[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61670-61679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29299]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

 21 CFR Parts 801, 803, 804, and 897

[Docket No. 95N-0253]


Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes 
and Smokeless Tobacco Products to Protect Children and Adolescents: 
Findings of the Focus Group Testing of Brief Statements for Cigarette 
Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of findings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the 
findings of focus groups concerning the brief statements that would be 
required on all cigarette advertising. On August 11, 1995, FDA issued a 
proposed rule which, among other things, would require cigarette 
advertising to carry a brief statement on the relevant warnings, 
precautions, side effects, and contraindications pertaining to 
cigarette use. The agency said it would perform extensive focus group 
testing on the proposed brief statement. This document announces the 
findings of that focus group testing.

DATES: Written comments by January 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch 
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., 
Rockville, MD 20857.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Philip L. Chao, Office of Policy (HF-
23), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, 301-827-3380.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of August 11, 1995 
(60 FR 41314), FDA published a proposed rule that would restrict the 
sale and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products in 
order to protect children and adolescents. The proposed rule, among 
other things, would require cigarette advertising to carry a brief 
statement, such as ``About one out of three kids who become smokers 
will die from their smoking.'' The preamble to the proposed rule stated 
that FDA would conduct focus group testing of this proposed brief 
statement to evaluate the content and various formats for the brief 
statement to determine if the warnings are communicated effectively (60 
FR 41314 at 41338). FDA also stated that it would base the design, 
format, and content of the brief statement which is required by section 
502(r) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act on all 
advertisements and other descriptive printed matter pertaining to 
restricted devices) on the results of the focus group testing and on 
comments to the proposed rule.
    -FDA has completed the focus group testing and, through this 
document, is announcing the focus groups' findings. FDA will use the 
report, as well as comments submitted on the report, to determine the 
design, format, and content of the brief statement when preparing a 
final rule. The report is accompanied by sample graphics illustrating 
how a brief statement might be presented and by two moderator's guides.
    -Interested persons may on or before January 2, 1996, submit to the 
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the focus 
group report. Two copies are to be submitted, except that individuals 
may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket 
number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received 
comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday.
    -The report, entitled, ``Findings of the Focus Group Testing of 
Brief Statements for Cigarette Advertisements,'' is as follows:

Executive Summary

    Macro International, a research firm which provides survey, 
market research, and focus group services worldwide, was awarded a 
contract from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct 
a series of focus groups with adolescents to compare and evaluate 
brief statements directed to teens that address the risks of 
smoking. Macro has done nationally-representative surveys and 
demographic studies in 80 countries and has offices with state-of-
the-art focus group facilities in its headquarters outside 
Washington DC, New York City, Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, and 
Burlington VT.
    This contract included two series of focus groups. The purpose 
of the first series of groups, held in Calverton, Maryland, was to 
examine a number of brief statements about smoking to determine 
which of several kinds of messages teens found most compelling. The 
purpose of the second series of focus groups, held in cities around 
the U.S., was to evaluate a shortened list of messages and consider 
methods of presentation that would be most effective in informing 
teens about the risks of smoking. Participants in these focus groups 
were 12-17 year old males and females, and included both smokers and 
non-smokers. The focus groups were held during October and November, 
1995.

I.  Assumptions and Basic Perceptions of Adolescent Smoking

    According to the participants in the focus groups, smoking among 
teenagers is widespread. Almost all teens will try smoking at some 
point during their adolescence. There is little stigma attached to 
experimentation with smoking, since many teens consider it to be a 
``rite of passage''. Few teens who are just beginning to smoke 
consider themselves at risk for becoming addicted to cigarettes 
because they are convinced that they can quit at any time. The 
groups said that teens try smoking because of peer pressure; the 
desire to do something that they perceive to be an adult activity; 
and as a way to rebel against their parents, either overtly or 
covertly.
    Some of the focus groups did have active, regular smokers as 
part of the group, and the attitudes about smoking expressed by 
these participants was quite different than those expressed by non-
smokers or occasional smokers. Participants who indicated that they 
were regular smokers did not mention any of the reasons given by 
``social smokers'' as their reasons for smoking. They do not smoke 
in groups, nor do they smoke for social acceptance. Rather, they 
smoke because it ``calms them down'' or satisfies a physical need. 
Non-smokers or infrequent smokers indicated that they felt most 
people could stop smoking at any time; the teens who said they were 
addicted to smoking made it clear that, for them, smoking was no 
longer a matter of choice but a matter of need.

II.- Perceptions of Cigarette Advertising

    All of the groups expressed familiarity with the cigarette 
advertisements shown to them, and many were aware of incentive 
programs sponsored by major cigarette manufacturers, whereby 
cigarette smokers could receive clothing items or other products by 
cashing in ``Camel dollars'' or ``Marlboro miles'' for products from 
a catalog. The focus groups said that they felt the 

[[Page 61671]]
primary target of cigarette ads were teens and young adults, and that 
ads show people having a good time so that kids will think that 
their lives will improve if they smoke.

III.  Perceptions of Surgeon General's Warnings

    Unless prompted, the participants did not think of the Surgeon 
General's warning as part of the advertisement. They are aware that 
it is there, but it is considered a required element that is skipped 
over as a matter of course. Participants thought that it was 
required by the government or that it was there to keep people from 
suing the manufacturer for smoking-related illnesses or death. 
Participants did not think that the current Surgeon General's 
warnings were effective. They said that the terminology used was too 
complex (emphysema and carbon monoxide were two terms cited 
repeatedly as being too complex for them to understand), and that 
the ads seem to be designed to make the messages as unnoticeable as 
possible.

IV.- Perceptions of New Brief Statements

    All groups were shown a variety of new brief statements that 
were intended to be directed primarily toward teenagers. Responses 
to the messages appeared to fall into three general categories: 
positive responses from most or all of the participants; mixed 
responses, where some groups responded positively but others did 
not; and messages that were poorly received by all groups. A 
``positive'' response was defined as one where participants 
indicated that teens their age would read the message, consider the 
implications of the message, and perhaps change behavior because of 
it. Mixed responses included some positive responses, but also 
included neutral or negative responses to the brief statement. A 
response was categorized as negative if a whole group never liked 
the message.
    The message that received the most positive response from groups 
across the country was one that said, ``Tobacco kills more Americans 
each year than AIDS, alcohol, accidents, murder, suicides, illegal 
drugs, and fires * * * combined.'' Other messages that received 
generally positive responses from most groups were, ``About one out 
of three kids who become smokers will die from their smoking,'' ``Of 
the 3000 young people who begin smoking each day, 1000 will die from 
their smoking,'' and ``Tobacco causes shortness of breath, coughing, 
yellow teeth and wrinkles.'' It is notable that the messages that 
received the most positive responses from the groups were those 
which presented facts and figures.
    Messages that received mixed consideration from the groups were 
those that were directed at a limited audience such as ``Smoking 
hurts your athletic performance''; or those that the groups 
considered to be ``slogans,'' such as ``Addiction happens much 
faster than you think'' or ``Everyone now addicted to cigarettes 
started out `just trying' cigarettes.''
    Several brief statements received negative responses from all 
groups to whom they were shown. They included most of the messages 
addressing the issue of addiction, such as ``Addiction sucks you in 
to a lifetime of smoking,'' ``Smoking is a deadly addiction,'' and 
``Kids who start smoking find they can't stop--once it's too late.''

V.- Perceptions of Possible Design Elements for the Brief Statements

    The major design elements that groups saw as leading to visual 
prominence were type size, distinctive borders, a color that 
contrasted with the rest of the ad, and to a lesser extent use of a 
distinctive icon. Most groups recommended using a very large type 
size to increase the visual prominence of the brief statement and to 
make it easier to read. All groups were enthusiastic about the use 
of a jagged border to draw attention to the brief statement. They 
also recommended varying the message and varying its appearance over 
time so that consumers would not habituate to its appearance.
    Participants said that a brief statement would be most effective 
if it was visually prominent in the ad, and that the optimal design 
of the brief statement would necessarily depend upon the design of a 
particular advertisement. Thus, several groups recommended that the 
brief statements should be added after the advertisement was 
designed to minimize the likelihood of it being designed to reduce 
the impact of the brief statement. If that was not possible, many 
groups indicated that placing the message at the top of the 
advertisement or in the middle would be optimal for getting 
attention.
    Many of the groups said that the new brief statement should be 
more visually prominent than the Surgeon General's warning, and that 
the new statement should be distinct from the Surgeon General's 
warning.

VI.- Other Findings

    1. A common sentiment expressed by participants in some groups 
was that the best way to present the information would be as a 
stand-alone advertisement portraying the risks of smoking rather 
than as part of a cigarette advertisement.
    2. Smokers and non-smokers expressed similar sentiments about 
messages that were effective, and about how to convey messages about 
the risks of smoking in ways that would appeal to adolescents.
    3. Most groups expressed the belief that any messages about the 
risks of smoking would be most effective with younger children or 
with people who had not yet started to smoke, rather than with 
current smokers.

Methodology

Number and Composition of Groups

    A total of 19 focus groups were held in five cities across the 
United States. Cities were selected to reflect a diversity of 
populations. The cities used for this study included Calverton, 
Maryland (a suburb of Washington, DC); Minneapolis, Minnesota; 
Charlotte, North Carolina; Houston, Texas; and San Francisco, 
California. Groups included participants that represented the ethnic 
diversity of the geographical area. All groups were segmented by 
age, with approximately one-half of the groups comprised of 12-14 
year olds and the rest of 15-17 year olds. All groups were single 
sex groups with the exception of a mixed group of 15-17 year old 
males and females in Calverton. The groups in Calverton, Charlotte 
and Minneapolis were pre-screened to determine smoking status of 
participants; the groups in San Francisco and Houston were not pre-
screened for smoking status since the recruiting experiences from 
Calverton, Charlotte and Minneapolis assured the project personnel 
that both smokers and non-smokers would be included in all groups 
regardless of whether or not participants were pre-screened.
    All of the focus groups for this project were 90-120 minutes 
long. During Phase I of the project (the Calverton groups), the 
primary objective was to determine which of 15 messages presented to 
participants were received the most positively. During Phase II of 
the project, the primary objectives were to refine the list of 
acceptable messages even further; and to obtain feedback about how 
the brief statements could be presented to showcase the message most 
effectively.

Schedule of Groups

Calverton, Maryland: 3 groups at Macro's focus group facility
    October 17, 5:30 p.m. - 8 Boys, 12-14 years old - Smokers
    October 18, 4:30 p.m. - 8 Girls, 12-14 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    October 18, 6:30 p.m. - 8 Boys and Girls, 15-17 years old - 
Smokers
Charlotte, North Carolina: 4 groups at FacFind, Inc.
    October 24, 4:30 p.m. - 7 Girls, 12-14 years old - Smokers
    October 24, 6:30 p.m. - 8 Girls, 15-17 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    October 25, 4:30 p.m. - 8 Boys, 12-14 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
    October 25, 6:30 p.m. - 9 Boys, 15-17 years old - Smokers
Minneapolis, Minnesota: 4 groups at Orman Guidance Research
    October 24, 4:30 p.m. - 8 Girls, 12-14 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    October 24, 6:30 p.m. - 8 Girls, 15-17 years old - Smokers
    October 25, 4:30 p.m. - 8 Boys, 12-14 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
    October 25, 6:30 p.m. - 8 Boys, 15-17 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
Houston, Texas: 4 Groups at CQS Research Inc.
    October 31, 4:30 p.m. - 8 Girls, 12-14 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    October 31, 6:30 p.m. - 5 Girls, 15-17 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    November 1, 4:30 p.m. - 9 Boys, 12-14 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
    November 1, 6:30 p.m. - 7 Boys, 15-17 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
San Francisco, California: 4 groups at Fleischman Field Research, 
Inc.
    November 8, 4:00 p.m. - 8 Girls, 12-14 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    November 8, 6:00 p.m. - 8 Girls, 15-17 years old - Mix of 
smokers and non-smokers
    November 9, 4:00 p.m. - 8 Boys, 12-14 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers
    November 9, 6:00 p.m. - 8 Boys, 15-17 years old - Mix of smokers 
and non-smokers

Recruitment

Calverton Groups

[[Page 61672]]

    Macro used Olchak Market Research, Inc. (OMR) to recruit the 3 
groups in Calverton. OMR had been used successfully by Macro in the 
past to conduct recruitment efforts for focus groups. OMR maintains 
a randomly collected database of individuals who are likely to 
participate in focus groups or other market research projects. To 
maintain and add to this database, OMR calls individuals at random 
and explains that they are a market research firm which periodically 
performs market surveys and recruits for focus groups. They inform 
the individual that participants in these projects are paid for 
their time, then they ask whether the individual would be interested 
in participating in a future project. If the individual is 
interested in participating, his/her demographic information is 
recorded for future use. OMR does not use address lists provided by 
organizations, nor does it use individuals who contact them and ask 
to be placed on their list since many of these people are 
``professional'' survey and focus group participants.
    To ensure that a sufficient sample of adolescents attended, 14 
youths were recruited for each group so that each group had 9 
participants. OMR called adult individuals who were known to have 
children in the desired age range (12-17 years old), and used the 
attached screening instrument in their recruiting efforts. OMR made 
first contact with the parents of each youth. If the parents 
approved of their child's participation in the group, the child was 
then screened to determine if his/her age group (12-14 or 15-17 
years old), gender, ethnicity, and smoking status fit the profiles 
called for in any of the 3 Calverton groups. If the youth's profile 
matched the desired profile for one of the groups, he/she was asked 
to participate and offered a $40 incentive. Cash incentives are 
routinely used in focus group projects to ensure that participants 
attend groups that they have been asked to attend. All recruits were 
sent a confirmation letter by OMR, and OMR also telephoned them 
within 36 hours of the focus group to confirm their attendance. Each 
confirmation letter also contained a parental permission form which 
had to be completed and signed before any youth was allowed to 
participate in a group or receive the incentive payment.
Other Cities
    Recruiting in Charlotte, Minneapolis, Houston, and San Francisco 
was performed by the individual focus group facilities with guidance 
from Macro staff. Each facility's recruiting methodology mirrored 
OMR's in most respects, except that the facilities in Houston and 
San Francisco did not screen participants for their smoking status 
for any group. Pre-screening for these groups was not required 
because the recruiting patterns in Calverton, Charlotte and 
Minneapolis indicated that a mix of smokers and non-smokers would 
result whether smoking status was pre-screened or not.

Statement of Limitations

    In market research, the focus group approach seeks to develop 
insight and direction rather than quantitatively precise or absolute 
measures. Because of the limited number of respondents and the 
restrictions of recruiting, this research must be considered in a 
qualitative frame of reference.
    This study cannot be considered reliable or valid in a 
statistical sense since the recruiting of participants cannot be 
replicated, nor can the moderator ask the same questions of other 
respondents. This type of research is intended to provide guidance 
in determining knowledge, awareness, attitudes and opinions about 
concepts, products, or advertising formats.
    Certain biases are inherent in this type of study and are stated 
here to remind the reader that focus group data cannot be projected 
to any universe of individuals. First, participants tend to be risk 
takers and may be somewhat more assertive than non-participants. 
Second, participants in a focus group study ``self-select'' 
themselves by the very fact that they are those people who were 
available at a time a particular group was scheduled. Participants 
thus were not selected randomly so that each person in a pool of 
possible participants did not have an equal chance of being 
selected. Third, participants who attend focus group sessions may be 
more articulate and willing to express opinions in a group than non-
participants. And finally, people in groups may respond differently 
to a question than if asked the same question individually. They may 
follow the lead of a strong speaker or someone they perceive as 
``expert,'' despite efforts of the moderator to eliminate this bias.
    This report cannot accurately detail the wealth of information 
in the non-verbal area, such as ``body language,'' (posture, 
sleepiness, wiggling in the chair, etc.) or the amount of time 
elapsed between questions from the moderator and actual responses 
from the group. It also cannot report on the subtle area of ``peer 
pressure''--the willingness to avoid making a particular response 
because of fear of what others in the group might think, or quickly 
changing a response when others in the group appear to oppose a 
particular position.
    Finally, the reader is reminded that this report is intended 
primarily to clarify cloudy issues and point the direction for 
future research, and that data here cannot be projected to a 
universe of similar respondents.

Moderators

    Two moderators were used for this project. Both are Macro 
employees with professional moderator training and significant 
practical experience moderating focus groups. The moderator for the 
Charlotte and San Francisco groups was trained at the Burke 
Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio. The moderator for the groups in 
Calverton, Minneapolis, and Houston was trained at the Riva 
Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

Data analysis

    All of the focus groups were taped. The tapes were used to 
develop transcriptions of the sessions for preparation of the 
report. All direct quotations in this report were identified via the 
professional transcriptions, which were produced by SAG Corporation 
in Washington, DC with tapes supplied by Macro.

Protection of privacy of participants

    All participants and their parents were promised anonymity for 
their participation in this study. Thus, no participant names or 
other identifying characteristics appear in this report.

Format for Discussion

Phase I--Calverton
    The primary objective of the Calverton groups was to obtain 
adolescents' reactions to 15 messages that had been developed as 
possible brief statements directed towards teens. In addition, 
participants were queried about attitudes toward smoking among their 
contemporaries and attitudes toward cigarette advertising among this 
population. Thus, the discussion for these groups followed the 
following format:
A.  Discussion of Cigarette Advertising
    Participants were queried about their knowledge of cigarette 
advertising and their perceptions of what messages cigarette 
advertisements were attempting to convey. Sample cigarette 
advertisements were present to aid the discussion.
B. -Discussion of Surgeon General's Warnings
    The moderator focused discussion upon the Surgeon General's 
warnings currently appearing on cigarette advertisements and 
elicited reactions to those warnings.
C. -Presentation of Sets of Brief Statements
    Participants were presented with four sets of brief statements, 
with each set containing messages that addressed different aspects 
of smoking. Statements were presented in sets to ease the process of 
comparison and selection of the most effective messages, due to the 
large number of brief statements that were presented to this group. 
The four sets of messages presented to the Calverton groups were:
    Set 1
    Kids who smoke like adults get addicted like adults.
    Tobacco kills more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, 
accidents, murder, suicides, illegal drugs and fires * * * combined.
    The earlier you start smoking the greater your risk of lung 
cancer.
    Smoking harms your baby.
    -Set 2
    Most teen smokers believe they can quit but after six years 75% 
still smoke.
    About one out of three kids who become smokers will die from it.
    Tobacco causes shortness of breath, coughing, wheezing, yellow 
teeth and wrinkles.
    Cigarette smoke has more than 4000 chemicals including ones that 
cause cancer.
    -Set 3
    Tobacco kills more people every day than 2 jumbo jets crashing 
with no survivors.
    Smoking is a deadly addiction.
    Smoking today leads to fewer tomorrows.
    -Set 4
    -Kids who start smoking find they can't stop--once it's too 
late.
    -Everyone now addicted to cigarettes started out `just trying' 
cigarettes.
    -Most smokers wish they could quit but can't.
    -70% of smokers wish they could quit.

[[Page 61673]]

    -Addiction happens much faster than you think.
D. -Discussion of Similarities and Differences of Preferred Messages
    Based upon the responses to the messages listed above, each 
group selected their preferred messages and discussed the reasons 
why they chose certain messages over the others presented.
    Phase II--Charlotte, Minneapolis, Houston, San Francisco
    The primary objective of the groups in the cities outside the 
Washington, DC area was to further refine the list of appropriate 
messages and then develop presentation criteria that would make the 
brief statements most effective within the context of cigarette 
advertisements.
A. -Discussion about Kids and Smoking
    Participants were asked to talk about the number of their peers 
that smoked, reasons teenagers smoke, and situations in which teens 
would most likely be smoking. The topic of addiction and how teens 
perceive addiction also was discussed in many of the groups. 
Participants were told at the outset that whether or not they 
personally smoked was their own business, and that what the 
moderator was interested in was their perception of how teens in 
general regarded smoking. Participants also were told about and 
asked to discuss recent trends in the rate of adult and teen 
smokers.
B. -Cigarette Advertising
    Examples of cigarette ads on pasteboard displays were shown to 
the groups and the participants' familiarity with the ads, as well 
as their reactions to them, were discussed. The moderator also 
focused discussion upon the Surgeon General's warnings currently 
appearing on cigarette advertisements and elicited reactions to 
those warnings.
C. -Presentation of New Brief Statements
    Based upon the responses to the brief statements of the 
Calverton groups, seven message were tested in the focus groups held 
in Charlotte and Minneapolis. These messages were discussed 
individually and favorite messages were selected by each group. The 
messages presented included:
    -Smoking today leads to fewer tomorrows.
    -Of the 3000 young people who begin smoking each day, 1000 will 
die from their smoking.
    -About one out of three kids who become smokers will die from 
their smoking.
    -Tobacco kills more Americans each year than AIDS, alcohol, 
accidents, murder, suicide, illegal drugs and fires * * * combined.
    -Everyone now addicted to cigarettes started out ``just trying'' 
cigarettes.
    -Tobacco causes shortness of breath, coughing, yellow teeth and 
wrinkles.
    -Addiction happens much faster than you think.
    -In addition to the seven messages listed above, three new 
messages were tested in Houston and San Francisco. These messages 
were:
    -Smoking hurts your athletic performance.
    -Addiction sucks you into a lifetime of smoking.
    Non-smokers run faster than smokers.
D. -Discussion of Message Format and Placement
    Each group then was asked to discuss the issue of presentation 
of brief statements on advertisements. Using the pasteboards of 
existing advertisements, each group examined issues such as: the 
size of the message; position of the message; different types of 
boundaries; whether or not attribution of the message was effective 
(for example, attribution of a factual statement to the Centers for 
Disease Control); the use of icons to draw attention to a message; 
or other factors identified by the groups. To evaluate each of these 
factors, sample messages in different sizes, shapes, with/without 
attribution, with/without icons, and with/without specialized 
borders were developed so that the moderator (or participants) could 
demonstrate placement of the brief statements in various 
configurations.
    -Participants were presented with sample brief statements in 
three sizes. The ``large'' messages were 25 percent of the total 
height of the ads used as samples for the groups. The statements 
identified as ``medium'' sized were 15 percent of the total height, 
and the ``small'' versions were 8 percent of the total height, which 
is the approximate size of the Surgeon General's warning.
E. -Summary of Preferences
    Each group summarized its preferences for the messages that 
participants preferred and the placement and design elements that 
would be most effective in drawing the attention of adolescents to 
the dangers of smoking. Participants also used this occasion to make 
other recommendations that might make the messages more effective.

-General Findings

I. -Assumptions and Basic Perception of Adolescent Smoking

    1. -All of the groups indicated that a high percentage of 
adolescents will try cigarette smoking at some point during their 
teenage years. Estimates of the number of teens who will try smoking 
ranged from 50 to 99 percent. The major reasons given for why teens 
try smoking included: peer pressure; doing something that adults 
would not approve of; the perception of smoking as a ``cool'' 
activity; curiosity; and being around parents, other family members 
and friends who smoke.
    -``pressure from your friends''
    -``It's kind of like you go out and somebody offers you a 
cigarette and everybody else has one * * *.''
    - ``It's more they're being rebels.''
    -``Some people, well, you know, like, do it to be cool.''
    -``Lots of people, most of the kids I know, my friends, their, 
like, their brothers and sisters give them a cigarette, saying, `You 
want to try it yet?'''
    2.- The adolescents in our groups indicated that teens attach 
little stigma to smoking because it is seen as an exploratory 
behavior rather than as a permanent lifestyle choice. Smoking 
appears to be not a lifestyle choice, but rather a matter of 
``trying it out,'' ``exploring what it is like,'' and an 
informational pre-decisional behavior.
    ``* * * you know, other people are doing it, so why not try 
it?''
    -``At the beginning, it would be like just curiosity and wanting 
to know what it's like.''
    3. -When asked where they get cigarettes, the adolescents in 
these groups indicated that they get them from family or friends who 
smoke; they buy them at convenience stores or other retail outlets 
known for allowing minors to purchase cigarettes; or they steal 
them.
    -``Well, I'm speaking from experience because when I was growing 
up my brother would buy them for me.''
    -``You just go up to the counter, and even if you don't have any 
ID, you can still get them.''
    4. -Teens that are just trying smoking stated very different 
reasons for smoking than teens who regularly smoke. The teens in 
these focus groups said that people try smoking to feel cool; to 
experience something that they consider to be ``adult'' behavior; 
and because of social pressures to try smoking in group situations. 
In contrast, the participants who identified themselves as smokers 
said that they smoked because it calms them down, or because smoking 
satisfies a physical and mental need. They indicated that they do 
not smoke in groups, nor do they smoke for social acceptance, but 
rather to meet bodily needs.
    -``It's like, oh, I smoke but I just do it after school. Have a 
cigarette to calm down or something.''
    -``I used to be real jittery and nervous all the time, and it 
really calms me down.''
    -``Your body craves it. You don't think about it anymore. It 
just becomes part of your life, just to have a cigarette.''
    5. -Some of the practiced smokers in the groups expressed a very 
fatalistic attitude about their lives, and they questioned the 
likelihood of whether they would live a long time.
    -``They're going to die anyway. At least they're doing something 
they want to do.''
    6.- Non-smokers in these groups were often critical of people 
who smoke regularly as adults, calling the behavior ``stupid'' or 
``unhealthy.'' However, their criticism often was tempered by the 
fact that they know family members, relatives or other respected 
adults who are or have been longtime smokers.
    -``People smoke because they're putting lots of nicotine in 
their blood and killing themselves.''
    ``I mean, it's like suicide, you know?''

II.  Perceptions of Cigarette Advertising

    1.  The adolescent participants in the focus groups were very 
familiar with cigarette advertising. There was 100% recognition of 
familiar ads, such as Camel, Marlboro, Virginia Slims, and Newport 
ads. There also was high awareness of the availability of 
promotional items with cigarette logos on them, such as T-shirts, 
book bags, etc. Participants explained how one could accumulate 
``Marlboro Miles'' or ``Camel C Dollars'' to acquire such items.
    -``Yeah, you get, like, at certain brands you get points for 
them and you can turn them points in for, like, Zippo lighters or 
jackets and bags.''

[[Page 61674]]

    ``They're every camel with a cigarette in his mouth. They go 
like, 'Everyone have a good time.'''
    2.- There was high awareness in all of the groups of familiar 
slogans, logos on billboards, and point-of-purchase displays. Some 
participants expressed the belief that cigarettes are advertised on 
television, although others in the groups usually pointed out that 
cigarette advertising was not allowed on TV.
    -``It showed him smoking a Winston and said, `See, you really 
can be a winner!'''
    ``Everyone associates that orange and green with Newport * * *''
    3. -Most of the participants indicated that they did not believe 
that they were influenced by cigarette advertisements.
    ``I mean, it has nothing to do with the ads. They don't keep me 
from it, nor they don't make me do it.''
    ``If you're just flipping through a magazine and you see it, you 
might stop and you might see something you like about it, and then 
flip on through. You don't really think of smoking or not smoking.''
    4. -Participants in all of the groups responded that text-only 
ads are less attractive and less likely to be effective than ads 
with pictures. Although they indicated that consumers would be less 
likely to read the new warnings on text-only advertisements, they 
felt that text-only ads may serve to lessen teen smoking. The 
younger participants in particular said that anything requiring 
reading was boring and much less likely to attract their attention.
    ``I probably wouldn't look at it in the first place because it's 
black and white.''
    ``People like pictures, not a whole bunch of words.''
    ``Yeah, you won't even look at it. It's just a bunch of words.''
    ``It's like a birthday card. You get a birthday card that has 
too many words, you just skim through it and get the money out of 
it.''

III. Perceptions of Surgeon General's Warning Statements

    1. -All of the groups recognized the Surgeon General's warnings, 
but unless they were prompted, they did not appear to consider the 
Surgeon General's warning a part of the advertisement. Participants 
expressed the belief that it was there because it was required by 
the government, or because cigarette manufacturers were trying to 
protect themselves from lawsuits.
    ``They are required by law. They wouldn't put it on there if 
they weren't.''
    ``If they didn't put them on there, they would get sued.''
    2. -Participants also commented that the Surgeon General's 
warnings often were too small and camouflaged within the context of 
the ad, either through the use of colors that helped the warning 
``blend in'' with the background colors--the Marlboro ad, for 
example, which features white snow or sand surrounding the white 
Surgeon General's warning--or with images that directed the eye away 
from the warning message. Most groups also mentioned that the 
warning itself was often quite small in relation to the ad on which 
it appeared.
    ``You can see, like, on that one [Virginia Slims ad], they put 
it down in the bottom corner, when you're looking, like, at that 
lady.''
    ``They glance at it, but what they see is the thing that's being 
advertised. They don't notice that little small print.''
    ``They blend it in with that white with the white snow on it, 
they just put it right at the bottom in the white snow.''
    3. -Many participants expressed the belief that the Surgeon 
General's warnings were difficult to understand. They did not know 
what effect carbon monoxide would have on them, for example, and 
many participants did not know what emphysema was.
    ``Kids are not going to know what carbon monoxide is.''

IV.- Perception of New Brief Statements

    1.- There was a high degree of consensus about which statements 
were more or less liked.
    2.- The statements that were received most positively were those 
that included factual statements about the health risks associated 
with regular (i.e. long term) smoking.
    ``Dying means a lot.''
    ``I think the numbers * * * might make it a little more 
noticeable.''
    ``It makes it more real.''
    ``Picture like 1,000 people dying at once, you know?''
    3.- The one brief statement that consistently was identified as 
effective was the one that stated, ``Tobacco kills more Americans 
each year than AIDS, alcohol, accidents, murder, suicides, illegal 
drugs and fires * * * combined.'' Most of the participants indicated 
that, although they knew that smoking was not good for them, they 
were unaware that smoking was as dangerous as this statement 
indicated. They mentioned AIDS, accidents, illegal drugs, and 
suicide as well-publicized causes of death, but that cigarette-
related deaths were not so obvious because they generally occurred 
among older people as a result of long illnesses rather than in 
sensational situations that were covered by the nightly news.
    -``You are always hearing about how many people die from AIDS 
and alcohol and murder, and tobacco kills more than all of them 
combined. That ought to freak them out.''
    -``I think even little kids who are younger, people do realize 
the serious effect of AIDS, and if they think that AIDS is bad then 
they have to realize that tobacco is worse.''
    -``Because you hear about those things more than you ever hear 
about tobacco.''
    4. -A message that stated that ``About 1 in 3 kids who become 
smokers will die from it'' also was considered effective by many of 
the groups. A similar statement that said ``1000 out of 3000'' was 
also considered effective by some participants, while others said 
that teens would be likely to think that they could ``beat the 
odds'' if they became smokers.
    -``Well, they'll think, 'It won't happen to me. I'll go ahead 
and do it anyway.' They'll think they'll be one of the two.''
    5.- Many of the groups indicated that, if one of the brief 
statements listed above was included on advertising, it is likely 
that people who were considering smoking might reconsider, due to 
the seriousness of the consequences.
    6.- The message about the short term effects of smoking on 
physical appearance and fitness appealed to some groups, 
particularly the girls, who were more concerned about yellow teeth 
and wrinkles. Groups thought that such a message about the more 
immediate effects smoking would be useful because it spoke to 
everyday concerns of kids.
    -``That will make them realize that if they are going to smoke, 
it will have an effect on their looks.''
    -``I think people like are more worried about what they look 
like on the outside than like maybe like lung cancer or something.''
    -``* * * that's one of the main reasons why I don't smoke 
because it affects how I run and stuff like that.''
    7.- No other message of those tested received support from more 
than a few groups. Individual groups were favorable toward 
``Everyone now addicted to cigarettes started out 'just trying,'' 
``Smoking today leads to fewer tomorrows,'' or ``Smoking hurts your 
athletic performance,'' but other groups did not see these messages 
as particularly effective.
    -8. -Other messages were universally disliked or ineffective.
    -9. -There was no discernible difference in reactions to 
messages between smokers and non-smokers. Both smokers and non-
smokers appeared to have similar taste in messages.
    10.- Several messages addressing the addiction aspect of smoking 
were tried and proved ineffectual.

V.- Perception of Possible Design Elements for New Brief Statements

    1.- All groups indicated that the guiding design principle for 
the brief statements was for the statements to be visually prominent 
in the ad.
    2. -All groups recognized that the optimal design of the brief 
statement, particularly placement, would necessarily depend on the 
design of the particular advertisement. For example, all groups 
indicated that advertisers would try to design their ads to diminish 
the visual performance of the brief statement, like they do with the 
Surgeon General's warning. Some groups recommended that the brief 
statements be added after the advertisement was designed to minimize 
the possibility of it being designed to reduce the impact of the 
brief statement.
    ``Well, if it's in the middle then they will be forced to read 
it, because you have to look at it.''
    ``If it's possible, right in the middle.''
    ``I am an artist and I notice that a lot of propaganda is, they 
have a pattern through the picture, so your eyes tend to follow the 
pattern. Like when you see the cigarette it sort of points to her 
face, you see the pizza and her laughing and you see him, and the 
Surgeon General's warning is always somewhere obscured.''
    ``They'll design the picture to avoid it, I think.''
    3.- Many of the groups said that the new brief statement should 
be more visually prominent than the Surgeon General's warning--which 
led them to say that the new 

[[Page 61675]]
brief statements needed to be distinct from the existing Surgeon 
General's warning.
    ``I mean, because if you have one of those, except bigger, you 
know, 'Oh, it's another Surgeon General's warning.' I mean, you skip 
over it again. But they do it, say, right in the middle, if they do 
write it in the same kind of style but make it look different some 
sort of way, you know, have it kind of in similar writing but not 
necessarily the block writing, it might be--people are more apt to 
read it.''
    ``The little one is almost the size of the Surgeon General's 
itself, so you're not improving it too much.''
    4.- Although placement was seen as the design element most 
dependent upon the specific advertisement, many groups recommended 
that, if possible, the message be put at the top of the ad or in the 
middle to ensure the greatest visibility.
    ``Because when you pick it up that's where you start reading.''
    ``If you put it in a place where it stays away from all the 
words, it would do a lot to make it stand out.''
    ``Put either one [Surgeon General's warning or brief statement] 
at the top. You are going to read that before you read the thing 
[ad].''
    5.- The major design elements that groups saw as contributing to 
visual prominence were type size, distinctive borders, and to a 
lesser extent, the use of a distinctive icon. Most groups said that 
the bigger the type size, the better, because it made it easier to 
read and more likely that the brief statement would be read. In 
fact, none of the groups felt that the smallest type size would be 
acceptable, although several groups approved of the middle type size 
if it would be placed appropriately. Several of the groups said that 
the middle size represented the best trade-off of the needs of the 
advertiser and the need to have the brief statement noticeable.
    ``Something flashy.''
    ``If they're going to allow people to sell cigarettes, then I 
don't think they should have them put big letters on the cigarette 
box that make people not want to smoke.''
    6.- Groups were mixed about the desirability of the ``arrow-
type'' border for a brief statement, but were universally 
enthusiastic about the properties of a jagged-type border as a way 
to capture the attention of readers.
    ``Because it's [the jagged edge border] almost like a coupon.''
    ``It catches your eye more.''
    7.- Some groups were positive about the icon, with others less 
so. While most group said it would marginally improve the salience 
of a message, some groups thought the icon itself was not optimal 
and suggested other alternatives. Some groups worried that the 
trade-off between the extra space required by the icon and a larger 
message was not justified.
    8.- Groups frequently suggested that the appearance of a message 
be changed regularly so that consumers would not habituate to its 
appearance.
    ``You ought to change it periodically. I don't know what all you 
could change it to, but have it somehow different because I'm sure 
when they first started putting the Surgeon General's warning on 
there it caught peoples' eyes because it was new.''
    9.- Most groups mentioned that color would be a good way to 
increase the prominence of a message. Almost every group mentioned 
neon shades, either in jest or in a serious manner, or at the very 
least a shade that contrasted with the colors in the advertisement 
itself.
    ``I just think that in general a different color from the whole 
poster, but still where it doesn't look tacky. It still blends in, 
but not in a similar color.''
    ``If it was in a different color, that stands out no matter how 
much you try to avoid some of the stuff, it's going to catch your 
eye no matter what.''
    ``A vibrant color.''
    ``I think it should be like a neon orange.''
    ``I think there should be like two or three colors that it can 
be and you have to not use that color in your ad.''
    10.- Some participants suggested that the best way to present 
the information would be as a stand-alone advertisement rather than 
as part of a cigarette advertisement.
    ``Just have more ads against smoking.''
    ``I know. Yeah, for a good commercial, you go, put, like, for a 
commercial, somebody smokes, put, like, you know, on the Indiana 
Jones where all his skin comes off and the blood's running out!''
    11.- The reaction to attribution to a source of information 
(Centers for Disease Control, FDA, other sources of attribution) 
also received a mixed response. While some groups said that 
attribution would strengthen a statement, others disagreed with that 
viewpoint.
    ``It doesn't really matter (who said it) * * * as long as it's 
fact.''
    ``Someone with a degree who graduated--the Surgeon General.''

Addenda

1.- Sample graphics
2.- Moderator's Guides
    a.- Phase I
    b.- Phase II

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F

[[Page 61676]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TP01DE95.038



BILLING CODE 4160-01-C

[[Page 61677]]


Cigarette Advertising Focus Groups Phase I Moderator's Guide

Outline
    1. Introductions
    2. Presentation of Examples of Cigarette Ads
    3. Discussion of Cigarette Advertising in General
    4. Discussion of Warning Statements
    5. Presentation and Discussion of First Set
    6. Presentation and Discussion of Second Set
    7. Presentation and Discussion of Third Set
    8. Presentation and Discussion of Fourth Set
    9. Discussion of Similarities and Differences of the Winners
Materials:
    3-5 Examples of Cigarette Ads (Relevant to this Age Group).
    Sheets of Paper with 3 or 4 Possible Brief Statement Wordings. 
Each Participant Will Get Four of These During the Session.

1. Introductions

Summary:
    Moderator and respondents introduce themselves to one another. 
Overall plan for the focus groups is discussed. ``Today, we'll be 
looking and talking about some examples of cigarette advertising.'' 
Important points to emphasize in the introduction. We are not here 
to talk about whether you do or do not smoke. That's your business. 
Nothing you say in the group will get back to your parents or anyone 
else. We care about how cigarette advertising works, and we want to 
talk to people of your age to get a better idea of how they see and 
understand advertising.

2,3. Discussion of Cigarette Advertising: General

Materials:
    Examples of cigarette ads on pasteboard displays are shown to 
the group and remain on display throughout the session.
    ``Here are some examples of cigarette advertising.''
    Have you seen these kinds of ads before?
    Where do you usually see them?
    Do you notice anything different or special about cigarette ads 
compared to other kinds of products that are advertised, or are they 
basically the same as other ads?
    What other kinds of ads do cigarette ads remind you of?
    What kind of person is most likely to look at cigarette ads?
    Who is not likely to pay much attention to these kinds of ads?
    --The 3 ads are present at this point, but they are not the 
focus of the discussion. Smokers and non-smokers will almost 
certainly be brought up in this discussion, but we do not want 
participants to focus on their own behavior at this point.
    --Warning statements are not cued by the moderator, but will 
probably come up in the discussion. Moderator needs to explore 
issues as they arise, but there is no need to focus on warning 
messages at this point.
    --An important point here is to let people reveal their own 
natural categories about cigarette advertising and warning 
statements before the concept of ``warning statements'' is 
explicitly introduced.
    Do you think these 3 ads are different from each other, or are 
they basically the same?
    How are they different/same?

4.  Discussion of Warning Messages

    --The discussion is turned toward issues related to the warning 
statements, which may or may not have been discussed already. The 
moderator needs to explore the issues below without being repetitive 
or redundant with any previous discussion.
    ``Let's talk a little bit about the warning messages in the 
ads--which you may or may not have noticed.''
    --The moderator refers here to the Surgeon General's Warning 
statements in the ads as examples of warning messages.
    Why are these messages there?
    Do you think they work?
    Why? Why not?
    Who looks at these messages?
    Who is supposed to look at these messages?
    When did you first notice that these messages were in cigarette 
advertising? What did you think when you first saw them?
    How could you improve these kinds of messages?

5. Presentation of Set of Warning Messages

Materials: 81/2"  11" pages, containing several different 
possible warning messages.
    ``The warning messages that we have seen so far are not the only 
possible warning messages. What I'd like to do now is show you 
possible wordings for warning statements and get your reactions to 
these. These messages could be used in cigarette advertisements in 
the same way as in the ads we have here today.
    ``Here are some possible wordings for warning statements.''
    --Each participant gets a sheet with examples of possible 
warning messages. The sets of possible warning messages will have to 
be determined. The intent is to present participants with a small 
number of statements they can compare and contrast rather than one 
at a time or in one big list. The selection of statements should 
take advantage of the ability to elicit direct comparisons.
    Do you feel any of these statements is particularly good or bad? 
credible/not credible personally relevant/not relevant Why?
    What does (pick one of the messages at a time/but get reactions 
to as many as you think are necessary) mean to you?
    How would you describe the differences, if any, between these 
messages?
    Would you be more likely to pay attention to some of these 
messages? Which ones? Why?
    What sort of young person would be likely to pay/not pay 
attention to these messages?
    Do they all have the same target audience?
    Which messages will appeal to which groups?
    Which one(s) do you like best? (Get them to rate the messages 
and record consensus choice(s).)

6,7,8. Repeat the same discussion above for each new set of warning 
statements

9. Discussion of similarities and differences of the 4 winners.

    ``Here are the messages the group thought were best''
    Are there other kinds of warning messages that we haven't 
included that you think should be in cigarette advertising? What 
would those be? Why do you think they would be good?
    --moderator needs to include suggestions that are reasonably 
well received by the group as part of the final set of messages that 
will be discussed below.
    How would you describe the differences, if any, between these 
messages?
    Is there anything that these messages have in common that makes 
them superior to the other kinds of messages that did not make the 
final cut?
    How would you describe the intended audiences for the different 
messages? Same? Different? Which messages appeal to what kinds of 
people?
    Of all these messages, which one do you think is most likely to 
be effective? Why?
    Which one(s) do you personally like the most?
    At the end of the session, the participants will fill out a 
short outtake questionnaire that will contain some questions about 
smoking status, number of cigarettes smoked, brands smoked, and 
other relevant information.

Cigarette Advertising Focus Groups Phase II Moderator's Guide

Outline:
    1. Introductions
    2. Kids and Smoking
    3. Information Piece
    4. Cigarette Advertising
    5. Warning Messages
    6. Presentation of New Warning Messages: Content
    7. Size of Message
    8. Position
    9. Boundaries
    10. Attribution
    11. Icons
    12. Summary
Materials:
    3-5 Examples of Cigarette Ads (Relevant to this Age Group).
    Visuals Examples of Ads (Could Be Same Ads as Used Above) That 
Embody Various Format and Design Features That We Want to Evaluate--
as Many as Needed.

1. Introductions

Summary:
    A. Moderator and respondents introduce themselves to one 
another.
    B. Overall plan for the focus groups is discussed:
    Today, we want to talk about kids and smoking. Some of you may 
be smokers, but we're not here to talk about whether you smoke or 
not. That's your business.
    But what we do care about is how kids in general think about 
smoking. In particular, we want to get a better idea of how kids in 
your age group think about smoking.
    Nothing you say in the group will get back to your parents or 
anyone else. The best way 

[[Page 61678]]
you can help us is to tell us what you really think, not what you think 
we want to hear, or what you think you should say.

2. Kids and Smoking

    This is a warmup activity. Questions below are suggestions, not 
requirements. You don't need to ask every question. Try to get 
people interested and comfortable. Should take about 5-10 minutes
    A.  Do kids smoke at your school? How many kids smoke? Who 
smokes? Are boys as likely to smoke as girls?
    B.  When do kids first try smoking? How old are they? Is it the 
same for girls and boys? What kinds of things make a difference in 
kids' decision to try a cigarette?
    C.  What kinds of situations are kids in when they try smoking? 
Is this the same for girls and boys? Is the situation the same for 
younger and older kids?
    D.  Are the kinds of things that lead kids to try a first 
cigarette the same kinds of things that lead them to smoke 
regularly? If not, what are the differences?
    E.  Where do kids get cigarettes? Where do they smoke?
    Other possible questions.
    Who do they smoke with? Do they smoke alone, or mostly with 
others? Who are the others? Does this change as they smoke more 
regularly? Is how kids get cigarettes different if they smoke 
occasionally or regularly?

3. Information Piece

    I want to get your reaction to this piece of information--I 
assure you that it is true.
    Did you know that over the last 25 years the number of adults 
who smoke has gone down. And the number of adults who smoke keeps 
going down.
    But the number of young people who smoke has not gone down, and 
is actually going up in some groups--such as 12-14 year olds.
    Are you surprised by this? Why do you think this is happening?

4.  Cigarette Advertising

Materials:
    Examples of cigarette ads on pasteboard displays are shown to 
the group and remain on display throughout the session.
    Here are some examples of cigarette advertising.
    Have you seen these kinds of ads before?
    Where do you usually see them?
    What other kinds of ads do cigarette ads remind you of?
    Who is most likely to look at cigarette ads?
    Who is not likely to pay much attention to these kinds of ads?
    --Warning statements are not cued by the moderator, but will 
probably come up in the discussion. Moderator needs to explore 
issues as they arise but does not need to focus on warning messages 
at this point.
    --An important point here is to let people reveal their own 
natural categories about cigarette advertising and warning 
statements before the concept of ``warning statements'' is 
explicitly introduced.

5.  Discussion of Warning Messages

    ``Let's talk a little bit about the warning messages in the 
ads--which you may or may not have noticed.''
    --The moderator refers here to the Surgeon General's Warning 
statements in the ads as examples of warning messages.
    Why are these messages there?
    Do you think they work?
    Why? Why not?
    Who looks at these messages?
    Who is supposed to look at these messages?
    What do you think about the placement of the Surgeon General's 
warning?
    What about the size of the warning message?
    How could you improve these kinds of messages?

6.  Presentation of New Warning Messages: Content

Materials: Sheet containing six messages
    As background for the next section, laws are being considered to 
require that all cigarette advertisements have information about the 
risks of teenage smoking. This would be in addition to the Surgeon 
General's warning already required on cigarette advertisements.
    What I want to do now is show you some examples of possible 
messages and see what you think.
    Let's look at these 6 messages. Moderator reads the 6 messages.
    Moderator re-reads the first message.
    What does this mean to you?
    Do you think it is effective?
    Would it appeal to kids your age?
    Repeat with the other 5 messages--re-read each, one at a time, 
and discuss the content.
    What does this mean to you?
    Do you think it is effective?
    Would it appeal to kids your age?
    Ask them which they think is most effective. As much as 
possible, use that one for the example in the other tasks.

7.  Size of Message

Materials: A message (perhaps the message chosen in 6) in the three 
different sizes on appropriate ads
    Here are some examples of how these messages might actually look 
in cigarette advertising.
    Which of these ads presents the warning information in the best 
way? Why do you say that?
    Does the size of the warning information change the way kids are 
likely to react to an ad.
    Will the size of the message have the same kind of effect on all 
ads, or will it work differently for some ads.
    Would it make a difference whether the ad it was on was in color 
like this or only black and white?

8. Position

Materials: Three more ads with the same message and size in the 3 
different placements on the ad.
    Which of these ads presents the warning information in the best 
way? Why do you say that?
    Does the placement of the warning information change the way 
kids are likely to react to an ad.
    Will the placement of the message have the same kind of effect 
on all ads, or will it work differently for some ads.
    Would it make a difference whether the ad it was on was in color 
like this or only black and white?

9.  Boundaries

Materials: Three more ads with messages in the same size and placement 
(probably top placement) but with different boundaries.
    Which of these ads presents the warning information in the best 
way? Why do you say that?
    Does the boundary of the warning information change the way kids 
are likely to react to an ad.
    Will the kind of boundary for the message have the same kind of 
effect on all ads, or will it work differently for some ads.
    Would it make a difference whether the ad it was on was in color 
like this or only black and white?

10. Attribution

Materials: Two ads with the same message, size and placement, but one 
with the CDC attribution
    Which of these ads presents the warning information in the best 
way? Why do you say that?
    Does giving the source of the warning information change the way 
kids are likely to react to an ad.
    Will giving the source for the message have the same kind of 
effect on all ads, or will it work differently for some ads.
    Would it make a difference whether the ad it was on was in color 
like this or only black and white?
    Are there other organizations that kids would be more likely to 
believe? What?

11.  Icons

    Materials: Three ads with more or less the same message, 
boundary, size, placement, but one without an icon, one with a 
larger icon, and one with a smaller icon.
    Which of these ads presents the warning information in the best 
way? Why do you say that?
    Does having an icon for the warning information change the way 
kids are likely to react to an ad.
    What does the icon look like to you.
    Will having an icon for the message have the same kind of effect 
on all ads, or will it work differently for some ads.
    Would it make a difference whether the ad it was on was in color 
like this or only black and white?
    Are there other icons that kids would be more likely to 
understand? What?

12.  Summary

    As you see, there are many possible features that make up a 
total presentation. We couldn't show you all possible combinations, 
but we want your opinions and ideas about how different features go 
together or don't go together. You may have suggestions about trying 
combinations that we haven't tried, and that's good. Let's look 
think about the whole picture you have put together from your 
choices.
    Do you think this message, size, placement, with this boundary 
and picture (icon), and with the organization you chose it should 
come from, would look right? Would it be an 

[[Page 61679]]
effective whole ad? Why or why not? How might it be improved?
    At the end of the session, the participants will fill out a 
short outtake questionnaire that will contain some questions about 
smoking status, number of cigarettes smoked, brands smoked, and 
other relevant information.

    Dated: November 28, 1995.
William B. Schultz,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 95-29299 Filed 11-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F