our pack design may be changing, Horizon cigarettes remain the SAME GREAT QUALITY SMOKE!”.¹⁷ The 2004 advert highlighted the benefit of the packaging changes for retailers—“much easier to identify”—while the 2008 redesign was more comprehensive, including the “striking” pack, “sleek” stick, and “fresh” foil.¹⁸ Shortly before plain packaging implementation in 2012, Horizon packs underwent another packaging revamp—see Figure 10.8.3.

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection  

In 2007, the brand extension Holiday Slims was completely rebranded within a different brand family: Pall Mall Slims. Both Holiday and Pall Mall are British American Tobacco Australia value brands. The new Pall Mall Slims had a highly feminine pack design. Prior to the transition, Holiday Slims packs were printed with a banner to communicate the upcoming change to consumers. Retail trade promotional material noted that: 

Price-marking (printing the price on the brand) to imply a 'special' low price

Price-marked packs, where the retail price is printed on the pack itself (Figure 10.8.4) is a price-promotion strategy that has successfully increased sales in the UK.⁴ Price-marked packs imply a special or discounted price, even though the marked price may simply be the recommended retail price. A study of tobacco retailers in England found some retailers reported lower profits from price-marked packs.¹⁹ In addition to conveying price information to consumers, price marking has the effect of setting a consistent retail price, sometimes being referred to by retailers as “price-locked” packs.¹⁹

Price-marking has not been observed in Australia, but in the UK it has included Basic Superkings in 2005, John Player Specials and King Edward Coronets in 2006 and Golden Virginia smoking tobacco in 2008.⁵ Price-marked packs are prohibited in the UK’s plain packaging legislation. 

Source: Ford, 2012.⁴

10.8.1.2 Conveying quality, sophistication, and innovation through the pack

Image-based packaging

Image-based packaging refers to the graphical (colours, fonts, logos and other visual elements) and structural elements (packaging materials, pack shape), and can include design elements aimed at appealing to specific segments of the market, in particular younger and female smokers (see below). Image-based packaging confers product attributes to consumers, reinforces brand imagery and associations, and attracts new consumers.⁴  

Tobacco companies in both the UK and Australia redesigned the livery of many brands between 2004 and 2010. Moodie and Hastings have compiled extensive materials highlighting changes in brands documented in the British advertising trade press over that period.⁵ More recent image-based packaging redesigns include Gallahar’s 'tweaking' of the design of Benson & Hedges Gold and Silver in the UK (reported in The Grocer in January 2009). The redesigned brands featured a modernised typeface and logo, and the brand’s red seal was replaced with a new triangle design.⁵ In Australia, subtle changes to cigarette packs and trademarks were also observed on Benson & Hedges packs as early as 2002.²⁰ When researchers called the company to enquire about the changes, an employee said they were “playing with the logo because we can't do any advertising any more”.²⁰

One of the most striking examples of image-based package redesign is that of Dunhill. In June 2005 in the UK, The Grocer magazine reported that a new Dunhill logo had been created and that the royal coat of arms had been simplified and reduced in size.²¹ According to the article, Dunhill’s rebranding included a new look and taste aimed at 20–35 year old smokers. The packaging was designed to give a modern aspirational image.^5, 21

British American Tobacco Australia has also experimented extensively with packaging for Dunhill, particularly since 2006 (at which time graphic health warnings taking up 30% of the front and 90% of the back of the pack were introduced in Australia). Over the years, conservative packaging for Dunhill was replaced with a slick, contemporary metallic range of packs with bevelled similar to the appearance of modern consumer goods such as iPods—see Figure 10.8.5.

Source: Simon Chapman collection and Quit Victoria pack collection

Packaging to target young and female smokers

While young smokers are particularly price sensitive, they are also often attracted to more sophisticated, mature, or innovative packaging designs.⁴ Products that aim to target youth may therefore include premium brands available in smaller pack sizes, providing a lower upfront price point. Packaging aimed at females often include long slender packs (including so-called lipstick packs), with pale colours and ‘clean lines’.⁴ Several brands sold in Australia have clearly been designed to appeal to young women—tall, slim packets of Vogue Superslims and Dunhill Essence by British American Tobacco, and Davidoff with its elegantly bevelled edge sold by Imperial Tobacco being notable examples.

Other brands would seem to appeal to an even younger female market. Trojan Tobacco Company's DJ Mix Special Feel Strawberry (pictured in Figure 10.8.6, bottom right), Lemon Fresh and Ice Green Apple appeared in the Australian Retail Tobacconist price lists between August 2005 and January 2012. Peel Menthol Orange flavoured cigarettes (top left) appeared between August 2005 and January 2009. Sobranie brightly coloured novelty cocktail cigarettes (each cigarette a different colour) appeared on price lists in February 2007 and was still listed in July 2012.²² Red Fortune Bamboo manufactured by Imperial Tobacco with its 'Asian chic' package design was introduced early in 2011.²³

10.8.1.3 Innovative or novel packaging

Related to image-based packaging, innovative packaging is a widely-used marketing strategy, particularly to target young smokers. As cited by Ford, Moodie and Hastings: 

Moodie and Hasting⁵ and Ford, Moodie and Hastings⁷ outline numerous innovations in packaging design:

• Novel ways of opening the pack
• Novel shaped and sized packs
• Novel pack materials
• Themed packs to encourage collection of sets (also limited edition packaging).

Novel ways of opening the pack

The British trade magazine Convenience Store reported in 2006 that Benson & Hedges had introduced a silver pack that slid open horizontally to replace the conventional flip top box, to which manufacturer Gallahar later attributed a 46.5% increase in sales of that brand.⁷ In the same month, The Forecourt Trader reported that Golden Virginia smoking tobacco had been launched in 14 gram cigarette-style packs, each containing two individually wrapped blocks of tobacco.²⁴ The design allowed the box to hold rolling papers, filter tips and a lighter once one of the blocks was removed. In Canada, slide or push packs—see Figure 10.8.7—have been available, where the inner component of the pack containing the cigarettes is covered by an outer sleeve containing the brand, tax stamp, and health warning information. Design elements and consumer messages can be printed on the available inner surface. 

Source: Tilson, M, Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Canada 2017

British American Tobacco Australia introduced Dunhill split-packs in Australia in October 2006.²⁵ The pack could be split along a perforated line to create two mini packs, easily shared between two smokers perhaps unable to afford a full pack (Figure 10.8.8). Once split, one of the two packs did not bear the mandatory graphic health warning. BATA was forced to remove the packets from the market when it was found to be in breach of tobacco product labelling laws.²⁶ It also marketed a range with spring-loaded lids with internal pop-ups as well as double-sided cases.

Source: ASH Australia, 2006

Novel shaped and sized packs

A study by Borland, Savvas, Sharkie and Moore conducted in Australia in 2011²⁷ found standard packs were ranked significantly less attractive and of lower quality than bevelled and rounded packs. Standard packs were less distracting to health warnings and pack openings affected perceptions of quality of cigarettes and extent of distraction from warnings. The standard flip-top was rated significantly lower in distracting from warnings than all other openings.

The UK trade magazine Convenience Store reported in March 2007 that British brand Silk Cut Graphite would be sold in a pack with a silver bevel edge designed to give a masculine appeal. Then The Grocer reported that, in November 2008, Silk Cut introduced a limited edition pack in a hexagonal shape.⁵ Later Silk Cut was released in textured packaging as a 'touch' pack (Off Licence News 2010 cited in Ford, Hastings and Moodie⁷). 

Novel pack materials

Novel pack materials seen in the UK and Australia have typically been reusable tins. Convenience Store reported in September 2006 that Amber Leaf tobacco would be available in the UK in retro-style tins. Special edition Lambert & Butler tobacco has also been sold in tins.⁵

In February 2006, one month prior to the adoption of picture-based warnings on tobacco packages in Australia, Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes were being sold in 'trendy retro-style tins' which, unlike soft packets of cigarettes with on-pack printed warnings, had health warning stickers that were easily peeled off²⁸ (Figure 10.8.9). Retailers reported that the tins were very popular with younger smokers. Similar ‘vintage’ tins were offered for Imperial Tobacco’s Champion Legendary Ruby tobacco—see for example Figure 10.8.10.

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection 

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection 

Limited edition series and themed packs

Limited edition packaging utilised image-based and innovative packaging strategies. These might coincide with particular events, seasons, or holidays, or the introduction of a new product range, or may be a means of attracting consumer attention or offering a collectable product.⁴   

Examples of limited edition and themed packaging in the UK include images of motor car racing on packs of Marlboro in 2005,⁷ Camel Art packs featured an eye-catching art-deco design attempting to emphasise the style and quality of the brand in 2006, a series of 'Cityscapes' themed designs on Sovereign packs in 2009,²⁹ and a special edition Lambert & Butler holographic pack to mark 10 years as one of the leading cigarette brands in the UK.³⁰ In January 2009, The Forecourt Trader reported that Golden Virginia smoking tobacco was being sold in a series of limited-edition 14 gram packs featuring eight different leaf designs.²⁴

Limited edition packs have also been sold in Australia. The leading brand Winfield experimented with limited edition packs in Australia with its 'blokey' (masculine) series in 2004, then again with its summer series in 2010 (Figures 10.8.11a-b). Another BATA brand, Dunhill, also experimented with limited edition series over the 2000s. Figure 10.8.12 shows a retail trade advertisement promoting the Dunhill Signature limited edition range, to celebrate the brand’s 100th anniversary. The advertisement notes the “sleek and ultra-modern” pack design, promising retailers increased sales, and highlighting the limited availability of the packs. 

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection 

 

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection 

In India in 2012, Imperial Tobacco Company introduced collector packs for the Flake brand featuring artwork by prominent artist Paresh Maity.³¹

 

10.8.1.4 ‘Green’ or environmentally-friendly packaging

Ford, Moodie, and Hastings⁷ document a number of cases of sustainable packaging in the UK, for instance use of rolling tobacco papers from plantation forests. In the UK, Rizla rolling papers are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), with the scheme's logo marked on packaging. In Australia, a range of natural-sounding rolling tobacco accessories are available, including filters and rolling papers labelled as ‘unbleached’ or ‘raw’, or made from cotton or hemp. A striking example of environmentally-friendly packaging comes from Canada, where Players True Special Blend cigarettes are packaged in an unbleached cardboard pack, with the cigarettes wrapped in “100% recyclable paper”. Figure 10.8.14 also shows that the pack is labelled “100% additive-free tobacco”, further tapping into a trend toward natural-sounding tobacco products—see Section 10.8.1.4. Efforts by tobacco companies to promote environmentally-friendly packaging have been labelled as ‘greenwashing’, where companies attempt to create positive environmental associations with their products to distract or atone for other ‘controversies’.³²   

10.8.2 Using the pack to distract from consumer information

Packaging design can distract from consumer information in at least two ways: first by communicating misleading messages about the relative harms of products, and secondly by distracting from health warnings.

10.8.2.1 Packaging that conveys varying levels of harm

The descriptive terms 'light' and 'mild' were removed from packs in Australia in 2005 following settlement of legal action concerning misleading advertising by tobacco companies initiated by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission—see Chapter 16, Section 16.2.1. The industry responded by developing colour-coded packages with new terms. Variant ranges within cigarette brands had long been distinguishable by pack colour, with lighter colours typically representing lower tar cigarettes and green representing menthol. However, with the removal of light and mild descriptors and tar milligram numbers, tobacco companies replaced the banned components of the variant name with coloured labels, reinforcing the already established association between colour and taste or strength,^33-35 and perceptions that some cigarettes are less harmful than others.³⁶ For example, Winfield Filter 16mg became Winfield Red, Winfield Extra Mild 12mg became Winfield Blue (see Figure 10.8.15), and Winfield 2mg became Winfield White. With many different cigarette offerings in the market, pack colour provides a “simple yet familiar cue for consumers to visually differentiate between the enormous range [of products]”.^14 (p.e70)

Other (mostly premium) brands—while still utilising strength-associated colouring on the pack—replaced light and mild descriptors with adjective-based variant names.³⁷ For example, Benson & Hedges Classic replaced Special Filter 16mg; Benson & Hedges Subtle replaced Lights 6mg; and Benson & Hedges Fine replaced Ultra Mild 4mg. Philip Morris’ Longbeach also used a combination of visual pack colour, incorporated into the brand’s beach imagery—see Figure 10.8.16—and adjective descriptors across the variant range. Design elements appearing on the pack can also be varied to communicate differing levels of strength (or harm). For example, in South Korea, the iconic Marlboro ‘rooftop’ design has been observed to be larger on packs with higher tar yields.³⁶

Figure 10.8.17 (see below) also shows that Philip Morris’s Peter Jackson incorporated the pre-plain packaging pack colour into the variant name post-plain packaging, so that Peter Jackson Original became Original Blue. This has been common practice for many brands.^8,14

10.8.2.2 Packaging that overshadows or camouflages health warnings

International packaging manufacturers and designers remained optimistic about opportunities to increase the appeal of cigarette packs despite the intrusive health warnings introduced in many countries from the early 2000s—see Chapter 12A1 Health warnings, Section 12A1.2.

In January 2006, packaging consultant Christian Rommel wrote in the World Tobacco magazine of several possible approaches to dealing with the “eyesore that is the death notice”... “First, to ignore it, second to conceal it, third, to caricature it.” With regard to the first option, he writes:

With regard to the second option Rommel describes concealing the pack through “labels or carton covers in the necessary size, colour format and design” or by offering for sale refillable “plastic, aluminium or leather cigarettes cases for an extra charge.”38 p17

Regarding the third option—caricature—Rommel states:

Rommel's proposed solution to the problem of the health warnings is to “actively engage with its limitations”.

• Brand name written on the stick (usually in the brand font)
• Variant name or other product descriptor written on the stick (e.g. light)
• Brand logo or other brand images printed on the stick
• Colour and design elements from the pack printed on the stick
• Flavour capsule symbols printed on the filter, indicating where the filter should be squeezed to release the flavour—see section 10.8.4.1.

The advertisement also highlighted increased profitability due to the higher recommended retail price of the Charcoal Filter range relative to regular Winfield cigarettes. 

Tobacco industry trade magazines have noted the recent global rise in the market for specialty filters in the context of increasing packaging and promotion restrictions: 

In 2015, British American Tobacco Australia and Philip Morris Australia began replacing their regular products offerings within many major brands with specialty filters. For example, the iconic brand Winfield introduced Winfield + Taste Flow Filter. These were not a brand extension—all regular Winfield products were phased out and replaced with the Taste Flow Filter range. Similar changes were made to the popular brands Alpine, Benson & Hedges, Dunhill, Longbeach, Peter Jackson, and Rothmans.¹¹ Two types of filters have been introduced: recessed filters (labelled as Taste Flow Filter) and firm filters (labelled as Firmer Feel Filters or Firm Filter). In cigarettes with recessed filters, the filter tow is set back several millimetres, reportedly to provide “a different look” and “…create a smoother taste and shift the staining observed on the cigarette mouth end away from the consumer.”^{56 (p74)}

Firm filters have the same appearance as regular filters but are much denser. According to a Philip Morris executive the UK, where the firm filters were launched on redesigned Marlboro packs in 2015, “firmer filters…offer quality you can feel, and a cleaner way to stub out your cigarettes”.⁶⁸   

A wide range of types of filters for rolling tobacco are also available. Australian retail trade magazines list product ranges from tobacco accessory suppliers including slim, ultra slim, and micro slim, charcoal, and charcoal slim.⁶⁹

10.8.8 Product and packaging responses to plain packaging legislation: pre- and immediately post- implementation

Following the Australian government’s 2010 announcement of its intention to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products, numerous changes to the packaging and naming of tobacco products were observed. Other than reassurance messages, these responses continued in the months after plain packaging was implemented in December 2012. Reassurance messages were observed on the packs from several major brands, including banners on packs and pack inserts assuring consumers that despite the impending change in packaging, the taste and/or quality of their product would be unchanged—see Chapter 11, Section 11.10.10 for examples. 

10.8.8.1 New brands, pack sizes, and brand extensions introduced prior to implementation of plain packaging

Many of the packaging and product trends described above were observed in high concentration in the period between the plain packaging announcement and implementation, particularly those aimed to convey value through the pack (Section 10.8.1). Where only one product had been available with ‘bonus’ cigarettes (Holiday 22s), these were increasingly introduced on predominantly budget brands. Similarly, many budget brands in very simple packaging were introduced during this period, including at least one super-value brand from each of the major three tobacco companies operating in Australia. These simple or ‘plain’ pack designs may have been predicted to fare better than many current brands after the transition to plain packaging—see Figure 10.8.2. Philip Morris introduced the exclusively named but very simply packaged Bond Street (an existing brand available for many years outside Australia) in a novel 26s pack size in February 2012. This provided an extra cigarette compared to the usual 25s and (being quite plain) was of a design that would have to change less dramatically than that of many other brightly coloured brands. British American Tobacco Australia's less elegant but 'to the point' Just Smokes was introduced in May 2012 priced well below almost every other brand on the market.⁸

Instead of introducing a new brand to the market, Imperial Tobacco continued to expand the range of products offered within the super-value JPS brand family. In 2009, the long-established John Player Special brand was re-badged as JPS in 2009 and sold only in packs of 25s. JPS Superkings 20s—extra-long cigarettes—were also introduced in early 2012. Several months later, the JPS product range expanded to include regular 20s and 25s, JPS Superkings 20s, and JPS Nano 20s,each available in several variants—see Figure 10.8.28. Figure 10.8.27 also shows that these Nano cigarettes were much smaller—both slimmer and shorter—than regular cigarettes, with technologically advanced-looking packaging to match the Nano name (invoking the then-popular iPod Nano device). A further sub-brand, JPS Duo, was noted from November 2012. This menthol capsule product just one month before the last date on which branded packages could be sold in Australia. Shortly after plain packaging implementation, a further brand extension JPS Ice was also introduced. 

Source: Quit Victoria pack collection

Beyond the budget segment of the market, changes to the product offerings of several mainstream and premium brands were observed. These included additional menthol capsule products, extra-long cigarettes, and brand extensions with long, evocative product names (e.g. Peter Stuyvesant New York Blend, Marlboro Silver Fine Scent).⁸   

10.8.8.2 Changes to product and variant names

With the removal of colours and other design elements from cigarette packs, tobacco companies instead used the product name to convey product information and associations. For example, Peter Jackson Hybrid branded packs featured an image of a capsule with the instructions “Squeeze filter to convert from regular to fresh”, and the variant name Rich Dual Flavour, with the colour blue featuring in these design elements. After plain packaging, these same cigarettes were labelled with the instructive variant Blue Regular to Fresh—see Figure 10.8.24c above. Philip Morris also altered the naming of Marlboro varieties following plain packaging. The variant name (e.g. Red, Gold), was incorporated into the brand name, so that instead of ‘Red’ appearing as the variant name in smaller text under the brand name, ‘Marlboro Red’ appeared in the larger brand font in a single line.⁸

As discussed in Section 10.8.2.1, cigarette variants (or ‘strengths’) have long-established associations with packaging colours. Following plain packaging, cigarette brands that used descriptive variant names (e.g. Dunhill Distinct, Dunhill Premier) incorporated the earlier pack colour into these variant names (Dunhill Distinct Blue, Dunhill Premier Red). Conversely, brands that did not have descriptive words in the pack, but may have relied on pack imagery and other design characteristics to convey positive brand associations, expanded their variant names. For example, Pall Mall Blue became Pall Mall Rich Blue, Holiday Gold became Holiday Sun Gold. Ahead of these changes, British American Tobacco Australia provided an information sheet to retailers describing the upcoming name changes to its products. This included the statement “new descriptors—the way your customers ask for it”. 

These changes occurred despite the tobacco industry’s arguments that plain packaging would severely impede their ability to introduce and differentiate their products. Greenland observed that plain packaging presented no such restriction in the Australian market, having documented extensive and innovative changes to cigarette product offerings in the years immediately following plain packaging implementation.^70,71   

References

1. Slade J. The pack as advertisement. Tobacco Control, 1997; 6(3):169-70. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/6/3/169.pdf

2. Wakefield M, Morley C, and Horan J. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11(suppl. 1):i73-80. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/11/suppl_1/i73.pdf

3. Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference:  young adult smokers' accounts of cigarette brands and package design. Tobacco Control, 2008; 17:118-22. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18303087

4. Ford A. The packaging of tobacco products. Stirling: Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling, 2012. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common/@nre/@new/@pre/documents/generalcontent/cr_086687.pdf.

5. Moodie C and Hastings GB. Making the pack the hero, tobacco industry response to marketing restrictions in the UK: findings from a long-term audit. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 2009; 9(1):24-38. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2116132350656k6/

6. Moodie C and Hastings G. Tobacco packaging as promotion. Tobacco Control, 2010; 19(2):168-70. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/2/168.short

7. Ford A, Moodie C, and Hastings G. The role of packaging for consumer products: understanding the move towards ‘plain’ tobacco packaging. Addiction Research and Theory, 2012; 20(4):339-47. Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/16066359.2011.632700

8. Scollo M, Occleston J, Bayly M, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(e1):e116-22. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/04/30/tobaccocontrol-2013-051509.short

9. O'Leary C. Extra cigarette promo panned. The West Australian, 2013. Last update: Viewed 10/10/16. Available from: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/17966607/extra-cigarette-promo-panned/#page1  

10. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/tobacco-giant-shrinking-size-of-some-cigarette-packs-as-smokers-to-be-hit-with-another-tax-rise/news-story/535e6f0188faad2317a570620e6b7b26. 

11. Scollo M, Bayly M, White S, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments in the Australian post-plain packaging market to 2017. Tobacco Control, 2017; IN PRESS. 

12. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2015; 95(Jul-Aug). 

13. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2017; 101(Jan-Mar). 

14. Greenland SJ. Cigarette brand variant portfolio strategy and the use of colour in a darkening market. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24:e65-e71. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/e1/e65

15. Squires R. Coles importing cheap cigarettes from Germany and selling them at discount prices. The Sunday Telegraph, 2010; 18 Jul. Available from: http://www.news.com.au/business/coles-importing-cheap-cigarettes-from-germany-and-selling-them-at-discount-prices/story-e6frfm1i-1225893467835

16. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Imperial Tobacco front page advertisement: "New look same taste". Australian Retail Tobacconist, 1997; 57(5):1. 

17. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Imperical Tobacco front cover advertisement: "the dawn of a new look horizon". Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2004; 64(6):1. 

18. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Imperial Tobacco advertisement: "Same great taste". Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2008; 70(3):3. 

19. Hitchman SC, Calder R, Rooke C, and McNeill A. Small Retailers’ Tobacco Sales and Profit Margins in Two Disadvantaged Areas of England. AIMS Public Health, 2016; 3(1):110-5. 

20. Wakefield M and Letcher T. My pack is cuter than your pack. Tobacco Control, 2002; 11:154-6. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/154

21. Dunhill gets smoother. The Grocer, 2005; 18 Jun. Available from: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/dunhill-gets-smoother/102820.articlehttp://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2726/Still_burning_bright.html

22. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2012; 84(no. 6 May-July):1-2. 

23. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2011; 80(no. 1 Feb-Mar-Apr):1-2. 

24. Still burning bright. The Forecourt Trader, 2009; January:52. Available from: http://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2726/Still_burning_bright.html

25. Chapman S. Australia: British American Tobacco 'addresses' youth smoking. Tobacco Control, 2007; 16(1):2-a-3. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/16/1/2-a

26. Anon. Cigarette split pack defeated. The Daily Telegraph, 2006; 18 Nov. Available from: http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/ha/default.aspx

27. Borland R, Savvas S, Sharkie F, and Moore K. The impact of structural packaging design on young adult smokers' perceptions of tobacco products. Tobacco Control, 2012. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/12/12/tobaccocontrol-2011-050078.abstract  

28. Swanson MG. Australia: health warnings canned. Tobacco Control, 2006; 15(3):151. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/15/3/151?rss=1

29. Gantry shake up. The Forecourt Trader, 2006; 2 May:52. Available from: http://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/1254/Gantry_shake_up.html

30. In brief. Off License News, 2008; 2 May. Available from: http://www.offlicencenews.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/8438/In_brief.html

31. Dutt IA. Paresh Maity designs for ITC, upsets anti-smoking lobby. Business Standard, 2012; Aug 30. Available from: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/paresh-maity-designs-for-itc-upsets-anti-smoking-lobby/484871  

32. Haché T. News analysis: CANADA: BAT'S “GREENWASH”. Tobacco Control, 2009; 18(4):252-5. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/18/4/252.full.pdf

33. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, and Cummings K. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the US. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011; 40(6):674–82. Available from: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2811%2900166-8/fulltext

34. Bansal-Travers M, O'Connor R, Fix B, and Cummings K. What do cigarette pack colors communicate to smokers in the US? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2011; 40(6):683–9. Available from: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2811%2900161-9/fulltext

35. Lempert L and Glantz S. Packaging colour research by tobacco companies: the pack as a product characteristic. Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2016/06/02/tobaccocontrol-2015-052656.abstract

36. Dewhirst T. Into the black: Marlboro brand architecture, packaging and marketing communication of relative harm. Tobacco Control, 2017. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/early/2017/04/20/tobaccocontrol-2016-053547.full.pdf

37. King B and Borland R. What was 'light' and 'mild' is now 'smooth' and 'fine': new labelling of Australian cigarettes. Tobacco Control, 2005; 14(3):214–5. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/3/214

38. Rommel C. The final warnings. World Tobacco, 2006; (203):2. 

39. British American Tobacco Australia. Strengthening our sustainability approach: Australian Packaging Covenant Annual Report 2015. Sydney, Australia: BATA, 2016. Available from: http://www.bata.com.au/group/sites/bat_9rnflh.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO9RNMR2/$FILE/medMDAD785Y.pdf?openelement.

40. Smith KC, Washington C, Welding K, Kroart L, Osho A, et al. Cigarette stick as valuable communicative real estate: a content analysis of cigarettes from 14 low-income and middle-income countries. Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27534777

41. O’Connor RJ, Bansal-Travers M, Cummings KM, Hammond D, Thrasher JF, et al. Filter presence and tipping paper color influence consumer perceptions of cigarettes. BMC Public Health, 2015; 15(1):1279. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2643-z

42. Ahijevych K and Garrett B. Menthol pharmacology and its potential impact on cigarette smoking behavior. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2004; 6(suppl.1):i17-28. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14982706

43. Robinson J. Man slapped with £575 fine for dropping cigarette end outside place of work. Lancashire Telegraph, 2015. Available from: http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/11775586.Man_slapped_with___575_fine_for_dropping_cigarette_end_outside_place_of_work/

44. Moodie C, Ford A, Dobbie F, Thrasher J, McKell J, et al. The power of product innovation: Smokers’ perceptions of capsule cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2017; Online first: 30 August 2017. Available from: https://academic-oup-com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/ntr/article/doi/10.1093/ntr/ntx195/4098286/The-power-of-product-innovation-Smokers

45. Thrasher JF, Abad-Vivero EN, Moodie C, O'Connor RJ, Hammond D, et al. Cigarette brands with flavour capsules in the filter: trends in use and brand perceptions among smokers in the USA, Mexico and Australia, 2012-2014. Tobacco Control, 2015. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25918129

46. Rossel S. Fit to burst.  2017. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/2017/01/fit-to-burst/.

47. Thrasher JF, Islam F, Barnoya J, Mejia R, Valenzuela MT, et al. Market share for flavour capsule cigarettes is quickly growing, especially in Latin America. Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27329114

48. White V and Williams T. Australian secondary school students' use of tobacco in 2014. Melbourne: Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, 2015. Available from: http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/Publishing.nsf/content/school11.

49. Schwartz R, Chaiton M, Borland T, and Diemert L. Tobacco industry tactics in preparing for menthol ban. Tobacco Control, 2017. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/early/2017/09/08/tobaccocontrol-2017-053910.full.pdf

50. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2016; 99(Jul-Sep). 

51. http://www.beefysbongs.com.au/rolling-papers/flavoured-papers/. 

52. McDaniel PA and Malone RE. 'I always thought they were all pure tobacco': American smokers' perceptions of 'natural' cigarettes and tobacco industry advertising strategies. Tobacco Control, 2007; 16(6):e7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/6/e7

53. Am Trading. Corporate website. Akwesasne, New York: Amtrading, 2008. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.amtrading.us/main.html.

54. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company. Corporate website. Winston-Salem, North Carolina: Reynolds American Inc, 2008. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.nascigs.com/.

55. Koch W. Eco-friendly cigarette ads make tobacco foes fume. USA Today, 2011; 26 Jul. Available from: http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/2011-07-26-green-cigarette-ads_n.htm

56. Rossel S. Focus on the filter.  2016. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/2016/08/focus-on-the-filter/.

57. Byron MJ, Baig SA, Moracco KE, and Brewer NT. Adolescents’ and adults’ perceptions of ‘natural’, ‘organic’ and ‘additive-free’ cigarettes, and the required disclaimers. Tobacco Control, 2016; 25(5):517-20. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/25/5/517.abstract

58. No authors listed. FDA issues warning letters to "natural" tobacco makers, in Yahoo! News/AP 2015. Available from: https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/fda-issues-warning-letters-natural-154358972.html.

59. Leas EC, Ayers JW, Strong DR, and Pierce JP. Which cigarettes do Americans think are safer? A population-based analysis with wave 1 of the PATH study. Tobacco Control, 2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27742918

60. Moodie C, Ford A, Mackintosh A, and Purves R. Are all cigarettes just the same? Female’s perceptions of slim, coloured, aromatized and capsule cigarettes. Health Education Research, 2015; 30(1):1-12. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cyu063

61. Ford A, Moodie C, MacKintosh AM, and Hastings G. Adolescent perceptions of cigarette appearance. European Journal of Public Health, 2014; 24(3):464-8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckt161

62. Scollo M, Bayly M, and Wakefield M. The advertised price of cigarette packs in retail outlets across Australia before and after the implementation of plain packaging: a repeated measures observational study. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(Suppl 2):ii82-ii9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/24/Suppl_2/ii82.full

63. O'Connell V. Philip Morris readies aggressive global push. The Wall Street Journal Online, 2008; 29 Jan. Available from: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120156034185223519.html?mod=hpp_us_pageone

64. Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited. Australia Ingredients Report: By-Brand Variant Ingredients List For Reporting Period 2nd March 2015 to 1st March 2016. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government, 2016. Available from: www.health.gov.au/internet/main/...nsf/.../Imperial-Tobacco-Australia-Limited.pdf.

65. Czoli CD and Hammond D. Cigarette Packaging: Youth Perceptions of “Natural” Cigarettes, Filter References, and Contraband Tobacco. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 2014; 54. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.07.016

66. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Winfield Charcoal Filter advertisement: Smooth as. Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2006; 66(8):8-9. 

67. Rossel S. Ready to bloom.  2017. Last update: Viewed Available from: http://www.tobaccoreporter.com/2017/03/ready-to-bloom/.

68. No author listed. Philip Morris' plain Marlboro packaging emerges in UK.  2015. Last update: Viewed 21/08/2017. Available from: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/organic-tobacco-market-roll-your-own-tobacco-segment-anticipated-to-register-significant-cagr-over-the-forecast-period-global-industry-analysis-and-opportunity-assessment-2016-2026-300426528.html  

69. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2013; 89(Oct-Nov-Dec). 

70. Greenland S, Johnson L, and Seifi S. Tobacco manufacturer brand strategy following plain packaging in Australia: implications for social responsibility and policy. Social Responsibility Journal, 2016; 12(2):321-34. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127

71. Greenland SJ. The Australian experience following plain packaging: the impact on tobacco branding. Addiction, 2016; Online first 24 August 2016.