What Do Cigarette Pack Colors Communicate to Smokers in the U.S.?


      New legislation in the U.S. prohibits tobacco companies from labeling cigarette packs with terms such as light, mild, or low after June 2010. However, experience from countries that have removed these descriptors suggests that different terms, colors, or numbers communicating the same messages may replace them.


      The main purpose of this study was to examine how cigarette pack colors are perceived by smokers to correspond to different descriptive terms.


      Newspaper advertisements and postings directed interested current smokers to a survey website. Eligible participants were shown an array of six cigarette packages (altered to remove all descriptive terms) and asked to link package images with their corresponding descriptive terms. Participants were then asked to identify which pack in the array they would choose if they were concerned with health, tar, nicotine, image, and taste.


      A total of 193 participants completed the survey from February to March 2008 (data were analyzed from May 2008 through November 2010). Participants were more accurate in matching descriptors to pack images for Marlboro brand cigarettes than for unfamiliar Peter Jackson brand (sold in Australia). Smokers overwhelmingly chose the “whitest” pack if they were concerned about health, tar, and nicotine.


      Smokers in the U.S. associate brand descriptors with colors. Further, white packaging appears to most influence perceptions of safety. Removal of descriptor terms but not the associated colors will be insufficient in eliminating misperceptions about the risks from smoking communicated to smokers through packaging.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Underwood R.L.
        • Ozanne J.
        Is your package an effective communicator?.
        J Market Commun. 1998; 4: 207-220
        • Pollay R.W.
        • Dewhirst T.
        Marketing cigarettes with low machine-measured yields.
        in: DHHS, NIH, National Cancer Institute, ed. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph 13: risks associated with smoking cigarettes with low machine-measured yields of tar and nicotine. DHHS, Bethesda MD2001: 199-233
        • Pollay R.W.
        • Dewhirst T.
        The dark side of marketing seemingly “Light” cigarettes: successful images and failed fact.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: I18-I31
        • Slade J.
        The pack as advertisement.
        Tob Control. 1997; 6: 169-170
        • Wakefield M.
        • Morley C.
        • Horan J.K.
        • Cummings K.M.
        The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: I73-I80
        • WHO
        WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
        WHO Document Production Services, Geneva, Switzerland2005
      1. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, H.R.1256, H.R.1256−111th Congress. 2009
        • King B.
        • Borland R.
        What was “light” and “mild” is now “smooth” and “fine”: new labelling of Australian cigarettes.
        Tob Control. 2005; 14: 214-215
        • Peace J.
        • Wilson N.
        • Hoek J.
        • Edwards R.
        • Thomson G.
        Survey of descriptors on cigarette packs: still misleading consumers?.
        N Z Med J. 2009; 122: 90-96
        • Hammond D.
        • Dockrell M.
        • Arnott D.
        • Lee A.
        • McNeill A.
        Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth.
        Eur J Public Health. 2009; 19: 631-637
        • Hammond D.
        • Parkinson C.
        The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk.
        J Public Health (Oxf). 2009; 31: 345-353
        • Manfredo M.J.
        • Bright A.
        A model for assessing the effects of communication on recreationists.
        J Leisure Res. 1991; 20: 1-20
        • Shadel W.G.
        • Lerman C.
        • Cappella J.
        • Strasser A.A.
        • Pinto A.
        • Hornik R.
        Evaluating smokers' reactions to advertising for new lower nicotine quest cigarettes.
        Psychol Addict Behav. 2006; 20: 80-84
        • Brainard D.H.
        Color appearance and color difference specification.
        in: Shevell S.K. The science of color. 2nd ed. Elsevier, Oxford, England2003: 206
        • Heatherton T.F.
        • Kozlowski L.T.
        • Frecker R.C.
        • Rickert W.
        • Robinson J.
        Measuring the heaviness of smoking: using self-reported time to the first cigarette of the day and number of cigarettes smoked per day.
        Br J Addict. 1989; 84: 791-799
        • O'Connor R.J.
        • Hammond D.
        • McNeill A.
        • et al.
        How do different cigarette design features influence the standard tar yields of popular cigarette brands sold in different countries?.
        Tob Control. 2008; 17: i1-i5
        • Philip Morris U.S.A.
        • Lalley K.
        • Eisen K.
        • Bonhomme J.
        Marketing research department report: Marlboro Ultra Lights qualitative research. 1988 Aug 22 (Report No.: Bates No. 2040802520-2040802523)
        • Philip Morris U.S.A.
        • Halpern M.
        Interoffice correspondence: literature review−color. 2-25-1994 (Unpublished Work)
        • Anderson S.J.
        • Ling P.M.
        • Glantz S.A.
        Implications of the federal court order banning the terms “light” and “mild”: what difference could it make?.
        Tob Control. 2007; 16: 275-279
        • Cummings K.M.
        • Morley C.P.
        • Horan J.K.
        • Steger C.
        • Leavell N.R.
        Marketing to America's youth: evidence from corporate documents.
        Tob Control. 2002; 11: I5-I17
        • Wilson D.
        F.D.A. Seeks explanation of Marlboro marketing.
        New York Times, 2010, Jun 17
        • Center for Tobacco Products, US FDA
        Letter to Philip Morris USA, Inc., marketing Marlboro Lights cigarettes with an onsert.
        • Center for Tobacco Products FUDoHaHS
        Letter to Commonwealth Brands, Inc., promotional materials disseminated through the company's website.
        • Reuters
        U.S. judge strikes part of tobacco ad, label law.
        • Freeman B.
        • Chapman S.
        • Rimmer M.
        The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products.
        Addiction. 2008; 103: 580-590