Estimating the ‘consumer surplus’ for branded versus standardised tobacco packaging

Tobacco Control

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 641-647

  Gendall, Philip ^a   Eckert, Christine ^b   Hoek, Janet ^a   Farley, Tessa ^a   Louviere, Jordan ^c   Wilson, Nick ^a   Edwards, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; HUMAN; JUVENILE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEW ZEALAND; SMOKING; YOUNG ADULT; ADOLESCENT; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; ECONOMICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PACKAGING; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TAX; TOBACCO;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMMERCE; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEW ZEALAND; PRODUCT PACKAGING; SMOKERS; SMOKING; TAXES; TOBACCO PRODUCTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84994492659     PISSN: 09644563     EISSN: 14683318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052488     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Carter SM. The Australian cigarette brand as product, person, and symbol. Tob Control 2003; 12:(Suppl 3): iii79-86.
2. Gendall P, Hoek J, Edwards R, et al. A cross-sectional analysis of how young adults perceive tobacco brands: implications for FCTC signatories. BMC Public Health 2012; 12: 796.
3. Gendall P, Hoek J, Thomson G, et al. Young adults’ interpretations of tobacco brands: implications for tobacco control. Nicotine Tob Res 2011; 13: 911-18.
4. Strizhakova Y, Coulter RA, Price LL. Branding in a global marketplace: the mediating effects of quality and self-identity brand signals. Int J Res Mark 2011; 28: 342-51.
5. Belk RW. Possessions and the extended self. J Consum Res 1988; 15: 139-68.
6. Hoek J, Gendall P, Gifford H, et al. Tobacco branding, plain packaging, pictorial warnings, and symbolic consumption. Qual Health Res 2012; 22: 630-9.
7. Madden TJ, Fehle F, Fournier S. Brands matter: an empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding. J Acad Mark Sci 2006; 34: 224-35.
8. Stahl F, Heitmann M, Lehmann DR, et al. The impact of brand equity on customer acquisition, retention, and profit margin. J Mark 2012; 76: 44-63.
9. Gilmore AB. Understanding the vector in order to plan effective tobacco control policies: an analysis of contemporary tobacco industry materials. Tob Control 2012; 21: 119-26.
10. Warner KE, Mendez D. Tobacco control policy in developed countries: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Nicotine Tob Res 2010; 12: 876-87.
11. Gilmore AB, Tavakoly B, Taylor G, et al. Understanding tobacco industry pricing strategy and whether it undermines tobacco tax policy: the example of the UK cigarette market. Addiction 2013; 108: 1317-26.
12. Marsh L, Cameron C, Quigg R, et al. The impact of an increase in excise tax on the retail price of tobacco in New Zealand. Tob Control Published Online First: 2 Jul 2015. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052259
13. Germain D, Wakefield M, Durkin S. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? J Adolesc Health 2010; 46: 385-92.
14. Hoek J, Wong C, Gendall P, et al. Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers. Tob Control 2011; 20: 183-8.
15. Moodie CS, Mackintosh AM. Young adult women smokers’ response to using plain cigarette packaging: A naturalistic approach. BMJ Open 2013; 3: pii: e002402.
16. Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, et al. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. Eur J Public Health 2009; 19: 631-7.
17. Bansal-Travers M, Hammond D, Smith P, et al. The impact of cigarette pack design, descriptors, and warning labels on risk perception in the US. Am J Prev Med 2011; 40: 674-82.
18. Maynard OM, Munafò MR, Leonards U. Visual attention to health warnings on plain tobacco packaging in adolescent smokers and non-smokers. Addiction 2013; 108: 413-19.
19. Stead M, Moodie C, Angus K, et al. Is consumer response to plain/standardised tobacco packaging consistent with Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Guidelines? A systematic review of quantitative studies. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e75919.
20. White V, Williams T, Wakefield M. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands? Tob Control 2015; 24(Suppl 2): ii42-9.
21. White V, Williams T, Faulkner A, et al. Do larger graphic health warnings on standardised cigarette packs increase adolescents’ cognitive processing of consumer health information and beliefs about smoking-related harms? Tob Control 2015; 24 (Suppl 2): ii50-7.
22. Wakefield M, Coomber K, Zacher M, et al. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob Control 2015; 24(Suppl 2): ii17-25.
23. Durkin S, Brennan E, Coomber K, et al. Short-term changes in quitting-related cognitions and behaviours after the implementation of plain packaging with larger health warnings: findings from a national cohort study with Australian adult smokers. Tob Control 2015; 24(Suppl 2): ii26-32.
24. Young JM, Stacey I, Dobbins TA, et al. Association between tobacco plain packaging and Quitline calls: a population-based, interrupted time-series analysis. Med J Aust 2014; 200: 29-32.
25. Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S, et al. Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction 2012; 107: 1159-67.
26. Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S. How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tob Control 2008; 17: 416-21.
27. Thrasher JF, Rousu MC, Hammond D, et al. Estimating the impact of pictorial health warnings and "plain" cigarette packaging: evidence from experimental auctions among adult smokers in the United States. Health Policy 2011; 102: 41-8.
28. Rousu MC, Thrasher JF. Demand reduction from plain and pictorial cigarette warning labels: evidence from experimental auctions. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 2013; 35: 171-84.
29. Rousu M, Thrasher J. Examining the relationship between psychosocial and behavioral proxies for future consumption behavior: self-reported impact and bidding behavior in an experimental auction study on cigarette labeling. Health Educ Res 2014; 29: 183-94.
30. Song AV, Brown P, Glantz SA. When health policy and empirical evidence collide: the case of cigarette package warning labels and economic consumer surplus. Am J Public Health 2014; 104: e42-51.
31. Juster TF. Consumer buying intention and purchase probability. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1966.
32. Vermunt J, Magidson J. Upgrade Manual for Latent GOLD Choice 5.0: Basic, Advanced, and Syntax. 2015. http://statisticalinnovations.com/technicalsupport/ LGChoice5.0_UpgradeManual.pdf
33. Bliemer MCJ, Rose JM. Confidence intervals of willingness-to-pay for random coefficient logit models. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 2013; 58: 199-214.