HELP Campaign Pre-test - European Commission

Headquarters : Ipsos Insight 35, rue du Val de Marne 75628 Paris cedex 13 S.A.S au capital de 842 600 Euros R.C.S. Paris B 712 047 265

Ipsos Health 35, rue du Val de Marne 75628 Paris Cedex 13 Tel : + 33 1 41 98 90 00 Fax : + 33 1 41 98 99 03 http : //www.ipsos.fr

HELP Campaign Pre-test

NATIONAL REPORTS

Ipsos Insight Health / Ligaris

February 2005

©Ipsos Insight Health

Contacts :

Patrick Klein 01 41 98 97 20 / 06 09 16 64 33 [email protected]

LAILA IDTALEB: 01 41 98 93 73 [email protected]

HELP Campaign Pre-test –Ipsos Health / Ligaris – February 2005 2

Table of contents

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 3

NORTHERN EUROPE REPORT’S ................................................................................................................. 5

AUSTRIA ....................................................................................................................................... 7

BELGIUM ..................................................................................................................................... 16

DANEMARK .................................................................................................................................. 25

FINLAND ..................................................................................................................................... 38

FRANCE....................................................................................................................................... 47

GERMANY .................................................................................................................................... 57

IRLAND ....................................................................................................................................... 67

NETHERLAND ............................................................................................................................... 75

SWEDEN...................................................................................................................................... 86

UK ............................................................................................................................................ 94

SOUTHERN EUROPE REPORT’S.............................................................................................................. 100

CYRUS ...................................................................................................................................... 102

GREECE..................................................................................................................................... 109

ITALY ....................................................................................................................................... 117

PORTUGAL ................................................................................................................................. 130

SPAIN....................................................................................................................................... 138

EASTERN EUROPE REPORT’S ................................................................................................................ 152 CZECH REPUBLIC ........................................................................................................................ 154

HUNGRAY .................................................................................................................................. 159

LITHUANY.................................................................................................................................. 167

POLAND .................................................................................................................................... 174

SLOVAKIA ................................................................................................................................. 184

CALENDAR ...................................................................................................................................... 192


PRELIMINARY METHODOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS

Some general observation on group analysis

1. What the individuals say on subjects such as tobacco addiction has to be analyzed without the influence of

group dynamics and taking into account the pressure of social standards.

Consequently, it is about analyzing the discourse on the first level, but to look for hidden impulses. It is about

telling the difference between what is the façade discourse-what is the good thing to say or what

is easier to express publicly- from the discourse that deserves to be accounted for in this the

campaign.

In the “tobacco” groups observed by the Ipsos Health team for the last 10 years, one of the most striking

examples of discourse that should not be understood literally is the one that calls for “shocking images”. In

fact, behind this very straightforward demand to see the most violent effects created by dependency, there

might be a hidden attitude of denial regarding their own dependency…the attitude of someone who might find

it easier to quit if authorities, institutions, organizations would show them the reality. To say that things would

be different if the worse was shown is easier than to publicly confess one’s own dependency.

Also, it has to be said that young people gathered in groups are even more influenced by attitudes of

representation or façade because they give more importance to the judgment of other members within the

group. Each time something is spoken out, it involves a risk. To express well accepted views/consensus within

the group is certainly considered less risky.

The experiment of the pre-test campaigns shows that the natural tendency is critical: participants who get

paid to express their opinion are deliberately developing an attitude that is more critical than it

would be in real life. Here again, we have to try to understand what is the specific expression of the group

and to identify which criticism are raising problems that are more general.

On top of that, campaigns on public health or on behaviour changes are judged even more harshly

due to the fact that they directly bear responsibility for the dependency of those who criticize

them: I am not entirely responsible for my dependency, the weak impact of previous campaigns designed by

the authorities are on the contrary partly responsible because these campaigns were not able to make me

quit…

The participants’ critical attitude highlights the fact that the smoker is not the only one responsible for his

dependency and his failure facing tobacco. Others who invest a lot in order to convince smokers to quit also

fail.

Finally, the assessment is also naturally critical because the smoking participants focus on the goal of tobacco

cessation that is not the only goal in this campaign.


2. The participants are asked to make a choice. Their decisive choices are not necessarily the same ones as the

ones made by the instigator of the campaign. Therefore, it is important not to go along the outcome of

the various groups without hindsight. The analysis will have to explain as much as possible, the resilience

of choices and motives of rejection. This exercise could eventually:

• Check that the reasons a series is rejected do not mean that the series is in fact the best one (for

example, if innovation is rejected “it’s no good because it is different from what we’re used to ”, or if it

is the disturbing/unsettling aspects of the messages that are refused).

• Make sure that the rejected series has not been rejected because the participants focused a few

details.

3. National analyses will lead us to consider cultural factors which should not mask determining social

factors (SPC, age) nor the factors associated with tobacco addiction. Consequently, local analyses will

take into consideration the differences when they have been noticed. Besides, the regional analysis will help to

have a crosswise vision that is larger and less cultural. A general analysis board in appendix will allow us to tally

similarities between categories whatever the country of origin. These results will have to be compiled and

evaluated.

From these general considerations, Ipsos Health suggests pragmatic methods for each country:

• Which will guide the choice between two series

• Will suggest concrete optimizations of the campaign, film by film

• Will indicate areas of vigilance for the production stage (credibility/authenticity of such or such details

depending on local reality)


Northern European countries Reports’

Austria

Belgium

Denmark

Finland

France

Germany

Ireland

Netherlands

Sweden

UK


PRE-TEST’S KEY NUMBERS

10 COUNTRIES FROM NOTRHERN EUROPE

13 GROUPS GATHERING 103 PEOPLE

2 NON SMOKERS GROUPS

6 LIGHT SMOKERS GROUPS (LESS THAN 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)

5 HEAVY SMOKERS GROUPS (UP TO 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GROUP

Country Number of

participants Tobacco status Ages Social category

Austria 9 Heavy smokers 25 & + M

Germany

8

8

8

Non-smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 - 17

20 & +

18 - 20

W

M

W

Belgium 7 Light smokers 19 - 20 W

Danemark 7 Light smokers 18 - 20 W

Finlande 6 Light smokers 18 - 20 W

France 10

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

18 - 20

25 & +

W

M

Ireland 8 Heavy smokers 25 - 45 M

Netherlands 8 Heavy smoker 25 & + W

Sweden 8 Non smokers 15 - 17 M

UK 8 Light smokers 18 - 20 W


Analysis of the test group in - Austria”

Number of


9 Heavy smokers 25+ A-B


GENERAL BACKGROUND

What are the main motivations to smoke ?

There are four main motivations to smoke: Enjoyment, slow-down, substitution and cultural and social aspects.

Especially for women smoking is a welcome substitution for food. They perceive smoking as an adequate regulator for

appetite and weight. The majority considers smoking as a social act. People who smoke feel united and find a basis to

communicate more easily than non smokers.

What are the main motivations of smoking cessation ?

The two main reasons to stop smoking are health and costs. Another motivation are the off-odours smoking produces.

Smokers perceive those odours themselves and dislike them. Furthermore smokers expect from quitting an increase in

the quality of their lives.

What are the main barriers that are preventing them from giving up smoking?

The main barrier is the known state of a willing spirit but weak flesh. They want to stop smoking but their addiction is

stronger. Most don’t feel strong enough to withdraw from their daily routine. Again especially women fear the gaining of

weight after having stopped smoking.

What could help them to quit smoking?

Help from outside is considered as support whereas the motivation and decision has to be made on one’s own. The

definition of this external help is quite extensive. Medical (e.g. nicotine patch) as well as mental support (e.g. books

giving advice) are included.


1ST SERIES : ‘ALONE’

SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

The first reactions on each of the movies are quite differing. The first and the third movie are immediately criticised for

two reasons: The usage of aggression to communicate the message and the low reference to their daily life. The

participants are irritated by the teenager kicking a drawn dummy and the young woman throwing clothes at her partner.

The situation of the young man smoking in bed seems far from their daily life and is perceived as unrealistic. According

to the participants none of them would smoke in bed.

The second movie generates quite a different reaction: The participants are deeply moved and affected by the story of

the young woman. Actually there was a moment of silence – finally determined by entirely impressed statements. The

participants can immediately identify with the young woman.

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? ARE THERE

MISUNDERSTANDINGS ? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN ?

The understanding of the movies differs like the spontaneous reaction a lot. Yet the main message – that the persons

have to face their situations alone and that help would be available – is comprehended in all movies. In more detail

understandings differ as follows: The first movie – like the third- isn’t understood immediately. Only after thinking about

it more intensively the message becomes clearer. That the teenager is training for the real-life-situation of refusing his

first cigarette is not comprehensible for all participants. There are also misunderstandings why the teenager has to face

this situation in his room and where he got the cigarettes from.

The second movie is understood immediately. The story is simple and clear, so that the message is understood perfectly.

The symbolism is palpable and easy to adapt to one’s own situation. The message that help is available if one can’t quit

alone is comprehended instantly.

The third movie also leaves open a question. The participants can’t understand the reaction of the young woman.

According to them she reacts too aggressively whereas the smoker seems to have acted thoughtlessly. They expect her

to warn him at least once – before leaving him. Nevertheless in the end the story and the message is clear.

INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY ?

According to the participants the message of the first movie “helping young people not to start” is not that important

since people who haven’t started yet don’t seem to have a problem. Nevertheless this opinion could be due to the

average age of the participants who maybe don’t remember the situation of group dynamic that well. Furthermore they

stick to their first impression that aggression is the wrong way to communicate the message.

The second movie seems a lot more interesting to the participants. It wins by its simple idea and its perfect

implementation. Furthermore the situation is considered to be very realistic.

The smokers are not that interested in the last movie. The message to respect non smokers is considered as not

necessary. Tolerant people would respect each other anyhow, thus there is no need to remind them. Furthermore the

participants don’t consider help to respect non smokers as valuable. Help is needed to stop smoking but not to learn how

to respect non smokers.

Yet the message of the series that people can’t solve their problems facing tobacco that easily when they are left alone

and that help is available seemed important and useful to them.


PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE GROUP FEEL

CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED ? WHY ? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING DIFFERENT

TARGETS ?

The target groups are identified in the three movies as follows:

1. movie: Teenagers who don’t want to start smoking but are afraid of not being strong enough to refuse.

2. movie: Smokers who want to quit but aren’t strong enough to make it alone.

3. movie: The target group of the third movie is defined as ‘Very intolerant smokers’ (the participants couldn’t – although

they were heavy smokers – identify with the character). This target group is thought to be very small.

ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP: (ACCORDING TO ITS SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS) WHICH

EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERM OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT ? COMPREHENSION ?

SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP” ?

The impact of the series is positive over all. Although the first and the third movie influence the participants only

indirectly, the second fulfils its assignment. Smokers can easily identify with the woman shown in the movie. It is a very

touching and impressive presentation of one’s own situation. The story makes the respondents think and encourages

them to take another try to quit. The low impact of the two other movies though is not worrying at all. As the

participants of the group aren’t the target of the first movie and don’t consider themselves as target of the third, the

result isn’t surprising. They are affected by the situation of the young woman and get the incitement of asking for help.

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS ? WHY ? EFFICIENT TO HELP SMOKERS / NON

SMOKERS ? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS ? WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP

RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?

Again, also the respectfulness accords to the impressions given above. The second movie is considered to be very

respectful towards smokers. It transports a positive image of smokers showing that they don’t want to smoke. Yet the

first and the third show another image of smokers and non smokers people can’t or don’t want to identify with. In the

first movie the smoker (dummy) seems to be the one to blame for the situation of the teenager and the non smoker

seems to be too aggressive. The presentation of smokers and non smokers in the third movie leaves an uncomfortable

feeling. Both seem to be very intolerant.

AGREEMENT: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

The group likes the campaign as a whole very much. Although there are some points of criticism (aggression, missing

link to daily life) the idea and the aim of the campaign is accepted very positively. The feeling of being left alone is

grabbed instantly. Especially the second movie which is directed towards their target group receives just positive

comments. In the questionnaire two thirds of the group would choose the first series. Thus the agreement on this series

is in general very high.

DOES THE SERIES SEEM WELL ADAPTED TO YOUR LOCAL SITUATION AND BACKGROUND? WHY ?

The series seems well adapted to our local situation. The scenarios could be anywhere in the world, thus in Austria as

well. The only scene not comprehensible easily is the young man smoking in bed. The participants claim that none of

them would be that ruthless to smoke in bed when having a non smoker beside them. Whether this basic respect is an

Austrian specific or a general opinion can’t be figured out so far.


IS THERE A MOVIE IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION AS WELL AS THE OTHERS ? WHY ?

The second movie is the most impressing and effective. From the location up to the presented image of the smoker

there is only praise. This movie which is directed towards their target group shows the best understanding, the best

communication of the message and the highest impact. The weaker performance of the others shouldn’t worry that

much exactly for that reason. The movie which should affect them, affects them and does its work.

The first and the third don’t work that well. The stories aren’t accepted and incomprehensible. The respondents are

strongly irritated by the aggression and violence shown by the characters. Furthermore the third movie has – in addition

to the problems of the story – also a message which isn’t perceived as useful.

MAIN LEARNINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘THE ALONE’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN LEARNINGS?

The series is easy to understand and communicates the messages well. The general agreement is very high. Yet the

main point of criticism which remains is the usage of aggression in the movies. People would prefer a different, more

pedagogic way to communicate, especially with teenagers. The series “Alone” offers a very simple kind of

communication, transporting the message that “help” is available immediately. People can follow the stories and stay

attentive until the end. Although they would wish the stories to be a little more shocking.

2ND SERIES : ‘LEEKS’

SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

The spontaneous reaction to this series is misunderstanding. People can’t figure out why something healthy like leek is

taken as a symbol for something unhealthy. Nevertheless there were immediately voices who disclaimed that a movie

didn’t necessarily have to be understood to be effective. The reaction to the second movie already becomes a lot more

positive. The participants have already got used to the idea of having leek as a symbol for cigarettes. The situation of

‘being keen on leek’ seems familiar to smokers and it is easy to identify with the character. The reaction to the third

movie is already quit positive. The reference towards smoking can be made up without any difficulties.

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? ARE THEY


As already mentioned above the series can’t be understood at first contact. A lot of questions and obscurities occur. The

message only becomes clear in the end when the logo appears. The symbol of the ‘Leek’ already seems more

understandable in the second movie. People got obviously used to this kind of symbol and don’t consider it as disturbing

that much anymore. The message that tobacco lets people act like this (and that this is no behaviour to be looking

forward to) is clear. Nevertheless the majority of the participants keeps a feeling of rejection and misunderstanding. The

usage of food, moreover healthy food as a symbol for unhealthy cigarettes creates that misunderstanding. To put it in a

nutshell: The group seems to have grabbed the message but don’t accept their understanding.


INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY ?

The interest in the series ‘Leeks’ is higher than in the series ‘Alone’. The participants can’t follow the story immediately

and therefore have to look into it a little more intensively. Again, corresponding to the series ‘Alone’ the importance of

the messages differs from movie to movie.

The second movie seems to be the most important and useful. The story of the addicted is touching and affecting. The

character’s behaviour is rather disturbing. The situation of being incapable to resist the desire to smoke is shown in an

impressive way. Yet the participants consider the story a little too funny and a little too less shocking.

However in this series the first and the third seem to be of interest as well, different to the series ‘Alone’. The message

to support teenagers not to start is considered to be useful and important in this series. Yet there are serious doubts

that the story emphasises this aim. Moreover it is feared that the story could be interpreted in the wrong way. The

interest in the third movie of this series is as well higher than in the series ‘Alone’. The situation appears more common

to smokers. Although they state that it is usually decided beforehand whether at a party it is allowed to smoke or not.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE GROUP FEEL

CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED ? WHY ? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING DIFFERENT

TARGETS ?

The target groups are identified in the same way as in the series ‘Alone’: Teenagers who don’t want to start smoking but

are afraid of not being strong enough to refuse as well as smokers who want to quit but aren’t strong enough to make it

alone. The target group of the third movie is again defined as ‘Very intolerant smokers’.

ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP: (ACCORDING TO ITS SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS) WHICH

EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERM OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT ? COMPREHENSION ?

SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP” ?

The impact on the smokers’ group is similar to the series ‘Alone’. The second movie makes people think about their own

behaviour. The general opinion is that the effectiveness is even caused by the already described difficulties in

understanding. As you don’t understand the movie easily you have to think about it and thus you can’t ignore it. The

impact of the first movie in terms of encouragement is rather small. As they aren’t the target they don’t feel any

encouragement. Different to the first series the situation of the non smokers in the third movie seems more

comprehensible as they don’t react aggressively. Nevertheless the impact on the smokers is rather small. It isn’t

considered as necessary to remind them to respect non smokers as this is self-evident anyhow. Furthermore they don’t

identify with the characters shown.

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS? WHY ? EFFICIENT TO HELP SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS

? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS? WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN

SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?

The series ‘Leeks’ is considered to give a quit positive image of each of the groups involved: the smokers, the non

smokers being disturbed and the teenagers who don’t want to start. Especially the first and the second movie give the

impression of a respectful presentation of smokers and teenagers. A little rejection remains for the image of smokers in

the third movie. The characters seem aggressive and ruthless. The non smokers are perceived more positively. The are

reticent and silent, they even don’t defence themselves.


AGREEMENT: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN? WHY? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE? WHY?

At the beginning the group doesn’t like the series. The usage of healthy vegetables irritates too much. Yet after a certain

period of time, after thinking about the esprit of the stories and the symbolism the agreement increases. Nevertheless

the majority of the participants keep their scepticism until the end. The exception is the third movie where the group can

make up the reference towards smoking easily. Therefore they like this story more than the others. The general

agreement however stays at a medium level which is mainly caused by the choice of the symbol. The idea of using a

symbol in general isn’t rejected but the decision for leek is criticised. The comparison of healthy food to cigarettes leaves

a strange and uncomfortable feeling.

DOES THE SERIES SEEM WELL ADAPTED TO YOUR LOCAL SITUATION AND BACKGROUND? WHY?

The series seems well adapted to our local situation. The scenarios can be anywhere in the world, thus in Austria as

well. The only scene not comprehended easily is again the third. The participants stated that nowadays it is usually

talked over beforehand whether at a party it is allowed to smoke or not. If it isn’t allowed smokers keep the rules and go

out for smoking.

IS THERE A MOVIE IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION AS WELL AS THE OTHERS? WHY?

The movie which concerns the smokers who want to quit is perceived much more positive than the others. The weaker

performance of the others doesn’t have to be taken that seriously exactly for that reason as already stated for the series

“Alone”. The movie which should affect them, affects them and fulfils its job. The characters shown in the second movie

are perceived very positive and non moralising. Smokers can identify with them and get encouraged to take a(nother)

try to quit.

The first movie has a lower impact as the respondents were confronted with the symbol for the first time. People are

furthermore strongly irritated by the throwing away and treading of food. Especially in this scene, when the teenager is

treading the leek on the street, the connection between the symbol and cigarettes is blocked.

MAIN LEARNINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘LEEKS’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN LEARNINGS?

The main learning about the series “Leeks” concerns the issue of the symbolism. Initially the idea is rejected. Yet after

being confronted with it for a certain time the attitude towards the symbol ameliorates. People got used to it and

understand the reference towards smoking more easily. The emotional impact the series “Leeks” shows is higher than

the one of the series “Alone”. The difficulties in understanding make the people talk, think and look into the subject

more deeply. This series would be very effective, yet not that efficient as far as the number of airings is concerned. This

series would need a more intensive airing than the series “Alone” to achieve an impact and encouragement towards the

perception and acceptance of help. Nevertheless the inconsistency between leeks and cigarettes would remain and

irritate. Other details contributing to the rejection like the throwing away and treading of food would persist as well.


GENERAL LEARNINGS

“HELP”: WHAT IS “HELP” ? WHAT DO THEY IMAGINE THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN?

“Help” is considered to be advisory service. When you call or visit the homepage it is expected to receive advise how to

quit, how not to start or how to respect non smokers. The service includes the supply of addresses and contacts where

to find help in your area. These contacts again include pharmacies, doctors specialised in tobacco questions and support

groups. The partners expected are doctors and psychologists. They are perceived as competent dialog partners to give

advice.

LOGO: PERCEPTION OF THE LOGO

The agreement on the logo is quite united and positive. The composition of the colours seems trendy and reminds

people of the 70’s. The idea with the animated ‘p’ which breaks the cigarette is liked very much and gives the impression

of encouragement. The only criticism which arises are the 3 stars. Those stars are perceived to represent the European

Union. Consequently three stars are irritating as one is used to the image of the European flag showing 12 stars.

BASELINE: PERCEPTION OF THE BASE LINE : INTEREST, COMPREHENSION, INCITEMENT

The baseline “Sie stehen dem Rauchen nicht alleine gebenüber” is generally accepted, liked and comprehended. People

understand the meaning and the purpose of the baseline and thus the message immediately. Yet the participants would

prefer a shorter and simpler baseline.

The translations asked from the participants were rather meek. People didn’t dare to propose a free translation using

their own ideas. Everyone tried to give the exact literal translation of the English baseline in order to prevent him-

/herself from being perceived as not speaking English perfectly.

The misunderstanding of the word “tobacco” should be taken into consideration when doing the final decision. In

German the usage of the word “tobacco” is rather rare and only common in the context of pipes. When talking about

cigarettes and smoking, “tobacco” is not used at all. The version using the term “Tabakprobleme” (tobacco problems)

has a strange appeal either. The appearance of the term is strongly linked to medical language and therefore again far

from common language.

The strangeness of the word “tobacco” may lead to a very low impact of the campaign. As people have difficulties in

understanding the story (especially as far as the series “Leeks” is concerned) they maybe won’t be willing to put another

effort into dealing with the baseline. The baseline should be simple and easy to understand to guarantee the effect of

the message.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE CAMPAIGN: WHO DO THEY SPONTEANOUSLY IMAGINE MADE / ORDERED THE

CAMPAIGN ? IS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PERCEIVED AS LEGITIMATE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF CAMPAIGN ? WHY ?

The European Commission is legitimated to make a campaign which communicates the existence of help. Actually it is

considered as very positive that the European Commission attends to the issue in that way. The smokers agree with the

campaign as it is not moralising and giving a positive image of smokers. Furthermore the idea of showing the series all

across Europe is welcome and accepted.


CONCLUSION: COMPARISON OF THE SERIES

Understanding Interest Agreement Impact

Incitement

Alone +++ ++ +++ ++

Leeks + ++ + +++


Analysis of the test group in BELGIUM

Number of


7 10-15 cigarettes 18-20 D (working class)


GENERAL BACKGROUND

What are the motivations for smoking?

• Socializing: we smoke « to seduce », « to be integrated », « we consume more cigarettes when we go out »,

« socializing with friends »

• The well-known calming effect: « Helps relaxing, calms you down »

• The power of habit: we smoke, «helps to kill time. », « for the hand movement», « a bad habit »

A quick consensus within the group: In final analysis, there is no reason to smoke, and participants seem to be very

embarrassed regarding the origin of their addiction: they say they do not remember any of the reasons which made

them start smoking.

What are the main motivations of smoking cessation?

• The cost (« a packet costs 10 euros and on top of that, none of us smoke »)

• Sport and physical condition

• A non smoking environment (« I live with a non smoker and I seriously consider to quit for him »)

• The visual and hand movement of the cigarette (« We should put some ugly yellow paper on it », « To turn the

filters color black »)

Not so expressive when it comes to an available help apart from a medical help.


• The problem of bad habit and dependence.

• The influence of others.

• The commercial pressure and the will of appearance: « the design of packets, it is a part of our fashion style »,

‘ to smoke a brand it is appearance, the packet is a fashion accessory ‘.



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACTED TO THE MOVIES ?

Film 1 Dummy: Predominantly positive reactions “All young people have gone through it ”, “I do not think that I will

call”, « He is afraid to leave his house »

Film 2 Cigarette stuck on fingers: Strongest reaction « it’s stupid », « it makes you laugh », « it’s discouraging »

Film 3 the bed: Favourable reactions « I feel concerned about it», « he is lacking respect », « It is rather nice»



Good general understanding of the various messages.

Film 1: A very good understanding, even if there is an uncertainty about the status of the character: Does he smoke or

not? A detail draws the participants’ attention and leads them to see the reality of an experienced smoker : « Why would

there be a packet of cigarette in his bedroom if he did not start smoking yet? »

Film 2 : Great understanding. A fair understanding of the TV commercial.

Film 3: A fair understanding of the TV commercial. An understanding on two levels: asking non smokers to be less

tolerant/asking smokers to be more respectful. From their point of view, the message is both directed towards smokers

and non-smokers and deals with problems of communication between the two. (‘The woman should initiate a dialogue

with the man and the man should be willing to listen more », « there’s no communication»)

In the transversal way the notion of help is rendered well and well understood « someone is here to listen and help

whoever who has a problem with tobacco ». « Others can help you find solutions that you could not find yourself ».

INTEREST : IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFULL ? WHY ?

Young people do not feel concerned or interested but on a different level depending on the film.

Film 1: There are fairly interested by the TV Commercial « there is a risk that they change channel»

Film 2: It is the one that draws the most the attention « it’s a realistic situation, we feel concerned» because we do not

consider themselves directly targeted and consider the message to be important.

Film 3: The storyline (the bed/a couple) on the face of it, is interesting, but considers the message to be useless to

them. Beyond this, they are not interested by a message that they define as being’ too stereotyped ».

PERCEIVED TARGET : WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE GROUP

FEEL CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED ? WHY ? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING

DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

Film 1: school children/teenagers

Film 2: every smoker

Film 3: non smokers+ deep-seated smokers


ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP : (ACCORDING TO ITS SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS)

WHICH EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERM OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT ?

COMPREHENSION ? SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP” ?

The impact is real for the second film. The comments and reactions are distinctly different on the 1st and 3rd (judgment

more critical mostly from women:

Film 1: « young people will find it tacky and would want to look like this character »

Film 3: « it could encourage you to smoke», « there will be no impact: everybody will think that they are not concerned,

I am not like that».




An image of smokers considered negative as the series goes along:

Film 1: « the smoker who tries to encourage others»

Film 2: « a desperate smoker bound to fail », « she is awfully alone»

Film 3: « a smoker with no respect for others»

On the whole about series 1: « it did upset me», « I feel a bit desperate as a smoker », « they treat us as sick people »

The base line raises a specific problem regarding the image of the smoker: It connotes a negative world / close to drug

addiction « it could be you are not alone facing heroin, or you are not alone facing suicide …» and lacking of alternatives

and positive way out.

From the non smokers’ point of view the image is not always more positive:

Film 1: « it cuts him out from a social life, he is on his own in his bedroom», « he looks like he’s cut out from the rest of

the world, he is afraid to leave his house», « he is violent », « he is not doing the right thing to let it out»

Film 3: « She’s overreacting», « she is not persistent, she’s giving up, she does not want to help him, she does not care

about him ».

Finally the meaning of the campaign that shows « a problem of understanding between smokers and non smokers » has

been restored as an incentive for the audience to have a dialogue « it’s made to encourage smokers and non smokers

not to speak to each other anymore »

AGREEMENT : DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

On the whole, despite a few criticisms the series is rather well appreciated.

Film 1:

This film comes across with more critics and distance than any other:

• A credibility issue: « the scene is weird », the fact to have a cigarette offered by someone seems very oddly

inconceivable (our feeling is that we are facing a potential cultural gap due to age and the expensive cost of

cigarettes)

• The violence of the commercial going against the smoker is predominantly rejected.

• The image of the character is not appreciated: « he is isolated », « he is fearful », « we don’t want to look like him »


• The moralizing tone: « it’s moralistic», « it’s always the same thing, we tell ourselves that it is not kind not to smoke

but that has been harping on us enough already»

Film 2:

It is the favourite film of the series.

Its strong points:

• A situation close to daily life: « she is leaving university», « as a matter of habit she is lighting up her cigarette»

• The impact and humour of the sticky cigarette: « it makes them laugh», « it’ stricking »

• The will of the smoker (woman): « she is not lacking strength, she has the will to end it»

Few reproaches:

• The absence of a positive outcome: « it is a bit hopeless», « it feels like anyway, she will never managed ».

ADAPTATION A LA SITUATION LOCALE

An optimal adaptation as much on the tone/the production than about the presented situation

“It suits Belgium ”


By comparison to films 2 and 3, the film 1 poses more difficulties than comprehension, distance and approval.

On the whole, in the presented situation: the dummy and a packet of cigarette in the teenager’s bedroom seem to be

the origin of comprehension problem, of a weak self identification.


A welcomed series: comprehension / agreement.

Little enthusiasm with film 1/ the attention goes to film 2.

An important feeling of use: to speak to young smokers/ dealing with addiction/ encourages to communication between

smokers and non-smokers

A good restitution of a help message: « the general is that whichever situation you are in, there is someone who’s here

to listen and help ».

But less proximity and impact: « it is for youngest» (film 1)/ « the pathetic side of it, it stops me identifying myself with

her », « I haven’ t reach that point » (film 2) / « I ‘m not thinking, I am like that» (film 3).




Laugh reaction and signs of acquiescence about the three films:

About its tone/creativity: « it’s really nice», « it’s well made », « it’s less aggressive»

About the message: “the cigarette is really silly”

UNDERSTANDING : ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ?

Great comprehension of messages by the majority part of group but in minor, interpretations more problematic

(rather masculine) necessarily expressed on this first film but existing probably also about the second one around the

idea of solidarity / community of smokers («it relieves the conscience a bit, we think to ourselves that we are not alone,

that it ‘s an obligatory way to take in order to be accepted). »


A high level of interest coming from:

- « Mirror ’ effect created by situations « they are typical scenes»

- The humor and the outsider tone.

- The social/psychological dimension of the campaign vs traditionally medical messages/public health tobacco

campaign.



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

Perception of a very large target for films 2 and 3 and of a young target for the dummy.

The target includes smokers and non-smokers.




High performance of the series in term of impact due to:

• The transversal message of the absurd attitude of the smoker

• The situation which is made less dramatic and offbeat

• The system of identification

Film « dummy » : « it is a true reflection of way I started smoking and it really makes me want to stop », « I’m telling

myself that for me to be different, I’m going to give up »

Film « cigarette stuck » : « it feels like I am watching myself… it makes you think »


Film « party » : « we don’t realize what they’re going through » « the film gave the idea that I should not let people

smoke in my house just because I’m a smoker myself »

The youngsters highlight that the impact is important for them and that it would certainly be even more important for

non smokers : « non smokers will find incitives for not starting » (film 1) « I think the films will have more success on

non smokers » (film 2).




A good image of smokers:

• “it’s more positive, we don’t feel depreciated as smokers” (general assessment of the series),

• “it doesn’t make people feel guilty”(film 2),

• “it’s reassuring: there are no hopeless cases, there are solutions»

Positioning of non-smokers as victims « they are excluded, bothered by it ». This image does not create a major

problem and is not interpreted as a weakness in the character of smokers. The victimization of non-smokers makes on

the other hand smokers play a role in the situation« we have a part to play, it’ up to us » (film 3).


Youngsters like the commercials excessively.

The reasons for agreement :

• The uncommon tone (the leek/ le pictogram « leeks forbidden »/leeks hits / the trolley with leeks in it…) cause

laughter and draws very good attention/good memorization of the messages

• Accordance with the message on the absurdity of nicotinisms (« it’s so stupid but so true »)

• Positive appreciation of the originality of the campaign : a different approach from traditional campaigns « make

you feel guilty », « we don’t watch them anymore »

• The mirroring effect is an extremely determining factor for agreement : « it’s like I’m looking into a mirror ». The

situations chosen : the cigarette with a coffee in the morning/ the bad mood when out of cigarettes/ smoking a

cigarette hiding in the toilets/ the party with friends : the cigarette with something to drink.

Only one detail seems to be a problem : the bus in film 1.


« it’s Belgian advert » « it’s a Belgian kind of humor »



Like the series very much, well understood and with impact, considered even more positively when the youngsters

imagine they are in the situation of the non-smokers.

GENERAL LEARNINGS

“HELP” : WHAT IS “HELP” ? WHAT DO THEY IMAGINE THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN?

The idea of a last resort

They imagine people calling « Help »… « people who are really willing to give up and who have already tried other

methods ».

For themselves, supposing they had the will to give up they do not intend to call, unless they had already failed several

times.

The content of the offer: a disappointing image

Expect some « coaching »/ the fear of a standardized answer« I’m concerned there will be young people giving very

short answer», « I do not think it will be someone older with experience ».

The credibility of the help would be better if it came from former smokers, who have experienced giving up smoking.

LOGO : PERCEPTION OF THE LOGO

Good understanding of the intentions of the logo and a good appreciation:

Notion of dialogue (the balloons)

Notion of voluntary act (the broken cigarette)

Notion of surrounding (the star and the round shape)

BASELINE : PERCEPTION OF THE BASE LINE : INTEREST, COMPREHENSION, INCITEMENT

Rejection of the baseline:

Feeling of a marginalization of the smokers « we are treated as sick people », « I’m not on my own at all, they would

like to make people admit that smokers are isolated, dirty sick people. »

Bad interpretation of the message taken as a confrontation of behaviours (in both series but more particularly in series

2) : « we’re not alone when we smoke »

UNION EUROPEENNE

No spontaneous recognition of the EU.

Do not precisely see the reasons for the implication of the European Union, would prefer a local institution.


CONCLUSION : COMPARISON OF THE SERIES

Understanding Interest Agreement Impact /

Incitement

Alone + + + -

Leeks + ++ ++ +

Participants do choose the leeks series.


Analysis Grid DENMARK

Number of


7 Light smokers 18-20 Working class,

traditional lifestyle


GENERAL BACKGROUND

What are the main motivations for smoking?

The participants all mention the social aspect of smoking as the dominant factor in their motivation for smoking.

Their main motivations are:

o It’s nice to be with other smokers

o Smoking creates friendships/community

o The addiction makes the smoker keep smoking

o Group pressure is the reason that several participants started smoking, you want to be cool

What are the main motivations for smoking cessation?

The participants mention several factors, which could motivate smoking cessation. However, there is an overall

agreement that the choice and the willpower of the individual are crucial for smoking cessation.

Their main motivations are:

o Individual willpower to stop smoking (all)

o Serious and frightening campaigns (all)

o If the majority of their friends stop smoking or are non-smokers, that is if it becomes more modern not

to smoke (all)

o If a girlfriend or boyfriend doesn’t smoke (mainly the boys)

o Wage increase – getting payed for not pausing to smoke (boys)

o Child birth (girls)

o Diseases and illnesses – e.g. asthma


The group stresses the addiction as the main reason that they can’t stop smoking. Some of them describe experiencing

unpleasant side-effects when trying to quit smoking. One participant says: “You are like a junkie, you need your rush”

The main barriers are:

o Addiction

o Most of their friends smoke

o Side-effects when trying to stop smoking - ”I get bad-tempered and hysterical if I don’t smoke”

o The consequences are too far away and therefore seem unrealistic


Throughout the interview the participants point out the willpower of the individual as a necessity to quit smoking.

Their main statements are:

o Will to quit smoking

o More and more non-smoking areas – if smokers are considered a marginal group

o And in addition the motivations mentioned above


1ST SERIES: ‘ALONE’

SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACTED TO THE MOVIES ?

The group laughs when watching the movies and find them frivolous. According to the participants the movies don’t

immediately appeal to them. They all think that the series would not motivate them to quit smoking.

The main reasons are:

o The series is not serious enough

o The series shows no serious consequences of smoking (as for instance lung cancer)

o The series has no appeal to the participants as it projects smoking as a problem that you need help to solve.

This is not the case for the participants and is regarded as a sign of weakness

o If the series must be humorous, the humour should have more of an edge and sharpness. One participant

mentions a commercial about smoking: “I saw a commercial, where you needed an atomic suit to avoid the

hazards of smoking. That could have an effect.”

Movie 1: The participants find the movie childish and unserious

o It projects the non-smoker as a weak person. The non-smoker should rather be projected as a strong person

to motivate to quit smoking

o Smoking is projected as a game when the boy in the movie is dancing around the imaginary paperboy

o The movie should be more serious – it doesn’t take smoking seriously, thus they can’t take it seriously either

Movie 2: The participants also find this movie to unserious, but more entertaining than the first one.

o The movie projects no consequences of smoking, or solutions to smoking. Thus the participants don’t see the

helpline as a solution– ”It should be emphazised that smoking is uncool and that it makes you smell bad”

o It is wrong to show that it is too hard to shake of the cigarette/to quit

o The movie should be more frightening and less humorous

Movie 3: The boys in the group can relate to the situation in the movie while the girls find it uninteresting. The group

agrees, however, that the consequences shown are too vague.

o The idea is good, but it needs more focus on the consequences for both the boy and the girl, although this is

the only movie, which projects consequences

o It must come out clearly, that both the girl and the boy are upset or emotionally affected by the situation

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND? ARE THEY

MISUNDERSTANDINGS? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN?

The participants agree that the overall message is that you shouldn’t start smoking, as it is hard to quit. Furthermore,

another message is that smoking annoys other people. Some participants regard the movies as describing group

pressure and not to succumb to group pressure.

They clearly don’t understand that the primary message of the campaign is that help can be acquired if needed. This is

due to the fact that they wouldn’t need help to quit smoking themselves, which they emphasize throughout the

interview. They all understand the series as part of a campaign that should make them quit smoking.


INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING? WHY? IMPORTANT? WHY? USEFULL?

WHY ?

The participants find the message and the consequences shown too vague and, so, without any effect. They all

emphazise that they would prefer the message to be that there are dangerous consequences of smoking. Furthermore,

they find that the movies should appeal to the smoker’s consideration for himself instead of emphazising the

consideration for other people. The participants are familiar with the perceived messages of the movies, but don’t get

frightened by them. Thus the campaign is found useless and uninteresting. The participants find no interest in the

message about help to quit smoking.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT? DOES THE GROUP

FEEL CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED? WHY? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING

DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

The participants point out that the total series is aimed at different target groups. Individual elements in the movies

applies to them as a target group, but the message and the actual situations don’t really affect them – “It needs a little

more go in order to appeal to young people”.


o The series applies to very young people, the career woman and the 30 year old, who is about to have children

o The series applies to people who haven’t started smoking yet and people who already smoke

o However, the participants don’t find that the movies appeal to them

Movie 1: The participants find the movie too childish for their target group

o The movie applies to young people between the age of 10 and 13

o The movie applies to people, who haven’t started smoking yet

o The participants cannot relate to the movie, as it is too foolish

o The non-smoker is not pictured as an ideal you can look up to

Movie 2: The participants find that the movie applies to clerks and not young people like themselves.

o The movie doesn’t apply to a young person who smokes to be cool

o The movie applies to people who haven’t started smoking yet and people who have just started smoking

o The participants don’t find that the movie is aimed directly at them

Movie 3: The participants find that the movie applies to different target groups and men as well as women.

o The movie applies to people around 30 years old who are about to have children

o The movie stresses the relation between the two genders which is good, because it’s recognizable and

therefore creates sympathy (mainly boys)

o The boys in the group can relate to the movie, whereas the girls don’t find that the movie speaks directly to

them. The girls could not imagine a boy leaving because of her smoking. Besides they already respect non-

smokers.

o The movie has a wider appeal than the others


ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP: (ACCORDING TO ITS SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS)

WHICH EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP? IN TERM OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT?

COMPREHENSION? SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP” ?

The series will not inspire any participants to seek help in order to quit smoking, nor will it encourage them to stop

smoking. However, the boys feel that the situation in movie 3 makes them think of smoking in another way because a

motivation to quit smoking for them could be a non-smoking girlfriend.

The main statements are:

o The series doesn’t inspire to quit smoking – ”You will light a cigarette shortly after you’ve watched it”

o The series doesn’t inspire to seek help – ”I wouldn’t visit the homepage, the add is not catchy”

o The series doesn’t appeal to the group as the majority is confident that they can quit smoking without any

help – ”Some might need help, but I don’t”

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS? WHY? EFFICIENT TO HELP SMOKERS / NON

SMOKERS? WHY? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS? WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP


All in all, the participants find that the series respects both smokers and non-smokers. They all agree on one statement:

“Nothing in the movies could insult smokers”. It is pointed out, however, that the movies shouldn’t give the impression

that all smokers put pressure on non-smokers to start smoking. The participants stress that they act respectfully towards

non-smokers, whereas non-smokers do not always act respectfully towards them - “Previous smokers are worse than

smokers. They tell you that you smell bad and that smoking will kill you” .

However, the participants find that non-smokers could be projected in a more positive way and suggest projecting the

non-smoker in movie 1 as a cool person in order to signal that it is cool to be a non-smoker – “His room should be cool

in order to show that it’s cool to be a non-smoker”.


The participants don’t find the campaign interesting. It doesn’t speak to them, as it’s too vague and doesn’t show serious

consequences of smoking. They emphasize that they don’t need help and the campaign doesn’t motivate them, as the

focus of the campaign is to make people aware that help is possible.


o The campaign is not serious enough

o The campaign is too funny – ”It needs more of an edge”

o The campaign is not frightening enough – ”It should be as frightening as the text on the cigarette pack”



According to the participants the series is adapted to the situation in Denmark as well as the situation in other European

countries. The participants don’t find that the series speaks specifically to them as a target group


o The vague expression of the series is consistent with the Danish hesitation towards showing rude and tragic

things in public – it’s too political correct

o The series is underplayed, which is very consistent with Danish humour


The participants don’t find that movie 1 works as well as the others. The movie is the least serious and is considered

childish because the boy in the movie dances around an imaginary paperboy. Furthermore, the paperboy is considered

an unrealistic element that the participants cannot relate to.


The series clearly doesn’t appeal to the participants. The most popular movie of this series is number 3 which appeals

mainly to the boys. The boys easily relate to the situation and acknowledge the discouraging effect of the girl leaving the

man in bed. However everyone agrees that the series wouldn’t motivate them to stop smoking or to seek help on the

campaign homepage.

According to the participants the main reasons are:


o The series show no serious consequences of smoking. It’s not frightening

o The series doesn’t focus on the willpower of the smoker or the consideration for himself as the main reasons

to quit smoking

o The participants don’t feel that the series applies specifically to them

Additionally:

o Movie 2 is the second best of the 3 movies, while movie 1 is considered to have the less appeal


2ND SERIES: ‘LEEKS’

SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACTED TO THE MOVIES?

Again, the participants laugh at the series, but this time the spontaneous reactions are mixed. The majority finds that

the leek is a funny symbol and points out the fun of having to guess that the leek illustrates the cigarette. Some

participants think that the leek signals ambiguity and that it is out of place, as it’s a symbol of health and doesn’t belong

in a campaign about smoking which should stress the unhealthy aspects of smoking. The participants feel that this series

is stronger than series 1, but they still agree that the series will not motivate them to quit smoking.


o The majority finds the series better than the first series, because it projects situations they can relate to and,

furthermore, focuses more on the consequences of smoking than the first series

o However, the series is still not serious enough and the humorous aspects are too dominant (sustained by the

leeks – it becomes a gimmick)

o The series doesn’t show consequences that are terrifying enough

Movie 1: The participants can relate to hiding in the school toilet, but again the reactions to the leek are mixed.

However, the participants agree that the movie is not frightening or serious enough.


o The participants recognize the situation in the school toilet

o The movie isn’t frightening nor moralizing

o The movie shows no serious consequences of smoking – ”There must be more consequence. The only

consequence is that he can’t get on the bus”

Movie 2: Several participants recognize the situation where the cigarettes are thrown out and picked up again shortly

after. Furthermore, the side-effects of smoking are pointed out as a relevant and important aspect to project. Especially

the picture of the desperate man feeling sick in bed has an impact. The participants find that the movie won’t motivate

them to quit smoking, however.


o They recognize the situation in the movie

o It’s relevant to project the side-effects. One participants explains that the man’s relationship with the leek

creates associations to Gollum and his “My precious” in the movie “Lord of the Rings”

o The movie is too funny and not serious enough, however

Movie 3: The participants recognize the party situation, but find the concept of the movie wrong. Emphazising that

smoking is annoying to others won’t make the smoker quit smoking. Only willpower and the consideration of oneself will

do that. The participants point out that the movie should project the smoker in a more negative way.


o The party situation is known to the participants

o A smoker won’t quit smoking because smoking is annoying to others

o The message doesn’t come trough, as the participants are already considerate of other people when smoking

o The movie shows no consequences for the smoker – ”The smoker should be sitting alone in the corner”

o The party situation can not be combined with quitting smoking: “It’s not a proper party if you can’t smoke.”

And: “Non-smokers smoke at parties too.”


UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND? ARE

THEY MISUNDERSTANDINGS? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN?

The participants don’t immediately understand that the leek illustrates a cigarette, but the symbolic meaning becomes

clear as the movie proceeds. They find the overall message to be that smoking affects other people and that you should

be in good health instead of smoking. Furthermore, they find that the series wants to send a message about the side-

effects of smoking. As with the first series the participants point out advice on not giving in to group pressure. Again

they don’t understand that the goal of the campaign is to show that it’s possible to seek help.

INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING? WHY? IMPORTANT? WHY? USEFULL?

WHY ?

Just as it was the case in the first series, the group finds the message too vague and with that not interesting. The side-

effects of smoking projected in movie 2 have most effect on the participants, but the participants agree that the

consequences of smoking are not projected frightening enough and, so, the campaign doesn’t have a permanent effect

on them. Furthermore, the participants find that the series should appeal to the smoker himself and not stress the

consideration for others. The messages are known to the participants, but they do not frighten them, and, so, the

campaign is considered useless and not interesting neither in order to make them seek help nor to quit smoking. Again it

must be pointed out that they wouldn’t need or seek help before they saw the series.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES? WHO IS IT AIMED AT? DOES THE GROUP

FEEL CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED? WHY? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING

DIFFERENT TARGETS?

The participants find that the target group of the series is everyone who recognizes the addiction to cigarettes and

people who want to stop smoking. One participant says: “It’s aimed at someone like me. I would pick up a cigarette

from the bin” . In spite that the participants recognize secret smoking in the school toilet and the situation where the

man throws the cigarettes out and picks them up again, they all maintain that the series is not relevant enough to make

them seek help or quit smoking after seeing it.



COMPREHENSION? SEARCHING FOR HELP? CALLING “HELP”?

Especially movie 2 makes an impression on the participants, but they all maintain that the series wouldn’t motivate them

to quit smoking. The series cannot withhold their attention long enough for them to notice the help message. Thus none

of the participants are inspired to use of the homepage after having seen the series.


o The series doesn’t motivate to quit smoking out of consideration for oneself – ”I think the concept is wrong.

Smokers shouldn’t quit smoking out of consideration for others, but out of consideration for themselves”

o The series doesn’t inspire them to visit the homepage, as the series isn’t frightening enough. Furthermore

they don’t recognize the homepage



SMOKERS? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS ? WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP


All in all, the participants find that the series shows respect for smokers as well as non-smokers. Several participants

actually find the projection of the smoker too positive, so that smoking isn’t connected with something negative – “It

should be contemptuous towards smokers” . The participants agree that movie 3 should show non-smokers having

smoke blown in their face instead of smokers who are not bothered. It’s pointed out that non-smokers often smoke at

parties and that they cannot complain about smoking when they smoke themselves.

Furthermore, the non-smoker is often considered moralizing towards smokers – “Previous smokers become precocious

and annoying to listen to” and: “I will probably act like an idiot too when I quit smoking” . The participants point out that

they are already considerate towards non-smokers.


The majority finds movie 2 most interesting, but the series should be more frightening. It doesn’t scare them, as it’s not

serious enough.

The participants’ main statements are:

o The series is too vague – ”It should be more scary”

o The series appears to be produced by ”Old men in suits” and is considered irrelevant


The participants find that the series is adapted to the situation in Denmark as well as the situation in other European

countries.


o The participants recognize the projected situations – ”We were smoking in the school toilets when we started”

and “I have tried throwing out my cigarettes”

o The dry humour and the irony is consistent with Danish humour


Movie 2 and 3 has a greater impact on the participants than movie 1. In spite that the participants recognize secret

smoking in the toilet, movie 1 is less relevant to them than the other movies. The participants stress that the movie

doesn’t project any serious consequences of smoking and that it doesn’t make an impression worth mentioning. It

doesn’t give any bad associations in connexion with smoking and therefore doesn’t inspire to seek help. Another

explanation is that the participants had to get used to the leeks in order for the story of the movie to be absorbed or

that the participants are too old to hide and smoke in the toilet.


The series makes a better impression on the participants than series 1, as it presents more recognizable situations.

Movie 2 impresses the participants the most because of the projected side-effects. However, all participants agree that

the series wouldn’t motivate them to stop smoking or seek help to quit smoking on the campaign homepage. Again help

is not an issue for the participants.


The main reasons why are:


o The series doesn’t show any serious consequences of smoking. It’s not frightening enough

o The series doesn’t focus enough on the smokers’ individual willpower or the consideration for oneself as the

main reasons to quit smoking (although movie 2 does it a little)

o It may be considered how the leeks would function in a real movie compared to the animated slides

THE SERIES “ALONE” AND “LEEKS” COMPARED

As it is mentioned previously, the majority of the participants prefer series 2. They find series 2 more frightening than

series 1. Only two of the boys in the group prefer series 1, as the situation where the girl leaves the man in the bed is a

bugbear they can relate to. Furthermore, the two boys find that the leeks in series 2 disturb the message of the movies.

The predominant reaction to the two series is negative. None of the participants find the series frightening or serious

enough to motivate them to seek help or quit smoking, and the campaign is considered useless and uninteresting. One

participant states: ”A campaign about smoking should make you feel really bad and make you throw your cigarettes out

the window”

The positive and negative aspects of the two series are as follows:

Positive aspects:

o The participants recognize some of the projected situations (especially series 1, movie 2 and 3 and series 2,

movie 2)

o A few find the leek illustrative

Negative aspects:

o The series are not serious enough and too silly

o The series show no serious consequences of smoking

o The series focus too much on the consideration for other people. The participants already consider other

people. Instead the participants stress the willpower of the individual and the consideration for oneself as the

main motivation to quit smoking

o The series doesn’t reflect badly on the smoker and, so, it’s not moralizing enough

During the interview the participants suggest several alternative situations with more impact on them than the two

series.

The suggestions the following:

o A movie could illustrate: ”A young person, who comes home from a night out, feels bad and drops dead

because of smoking”

o A movie could illustrate: ”A syringe filled with tobacco and a person shaking”

o “They should show that it affects his or her health. For example a man coughing his lungs out”

o ”It would have more impact with a Nike-commercial where someone drops dead, because he’s a smoker”


GENERAL LEARNINGS

“HELP”: WHAT IS “HELP”? WHAT DO THEY IMAGINE THROUGH THE CAMPAIGN?

Overall the participants don’t remember the help line. When asked a few of the participants recall “help” to be a

homepage. The general opinion is that they wouldn’t visit the homepage. This is due to the fact that they don’t feel that

they need help to quit smoking, but also because they don’t find that the series would ever motivate them to require

help about quitting. Thus they don’t seem to connect the campaign with the word “help”.

Because:

o They don’t need help to quit smoking in general – seeking help against smoking is not part of their reality

o Motivation to quit smoking must come from within

o The series cannot withhold their attention long enough for them to notice the help message.

These comments appear when the participants are asked specifically about “help”. Other comments about “help” are

connected with the perception of the logo in the next paragraph.


Overall the participants don’t focus on the word “help” as part of the logo. The majority of the participants find the

orange and white colours of the logo much too nice and frivolous – they suggest stronger colours like black, grey and

red in order to:

o Get their attention

o Project the seriousness of smoking

o Make the word “help” and the overall issue of help stand out

However, they like the broken cigarette which very clearly indicates what it is about and suggest that the cigarette after

it’d been broken would fall down on the website-logo which would subsequently be enlarged. Furthermore, they agree

that they probably wouldn’t notice the website at all.

BASELINE: PERCEPTION OF THE BASE LINE: INTEREST, COMPREHENSION, INCITEMENT

It was very clear that none of the participants has actually paid any attention to the baseline when the different series

were shown – it didn’t catch their attention (Note: Generally, the participants in this group may not be the most liable

users of the internet for information retrieval)

Secondly, the main issue with all of the suggested baselines is that the respondents don’t consider smoking anybody

else’s problem, but their own! In order to tackle smoking, it has to come from within. Thus, the “you’re not alone” issue

in all baselines is completely rejected by the majority. Only few participants see a point in appealing to the “community”

of smoking – but all says the sentence wouldn’t influence them in any way because to them:

o Smoking is an individual problem and asking for help to deal with it is regarded as a failure and mainly

possible for a person with little or less self-esteem – which isn’t the case for this group. Thus, this

sentence is seen as a way of talking down to them

o Additionally, it’s too soft, naïve and sugary – too much “political correctness”

o The English version is preferred by half of the group, as somehow the participants find it easier to

disassociate themselves from the meaning of the words when in English

o However, the other half of the group wouldn’t notice it at all if it wasn’t in Danish


o Almost all participants are rather indifferent finding all of the mentioned baselines bad, particularly

because of the first mentioned reason

Instead the following are suggested to add more of an edge and seriousness:

° “Join the war against smoking” (Like “join the war against terrorism”)

° “Soon you will be alone…” (Compared to “you’re not alone…”)

° “You’re only cheating yourself” (Focuses on the responsibility of the individual)

Additionally, some participants suggest that there shouldn’t be a baseline at all and instead focus should be on the

“help” bubble breaking the cigarette and the website – many doesn’t notice the website at all and can’t imagine using it,

but this is related to their general dislike of both series, which they generally consider:

° Much too frivolous for a serious matter (as if smoking was a joke)

° Without any consequences (e.g. didn’t show you a young man dying of lung cancer)

° So, if the series had been received better, the baseline may also have been received more positively

Thus, we suggest reconsidering the “you’re not alone”-theme and to use something with much more focus on the

individual choice and responsibility instead

Additional texts

With regard to the three possible texts above the website: “Advice on how never to start”, “Your quit smoking program”

and “10 tips to respect non-smokers”, only “your quit smoking program” comes out alright, but not great. The other two

are rejected for not being related to quitting smoking (the participants in this group were all smokers)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE CAMPAIGN: WHO DO THEY SPONTEANOUSLY IMAGINE MADE / ORDERED THE

CAMPAIGN? IS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PERCEIVED AS LEGITIMATE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF CAMPAIGN?

WHY?

The group agrees that it has no specific impact that the EU-Commission is the author of the campaign. However the EU-

Commission is regarded as a trustworthy creator of a campaign about smoking, although they seem to have failed with

this campaign.

The participants’ main statements are:

o It could be expected that the EU-Commission would create a campaign about smoking when smoking is

already prohibited in so many areas. Other forms of communication as for instance a campaign is

necessary in addition to the prohibition

o It would be a waste of money to launch the campaign all over Europe, because it is too vague

o The campaign seems to be created by older people, who don’t speak the language of young people.

Young people should create the campaign instead




Incitement

Alone + + - - - - - -

Leeks + - - -


Analysis Grid - Finland

Number of


6 Middle smokers

10 to 20 cig per day 18-20 Working class


GENERAL BACKGROUND

What are the main motivations to smoke?

For pleasure, but mainly it's a habit, an automatic reflex related to breaks and social interaction

"we go out of the office, talk, and smoke"

A pastime and a reflex related to nervousness

What are the main motivations to stop smoking?

The thought of becoming a parent: "in order not to harm other people's health"

The illness of a close relation or friend

The rising cost of tobacco


- Real problems in stopping related to social interaction: going out with friends

- For group members with jobs, “if I don't smoke, I don't have a break”

- For the majority, the idea that the main thing holding them back is a lack of willpower


- If those around me don't smoke

- A request from someone who is close and important: the girlfriend, the grandmother, etc.



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES?

Film 1 - A certain distance due to the fact

- that they do not feel they are directly concerned ( “I already started smoking”)

- That the defense mode is considered to be violent, and is not a solution

- That the film's message is no different from other films for the general public

Film 2: Sense of humor, funny, preferred it to the first film

Film 3: An excessive situation, not very credible: the girl should have known that her partner smoked. In Finland, people

don't smoke in bed, but on the balcony, in the living room, etc.

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND? ARE THERE


Film 1 - Message understood: how hard it is to say NO to tobacco. "do not start smoking" "You are not alone", but the

situation at the start is unclear and the presence of the mannequin is not understood, and considered to be complicated.

People asked questions about the reason why the boy keeps the cigarette pack in his hand: a disturbing presence when

you want to show that he wants to stop

Film 2 - Message understood: show drug dependency, and how hard it is to stop

Film 3 - Message understood: A call for consideration of non-smokers. The situation shows a total lack of respect for

non-smokers

INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING? WHY? IMPORTANT? WHY? USEFUL? WHY?

Film 1 Not very interesting because the scenario is not original

"they use kicks in the Nicorette ad: that has already been overdone"

They show that it's easy to say NO, but that is not true

Film 2 - More than the difficulty in stopping (which is not a new message), it is the possibility for helping that is

pinpointed and is interesting, in their opinion.

Film 3 - Of little interest as the situation is not perceived as being likely or even conceivable for them. This brings into

question the film's usefulness.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES? WHO IS IT AIMED AT? DOES THE GROUP FEEL

CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED? WHY? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT INVOLVING DIFFERENT

TARGETS?

Film 1: group not concerned because they are already smokers: a film dedicated to younger people

Film 2: smokers who are "hooked" like they are, but who want to stop and who need help, which they do not recognize

for themselves

Film 3 – young people who are over 20, non-smokers, incidentally themselves...



WHICH EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP? IN TERMS OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT?


Little overall impact

"It did not touch me, nothing new" “I don't think any differently afterwards"

Film 1: no incentive nor expectation of help: the situation is too far removed from their own experience, lacks realism,

and does not change their view of tobacco

Film 2: little impact, does not provide any new information. "everybody knows it's hard to stop", but the possibility of

help is taken into account

Film 3: little impact due to the rejection of the situation and to the smoker's attitude, considered as unrealistic in Finland


SMOKERS? WHY? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS? WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP RESPECT

BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS?

Film 1: A violent gesture against the symbol of the smoker, which is rejected

Film 2: the smoker is shown as weak, when they are capable of stopping

Film 3: the disrespectful smoker does not match the image of smokers in Finland: they do not smoke in bed, and ask

permission


Average overall agreement, a clear preference for the second film

Film 1: Unattractive, the mannequin is considered to be ridiculous, the situation is not realistic, and lacks the power of

conviction

Film 2: the humor and context of the university (a familiar setting) are appreciated. But the film is considered to be

overly redundant, the demonstration too pronounced, moralistic, and in the end is felt as monotonous.

Film 3: a perceived difference with living habits, the smoker's disrespectful attitude is not considered to be on the same

wavelength with the way they smoke


The adequacy varies according to the different films

Film 1: an international character that is not problematic and cannot be transposed

Film 2: an American character due to the campus, but it also evokes Nokia, a Finnish company, by the style of the

buildings

Film 3: an American character due to the situation: smoking in bed is not (in their opinion) a common occurrence in

Finland ( "in Finland, we would have chosen a bus stop"),



Films 1 and 3 did not work well with this target:

- In film 1, the fight with the mannequin does not clearly evoke the fight against the first cigarette, and the transposition

of the smoker into a mannequin seems to be a caricature, and the boy's reaction seems excessive and inappropriate.

The refusal of the cigarette is shown in the end as something that is easy to do, which is not the case in their opinion.

- In film 3, the situation with the smoker in bed is considered to be unsuitable for Finland: this target declares that they

do not smoke in those conditions, in bed, and they feel they are more respectful: people normally ask permission. Hence

the feeling that this is a caricature.

MAIN THINGS LEARNED ABOUT THE SERIES ‘THE LONER’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN THINGS LEARNED?

Films 2 and 3 give a dominant note to the entire series: they are critical of the choice of situations considered as

unrealistic and not credible, which does not encourage the required identification for this target.

"All the films are exaggerated"

the chosen situations are not familiar enough.

In the end, the series is of little interest, and has little impact.



Their initial acceptance was better than for the first, because they are increasing negative and reactive as the films are

presented.

Film 1 – A positive reaction, related to the bit of humor and to the description of the context that favors access to

cigarettes

"I can see why people start smoking at an early age"

But the disobedience situations are considered to be spontaneously exaggerated (bathroom, bus)

"It's too American"

Film 2 – When the second film was presented, the transposition of the cigarette into a leek provoked lively reactions

"it's ridiculous. A leek dispenser, that's ridiculous. That doesn't work"

The intensity of the addiction is exaggerated.

"He's addicted to a drug, not to tobacco! he's sweating!"

Film 3 – The leek metaphor is even more strongly rejected

"cigarettes are smoke, not a blow!"



Film 1- A clear, well understood message: a representation of familiar situations that encourage people to smoke

"It shows where it leads. Somebody did something stupid and the others follow" a film that means: "don't start"

Film 2 – A message felt to be clear: it is very hard to stop, the addiction can be strong.

Film 3 – The analogy of smoke with a blow is not systematically understood, and when it is, it triggers a strong rejection:

"cigarettes are smoke, not a blow!"

The gestures of the non smokers are felt to be "bizarre, hard to understand"


The message is considered to be clear but obvious, with nothing new: an incitement to respect others, the harmfulness

of cigarettes


Film 1: interesting due to the scenario: it is logical, a more involving story, and a familiar context

"It brings back good memories"

Film 2 – A message based on addiction which is kept at a distance, but which attracts attention because it corresponds

to part of their reality.

"it is pertinent: we are addicted, we buy cigarettes every day"

Film 3 – the message about lack of respect to non smokers arouses rejection, not indifference. It is perceived as of little

interest because it is obvious, does not provide any new information, but the physical aggression is shown as a blow is

disturbing



TARGETS?

Different targets are perceived, but they systematically exclude themselves from those targets

Film 1 – For 12-16 year olds: a target that keeps them at a distance

"We are adults, and it's legal to smoke"

Film 2- smokers and non smokers, targets they exclude themselves from

"Not us, because we are not dependent" "It concerns the future, when we will stop"

Film 3 – non smokers, and smokers who must consider others. Nevertheless, when questioned the targets said they

were not concerned, as they respected non smokers

"we respect others. When I smoke, I raise my cigarette"




The impact is declared to be weak, but it raises questions and is disturbing

Film 1 – The film is not very informative, nor very effective in their opinion with limited impact, does not encourage them

to solicit help.

Film 2 – The situation with strong addiction associated with a leek raises questions.

"going into the trash is frightening, it shows the difficulty"

yet the incentive power is not easily recognized

Film 3 – The situation with physical aggression greatly troubles this target, and in this sense has an impact. Yet they do

not feel encouraged or prompted to stop, because they claim that they do not want to.





Film 1 – A representation of a young, easily influenced smoker, wanting to conform to what others are doing. Yet this

vision does not appear shocking to them: they think it reflects reality

Film 2 – The leek ridicules the smoker. Beyond that, it creates a positive image of smokers who want to stop when they

go through a real crisis.

Film 3 – the smoker is disrespectful, and physically aggresses the non smoker. They found this very direct message

highly disturbing, and it leads them to reject the film. Likewise, they feel the passive attitude of the non smokers is

unrealistic: "non smokers are less patient in real life". This forced situation does not encourage respect: non smokers are

passive, victims, and submissive, even slightly masochistic


The campaign is spontaneously better appreciated, although it is increasingly negative, related to the leek analogy.

Although this analogy is accepted in film 1 because it is understood by the touch of humor and realism of the situation,

this is less true for the other two films:

Film 1 – An amusing tone, a familiar situation that they have already experienced at school: two elements that make

them like the film. But the disobedience is disturbing, considered to be "too American. In Finland, nobody smokes in the

bathroom"

Film 2 – A disturbing file when it demonstrates addiction, but that holds one's attention by its realism when describing

withdrawal.

Film 3 – the most disturbing film: the physical violence related to the transposition of smoke into a blow is considered to

be excessive and inaccurate. The leek metaphor is considered as unsuitable. The non smoker's lack of attention is

considered to be unrealistic. Furthermore, the situation of submission and passivity by non smokers seems hard to

understand and unlike the real world.

In the end, there is a clear preference for series 2


No major problems, except for a few details in film 2

Film 1- The first disobedience shown, where the high school students are smoking in the bathroom, is considered to be

inappropriate to the actual situation in Finnish high schools.

Film 2 – There are not automatic cigarette dispensers in Finland.

Film 3 – This situation with a lack of respect is not considered to be conceivable at home for someone in Finland.


Film 3, which shows physical violence from smoke, does not work: the leek-cigarette transposition is strongly rejected.

The group refuses to identify with the disrespectful characters, and with the attitude of physical aggression to others.

Film 2, which shows addiction in a fairly direct and crude way, is disturbing (dirty, the leek in the trash). It's excessive

character does not encourage identification of this target, which does not feel it is addicted to that extent

MAIN THINGS LEARNED ABOUT THE ‘LEEKS’ SERIES: WHAT ARE THE MAIN THINGS LEARNED?

- In their view, the transposition is a provocation, disturbing, and in fact seems to be interesting when 5 /6 participants

prefer the leek series.


- The interest of the leek/cigarette transposition is not recognized. As the ridiculous nature of the situations is reinforced,

young people do not feel at ease with this communication option and refuse to identify themselves with dependent

smokers, although they have previously demonstrated their desire to stop smoking.

- The smoker is shown as weak, even in his disrespectful nature: this very negative image pushes them away.

- The messages of this second series are clearly more radical than the first, reinforced by the leek metaphor. They

suggest the real violence of tobacco and cigarettes, which the young people refuse to consider.

Nevertheless, overall the series is considered to be more interesting, more educational, and clearer. It has a stronger

impact.

GENERAL TEACHINGS


The measures suggested by the films: a Web site, an anti-smoking clinic, etc.

Measures that spontaneously lead them to consider that this type of help, too soft in their opinion, will not be effective

"we don't want outside help"

"we shouldn't be punished, have to pay a fine!"

They mention the lack of information concerning where to get help: visual information should be reinforce.


A positive spontaneous reception:

a “classy”, "attractive" logo

It reminds them of comic books with "bubbles"

The blue and orange, as well as the stares, remind them of the EU flag

Afterwards, the logo is considered to have "too many colors: it's trying to be cool"

Attached to the sponsor, it makes this target of young people distrustful:

"is good for a company, not for the European Union"


Few comments,

Not very evocative, as this target is resisting dependence and the need for help.

They like how it highlights the smoker's solitude.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE CAMPAIGN: WHO DO THEY SPONTANEOUSLY IMAGINE MADE / ORDERED THE

CAMPAIGN? IS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PERCEIVED AS LEGITIMATE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF CAMPAIGN? WHY?

The group identified the sponsor. The European Union has the legitimacy to promote a campaign on this

theme if it includes a message about health. But the content of the messages is considered to be

"superficial", insufficient.

"They always say the same thing"

The campaign appears to be a manifestation of the desire to show that Europe is active, but is not convincing enough.

"it's the same as the text on cigarette packs: it's ridiculous"

"The European Commission is doing this to save it's neck, to show that it is doing something"



.


Incitement

Alone

Global ++

1++

2+++

3++

Global +

1 --unidentified

2 +++

3 +

Global –

1---

2 +++

3 +

Global -

1--

2++

3 +

Leeks

Global +++

1 +++

2+++

3 +++

Global ++

1+++

2++

3 +

Global ++

1 +++

2++

3 –

Global +

1 +

2++

3- +


Analysis Grid FRANCE

Number of

participant Tobacco Status Age Social Category

10

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

18-20

25 ans et +

W

M


CONTEXT

What are the representations of tobacco? What are the motivations for smoking?

Regarding this point, we have noticed very different points of view depending on the tobacco status and the age of the

smokers.

In the 18-20 yrs group, the spontaneous reactions associated with tobacco have to do mainly with pleasure and

socializing (« friends », « parties », « holidays »); these representations stand side by side in minor with more serious

notions (« cancer », « poisoning », « death »).

When they explain their motivations, the social dimension comes first (« fashionable attitude », « we get influenced »

« it’s a form of integration », « it helps us gain confidence”).

In the groups of adults in their 30s, the spontaneous reactions are on the contrary strongly marked by the

nuisance and noxious effects of cigarettes. (« Yellow fingers », « bad breath » ,« cold tobacco », « smell »,

« dependence »).

What are the motivations for stopping?

Despite diffences between the two groups regarding, on the one hand, a first attempt or no attempt to quit, and on the

other hand, the feeling of dependence, the main motivations for quitting can be found:

• The consequences on the physical aspect « bad effect on the skin », « yellow fingers”),

• The physiological consequences (« be out of breath », « lack of taste », « I will quit to be in a better physical

shape », « cough in the morning », « headaches », « it’s better not to smoke when you do sport »…),

• The thought of illness and death,

• Public policies (increase in the prices, ban smoking in public places…).

What are the barriers ?

The main barriers in the group of the French smokers: absence of the feeling of dependency or noxious

effects/socializing and self-confidence given by the cigarette.

In the second group on the contrary, the feeling of dependency is brought up to explain the difficulties of quitting (« I’m

scared there will be only emptiness », « it’s boring without cigarettes”…). The fear of failure is one of the main barriers.

What are the elements that can help stop smoking?

Family and friends is presented as a significant driving force in both groups and especially among the youngest (« it

would be easier to stop together », « we’ve tried to do it with others », « when you are a couple and one doesn’t

smoke… »)

Consequently, the system of communication suggested by Ligaris on the relationship smoker/non smoker, around the

idea that the manner with which the smoker is seen by his friends/family can have an impact on his choices. This system

of communication seems relevant on the groups.

A logical divide emerges between the two groups on the perception of the help needed to stop:

• Those who smoke a little: the feeling that no help is neither necessary nor efficient and that everything

depends on willpower (« no need to get help from anyone », « those who seek help don’t succeed », « it’s a

waste of money »).

• The heavy smokers 25 yrs +: on the one hand, expressed the idea that a very favorable context is essential

to succeed (« no problems », « be in the countryside », « on holiday »…), on the other hand, mentioned the

help of patches or acupuncture.



FILM 1 : THE DUMMY

Spontaneous reactions

Mainly negative: « this is ridiculous », , « it is made for kids ».

Comprehension

• A good understanding of the situation (« I tells the story of a boy who does not want to let himself be

influenced, and who does not want to start, he teaches himself to say no ») , of the message on prevention

(« It’s made to prevent people to start »), and of the target.

• However, the notion of help associated with the idea of not starting is not understood because it is not

accepted. The situation presented is interpreted the other way round (« it’s nonsense », « what has it got to do

with the possibility of getting some help », « he doesn’t look like somebody who needs help, he manages well

on his own »).

• In the end, the situation of the young man remains unclear: « has he already started smoking? » « Does he

want to quit? »

• The staging/making: questions on the situation emerge, « why are they looking at the camera? » « Why does

he need such a set-up? »

→ the intention is understood but the situation is considered unclear.

→ Improvement point: some detail to define the young man (he does smoke/he does not smoke)

Perception/Agreement/Disagreement

• The opinion expressed is mainly negative due to the problem of credibility and authenticity of the situation

(« we don’t believe in it, it’s fake », « it’corny/nafff », « it’s a parody », « it’s ridiculous »).

• The fictitious opposition smoker/non smoker is rejected because of the violence of the situation (« it

encourages violence », « the smoker deserves then to be beaten up?»).

→ the reaction caused by the situation is that of rejection rather than of approval.

→ Improvement point: there are two central and critical elements regarding the dummy: the fact of looking at

the camera and the karate kick.

Interest

• The significance of a message on the first cigarettes, the role of influence are appreciated by both groups. The

image of a « constant struggle » and the fact of showing that it is difficult to say no are considered relevant.

• However, the tone used is problematic as it is considered to be a bit moralistic and patronizing (the message is

described as « childish », « simplistic », « weak »).

→ little interest for the film.


Impact

• The impression in both groups is that message is not very interesting and would not draw the attention of the

young people targeted, and that it could on the contrary make them feel that their behaviour is right.

• In the adult group, there is fear that the opposite effect will be produced: the young man is alone/weak/ « he

looks depressed »/ « he is put in a ridiculous situation », « young people will refuse to identify with him ».

• Both groups point out the fact that is it difficult to imagine a teenager asking for help when in that situation.

→ an impact considered to be low, a possibly counterproductive message according to some participants.

→ Improvement point: the character of the youth to be defined in a positive way.

Relationship smoker/non smoker

A depreciated relationship, tense/violent, with the final impression of the impossibility to communicate.

FILM 2 : THE WOMAN


« It’s real-life », « the fact that the cigarette that gets stuck is funny and tragic at the same time »

Comprehension

→ A very good understanding of the situation and well associated with the notion of aid: « she smokes

because she is used to it, she has the desire to stop but can’t do it on her own, she is dependent on it, she needs help,

it will be easier for her if she finds help… »


→ a good level of agreement: the situation is real (« after college »/ « cigarette litten up without thinking »),

generates identification (« I can see myself »), and is based on laughter (« it’s going to make everybody laugh »)

Interest

→ an interest in the ridiculous aspect of the situation and in the message on dependence and help.

Impact

→ a film capable of making the 18-20 yrs think about the idea of dependence and about the future difficulties when it

comes to stop.

→ a film considered to give little incitive by heavy smokers: fear that laughter will take the upper hand, difficulty

imagining the aid offered.


→ a positive image of the smoker who is dependent, not lacking the willpower to quit, but who needs help.


FILM 3: THE BED

Spontaneous reactions:

“It is not very realistic”, “what a prat”, « one should not smoke in bed really ».

Comprehension

→ Good comprehension of the message on respect of other smokers despite the different interpretations

(« if you smoke you’ll end up alone », « smokers have to defend themselves »)

The situation is not devoid of ambiguity:

• The smoker seems « hopeless », « nothing can be done, he won’t change, it all depends on the character »,

• Incomprehension lies in woman’s reaction, which seems excessive for some, and in the fact that none of them

talk before she leaves. The smoker is also perceived as being relieved (« she is bad-tempered, good

riddance »).


The impression at the end is that of rejection despite some positive points.

• The factors of agreement and interest:

The couple

The sexual connotation

The message on the relationship between smoker and non-smoker

The outcome and the risk of ending up alone

• The factors of rejection

The situation of the cigarette in bed is not considered credible

The excessive reaction of the girl (« she is overeacting »)

The feeling that the smoker is not able to change

The violent confrontation between a smoker and a non-smoker

The tone considered moralistic

Impact

The threat of ending up alone produces an impact. The threat is better perceived than the positive message on the

respect for others, true for both groups and even more for the youngest.

The impact is however moderate due to the fact that the situation appears distant.

Relationship smoker /non smoker

The relationship is described as being bad according to the various types of reactions from the participants:

• The feeling is that it is best for smokers and non smokers to live apart: « why doesn’t she find herself a

boyfriend who doesn’t smoke »,

• Communication is impossible (« she doesn’t even bother to convince him »).


ASSESSMENT SERIES 1

Comprehension

A rather good comprehension with a good vision of the targets and of the different messages of the

campaign, however, some aspects remain unclear in films 1 and 3.

The easiest and quickest accessible film is the one with the woman.

A limited comprehension of the notion of help. Film 2 is the one that is less ambiguous. Help is not identified or

understood in the two other films.


The film with the women gathers more agreement.

The other two are badly perceived. The film with the dummy the most violently criticized.

A few positive observations:

• The messages are considered less aggressive and do not make the viewer feel guilty like the usual films do.

Humor helps see the situation in a lighter way and enables the messages to be heard.

• The daily life element is appreciated (after college, the couple)

Impact

On the whole, the impact is considered to be limited due to certain weakness (« it’s too soft », « it’s not punchy

enough »)

A few observations:

• Film 2 is considered the most efficient,

• The outcome of film 3 with the man being isolated because of tobacco seems to be a strong argument.

Image and relationship smokers/non smokers

Smokers are always badly perceived: « they are the bad ones», « they get beaten up ».

Non-smokers are not seen in a better light either:

• In the first one: « he’s turned into a bit of a square », « he looks stupid »

• In the last one, it is impossible to identify with her because she cannot be seen and because her reaction is

excessive.

The relationship is based on conflict.


FILM 1: SCHOOL


«The leek is good idea», « it makes people smile », « it is a very good thing to say »

Comprehension

A very good comprehension of the message and of the various targets.



Strong agreement among the youngster, not so strong among older smokers.

Points of agreement:

• For the youngsters, the image of the leek and the innovative/off-track manner it is dealt with.

• For the youngsters the situations are familiar,

• The message on imitation: « it is true that we started for a stupid reason …to do the same thing that our

friends and the oldest were doing ».

Less favourable points

• The situation on the bus is not considered credible and confuses the message a little (« nowadays nobody

would think of getting on a bus with a fag, so what is the idea?)

• Among the oldest, the choice of the leek remains enigmatic sometimes.

• The image of the smoker in the film: « they think we’re stupid », « smokers are considered to be sheep like

with no personality »

→ Improvement points: define more clearly at the end what is the difference between leeks and cigarettes in terms of

health; change the bus scene.

Impact

Youngsters consider that the message can have a positive impact on children/young people.

The older smokers wonder about the position of some of the actors:

The non-smoker in the film represents authority (the headmaster, the bus driver) with which the youngsters, who want

to rebel, will not identify,

• In the same way, the law is on the side of the non smokers (« we hide », « there is a sign on the bus », « they

might find that they are on the right track when they smoke ».

Relationship smokers/non smokers

In both groups: the smoker is perceived as being weakened. Among young people, the non-smoker has come out

stronger « he is stronger than everybody else », « he has managed to assert himself in the crowd ».

Among the adults, a slightly different perception: the young smoker is not necessarily being discredited and even runs

the risk of being comforted. On the contrary, the non-smoker embodies the law and normality, which is imposed; it is

not necessarily gratifying.

Adaptation locale

Positive point: the toilets in the school

Negative point: the bus (« nobody would get on the bus with a cigarette » « In France we don’t take this kind of buses

to go to school »)

FILM 2: THE OFFICE WORKER


« Cigarette is a drug », « it could be real cigarettes », « It’s exaggerated »


Comprehension

Excellent comprehension of the situation, the message and the target.


A strong disagreement shared by the young and heavy smokers. A strong interest for the film.

The assets: starts the discussion on their own situation, makes them see a reality they would refuse to see if it had not

been dealt with in such an innovative/off-track manner.

Areas of concern for production: the viewer should be able to identify with the man (he is not « a drug addict either », «

he’s rather good looking »). If the film goes too far into drug addiction, there is the feeling that smokers will not hear

the message.

Impact

The impact is obvious because the film allows starting the discussion/reflexion.

• It enables young smokers to fear for their future and to also acknowledge their dependence on tobacco.

• It leads the smokers of the second group to start a discussion « with no taboos » (to acknowledge deviant

behaviours « I’ve often picked up cigarette butts from the bin », « I have hesitated between buying a sandwich

or fags and have chosen the fags »).

In the group of the heavy smokers, there is the feeling that the film gives arguments in favor of not quitting. (« It’s

impossible to stop », « we are drug addicts »

→ Improvement points: increase the importance of the voice-over, of the outcome of the story and of possibility of

getting some help.


Here, the image of the smoker is that of a victim. He is perceived as being weak because of his lack of willpower

according to the youngest.

Local adaptation

No cash dispenser.

FILM 3: THE EVENING OUT


« Smokers are idiots », « it’s true to life », « it’s going too far », « it’s not bad»

Comprehension

The message is clear. Understanding is not always immediate. The targets are not clear enough: is it designed for

smokers (for them to show respect for non smokers) or for non smokers (for them make others respect them)?


The message on passive nicotinism is strongly appreciated in both groups: « non-smokers are not sufficiently

taken into account », « they are bothered by smoke on a daily basis », « they haven’t decided to breath other people’s

smoke ».

Realism of the situation is another positive point.

On the opposite, the things rejected are:


• The fact that it is either black or white/over simplistic: smokers on one side, non-smokers on the other.

« Apart from the leek, they are totally incompatible. »

• The passivity of the non-smokers: they are in a place that is no right for them, …but don’t express

themselves, they are passive so they become responsible for the situation they are in.

• The solution is in the hands of the non-smokers: the solution is that they should leave the place that is

not right for them; we do not really see what the smokers could do about it. (« Either they accept the situation

and mingle, or they leave »)

Impact

Among the youngsters: a real impact. Among the older people: a less important impact.


The relationship is spoiled by a vision of two distinct communities, which is criticized as it is not reflecting reality

(« in real life we mingle, we manage »).

ASSESSMENT SERIES 2

Comprehension

A very good understanding of the various messages. The message that is the least clear in the series is the first one.


A very clear agreement because the situations are familiar, they happen everyday; because of the innovative manner it

is dealt with, and the laughter generated by the image of the leek.

Impact

A stronger impact than for the first series because the hidden meaning that makes the viewer more attentive and

because it engages the viewer to reflect.

However, attention must be payed on the identified risks of a counter message (in the first and the last film).

Relationship smokers/non smokers

This series does not deal much with the relationship. There is only one solution: separate.

EUROPEAN DIMENSION

« European Union » is identified.

The initiative is better perceived by the youngest. The oldest are expressing some doubts: fear of homogenization,

political poster campaign from the European Community.

HELP

The logo is well understood and appreciated. Its assets: reassuring/practical/simple. It reproduces successfully the

notion of aid and the European Union is spontaneously associated to it (with the projection of a slide « an initiative… ».

The notion of help is unclear « it’ s confusing, I have no idea of what’s behind it ». The fear is to get a simple phone

line.


COMPARISON


Incitement

Alone + - -- --

Leeks ++ ++ + +/-

In the first group, the « Leeks » series is chosen unanimously. In the second group, the choice is not as

unanimous.

These elements demonstrate a very clear choice in favor of the « Leeks » series.


Analysis Grid - Germany

Number of


8 Non smokers 15 to 17 B/C1

8 Heavy smokers 20 to 62 B/C1

8 Middle smokers 18 to 20 C2 /D


GENERAL BACKGROUND


Most of the non smokers questioned have tried cigarettes but lost interest, often due to extensive sports activities.

Main motivations of smokers: they like the gesture, association with situations of social interaction and alcohol, smoking

calms them down, keeps them company when they're bored.

But the 18-20 year olds mention the pleasure of smoking, unlike those over 25, who mention the automatic reflex and

addiction.


The fear of harming their health and physical shape.

For women over 25, pregnancy.

For younger people, the possibility of returning to intensive sporting activities, and the possibility of becoming a parent

in the medium term.


The difficulty in stopping: most have tried several times and failed

For younger people, the attachment to the pleasure of smoking, a friendly activity when going out: something you do in

a group.


- For those over 25: signs of discomfort (coughing, malaise, headaches, etc.), the inability to continue with sports, and

(very radically) the disappearance of tobacco

- For 18-20 year olds, the appearance of health or throat problems. Beyond that, repressive external conditions: smoking

prohibited in public places, shocking daily advertisements showing smokers' lungs, etc.




Film 1

The presence and meaning of the mannequin spontaneously appears to be bizarre, hard to understand, with little

impact.

Film 2

A situation that is spontaneously more evocative than in film 1: more demonstrative and impressive, for 15 /20 year

olds, smokers and non smokers, but without any specific contribution because it is descriptive, for those over 25

Film 3

The principle of denouncing passive smoking is appreciated straightaway by young non smokers

For smokers, the situation is considered to be comical and funny, but unconvincing, too unusual



Film 1

A good overall understanding of the message: prevention, "how to say no"

But the 15-20 year olds express a lack of clarity at various points in film 1:

- 15 – 17 year olds: why does he seem to be meditating facing the screen? Does he strike the cigarette and why?

- 18 – -20 year olds: : "did he smoke the cigarette? why does he have a pack in his hand at his parents' house? why a

mannequin and not a real smoker? The presence of a pack of cigarettes in the room appears to be unconvincing and the

situation improbable: "nobody smokes his first cigarette at his parents' place". The message is only understood slowly.

Film 2

A clear message: once you touch a cigarette, you can't get rid of them"

Only the 15-17 year old non smokers do not understand why the character wants to stop, nor why he lights a cigarette.

Film 3

A message seen as clear: smokers bother and do not respect non smokers.

- 18-20 year old smokers see a moral, symbolic punishment: "you smoke, you bother people, you pay"

- But for those over 25, the first intention of the message is diverted: the smoker's provocative attitude shows above all

the desire to get rid of his mistress.


Average interest

Film 1 is of little interest: the description and the context are felt to be boring by young non smokers, the use of the

mannequin is unconvincing for the various targets. In the end, the film is not very eloquent.

Film 2

For non smokers, the difficulty in stopping smoking is well demonstrated and useful. The context is realistic and familiar.

But those over 25 criticize the smoker's solitary situation, too far removed from reality, unconvincing, if they feel it is

impossible to stop alone.

For the 18-20 year olds, the humorous style is a disservice to the message: "too funny"


Film 3

Non smokers recognize the interest and utility of showing the harmful effects on non smokers

But for smokers, the situation is considered to be unconvincing (the woman should know that her partner smokes) and

the woman's violence is impossible to understand an unrealistic. "it's tough that she throws his stuff around"



TARGETS?

Film 1 – young non smokers, but 18-20 year olds take a distance and above all discuss parents as targets

The situation used to transmit the message is abstract, solitary, not evocative, and does not incite non smokers to call,

according to the various groups.

Film 2 – smokers and non smokers

The various groups are concerned by a familiar situation, a clear demonstration of addiction. The film may incite them to

call.


While non smokers feel concerned in principle, this is not true for smokers , who are put off by the excessively

disrespectful attitude of the smoker, and the aggressive reaction of the non smoker




Average overall impact,

Non smokers don't feel concerned. Smokers criticize the unrealistic situations which they find hard to identify with.

Film 2 has the strongest impact

For 15-20 year olds, the effect can be dissuasive, effective for smokers, adults and young people too. The film incites

you to visit the site and makes smokers think

But for those over 25, the situation is not realistic: the smoker's solitude is not appropriate, you don't stop by yourself

But films 1 and 3 do not get you involved:

Film 1

For non smokers, the film has little impact because the situation is not realistic: the boy's solitude, the room, the

mannequin.

For smokers over 25, the impact is limited due to the difficulties of temptation, which is not shown: saying no seems too

easy.

For 18-20 year olds, the film does not incite non smokers to call

Film 3

Non smokers consider that the file may have an impact on smokers

Smokers do not identify with the disrespectful, provocative attitude of the smoker, and see the film as an incitement to

respect, not to stop smoking.





Young non smokers appreciate the weak position in which smokers are shown and the strong position of non smokers.

In this sense, this series can (in their opinion) make smokers think.

For smokers, the smoker is generally ridiculed, lacks character, is shown only with weakness, and not taken seriously

Non smokers are aggressive: overall, the suggested message is negative: it shows a power struggle and a separation

between smokers and non smokers that is advocated.


A generally average attractiveness, that varies among the films

Film 2 is the best appreciated due to its realism.

-The reality of addiction is clearly shown, according to non smokers.

-A situation they have already experienced which encourages the identification of 18-20 year olds

-Only those over 25 criticize the situation of solitude that does not reflect the reality of a smoker who wants to stop

Film 1 is not very striking

- An unfamiliar situation, not very evocative

- Smokers criticize the lack of realism in the temptation situation: the reasons making it difficult to say no are not shown:

"it would be better to show that he's kept apart because he doesn't smoke"

Film 3 is appreciated by non smokers only

- For smokers, the situation seems unconvincing, unrealistic, and the non-smoker's reaction is excessive, or even

incomprehensible


No inadequacy mentioned


- for 15-20 year old smokers and non smokers, film 1 does not work well: unrealistic context, transposition of the

smoker into a mannequin bothersome and unclear, solitary context that does not reflect the temptation

situations

- For smokers, film 3 does not work well due to the unconvincing situation and the excessive reaction of the non

smoker



For young non smokers, the favorable reception is mainly due to the denunciation of tobacco, more than to the series

itself.

Smokers show the need for realistic situations and portraits of smokers who are not ridiculed. The oldest smokers

criticize the overly moralistic tone that puts them off

It is mainly film 2 that is best accepted, due to its realistic and simple demonstration of addiction

Situations 1 and 3 present unfamiliar contexts, and characters that are hard to identify with

The proposal for help is not attractive enough. Overall, the message is inconsistent.



The initial reaction is more positive than for the first series

Film 1

The humorous, spontaneous tone is appreciated, and the leek analogy is troubling at first but clear in the end

The proposed situation, known and familiar, encourages the identification of the youngest members

Only the 18 –20 year olds are spontaneously disturbed by the fact that smokers are ridiculed

Film 2

A direct demonstration of the intensity of withdrawal.

18-20 year olds find the film's tone excessive and violent.

The image of the shopping cart filled with leeks attracts their attention

Film 3

The situation of the submission of non smokers is interesting to young non smokers, who identify with it

But smokers are skeptical about the submission of non smokers, and spontaneously contest the excessive nature of the

situation



A good overall understanding of the message, for all targets

Film 1

A clearly identified message that denounces the ridiculous side of smoking

" people will do anything to be like others"

- 25 year olds and older understand the desire to reach younger people. The contrast between the leek representing

good health and the cigarette is clearly perceived. Tobacco is compared to drugs

- Only non smokers do not see the interest in the analogy

"I'd prefer real cigarettes, it's more realistic"

Film 2

A good demonstration of withdrawal, the difficulty in stopping, and the harmful effects on communication with others

and on sleep. 18-20 year old smokers note that stopping tobacco cannot be achieved without help


Film 3

A clearly identified message advocating the respect of non smokers, and a call for resistance from non smokers: "be

strong, defend your rights against smokers"

But the reasons for the passivity of non smokers are not well understood by smokers.


The series considered to be the most interesting, due to the tone and the transposition of leeks and cigarettes

Film 1

The daily life aspect and familiarity of the situations is appreciated, especially the bus stop

Film 2

Clear and appreciated, it forcefully and humorously shows addiction through strong images: the shopping cart, the trash.

This demonstration of addiction is evocative and considered useful. Smokers easily identify with it

Only the 25 and over feel the tone is harmless and the bodily effects not violent enough.

Film 3

A film appreciated by non smokers, a transposition appreciated

"A good idea to be hit by the leek"

Conversely, the metaphor of smoke and leeks is considered excessive by smokers, as is the passivity of non smokers,

seen as unrealistic



TARGETS?

Film 1: a target of young teenage smokers as of 13 years is clearly identified

- Non smokers do not feel concerned

- Smokers feel they are beyond this stage and do not feel directly concerned by the denunciation of unconscious

imitation: "you light up a cigarette for other reasons than those shown in the film".

Film 2: A clear target: "hooked" smokers

The smoker targets feel concerned and involved, the 18-20 year olds feel this film is an incentive

Film 3: a dual target: smokers for raising awareness and non smokers, so that they no longer accept the situation of

dependence




The series is felt to be the best straightaway: it shows withdrawal, a lack of respect, and paints a strong portrait of

smokers, unlike the first one

It appears to be the most dissuasive and the most interesting, especially due to the choice of known, familiar situations


Film 1 –

A possible impact for schoolchildren, but young non smokers and smokers do not relate to it

A film that incites those over 25 to think and makes them want to visit the Web site. But they express doubts about the

potential impact on the target of young people.

Film 2 –

An effective film,

According to non smokers and smokers who are 25 and over, a demonstration that could be reinforced: "you should see

the hand in the garbage"

A film that particularly impacts 18-20 year olds and may incite them to call for help

Film 3 –

A film appreciated by non smokers who feel directly concerned

A film seen as excessive due to the passive behavior of non smokers, it incites some to respect smokers, but not to stop

smoking.




A series felt to be effective to help smokers

However, for smokers, the smoker's image is negative: weak, ridiculed.

Furthermore, the third film encourages a separation between smokers and non smokers, and does not correspond to

actual relationships, which are considered to be respectful


A clear preference for this series, which is seen as the more realistic, the clearest, and the more interesting due to the

variety of daily situations chosen (more places, a more powerful message)

The leek metaphor, although it bothers some smokers, is preferred in the end

"You reach a wider audience with this series"

In film 2 the image of the dispenser is remembered and appreciated

Only film 3 is rejected, due to the excessively passive attitude of the non smokers which disrupts the message.


No particular incompatibilities mentioned


The third film does not work as well as the others

Unanimously, the third film is felt to be excessive in presenting the submission and victimization of non smokers. This

submissive attitude is incomprehensible: these non smokers are free to leave, and the non smoker couple is ridiculed.



This series is the most original and the most interesting

The leek metaphor is an interesting lever for communications. It is disturbing and provocative, but they like it in the end.

Smokers are more ridiculed than in the first series, but the realistic nature of the situations compensates for this look at

smokers.

However, the passive nature of the non smokers should be corrected, because it tends to divert from the initial goal:

smokers do not see a reason for respecting their victims.

GENERAL TEACHINGS


15-17 year old non smokers imagine that help is available, but the exact nature is not spelled out enough: the telephone

is not shown clearly enough. The message should be clearer, more direct: where do you get advice? how? The

assistance they see would involve discussions, therapy, advice on how to stop or how not to start, via the Internet

People 25 and over imagine a service offering factual information on the various methods for stopping to smoke,

proposals about acupuncture, discussion groups, advice

18-20 year olds imagine group discussions, advice "similar to Weight Watchers", individual conversations


- 15-17 year old non smokers easily decipher the meaning of the logo: "it invokes a thought bubble" and they appreciate

its simplicity and feel it is suitable to the theme: the logo is appropriate for a serious, rational subject. The image of the

broken cigarette is appreciated.

Smokers somewhat criticize the overly innocent and soft nature.

- Smokers over 25 appreciate the harmonious nature of the logo, the principle of the p that breaks the cigarette, but

criticize the too soft nature, which does not match the proposed action: "too cute to be able to break cigarettes"

Furthermore, while the stars make you think of Europe, why are there only three?

- 18 –20 year olds criticize the childlike, overly playful nature of the logo. It makes them think of Kinder Kanal, a TV

channel for children: too innocent, not incisive, sterile, clinical, too simple

They appreciate the principle of the p that breaks the cigarette but want a stronger message

" it should be written bigger"


- A proposal that unites the various targets

Faced with the tobacco problem, you are not alone

Sie stehen dem Tabaks problem nicht allein

Although the phrase is a little long, the use of the word "problem" makes the message more concrete, more specific,

and is preferable

Young people prefer the use of the familiar "du": it brings people nearer and gets them more involved, which they feel is

necessary

- Less catchy proposals


Sie stehen dem rauchen nicht allein

You are no longer alone when facing smoking

A more global proposal that does not evoke tobacco but drugs: it is less well liked in the end

You are not alone against tobacco

This phrase is considered to be simple and incisive by 18-20 year olds but not very suggestive or targeted, bizarre for

the others

- smokers 25 and over suggest the message be reinforced

you are not alone with your addiction/against the danger of tobacco



- For 15-17 year olds, the European sponsor is perceived spontaneously. It has a natural legitimacy, also related to the

supposed considerable size of its structure.

-For 20 year olds and over, the perception towards Europe is segmented: its legitimacy to communicate about this

theme is recognized its administrative image makes people doubt about the effectiveness of its actions

- For 18-20 year olds, the European Union evokes an official structure, that is also legitimate, made up of specialists, but

also suggests a lack of proximity: "I don't expect much from the European Union" "I wouldn't go see people so far away

from me"



incitement

Alone Global ++

Except for 3 +

Global -

Except for 2 ++

Global -

Except for 2 +

Global -

Except for 2 ++

Leeks Global +++ Global +++

Especially 2+++

Global ++

Except for 3 --

Global ++

Especially 2+++

The leeks are unanimously preferred


Analysis Grid - Ireland

Number of


8 Heavy smokers 25 to 45 C / B


GENERAL BACKGROUND


A pleasure often associated with other pleasures: a glass of wine, the end of a meal

A time for oneself

A moment of calm, a stress remover

Also, the impossibility of living without tobacco


Health, limitation of physical and sporting capabilities

The role of children who make their smoker parents feel guilty

The chemical contents of cigarettes: "it's frightening"

The cost of tobacco

Advertising which puts you off smoking, and increasing social pressure

"It's becoming anti-social to smoke!"


The difficulty in stopping: most have tried several times and failed


Advice on "how to stop": "we know the reasons why"

Advertising showing the impact on health

They mention the ads that were most striking:

- a handsome man who, you see afterwards, has yellow teeth and fingers.

- A baby surrounded by a wall of smoke.

- The autopsy of a smoker, with tar in his arteries




Film 1 – A prevention film: an important principle, but the tone is too soft

Film 2 – A spontaneous preference for this second film, showing a familiar situation and with a bit of humor

Film 3: an unconvincing, unrealistic situation that spontaneously keeps viewers at a distance



A good overall comprehension, no one mentioned problems understanding the films

Film 1-Prevention message well understood. A film telling young people not to smoke.

Film 2 - Message well understood: a film showing how hard it is to stop

Film 3 - Clear message: respect for non smokers. Smoking can make you lose something precious.

But the situations is seen as bizarre, unconvincing. The smoker is put in the situation of a relationship that he visibly

wants to leave, so the message loses its impact. In the end, tobacco lets you get rid of the woman he visibly does not

want to stay with.


Little overall interest, and film not perceived as useful, because the situations presented are not attractive

Film 1 – The prevention principle is considered to be important, but the communication levers are not sufficient: the

issues of curiosity, of opposition to the parents as well as peer pressure are not mentioned

Film 2 – A clear interest and strong identification with this film. A funny demonstration of how hard it is to stop, but it

doesn't provide anything new

Film 3 – An unrealistic situation that makes you think that the smoker wanted to get out of the situation and that "he

wanted to get rid of that woman". "It might frighten men, but not here"



TARGETS?

Film 1: Non smokers, aged 12-13. The target does not feel concerned. "it's too late for us"

Film 2: smokers and non smokers

Film 3: especially non smokers




Very little overall impact

Film 1: the impact is considered nil: the film does not take into account the real reasons for starting to smoke, and is

not shocking enough

Film 2: little impact, nothing new, and a lack of realism do a disservice to the message

"tobacco is addictive, we know that",


Film 3: little impact due to the lack of realism and the unconvincing situation. The demonstration of passive smoking

fails, but the theme is considered important.




An overall lack of effectiveness, whatever the perceived targets

Film 1: a film considered to be of little help to non smokers, an unrealistic and flawed situation

Film 2: the smoker's difficulties are shown with humor, but with no particular contribution

Film 3: The initial situation is not seen as credible. The brutal reaction of the non smoker appears to be linked to a

problem in the relationship more than to the tobacco itself. "Their night wasn't as good as all that"


Overall not very attractive, a clear preference for the second film

Film 1: Not attractive, the situation is unrealistic and does not show the temptation of tobacco in real life conditions

Film 2: The tone was appreciated and preferable to the first film. "the glued cigarette was funny"

but the situation once again lacks realism: "too nice, too soft, nothing new"

Film 3: The situation is not very eloquent, unclear, does not achieve its goal.


No inadequacy mentioned


Films 1 and 3 did not work well with this target:

- Film 1 does not show the real conditions of the temptation of tobacco, and thus lacks impact

- Film 3 shows a situation with a relationship that is unclear, it tends to divert the message to passive smoking, and to

weaken the impact.


The chosen situations are not realistic, and the tone used appears too soft. Nothing shocking, nothing retains your

attention.

There is nothing new to interest you, the situations are descriptive and "déjà vu"

In the end, the series is of little interest, and has little impact.




The initial reaction is more positive than for the first series

Film 1 – The humorous tone is spontaneously appreciated, but the leek analogy raises questions, appears unsuitable

"a carrot would be better"

Film 2 – Spontaneous preference over the first, more direct message

Film 3 – The leek analogy is criticized spontaneously, and the smoke likened to a blow triggers rejection



Film 1- Message considered clear and well understood. But the interest of the leek analogy is disputable

Film 2 – Clear message showing the smoker's perspectives, addiction, and despair. But the leek is troublesome.

"This shows the ridiculous side of smokers"

Film 3 – Clear message on passive smoking, the harmfulness of smoking


Overall interest is average, stronger for the second film

Film 1: Interest for the prevention principle, and a familiar situation for young people

Film 2 – More interest, because easier to identify with

"It shows the link between the smoker and the cigarette"

the leek is bothersome, seen as ridiculous

Film 3 – The message about passive smoking is important and useful in principle, but is particularly disturbing in this film

by showing disrespectful and inattentive smokers, an attitude that the Irish refuse to recognize for themselves.



TARGETS?

Film 1 – Younger people, starters

Film 2- smokers






A real impact related to the provocative nature of these films, especially 2 and 3

Film 1 – dedicated to the younger audience, but seen as fairly effective due to the familiar content for young people

Film 2 – impact related to the disturbing effect of the leek and the realistic, familiar demonstration of addiction

Although the principle of describing the behavior is felt to be insufficient, ( "We know that it's bad for you but that

doesn't change a thing") it "makes you a little more aware"

Film 3 – An impact related to the provocative effect of the smoke/blow analogy. A feeling of injustice related to the fact

that Irish smokers respect the prohibition on smoking (law in force since March 2004)

"Other countries should watch us. If they tell us "it's non-smoking, we don't smoke"




Film 1 – smokers are gently poked fun at

Film 2- the leek smoker looks ridiculous

Film 3 – The smoker has a negative image, and the message reinforces the gap between smokers and non smokers

"Now we're the bad guys!"


An average assessment, but better than the first series

Film 1 – average, although the humorous tone is appreciated

Film 2 – a fair, familiar description of addiction. The film is appreciated

Film 3 – disturbing and provocative, by insisting on the lack of respect by smokers. The assimilation of smoke with

physical violence provokes strong reactions


No particular problems with the first two films

Film 3, on the other hand, appears unsuitable to the Irish situation, where smoking is now forbidden in public places.

The film appears to show a situation that doesn't exist in Ireland. The efforts that smokers have been making since the

law went into effect last March is not taken into consideration



These films work through provocation, especially 2 and 3 which most directly concern them

Film 3 in their opinion is not suitable to the current laws: they believe this situation could not occur in Ireland


The leek analogy is truly disturbing and, to that end, it is interesting.

The humorous principle is appreciated

The situations are considered to be more evocative, more realistic, encourage identification, when then promote

rejection.

GENERAL TEACHINGS


The idea that support is available. Different types of help are offered

To respect non smokers

- To warn young people ( "that's the most important. You must do prevention in schools")

- Few comments concerning the assistance offered to smokers: information is not clear


No comments


No comments



The group identified the European signature. If the European Union can legitimately perform prevention, this campaign

is nevertheless considered to lack impact

"It's stupid to spend European money on this"




incitement

Alone Global ++ Except for 3 +

Global - Except for 2 ++

Global - Except for 2 +

Global - Except for 2 ++

Leeks Global +++

Global +++ 1++ 2 +++ 3 ++

Global ++ Except for 3 --

Global ++ 1++ 2 +++ 3- ++


Analysis of the Test Group in

Netherlands

Number of

participants Tobacco status Age Social category

8 Heavy smoker + 25 working class


GENERAL BACKGROUND

Specific Characteristics of the Group:

This group of people aged between 30 and 40 have all smoked for an average of 20 years and have personal experience

of the process of trying to give up smoking.

• They have each tried to give up at least once, sometimes succeeding in stopping for long periods of time:

one woman in the group, for example, stopped for 8 years before giving in to temptation; two others

stopped/cut down during pregnancy. Another person succeeded in giving up for a 6-month period. One other

person said: “I give up twice a year, or rather I try to give up twice a year.”

• The idea of giving up is for them a major concern, something they think about almost on a daily

basis (“I think about doing it every week”; “not a day goes past when I don’t wonder what I'm going to do

about it").

• They do not deny they are addicted (excluding 2 men). Some use their addiction as an excuse for giving up

giving up. Most consider themselves in a no-win situation (“There’s always a reason not to give up”; “I’ve had

enough of thinking about it all the time”; “I don’t think I can do it”).

• They have real experience of support for smokers: various patch brands, medical support, support

groups, acupuncture. Following past failures in their attempts to give up, their requirements concerning support

are high. (NB: two people in the group consider smoking “light” cigarettes as a first step in the direction of

giving up).

• They seem to be looking for a miracle cure (“I heard about some kind of injection that puts you right off

cigarettes, so much so that you could never smoke again… I tried to find out more about it but my doctor didn’t

know anything”). They have concluded from their experiences that they are not capable of giving up alone and

need some kind of external support (but which would require no further effort on their part): a scientific

breakthrough (“they need to invent a cure”).

…and their outlook on smoking is generally negative:

• “I don’t enjoy being a smoker”

• “I’m addicted”

• “for me it’s a destructive habit: the more I hear about how bad it is for me, the more I smoke”

It follows that their expectations concerning support for smokers are high and they are therefore

more critical of support campaigns.


Motivations to smoke?

• relaxation / taking a break

• friendly atmosphere, a way of meeting people: “it’s an opportunity to make contact with other smokers”

• the "calming” effect

The participants did agree that when all is said and done they have no real motivation to smoke: “we had a reason to

smoke when we were young; we didn’t realise what we were doing. Now it’s too late and we can't remember why we

started in the first place."

Motivations to give up smoking / support?

• Health (those who gave this reason were not referring to the consequences for their health in general but to a

personal experience of illness, either their own or that of close friends or family);

• Friends and family (most of the participants are parents and say they are concerned about the effects of

passive smoking);

• To a lesser extent, finances (“it’s not so much a problem right now but, as prices go up, it might become one in

the future”);

• Recognising how difficult it is to give up may help them to see the need to get help: “Deciding to give up is a

very long-winded process”; “I always put off giving up”.

Their conclusions about what would really help them give up:

• A “magic potion”, which would cure their addiction

• An alternative: “we need a substitute, something to replace the act of smoking”

The group also associate the efficiency of support products with their price. The higher the price, the more efficient the

product, etc. must be… Help they can’t afford is considered the best option... Dutch smokers use the need for financing

therapy/treatment to excuse their failure to give up smoking.


• The problem of addiction and the fact that smoking has become a habit

• The lack of willpower: “I always find a good reason”; “it’s too much trouble”

• The main barrier preventing them from trying to give up is past failure: “giving up makes you irritable; you

can’t sleep and you put weight on”; “you feel weak”.


1ST SERIES: ‘ALONE’1


Film 1: “it doesn’t make sense”; “that would never happen"

Film 2: “addiction is strong"; “this is the best one” (about the advert)

Film 3: “it’s about relationship problems”; “the woman overreacts”

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND? ARE THEY


Good overall understanding of the different messages:

Film 1: good understanding of the message and the situation (despite the fact that the situation with the mannequin

detracts somewhat from the message)

Film 2: good overall understanding

Film 3: mid-level understanding of the advert. The group focused on the "marriage" problems shown in the advert.

Film 2 brings out the idea of support/help but the other two story boards do not.


The level of interest of the participants varies, depending on the advert:

Film 1: they are not interested; the situation is “too metaphorical”, “not realistic enough”. They do not feel that the

situation applies to them and neither do they see to whom it could apply. The “moralising” tone detracts from the

message.

Film 2: this film attracts the most interest since it evokes their own addiction problem: “She’s like me: I’d like to stop but

I can’t”; “the image of the cigarette stuck to the person is excellent”. They are disappointed by the end of the film

because they were hoping for a solution.

Film 3: the situation interests them: “the couple in bed: that’s a good way to draw us in”. The group’s reaction to this

film is the strongest of the three, due to its subject matter (passive smoking/smoker-non smoker relations). This shows

their interest.

1 For this group, the “Leeks” series was actually shown first.




TARGETS?

Film 1: 15-16 year olds: the group considers that the film cannot be aimed at younger teenagers because only over-

16s can legally buy cigarettes. The film is not aimed at all teenagers but only those who are “weak-willed, easily

influenced, stressed”.

Film 2: smokers in general: but the location (storyboard set at university) creates distance: “she’s Sloaney”, “not

everyone goes to university; it would have a wider audience if she was leaving the office”.

The participants consider that the film’s main aim is to dissuade non smokers from starting to smoke and to be more

understanding of “victim” smokers: “above all, it encourages non smokers to understand that giving up is difficult and

not to judge smokers too harshly”.

Film 3: the participants have difficulty identifying the target. The film is aimed at smokers and non smokers alike.




The second film could have an impact on this group despite the fact that the participants judge the incitement to

give up and to respect non smokers to be relatively weak:

• The end of the film leaves the viewer in doubt as to the success or failure of the woman in her attempt to give

up. The group's identification with the addiction situation and problems giving up is important: it prevents most of

them from imagining that the woman in the film could succeed.

“I know what happens next: she thinks about giving up, then forgets all about it. We see her on D-Day but

afterwards she'll forget and light up another cigarette."

• Film 3: the group seems to feel that the situation is not relevant to them… They consider the woman’s reaction to

be over-the-top and see the film as being about “relationship problems, this situation is not really about smoking”.

They don't find it to be realistic and don't want to believe in it in any case. The message upsets them.




The group’s reaction to the image given of smokers and the relationship between smokers and non smokers is extremely

negative.

Film 1: The violence and aggressiveness of the situation draws a reaction from the group (they focus on the kick, which

they perceive as kicking the smoker friend and not the packet of cigarettes). They are worried that the film “excuses

violence” and stigmatises them as smokers: “Having a go at smokers yet again”.

Film 2: They perceive this film as a call for better smoker/non smoker relations (non smokers are encouraged to

have more sympathy for smokers; the film shows how difficult it is to stop smoking).

Film 3: They perceive a lack of communication, intolerance (of which they, as smokers, are victims; in their opinion, non

smokers cause the problem by not respecting smokers’ right to smoke).



Generally speaking, the group did not appreciate this series of films (apart from film 2, of which the only criticism was

about the end of the film, i.e. no happy ending).

Their remarks can be divided into two categories:

• A lack of identification with the situation: the woman with the cigarette stuck to her “isn’t like us”, “she’s

Sloaney” (social standing, focus on the story-board comment about her leaving university). When the two series

of films were compared this stood out as a considerable weak point (“I don’t identify with any of it: the

university, the mannequin, etc.”).

• Lack of credibility: the participants do not believe the scenes in the films with the mannequin and the

situation in bed are very realistic (“that would never happen”; film 1 “is a cliché; no one smokes in bed”; “it’s

not realistic; it would have been better in the kitchen”).

ADAPTED TO LOCAL SITUATION

The films seem to be generally well adapted to the local situation.

The participants were unconvinced by the age of the teenager in the first film and about smoking in bed, apparently not

a common practice in the Netherlands (for them, this type of behaviour is more typical of southern Europeans).


Film 1 is the least appreciated by the group.

Film 3 provoked the strongest reaction from the group.

MAIN THINGS LEARNED FROM THE SERIES ‘ALONE’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN THINGS LEARNED?

The participants showed little enthusiasm for this series, with the exception of film 2.

Their relative pessimism is undoubtedly linked to their defeatist attitude concerning their own chances of giving up.

Virtual lack of identification with the films.



The group laughed when the story-boards were shown.

Film 1: “it’s ridiculous”; “they’re making fun of us”; “but leeks are good for you!”

Film 2: “that’s just like me”; “it makes you think”, “he’s a junkie”

Film 3: “it’s vague”; “that’s not nice for smokers”


UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD?

For the group, the message of the three films is “it would be better to never start smoking”. This leads them to

conclude that the films would be more effective on non smokers than on people like themselves.

The participants had difficulty understanding the imagery of the films, especially in terms of the leek. Nevertheless, the

variety of reasons given by them for the choice of using a leek in the films suggests that the films were efficient on some

level (e.g.: “it’s a way of giving us advice: substitute something healthy for cigarettes”, etc.)

The notion of support/help was not received.

The participants consider that certain situations/messages are not always clear enough. Film 1 in particular:

• The idea of smoking being prohibited, which comes up several times, confused the group. They concluded that

the message of the film concerned smoking bans: “the message is clear, the film is to remind us that smoking is not

allowed in certain places, at school or on buses for example"; “the message is that you have to hide to smoke because

it’s not allowed”.

• The idea of being influenced by others or by fashion were not immediately conveyed or understood by the

group.

The message in film 2 was only partially understood by the group because it was interpreted by the smokers in relation

to their own personal situation: the film shows how difficult and humiliating it can be to stop smoking. The participants

did not perceive the additional message concerning available support.

Film 3 was not considered to be very clear either (a smoker being hit with a leek; incomprehensible reactions of non

smokers). The message was not immediately understood because it is not direct: why is the film about smoker-non

smoker relations? Is it to encourage us to give up? To encourage non smokers to pressure us to give up? To portray us

as delinquents and exclude us?


A high level of interest due to:

- the “mirror” effect: “that’s just like me”;

- images reminding them of their first cigarette, to which they react positively: “I should never have started”.



TARGETS?

Film 1: school children/teenagers (specifically the more reasonable/weaker individuals)

Film 2: “junkie” “die-hard” smokers (one third of the group do “not yet” consider themselves concerned by this message,

the rest do)

Film 3: non smokers + die-hard smokers

However, the group consider that all three films would have more impact on non smokers than smokers (“it’s

aimed more at non smokers”; “look how disgusting it is to smoke”; “the message I get from it is don't start smoking").




COMPREHENSION? SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP”?

The group do not think that the campaign would have an effect on them:

• They don’t identify at all with the film about the employee, firstly because the smoker is a “junkie” and

this category does not apply to them. They also think that the fact of recognising that a person is in a difficult

situation does not help them to resolve it. The film needs a positive solution and a real offer of help.

• Film 3 irritated the group; they even found in it a reason to smoke: non smokers are anti-social.

Nevertheless, it would seem that the films did have a certain impact:

• The films started the group thinking about 2 subjects:

“after the film I thought to myself: ‘why did I start in the first place?’”

“it's hard being a smoker"

These ideas could help begin "the long process that brings a person to decide to quit smoking".




The group does not have an easy time in terms of smoking: having to go outside to smoke; no smoking areas

(which forces them to smoke on the sly) guilt-making advertising campaigns, feeling like they are putting their children

at risk and not being able to give up (feeling of failure/ exclusion).

They are edgy and defensive in their interpretation of the messages and images. For them, the films portray a negative

image of smokers themselves:

• Film 1: “they’re making fun of us”; “they're saying that it’s not allowed, that we’re breaking the law”;

• Film 2: “this is a campaign against hard drugs, I’m not a drug addict”; “smokers are weaklings, good for

nothing”;

• Film 3: “smokers are anti-social, nasty, rude”.


Nevertheless, the group did like the adverts, pointing out certain good points:

• Originality/creativity (due to the leeks), making the campaign interesting and maximising its impact (“it’ll

stay in your mind”; “it catches the eye”; “it’s new”);

• Identification with the situations (sleep problems, hunting for cigarettes/ smoking in secret)


What they didn’t like…

• The leek imagery bothers them: this is not really a problem since it is the aim of the campaign but it does

become a problem when the situation strikes a nerve: the leek is thrown on the ground and crushed (in front of

a bus). This bothered the participants in terms of values: “you don’t play around with food”; “that’s totally

unacceptable”. These reactions lead us to advise reconsidering the need for this image.

• The lack of a positive, real solution: they feel that they are dealing with yet another campaign along the

same lines, despite their appreciation of the originality of the approach taken. As smokers, their main

requirement is to find efficient support and they are therefore extremely critical of advertising campaigns on

this subject. Since there is no precise solution given in the campaign, they immediately file it away with all the

other adverts that had no effect (“every smoker knows that they should never have started and that they

should give up”; “we already know it’s bad but what are we supposed to do about it? They never tell you about

that…”).


Generally speaking, the situations used in the campaign seem suitable for the Netherlands, apart from the following:

• over-representation of smokers

• the group were surprised by the smoker looking for a cigarette while at the office (they assume he is

going to smoke at work, which is against the law in the Netherlands)

• the cigarette vending machine (they have recently been removed in the country, provoking comments from

the participants: “they don't exist any more"; “when were these drawings done?”; “some coffee shops and

cafés still have them but you have to use tokens"; “you don’t see those on the streets any more").

• For the group, the teenagers in the film should not be so young since the legal age for purchasing

cigarettes is 16.

MAIN THINGS LEARNED FROM THE SERIES ‘LEEKS’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN THINGS LEARNED?

The outlook was generally positive concerning this series: it got the group members thinking and showing their high

expectations concerning support for smokers.


GENERAL TEACHINGS


High expectations / vague offers

Most of the participants realise that they are in need of help but they do not see the campaign as offering any real

solutions. They question what the campaign is actually offering and say they have “no idea” of what this could

be: “treatment?”, “patches?”, “support groups?”. This also leads them to question who is behind the campaign, whether

a pharmaceuticals company trying to sell patches, health authorities, an insurance company or anti-smoking

associations.

They are looking for a solution that works, without too much effort from them, and appreciation of the difficulty of the

situation.

The offer content: “I would be worried about the impersonal side of the support”

They already seem disappointed by the offer: “it’s a consolation prize”. They are concerned about getting an answer

they consider:

• Impersonal “I don’t want to be a number”;

• has already been done/tried: “they’ll tell me to go and see my doctor, or send me to another centre or support

group, but it won't be anything new"; “they’re just going to give the same standard answers”;

• Inefficient: “they’ll send me in circles, from person to person”.

They imagine support as being psychological help or coaching: “someone to encourage you, reassure you”. There is also

a material dimension involved: “they’ll help me to get expensive treatment”. They would like to have someone to call

and “to congratulate me for having made the first step” (“if I call, I want someone who’s going to compliment me”).


They like the logo and admit that it drew their attention during the first showing. They understand all the different

components:

• The idea of dialogue (the bubbles)

• The call for help (the HELP)

• The idea of giving up smoking (the bubble)

• The idea of working together (the smoker + another person)

BASELINE: PERCEPTION OF THE BASELINE: INTEREST, COMPREHENSION, INCITEMENT

They reject the baseline:

• Difficult experience: they feel marginalised by the baseline. The idea that smokers are alone or are in

danger of becoming alone makes them think of recent changes in the country and worries several of the

participants that smoking might end up being completely banned in their country (“with this slogan, it’s as

though they’re saying ‘watch out: we might put you in quarantine’”).

• Rejection of the idea of loneliness: for them, the baseline draws on a false concept. Smokers are not

alone: they are in fact a large group of people who stick together and are supported (“it’s as though they’re


trying to pit smokers and non smokers against each other”; "when I think of my son, I know he’ll help me; I

know I’m not alone”).

• The lack of a positive message / the negative construction of the slogan bothers them.

They suggest:

a more concrete solution (less general)

more positivity/greater focus on the idea of support (“help is available”; “with help you can do it”).

EUROPEAN UNION

The group spontaneously identified the campaign as a European initiative.

Although the participants do express doubt over the reasons behind this European campaign, they all agree on one

thing: the European Union is a serious contender; its involvement shows that smoking is a serious issue. They also

agree that a Europe-wide campaign makes sense in terms of cutting down on expenses.

NB: the Dutch group welcome this European initiative because they feel particularly targeted by the campaign: they

feel like Europe’s “teacher’s pet” in terms of smoking (“we’re the furthest along”; “these things are always more

efficient here”).


Understanding Interest Agreement Impact

/Incitement

Alone + + + -

Leeks - ++ ++ -

The participants chose “Leeks”.


Analysis: SWEDEN

Number of


8 Non smokers 15-17 M


SPECIFIC LOCAL CONDITIONS

• Nicotine addiction is a very well-understood phenomenon that is integrated by young Swedes, and smoker/non

smoker relations are not seen as a problem related to respect. Smoking in public places and even closed private

ones is described as a marginal activity.

• Tobacco for young people = cigarettes + chewing tobacco (snoozing)

• The leek is not a common vegetable, according to the participants

CONTEXT

Comments on the group session:

This group was recruited using certain criteria: do not smoke cigarettes/ do not chew tobacco.

Yet during the group: two boys admitted they smoke during parties and chew tobacco occasionally (which they feel

gives them a positive image)

These 15-17 year olds had certain problems in appreciating concepts such as help for stopping tobacco, and their lack of

experience related to their tobacco status.

The image of cigarettes / smokers for this group of non smoker teenagers:

• A position described in the daily life of teenagers: "it's pointless", "it stinks", "it's disgusting", "it's

prohibited"

• … but relative ambivalence concerning tobacco: "cigarettes are for parties", "it's a way to approach other

people", "it's a social thing"

• The attitude of smokers is considered absurd: "Why do they pay to have cancer?", "those people are

easily influenced".

• a certain indifference to smokers: "they do what they want" or avoidance: "if I can choose, I choose the

group that doesn't smoke".

• In the Swedish context (according to Margaretha of the ENSP: 10% of the population smokes), the fact of not

smoking is the social norm. Young people feel that it's not hard to say no to tobacco.

• No feeling of being a victim of passive smoking (significant respect of public smoking areas/ little

tendency to smoke in closed areas).

• For the two 2 who enjoy "snoozing": the perception that this practice is socially desirable because it does not

harm others ("what's good about snuff is that it doesn't bother others").



FILM 1: THE MANNEQUIN


"it's a little bizarre", "it's a bit exaggerated", "the story of the paper man is absurd".

Understanding

Good understanding of the situation ("a boy who's not very self-assured is practicing for when he will be with his

friends, he's trying to resist") and of the overall message.

• hard to place the character. Participants thought that it's fairly easy not to start smoking. They prefer a

more ‘plausible’ interpretation of the situation: "I think that it's a real smoker who started stupidly and would

like to stop".

• a wealth of meanings: the mannequin can represent a friend "like in role play" or "maybe the mannequin is

him". The ambiguity is appreciated as it allows a larger number of teenagers to identify with it.

Perception/Attractiveness/Annoyance

The film is not very attractive:

• The positive point: a message for young people who are starting to smoke

• The negative points:

- the repetitive scenes ("unrealistic scene", "it's too bizarre")

- the slightly disagreeable feeling that a young person with strange attitudes represents all young people in this

campaign

- a lack of compassion with the character, due to the lack of information about his life, the reasons for the situation

he's in...

Impact (on young non smokers)

• Limited impact because most say they have formed an opinion against nicotine addiction: "it will not

influence me in the least", "I don't think I'm the target".

• The impression that it is far removed from their personal situation: "it doesn't concern me, so it won't do

much for me".

Smoker/ non smoker relations

A relation perceived as exaggerated and therefore unconvincing compared to non smokers' experience:

• "It's not so hard to avoid the influence of smokers around you"

• Smokers would not be converted as shown in the film: "nobody would come to offer you a cigarette like that"


FILM 2: THE WOMAN


“the poor thing, it's not easy", "it's a sad story"

Understanding

• Fairly good comprehension of the concept of how hard it is to stop, and the proposed help.

• The concept of addiction is not perceived directly:

Young non smokers find it hard to understand the situation of the cigarette lit for no reason except by habit. They

cannot explain the woman's gesture and in the end wonder if it's not her first cigarette…

After discussion, the doubts disappear: it's "a truly addicted smoker".


A fairly average acceptance level shared between:

• A type of proximity ("it's fairly similar to us, in the courtyard of a university")

• The glued cigarette is much appreciated

• They reject the lack of a positive punchline: "it gives the image of something that's impossible. If I

smoked, I wouldn't like to be shown in this situation of endless failure..."

• A negative view of the character's solitude: "it's sad", "it's very dark", "there's not enough dialogue"…

Point to be retained: for young Swedes, it lacks a positive result for the woman's attempt. Without that,

this story is bad and sad.

Impact

For non smokers, the film is perceived as having little impact.

When the group tried to put itself in the non smokers' shoes, fears were expressed: "they will understand: you can try

but you can't succeed".

Smoker/ non smoker relations and the smoker's image

• No place given to non smokers nor other smokers. This lack of relations is a real problem: "there's nobody

around to help the woman, it's contradictory"

• The smoker's image seems to be deteriorated: "he's a loser, despite his determination, there's nothing to do".

Local adaptation

Remark by Margaretha of the ENSP: warning: people might understand that it's in the courtyard of a university or a

campus. But smoking in prohibited in those locations.


FILM 3: THE BED


"is it really for us???", "she's fed up"

Understanding

Good understanding of the intention: "it's about the influence of those around you, the environment"

Clear lack of understanding of the situation mainly due to:

• The disbelief of smoking in bed: "that's like the 70’s", "smoking in bed is disgusting", "that doesn't exist".

• The man is hard to imagine: nobody in their circle would behave like that. "He's a macho".

Local adaptation

• Smoking in bed is not a common practice in Sweden, it's hard to believe that it's possible...


"it's a bad film"

What they don't like: "it's not very realistic", "it's too soft", "it only comes together at the end, it's contradictory"

Impact

For themselves as non smokers: no impact because they don't need this type of message (everything is going fine for

them with non smokers)

When they put themselves into the smokers' shoes: the impact is considered nil: "smokers will say, I'm not like that, this

guy is macho"


What they understand about the couple's relationship in the film is not so much the smoker/ non smoker relation but a

male/female relation, and instead a debate on the couple's relationship.

ASSESSMENT OF SERIES 1

Understanding

A fairly poor understanding despite good identification with the intentions, the situations are unclear and are not

always accepted by the young Swedes.


The most attractive film in the series is the one about the glued cigarette despite the disturbing punch line for

teens: "it's more interesting to talk about addiction, that concerns me more", "the problems is that it's always the end of

the story".

The other two films were not very well liked.


Impact

A limited impact due to the situations that are removed from their daily life.

Film 2 is judged less severely: "it's more persuasive". This film helps the youngsters make the connection

between addiction to cigarettes and the addiction created by chewing tobacco.

Image and smoker/ non smoker relations

Do not recognize themselves in the non smoker/young smoker as presented in the films

They have the impression that the relationship shown in the last film is not realistic.


FILM 1: HIGH SCHOOL


“It's a little bizarre", "it's kind of funny", "at first I didn't understand about the leeks"

Understanding

Understanding is OK. But there were a few difficulties in the immediate comprehension: "I didn't understand at first",

"it's a little hard to understand".

A good identification with the message: "they want to resemble others".

A few points that make it hard for the young Swedes to understand:

• The large number of smokers on the screen: the situation is too different from their daily lives "with all

those people smoking, it's like tobacco heaven".

• The fact that nicotine addiction is presented as the case for the majority: smokers are more of a

minority than a majority. Peer pressure is less strong than elsewhere.

• The young person who smokes in the bus is not very credible.


Very attractiveness to the youngsters.

Points they agree on:

• the out-of-sync treatment,

• the youthful target,

• the fact of attacking those starting nicotine addition instead of addiction.

One critical point: the base line is seen as "a bit limp" concerning the out-of-sync treatment, and "a little contradictory"

concerning the message about unconscious imitation.

Impact

• Young non smokers consider that the message could have a very positive influence on

children/young people and on them by making them question the absurdity of certain types of behavior. A

priori their thinking appears to go beyond cigarettes and includes snoozing or other types of risky activities such

as drinking.

• The advantage of this film is that it makes people think about the motivation for nicotine addiction.


Local adaptation

The mass of young smokers does not resemble the reality that they know, but this shift does not appear to pose a big

problem.

FILM 2: THE OFFICE WORKER


"it's frightening"

Understanding

Very good understanding of the situation, the message, and the target.


Very attractive.

The image they retain: the shopping cart full of leeks, the automatic dispenser, the beads of sweat.

Feeling of compassion with smokers: "it must be horrible to smoke and be drugged like that"

Impact

The impact is considered positive for non smokers:

• It makes you think about the reasons for not starting and reinforces attitudes.

Young people underline the potential effectiveness of this message for smokers, but with a nuance because they fear it

will frighten smokers and discourage them from stopping.


The smoker's image here is one of a victim. Feeling of compassion.

Local adaptation

People don't smoke in offices in Sweden. If an employee prepares to take a break and smoke outside, it works and

finally it's a Swedish film.

FILM 3: THE PARTY


"it's bizarre", "it's funny"

Understanding

The subject is well understood: it concerns the respect of non-smokers by smokers. The situation is understood directly.


The film is rather pleasing.

Points they agree on:

• Comical situation: "they are getting beat up and are acting like it's nothing",

• Familiarity with the situation: "it's a situation very similar to young people like us".


Impact

General impact is fairly positive but the feeling of a slightly irrelevant message. Young non smokers are not

really used to be put into difficulty this way.

Local adaptation/smoker-non smoker relations

"It's net very common to smoke indoors"

The good behavior related to nicotine addiction appears to be the norm there, young people feel that the attack is on

marginal behavior.

ASSESSMENT OF SERIES 2

Understanding

A good understanding of the various messages.

The best remembered scenes: Young people in the bathroom/ the automatic leek dispenser / the alarm clock in the

night / the guardian.


Fairly attractive, helped by laughter and the off-key tone.

However, a certain distance with the context presented in the last film.

In the end, the first film holds their attention best: "we were struck to see how much people are influenced by others,

it's good to address this problem", "it's well done"


Analysis of the test group in UK

Number of


5 Light smokers 18 - 20


GENERAL BACKGROUND


While socializing, drinking/ Image

Kills time/ Good excuse for a break at work/ Give you time to think

Stress relief

Routine - addiction


It’s killing me

Money

Injurance level

Bad breath

Lungs damage

Your clothes smell bad


Social situation => it’s just there

Think they are too young to be affected

The craving

Will need alternative => food


A financial incentive or a shock or disease to yourself or someone else

If they banned it in public places

Unavailability

Support group among friends or colleagues




1st It stays on the surface … Not very realistic, can’t imagine teenager doing that in their room

2nd Patronizing : not easy to get rid of it

3rd Funny but extreme, not very realistic



It talks about the first cigarette (film 1)

It makes you understand that you’re not alone as a smoker who might wants to give up (film 2)

It shows it is not easy to give up (film 2).

It shows what a non-smoker can go through (film 3).



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

1st film aimed to teenagers because it talks about 1st “ciggy”

2nd and 3rd All age group




1st film: good in a way that we’ve seen an ad to help you giving up smoking when you haven’t even started yet.

2nd: it makes you realize how difficult it to quit smoking is.

3rd It makes you realize what a non-smoker can go through.

But to their mind, the campaign doesn’t hold them attention enough => not strong enough


Low agreement:

Not strong enough

It stays on the surface, no deep/impactive message nor real information in it.



Adapted to the UK


3rd => could simply be told instead of acting that way


Make you think that as a smoker you also have a choice to give up



1st very good . Make looks how stupid smokers can be. Show younger people how you can become

3rd : very effective because passive smoker don’t ever react, it makes you feel sorry for them


Even when not allowed, we will do anything to have a ciggy. It’s not patronizing because very true. Don’t be a

follower!!! Don’t let yourself become as stupid.


2nd Makes you realize that you look pretty sad to be so addicted.

Ad is entertaining =>funny



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

All age group. Smokers and non smokers




Using a leek instead of a cigarette is more effective

Makes you think how silly you can be when craving a cigarette

Makes you feel more aware of what non smokers go through

Makes you feel guilty => helps you to think





Encouraging to respect non smokers.

Let smokers know that you can get helped in order to give up smoking through calling a helpline.


They like a lot this series: very realistic, not patronizing and appreciate very much the sense of humour of the ad.


All are UK adapted


Makes smokers look stupid. Teaches you not to be a follower

GENERAL LEARNINGS


A helpline where you can talk to someone about your addiction.


EU => sound serious => more likely to ring

Not very strong logo with stars and dots.

Nice colour contrast, look too soft and not serious enough


“Tobacco, you are not alone”

A bit patronizing => a bit too serous. In a speech writing will be better.

Opposite effect : “You’re not alone” => encouraging to think that other are smoking too so it’s time too do sa as well

Instead of using the word “Tobacco” which is not commonly used in the UK, the group suggest “smoking”

Help to quit smoking you’re not alone

“For a life without smoking” definitely works better.

It’s your life, it makes you think

They chose: “For a life without tobacco”




incitement

Alone + - + -

Leeks ++ ++ ++ ++

The « leeks » campaign has been chosen by all the participants.

• Good comprehension, strong agreement and actual impact drive us to strongly recommend the “


Southern European Countries Reports’

Cyprus

Greece

Italy

Portugal

Spain


PRE-TEST KEY NUMBER

5 COUNTRIES OF SOUTHERN EUROPE


2 NON-SMOKER GROUPS

5 LIGHT-SMOKERS GROUPS (LESS THAN 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)

6 HEAVY- SMOKERS GROUPS (MORE THAN 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)


Country Number of


Cyprus 8

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

W

Greece 9

9

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

M

Italy

8

8

8

Non smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

25 & +

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

M

W

Portugal

8

8

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

18 – 20

M

M

W

Spain

8

8

8

Non smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

25 & +

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

W

M


Analysis of the test group in CYPRUS

Number of participants Tobacco status Ages Social category

8

8

LIGHT SMOKERS

HARD SMOKERS

15-17

18-20

WORKING CLASS

MIDDLE CLASS


GENERAL BACKGROUND


Smoking starts as a social fit-in (smoke more when with other people, friends) and later on becomes a “bad habit” which

not everyone necessarily wants to give up.


Everybody acknowledges that health implications of smoking is the key motivation for quitting, although young people

almost feel "untouchable" by health problems.

Other motivations mentioned were the smell and that it is an expensive habit at the end of the day.


Mainly that it has become a habit, which is difficult to give up due to addiction. The younger mentioned that the

environment/surrounding does not necessarily help or support them to have an effect to give up.


Help can mainly comes from their environment; group of friends because they are always around and they can all try to

quit together (group effort).

The older group is also, as already mentioned more sensitive to health problem related to smoking, mainly when

relatives / close friends have been concerned or when physicians share information about consequences on the health.



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

Spontaneous reaction is rather on the understanding than the appreciation of the films.

Both groups pointed out the addiction (2nd ad) as well as rejecting the first cigarette offered (1st ad) and furthermore

how inconsiderate smokers are to non-smokers (3rd).

Younger though had more specific reaction , about what they think of the ads: the first film was not especially

appreciated and about film 3 they would say that Cypriot are rather selfish , would think first about themselves, while

older group on the opposite perceive this third film as making you think more about others, non-smokers.



Show a good overall comprehension by both groups, and that help can be provided if needed.

These ads tend to make you think about your own smoking habit.

Their spontaneous reactions show a good understanding of the messages.

INTEREST: ARE THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFULL ? WHY ?

Both group think this campaign is interesting but also the messages. The message that non-smokers can get help for not

starting to smoke the first cigarette is well understood and interesting one, as once you have started to smoke, it can

become a difficult habit to quit for smokers, who become addicted. These messages are relevant for smokers and young

attracted by smoking.

3rd ad (message: considering non-smokers) although important, because considering non-smokers, the smokers did not

really appreciated the film/message etc.



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

1st and 2nd perceived targets were teenagers and kids that have not started smoking. Both groups would not really feel

concerned as they would think that target is younger than themselves even the 15-17 years old (their targets are kids

and pre-teenagers, not having started smoking yet.).

They did not feel concerned as they would not understand what kind of help could be given to those who want to quit

smoking.

3rd ad: smokers





The younger group did not notice "help" was available through a phone line, whereas the older group noticed it.

However even if the number is available few of them ( both groups) would call for help. Younger mentioned they would

rather try to suit on their own.

Among the 18-20 years old group, the third film had the most impact, as it shows the lack of non respect to non

smokers as well as the fact that help can be available when needed.




Different opinion among younger and older.

Younger think they are not really optimistic advertisement to help to quit smoking as also they do not give a positive

image to people, who want to give up smoking (smokers in the films perceived as pathetic, weak individuals who cannot

get rid off their habits).

On the other side, the older group sees the campaign as respectful towards both smokers and non-smokers.

The third film could help to bring respect towards non-smokers.


Both groups somewhat liked the campaign, but did not think that it was very relevant to smokers rather it more relevant

to individuals who have not started but are considering smoking.


They thought that the few films were somewhat relevant to the local situation on some points.

Younger would rather identify themselves with film 2, as they do not feel comfortable expressing their opinion about film

3 (certainly due to their younger age and the situation shown) and film 1 concerns people not smoking yet.

However these films were dealing with one individual rather than the group and this is not how the respondents perceive

the situation.


Film No1 as it was neither very real, nor interesting and caused confusion.


No specific enthusiasm from both groups about this series, but well accepted in general for different reason

- Younger noticed ideas of self respect and respect towards others. They also noticed from 2 first films: will for not

starting smoking and for giving up smoking. Nevertheless the series does not especially reflect a good image of smokers,

felt irritated. Teens really seem to need to identify themselves with the characters in the ads to understand it and to

approve it, which explains their choice for film 2.

- Older group fully aware of the helpline. But they do not feel that concerned ads target according to them are non-

smokers teens and smokers wishing to quit.



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

Questions about the use of leeks and not cigarettes ?

Thought of it as a clever and indirect way of getting the message through: whatever one individual does, the others will

follow (the situation is as absurd as eating leeks as smoking.)


Movies quite well understood by both groups

Messages: Film 1: Mimetic

Film 2: Addiction

Film 3: Respect to non-smokers

INTEREST : ARE THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY ?

Both groups found the series funny (as it is something different, which is catching attention), more importantly these

films made respondents aware that "help" was available and also considering non-smokers.



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

Series perceived to aim all kinds of population; smokers and non-smokers as well as to any age group.




Important impact on various dimensions and the campaign makes you think about the effects of smoking on non-

smokers.

According to the young this leeks series gives a better image than the first series.

This series is better understandable compared to first one and also the presence of several people in these ads are

noticed as being important.

However again these respondents mentioned that they would not search for help.





Respectful to both smokers and non-smokers (for the younger this series is more respectful than previous one).

Realistic presentation of both smokers and non-smokers, however not necessarily respectful image of both.

Third ad could develop respect between smokers and non-smokers if non-smokers were shown as being more reactive.


18-20 years old group only liked the 2nd film at the office as it was more relevant to them, although exaggerated.

Younger group thought that the series 2 campaign was clever and interesting because of the leeks


Yes well adapted and even better adapted than first series according to the younger group.


For the younger group all films had an effect on the group in one way or another, as the use of the leeks aroused their

interest.

Nevertheless for the older group, with a more reflective comment they do not especially like films 1 and 3, due to the

fact that they do not recognize themselves with the group of schoolboys and are against the non reaction of non

smokers in front of smokers, shown as being disrespectful with them.


Appreciated for the indirect way of referring to smoking.

Situations seemed realistic but occasionally exaggerated.


GENERAL LEARNINGS


A help line they could call or a website they could log on to get help for facing addiction.

Basically they felt that this is a campaign to help people to quit smoking or not start, rather than a campaign to help

people to realize the effect of smoking in general.


If help is needed it is available, as well as stating the opposite with the advice on how never to start.


Good interest and comprehension, even though they thought that gruesome images would have a greater impact on the

smoking population.

Suggested the logo "For a life without cancer," but the logo "gia mia zoi xoris kapno" was not rejected as in Cyprus the

word tobacco (kapnos) is widely used especially if it is well imprinted in their minds that the help available is related to

tobacco issues in general rather than specific to quit smoking.



incitement

Alone ++ + + -

Leeks +++ ++ + ++

Even if younger prefer « group » effect of series 2 and older generally tend to better appreciate series 1

“Alone”, the “Leeks” campaign could work on both.


Analysis of the test group in GREECE

Number of


9 LIGHT SMOKERS

(LS) 15-17 WORKING CLASS

9 HARD SMOKERS

(HS) 18-20 MIDDLE CLASS


GENERAL BACKGROUND

Difficult to talk about « Light smokers » for young people of 15 t to 17 years old who have been smoking between 15 to

20 cigarettes for the past few years (average declared first cigarette =13/14 years old, the heavy smokers declare to

have started around 12/13 years old of age.

Spontaneously, for the 15-17 years old, the word “tobacco” is rather associated to a notion of pleasure . For the 18-20’s

it is associated to a bad habit.


The pleasure, often defines by the first morning ‘s cigarette while drinking a coffee, between friends.

A habit among others that helps to kill times when we do not have anything to do; the gesture’ s addiction .An element

which helps to relieve stress.


First of all, a matter of health, ours, but also health problem that close people could have been go through.

When practicing a sport; breathing becomes more difficult. Being pregnant for women (but for a temporary break)

A lover who could not bear cigarette (some people would rather change of lover)

In minor, the cost of cigarette amongst the 15-16 (rather an incentive to decrease)


The dependence / addiction, a lack of self-help (‘”this is if the desire is there to do so).

The absence of projection in the future; “us, Greek people, we are not scared of anything, tomorrow does not exist”


Mainly, a personal decision related to, for example, a worrying health checkup. A small influence declared out of anti

tobacco campaign, in particular, the note written on packets of cigarette, which is it had a strong impact at first, is today

trivialized (we do not pay any attention to it anymore or even joke about it).

In minor, the mention of a pedagogic campaign conducted by the government, initiated from school, around economical

damages of tobacco; a human potential saving (we care about your health)/public economy (‘tobacco cost a lot of

money to our health system therefore, to our economy).




‘Dummy’: Silly for the 15-17,spontaneous comprehension of a message about smoking cessation for all.

‘Glue’: for the majority; positively perceived (‘better than others from the same series), funny.

In minor, ridiculous.

‘Bed’: Very successful with the 15_17 but for the wrong reasons (for the boys, ‘makes you think about sex’)… it brings

back the conflict boys/girls for the girls. Giggles for the 18_20;it is ridiculous.



‘Dummy’: wrong understanding of the message of the cessation of tobacco (‘How can we resist to a cigarette offers by a

friend’) Nevertheless, hesitation for some 15-17 years old with a refusal of the first cigarette.

‘Glue’: Good comprehension it is difficult for each of us to quit smoking, and we could not do it on our own

The dependence is emphasized though this character who cannot throw away its cigarette out of his life.

‘Bed’: clear; respect for non-smoker.


‘Dummy’: very little interest

‘Glue’: realistic situation and particularly significant to everybody .It Helps you to think about their own addiction.

‘Bed’: Respectable idea but a fairly average conception. A high and strongest interest for the girls who jump on the

opportunity to put up with boys while relating to their natural selfishness.



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

‘Dummy’ :Mainly teenagers.

And maybe, for 15_17, the youngest who have not started yet; a critical time when you want to do like everybody else...

‘Glue’: Smokers who are trying to quit smoking and do not manage to do so, older people than 15-20 years old

‘Bed’ Target not clearly identified.




‘Dummy’: too superficial to affect the concerned target.

‘Glue’: The notion of needs is well taken, the offer of assistance is clearly perceived.

‘Bed’: Shows mainly a lack of education.





An issue of mutual respect, and with double entries, for the “bed” .For boys, they could respect us as smokers (we do

own the right to be respected as well) and for girls, they do not respect it anyway (typical from men, they are all

selfish).


‘Dummy’: Falsely funny, does not attract attention (“we will change channel), requires too much thinking for some and

to direct for others.

‘Glue: A good evocative concept that attracts attention (actually, the cigarette sticks to our fingers)

For the 15-17,we cannot see the motivation that drives the character to want to quit smoking .It appears as magic.

‘Bed’: Exaggerated and not very realistic situation; each of us could compromised (either he goes to the kitchen to

smoke, either the girl has to accept; even more the fact that she is in his house) Nevertheless, strong approval already

mentioned about the evocation of sex and the boys/girls conflict.


Adapted to Greece. In particular in term of visual

The “glue “ situation is particularly well adapted to the Greek reality (once you have started, you cannot stop anymore)


The ‘Dummy’ the way it is presented is not so appreciated and the prevention message is not understood very clearly.

MAIN LEARNINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘ALONE’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN LEARNINGS?

The film ‘Glue’ gives credit to the series in term of comprehension and impact.

The film ‘Bed in term of interest but as explained above, for the wrong reason.

These reasons last mentioned did largely interfere during the filling of the self-questionnaire in favor of the “Alone”

series


2ND SERIES : ‘LEEK’


‘School’: A spontaneous positive reaction (laughing a lot in connivance), a realistic situation that we could have lived

(and immediate comprehension of the message, (‘we want to do as others do, we want to imitate them).

‘Employee ‘: Very reagent especially amongst the 18-20; spontaneous laugh which slowly disappear to leave uneasiness

instead.

‘Party’ :One the whole, better perceived by the 15-17 who appreciate the realism of the situation than by 18-20 who feel

shared between the simplicity of the situation and the lack of common sense.



‘ Dummy ’ :Clear for both groups ; we start smoking at school, not for pleasure but to do like others do and not being

excluded from the group+ attraction for the youngest towards illegality ; It is forbidden to smoke at school .

In minor, the idea of imitation could work both ways; if some people around us were to quit smoking, we might do the

same. ‘ Employee ‘: A very clear situation of a character with a strong addiction and cannot stop by himself.

‘Party ‘: The show of respect towards non-smokers; It makes you think about your own attitude ‘by smoking, you

are not only harming yourself but also others.


‘School ‘: A plot, which allows paying more attention to the message+ proximity that reminds you of your daily life.

To transmit a different message– other that the bad impact on health – to someone who has not started smoking yet; it

is not necessary to smoke to show that you are somebody.

‘Employee ‘: realistic situations – and ‘awful’ – which makes you think about lived situations, either personal (we become

maniac when we run out of cigarette) or observed (‘at 3am, I saw my dad going out to buy cigarettes)

‘ Party ‘: A realistic situation in which we have been through and can even affect smokers themselves (I came back from

a party with holes all over my jumper)



DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

‘ School ’: Teenagers, school children.

But also, for the 18-20, parents who can relate to their own experience and share it with their children, showing them

the stupidity of imitating others; help to open discussion.

‘Employee ‘: All addicted smokers who find it difficult to quit; either if they have tried and failed, or are considering

taking a personal decision.

‘ Party ‘: To all expect for the youngest, 18 and less.





‘ School ‘: A realistic and uncommon approach at the same time that make you think.

‘ Employee ‘: A fairly affect because we can identify ourselves in these situations. Even if shows in an exaggerating way

– Everybody went through it we question our own attitude.

‘Party’: Encourages to think about the respect due to smokers but mainly in a moralist way.

In minor, smokers themselves can be bothered by smoke when there is too much of it.




For few people, a lack of education towards non-smokers which are represented as passive persons.


‘School’: a clever concept; the leek –metaphorical– reinforces the stupid reflex to imitate.

. (‘Others could do anything, if they are in the majority, we will imitate them) +awake the attention and give you the will

to watch until the end.

In minor, the leek can be associated with the cigarette considering that it stinks vs. the leek is good for health.

Amongst the 18-20, even in Greece where non-smokers areas are not so much respected, we do not get in the bus

smoking.

‘ Employee ‘: The leek is still attracting attention and help to make you think; because it is ridiculous, it emphasizes the

message of addiction (‘we can smoke anything when addicted’). The leek effect progressive; if at first it appears at

being ridiculous, it makes senses when the principle has been understood and accepted.

The “bin” is variously appreciated; chocking images –in a positive way-or exaggerated (‘we almost looks like a

concentration camp’) its impact, in anyway, remains strong.

In minor, girls have a tendency to rationalize and are less attracted by the leek concept. A cigarette will be more realistic

vs. it will be very common.

‘Party’: Beyond the immediate message’s clarity of respect for non smokers, this one is hinted by an illogical attitude

judged by represented smokers: In a situation where the majority of people smokes, the couple does not react - If I

was them, I will leave promises .A situation of a man “a smoker in an hospital” seems to be more coherent

In minor, maybe too many leeks going on /too much violence vs. positive exaggeration positive.


Entirely adapted to Greece; for young Greek people who express themselves unpretentiously, they find the subject dealt

with exaggeration.



Not really, apart from “the bed” for its lack of common sense with the reaction of smokers.

MAIN LEARNINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘LEEK’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN LEARNINGS?

The leek which at first, intrigues, takes its full meaning as the series goes along; it holds attention; – what does it mean?

– Then links films to each other; each film refers to a message/a target/a swell identified different target(s).

The message of help is not perceived spontaneously; at first sight of this series, it does incline us to look towards our

own smoking attitudes, to our own difficulties with tobacco The efficiency should be reinforced by repetitive viewing

(“through TV, we adopt ways of living”).

GENERAL LEARNINGS


Due to the fact that Greek people think that to quit smoking is before anything, is personal decision making, they find it

difficult to imagine what could be behind thls phone number and web platform nevertheless, a small number of

participants, once the decision made, admits that an assistance could favorably lead to a definite tobacco cessation.

To notice, a small concern regarding the language used on the web platform ‘www.help-eu.com’ ; it will have to be in

Greek.


Slow reactions; no opinion.


‘You’re not alone’

Not very appreciated (‘I do not need help, I decided for myself)’ and ambiguous; Acts a bit as an encouragement to quit

(‘smokers, we are in majority)

‘You are not alone facing tobacco’

Better but a bit too long Suggested by participant but not akin to everybody else; ‘Tobacco, you are not alone facing

the problem’

EUROPEAN UNION : LEGITIMACY

A good initiative from the E.U, which owns all legitimacy to launch this kind of campaign; the fact that it will be a

European campaign, is particularly well perceived from young Greek people.



Understanding Interest Agreemen Impact /

Incitement

Alone ++ + +- +-

Leeks +++ +++ ++ ++

;

If the « leeks » series has not being chosen by all participant (refer to self filled questionnaires), we do advice it for

profound reasons that it had towards smokers; those have then to face their own attitude towards tobacco and make

them think about it.

Therefore, a suggestion of help that comes at the end of the films, even if not memorized from the first view it should,

it should bring interest while numerous views.


Analysis Grid of ITALIY

Number of


8

8

8

Light smokers

Non smokers

Heavy smokers

15-17

25 and older

18-20

W

W

M

Group 1=15-17/LS/W

Group 2= 25 and over/NS/W

Group 3= 18-20/HS/M


SPECIFIC ITALIAN FEATURES

The following specific Italian features were expressed in the group:

• a law prohibiting smoking in public places has been in effect for a few weeks. This major change for

Italian society is extensively covered by the media. Now people are smoking in the cold, at the entrance to

restaurants and bars. Cigarettes are even excluded from night clubs... Smokers are frustrated, and non-smokers are

protesting and are sometimes vengeful. The groups took place in an atmosphere that was very aware of the

redefinition of tobacco's position in Italian public places.

Since the start of the year, "el tabacco", "el fumo" has become THE subject of conversation.

• The leek is synonymous with hashish or joints in Northern Italian slang... (Adults do not refer to it, but

15-17 year olds play on it). Another pun is perceived because the term “employee” is another way to express

dependency or drug addiction in Italian.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

The fact of smoking for young people (15/20) is related to the positive representation of smoking: it is "cool", "festive",

and to the collective attitude of teenagers. Ex smokers in the non-smokers group reinforce this analysis of the cigarette

that is tried and then adopted in order to be accepted, or by miming others to be more self-assured.

2 key points:

1- the standardization of cigarettes:

It is "normal" behavior: "The typical, cool young Italian is pictured with a cigarette, I cannot imagine him without

one…" (Student group 3 18-20 years old), "we have always seen people smoking around us".

It's an act that is not overly serious: "you musn't dramatize, smoking isn't so bad", "smoking a cigarette is like

breathing the air in Milan".

.

2-A tense smoker/non smoker climate

Each group is trying to assert itself to the other. Smokers explain their choice by the freedom to have their own public

space and by the resulting pleasure. The others (especially the ex smokers) sometimes violently claim the right to not

have to put up with other people's smoke.

Yet passive smoking does not appear to be a real problem ("they are exaggerating" 18 year old smoker),

including for non smokers who see it more as a physical annoyance (the smell, stinging eyes) than as a health problem.

Reasons to quit are mainly esthetic (skin ageing, teeth, etc.), health is only in second position.

As for quitting, the dominant idea is that you simply wait to have a problem before quitting.

The perception that the help available for stopping smoking is not from a medical environment: the methods

mentioned by the participants are mostly amateurish "eat pipa sols $$$", "suck lollipops", "put notes inside cigarette

packs to encourage you not to smoke too much", "patches, but they are expensive"...




Film 1:

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): "it's stupid", "it encourages me to smoke"

Group 2 (over 25/NS/W): "today's teenagers are very lonely", "they are fragile"

Group 3 (18-20/HS/M): "it's bizarre"

Film 2:

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): "it's exaggerated"

Group 2 (over 25/NS/W): "it's nerve-racking!"

Group 3 (18-20/HS/M): "it's very hard to stop smoking"

Film 3:

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): Laughter, "it's the most striking"

Group 2 (over 25/NS/W): Laughter, "if you want to keep your girlfriend, stop smoking…"

Group 3 (18-20/HS/M): "it has nothing to do with smokers"



The understanding of the messages and situations is good in groups 1 and 2.

For film 2, the attitude of the woman who starts by lighting a cigarette then changes her mind raises questions for them

(in particular for the youngest and for non smokers) as does her decision to stop smoking, which they feel is too subtle

to be serious.

Understanding is more difficult in group 3 (18/20, HS, M) for film 3. This appears to be directly related to the difficulty in

accepting the concept of passive smoking.


A low level for the first film, but strong interest for films 2 and 3:

Film 1:

• Little interest for the message and content: "there is no message" (group 1), "it is not very informative"

(groups 2 and 3)

• Little familiarity with situation: "it's not realistic", "I don't want to resemble that youngster who's almost

paranoid, a loser", "it's for children" (group 1), "we know that it doesn't happen that way" (group 2), "it's not

adapted to the younger generations" (group 3)

2 In group 2, the Leeks series was presented first.


Film 2:

• Interest for the image of the glued cigarette and the ridiculous situation: "you remain hooked on the

vice" (group 2), "it's a nice metaphor " (group 3), "it makes me laugh" (group 1)

• Familiarity with the situation: "the first thing that I do when I get out of class is to light up a cigarette"

(group 3 )

Film 3:

• Reactions are sometimes turbulent concerning the legitimacy of the message and the reaction of

the non smoker in film

"As if I needed help to get respect" (group 3), "why this violence?" (group 2)

• An interest sparked by the situation of the couple shared by both younger and older participants "it gets to

you", "they just made love".

Film 2 is the most interesting for group 2 and 3.

Film 3 is the most interesting for the 15-17 year olds.



TARGETS?

Film 1: children (the age of the target identified varies among the groups: 9-10 years old for the group of 15-17 year

olds, 12-13 for the others), the film is more focused on those who have already started smoking.

Film 2: smokers in general, and non smokers who will be discouraged from starting.

The participants feel that the film mainly tries to discourage non smokers from starting to smoke and to be more

understanding of "victim" smokers: "it mainly encourages non smokers to think that stopping is hard and not to judge

smokers too harshly".

Film 3: smokers and non smokers. The younger participants do not feel concerned by the situation: for them, the

target is thirty-year olds.





The impact expressed by participants and evaluated by the observer is different according to the targets. Among the

targets, judgment of the impact is different according to the film.

• Globally film 1 impact is weak, as there is no self identification with this film (from the group 1),for the group 3 this

situation is rather unfamiliar, they tend to consider the character as “strange”. Regarding the third group (non-

smokers), it does not feel as concerned as smokers’ groups by this first film, as well as for film 2.

• Film 2 on the opposite has a stronger and positive impact on the smokers (groups 1 and 3). Younger people were

struck by the character, who was not managing to get rid of the cigarette from the hand, that would make them

think about the situation, becoming conscious they could be confronted to the same problem.

In a same kind of reaction heavy smokers would also only realize that they are finally addicted to

tobacco/smoking, and that quitting cigarettes may become more problematic than initially thought.

o Film 3 did not hurt in a particular way the Heavy Smokers group, which could be explained by addiction having

become more important than couple life. The younger who maybe do not feel yet that much addicted, are balancing

single life with cigarettes. According to their saying they would choose beloved person rather than smoking. While

non smokers on the contrary to films 1 and 2, directly feel concerned by this film, as it deals with relationship

between smokers and non-smokers. This attitude is also reinforced by the current legal background about smoking

in Italia, they feel they also need to express themselves on that subject.

They state that the film would help to set up a new dialog between smokers and non smokers, that is important to

them. Nevertheless, they recognize that the reaction of the woman in film is too extreme and conflicting.




According to the groups, the image transmitted by the films of smokers is fairly negative (this feeling is

exacerbated in the non-smoker group, who finds in the films arguments for discrediting smokers).

• They are unable to stop (film 1 and 2): "they are victims", "weak".

• They have strange behavior (film 1 and 2)

• He's stupid, he doesn't understand what's happening to him (film 3)

• He's disrespectful, he doesn't think about others (film 3)

The image of non smokers is not very positive either: the woman's reaction is interpreted by both smokers and

non smokers as "excessive" (in this group the boy in film 1 is considered by the participants to be among the smokers).


The smoker/non smoker relation is described in all three groups as bad.

For smokers, they criticize an asymmetric relation "everybody wants to make the rules, but in the end non smokers

always have the last word" (group 3). This group has problems with this message about respect: they feel it is not

legitimate. One young person claims, for example, to be "disturbed by this message about respect".

For non-smokers, they see in film 3 a call to dialogue.


The films are not seen as attractive.

The film that is most attractive for group 1: film 3, for groups 2 and 3: film 2.

The positive points:

Within the situations:

• The familiarity with the situation when leaving class, the cigarette lit up by reflex (group 3)

• The image of the glued cigarette and the comical situation (all groups)

• The bed scene and the sexual connotation

Among the messages:

• The concept of help is much appreciated (all groups)

The negative points:

• The lack of realism in film 1

• The lack of a positive outcome in film 1 and film 3 (group 2)

• The subject of film 3 (group 1 and 3)

ADAPTATION TO THE LOCAL SITUATION

The films appear to be adapted to the local situation.

The young students in group 3 mention one reservation: the modern architecture of the university does not resemble an

Italian university (old style ).

IS THEE A MOVIE IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION AS WELL AS THE OTHERS? WHY?

Film 1 functions much worse than the other two, in all three groups.


The series is well understood, moderately appreciated by people of all ages and tobacco status, and has the strongest

impact among smokers.

Spot 1 does not function well, the message in spot 3 on passive smoking raises the strongest reactions .




They laugh when the story-boards are shown.

Film 1:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W: the young people find it hilarious and instantly react to the image of the leek, some underline

that the leek is synonymous with cannabis.

"The "no leek" sign is hysterical", "it makes ma laugh", "it's stupid to smoke"

Group 2= over 25/NS/W: their initial reactions concerned the concept of prohibition: "if you smoke you'll be punished",

"it comes down to authority, there is no educational message".

Group 3= 18-20/HS/M: their initial comments concern the absurdity of the situation, and group pressure "we follow the

crowd", "it's ridiculous"

Film 2:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W: youngsters appear to be embarrassed by the message and the situation: "it's not serious

enough", "it's exaggerated"

Group 2= over 25/NS/W: spontaneous reactions of compassion with the character "the poor guy, he needs help"

Group 3= 18-20/HS/M: signs of strong attraction "it's great", "it's a very powerful film"

Film 3:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W "we can no longer smoke in public places in Italy", "what strikes me is that people remain passive"

Group 2= over 25/NS/W:

Group 3= 18-20/HS/M: a great silence after this story-board (rather hard to interpret but probably a sign of surprise),

then statements of irritation "I don't care about the others!"

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD?

The understanding of the messages and situations represented is very good.

However, two shadowy areas make us feel that the understanding is not excellent:

• The concept of the forbidden in film 1:

Group 2 at first only retained the notion of prohibition from the first film: "if you smoke you'll be punished", "everything

is based on prohibition".

The other groups also appear to be a bit destabilized by the repetition of the authority figure.

In general, the first film is considered to be dense by the participants "there are a lot of messages" (group 3),

"there are way too many scenes, too brief flashes, it makes things complicated " (group 2).

• The call for help in film 3:

The offer for help "10 tips to respect non smokers" does not make sense to the participants in all three

groups.

"Imagine: call to let you realized that you are harming other peoples' health... I don't understand"" (group 3), "the

advice would be more for non smokers, not for smokers, it's those who don't smoke that need help" (group 2), "I don't

understand what it means" (group 1).



A fairly high interest due to:

• the surprise effect created by the comparison with the leek (very much appreciated by young people and

accepted with difficulty among older non-smokers)

• the familiarity with certain situations for younger participants (groups 1 and 3)

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES? WHO IS AIMED AT? DOES THE GROUP FEEL


TARGETS?

Film 1: teenagers, those who are starting to smoke

Film 2: "the hard-core cases" (group 1), "the drug addicts" (group 2), the "very heavy smokers" (group 3)

Film 3: smokers and non-smokers




We noted a strong impact of the films among the younger participants thanks to the comparison with

leeks:

• The humorous, off-beat tone makes it more acceptable

• It leads to interesting thoughts about the motivation behind their first cigarettes and about the problems

they may encounter after a few years of smoking.

The group of 15-17 year olds had the most difficulty in admitting the effectiveness of the messages; they are

bothered by what is at the center of the films: the humor… "it's not serious enough", "you need something more

serious", "it's too distracting". Our opinion is that this is a superficial reaction, about what is supposed to represent an

anti-smoking message. This attitude explains the final choice of series 1. When analyzed, we feel the Leeks series is the

most effective.

The non-smokers do not feel concerned (except for the ex-smokers in the group) and mostly focus on the last film.

They consider that the film would not impact the smokers they know ("smokers have fun, nothing in the film incites

them to pay attention to others", "the ball is not in the smokers' court, it's up to the non smokers to get up and leave

the room"). The film incites people to "boycott smoking areas" and to take an offensive attitude.

Non smokers express reservations about the effectiveness of the film on smokers and young people. For film 1:

"teenagers will laugh but that's all", "the headmaster, the bus, the hidden cigarette will comfort them in their

disobedience".

For film 2: "(smokers) will react by saying they aren't like that".


A few thoughts on film 1:

• In groups of young smokers, it appears to act favorably on their opinion about the fact of smoking "we

don't want to feel like sheep" (group 1), "I though I was smart by smoking, but you're smarter when you

don't smoke…" (Group 3).

• However, among the youngest participants, we noted signs of irritation. The message is audible and is

heard because the tone is funny... if the humor was not included, the youngsters would reject the film's

moralistic side. "it says not to act like sheep... but people tell us that all the time. That gets on my nerves

(…) I feel aggressed because it seems to say that I'm easily influenced", "it's acceptable because it's funny

(…) I can see that I'm doing like others".

A few more thoughts on film 2:

• Some details in the film, such as the panic at the thought of an empty pack, the urgent need to go get "fresh

supplies" created familiarity and allows young people not to feel removed from the man, who is often perceived

as "a junkie".

• Nevertheless, beware not to push the drug addict aspect too far, because the attention and credibility given to

the message would be very different. A risk of rejection exists according to how the story-board is directed.

Already the initial reactions of youngsters and non-smokers sometimes lean towards a perceived exaggeration:

"it's exaggerated", "they're overly dramatic", "it's not us, it's for the hard-core smokers"…

Additional thoughts on film 3:

• The passive attitude of non smokers tends to make them responsible for their lot in the eyes of the young

smokers in the groups and to reduce the level of awareness among smokers.

• Given the extensive standardization of tobacco, the problem of passive smoking is not taken seriously. The

blows with the leeks are interpreted not as the negative effect on the health of others, but as the physical

inconvenience of tobacco for others (smell/smoke). Furthermore, in the smokers groups, the image of the

blows with leeks is felt to be overestimated compared to the actual inconvenience caused.


SMOKERS? WHY? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS? WOULD IT HELP TO DEVELOP


A" passive" image of non smokers (group 3), "they don't dare to express themselves" (group 2).

The smoker's image seems fairly negative.

• He is hooked.

• He is easily influenced.

• He is impolite/disrespectful.

As a minor point, more positive connotations of the smoker appeared in the groups of young participants:

• They are "rebels", "they don't like authority" (film 1)

• "They're partying", "they have fund while those who don't smoke seem bored" (film 3)

The relation and the balance between smokers/non smokers shown in film 3 does not match reality for non

smokers (group 2):


• There are too many smokers: "they don't have such a large majority"

• The non-smokers are not really victims and can express themselves to assert their views.


Spontaneously, the three groups have positive reactions (they laugh). Yet when rational thinking comes to the forefront,

the 15-17 year old groups as well as the non smokers (both groups from CSP-), the declarations become negative. The

comparison with the leeks is disturbing:

• "It's not serious enough", "it de-dramatizes things but it underestimates the problem" (group 1), "it's a little

too distracting" (group 2)… in any case it's felt to be too far removed by the participants to be in the category

of traditional campaigns. The lack of a medical message is disturbing and the participants worry about this

change and the social message.

• The comparison is taken in the first degree… The participants focus on the fact that the leek is good for

your health while cigarettes are detrimental. This logical reaction creates annoyance but not rejection. On the

contrary, it is fairly positive, we believe that it even carries a message.

In the group of non smokers, the characters’ passivity and the impression that they may be responsible for the situation

creates rejection and, when assessing the series and the self-administered questionnaire, lead to negative judgments.

In the group of 18-20 year olds, the appreciation is important and the reticence encountered in the other groups does

not appear.

Additional remarks on the films:

Film 1:

What they like: The "no leeks" icon / the first scene in the bathroom where you don't know what's going on...

What they don't like: the authority figures, the concept of prohibition (and especially the scene in the bus)

Film 2:

What they like: the shopping cart full of leeks/the scene with the colleague/the automatic dispenser

What they like less: the drops of sweat/ the trash

Film 3:

What they like: the party scene

What they don't like: the attitude of the non smoker characters/the look of the non smokers (they look too middle

class)/the blows with the leek given to the leek consumer


The scenes appear to be well suited to groups 1 and 3:

• The image of the employee (in Italian, employee is a figurative term for "hooked")

• The scene in the bus does not appear appropriate to the situation in Italy ("nobody smokes in a bus, everybody

knows that")

• The participants in the groups do not positively identify if film 3 represents a private party, and not that it is not

prohibited to smoke in public places.

The group of non smokers clearly focuses on the passivity of non-smokers and feel that this campaign does not

resemble the usual Italian anti-smoking campaigns, and conclude that this series is not suitable at all for Italy.



The series is correctly understood in all the groups.

We note that this series nevertheless generates weak reactions in terms of appreciation and a real potential impact in

Italy.

Message 3 poses the most difficulties for the participants, it may irritate non smokers and is less effective in raising the

awareness of smokers due to the passivity of the non smokers.

GENERAL TEACHINGS


• Overall the youngest members of group 1 are less sensitive to the offer for help than their elders in

group 3.

• This notion of help appears less clearly in the Leeks series: "I have problems with the baseline on help, it only works

in the second film" (group 2), "there is no link between the films and the baseline" (group 3)

• The offer for help is mentioned spontaneously after film 2 in each of the series (all groups).

• The concept of help is not easy to understand. It remains uncertain or unsuitable for two reasons:

The first because the participants are not convinced of the need for help shown in the films. While the need for help in

film 2 is obvious, it is not so for film 1:

Because of the target: "At that age they won't call a toll-free number" (group 2)

Because of the situation which does not require help, according to the participants: "when you start, you don't feel

the need for help" (group 1), "they don't at all seem to need help" (group 2).

The second reason is related to a question that appears in all three groups in reaction to film 3: "who really

needs help?". The participants feel that the victims and those who need help are the non-smokers. Yet it is inconceivable

to ask for help to get respect: "as if I need help to get respect" (group 3) and as for a young smoker asking advice to

respect others is an unrealistic situation "who is the help for? It's more for the non smokers!".

As concerns the expectations or projections of those who seek the proposed help, we observed:

• The image of an effective call: "behind they are competent people, qualified in this area" (group 2), "they are

experts, psychologists" (group 1)

• The idea of the possibility offered to ask questions freely (group 1 and group 3)

• The perception of support in several phases: "the first phase is the diagnosis, then comes the treatment phase

with physicians, after the psychologists..." (group 3), "first they listen, they get an idea of our problem, then

they point you towards the specialist" (group 2)

Focus on young people

Note: the youngest participants had more difficulty in defining what this help could be.

The groups of young people appear must more sensitive to the confidentiality of the method for seeking help and

the ability to ask questions freely. For these reasons, they unanimously prefer the Web site: "I can imagine the

possibility of sending my questions by e-mail", "what would be great would be a chat room for sharing information"

(group 1).

According to them, the ability to call is much less attractive and this offer frightens them more than it

reassures them...



It is well understood and well appreciated. The participants were positively impressed by:

• its simplicity: "it's clear", "I understand it well", "it's accessible"

• it's reassuring aspect: "the softer side", "it makes me think of dialogue", "the light colors are not aggressive",

"it's soft, calm", "it gives you confidence", "the broken cigarette looks like a smile"

• its dynamic: "I say Help, somebody comes to help me quit smoking, there is action"

• its youth: "the characters are young and friendly"

• its design: "I find it attractive", "there are attractive characters", "the colors are nice"

The shape evokes the notion of help, dialogue, choice.

The stars evoke the logo of the European Union.

As a minor point, in the group of 15-17 year olds, participants are surprised by the choice of orange, which they

associate with the color of a cigarette filter.


The shared remarks among the groups:

• It's not very positive… (group 1 and 3)

Spontaneously after the slide show of the first story, a participant from 3 said "it's a little over dramatic, I find the

sentence is exaggerated". This feeling also appears in group 1. When the participants are asked to improve the base

line, they have trouble coming up with concrete proposals but the participants in groups 1 and 3 agree on thoughts

such as: "it's too negative", "they should remove the negation, and make the slogan positive", "it would be better if

it were dynamic", "it's too sad"…

• It's too long and not snappy enough (all groups)

• It's too bland (group 1 and 3), the youngsters underline that the message on solitude is not specific to

passive smoking but it could be the slogan for any other problem. There is an impression of already having

heard it.

The translation of the baseline

Very clearly the "frente" is unanimously preferred.

"Davanti" is too static

"Contro" is too violent

"Frente" is dynamic and appears to be the most evocative, in particular the idea of a problem to overcome.

A long debate followed in the three groups concerning the terms "tabacco" and "fumo". The use of the word tabacco

is not excluded by the participants but the use does not appear very natural. For the youngsters, it has a connotation of

industry or raw materials.


EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union is spontaneously identified in groups 1 and 3.

The oldest had the most difficulty in identifying the sponsor, they cited the WHO, "a service company", "an association

called HELP".

The youngest easily attribute the campaign, but have problems formulating an opinion on the sponsor.

The reception for a European approach initiated by the Union is very positive:

• The sponsor ensures the seriousness and reliability of the help offered

• It is absolutely legitimate in the context of the campaigns shown

• The mobilization of the European institution demonstrates a global, shared, and important problem ("it's unity

behind a very serious problem" group 1)



incitement

Alone + - -/+ -

Leeks + + + +

The choice of groups 1 and 2 is in favor of the Alone series.

Group 3 chooses the Leeks series.


Analysis of the test group in PORTUGAL

Number of


8 20-30 cigarettes 18-20 M

8 7 – 15 cigarettes 15-17 W

8 10 – 30 cigarettes 19-20 M



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS?

Film 1 Model: most of them liked the message but didn’t like its form, “unreal”, “stupid” “over the top reaction”

Film 2 Glued cigarette: situation perceived as interesting. In two groups out of three, it clearly expressed the idea of

dependency. It seemed that the character would not succeed by himself, suggesting the importance of the help

provided. The group of young people aged 15-17 found it rather unreal and not as catchy.

Film 3 The bed: “respect others”. Situation perceived as fairly realistic, but rather ridiculous for a majority.

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE FILMS WELL UNDERSTOOD? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND? ARE THERE ANY


Good general understanding of the various ads:

Film 1:

• Very good comprehension by all of the idea of not starting to smoke, of saying no. And of the fact that a place

exists where you can get information on the subject.

• They also noted the influence of those around them, “other people are always there offering them” when you

want to stop for example.

• Regret about the absence of a definitive ending: you can‘t tell whether at the end the young man manages to

resist.

• Questions were asked: why is he fighting? Was there a failure beforehand?

Film 2:

• An ad that was clear and comprehensible for everyone. The idea of dependency was understood, and came

with the feeling of a need for help. She wants to stop but… how? The question of solutions was frequently

raised, notably among the smokers.

• A less convincing film for the younger people and the non-smokers, who expressed a greater attraction to the

realism.

Film 3:

• Comprehension of the message by everyone: smoking not only destroys our health but also our relations with

the people around us. Some reluctance about the woman’s reaction: why does she leave without saying

anything?

• This focus on the woman’s reaction was somewhat harmful to the general reception given to the film.



Film 1: Weak spontaneous recall. There is not enough information. An impression of vagueness. No real interest in the

film. They found it moralistic, “childish”, especially the younger ones.

Film 2: very little interest for the young people. The image of someone struggling could incite people to ask for help.

Film 3: didn’t make them reflect enough on the subject. Suffered from its moralistic aspect. Talks about the sensitivity of

people who don’t smoke. Perceived exaggeration of the attitude of each of the two characters.

ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP: (ACCORDING TO THEIR SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS)

WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT?


IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS? WHY? EFFICIENT IN HELPING SMOKERS / NON



Low impact felt in all three groups.

Film 1: the impact could be negative if the message drifts towards an ex-smoker struggling against cigarettes: the

groups got an impression of the inferiority of smokers in relation to cigarettes. “it looks like he’ll give in”. Too weak, the

character is sad, not self-assured, anxious. The film mainly generated indifference. It was perceived as a film “for

children”.

Film 2: the younger people (15-17 yo) did not seem to relate to this one. The film did not work for them: they found it

childish. The opposite effect was expressed: “that’s not how people are going to get rid of it”. “Only kids will believe that

the cigarette will stay stuck”. The 18-20 yo asked themselves more questions about dependency. The situation was

plausible. Identification was stronger among the older ones.

Film 3: the image was rather negative. Smokers are selfish, are indifferent. And non-smokers are intolerant. Little impact

to the extent that the film was rejected.


Film 1:

• Not much liked

• All the groups found the film to be weak. Not in step with reality.

• There is aggressiveness.

• Positive point: “we’re not alone in fighting tobacco. There is HELP”.

• But few of them felt motivated to ask for help?


Film 2:

• More positive appreciation

• Fairly funny.

• More interest in the idea of HELP.

Film 3:

• Did not really support it because they felt they learned nothing.

• Did not like the film

• Found it too aggressive

IS THERE A FILM IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT WORK AS WELL AS THE OTHERS ? WHY ?

Film 1: too vague, considered too moralistic.

Film 3: too violent


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS?

Fairly positive initial reactions.

Film 1: It was funny. They thought of drugs more. Not very clear. The idea of the “leek” raised questions and some

initial incomprehension.

Film 2: “It’s enormous”, “the garbage can scene, that’s totally ridiculous”. “It makes you think of dependency”. “It’s over

the top”.

Film 3: “It’s a common scene”. “There are smokers who don’t respect non-smokers”. “Normal situation”. “There’s a lack

of respect”.

UNDERSTANDING : ARE THE FILMS WELL UNDERSTOOD ?

Film 1:

• The younger ones 15-17 yo did not understand the film very well. “It’s stupid”. “Do they think we’re monkeys?”

The image of society, and especially of young people, who would be far too easily influenced, was judged as

negative. Why a “leek”, that stinks of garlic?

• In the other groups, a good level of comprehension was observed.


Film 2: Very good comprehension of the ad. “Tobacco is a real drug”.

Film 3: The ad was very well understood and was liked.

INTEREST : ARE THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY ?

Film 1: We observed a real interest in the ad, but reluctance about it being made: young people are presented as

systematically clashing with authority. More interest among the 18-20 yo.

Film 2: The three groups found the film to be interesting. “That might not necessarily work for me but it might for my

neighbour”.

Film 3: Moralistic film, the idea of not disturbing others. There was interest in the comparison, as though it were a

physical attack.

ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP: (ACCORDING TO THEIR SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS)

WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCITEMENT, ENCOURAGEMENT ?


IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS? WHY? EFFICIENT IN HELPING SMOKERS / NON


BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?

Film 1:

• Among the younger respondents, weak impact and rejection phenomena.

• The 18-20 younger found that it could have an impact because the cigarette is ridiculed.

• One fear came to light, that of a counter-productive effect among young smokers who like the idea of

transgressing, acting against authority

Film 2:

• There is a real impact. It makes you think: how to stop? How to avoid all this?

• They absolutely did not want to relate to the character, but this ridiculous situation could happen and has

happened to some people (“went out to buy cigarettes at 4 in the morning”).

• Still other questions: “Will I succeed in stopping one day as easily as I think I can? Is that me in the future?”

Film 3:

• The discussion was animated, the impact was definite:

- The group of 15-17 yo thought that people who are disturbed by cigarettes should just leave. And that

they’re not going to stop smoking because of other people.

- The 18-20 yo were more sensitive to the fact that smoke might bother other people.


APPROVAL: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN? WHY? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE? WHY?

On the whole, the 3 films were very much liked, with a few limits:

Film 1:

• There is some humour but the bus scene was judged as moralising. The ad is weakened by the question of the

relationship with authority (school, bus).

Film 2:

• The film was liked by everyone, but the image of the smoker was the image of a drug. An image that is too

black.

• It does not show that smoking is harmful to your health, something the young people emphasised as being

important. All they saw was the vice, the dependency. And they didn’t want to recognise their dependency.

Film 3:

• Although bothered, the non-smokers said nothing. This situation was judged as rather negative, the non-

smokers are much too passive, they have a bad image among smokers.


No.

MAIN FINDINGS ABOUT THE ‘LEEKS’ SERIES: WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS?

Very much liked, much more so than the first series.

GENERAL FINDINGS


“Não está sozinho contre o tabaco”

A cry for help. Help is available if you want it.

A positive image in all the groups of an anti-tobacco helpline, for people who need it, adapted to demands.

There we can find all the information about tobacco, we will be helped. If we call, we can exchange ideas, hear the

stories of ex-smokers…

If you log onto the site, you will find more information, images, treatments…



This logo and this word are simple, direct.

They attracted their attention.

Preference for the blended black.

Good level of comprehension: an idea comes to mind – Break the cigarette.

The design was liked. The blue means help.

The blue and the orange go well together.


“ Não está sozinho contra o tabaco”

Clearly sums up the whole campaign in one sentence.

Addresses everyone: smokers and non-smokers.

“Tu” implied, there is a closeness between the people speaking. That fits well with their desire to get help from family

and/or friends… A friend wants to help them.

“Tu” is more intimate, more face to face (direct).

EUROPEAN UNION: LEGITIMACY

Recognised the “EU” at the end of the films.

They are credible. The EU looks after the interests of Europeans and can/must therefore fight this scourge.

They have the moral authority, sometimes perceived as too heavy for the State. And this is an impartial authority.

“That’s how campaigns should be”.

The EU was therefore very favourably perceived.



Understanding Interest Approval Impact /

incitement

Alone ++ - -- --

Leeks +++ ++ + +


Analysis Grid of SPAIN

Number of

participants

Tobacco-smoking

status Age Social category

8

8

8

Light smokers

Non smokers

Heavy smokers

15-17

25 and +

18-20

W

W

M

Group 1=15-17/LS/W

Group 2= +25 years/NS/W

Group 3= 18-20 years/HS/M

Pré-test Campagne HELP –Ipsos Santé / Ligaris – Février 2005

139

ELEMENTS SPECIFIC TO SPAIN

The elements specific to Spain as revealed in the groups:

• A Tobacco campaign on sexual impotence was particularly top of mind in the groups, which

could explain certain reactions (in two groups we were told the same funny ‘in’ story: a Spaniard goes to

buy a pack of cigarettes, he is given one with the message “Smoking makes you sexually impotent”, the

man specifies that he wants another pack: “the one with the cancer”…)

• The leek was synonymous with hashish or a joint … (comparison mentioned in all three groups).

• At the time the groups were held, the campaign on the European referendum was being given extensive

media coverage, which might have influenced recognition of the European Union and support for the

measures it was taking.

GENERAL BACKGROUND

We observed widespread standardisation of the cigarette in all three groups:

• Smoking is the social norm “everyone does it” “we’re used to being offered cigarettes all day long”

• Smoking has no consequences: “it isn’t serious” along with the consensual idea that it is time to

stop only when a problem arises (“when I have cancer, I’ll stop immediately). On the whole, even

among the non-smokers a certain incredulity reigned in relation to ads on the effects

cigarettes have on health (in the 18-20 yo group, it was even explained that smokers are no more ill

than non-smokers “people who don’t smoke also die from horrible diseases”).

Smoking also has no great financial consequence.

• Smoking connotes a positive dimension linked to celebration, sociability, but also due to the

reputed positive effects mentioned by the 15/20 yo smokers: “it’s anti-stress”, “it helps you to

concentrate”.

• Smoking is a social act: you start to smoke as part of a group, young people smoke “as a way to be

social”, some of them noted that they don’t smoke when they’re alone.

The risk usually mentioned and taken seriously by the young men seemed to be the risk of sexual impotence,

unlike the risks of cancer which were also very often mentioned but did not seem to create any major concern

among the participants.

In the groups observed, passive smoking did not seem to be a real health problem, but rather a

problem of physical discomfort.

The motivations to stop exist including among the youngest smokers. However the will to stop is confronted

either with a feeling of incapacity “I want to but I can’t” or with pressure from the people around them: “my

friends are mean, they keep offering them to me” “everyone smokes right in front of me”.

These motivations were mainly said to be of an aesthetic nature (skin ageing, the teeth…), or health-related but

in the event of an existing problem “I’ll stop when I’m pregnant” “if my doctor tells me you have cancer, I’ll stop

immediately”. The notion of risk prevention of the long-term effects of cigarettes did not emerge.


The need for help in stopping smoking is not felt. According to the young smokers and the non-smokers,

quitting smoking is all about willpower. The participants in the groups mentioned substitution solutions:

“chewing gums”, “pipa sols” but also indicated the fact that the people around them stopping smoking would be

a vital aid: “what would be great would be for my friends to stop at the same time” (group 3).


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS ?

Film 1:

In all three groups, spontaneous reactions commented on the absurdity of the young boy’s behaviour, a feeling

of incomprehension (with questions asked).

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): “this boy is stupid” “I don’t understand”

Group 2 (+25 yo/NS/W): “that isn’t realistic” “does he already smoke?”

Group 3 (18-20 yo/HS/M): “it’s ridiculous” “what does that mean?”

Among the younger respondents, traces of rejection of the message of help concerning starting smoking: “We

don’t need to be trained to say no”.

Film 2:

In all three groups, similar reactions marked support and appreciation for the comic aspect of the situation.

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): “it isn’t bad” “the cigarette that sticks is funny”

Group 2 (+25 yo/NS/W) : “I like it” “it’s original”

Group 3 (18-20 yo/HS/M): “It’s comic” “I like it”

Film 3:

Laughter was the main reaction. A feeling of exaggeration was also expressed.

Group 1 (15-17/LS/W): Laughter, “it’s a bit exaggerated”

Group 2 (+25 yo/NS/W): Laughter, “it’s a joke”

Group 3 (18-20 yo/HS/M): Laughter, “it’s exaggerated, we do discuss after all”

3 In group 1, the Leeks series was presented first. In groups 1 and 3, the order of presentation of the

films within the series was changed.


UNDERSTANDING: WERE THE FILMS WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DID THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? WERE THERE

ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS ? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN ?

In all three groups, several questions were asked about film 1: “does he already smoke?” “why does he already

have a pack of cigarettes?”… Moreover, they considered that they lacked information as to the nature of the

couple’s relationship in film 3.

Beyond this vagueness, comprehension of the ads and of the situations was good in groups 1 and 2.

The group of non-smokers had trouble understanding the young woman’s sudden change of opinion: “his gesture

of wanting to put his cigarette out isn’t clear.”

Group 3 on the other hand came up against major comprehension problems, they tended to focus on the

message that help is absolutely necessary:

• The message of film 1 was not fully absorbed. They understood that they were being told that help was

absolutely necessary so as not to start smoking (an affirmation that they were not convinced of).

• For film 2, “the message is that you won’t stop by yourself, you won’t manage”.

• They tended to appreciate the smoker’s position in film 3 as an enhancing situation. “He has a girl in his

bed”, “she’s hysterical and goes away, that’s not so bad”.

INTEREST: IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY

?

In all three groups:

• No interest in film 1

• A higher level of interest in films 2 and 3 due essentially to the humour (cigarette that sticks / socks

being swung) and to the sexual connotation in film 3.

The smokers’ groups were more interested in film 2 which deals with a subject that concerns or worries them

more: dependency. Film 3 logically caught the attention of the non-smokers’ group more.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE FILMS ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE GROUP


DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

Film 1: teenagers / children (the 15-17 yo group defined the target as children)

Film 2: smokers

Film 3: smokers and non-smokers

Group 3 indicated that the target is “people who smoke at night”, “excessive smokers who get up at night to

smoke”


ACTUAL IMPACT OF THE SERIES ON THE GROUP : (ACCORDING TO ITS SITUATION AS SMOKERS / NON

SMOKERS) WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCITEMENT,

ENCOURAGEMENT ? COMPREHENSION ? SEARCHING FOR HELP ? CALLING “HELP” ?

The impact of the films was weak in all three groups:

• In films 2 and 3, laughter prevailed over sensitisation for the majority participants

• It is very distant from the situation presented in film 1

The groups of young smokers seemed demobilised:

• by the message of help that they interpreted as an incapacity to manage by themselves (group 3, 18-20

yo)

• by a paralysing anxiety that does not transform into a positive outcome: “I’m afraid it’s too late” “you

don’t know who’s going to help you”

The non-smokers did not feel concerned and expressed major reservations about the impact these films would

have on the smokers around them.

A risk of a counter-message was noted in films 1 and 3:

• “It is so ridiculous that it incites me to smoke instead” (group 3, film 1)

• In relation to film 3, the impression was that the smoker’s situation was fairly positive while the non-

smoker seemed ridiculous.

Film 2 generated the greatest impact. However, it worried some of the participants more than it incited them to

act or get informed: “I’ll say it again, I feel very anxious when I see that” (group 1).

Generally speaking, the groups were destabilised by the absence of a message on health and feared that the

film’s impact would be diminished as a result (for example: “It’s better to talk about the consequences on health,

not the consequences for other people” - group 2)

On a minor level, group 2 worried about the smokers they know distancing themselves from this film, as

compared to film 2: “my truck driver friend wouldn’t want to identify with a woman” “the idea of a woman lacking

willpower, who is weak, that’s not going to speak to everyone”.

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS ? WHY ? EFFICIENT IN HELPING

SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS ? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS ? WOULD IT

HELP DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?

The groups did not observe a very positive image of smokers:

• The aggressiveness of the young man in film 1 was criticised

• The smoker was described as “ridiculous” and “weird” in film 1

• Certain participants in group 3 considered that film 1 makes fun of smokers who are trying to quit: they

thought the young man had deliberately been put in a ridiculous situation


• In the smokers’ groups, the series was viewed as a marginalisation of smokers, simply observed for a

majority, strongly criticised by a minority (for example: “there is a huge amount of pollution in Madrid.

Why don’t they attack that? Smoking isn’t more disturbing than that”).

As for the non-smokers, the young woman’s attitude in film 3 did not generate compassion among either smokers

or non-smokers:

• A dubious personality: “she’s a one-night stand” “she’s crazy”, “he’s smoking to punish her because

she’s a pain”

• A disingenuous young woman: “Normally, she should know what to expect” “it’s not a reason to

break up, she was already thinking about it and used this as a pretext”,

• A legitimate feeling about the idea that you shouldn’t smoke in bed next to your partner but a reaction

judged as excessive: “she’s in an over-the-top state” “she’s going a bit too far”

• A moral judgement of disapproval of the young woman’s behaviour: “She doesn’t say anything,

she’s the one doing something that isn’t good, she’s the one acting badly”.

APPROVAL : DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

The series did not generate any major approval despite the superficial positive reactions to film 2 and film 3.

Film 2 was the most appreciated.

Positive points

• The young participants particularly liked the situation of the couple and the connotations of film 3,

• The humour in films 2 and 3

Negative points

• Film 1 “the weird young man” “the model”

• The appearance of the young woman in film 2 worried group 2

• The woman’s excessive reaction

ADAPTATION TO THE LOCAL SITUATION

The films seemed well adapted to the local situation.

The participants in the groups even identified a veiled allusion to their own country:

• “The bull, that’s a veiled allusion to Spain”

• “The bed is typically Spanish, it won’t work anywhere else, people in the North don’t smoke in bed”

• “It’s very Spanish to throw your cigarette on the ground, in the rest of Europe people are cleaner than

we are”

The only strange element was what was less appreciated in the series:

• the boy in film 1: “he isn’t Spanish”

• “the story of the model, a Spaniard would never do that”


IS THERE A FILM IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION AS WELL AS THE OTHERS ? WHY ?

Film 1 performed much less well than the two others in all three groups.

MAIN FINDINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘THE ALONE’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS?

A series with an unequal level of comprehension, averagely appreciated whatever the age and smoking

status of respondents, and with minor impact.

Ad 1 did not work, film 2 tended to demobilise/worry the young smokers, film 3 produced opposite

effects: empathy was generally focused on the smoker.


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS: HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS ?

They laughed during the projection of the story-boards.

Film 1:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W: the young people found it extremely funny and reacted instantaneously to the image of

the leek, some underlined the fact that the leek is synonymous with cannabis.

“The forbidden leek sign is too funny” “that makes me laugh” “smoking is stupid”

Group 2= +25 yo/NS/W: their first reactions were focused on the forbidden notion “if you smoke you’ll be

punished” “it gets reduced to authority, there’s no educational message”.

Group 3= 18-20 yo/HS/M: their initial comments related to the absurdity of the situation, and to the pressure

from the group “you follow the masses” “it’s ridiculous”

Film 2:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W: the young people seemed bothered by the message and the situation presented “it isn’t

serious enough” “it’s over the top”

Group 2= +25 yo/NS/W: spontaneous reactions of compassion for the character “the poor guy, he needs help”

Group 3= 18-20 yo/HS/M: signs of strong support “it’s great” “that’s a really good film”

Film 3:

Group 1=15-17/LS/W “you can’t smoke in public places in Spain any more” “what strikes me is that people

remain passive”

Group 2= +25 yo/NS/W:

Group 3= 18-20 yo/HS/M: a big silence after this story-board (fairly difficult to interpret but more a sign of

surprise), then declarations of irritation “I don’t care about other people!”


UNDERSTANDING : ARE THE FILMS WELL UNDERSTOOD?

Comprehension of the messages and of the situations shown was very good.

However, 2 grey areas led us to believe that comprehension was not excellent:

• The notion of something banned in film 1:

Group 2 initially only remembered the notion of a ban in the first film: “if you smoke you will be punished”, “it’s

all about a ban”.

The other groups also seemed a little destabilised by the repetition of the authority figure.

Generally speaking, the first film was judged as dense by the participants “there are a lot of messages”

(group 3), “there are far too many scenes, flashes that are too short, it makes things complicated” (group 2).

• Resorting to help in film 3:

The offer of help “10 tips to respect non smokers” had no meaning for the participants in all three

groups.

“Can you imagine: call to realize that you’re harming other people’s health… I don’t get it” (group 3), “the advice

would be more for non-smokers, not smokers, they’re the ones who don’t smoke and who need help” (group 2),

“I don’t understand what that means” (group 1).

INTEREST : IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFUL ? WHY

?

A fairly high level of interest linked to:

• the surprise effect created by the comparison with the leek (much appreciated by the young

people and difficult to accept among the older non-smokers)

• the similarity to certain situations for the younger ones (groups 1 and 3)

PERCEIVED TARGET : WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE FILMS ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT? DOES THE

GROUP FEEL CONCERNED, IMPLICATED, INVOLVED ? WHY ? DO THEY FEEL THAT THE SERIES IS AIMED AT

INVOLVING DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

Film 1: teenagers, people just starting to smoke

Film 2: “hardened smokers” (group 1), “drug addicts” (group 2), “really heavy smokers” (group 3)

Film 3: smoker and non-smokers



SMOKERS) WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCITEMENT,


We noted that the films had a major impact on the younger people thanks to the comparison with

the leeks:

• The humorous and offbeat tone enabled greater attentiveness

• It opened up to interesting thoughts on the motivations behind their first cigarettes and on the

difficulties they might encounter after several years of smoking.

The 15-17 yo group had more difficulty admitting the efficacy of the ads, what disturbed them was in fact a

core element of the ads: the humour… “it’s not serious enough” “more serious things are needed” “it’s too

entertaining”. Our opinion is that this was a superficial argument, about what an anti-tobacco ad is supposed to

represent. This attitude explains the final choice of series 1. On analysis, the Leeks series seemed the most

effective to us.

The non-smokers did not feel concerned (with the exception of the ex-smokers in the group) and were mainly

concentrated on the last film. They considered that the film would have no impact on the smokers around them

(“the smokers have fun, nothing in the film incites them to watch out for other people” “the ball isn’t in the

smokers’ court, it’s up to the non-smokers to move and leave the room”. The ad therefore incited them to

“boycott places where people smoke” and to adopt an offensive attitude.

The non-smokers expressed reservations about the efficacy the films would have on smokers or young people.

For film 1: “the teens will laugh and that’s all” “the headmaster, the bus, the hidden cigarette, that will tend to

encourage them in their transgression”.

For film 2: “(Smokers) will react by saying that they aren’t like that”.

A few thoughts on film 1:

• In the groups of young smokers it seemed to act favourably on the opinion of young people about

the fact of smoking “we don’t want to look like sheep” (group 1), “I thought I was intelligent

smoking, but you’re more intelligent when you don’t smoke…” (Group3).

• However among the younger respondents, we noted some signs of irritation. The ad was audible

and was listened to because the tone was funny… if the humour is not created as much when the

film is made, the young people would reject the film due to its moralising aspect: “it says don’t act

like a sheep… but people say that to us all the time. That annoys me (…) I feel aggressed because

it seems to be saying that I’m easily influenced”, “it’s acceptable because it’s funny (…) I can

recognise that I do what other people do”.

A few complementary reflections about film 2:

• Certain details of the ad such as the panic at the idea of an empty pack, the urgency felt in going to

look for “supplies” creates familiarity and enables young people not to feel foreign from the man

who was often perceived as a “junkie”.

• Be careful all the same not to push the notion of a drug addict because the attentiveness and

credibility accorded to the ad would no longer be the same at all. A risk of rejection does exist

depending on how the story-board is brought to life. Already the young people’s initial reactions,

and even those of the non-smokers sometimes, tended towards perception of an exaggeration: “it’s

exaggerated” “they’re making it into a drama” “it’s not us, it’s meant for hardened smokers”…


Further thoughts on film 3:

• The passive attitude of the non-smokers tended to make them responsible for their own destiny in the

eyes of the young smokers in the groups and to reduce awareness among the smokers.

• Due to the standardisation of tobacco that is taking place around them, the problem of passive smoking

was not taken seriously. The hits with the leeks were interpreted not as the negative effects on other

people’s health but as the physical annoyance of tobacco for other people (smells/smoke). What’s more,

in the smokers’ groups, the image of the hits with the leeks was felt to be over-estimated in relation to

the annoyance actually caused.



HELP TO DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?

An image of “passive” non-smokers (group 3), “not daring to express themselves” (group 2).

The image of the smoker is fairly negative:

• He is dependent

• He is easily influenced

• He is impolite/disrespectful

On a minor level, more positive connotations of the smoker were noted in the groups of young people:

• They are “rebellious” “they don’t like authority” (film 1)

• “They’re partying” “they’re having fun while the ones who don’t smoke look bored” (film 3)

The relationship and balance between smokers / non-smokers shown in film 3 did not correspond to reality for

the non-smokers (group 2):

• There are too many smokers: “they’re not so much of a majority either”

• The non-smokers in reality aren’t victims and are likely to express themselves to make their views

known.

APPROVAL: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

In spontaneous reactions, the three groups had positive reactions (they laughed). However when the rational

aspect prevailed again in the groups of 15-17 yo and the non-smokers (both groups stemming from lower social

categories), the declarations became negative. The comparison with the leeks disturbed them:

• “It isn’t serious enough” “it takes the drama out of it but it under-evaluates the problem” (group 1),

“it’s a bit too entertaining” (group 2)… in any case it was judged as too offbeat by the participants to be

in the category of traditional campaigns. The absence of a medical message disturbed the participants

who worried about this change and this social message.

• The comparison was taken at face value… The participants therefore focused on the fact that leeks

are healthy whereas cigarettes are harmful. This logical reaction created disapproval but not rejection.

On the contrary it was fairly positive, we believe it even conveyed a message.

In the group of non-smokers, the passivity of the characters, and the impression that responsibility for the

situation could be attributed to them, created rejection and caused unfavourable judgements when reviewing the

series and the self-completion questionnaire.


In the group of young people aged 18-20 yo, there was a high level of approval and the reluctance encountered

in the other groups did not come to light.

Complementary remarks on the films:

Film 1:

Likes: The pictogram “leeks forbidden” / the first scene in the toilets in which they didn’t know what it was all

about…

Dislikes: the authority figures, the notion of forbidden (and more particularly the bus scene)

Film 2:

Likes: the supermarket cart full of leeks / the scene with the colleague / the automatic teller machine

Dislikes: the drops of sweat / the garbage can

Film 3:

Likes: the party scene

Dislikes: the attitude of the non-smoker characters / the appearance of the non-smoker characters (look preppy)

/ the leek consumer being hit by a leek


The scenes seemed very well adapted for groups 1 and 3:

• The image of the office worker (in Spanish, the word for office worker means “accustomed” in a

figurative sense)

• The bus scene did not seem appropriate to the Spanish situation (“no one smokes in the bus, everyone

knows that”)

• The participants in the groups did not identify with certainty whether film 3 represented a private party

and pointed out that it is not forbidden to smoke in public places.

The group of non-smokers focused clearly on the passivity of the non-smokers and, thinking that this campaign

did not resemble the usual Spanish anti-tobacco campaigns, concluded that this scene is not suited at all to

Spain.


MAIN FINDINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘LEEKS’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS?

The series was correctly understood in all groups.

We note that this series, despite distant reactions in terms of approval or impact, has real potential in Spain.

Ad 3 presented the greatest difficulties for participants, it might irritate the non-smokers and sensitise smokers

less effectively due to the impression of passivity on the part of the non-smokers.

GENERAL FINDINGS


• On the whole, the youngest participants in group 1 were less sensitive to the offer of help than

their elders in group 3.

• This notion of help appeared less clearly in the Leeks series: “the ending about help poses a problem for me,

it only works in the second film” (group 2), “there’s no link between the films and the ending” (group 3)

• The offer of help was spontaneously reconstructed after film no. 2 in each of the series (all groups).

• The notion of help was not simple to understand. It remained uncertain or ill-suited for two reasons:

Firstly, because the participants were not convinced of the need for help shown in the films. If the need for help

in film 2 did not spark any debate, this was not so obvious for film 1:

Because of the target: “At that age they won’t call a reduced-toll number” (group 2)

Because of the situation which did not require any help according to the participants: “when you start you

don’t feel the need for help” (group 1), “ they don’t seem to need help at all” (group 2).

The second reason is linked to a question that arose in all three groups in reaction to film 3: “who really

needs help?” The participants considered that the victims and the ones who needed help were the non-smokers.

However it is inconceivable to ask for help in order to gain respect “as if I needed help to gain respect” (group 3)

just as a smoker asking for advice about how to respect others is an unrealistic situation “who is the help for?

That’s more for non-smokers!”.

As concerns expectations or projections of what the proposed aid covers, we observed:

• The image of an effective solution: “behind it are competent people, qualified in that field” (group 2),

“they’re experts, psychologists” (group 1)

• The idea of offering the possibility of asking questions in complete freedom (group 1 and group 3)

• The perception of assistance in several phases: “the first phase is the diagnostic, then there’s the

treatment phase with doctors, after that the psychologists…” (group 3), “first, they listen, they get an

idea of our problem then they orient towards the specialist” (group 2)

Focus on young people

N.B.: the younger ones had the greatest difficulty defining what that help might be.

The groups of young people seemed a lot more sensitive to the confidentiality of the procedure of seeking help

and to the possibility of asking questions freely. For these reasons, they unanimously preferred the website:

“I imagine the possibility of sending your questions by email”, “what would be great would be a chat room for

sharing information” (group 1).

Among these respondents, the possibility of calling caught their attention much less and this offer frightened

them more than it reassured them…



This was both well understood and greatly appreciated. The participants positively noted:

• its simplicity: “it’s clear”, “I understand”, “it’s accessible”

• its reassuring appearance: “the rounded aspect” “it makes me think of dialogue”, “the light colours

aren’t aggressive”, “it’s soft, peaceful” “it gives you confidence”, “the broken cigarette makes you smile”

• its dynamics: “I say Help, someone comes and helps me break with cigarettes, there’s an action”

• its youth: “the characters look young and nice”

• its design: “I think it’s beautiful”, “the characters are beautiful” “the colours are pleasant”

The shape reconstructs the notion of help, dialogue, choice.

The stars evoked the symbol of the European Union.

On a minor level in the group of 15-17 yo, the young people were surprised at the choice of orange which they

associated with the colour of the cigarette filter.


The comments shared by all three groups:

• It isn’t very positive… (group 1 and 3)

Spontaneously, after the slide show of the first storyboard one participant in group 3 stated “it’s a bit

dramatic, I find it to be an over-the-top phrase”. This feeling was found again in group 1. When the

participants were asked to improve this base line, they had difficulty in producing concrete proposals but the

participants in groups 1 and 3 agreed on remarks such as: “it’s too negative”, “the negation should be taken

out, phrase the whole slogan in positive terms” “it would be better if it was dynamic” “it’s too dull”

• It’s too long and not striking enough (all groups)

• It’s too ordinary (group 1 and 3), the young people underlined the fact that the message about

solitude has nothing specifically to do with smoking but could be the slogan for any other problem.

There was the impression of having heard it before.

The translation of the base-line

Very clearly, the “frente” was unanimously preferred.

“Davanti” is too static

“Contro” is too violent

“Frente” is dynamic and seemed the richest in meaning, notably evoking the idea of hardship to be overcome.

A debate persisted at the end of the three groups concerning the terms “tabacco” and “fumo”. The use of the

word tabacco was not excluded by the participants but its use did not seem very natural. For the younger ones it

connoted the idea of industry or raw material.


EUROPEAN UNION

The European Union was spontaneously identified in groups 1 and 3.

The older ones had greater difficulty remembering the advertiser, they mentioned the WHO, “a company that

wants to sell its services”, “an association called HELP”.

The younger ones easily attributed the campaign but had trouble formulating an opinion about the advertiser.

The reception given to a European approach initiated by the Union was very positive:

• The advertiser is a guarantor of the seriousness and reliability of the help proposed

• It is absolutely legitimate within the context of the campaigns presented

• The mobilisation of the European Institution testified to a general, common, important problem (“it’s the

unity behind a serious problem” group 1)



Incitement

Alone + - -/+ -

Leeks + + + +

Groups 1 and 2 chose the Alone series.

Group 3 chose the Leeks series.


Eastern European Countries Reports

Czech Republic

Hungria

Lithuania

Poland

Slovakia


KEY NUMBER OF THE STUDY

5 COUNTRIES OF EASTERN EUROPE


2 NON-SMOKER GROUPS

5 LIGHT-SMOKERS GROUPS (LESS THAN 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)

6 HEAVY- SMOKERS GROUPS (MORE THAN 20 CIGARETTES PER DAY)


The pre-tests in Eastern Europe took place in 5 countries, where eleven focus groups represented

different smokers’ status, age groups and social class.

Country Number of


Czech Republic

9

9

8

Non Smokers

Light Smokers

Heavy smokers

15-17

18-20

25 & +

M

W

M

Hungaria

8

8

8

Non-smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 - 17

20 & +

18 - 20

W

M

W

Lithuania 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M

Poland 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M

Slovak Republic 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M


Analysis of the test groups in Czech

Republic

Number of


8 Non-Smokers 15-17 Middle

9 Light Smokers 18-20 Working

9 Heavy smokers 25 + Middle




Positive spontaneous reactions were observed except for first ad,that was rather disliked as it contains unclear

elements. But younger people would find it funny, even if they do not identify themselves with it.

They would said it is absurd, ridiculous. The conduct of young person said as being unreal (mainly for smokers).

Other ads were evaluated as being better, humorous, interesting.



Generally the campaign was well understood by all groups. The first ad was nevertheless objected by some smokers.

INTEREST : IS THE MESSAGE AND THE CAMPAIGN INTERESTING ? WHY ? IMPORTANT ? WHY ? USEFULL ? WHY

?

Second add aroused most interest. This film clearly shows the dependence on cigarettes and problems related to get quit of smoking. The dependence is pictured with humour, but truly. By showing the dependence the ad could work preventively on those who only start smoking.

The third ad is also interesting, showing the irresponsibility of smoker. The group is disturbed by smoker’s conduct and sympathize with non-smoking girl.

PERCEIVED TARGET : WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE MOVIES ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE



First ad is dedicated to young people from 12 years, but is said too primitive by the older group.

The offered help to refuse first cigarette does not necessarily appear.

Remaining ads are dedicated to smokers: Smokers feel concerned with second ad; they tend to identify with the character. The ad is dedicated primarily to those smokers who would like to stop smoking. This ad has the biggest potential to arouse interest in the help-line. Third ad is dedicated to smokers who bother their environment with smoking. Most of smokers do not feel to be a part of this group, they depreciate it. This ads calls attention to the relation between smokers and non-smokers.


SMOKERS) WHICH EFFECT WOULD HAVE THE SERIES ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERM OF INCITEMENT,


Even if the series has a certain impact, in the series is missing a “strong moment”, that would motivate smokers to stop smoking (as a picture of lung cancer for example). They need to be more shocked or warned to use a help-line.

Only some participants are willing to use the help-line, particularly those expressing they would like to stop smoking. Those who find the second add most interesting.

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON SMOKERS ? WHY ? EFFICIENT TO HELP SMOKERS /

NON SMOKERS ? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS ? WOULD IT HELP

DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON SMOKERS ?


The campaign respects smokers. Help is offered particularly in the second ad, where smokers identify with the character.

Third ad aims at increasing tolerance of smokers towards non-smokers. This ad challenges thinking about the relation between smokers and non-smokers, but its impact on irresponsible smokers will be minimal. The ad could maybe provoke someone to use info-line, but not the target group criticized in the story.


In general groups agreed with the series, more specifically with second and third ad were appreciated, as non smokers do not especially adhere to the series. The objection to the third ad is that it will not address the intended group of smokers.

First ad seems to be inappropriate because of its mission (to reject first cigarette) as well as for picturing a child. Participants (mainly smokers) do not especially have the feeling they need a help to reject first cigarette neither this help can be useful to someone else. The doing of young boy is not normal or natural.


Except for the first ad the campaign seems well adapted to local situation. Smokers can identify with character in the second ad; they also know figures shown in third spot from real life. But for non smokers identifications is not that evident so they do not feel that concern with it and certainly have more difficult to know if adapted or not to local specificities.


First ad, for smokers mainly


The campaign offers help to people who wants to stop smoking. But it does not seems for smokers that there is “strong motive” leading to stop smoking or at least to use a help line. The campaign could play a preventive role f mainly for non smokers and encourage smokers to think about their irresponsibility towards their environment.



First spontaneous reactions were rather negative and constrained. Replacing cigarette with leak appeared

incomprehensible, useless and infantile.

UNDERSTANDING : ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? ARE THEY


Except the hesitation about leeks the ads were generally well understood, with some more difficulties


?

The campaign is generally evaluated as interesting, mainly for 3 reasons: 1) Leeks instead of cigarettes, 2) Action in particular ads, 3) The fact that smokers are presented as majority.

Stories are interesting as they are quite realistic.





First ad is dedicated to young who start smoking. Presented problem of group influence is exaggerated as well as the number of smoking children in the ad (all of them smoke).

Second spot is dedicated to smokers. It has a strong impact as smokers know similar situations very well and can identify with the figure. It shows how dependent they are; even if they don’t want to admit it. This ad incites to think about smoking and is the most encouraging to use help-line. The target group of the third spot are again smokers who bother their environment with smoking. But as we can see more smokers here the ad invokes a feeling that all smokers are irresponsible. It could inspire tolerant smokers to even a higher level of tolerance.




Impact is relevant among all groups even non smokers, but stronger among heavy smokers, that is particularly captivated by second ad. This ad is emotionally strong; invokes compassion with the figure and thinking about own dependency. Most of all urge to stop smoking that is the only reason to use help-line.




In general this series is perceived as being respectful towards smokers. Light smokers actually found film 2 “glue” more respectful than the film 2 series 2 “bin”.


Series that is globally quite well appreciated, mainly for films 2 and 3 and among non smokers and heavy smokers.

Some doubts about the mission of first ad exists, but not that strong, as in case of first ad from first series.


All ads are considered as being well adapted to local situation. Respondents are familiar with pictured situations; they know them from everyday life.


First and third ads could not be as efficient as second one.


Although the first reaction on leeks was negative, the whole campaign was later evaluated positively.

The stories and environments are realistic, close to smokers. Some positive reactions were observed also on comments/voiceover. These are comprehensive and more functional in relation to help-line then in the first campaign. Some doubts exist concerning the impact on youngest age group. Also the impact on intolerant smokers is not sure. From all groups, this series has a stronger impact on HS.


GENERAL LEARNINGS


Help is imagined in form of visiting psychologist and therapeutic session. They will be invited through a help-line. Forms of contacts (web pages, green line) are acceptable. The use of help line is considered by 3 respondents who want to stop smoking. Others would not use the line, because they do not want to stop and therefore do not need help.


Logo’s perception is also positive, they identify the offer of help, the symbol of thinking and answer. The font size is too small for some respondents, particularly the size of help-line number.


The slogan contains an offer of friendly help, hand. It is not intrusive; it says that a person who wants to stop smoking is not alone to fight against dependence. The word “Tobacco” is not liked very much but there is no other suggestion. It would be possible to leave the word out and compensate it with a more expressive broken cigarette.

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND THE CAMPAIGN: WHO DO THEY SPONTEANOUSLY IMAGINE MADE / ORDERED

THE CAMPAIGN ? IS THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PERCEIVED AS LEGITIMATE TO MAKE THIS KIND OF

CAMPAIGN ? WHY ?

European commission has been well recognised in this campaign by the groups, but if legitimacy is easily recognised by non smokers and light smokers, HS have more difficulties with it.

EU raises fears about future restraint of smokers. Its participation in the campaign does not inspire confidence, rather call doubts. A lot was said about EU but we still do not know what are its intentions and abilities.



incitement

Alone ++ + ++ +

Leeks ++ ++ +++ ++


Analysis of the test group in

HUNGARY

Number of participants Tobacco status Ages Social category

8 NON SMOKERS

(NS) 15-17 MIDDLE CLASS

8 LIGHT SMOKERS


8 HARD SMOKERS

(HS) 25+ MIDDLE CLASS


GENERAL BACKGROUND

In spontaneous reactions, the word “tobacco” generated more negative than positive evocations for

smokers, and almost only negative for NS

smokers, notably HS, who expressed a certain form of guilt.


A habit, the addiction to the gesture of smoking for smokers.

An anti-stress aid for everyone.

Pleasure for the smokers; the 1st cigarette of the morning, with a coffee, after eating,…

For everyone; congeniality, with friends, at parties… occasion of smoking the 1st cigarette; ‘you get

hooked through friends, you don’t start all by yourself’ (18-20), ‘at a party, I accepted the 1st one then the

2nd ; I asked for the 3rd one…’ (25+).

Being in fashion for the NS.

What are the main motivations for stopping smoking?

Health first of all, the fear of cancer.

Sport for the 18-20 yo.

The cost of cigarettes, also another motivation not to start among NS.

Respect for others, remorse about those around them for HS.


Their environment, friends, colleagues…; difficulty refusing a cigarette.

Dependency/addiction for NS and HS (‘like a drug).

And, in relation to that, a lack of willpower.


Mainly a matter of personally making the decision to do so; ‘I tried 10 years ago but I wasn’t determined

enough’ (HS), ‘it’s difficult to influence a smoker’ (NS)

affirmed defeatism on the part of the HS who have all tried to stop, without success.

A doctor, a health institution for the HS.

Health risks among NS (‘think about your health’) and HS (‘with age you become more exposed’).

Replace the cigarette with something else, change environment for the LS.

Show them that it’s stupid, that it’s pointless, for the NS.

The opinion of non-smokers, for the HS.


What bothers you about people smoking around you? (for the NS)

The smell, the headaches caused by the presence of smokers.

Not a question of individual people; ‘I have friends who smoke… that doesn’t stop me telling them that

what they’re doing is stupid’.


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS?

‘Model’: generally negative reactions except for a few 18-20 yo who liked its offbeat humour (‘the torero’).

‘Glue’: generally positive reaction for all the groups; clear with a note of humour.

‘Bed’: generally negative in relation to the situation chosen even if the problem was recognised. Better accepted

by the non-smokers but without great enthusiasm.

UNDERSTANDING: WERE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DID THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? WERE

THEREANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS ? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN ?

‘Model’: clear for the NS; essential not to smoke the 1st cigarette.

Lack of immediate clarity for the smokers; they hesitated between a message of stopping and refusal of the 1st

cigarette until the ‘…how never to start’ clarified the message.

‘Glue’: very good comprehension; it’s very hard to stop (‘even if you want to you can’t, the cigarette sticks to your

fingers’) + message of help perceived by the 15-17 yo and the HS + dependency (‘the cigarette is my master’)

well highlighted for the HS.

‘Bed’: clear; you have to respect non-smokers. But the conception was viewed as not very logical.

On a minor level, for the 18-20 and 25+ yo, it evoked sex, an ad for condoms.


?

‘Model’: little interest for the NS who were split between the importance of not smoking the 1st cigarette and the importance of forming one’s own experience by tasting a cigarette at least once (which they must have done) + attraction of young people to forbidden things. For the smokers, the character’s fight against temptation/against himself generated interest; the model could just as well be a tempting friend as a portrayal of the main character himself (inner dialogue). ‘Glue’: realistic situation – despite offbeat treatment – evocative for everyone; ‘it has a sense of life’ = familiarity. ‘Bed’: little interest due to a chosen situation judged as non logical and not very realistic. However, a real, everyday problem.

PERCEIVED TARGET: WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE FILMS? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE GROUP


DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

‘Model’: very young people, pre-teens (maximum 15 yo) for NS. Teens just starting to smoke, 12-14 yo for the 18-20 yo but also those who have already tried; imprecise target. Teens for the 25+. ‘Glue’: student smokers for the 15-17 yo. Heavy smokers who have already tried to stop and, for a minority, non-smokers to frighten them, for the LS. Dependent smokers for the HS. ‘Bed’: not very clear for the NS; families, couples (‘you can’t influence heavy smokers’ cf. General background). Smokers in general, for the smokers.



SMOKERS) WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCENTIVE,


‘Model’: low impact; doesn’t make you think especially since the message lacks clarity. Need for help not spontaneously mentioned although suggested by the portrayal of a character fighting against himself/against temptation. ‘Glue’: interesting impact of a film that people would talk about. Message of help well perceived by the 15-17 yo and the HS.

‘Lit’: moralistic campaign mainly illustrating the lack of education (‘a disrespectful character, in any case’ NS, ‘a

man who has no respect for women in general’ LS); difficult to relate to the boy’s behaviour for the smokers a

question of personal attitude; he should be put in his place (‘it’s the boy who should be put outside’ NS).




The film ‘Bed’ was seen to be not very respectful of smokers who are portrayed as totally lacking in education (‘disgusting attitude’ NS) and of the female non-smoker who could be perceived as an easy woman.

LIKING: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

‘Model’: little content, lack of action. Ridiculous for the 15-17 yo, artificial and aggressive for the HS with a character bordering on the paranoid (‘you won’t find a solution to this problem in aggressiveness’). ‘Glue’: good concept with a humorous aspect that could differentiate itself from the other anti-tobacco campaigns. However be careful not to drift towards the ridiculous + humour could wear off after being shown many times over for the 15-17 yo. Less static than the 1st film for the 15-17 yo. On a minor level, lack of authenticity/too surrealist for a few 18-20 yo. For the HS, and on a minor level, the girl’s decision is too abrupt whereas it should be carefully pondered / girl a bit too young to be really dependent / ends with an observation of failure. ‘Bed’: situation not very comprehensible and not moral: more evocative of a one night stand ‘why does she make so much of it?’, ‘it doesn’t matter, he’ll find another girl…’

if it was a lasting relationship, they would adapt to each other.

+ for the HS; the cigarette after making love is a classic (‘after making love, it’s good’).


Suited to Hungary, to any country.

IS THERE A FILM IN THE SERIES WHICH DOES NOT FUNCTION AS WELL AS THE OTHERS ? WHY ?

This was mainly the film ‘Glue’ which worked better than the two others.

MAIN FINDINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘ALONE’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS?

Lack of realism of the chosen situations with the exception of the film ‘Glue’, although treated in a surrealist way. Not threatening enough, shocking for the NS and didn’t really attract attention for the NS + gives a negative image of themselves for HS.


The 3 films were nevertheless well reconstructed and general comprehension of the 3 different messages

(prevention – abandonment – respect) was good when reviewing the series; they recognised that the series as a

whole had more effect when viewed overall as opposed to film by film.


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE FILMS ?

‘School’: generally liked because it is animated (diversity of situations), humorous and attracts attention (the

leek).

‘Office worker’: for the smokers, clarity and humour (smiles for the LS, open laughter for the HS). For the NS,

liked less in spontaneous reactions due to a lack of immediate clarity, linked to the use of the leek (they would

re-evaluate their appreciation after reflection).

‘Party’: generally negative (‘it’s not very interesting’ LS, ‘the situation is forced’ HS) for the smokers, more mixed

(funny vs exaggerated) for the NS.

UNDERSTANDING: WERE THE FILMS WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DID THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? WERE THERE

ANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS ? WHAT IS THE MESSAGE OF THE CAMPAIGN ?

‘School’: clear for everyone; don’t imitate other people (‘don’t follow the crowd like a sheep’ NS) + don’t start for

the smokers.

The smokers also saw in it a message on dependency and giving up cigarettes.

+ for the HS, attraction of forbidden things for young people; a desire that they’ve experienced themselves in the

past.

‘Office worker’: clear for everyone; it’s hard to stop, especially when you’re dependent (‘all day long, we only

think of one thing’).

Message of help well perceived; you can’t stop all by yourself, you need help.

‘Party’: clear; respect for non-smokers = show how much smoking can bother other people.


?

‘School’: varied situations (‘in just one film, a maximum of information is given) and situations that are

realistic/commonplace (‘you can sense real life in it’) that they experienced or are experiencing.

+ the strangeness of the leek which caught attention.

‘Office worker’: for everyone, realistic situations – and ‘frightening’ ones – that made smokers think of

experiences they have been through (‘you see yourself as you are; I could do the same ridiculous thing’) without

their being stigmatised = empathy.

Definite familiarity for smokers (‘it addresses us’).

‘Party’: realistic situation – which might also disturb smokers (‘smoke could even disturb me’ LS) – but the

treatment is neither interesting nor logical.

PERCEIVED TARGET : WHAT IS OR ARE THE TARGET(S) OF THE FILMS ? WHO IS IT AIMED AT ? DOES THE



‘School’: teens, high school students for everyone + pre-teens for the 18-20 yo.

‘Office worker’: older smokers (20 yo and over) for the 15-17 yo. All smokers and, more particularly, those who

have already tried to stop for the LS. Heavy smokers for the HS.


‘Party’: for everyone, smokers in general + non-smokers for the LS/18-20 yo (‘respect is mutual’).


SMOKERS) WHAT EFFECT WOULD THE SERIES HAVE ON THIS GROUP ? IN TERMS OF INCENTIVE,


‘School’: realistic yet original approach that pushes people to reflect on the propensity of young people to want to

imitate others situations that are meaningful for young people.

Attention! For the 18-20 yo; risk of making them want to light up a cigarette on leaving school (‘as soon as you

get out, you have the right to light a cigarette’).

‘Office worker’: incites you to think about yourself, your behaviour, given that the smokers could all relate to the

situations described (‘I often feel the same thing; I feel wretched’ LS, ‘I’m put face to face with my mediocrity’

HS).

The HS, in particular, viewed the offer of assistance well; ‘sick people, victims who need help’.

‘Party’: tended to have the opposite effect among smokers; ‘you almost feel like taking the smokers’ side’ (HS),

‘respect should be mutual’ (LS), with a lesson such as ‘non-smokers should not go to smokers’ houses’ (HS).

Not very striking for the NS.




The film ‘Party’ presents an aggressive image of smokers.

LIKING: DO THEY LIKE THE CAMPAIGN ? WHY ? WHAT DO THEY DISLIKE ? WHY ?

‘School’: animated, not boring but funny and over the top for the 18-20 yo; ‘it’s not that bad’.

The replacement of the cigarette by the leek, which was intriguing at first, was well accepted in the end; a

parody, it ridicules the smoker in the right direction + generated interest + ‘it stinks’ like an onion.

For the younger respondents (15-20 yo), however, the leek was associated with a healthy vegetable.

The bus scene was less liked by the smokers, either because you don’t smoke in a bus (18-20 yo), or because the

leek is then thrown onto a public street (25+).

Good choice of music (Placebo) for the 15-17 yo.

‘Office worker’: original/attracted attention and made people think; with a constant swing between offbeat

humour and horror.

Hence the garbage can scene which – theoretically exaggerated – evoked many situations familiar to everyone

(‘the garbage can is the ash tray in which you go searching for a cigarette butt, you’re capable of anything’).

A dynamic, colourful film that describes a whole day.

Always hesitation, even for the smokers, between leek-onion which ‘stinks’ vs healthy vegetable.

‘Party’: for everyone, an exaggerated portrayal, too aggressive, bordering on violent, which is likely to exclude

smokers (‘come on, we’re more careful than that; that’s the exception’ LS).

The situation isn’t logical in relation to the message that was meant to be conveyed; most people smoke and it’s

normal in a party of this type (‘you drink, you smoke… the non-smokers just shouldn’t have come’) it would

have more impact if a minority of smokers did harm to a majority of non-smokers or if the non-smokers were

more vulnerable characters such as children.

For the HS, the couple seemed out of context; they aren’t having fun like the others and don’t react as though

they are / don’t seem that disturbed there’s no real conflict.



Absolutely suited to Hungary, with the leek sometimes being associated with an onion however.


The film ‘Party’ which, although it carries an interesting message, is not satisfactory in terms of its treatment.

MAIN FINDINGS ABOUT THE SERIES ‘LEEK’: WHAT ARE THE MAIN FINDINGS?

The ‘leek’ allegory was finally perceived as a good concept which intrigued people and linked the 3 films together; Realistic and unpleasant situations which – although treated in an offbeat, indirect manner – clearly evoked the behaviour of smokers; an anti-tobacco campaign that is different from the others therefore more striking; ‘people would talk about it’. And an offer of assistance which, in the end, was well understood by the smokers, especially as they feel powerless themselves.

GENERAL FINDINGS


Possible advertiser; the Ministry of Health, a government anti-tobacco institution.

On a minor level, a group of non-smokers.

A majority stated they would go and see what was behind the telephone number / website – if only out of

curiosity – without really hoping to find a genuine solution (‘it’s the 151st proposal of this kind’ HS); they imagined

advice like Alcoholics Anonymous (NS) or medical solutions (HS).


The speech bubbles – which evoke the world of comic books in a positive way – were well understood by

everyone; someone who asks for help and gets a response / a solution.

The cigarette broken in two by the P was significant; ‘we can help you to break the cigarette’.

The colours could be a little flashier and stand out better on a black background. The stars were rarely noticed and not very comprehensible spontaneously. For the 25+ yo, the ‘Help’ could be in Hungarian but they accepted English in the end given the fact that this is

an international campaign.

BASELINE : PERCEPTION OF THE BASE LINE : INTEREST, COMPREHENSION, INCENTIVE

We tested two different translations of the slogan, Tobacco, You are

not alone, because in Hungarian tobacco has two meanings: 'dohányzás' and

'cigaretta', so the two Hungarian slogans were the following:

1. "Dohányzás, Nem vagy egyedül"

2. "Cigaretta, Nem vagy egyedül"

However, both of the slogans generated negative reactions because of the

ambiguous meaning which suggests that you are not alone with smoking, many

other people smoke too. It did not refer to help in quitting smoking.

The slogan 'Nem kell egyedül szembeszállnia

a dohányzással" was also strongly rejected because it was found to be too

long.


Most of the participants suggested that we remove 'Tobacco' from the

slogan and use the single sentence You are not alone ("Nem vagy egyedül")

because together with the logo it provides a clear and coherent message.


Good legitimacy for both HS and NS; this is an international problem and that suggests, for the 15-17 yo, that we all belong to the same community (we’re not alone!) good point to do a European-scale campaign. Mediocre legitimacy but accepted by the LS when they were told that it is an international campaign.


Understanding Interest Liking Impact / incentive

Alone ++ +- - +-

Leek +++ ++ ++ ++

We recommend the ‘Leek’ series for the in-depth reactions it provoked among both non-smokers (‘it’s the real smoker faced with his problem’) and smokers (‘that’s really us’); the latter, above all, were confronted with their own attitudes to tobacco and it made them really think about themselves; for the smokers, the need for assistance was clearly identified in situations their highlight their powerlessness in relation to tobacco.


Analysis of the test group in

LITHUANIA

Number of


8 LIGHT SMOKERS


8 HARD SMOKERS

(HS) 25+ MIDDLE CLASS


GENERAL BACKGROUND

Spontaneously, a lot more positive and neutral evocations about the word « tobacco » than negatives one.


A bad habit which helps kill time.

Within the work environment or any other activities ; helps to concentrate /to think , to relieve stress/to relax. It

acts like a reward after an effort.

The pleasure.

Social habit/with friends, during parties ,with alcohol .

The 25 and+ referring to younger people and their own experience. ;a way of showing that they have become

adults.


First of all ,the health particularly when getting older . The fear of illness .

For the youngest , practicing a sport.

Premature ageing of the skin and for women the desire to be pregnant.

The cost of cigarettes for the youngest.


The dependence /The addiction.

The bad habit ,The hand movement :unconsciously that you cannot help doing especially when it is associated

with other activities such as drinking a coffee

The environment, friends and colleagues « i could stop smoking .. but if someone offers me a cigarette , i will

take it )«

Added to that, the confession of a lack of the essential , self-motivation and good that are needed.


To keep motivating myself , to really want it .To make an important step forward ,to violence myself.

The social environment ;not to see others smoking anymore, to see others quit .To ban smoking in public places

,increase of cigarettes cost ,advertisement for brands forbidden .

.In minor ,a doctor.




« Model » : laughable for 18-20’s ,immediate understanding of a message regarding tobacco cessation for heavy

smokers.

« .The glue », positively perceived, draws attention and clear message (the difficulty to quit smoking).

« the bed » :giggles ,we don t believe in it.



«Model » wrong understanding of the message of the cessation of tobacco but have clear vision of a demand for

help (« he wants to quit but does not know how »,he is fighting with himself in order to quit and asking for help

by looking straight at the camera.)

« glue » :good understanding it is difficult to quit smoking ,we need help in order to do so.

« bed » :we want to talk about the respect towards non smokers but the message is going through rather

negatively .


?

.« Model » small interest for the 18-20’s but a clear demand for assistance for heavy smokers.

« Glue » enhances the powerlessness of a smoker (we cannot control ourselves anymore)

« bed » the idea of respect is positive but wrong conception.




« model » before becoming a teenager for the 18-20’s, everyone who whishes to quit smoking for heavy

smokers.

« glue » People of our age for the 18-20’s (students ,last year at college),smokers who would like to quit but

cannot manage it for the heavy smokers.

« bed » not a clear identified target.





« Model » no impact on the 18-20’s(it makes them laugh rather than cry),heavy smokers being more touched by

the offer of an help to quit smoking.

« Glue » satisfying impact because it leads to further thinking ,and even more if the film was to be played on a

regular basis.

« Bed » moralizing campaign which mainly illustrates a lack of education ; difficult to recognize yourself in the

boy’s attitude .It is a matter of personal attitude and we don t need help for that , apart from someone to tell you

off.




.A little respect shown towards smokers ,In particular because of « the bed » story which shows one of them

completely lacking respect towards others.


« bed » incomprehensible ;either it is a long term couple and we can t understand the boy’ s attitude ,or it is a

one night stand and we do not understand why does she leave that way . generally the ideas that come to mind

first are no connection with nicotinism .(she leaves because he did not make love to her properly)


Fairly adapted to Lithuania


.Essentially the film « bed » for the explained reasons above.


.Except the film « glue » which reaches its target ,the other two combine weak impact and lack of approval.

.Anyway ,the notion of assistance goes well for the 3 films(in particular for HS),even if they regret it ,in minor

,that characters stay in a situation of failure .

. To make a note that for HS the projection of « alone » was seen in second , and after questions about help

were asked and we noticed ,then ,for this group in particular(« power’s grasp » of a leader who keeps coming

back to this notion of help),a focus from the entire group about the idea of assistance.




« School » spontaneous overall positive reaction and immediate understanding of the message ,a realistic

situation which we could have be in.(we are trying at school to be similar to others)

« employee »’ .Very responding - positively for HS ;clarity and the strength of situations ,slower reaction for the

18-20’s who feel less concerned .

« party » clear but not logical for the majority.

UNDERSTANDING: ARE THE MOVIES WELL UNDERSTOOD ? WHAT DOES THE GROUP UNDERSTAND ? ARE THERE


« School »: clear for both groups ;not to start smoking ,directed to thoses may want to try their first ciggy in

order to do like everybody else + not to smoke in public places vs the attraction of young people for prohibition.

« employee »: very clear ; a character in a position of addiction who wishes to stop but , who very obviously,

who needs assistance.

‘Party’ : a clear scenario on the lack of respect towards non smokers. ; we must respect them.


?

« school »diversity of realistic and evocative situations in which we can find ourselves + proximity of represented

elements for the 18-20’s(school l, habits..)

« employee »: As if it was a warning for HS(“it is high time to quit !”),an almost distressing film which works as

a threat ;realism , in accordance to their own situation .The 18-20’s do not see themselves like that ,even if they

feel the distressing and even dreadful situation..

‘Party’ : A realistic situation that we went through in bars ,during parties , with friends.




‘school’ : Teenagers for 18-20’s,the young people , even children for 25+ .

‘employee’ :heavily addicted smokers who wish to quit smoking ,rather aged + can scare the youngest ,and

beginners for the 25and+

‘Party’ : all smokers . all age range.





.« school » shows realistic situation which almost everyone has been in (recently for the 18-20’s,a long time ago

for the 25 and+) by the way induces to think more .More informative for the youngest who have not faced such a

situation yet.

In minor ,the 25 and + feel less concerned by the theme ,even if they admit that it is them who set the example.

‘Employee’ :.A strong impact on the HS who can identify themselves ,induces to think more about your own

addiction More contradictory amongst the 18-20’s who hesitate between exaggeration (it is more for drug

addicts) and realism (but tobacco ,it is drug addiction, there is dependency . still being aware that the film pushes

people to look at themselves.

.In minor , for the 18-20’s does not induce to quit because of the final failure.

« party »induces thought about the respect that we owe to non smokers .But mainly refers to a lack of

education.

.In minor , the cigarette is « beautiful » when individual , but ugly when it is crowded ,even for smokers.




.In minor, the character of the ‘ Employee ’ film does not respect himself as much as he does not respect others;

He humiliates himself until he goes and gets the leek from bin but the situation talks for itself.

.Not particularly respectful ,finally ,in the film « party » the non smokers appears as being too passive and off

track.


« school » dynamic for the 18-20’s(number and diversity of characters in the film),the leek=good idea.( undirect

meaning ,allegory) which you can memorize easily ,at first sight ,to watch the film until the end to understand.+

association of the leek and the strong smell of smoke . In minor ,a leek has nothing to do with a cigarette.

‘ Employee ’ : The association cigarette /leeks works out even better after declension of the various films.

,.Extremes situations (he wakes up by night sweaty and anguished ,he ‘s looking in the bin) well accepted at the

end because it relates to realistic situation (« all of us wake up in the middle of the night to smoke a cigarette

,the bin is the ashtray where you will get a stump from.)

In minor , too long ,exaggerated .

‘Party’ If at first ,the 18-20’s have found the film funny ,the 2 other groups agreed to say that ,in a situation

where the majority of people smoke ,the non smokers will have to adapt themselves or leave the premises

.Therefore ,it will make more sense if non smokers were more numerous. Or they could be for example ,older

people with young people who smoke next to them.



Completely adapted to Lithuanian who see themselves as heavy smokers.


.The film « Party » which presents a situation describes as a little consistent and which is more agonizing for non

smokers than for smokers


.A series which well declines the 3 expected messages and which confronts smokers to they own image with

strength through various situation ,which by the way they find even much more realistic due to the undirect

meaning of it.

The demand for help does not come up spontaneously during the first view(we pay more attention to the

situation itself) but ,after a regular projection of the film ,they estimate that the suggestion for help will come at

the end of it.

• .Above , any judgment that smokers may have about these films ,it is particularly interesting to

observe their attitude ;

• If the smoker keeps his distance regarding his nicotinism , the approval is there straight away(it s

me !) often by laughing ,the leeks is seeing as an allegory.

• If the smoker does not step out enough from his nicotinism ,the rejection is the immediate answer while

an uneasy feeling is establishing itself(‘it is exaggerated ,even if it is me) ;the leek effect become then

more or less insidious .

GENERAL LEARNINGS


Asking themselves what is behind this phone number ,the web server .Just of out curiosity ,they will be tempted

to give them a call .An help to self-motivation ,such as AA, hosted by psychologists , doctors…Yet , cannot

imagine who if not themselves , could help themselves.


Not spontaneously understood.

Better with a black color background.

The stars are relating to the E.U for the 18-20’s.



‘You’re not alone’ ;

A necessity , for all , of a Lithuanian base line.

A clear but not so convincing base line.

An ambiguous base line for HS « You are not alone , there are other smokers. »

‘« you are not alone …..tobacco »

Base line sounds too long in Lithuanian language.

« Facing is more appreciated than against »


.


Incitement

Alone ++ - -- -

Leeks +++ +++ ++ ++

If the « leeks » series has not being chosen by all participant (refer to self filled questionnaires),we do advice it

for profound reasons that it had towards smokers ;those have then to face their own attitude towards tobacco

and make them think about it.

Therefore , a suggestion of help which comes at the end of the films ,even if not memorized from the first view it

should ,it should bring interest while numerous views.


Analysis of the test group in Poland

Number of


8 LIGHT SMOKERS 18-20 WORKING CLASS

8 HARD SMOKERS 25+ MIDDLE CLASS


GENERAL BACKGROUND

Spontaneously, much more positive evocations than negative ones around the word « tobacco »


An occupation, a pastime

A « beloved reflex »

It relaxes/releases stress, a sensation of interior peace, like a reward after the effort.

Pleasure.

A ritual, a preparation, the first morning cigarette while drinking a coffee, smoke emanation more than nicotine

itself.

The social environment, friends, during breaks, with alcohol.

The « forbidden fruit », the first cigarette smoked in the school’s toilets to do like the others, mentioned by the

25 +years old.

The « show off » for the 18-20 years old.


First of all, the health.

The wrinkles, the desire of being pregnant for women.

Too much smoke, the odor in the hair/the clothes , ‘it stinks’.

A girl/boy friend who does not smoke (but they would look for a girl /boyfriend who smokes).

In a minor part, the respect of the others.

For the 18-20, money, cigarettes cost + the employers looking for non-smokers employees.


The dependence, the addiction, the lack of self-motivation and will.

The habit, the unconscious movement of the hand that you cannot help doing, especially when associated to

other activities such as drinking a coffee.

The environment: it is hard to quit when the others smoke around you.


They do not believe in methods like patches, nicotine chewing gums…

To keep itself busy, to chew a gum/a pen.

To disgust oneself from cigarettes by smoking an entire box in once.

Too much little of conviction/it does not work for them, will to quit would be necessary…



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DID THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

‘Model’ : idiot/laughable for the 18-20, slack reactions/far-fetched for the 25+.

‘glue’ : laughs ; sarcastic for the 18-20, connivance for the HS.

‘bed’ : negative reactions for both groups , nothing is good, it does not work.



‘Model’ : for most of them, bad understanding of the message « to stop smoking »

In a minor part, to refuse the first cigarette.

‘glue’ : good understanding it is hard to quit + enhances well the dependence and the need for assistance

(‘you cannot do it by your self’ for the HS.

‘bed’ : clear , non-smokers must be respected, smoke disturbs them. Not very realistic conception.


?

‘Model’: the aggressiveness coming out, according to the 25+, it is not a solution to quit, he does not fight

against himself.

On the opposite, the 18-20 years old see the model as a transposed image of the character , inside struggle. It

shows well the cigarette as an enemy against which one we need help but the realization is not really

interesting.

‘Glue’ : the situation is not really logical for the 18-20 : when we want to quit, we think about it the whole day,

not only at the moment of lighting a cigarette + you might as well be throwing the cigarettes box rather than

only one cigarette.

Realistic situation that evokes the smokers’ problems for the HS.

‘Bed’ : small interest because of the fact that the chosen situation is judged as « not really logic » it does not

correspond to the « real » life.

In a minor part, something good was happening between them, and the cigarette spoiled their story.




‘Model’ : children, young people smoking and, in a minor part, those who have not begun yet ; imprecise target.

‘Glue’ : all the smokers and, in a minor part, the one who are starting (as a warning) for the HS. The 18-20 years

old think that non smokers would like it.

‘Bed’ : no clear identified target.





‘Model’ : a small impact due to the achievement itself if the 18-20 years old have well understood the character’s

need of help, ‘it does not work’.

‘Glue’ : the situation is not really logical for the 18-20, it harms the impact. This one is satisfactory for the HS who

clearly understand clearly the message of assistance.

‘Bed’ : the chosen situation evokes the lack of tolerance between smokers and non-smokers.

In a minor part, (especially for the girls of 18-20 years old) the lack of education of the boy who has a deplorable

attitude.




Not very respectful for non-smokers, the girl is thought of as ‘annoying’.


‘Model’ : a coward character, and aggressive at the same time (for the 25+). The film is not really fascinating or

even idiot for the 18-20 years old.

‘Glue’ : the decor is appreciated by the 18-20 years old, but it lacks clearness (‘reflexion is needed’) + strange,

not realistic, the character is a customer for a psychiatric hospital. The film is simple, direct and speaks for itself

for the HS.

‘Bed’ : not very logical situation , she already saw him smoking, she kissed him she knows that he smokes =

why does she stay with him ? + the question must be asked before making love, we know that the smoker takes

a cigarette after to relax.

the sudden departure of the girl is not justified.

In a minor part it was said to be a good recipe to get rid of a girl…


Adapted to Poland.


The whole of the series does not work well, except ‘Glue’ for the HS.


Except ‘Glue’ for the HS, the whole of the series does not really please and have a weak impact.

However, the assistance notion goes partially for the films ‘Model’ (18-20) and ‘Glue’ (HS).




‘school’ : laughs (‘it is dumb’) subsiding when the message ‘it looks stupid…’ appears for the 18-20 years old.The

reactions are more slack or ironic for the HS ; ‘I am going to stop smoking and start eating leeks…’

those negative reflexions will be reevaluated by the whole of the 2 groups after consideration of this movie and

after seeing the second one.

‘Employee’ : new roaring with laughter and then silence before passing the message ‘it looks ridiculous…’ for the

18-20, same reaction for the HS with weaker laughs ; ‘it makes laugh, but it shows well the problem …’.

‘Party’ : few reactions, politically correct, ‘it is not us, ‘we do not behave like that’

The local correspondents confirmed that the polish can actually behave like that.



‘school’ : clear for everybody ; it speaks to those who start smoking/want to start smoking to do as the others

it is not necessary to be considered as someone.

+ refusal of the rules by the young people for the 25+ years old.

For the HS leeks gives a message of dependence/toxic mania (‘a narcotic !’) ; it is also foolish to eat a leek, to

hide and to eat it as it is idiot to hide and to smoke ‘we feel like this, we are parasites’, ‘I like to smoke, but I

feel idiot’.

‘Employee’ : very clear situation of people who “hunger” for tobacco and for whom it is difficult to stop smoking.

+ cigarettes are not only a pleasure , it is about a deep addiction = toxicomania (‘nothing is more important than

cigarettes).

‘Party’ : clear , to pay attention to non-smokers, to respect them.


?

‘school’ : realistic situations that we recently experienced (18-20 years old) or that we can remember (25+).

‘Employee’ : realistic situations – ‘dreadful’ (‘the trash can… !’) – that relates back to real-life experiences (‘it is

real truth’). For HS particularly, the introduced character is a typical addicted to cigarettes (‘he is one of us’).

Very clear change between the first film and the second one, concept is better understood.

‘Party’ : Basic problem existing (for the others smokers…).

In a minor part , the HS feel more and more pressure over smokers.




‘school’ : schoolchildren wanting to start smoking and to be ‘trendy’ (for the 18-20 years old), teenagers and

sometimes the younger (primary school’) for the HS.

‘Employee’ : the addicted smokers.

But also for the HS, the youngest who do not know the importance of the decision that they are taking when they

start smoking and who do not realise what it is going to happen to them (addiction to cigarettes).

‘Party’: smokers in general.





‘school’ : it makes react ; a certain impact due of the fact that we recognize oneself in situations that we

experienced, but impact differed as the film need to be seen several times in the context of the series, to

express all its meaning .

In a minor part, a need of assistance is perceived by some HS.

‘Employee’ : a strong impact because we see oneself between suffering and disgust of oneself. It is important to

show the problem bluntly it prompts to reflexion.

The hold out hand – at the end of the film – is particularly perceived by the HS.

In a minor part, the film should be more moderated to give a chance to people to identify themselves with it.

‘Party’ : finally realistic, the brutality of the situation shows well how we can be inconsistent towards the others.

The film mainly operates with a moralistic method. Stigmatization of people acting in a scandalous way.




A damaged image – rather than a lack of respect – of non-smokers assimilated to drug-addicts, but widely

assumed if not encouraged: ‘what we are’.

In a minor part, the non-smokers presented as passive people.


‘School’ : the main lack of support– at the first vision of the film– is connected to the use of the leek (it caused

spontaneous negative reactions). This problem is quickly removed after thinking and above all, after the view of

the second film (justifying the « series » concept).

First, because leeks oppose people between metaphor vs ‘why not real cigarettes’ / It is original and keep the

attention vs not realistic and require reflexion / ‘it stinks’ like cigarettes vs vegetable

Rationalization remaining dominant at the first view

Nevertheless, we want to watch the film until the end, which will afterwards allow positive assessments about the

‘leek’, taking also the advantage on the negative ones.

In a minor part, smoking in a bus is allowed in Poland (even the driver smokes…).

‘Employee’ : it is direct, it is eloquent and at the same time, it attracts the attention (‘we want to know what is

happening’) evocative film dividing us between entertainment and horror.

So, the scene of the waking up and the dustbin, which is a priori shocking, evokes well the research of the

missing cigarette at all costs (‘we wake up in the middle of the night to find a gas pump that sells cigarettes…’)

The metaphor ‘leek’ is much better understood + interesting effect of curiosity differentiating this add from the

other ones against tobacco.

Residual rationalization – do not they want to contradict each other ? – by some 18-20.

In minor part cigarettes machines do not exist in all the countries.

‘Party’: beyond the immediate clearness of the message about non-smokers’ respect, it is nevertheless disturbed

by an attitude of the non-smokers judged not really logical, in a situation where majority smokes and the couple

does not react they should leave the place (‘go to a night club for non-smokers, it exists’)


The metaphor ‘leek’ is better perceived in the prospect of the series (‘the smoke hitting people’) but if this film

was presented alone – without the other films – we would not understand that leeks represent cigarettes.

For more rationalization again, ‘we do not hit each others with leeks’.


Completely adapted to polish people.


In a minor part, the ‘party’ because of the lack of logic in non-smokers attitude.


A real and progressive impact ; « leeks »put smokers in front of themselves long-term impact of the series

ensured, this one should work on the mode of curiosity reflexion comprehension self-criticism

behaviours’ modification.

Films that will not make smokers to quit from one day to the next one – according to the participants – but which

will enable to to encourage the reflexion about our own attitude as smoker long-time acting = an educative

ads to change a settled down attitude / develop a new attitude.

Message working when mentioning health and morality subjects : ‘smoking is harmful for health and it is selfish’.

GENERAL LEARNINGS


Psychologists for everybody, a group of old smokers for the 18-20.

A expressed curiosity, maybe stronger for the HS ; ‘we are longstanding smokers… but we are always looking

for…’ find a new method…

- by phone = free of charges.

- by the Internet site= anonymous consultation.

Nevertheless, the 18-20 years olds cannot see how an outside person can help them without a real personal

motivation or health problem.

The HS are more sensitive to this offer of assistance, maybe that the first step to help oneself is to look for an

external help ?…

18 -20 years old wondered why “Help” is in English, but it rather seemed to be a politically correct question as

this group age is also the most exposed one to ads campaigns and products using English expressions/words.


Slack and balanced reactions for the HS : simple vs not meticulous.

Good comprehension of the 18-20 years old, someone claiming and someone answering.

For all, clearness of the P breaking the cigarette = we stop + dynamic visual.

For all, the stars evoke well the European Community.



18-20

Tobacco – you’re not alone(PL: Palenie– niejestessam) – liked the most by this group, suggests, that there might

be a help available; focuses on assistance and being together. However: there is a danger of misunderstanding

and interpretation that: you’re not alone because there are many smokers, who should keep together.

For life without tobacco(PL: abyzycbezpalenia) – not accepted, read as very idealistic, keeps distance to smokers,

who should feel treated inferior(and in fact it does not attract them).

There is a solution (1) and find a solution(2) VERSIONS – the first one was liked more, as information, while the

latter was read as an order to find a solution.

HS

Tobacco – you’re not alone(PL: Palenie– niejestessam) – low appeal to the group. Possible misunderstanding

(you’re not alone, because there are many smokers, who should keep together). Some respondents would accept

it if it was cleared e.g. you’re not alone facing tobacco but could not find any baseline that would sound well in

Polish. In general it has appealed far less, that the next proposition: For life without tobacco.

For life without tobacco(PL: abyzycbezpalenia) – liked by the groups, as more focused on solutions and end

benefit, than on their current situation. Consumers proposed their own version of this baseline: You can

live without tobacco (PL: Mozeszzycbezpalenia) – they perceive it as an opportunity, more personal, addressed to

them.

There is a solution(1) and find a solution (2) VERSIONS – mixed opinions. Arguments for the there is a solution:

are that it shows the opportunity. Arguments for the find a solution: more personal.


Good legitimacy of the EU for the HS ; ‘it does not matter as long as it is efficient efficient.

For all, the broadcasting in all Europe is positive and should reinforce the effect

+ For the HS, it represents a plus for the countries with smaller budgets for these kinds of actions. Interest of

the polish government in not leading that kind of campaign against tobacco is that taxes on cigarettes are really

profitable to the government.




Incitement

Alone + - -- -

Leeks +++ +++ ++ ++

We advise the series ‘Leeks’ because of the progressive and/so deep reactions that it arouses among smokers,

those one are confronted to their own attitudes regarding tobacco and are led to a real reflexion about

themselves, leading them to an exercise of self-criticism and generating behaviours’ changes..

from this fact, the proposition of help that arrives at the end of the movies – even if it is not always

spontaneously quoted – should arouse their interest through repeated diffusions, along with a better

understanding of the concept.


Analysis of the test groups in the

Slovak Republic

Number of


8 Up to 20 cigarettes 18-20 D,E (working class)

8 More than 20

cigarettes 25+ C (middle class)


GENERAL BACKGROUND


Stress, smoking friends, environment (=cafés, discotheques, work place), bad habits


Diseases (everyday respiratory problems, sputum and also dangerous diseases), young: future children (they

could inherit health problems), the bad smell (of body and clothes), money.

Fear of possible diseases (cancer and other dangerous diseases), family members (son, husband wants me to

quit smoking)


Boredom, stress, group of smoking friends,

Inconvenient and boring (I do not want to have any duties, tasks), taste of cigarette, I am nervous without a

cigarette, when not smoking I put some weight because I eat a lot


Increase of cigarette price, possible health problems, because of my girl friend / boy friend, if I had to live among

non-smokers.

If a doctor told me that I am seriously ill (I could die),


SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

Film 1 : Unrealistic, illogical, incomprehensible, (it would be more comprehensible if the mannequin had the

cigarette in its hand from the very start), too much aggression – and this is repulsive, when it is about first

cigarette – the boy should be 10 years old

Film 2 : She needs help, she cannot help herself; older: Controversial: it is a genial idea - very simply expressed

everything, it is horrible, how sweeps with the cigarette – it is odious (like a rat on your chest and you are

helpless)

Film 3 : Unrealistic – nobody smokes in bed; the reckless can do; strongly symbolic, I could not bear it – from

my partner, older: the weakest film



Film 1 : Not good overall comprehension, anyway the message was understood quite satisfactory although not

accurate: prevention, how not to start smoking; older: different understanding: should I smoke or not?, how to

refuse the first cigarette


Film 2 : Comprehensible, clear, message: it is easy to start but very difficult to quit, (smoking is terrible

nuisance and it is very difficult to get rid off it)

Film 3 : Respect non-smokers!, You may lose the precious relationship because of smoking! (Something much

more precious than a cigarette)

Overall: Not good overall comprehension: they feel some distance with the symbolism in each film, partially in N°

2. (They were skeptic about the metaphoric nature of the films)


?

Film 1 : Absolutely not interesting

Film 2 : Interesting rendering

Film 3 : Group N°1 (18-20 LS/W): Interesting, Group N°2 (+25/HS/M) : Rather boring

Overall: The average level of interest




Film 1 : Quotation: “It is for 12 years kids not for us ‘old’ “ Thus the actor should have been 12 years old.

10-12 years old – still non-smokers but possibly being offered with first cigarette.

Film 2 : The person looks older than 12-17 (she looked like a working girl)

The target are students but also working young people

Group 2 (+25/HS/M): Smokers – with no relation to the age

Film 3 : Younger: Young people;

Older: Smokers and non smokers (regardless age) They do not feel it is targeted to 25+ ages (=their

ages interval), they did not identify themselves with the presented group. Thus they do not feel to be involved

not too much.

Overall: The perceived targets: both smokers and non-smokers.




Film 1 : Not encouraging smokers to respect non smokers. It is not relevant for life of 18-20 years old. Weak

impact.

Film 2 : It makes thinking how hard is to quit smoking (but not inciting to call “help”).

Group N°1 (18-20 LS/W): Anyway they think they are able to quit smoking when they really need

/want.

Group n°2 older: Here I would immediately click on www”.


Film 3 : Encourages calling “help” to certain extent, stronger impact at younger – weaker at older,

Overall: The campaign made them think about their habits. They are now aware that they may call for help.

Encourages calling “help” to certain extent, stronger impact at younger – weaker at older.

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON-SMOKERS ? WHY ? EFFICIENT TO HELP


HELP DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS ?

Overall: Campaign is fully respectful toward non-smokers but a bit discriminating smokers. Smokers are depicted

like a “nightmare”. (Older group means that smokers are much more considerate to the non-smokers)


Film 1 : Unrealistic, strange. The kicks affect very aggressive.

Illogical: “Why does he have the box of cigarettes while he is non-smoker? It would be enough if the

mannequin already had a cigarette.”

Film 2 : Well made, the symbolic layout with sticky cigarette is likeable (nice how she tried to get rid off the

cigarette)

Older: Unrealistic, affects unpleasantly – how she struggles with the sticky cigarette. They miss

the happy end.

Film 3 : Very witty, strong symbolism, perfect as she was going away. Dislike: she should have asked prior

leaving

Overall: They rather like it; they think it’s relevant to reality (but older group of heavy smokers mind the

symbolism – they feel it is unrealistic).


Well adapted to Slovakia. The issues, background is the same / close to the Slovak one.

Situations are currently known and experienced (by target).


All films function well in general – maybe Film N°1 is less comprehensible and thus not fully accepted.


The messages are well understood and accepted – in general.

However the older group of heavy smokers was full doubt about impact and effect – people would not be calling

the help line.

They meant that the campaign is aimed mainly at non-smokers and young people.

The weakest was film N°1, the best film N°2.



SPONTANEOUS REACTIONS : HOW DOES THE GROUP INITIALLY REACT TO THE MOVIES ?

Film 1 : Very good, the metaphor with leeks is great, interesting, unusual, for the younger, excellent

Film 2 : More realistic than series N°1 and witty at the same time, it is about me (“I know very well theses

feelings”)

Film 3 : Laugh in positive way, it is funny how they lash with leeks each other, it is all about relationship between

smokers and non-smokers, pressure on the non-smoking couple, the couple resists and stays calm (positive

image of non-smokers), interesting, smiling, “but smokers are not so reckless”

Overall: Makes them laugh a lot, in a very positive way, funny and witty even when it is about me. Thinking and

living of a smoker is drawn in a funny form. Most of participants said spontaneously that this series is better.


Film 1 : “well understood, no weak places - misunderstandings, message: “Look out – do not come under an

idea that you must look like others”

Film 2 : “It is easier not to start than to quit” “Attention – give up (smoking) as soon as possible, not to result

like this”; “Addiction is terrible even painful, it controls you totally”; “it controls all you body and mind”;

Film 3 : “Non-smokers are repressed anytime and everywhere; well understood; “Think over the non-smokers

feelings”

Overall: Movies quite well understood. Message: “Addiction is terrible – stop it early”;


?

Film 1 : The interest flows from the leeks; ad is useful / very appropriate for young people

Film 2 : It is quite thrilling - nobody knows how it will finish;

This is how a smoker lives his/her life – it must capture each smoker – he/she sees himself/herself like

in a mirror

Film 3 : The most interesting; typical situation and drawn with wit

Overall: The messages of a campaign are interesting and depicted unusually - eye-catching (mainly because of

the metaphor with leeks) There are good ideas – it is a useful campaign.




Film 1 : Very young population - first of all pupils.

Film 2 : Smokers and non-smokers of all age ranges. (Younger: but this is not about me yet)

Film 3 : Smokers and non-smokers, any social class and all age range

Overall: Perceived as aimed at any kind of population: smokers and non-smokers, any social class and all age

range.





Film 1 : The metaphor makes us to think about smoking in other way

Film 2 : The help is available when you need it most, effective because impressing (younger: comic but very

impressive;

the film has the most capability to make smokers give up smoking and non-smokers not to start –

namely the wreck in the end)

Film 3 : It happens – it is the most realistic, a good impression – how the couple behaves;

(Younger: makes us to be respectful to non-smokers)

Overall: All films well understood but people would not call the help line because they do not believe that it is so

easy. They cannot imagine that somebody can help them by phone.

Certainly they would click on web site, particularly after the film N°2. Then they may call.

The campaign makes them think about their smoking habit and it makes them think about their

relationship to non-smokers.

Important impact is only partial. (Anyway it seems to be stronger then in case of series “Alone”)

IS THE CAMPAIGN RESPECTFUL TOWARDS SMOKERS / NON-SMOKERS ? WHY ? EFFICIENT TO HELP

SMOKERS / NON-SMOKERS ? WHY ? DOES IT GIVE A POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE DIFFERENT TARGETS ?

WOULD IT HELP DEVELOP RESPECT BETWEEN SMOKERS AND NON-SMOKERS ?

Overall: Younger/light smokers: Campaign fully respects non-smokers.

Older/heavy smokers: Series evokes the feeling of discrimination of smokers, (the smokers are not so

reckless as presented in the series).


Film 1 : The leeks – idea with leeks;

Nice how voice said: “This may look stupid. Yet... sometimes we would do anything to look like

others… We even start smoking…”

Dislikes: The face of the driver

Film 2 : Likes: How he started to eat the leek – that relief;

he did not perceived his surrounding when he ran out of the leeks; they like it all

Film 3 : Likes: The couple is calm even in the difficult situation;

The presentation how the negative impact of the using leeks returns against smokers;

Older: The weakest; poor action; film is without “a charge” – the strength of feelings that experiences

a smoker;

it is much more about the feelings of non-smokers; the smokers are presented too much reckless

Overall: They liked it a lot in general (although some elements evoked controversial opinions).

Both groups appreciated the sense of humor.

Series is nice, witty (metaphor with the leeks) and interesting



Well adapted to Slovakia. Situations are currently known and experienced (by target).


No.


The films were understood well. All of them captured the interest.

Very impressive toward young smokers and non-smokers.

Very strong impact mainly on young people.

There were very strong reactions toward the metaphor with the leeks (mainly positive, sometimes negative – but

always strong).

In general – the campaign is respectful towards smokers and both non-smokers. Campaign has a potential to

develop respect between smokers and non-smokers - at least among the young people.

Very appreciated campaign.

GENERAL LEARNINGS


It is a phone line for free / A help line they could call.

There is somebody who is waiting on the phone - hoping they will speak to someone who is a real specialist

(expecting a smoker / ex smoker).

In most cases – they would not call –but first they would click on web site. Depending on the level/quality of the

web site they would call the help line.


Logo is absolutely without hesitation, spontaneously accepted by both groups and practically all participants.

Appreciated colours, graphics, and the conception: not aggressive, smart, communicative.

They found the semantics even in the elements of logo: (bubbles = ideas; green color = life; violet = warning;

the P breaking cigarette = action)


In general:

"Tobacco, you're not alone" is rejected by both groups (stronger by heavy smokers)

The winner is "For a life without tobacco" - very spontaneous accepted by heavy smokers.

Both groups created together about 7-8 own "translations". The second baseline were accepted even after they

had created their own "products" - which is especially significant


Some of their important proposals:

- Not to put any baseline – there is everything expressed in logo

- In "For a life without tobacco" – omit the word “For”

- « Tobacco is not everything »

- « Have you troubles? You’re not alone »



Incitement

Alone + + - +

Leeks ++ ++ ++ +

The « leeks » campaign has been chosen (strongly by the participants of Group N°1(18-20 LS/W):and with

certain reservations but anyway also by Group N°2 (+25/HS/M) – in auto-questionnaire chose « alone “)

Better attitudes toward “leeks” (especially very strong in Group N°1) drive us to recommend this campaign.


CALENDRIER DE L’ÉTUDE

Pays Date Nombre de participants Statut

Tabagique Ages Catégorie

sociale

AUSTRIA 2 February 9 Heavy smokers 25 & + M

BELGIUM 8 February 7 Light smokers 19 - 20 W

CZECH REPUBLIC 01, 02, 03 February

9

9

8

Non Smokers

Light Smokers

Heavy smokers

15-17

18-20

25 & +

M

W

M

CYPRUS 16 February 8

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

W

DENMARK 9 February 7 Light smokers 18 - 20 W

LITHUANIA 8 et 9 February 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M

FINLAND 2 February 6 Light smokers 18 - 20 W

GERMANY 7and 8th February

8

8

8

Non-smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 - 17

20 & +

18 - 20

W

M

W

GREECE 10 February 9

9

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

M

HUNGARY 31 January and 1

February

8

8

8

Non-smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

15 - 17

20 & +

18 - 20

W

M

W

IRELAND 3rd February 8 Heavy smokers 25 - 45 M

ITALY 31 Jan and 1

February

8 8 8

Non smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

25 & +

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

M

W

NETHERLANDS 9 February 8 Heavy smoker 25 & + W


Pays Date Nombre de participants Statut

Tabagique Ages Categorie

sociale

POLAND 15 February 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M

PORTUGAL 10 and 11th

8

8

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

Heavy smokers

15 – 17

18 – 20

18 – 20

M

M

W

Slovak Rep 16 February 8

8

Light Smokers

Hard Smokers

18 – 20

25+

W

M

SPAIN 2 February (2gp)

and 3 February(1gp)

8 8 8

Non smokers

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

25 & +

15 – 17

18 – 20

W

W

M

SWEDEN 7 February 8 Non smokers 15 - 17 M

UK 3 February 8 Light smokers 18 - 20 W

France 24 january 26

january

10

8

Light smokers

Heavy smokers

18 - 20

25 & +

W

M

This report was produced by a contractor for Health & Consumer Protection Directorate General and represents the views of thecontractor or author. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission and do not necessarilyrepresent the view of the Commission or the Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. The EuropeanCommission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study, nor does it accept responsibility for any use madethereof.

HELP Campaign Pre-test - European Commission

Documents

Transcript of HELP Campaign Pre-test - European Commission