Importance of Cigarette Packaging for Brand Promotion

Cigarette packaging is one of the essential tools for the producers regarding the brand growth and they deliberately utilise the channel in order to enhance their brand preference (Alpert et al. 2018). As per the Global Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), tobacco promotion and advertising can be defined as the any form of recommendation, commercial communication with the deliberate aim to impact the promotion of the tobacco product through direct or indirect channel and it makes the brand imaging with statutory health warning essential for the different brands of cigarette (White et al. 2015). As per the Salloum et al. (2017), it can be seen that generic packaging of tobacco products is essential for the brand image and enhance the performance of the firm. However, since 2007, there has been large appropriation by the government to provide warning of health hazard by consumption of the cigarettes, and however, most of the nations has ratified the same (Thrasher et al. 2015). Apart from the New Zealand and Australia no nations has taken the rule seriously regarding the cigarette packaging (Czoli and Hammond 2014). On the other hand, it can be seen that government rules against the cigarette consumption and promotion has impacted the performance of the firms that has made it one of the most debated issue that whether cigarette consumption has impacted through the government campaign or not (Ford et al. 2016). Under this situation, this report is aimed to analyse the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging in different area depending upon the age, education, gender and different other variables.

Packaging is one of the essential tools for the brand promotions of the consumer goods like cigarette (Skaczkowski et al. 2018). As per the marketing literature, it can be seen that the marketing mix with effective packaging acts as the silent salesman for the firm and it is the communication lifeblood of the product that attract prospect customers (White et al. 2015). When it comes to the cigarette packaging, then it can be seen that packaging of the brand signifies the brand identity and through the logo, pictures, colours, packaging material as well as the shape of the box determines the class of the brand (Brose et al. 2014). For instance, one of the world’s popular brand, Marlboro, one can clearly identify the same with the iconic red Chevron and when it comes to the yellow cane (Moodie et al. 2015). Whereas, Chinese cigarette, then there is Kent, Hilton, Yunyan, Zhonghua and Ashima that can easily be identified with their iconic red, and golden coloured packaging (Lee et al. 2017). Thus, one can easily understand the importance of the cigarette packaging and utilise the same to signify their brand among others (Kotnowski et al. 2015). However, under the recent policy from the international body of the cigarette consumption, it can be seen that, producers need to put warning contents in their packaging and this has significantly reduced the consumption of the revenue for the respective firms (O’Connor et al. 2015). Under this scenario, it is of much importance for the researchers to identify the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging. From the research of the Yesmin and Islam (2017), it can be seen that the Cigarette warning on their packaging is one of the widely used and oldest yet effecting disclosure mandated by the federal agencies and the health institution through the policy implementation. Under the effective policy utilization by the several bodies it can be said that consumers has widely learned regarding the health hazard of the cigarette smoking, however, it has failed to provide any positive impact on the same. Under the policy regime introduced by the competing authority, only positive impact that can be seen in terms of rise in the tax income. Apart from this, it can be seen that the number of consumers has enhanced by the large extent and contrary to this, income of the manufacturing companies has failed to increase in such a ratio that it was supposed to be. A large section of the income of the producers goes to the government due to the policy implication and tax regime. However, the problem of the smoking has remained unaltered. Additionally it can be seen that, with the effective packaging though the number of the aged consumers has reduced, number of the youth cigarette consumers has enhanced by a large extent over the years around the world. If the case of the cigarette consumption can be analysed in terms of the developed and developing nations, then it can be seen that developing nations face higher consequence of the tobacco consumption. A large number of youth population in developing nation consume cigarette by a large proportion compared to the developing nations that makes situation more problematic. Though there is wide amount of the restriction and age bar on the consumption of the tobacco contained products in the countries like China, Japan, India and other developing nations, yet, over the years, the number of the consumer of the tobacco has been rising. In addition to this, it can be seen that the performance of the economy has been reducing under the poor health condition of the youth population.

Consumer Perception of Cigarette Packaging

As per the estimation china has more than 320 million of smokers and over the recent years in spite of having import restriction on the cigarette products from the foreign firms by a large extent, China has become largest market for the exporters of cigarette (Harris et al. 2017). On the other hand, number of smokers in EU has an estimated 1 billion people smokers and the situation tends to worse considering the case of the US (Al-Hamdani and Smith 2015). As per the estimation every 21 people out of 100 US citizen smokes and 16 millions of people are suffering from the tobacco related disease (Hughes et al. 2016). Under this situation, it would be essential to bring in such framework that can reduce the tobacco related disease in different region around the world (Minaker et al. 2018). From this scenario, it can be seen that it is essential to analyse the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging (Gallopel et al. 2018).

As per the findings of the Hoon and Lee (2018), it can be seen that, consumer perspective regarding the warning on the cigarette packaging is taken lightly in the developing due to the small portion of the packaging is covered with the statutory warning;, whereas, if the case of the developed nation is considered, then it can be seen that they follow a strict minimum ratio of packaging which need to be covered by the warning message regarding the health hazard. Considering the case of the EU and US, it can be seen that, government has established a framework regarding the health hazard message on the cigarette packaging and the minimum level of the same is 30% depicting the amount of importance of the packaging considered in the developed nations.  In addition to this, it can be seen that Boshoff and Toerien (2017) argues that, with the difference in the education level and the various factors like age leads to the difference in the consumer perspective regarding the cigarette packaging, however, most of the research has failed to provide any concrete evidence regarding the cross country perspective regarding the consumer perspective of the cigarette packaging.  Under this situation, this research is aimed to find out the cross cultural difference in the consumer perspective regarding the cigarette packaging. It will allow the researcher to determine the factors which provide notable impact on the performance and the perspective of the cigarette packaging in different economy around the world.

Comparison of Cigarette Packaging in China and Europe

Research question of the present research is as follows:

What is the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging in different region?

The research objective of the following research is as follows:

1. To demonstrate the difference of the consumer perception on the cigarette package
2. To examine the difference between the packaging between the European countries and China.
3. To find out the factors that can impact the consumer perception of the cigarette package
4. To provide recommendation for the Chinese government regarding the Chinese tobacco companies and policy implementation consideration the consumer health

Research aim of the following research is as follows:

1. Showcasing the difference of the consumer perception regarding the packaging of cigarette
2. Analyse the difference between the Chinese and European cigarette packaging
3. Tracing the factors which provide effect on the consumer perception on the cigarette packaging
4. Providing recommendations to the Chinese government regarding the policy implementation regarding the Chinese tobacco companies considering the consumer health

Conclusion:

From the above analysis it can be seen that it is important to understand the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging so as to produce such recommendations that government can utilise to bring in effective framework to control the health hazard caused by the smoking. Though there is considerable amount of presence of governmental effort to curb the demand of the cigarette, yet most of the researches has failed to analyse the consumer perception regarding the same. This report will consider the packaging of the cigarette in order to determine the consumer perception regarding the cigarette package so as to demonstrate effective governmental policy and determine how packaging impact the smoking behaviour of the smokers at different region.

This section of the report will demonstrate the data analysis utilising the data that the researcher has gained from the primary data collection method. Through graphical presentation, Correlation and ANOVA, this section will try to analyse the consumer perception on the cigarette packaging.

Graphical presentation:

Figure 1: Figure 1 is more attractive than Figure 2 in design

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 1 represents the attractiveness of the figure 1 in terms of design compared to the figure 2. As per the 36% sample out of the total population agrees with the same, whereas, 3.45% people disagree the proposition. If the number of sample who are agreeing with the proposition is considered, then it can be seen that more than 60% of the sample agree with the given proposition.

Figure 2: Product contains in Figure 1 has a better quality than in Figure 2

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 2 represents the quality comparisons of product contained in figure 2 and figure 1 in. As per the sample survey it can be seen that most of the people are not sure about the proposition, where as 28% of the people agree with the same. There are only 6.9% sample who rejects the given proposition depicting that it is true that figure 1 gives a better perception to the consumers regarding their product compared to the figure 2 perception.

Figure 3: Feel uncomfortable when I see the cigarette packaging in Figure 2

Effects of Government Regulations on Cigarette Packaging

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 3, the researcher has tried to trace the uncomforted feeling due to the packaging in figure 2. As per the survey 39.6% people agree and 43.10% people strongly agree with the proposition. Number of disagreement with the same is very low depicting most people faces negative comfortability while seeing the packaging in figure 2.  

Figure 4: It is necessary to use the cigarette packaging in Figure 2

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 4, the researcher has tried to understand the perception regarding the necessity to use cigarette packaging in figure 2 and it can be seen that 27.59% sample along with 22.41% sample strongly agree and agree with the same proposition. In addition to this, 12.07% sample population rejects the proposition where as a large sample of 22.41% has remained unanswered. Thus it can be seen that most people agree that it is important to providing utilise necessity of cigarette packaging in figure 2.

Figure 5: Smoking frequency will reduce by seeing the pictures used in Figure 2

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 5 depicts the impact on smoking frequency by seeing the pictures in figure 2. As it can be seen from the pie chart, 39.66% and 27.59% of the sample population depicts that they agree with the given proposition, where as 24.14% of the population has remained unanswered. This depicts that, if the packaging in figure 2 can be utilised for the long time, then it will reduce the smoking frequency of the smokers eventually.

Figure 6: Cigarette packaging of Figure 1 is likely to attract youths below 18 years old to try

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 6 showcase the attraction of figure 1 towards the 18 years old and as per the survey result it can be seen that 39.66% strongly agree, whereas 32.76% of the sample population agree with the given proposition depicting the impact of figure 1 on the youth. Sample population who are agreeing with the given proposition is as high as 72%, which showcase that figure one enhance the customer demand to the brand and most of the youth who are aged 18 years are attracted towards the same compared to figure 2.

Figure 7: Cigarette packaging of Figure 2 shows clearly the damages of cigarette to my health

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 7 depicts the consumer perception regarding the health damage by figure 2 and as per the sample survey it can be seen that 41.38% people fails to make any decision, whereas, next largest section of the sample with 37.93% agrees with the same highlighting the fact that packaging in figure 2 provides better health damage warning to the consumers.

Analysis of Cigarette Packaging and Consumer Perception

Figure 8: Graphic health warning is noticeable on the cigarette packaging of Figure 2

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 8 tries to showcase the consumer perception regarding the graphic health warning through the figure 2. As it can be seen from the figure 8, 50% of the population strongly agrees with the same, whereas 15.52% of the people fails to determine. With 29.31% agreeing with the proposition and only 3.45% rejection it is true that consumer have higher amount of graphic warning from the figure 2.

Figure 9: Graphic health of Figure 2 warning is ease of understanding on cigarette packaging

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 9 depicts the consumer perception regarding the ease of understanding the graphic health warning in figure 2. As per the sample survey 31.03% of the people strongly agrees with the same and 48.28% of the population agrees lightly. With 1.72% of rejection, it can be seen that most of the people agree that graphic health warning in figure 2 is prominent in nature.

Figure 10: Quitting smoking is possible watching the graphic health warning in Figure 2 for the long time

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 2, researcher has tried to understand the consumer perception regarding the impact on quitting smoking through the graphic health warning in figure 2 for the long time and as per the survey, it can be seen that 31% people agree with the same strongly and 41.38% people agree with the given proposition lightly. Contrary to this, it can be seen that 10.34% rejects the given proposition, whereas 17.24% of the sample fails to argue on the same. It highlights that most of the people consider that seeing the figure 2 graphic warning for the long time, people will quit smoking.

Figure 11: Government to strict regulate the cigarette packaging is necessary

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 11 depicts the consumer perception regarding the necessity of cigarette packaging and as per the survey, it can be seen that 36.21% of the sample population and 32.76% of the sample population strongly and agree lightly with the given proposition. With rejection percentage as low as 6.90%, it can be seen that most of the consumer prefers governmental intervention and policy implication regarding the smoking.

Figure 12: Support the government to use the cigarette packaging of Figure 2 than Figure 1

Source: (Created by Author)

Figure 12 depicts the consumer perception regarding the governmental support to utilise the cigarette packaging of figure 2 compared to figure 1. As the figure 12 highlights, most of the people argue that cigarette packaging as in figure 2 need to be utilised compared to the figure 1. Previously it has been observed that figure 1 attract the consumers towards them, whereas figure 2 provides a strong graphical warning of health hazard.

Data Analysis

This section of the report will showcase the regression analysis result to trace the relation between the different variables of consumer perception on the cigarette packaging.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Government regulation	3.86	1.176	58
Gender	1.24	.432	58
Age	1.47	.731	58
Education	3.26	.807	58
Region	1.12	.329	58

Above table showcase as the selected variables for the regression government regulation, gender, age, education and region has been chosen. With the standard deviation of 3.86, it can be seen that most of the respondent preferred strong governmental regulation in order to control the tobacco consumption. Apart from this, most of the respondent has education level of graduation with the age ranging from the 18 to 30 years. Region was one of the important categorical variable in this model that showcase most of the respondent were from the Chinese province.

Correlations
	Government regulation	Gender	Age	Education
Pearson Correlation	Government regulation	1.000	.067	-.169	.001
Gender	.067	1.000	.082	-.082
Age	-.169	.082	1.000	-.178
Education	.001	-.082	-.178	1.000
Region	.089	-.209	-.165	.211
Sig. (1-tailed)	Government regulation	.	.309	.103	.496
Gender	.309	.	.269	.271
Age	.103	.269	.	.091
Education	.496	.271	.091	.
Region	.253	.058	.108	.056
N	Government regulation	58	58	58	58
Gender	58	58	58	58
Age	58	58	58	58
Education	58	58	58	58
Region	58	58	58	58

Correlations
	Region
Pearson Correlation	Government regulation	.089
Gender	-.209
Age	-.165
Education	.211
Region	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Government regulation	.253
Gender	.058
Age	.108
Education	.056
Region	.
N	Government regulation	58
Gender	58
Age	58
Education	58
Region	58

Above table of correlation, showcase the significance of the chosen variables and the level of association between the dependent and independent variables.

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Region, Age, Gender, Educationb	.	Enter
	a. Dependent Variable: Government regulation
	b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.207a	.043	-.029	1.194
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Region, Age, Gender, Education

As per the above tables selected variables utilised for the regression analysis has been mentioned, where government regulation is the dependent variable and age, education, region and gender are the independent variable. R square value of .043 showcase that the model is not the best fit model.

ANOVA table shown below highlights the F statistics and as per the same, it can be seen that the model utilised is not the best model highlighting the lack of strong evidence to determine how factors like age, gender, and region affect the governmental regulation.

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	3.388	4	.847	.594	.668b
Residual	75.509	53	1.425
Total	78.897	57
	a. Dependent Variable: Government regulation
	b. Predictors: (Constant), Region, Age, Gender, Education

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	3.765	1.089		3.456	.001
Gender	.262	.375	.096	.699	.488
Age	-.272	.222	-.169	-1.226	.226
Education	-.058	.203	-.040	-.287	.775
Region	.322	.506	.090	.636	.528
a. Dependent Variable: Government regulation

Table 1: Tables of ANOVA of government regulation and other factors

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the table 1, it can be seen that there is no relation between the government regulation with the Gender, Age, Education and Region. Government regulation is influenced by the other factors than this.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	4.03	1.008	58
Impact of figure 2	3.84	.970	58
Necessity of figure 2	3.33	1.316	58

This regression tried to analyse the impact of the Figure 2 smoking quit for long time with the Impact of figure 2 with Necessity of figure 2. With the mean of 4.03, most of the respondent preferred to quit smoking if the figure has been highlighted for the long time. Impact of figure 2 and necessity of figure 2 is also high as per the most of the respondent.

Correlations
	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	Impact of figure 2	Necessity of figure 2
Pearson Correlation	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	1.000	.454	.190
Impact of figure 2	.454	1.000	.522
Necessity of figure 2	.190	.522	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.	.000	.077
Impact of figure 2	.000	.	.000
Necessity of figure 2	.077	.000	.
N	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	58	58	58
Impact of figure 2	58	58	58
Necessity of figure 2	58	58	58

As per the correlation table shown above, it can be seen that there is good amount of relation between the long term impacts of figure 2 on the cigarette quitting possibility of the consumer with the graphical content of the figure 2.

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Necessity of figure 2, Impact of figure 2b	.	Enter
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 smoking quit for long time b. b. All requested variables entered.
	.
Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.458a	.209	.181	.913
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Necessity of figure 2, Impact of figure 2

As per the above table, it can be seen that the model is a good fit model. With the R square value of .209 it signifies the relation between the dependent and independent variable of the regression.

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	12.129	2	6.064	7.282	.002b
Residual	45.802	55	.833
Total	57.931	57
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 smoking quit for long time
	b. Predictors: (Constant), Necessity of figure 2, Impact of figure 2

Conclusion

As per the significance value of the regression, it can be seen that the regression of the dependent and independent variable is significant.

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.249	.498		4.514	.000
Impact of figure 2	.507	.146	.488	3.473	.001
Necessity of figure 2	-.050	.108	-.065	-.462	.646
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 smoking quit for long time

Table 2: ANOVA of Figure 2 smoking quit for long time with the other factors

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 2, there is a strong relationship between the impacts of figure 2 with the quitting smoking. Once the consumer starts to see figure 2 and continues for the long time, he or she prefers to quit smoking.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Figure 2 warning understanbility	3.98	.964	58
Figure 2 health damage	4.12	.860	58
Figure 2 health notice	4.02	.868	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	4.03	1.008	58

This regression model tried to analyse the impact of the figure 2 warning understandability with the different variables as mentioned in the above table.

Correlations
	Figure 2 warning understanbility	Figure 2 health damage	Figure 2 health notice
Pearson Correlation	Figure 2 warning understanbility	1.000	.489	.482
Figure 2 health damage	.489	1.000	.326
Figure 2 health notice	.482	.326	1.000
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.470	.562	.360
Sig. (1-tailed)	Figure 2 warning understanbility	.	.000	.000
Figure 2 health damage	.000	.	.006
Figure 2 health notice	.000	.006	.
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.000	.000	.003
N	Figure 2 warning understanbility	58	58	58
Figure 2 health damage	58	58	58
Figure 2 health notice	58	58	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	58	58	58

With the above correlation table, the regression model tried to find the level of association among the different variables and from the above table it can be seen that figure 2 understanbility has significant amount of association with the chosen independent variables of the regression model.

Correlations
	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time
Pearson Correlation	Figure 2 warning understanbility	.470
Figure 2 health damage	.562
Figure 2 health notice	.360
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Figure 2 warning understanbility	.000
Figure 2 health damage	.000
Figure 2 health notice	.003
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.
N	Figure 2 warning understanbility	58
Figure 2 health damage	58
Figure 2 health notice	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	58

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 health damageb	.	Enter
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 warning understanbility b. b. All requested variables entered
Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.618a	.382	.348	.778
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 health damage

As per the model summary table, it can be seen that the model is a good fit model with the R square value of .382. Thus, it can be entailed that there is moderate amount of relation between the dependent and independent variables chosen for this model.

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	20.264	3	6.755	11.148	.000b
Residual	32.719	54	.606
Total	52.983	57
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 warning understanbility
	b. Predictors: (Constant), Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 health damage

As per the above ANOVA table it can be seen that the model is significant highlighting the fact that there is correlation between the chosen dependent and independent variable.

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	.519	.612		.848
Figure 2 health damage	.304	.147	.271	2.069
Figure 2 health notice	.357	.129	.321	2.766
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.193	.127	.202	1.523

1. Dependent Variable: Figure 2 warning understanbility

Table 3: Figure 2 warning sustainability and relation with other variables

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 3, it can be seen that there is no significance in case of the figure 2 warning understandability with the health damage, however the overall model highlights that there is relation between the different variables. Thus it can be stated that, in case of individual relation, there is lack of association, however, if all the variables are considered, then it can be seen that figure 2 warning understandability provides moderate amount of impact on the health choice and smoking quit probability for long time.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Cigarette packaging importance	3.79	1.210	58
Figure 2 warning understanbility	3.98	.964	58
Figure 2 health notice	4.02	.868	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	4.03	1.008	58

Correlations
	Cigarette packaging importance	Figure 2 warning understanbility	Figure 2 health notice
Pearson Correlation	Cigarette packaging importance	1.000	.553	.254
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.553	1.000	.482
Figure 2 health notice	.254	.482	1.000
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.250	.470	.360
Sig. (1-tailed)	Cigarette packaging importance	.	.000	.027
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.000	.	.000
Figure 2 health notice	.027	.000	.
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.029	.000	.003
N	Cigarette packaging importance	58	58	58
Figure 2 warning understanbility	58	58	58
Figure 2 health notice	58	58	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	58	58	58

Correlations
	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time
Pearson Correlation	Cigarette packaging importance	.250
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.470
Figure 2 health notice	.360
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Cigarette packaging importance	.029
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.000
Figure 2 health notice	.003
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.
N	Cigarette packaging importance	58
Figure 2 warning understanbility	58
Figure 2 health notice	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	58

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 warning uderstabilityb	.	Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Cigarette packaging importance b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.553a	.306	.268	1.036
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 warning understanbility

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	25.575	3	8.525	7.945	.000b
Residual	57.943	54	1.073
Total	83.517	57
a. Dependent Variable: Cigarette packaging importance
b. Predictors: (Constant), Figure 2 smoking quit for long time, Figure 2 health notice, Figure 2 warning understanbility

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	1.100	.758		1.452
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.709	.174	.565	4.069
Figure 2 health notice	-.021	.183	-.015	-.116
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	-.012	.157	-.010	-.074

Coefficientsa
Model	Sig.
1	(Constant)	.152
Figure 2 warning understanbility	.000
Figure 2 health notice	.908
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	.941
	a. Dependent Variable: Cigarette packaging importance

Table 4: ANOVA of cigarette packaging importance with other factors

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the table 4, it can be seen that there is a relationship between the cigarette packaging importance and the figure 2 warning understanbility. Thus, as per the consumer perception, it is important to bring in understandable graphical warning content so as to reduce the smoking.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
Figure 1 attraction	3.84	1.182	58
Age	1.47	.731	58
Education	3.26	.807	58
Region	1.12	.329	58

As per the present model it tried to analyse the figure 1 attraction depending upon the age, education and region. Thus the dependent variable is figure 1 attraction and the independent variables are age, education and region.

Correlations
	Figure 1 attraction	Age	Education	Region
Pearson Correlation	Figure 1 attraction	1.000	.004	.172	.049
Age	.004	1.000	-.178	-.165
Education	.172	-.178	1.000	.211
Region	.049	-.165	.211	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	Figure 1 attraction	.	.489	.099	.357
Age	.489	.	.091	.108
Education	.099	.091	.	.056
Region	.357	.108	.056	.
N	Figure 1 attraction	58	58	58	58
Age	58	58	58	58
Education	58	58	58	58
Region	58	58	58	58

As per the correlation table, it can be seen that there is good amount of relation between the age and the attraction of the figure 1. In addition to this, region has moderate amount of impact on the attraction of the figure 1.

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Region, Age, Educationb	.	Enter
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 1 attraction b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.176a	.031	-.023	1.195
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Region, Age, Education

As per the model summary table, it can be seen that the R Square value is .031 highlighting the lack in the case of model selection.

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	2.467	3	.822	.576	.634b
Residual	77.137	54	1.428
Total	79.603	57
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 1 attraction
	b. Predictors: (Constant), Region, Age, Education

Above table highlights the selected variables has moderate amount of influence on the figure 1 attraction.

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t	Sig.
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.848	.923		3.084	.003
Age	.061	.222	.038	.276	.783
Education	.255	.203	.174	1.259	.214
Region	.067	.497	.019	.134	.894
	a. Dependent Variable: Figure 1 attraction

As per the above table, it can be seen that the level of significance is less in case of different variables, however, there is certain amount of association between the attraction of the figure 1 with the age, education and region.

Descriptive Statistics
	Mean	Std. Deviation	N
cigarettes consumption	1.84	.819	57
Impact of figure 2	3.84	.978	57
Cigarette packaging importance	3.77	1.210	57

Through this analysis, the researcher has tried to analyse the cigarette consumption impact of figure 2 due to the cigarette packaging and importance of the same.

Correlations
	cigarettes consumption	Impact of figure 2	Cigarette packaging importance
Pearson Correlation	cigarettes consumption	1.000	-.054	-.145
Impact of figure 2	-.054	1.000	.482
Cigarette packaging importance	-.145	.482	1.000
Sig. (1-tailed)	cigarettes consumption	.	.345	.141
Impact of figure 2	.345	.	.000
Cigarette packaging importance	.141	.000	.
N	cigarettes consumption	57	57	57
Impact of figure 2	57	57	57
Cigarette packaging importance	57	57	57

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model	Variables Entered	Variables Removed	Method
1	Cigarette packaging importance, Impact of figure 2b	.	Enter
	a. Dependent Variable: cigarettes consumption
	b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.146a	.021	-.015	.825
	a. Predictors: (Constant), Cigarette packaging importance, Impact of figure 2

ANOVAa
Model	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	.803	2	.401	.589	.558b
Residual	36.776	54	.681
Total	37.579	56
	a. Dependent Variable: cigarettes consumption
	b. Predictors: (Constant), Cigarette packaging importance, Impact of figure 2

Above ANOVA table highlights that the model is significant in nature, however, the level of significance is less depicting moderate amount of relation among the different variables.

Coefficientsa
Model	Unstandardized Coefficients	Standardized Coefficients	t
B	Std. Error	Beta
1	(Constant)	2.171	.473		4.595
Impact of figure 2	.017	.129	.021	.135
Cigarette packaging importance	-.105	.104	-.155	-1.009

Coefficientsa
Model	Sig.
1	(Constant)	.000
Impact of figure 2	.893
Cigarette packaging importance	.317
	a. Dependent Variable: cigarettes consumption

Table 5: ANOVA of cigarette consumption and figure 2 importance

Source: (Created by Author)

As per the figure 5, it can be seen that there is no relationship between the cigarette consumption and the cigarette packing importance as per the survey conducted.

Correlations:

This section of the report will analyse the correlation between different variables of the consumer perception on the cigarette packaging.  

Correlations
	Cigarette packaging importance	cigarettes consumption	Region	Necessity of figure 2	Figure 2 warning understandability	Figure 2 smoking quit for long time
Cigarette packaging importance	Pearson Correlation	1	-.145	-.024	.396**	.553**	.250
Sig. (2-tailed)		.282	.856	.002	.000	.058
N	58	57	58	58	58	58
cigarettes consumption	Pearson Correlation	-.145	1	.137	-.249	.038	.220
Sig. (2-tailed)	.282		.309	.061	.778	.101
N	57	57	57	57	57	57
Region	Pearson Correlation	-.024	.137	1	-.174	-.049	.040
Sig. (2-tailed)	.856	.309		.191	.717	.765
N	58	57	58	58	58	58
Necessity of figure 2	Pearson Correlation	.396**	-.249	-.174	1	.322*	.190
Sig. (2-tailed)	.002	.061	.191		.014	.154
N	58	57	58	58	58	58
Figure 2 warning understandability	Pearson Correlation	.553**	.038	-.049	.322*	1	.470**
Sig. (2-tailed)	.000	.778	.717	.014		.000
N	58	57	58	58	58	58
Figure 2 smoking quit for long time	Pearson Correlation	.250	.220	.040	.190	.470**	1
Sig. (2-tailed)	.058	.101	.765	.154	.000
N	58	57	58	58	58	58
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 6: Correlation of different factors of cigarette packaging

Source: (Created by Author)

Above table showcase the correlation between the different factors of the cigarette smoking perception of the consumers and as per the above table it can be seen that there is a positive relation between the Cigarette packaging importance with the Necessity of figure 2 and Figure 2 warning understandability. Next to this, above table showcase that strong relationship is present between the Necessity of figure 2 and Cigarette packaging importance and Figure 2 warning understandability that depicts the relationship between the cigarette packaging and how good it is understandable by the consumers. Figure 2 warning understandability is much higher and it depicts positive relationship if Cigarette packaging importance, Necessity of figure 2 and Figure 2 smoking quit for long time is considered that depicts with rise in the understandability of the graphical content in figure 2, other factors will also rise. Figure 2 smoking quit for long time and Figure 2 warning understandability is another perception that faces significant relationship between them which depicts with rise in the figure 2 understanbility, there will be rise in the smoking quit as well.

Conclusion:

From the above analysis it can be seen that consumer perception regarding the figure 2 is not very good in terms of attractiveness, however, if the health hazard warning and government rules are considered, then it can be seen that figure 2 influence both of them by a large extent. Figure 1 of the cigarette packaging is good to attract consumers, however, they can be considered as the possible reasons of the youth smokers because it attracts the youths by a large extent.

Conclusion And Recommendation

This chapter will summarise the finding of the research and showcase how consumer perception regarding the cigarette package differ from each other depending upon the different region. Additionally it will comment on the finding of the data analysis section in order to showcase the impact of the consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging on their smoking habit. Moving forward, the report will portray the recommendation for the cigarette packaging in order to bring in such a framework where the government can introduce policies to curb the health hazard caused by smoking cigarette in different zone.

The research work was amid to trace the consumer perception on the cigarette package and additionally it tried to determine the factors that influence the cross cultural factors of the cigarette packaging. Moreover, the aim of the research work was to determine the recommendations for the Chinese government in order to reduce the tobacco consumption. In order to perform the analysis, the report has utilised the different statistical tool like correlation, regression and graphical presentation of the data in order to assess the research objective. Through the utilisation of the statistical software SPSS and Excel, derived data has been analysed and it has allowed the research to achieve the research objective. The research analysis has been done through the utilisation of the data perceived from the primary research.

As per the above finding it can be seen that consumer perception regarding the figure 2 of cigarette packaging is strong and it provides a good amount of benefit to the governmental policies to be implemented. Strong graphical image provides a good warning to the smokers related to health related issues and along with the same understanbility of the figure 2 is much higher compared to the figure 1 that showcase the wide amount of youth prefer to have figure 1 packaging. Consumer perception regarding the cigarette packaging is clearly traceable from the above analysis and it showcase the different implication on the day to day life of the smokers as well. Moreover, it can be found that the researcher has performed the regression in order to determine the model that describe the consumer perspective of the cigarette packaging. From the regression models, it can be found that the factors like packaging of the second image provides better health hazard warning to the tobacco consumers owing to the strong graphic content of the same. Apart from this factors like the age, education and region does not show any resemblance with the governmental regulation. In aadditon to this, it can also be seen that people who observed the figure 2 for the long time showcase higher probability to quit their smoking habit in long run. One of the important observation from the above research can be seen in terms of the importance of the cigarette packaging. Most of the respondent in the research has showcased that people prefer to have graphical warnining and packaging on the cigarette pack like figure 2. It showcase strong warning to the consumers while highlighting the health hazard of the cigarette consumption.

In addition to this, from the correlation between the different factors of the cigarette, it can be seen that there is a positive relation between the Cigarette packaging importance with the Necessity of figure 2 and Figure 2 warning understandability. Apart from this, there is a strong relationship between the Necessity of figure 2 and Cigarette packaging importance and Figure 2 warning understandability that depicts the relationship between the cigarette packaging and how good it is understandable by the consumers. Figure 2 warning understandability is much higher and it depicts positive relationship if Cigarette packaging importance, Necessity of figure 2 and Figure 2 smoking quit for long time is considered that depicts with rise in the understandability of the graphical content in figure 2, other factors will also rise. Figure 2 smoking quit for long time and Figure 2 warning understandability is another perception that faces significant relationship between them which depicts with rise in the figure 2 understanbility, there will be rise in the smoking quit as well.

Analysis of the sample population showcase two distinctive thing:

1. Firstly government need to bring in strict policies, where the firms will be forced to utilise strict statutory warning with strong graphical presentation of the impact of tobacco consumption
2. Secondly, depending present research neglects the finding of the previous researches, which argue that factors like age, education and region influence the perception regarding the tobacco consumption.
3. Thirdly, the research work highlights that cross cultural perspective of the consumer on the cigarette packaging remains same irrespective of the region.

Following research work has certain amount of gap. For instance, the researcher has tried to trace the performance gap of the different economies depending upon the cigarette consumption and it has failed to do so owing to the limited access to the different place of the world. Under the budget constraint, the researcher has failed to analyse the broad perspective of the cigarette consumers of different place around the world. In addition to this, the researcher has failed to analyse the performance of the cigarette packaging in different and the magnitude of the same to influence the consumer perception regarding the tobacco consumption.

Following recommendation can be done:

• In order to reduce the youth smoking government of China need to bring in such rule that will force the producers to provide image warning regarding health hazard as figure 2
• Government of china need to trace the policies to curb the demand of the cigarette in order to reduce the smoking related issues
• It would be ideal for the Chinese government to bring in policies that will force the producers to mandatorily use graphical content which is easily understandable
• Portion of graphic content need to be fixed in terms of percentage so as to enhance the understanbility and graphical warning to the smokers

References:

Al-Hamdani, M. and Smith, S., 2015. Alcohol warning label perceptions: Emerging evidence for alcohol policy. Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 106(6), pp.e395-e400.

Alpert, H.R., Carpenter, D. and Connolly, G.N., 2018. Tobacco industry response to a ban on lights descriptors on cigarette packaging and population outcomes. Tobacco control, 27(4), pp.390-398.

Boshoff, C. and Toerien, L., 2017. Subconscious responses to fear-appeal health warnings: An exploratory study of cigarette packaging. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 20(1), pp.1-13.

Brose, L.S., Chong, C.B., Aspinall, E., Michie, S. and McEwen, A., 2014. Effects of standardised cigarette packaging on craving, motivation to stop and perceptions of cigarettes and packs. Psychology & health, 29(7), pp.849-860.

Czoli, C.D. and Hammond, D., 2014. Cigarette packaging: youth perceptions of “natural” cigarettes, filter references, and contraband tobacco. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(1), pp.33-39.

Ford, A., Moodie, C., Purves, R. and MacKintosh, A.M., 2016. Adolescent girls and young adult women’s perceptions of superslims cigarette packaging: a qualitative study. BMJ open, 6(1), p.e010102.

Gallopel-Morvan, K., Moodie, C., Guignard, R., Eker, F. and Béguinot, E., 2018. Consumer Perceptions of Cigarette Design in France: A Comparison of Regular, Slim, Pink and Plain Cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research.

Harris, J.E., Ares, G., Gerstenblüth, M., Machin, L. and Triunfo, P., 2017. Impact of plain packaging of cigarettes on the risk perception of Uruguayan smokers: an experimental study. Tobacco control, pp.tobaccocontrol-2017.

Hoon, A.S. and Lee, L., 2018. ASSESSING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF STANDARDISED PACKAGING AS A TOBACCO CONTROL MEASURE IN SINGAPORE: MARKETING AND CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY PERSPECTIVES.

Hughes, N., Arora, M. and Grills, N., 2016. Perceptions and impact of plain packaging of tobacco products in low and middle income countries, middle to upper income countries and low-income settings in high-income countries: a systematic review of the literature. BMJ open, 6(3), p.e010391.

Kotnowski, K., Fong, G.T., Gallopel-Morvan, K., Islam, T. and Hammond, D., 2015. The impact of cigarette packaging design among young females in Canada: findings from a discrete choice experiment. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(5), pp.1348-1356.

Lee, J.G., Averett, P.E., Blanchflower, T., Landi, N. and Gregory, K.R., 2017. “Their Packaging Has Always Been Like a Power”: A Qualitative Study of US Smokers’ Perceptions of Cigarette Pack Visual Design Features to Inform Product Regulation. International journal of environmental research and public health, 14(10), p.1234.

Minaker, L.M., Tait, H., Ong, M. and Nguyen, N., 2018. Slim cigarette smoking prevalence among Canadian youth smokers: Implications for federal standardized packaging legislation. Can J Public Health, 108(5-6), pp.565-570.

Moodie, C., Purves, R., McKell, J. and de Andrade, M., 2015. Novel means of using cigarette packaging and cigarettes to communicate health risk and cessation messages: a qualitative study. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 13(3), pp.333-344.

O’Connor, R.J., Bansal-Travers, M., Cummings, K.M., Hammond, D., Thrasher, J.F. and Tworek, C., 2015. Filter presence and tipping paper color influence consumer perceptions of cigarettes. BMC public health, 15(1), p.1279.

Salloum, R.G., Louviere, J.J., Getz, K.R., Islam, F., Anshari, D., Cho, Y., O’Connor, R.J., Hammond, D. and Thrasher, J.F., 2017. Evaluation of strategies to communicate harmful and potentially harmful constituent (HPHC) information through cigarette package inserts: a discrete choice experiment. Tobacco control, pp.tobaccocontrol-2016.

Skaczkowski, G., Durkin, S., Kashima, Y. and Wakefield, M., 2018. Influence of premium vs masked cigarette brand names on the experienced taste of a cigarette after tobacco plain packaging in Australia: an experimental study. BMC public health, 18(1), p.295.

Thrasher, J.F., Abad-Vivero, E.N., Moodie, C., O’connor, R.J., Hammond, D., Cummings, K.M., Yong, H.H., Salloum, R.G., Czoli, C. and Reynales-Shigematsu, L.M., 2015. 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, pp.tobaccocontrol-2014.

White, V., Williams, T. and Wakefield, M., 2015. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands?. Tobacco control, 24(Suppl 2), pp.ii42-ii49.

White, V., Williams, T. and Wakefield, M., 2015. Has the introduction of plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings changed adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette packs and brands?. Tobacco control, 24(Suppl 2), pp.ii42-ii49.

Yesmin, S.T. and Islam, M.T., 2017, September. Context of Tobacco Packaging in Bangladesh: regulatory and consumer perspective. In Welcome Message from Conference Chairs (p. 58).

<