Image 01

TobaccoReviews

Cigarettes Tobacco Reviews and News

Archive for February, 2011

“Winston” and “Marlboro” favorite cigarettes in Latvia in 2010

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Marlboro brandWinston“, “Marlboro” and “chesterfield” were Latvia’s most popular cigarettes in 2010, according to information on excised goods compiled by the State Revenue Service. The fourth most popular brand in the first three months of the year was “Red & White” followed by “‘ Monte Carlo” and “Wall Street”, writes LETA.

“Kent” cigarettes were the seventh biggest seller, while “L&M” and “Bond” were eighth and ninth respectively. “Caines” was the tenth most popular brand.

According to SRS figures, the largest producers and importers of tobacco products over nine months in 2010 were Philip Morris Latvia, British American Tobacco, JTI Marketing and sales, Rasta 1 and Tabakas nams grupa.

BAT Upbeat as Earnings Increase Despite Cigarette Sales Slump

Friday, February 25th, 2011

free ship tobacco British American Tobacco ’s resumed share buyback and upbeat outlook for this year have failed to offset concern about falling cigarette sales volumes. Shares fell more than 4% to an intraday low of R268,80 on the JSE yesterday after it released its results for the year ended December, despite a £750m share buyback plan.

BAT, the world’s second-biggest cigarette maker, said it had gained from raising prices, the purchase of Indonesia’s PT Bentoel and a weak pound as it posted a 15% rise in earnings.

Underlying cigarette volumes are still in decline and likely to stay weak this year. BAT has suffered as smokers switch to cheaper — and sometimes illicit — cigarettes as they have been hit by excise tax rises and high unemployment.

BAT has sought to offset this by price rises and cost savings. The group’s global cigarette volumes fell 2%, but after price rises annual revenue rose 5% to £14,9bn.

World number four Imperial Tobacco reported a surprise return to volume growth of 0,5% in the last quarter of last year with revenue 5% ahead, while world leader Philip Morris International’s fourth-quarter volumes fell 5,1% but sales rose 2,8%.

“We don’t think these broadly in-line results will change many investors’ view of BAT. They confirm that volumes are currently weak, and we don’t expect this to change much in 2011,” Citigroup analyst Adam Spielman said.

BAT restarted its share buyback scheme after suspending it early in 2009 as the financial crisis worsened and the group prepared to make a number of medium-sized acquisitions, such as Tekel in Turkey. It says the move is a good use of cash and still leaves it firepower for small add-on s.

The group was upbeat, saying it had increased share in its top 40 markets and its leading four brands saw volumes rise 7%, while the economies in its top markets of Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia and SA all gained from generally higher commodity prices.

The group also completed an £800m cost savings programme two years ahead of target.

Analysts are not expecting any significant shift in strategy when CE Paul Adams retires at the end of this month. Reuters

Annual Tobacco Control Report Gives New York Mixed Reviews

Monday, February 14th, 2011

world tobaccoThe American Lung Association released its 9th annual State of Tobacco Control report earlier this week. New York received a mixed review. The state received “A” grades for its smoking laws and high cigarette tax, but received failing grades for the amount of money it spends on tobacco prevention and healthcare coverage for cessation.

President and CEO of the American Lung Association – New York, Scott Santarella says that shows the state can do better.

“This year’s report is really a call to action,” he says, “because despite our success in terms of smoke-free air and cigarette tax, there is more work to be done in terms of tobacco prevention and controlled spending, as well as cessation coverage.”

But, spokesman for the New York State Department of Health, Peter Constantakes says the state is doing the best with what money it can use.

“Everybody would love to have more resources,” says Constantakes. “I think you have to reflect [on] what is going on across the nation fiscally with budgets – that the money may not be there – but what we are doing here in New York is using our resources very effectively.”

Constantakes says New York is below the national average in smoking rates for both adults and high-schoolers.

However, the Lung Association says smoking costs the state between $6 billion and $14 billion, and more could be done to help people quit smoking.

Vermont – Anti-smoking group proposes tax increase, public survey agrees.

Friday, February 4th, 2011

Vermont’s anti-tobacco forces are pressing lawmakers to boost the state’s per-pack tax — now $2.24 — in hopes of offsetting planned budget cuts to anti-tobacco efforts, raising more money for the state and discouraging people from lighting up. A new survey shows strong public support for an 81-cent increase in Vermont’s tax on a pack of cigarettes — a finding the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Vermont is using to support its drive for the tax change, reported the Burlington Free Press.

The poll showed even stronger support — 88 percent — for raising taxes on other tobacco products such as cigars and chewing tobacco, according to the report.

Representatives of the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont joined Tuesday, February 1st with officials of the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council to propose the increase, which they say would raise $10.2 million in new revenue for state government, drive some smokers to quit and save millions in health-care costs. A coalition of 45 health and consumer groups is backing the cigarette tax increase. They say the tax hike is needed to restore several million dollars to smoking prevention programs and to discourage young people from buying cigarettes. Under the plan, Vermont’s cigarette tax would rise to $3.24 a pack.

Gov. Peter Shumlin has proposed a $2.1 million cut in the state’s tobacco control efforts. The anti-tobacco lobby says nearly five times that amount could be raised — and some tobacco-control programs spared — by slapping $1 more onto Vermont’s per-pack tax. (Increase Vermont’s cigarette tax from $2.24 to $3.24.)

The increase would prompt 2,000 smokers to quit and prevent 3,600 children from taking it up, according to the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont. It would raise money for the state, which is facing a budget shortfall of about $176 million for the fiscal year starting July 1, and reduce Medicaid expenditures, said coalition coordinator Tina Zuk of Colchester.

State Rep. George Till, D-Chittenden, a physician who’s among the bill’s sponsors, says using tobacco is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in Vermont.

Cigarettes sell for about $6.50 a pack in Vermont, and about 17 percent of adults smoke.

Governor Shumlin opposes the tax increase. He says Vermont is getting more money than it expected from the tax this year because neighboring states have increased their tax rates. Vermont state government has reaped about $4.9 million more in cigarette-tax revenues in this fiscal year than it forecast, mainly because of price-conscious smokers from neighboring New York who head east to buy for less, Agency of Human Services Secretary Doug Racine said. In New York, the state tax on a pack is more than $4.

Shumlin says the state’s smoking prevention programs can still be effective with the cuts that he’s proposed.

The Vermont Grocers’ Association opposes the increase, which it contends will drive smokers to buy somewhere else, not quit. “No one wants to see increased smoking,” said Jim Harrison, president. “We want to see decreases. However, just changing the tax rate — it has other unintended consequences. We’ve seen it time and time again, especially when small geographic states like Vermont increase the rate. It shifts sales to neighboring states, the Internet, Indian reservations.

Vermont is dealing with a $176 million deficit. The measure will now be reviewed by several different committees in the House.

Vermont’s anti-tobacco forces are pressing lawmakers to boost the state’s per-pack tax — now $2.24 — in hopes of offsetting planned budget cuts to anti-tobacco efforts, raising more money for the state and discouraging people from lighting up.

A new survey shows strong public support for an 81-cent increase in Vermont’s tax on a pack of cigarettes — a finding the Coalition for a Tobacco-Free Vermont is using to support its drive for the tax change, reported the Burlington Free Press. The poll showed even stronger support — 88 percent — for raising taxes on other tobacco products such as cigars and chewing tobacco, according to the report.

Representatives of the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont joined Tuesday, February 1st with officials of the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the Vermont Low Income Advocacy Council to propose the increase, which they say would raise $10.2 million in new revenue for state government, drive some smokers to quit and save millions in health-care costs. A coalition of 45 health and consumer groups is backing the cigarette tax increase. They say the tax hike is needed to restore several million dollars to smoking prevention programs and to discourage young people from buying cigarettes. Under the plan, Vermont’s cigarette tax would rise to $3.24 a pack.

Gov. Peter Shumlin has proposed a $2.1 million cut in the state’s tobacco control efforts. The anti-tobacco lobby says nearly five times that amount could be raised — and some tobacco-control programs spared — by slapping $1 more onto Vermont’s per-pack tax. (Increase Vermont’s cigarette tax from $2.24 to $3.24.)

The increase would prompt 2,000 smokers to quit and prevent 3,600 children from taking it up, according to the Coalition for a Tobacco Free Vermont. It would raise money for the state, which is facing a budget shortfall of about $176 million for the fiscal year starting July 1, and reduce Medicaid expenditures, said coalition coordinator Tina Zuk of Colchester.

State Rep. George Till, D-Chittenden, a physician who’s among the bill’s sponsors, says using tobacco is the single most preventable cause of death and disease in Vermont.

Cigarettes sell for about $6.50 a pack in Vermont, and about 17 percent of adults smoke.

Governor Shumlin opposes the tax increase. He says Vermont is getting more money than it expected from the tax this year because neighboring states have increased their tax rates. Vermont state government has reaped about $4.9 million more in cigarette-tax revenues in this fiscal year than it forecast, mainly because of price-conscious smokers from neighboring New York who head east to buy for less, Agency of Human Services Secretary Doug Racine said. In New York, the state tax on a pack is more than $4.

Shumlin says the state’s smoking prevention programs can still be effective with the cuts that he’s proposed.

The Vermont Grocers’ Association opposes the increase, which it contends will drive smokers to buy somewhere else, not quit. “No one wants to see increased smoking,” said Jim Harrison, president. “We want to see decreases. However, just changing the tax rate — it has other unintended consequences. We’ve seen it time and time again, especially when small geographic states like Vermont increase the rate. It shifts sales to neighboring states, the Internet, Indian reservations.

Vermont is dealing with a $176 million deficit. The measure will now be reviewed by several different committees in the House.

Lady Cigarettes

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

What do you know about women’s cigarettes? There is a special kind called “women’s cigarettes or the so-called all the cigarettes that women prefer? Fashion goes strides, and now she has switched to cigarettes. Women differ from men’s cigarettes cigarettes primarily the shape and beauty. Women’s cigarettes tend to be more subtle and elegant. Most often, women’s cigarette lighter. To date, there is also a huge number  women’s cigarettes.

Advertising is doing its part, the stores are increasingly interesting to see packages with colorful names. Ignorance to people at first glance and incomprehensible that hid in the tiny box, similar to the package from the spirits.

All women want to be beautiful, stylish, fashionable. Therefore, in the streets, in offices, in cars, restaurants are increasingly to be found the girls, women, and grandmothers holding in the hands of the thin female cigarettes. They are not thinking about their health, their more importantly, how they look today, now. And even the terrible figures, speaking on the endless number of diseases associated with smoking, women are not afraid to abandon this harmful habit.

There is a myth that smoking helps to combat excess weight causes women to handle cigarettes, Tesha oneself that in such a way to get rid of the extra kilos without exhausting diets. However, many women, cigarette smokers, women’s forget about how much harm they cause to your body. This lung cancer and various heart diseases, and cancer … not to mention the fact that smoking adversely affects the health of children.

Girl with a woman’s cigarette in your mouth feels fashionable and beautiful, but she forgets that the gray color of a person, unpleasant smell from the skin, hair, clothes, rotten teeth and yellow push from the people. This woman is disgusting in others, and, above all, men.

However, female cigarette smokers in recent years not only by women. Many men are moving in the women’s cigarettes, naively believing that the harm resulting from the lower. This self-deception. Of course, many lady’s cigarettes contain much less of the harmful substances. In the women’s cigarettes less tar and nicotine, making the greatest harm to the body. But the thing is that smokers transitioning from conventional cigarettes to women oftenbegin to smoke cigarettes. And this is proven fact. People, women’s smoking a cigarette further delayed, with a much larger dose of nicotine.

Thus, it appears that the transition to women’s cigarettes, you are much more loose than gain. And the name of “women’s cigarettes” just a beautiful header terrible consequences. Therefore, think before you get into the hands of beautiful women’s pack of cigarettes. Is it worth your health and money spent hours in his confidence irresistibility!

women women with cigarettewomen smokingbeauty




Virginia Slims Review

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

MarlboroVirginia Slims was introduced on July 22, 1968, by Philip Morris, and marketed as a female-oriented spinoff to their Benson and Hedges brand. The blends, flavorings, color scheme, and overall marketing concepts closely followed the Benson and Hedges model. Early packs (1968-1978) read “Benson and Hedges Park Avenue New York”, near the bottom.The first test market was San Francisco, California. The test was originally scheduled for six months, but was cut short after six weeks due to the success of the introduction – a nearly 3% market penetration.

Distribution and marketing was implemented nationwide, and by September 30, 1968, the entire U.S. was covered.

In 1976, a 120-mm full-flavor packing was test-marketed in Fresno, California. Designed to compete with RJ Reynolds ‘More’ brand, the test ultimately failed and this entry was withdrawn.

In 1978, Marlboro were introduced, with good success. Although early marketing concepts included soft pack, Philip Morris decided to use a box-pack design only.

Throughout the early 80′s, growth and market penetration was significant, drawing the attention of competitors who introduced competing brands (including American Tobacco Company’s Misty and Brown and Williamson’s Capri brands).

In 1984, Virginia Slims Ovals were test marketed, but were unsuccessful and withdrawn. Ovals were light, and had an oval-shaped cross section.

In 1985, Virginia Slims Luxury Light 120s were introduced – a 120 mm length packing again intended to compete with RJ Reynolds ‘More’ brand, as well as other 120s on the market. The introduction was successful. This packing has since become a mainstay of the smoking glamour community.[citation needed] It is arguable as to whether VS120s are truly ‘light’, since their rating numbers compare more closely to full-flavor.

In 1987, Ultra-Light 100s were introduced, in keeping with changing consumer tastes, other competitive entries, and the Benson and Hedges model. Marginally successful, this packing remains on the market today.

In 1990, Ultra-Light SuperSlim 100s were introduced, in response to ultra-thin (21mm circumference) competition and consumer demand for a ‘low-smoke’ product entry. These were also marginally successful, and remain on the market.

In 1993, a 10-Pack version of Light 100s were introduced, with 10 cigarettes per pack, costing approximately half the price of a 20-pack. This entry had limited success and came under attack from critics. It was ultimately withdrawn.

In 1994, Virginia Slims Kings (85mm length) were designed as a discount entry and possibly to compete with other king-size entries such as RJ Reynolds’ Camel cigarette brand. It is not clear whether Kings were ever test marketed, but they were never introduced.

In 2003, a box-pack was introduced for full-flavor 100s, in response to consumer demand.

In 2004, Ultra-Light 120s were introduced with marginal success. It is likely that this packing will continue to be supported.

In 2008, Virginia Slims Superslims introduced a smaller size “Purse Pack.”

All packings were simultaneously introduced in both Menthol and Non-menthol (e.g., Regular or Filter) varieties. Menthol usually represents 45%-55% of the total sales of a particular packing.

In all, there have been 11 packings introduced or test marketed in the US, of which 7 are still on the market. There are other varieties marketed in the Asian-Pacific region, Russia, and South Africa. Virginia Slims has never had a significant European or South American presence.

Marketing

From inception, Virginia Slims have been designed and marketed as a female-oriented brand, generally targeted towards a younger demographic (18-35 year olds). While various themes have emerged in the marketing campaigns over the years, the basic threads have been independence, liberation, slimness, attractiveness, glamour, style, taste, and a contrast to men’s cigarettes.

In the 1960s and 1970s, the themes of feminism and women’s liberation, with the slogan “You’ve Come A Long Way, Baby” were often used in the ads, and often featured anecdotes about women in the early 20th century who were punished for being caught smoking, usually by their husbands or other men, as compared to the time of the ads when more women had equal rights, usually comparing smoking to things like the right to vote. Television and print ads often featured well-known models and designer fashions. Print ads were generally placed in women’s magazines, and formed the mainstay of the marketing campaign, supplemented with billboards and point-of-purchase displays. From 1969 until 1971, television advertising was an important component.

Virginia Slims also sponsored the Women’s Tennis Association Tour. This sponsorship is sometimes credited for the growth and success of women’s tennis during the 70′s and early 80′s.

Several other, less important, marketing vehicles were employed, such as the Virginia Slims Book of Days (a day timer/calendar book), fashion shows, and an extensive line of products, apparel, and accessories.

The Leo Burnett advertising agency handled the Virginia Slims account throughout most of the product lifetime.

Market share

From its inception until 1978, Virginia Slims saw a steady increase in market share to 1.75% (3.9% of all female smokers). With the introduction of Lights in 1978, the market share increased to 2.5%. Other packings, including 120s, Ultra Lights, and Superslims helped push the market share to a peak of 3.1% (nearly 7% of female smokers) in 1989. With increased competition from other brands, notably Capri and Misty, the brand lost ground but stabilized at around 2.4% though 2003. Since then, it has lost about .1% per year, and was 2.0% in 2007. This slow but steady decline is expected to continue, since the brand is no longer heavily promoted. Despite this, brand loyalty is well above average, and is still one of the highest in the industry.




The Flavoured Tobacco Controversy

Tuesday, February 1st, 2011

taste cigarettes tobaccoThe tobacco industry has been accused by many of using flavored tobacco cigarettes to deceive young smokers. However many other countries indirectly support flavored tobacco cigarettes. Admittedly the worldwide campaign against cigarette smoking has caused significant damage to the once strong big tobacco market.

However the tobacco industry has not rested from inventing new ways of reaching its targeted market. As the world focuses on stopping the growth of smoking tobacco, big tobacco appears to be working hard to shift and grow its market in the area of chewing tobacco.

Most young people are quitting smoking cigarettes and starting on chewing tobacco under the delusion that chewing tobacco is healthier and less harmful than smoking tobacco. On the contrary chew tobacco is as harmful as any tobacco use as shown through oral cancers such as mouth, tongue, gum and throat cancers that devastate lives.

As a way of giving a go one more time on the younger market, tobacco companies have been in controversy of introduced flavored cigarettes as a way of attracting young smokers to cigarettes. This apparently is a big problem especially in developing countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. Ironically these governments have been extremely vocal in opposing the introduction of regulations against flavored cigarettes.

Worried about the fate of over 40 000 farmers of tobacco in Kenya alone, these countries has instead lobbied for the introduction of regulations that are tolerant of the future of the tobacco industry. This effectively means these countries have absolutely no intention to introduce smoking laws and regulations that particularly target use of flavored cigarettes to target the youth.

In the United States for instance, the use of flavored cigarettes has been out-rightly rejected making it difficult for tobacco companies to use this tactic to get young people nicotine dependent. It would appear developing countries do appreciate the purpose of regulations opposing flavored cigarettes yet are terrified by the economic impact of the regulations running full throttle.

It would appear the new wave of campaign against tobacco use should target developing countries. These types of campaigns will only be successful if they can convince or at least offer an alternative to tobacco farming to developing countries such as Kenya and China with 350 million smokers. As the screws tighten in developed countries concerning tobacco regulations, big tobacco is shifting market focus and tobacco growing contracts to developing countries.

Not only will tobacco companies develop new strategies such as flavored cigarettes to counter the effects of a dwindling market due to anti-smoking campaigns, they will also continue attempting to participate in policy making process at the country level. The United Nations through the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has made it clear that governments should be watchful of a desire by big tobacco to influence tobacco policy.