Figure 7.4.1: Front face of round packaging (Packs C, D and E)

C, D, E. Smoking causes blindness
Image A: Image of three variations (C, D, E) of 'Smoking causes blindness' health warning featuring closeup eyeball annd some text for round packaging.

The graphic health warning on packs C and D took up 75% of the front and back of pack, while on pack E it took up 55%.

Pack D was the least effective of the three in communication of a health warning. Although the image is highly noticeable, it does not offer any information by itself. Further, use of an image only can cause confusion as to what the actual product is for those unfamiliar with tobacco in tins. Respondents tended to feel it was more likely to be found in a novelty shop rather than being a tobacco product. This could have implications in regards to young people actually being intrigued by the packaging, as opposed to gaining any health message
from it.

The health warning was more easily understood from the fronts of both packs C and E by use of the warning message and the image. Importantly, the clear statement of the ‘smoking causes...’ ensures that the product is understood to be a tobacco product.

The two packs differ in the perceived production values involved in the creation of the images. Pack C, where the writing and image have been designed to suit the shape of the round tin was perceived to be more professional than the design used on pack E. The more professional look of the two was associated with more favourable product attributes. For example, it was thought that pack C was more likely to have higher quality tobacco as some care had been taken to ensure the design of the health warning suited the packaging. In contrast, pack E was seen to resemble having simply had a sticker put on a fairly drab looking colour. This was less appealing and seen as indicative of lower quality tobacco. This suggests that the design of pack E may contribute to lowering the appeal of the packaging of tobacco tins compared to the other alternatives.

The smaller image used on pack E made this part of the health warning recessive compared to the writing. However, this did not affect message comprehension or impact as it was still able to be deciphered.
Top of page

Back face of round packaging (Packs C, D and E)

C, D, E. Smoking causes blindness

Image B: Image of three variations (C, D, E) of 'Smoking causes blindness' health warning featuring text with red and black backgrounds for round packaging.
The design of the back of pack D is more likely to encourage smokers to read the explanatory message as the spacing of the text afforded by the vertical layout gives the appearance of less content. However, the design also appears to be highly professional as it takes into consideration the round tin. As discussed above, higher production values contribute to the sense of more favourable product attributes when compared to other design features. The same perception is created with pack C, as the design is clearly for the round tin.

Although the explanatory message on pack E has the smallest font and as a result is the least inviting for smokers to read, the overall design is the least appealing for smokers. This assists in increasing the impact of the health warning message. Like the front of the tin, the back looks as if it has had a sticker placed on it rather than being professionally designed to suit the tin. The perceived lower professionalism of the warning label design, combined with the drab dark brown colours of the package increase the negative perception of the product, comparative to the other designs tested. The warning message is still clearly communicated via the text on red background.

Top of page