![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: With restrictions on direct advertising, indirect marketing strategies have allowed tobacco products to be promoted to youth. Indirect marketing strategies include smoking in movies, coupons, celebrity smokers, and branded promotional materials. Bans on these type of marketing techniques has been a topic for discussion among public health advocates, but there is limited research on the effect of such techniques on behavior. This study sought to examine quantitatively the potential relationship between indirect marketing techniques and intentions to smoke in the future among youth smokers and non-smokers.
Methods: Monitoring the Future (MTF) data was examined to explore our research questions. MTF is an ongoing cross-sectional survey of youth in 8th, 10th, and 12th grades. The study tracks attitudes, values, and behaviors related to a variety of topics, including tobacco use. Conducted at the Survey Research Center in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, publically available data may be obtained through the National Addiction & HIV Data Archive Program. Preliminary analysis included descriptive analysis and tests for statistical differences between smokers and non-smokers for 12th graders only for the 3-year period 2009-2011 (n=43,791). Pairwise correlations were examined for evidence of potential relationships between indirect marketing and outcomes.
Results: Indicating the most recently watched theatre movie or DVD/TV movie had “some” or “a lot” of smokers in it was positively related to intentions to smoke in the future among smokers (r(8,009)=.52, p<.001 and r(8,008)=.52, p<.001). Similarly, smokers who perceived a greater proportion rock stars (r(8,021)=.53, p<.001) and actors (r(8,018)=.45, p<.001) who were regular smokers were also more likely to intend to smoke in the future. However, only very weak relationships existed between these variables and smoking intentions among current non-smokers (r(34,305)=.17, p<.001; r(34,3013)=.16, p <.001; r(34,329)=.16, p<.001; and r(34,317)=.14, p<.001 respectively). Note that significant p values are a function of the large sample size. Further, cigarette coupons and owning something with a tobacco logo on it were only very weakly related to intentions to smoke in the future among smokers (r(242)=.21, p=.001, r(1,313)=.10, p<.001) and not related to intentions among non-smokers (r(84)=-.01, p=.92, r(5,780)=.02, p=.098.
Conclusions: This data provides evidence that select indirect marketing techniques may be related to increased smoking intentions among youth who have smoked in the past 30 days. Specifically, indirect marketing techniques that work to establish normative behaviors were found to be related to increased intentions to smoke. Notably, these relationships were as strong or stronger as that of smoking behavior perceptions at schools and approval from close friends – influences of demonstrated importance in the literature. Though no claims of causality can be made with cross-sectional survey data, this data suggests that indirect marketing may serve as reinforcement to behavior.
Implications for research and/or practice: Practically, this data can provide a basis for beginning to quantitatively prioritize indirect marketing techniques of particular concern – that may warrant policy considerations. Theoretically, the findings provide evidence of the importance of normative influences in youth smoking behavior that extend beyond peer groups.