|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
© 2004 American Public Health Association
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, Elizabeth Barbeau, Jennifer Anne Bishop, and Karen M. Emmons are with the Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass. Elizabeth Barbeau and Karen M. Emmons are also with the Center for Community-Based Research, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Jocelyn Pan is with the Community Health Program, Tufts University, Medford, Mass.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Dolores Acevedo-Garcia, PhD, MPA-URP, Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Ave, 7th Floor, Boston, MA 02115 (e-mail: dacevedo{at}hsph._arvard.edu).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. We sought to ascertain whether the tobacco industry has conceptualized the US immigrant population as a separate market.
Methods. We conducted a content analysis of major tobacco industry documents.
Results. The tobacco industry has engaged in 3 distinct marketing strategies aimed at US immigrants: geographically based marketing directed toward immigrant communities, segmentation based on immigrants’ assimilation status, and coordinated marketing focusing on US immigrant groups and their countries of origin.
Conclusions. Public health researchers should investigate further the tobacco industry’s characterization of the assimilated and non-assimilated immigrant markets, and its specific strategies for targeting these groups, in order to develop informed national and international tobacco control countermarketing strategies designed to protect immigrant populations and their countries of origin.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Tobacco use is a major health risk for groups of low socioeconomic status.1–3 Among immigrants, some national-origin groups have considerably higher poverty rates and are at lower educational levels than native-born individuals.4,5 However, seemingly representing a contradictory pattern—that is, an "epidemiological paradox"—rates of tobacco use are lower among certain foreign-born groups than among their US-born ethnic counterparts,6–8 even when socioeconomic position is controlled.9–12 For example, in 2000, only 49% of foreign-born individuals who had immigrated from Latin America to the United States were at an educational level of high school or above (as compared with 84% of foreign-born individuals from Europe and 87% of foreign-born individuals from Asia). Perez-Stable and colleagues8 found that, in a sample of Latinos from 8 cities, foreign-born individuals were significantly less likely to smoke than their native-born ethnic counterparts after education had been controlled. In addition, some studies have shown that tobacco use is positively correlated with various measures of immigrant assimilation.7,8,13–23
In this article, we present preliminary evidence of the tobacco industry’s efforts to market cigarettes to Asian and Hispanic immigrants residing in the United States. Because these efforts may eventually undo the protective effects of immigrant status and limited assimilation on smoking behavior, it is vital to understand them and to use this knowledge to advance tobacco control initiatives. Our interest in this issue derived from our ongoing empirical analyses of tobacco use patterns among US immigrants. Here we present the results of a pilot study investigating whether the tobacco industry has conceptualized the immigrant population as a separate market. Our findings, described subsequently, showed that the tobacco industry has a complex understanding of Asian and Hispanic immigrant markets, has been aware of the propensity of some immigrant groups to smoke less than the general population, and has been trying to reverse such patterns since the 1970s.
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
We searched for tobacco industry documents from the 5 major US tobacco companies—American Tobacco (AT), Brown and Williamson (B&W), Lorillard, Philip Morris (PM), and RJ Reynolds (RJR)—on the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Legacy Tobacco Documents Library Web site (http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/). Also, we searched for British American Tobacco Company (BAT) documents on the UCSF Galen Digital Library Web site (http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/). All document searches were conducted between July and September 2003. The searches covered the period 1970 to 2003.
In the case of the 5 major US tobacco companies, we searched documents via keywords in the title field. As can be seen in Table 1
, the keywords "immigrant," "immigration," and "assimilation" yielded a very limited number of documents. Therefore, we searched documents using the terms "Hispanic" and "Asian." The number of documents retrieved through use of the keyword "Hispanic" was large, ranging from 259 (Lorillard) to 3086 (RJR); in the case of PM, more than 500 documents were retrieved with the keyword "Asian." Given the pilot nature of our study, and since our primary interest was the tobacco industry’s conceptualization of these markets, we limited our searches to the keywords "Hispanic market(*)" for Hispanics and (in the case of PM) "Asian market(*)" for Asians; asterisks indicate wildcards that allow any form of the word "market."
|
We opened and browsed all documents that were typed, original company reports; internal memos; or marketing reports produced by external consultants. We excluded duplicated documents, as well as handwritten materials and secondary documents such as press releases and scientific articles. We coded documents as "major," "minor," or "trivial"24 in relation to their relevance to our research question, that is, whether the tobacco industry conceptualizes immigrants as a separate market. We discarded documents classified as "minor" or "trivial" (e.g., documents that did not have substantive content, such as cover letter memos in which no strategic information was conveyed, memos summarizing sales volume/amount information only, and memos summarizing distribution of promotional materials); we carefully reviewed all "major" documents.
We used 2 broad initial analytical categories or themes, "immigrant market" and "assimilation," to guide our document content analysis.25 We found that the tobacco industry is aware of immigrants as potential consumers. Our subtheme analysis revealed 3 distinct marketing concepts: geographically based marketing directed at immigrant communities, segmentation based on immigrants’ assimilation status, and coordinated marketing aimed toward US immigrant groups and their countries of origin.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
The years covered by each of the searches are shown in Table 1
. We found that the oldest documents concerning the Hispanic and Asian markets dated from the mid-1970s. The composition of the US immigrant population in terms of national origin began to change from European toward Asian and Latin American in the 1970s.26,27 Therefore, these documents seem to indicate that the tobacco industry, in its market research efforts, responded quickly to changes in immigration patterns. However, tobacco companies began to address the Hispanic and Asian markets more systematically in the 1980s.28,29 The tobacco industry was keenly aware of the demographic dynamism of the immigrant population.29–33 In 1985, B&W remarked that "obviously Hispanics constitute a major market segment" because "there [are] more than 17 million Hispanics in the US, and their numbers [are] doubling every 10 years because of a high birth rate and a high level of immigration."34 B&W also noted that "Asian Americans comprised the fastest-growing population segment in the US, [providing] a steady consumer base for 555 [a brand targeted at the Asian market] to cultivate."35
Furthermore, the industry recognized the diversity of the immigrant population and segmented the Hispanic and Asian markets along national-origin lines. For example, PM noted that Asian Americans were a "diverse population consist[ing] of at least thirteen separate ethnic groups, each with different languages and cultures."36 RJR conducted an analysis of brand preferences among Hispanic smokers according to country of origin37; similarly, PM identified that it had a larger market share among Mexicans and Central Americans than among Cubans and Puerto Ricans.38
In addition to its awareness of immigrants’ demographic importance, the tobacco industry was concerned about the low smoking rates among certain immigrant groups. According to RJR, although the Hispanic population was growing rapidly in the 1980s, smoking incidence rates among young Hispanic adults, especially young Hispanic women, were much lower than those among the general population.29,30
Geographic Marketing to Immigrant Communities
Tobacco companies recognized the geographic concentration patterns of various national-origin groups and used geographically focused marketing aimed at immigrant communities. RJR summarized this well: "Second only to [the] growth [of this population], the reason for targeting Hispanics lies in their geographic concentration."29
In its Hispanic Market Development Program, B&W addressed the need to create seasonal outreach initiatives that targeted geographic areas in which there was a seasonal flow of Mexican migratory workers.34,39 After monitoring the purchasing patterns of Chinese immigrants, B&W40 noted that although recent Chinese immigrants residing in New York City were more geographically dispersed than members of previous immigrant waves, they still traveled to Chinatown to purchase cigarettes because of their difficulty in finding 555 cigarettes outside of that area. On the other hand, in San Francisco, "where the Chinese community is more integrated with mainstream society," smokers were more likely to buy their cigarettes outside of Chinatown.40
Marketing According to Assimilation Level
The tobacco industry appears to have divided immigrant markets according to their "assimilation" levels. For example, B&W recognized that many "Hispanics have not assimilated into the general population"32 and that differences among Hispanic subgroups "revolve around migration history and the strength of emotional ties to the homeland."41,42 Thus, the key to reaching the Hispanic market was "strik[ing] the chord of their deep rooted heritage and language."41 Beginning in the late 1980s RJR, concerned with low smoking rates among Hispanics, suggested that this pattern was related to "Hispanic culture," especially among female Hispanics, and that "assimilation" was a force that could promote smoking among this population.29,43
In the early 1990s, RJR and PM engaged in a more systematic effort to understand assimilation patterns among Hispanics. In 1990, National Family Opinion prepared a series of reports for RJR44–47 designed "to determine the impact of assimilation for key brands in terms of purchase behavior among adult Hispanic smokers, aged 18–24."46 Specific aims included determining purchasing habits, brand and promotional awareness, and flavor preferences among Hispanics in Los Angeles, San Antonio, Houston, and Miami. On the basis of the 1989 "Hispanic tracker" (a representative sample of Hispanics in 11 local markets, as well as an additional sample of Hispanics aged 18–24 years48), these studies led to the development of an assimilation index comprising language use, birthplace, length of residence in the United States, percentage of life spent in the United States, education, and income.44
In one of these studies, it was determined that Marlboro was used primarily by "partially" to "non-assimilated Hispanics." As Hispanics became more assimilated, awareness, trials, and purchasing levels of the Marlboro brand declined. "Fully assimilated" Hispanics preferred the Camel brand. Winston was favored less than Camel, but its brand awareness, trial, and purchasing levels increased with increasing assimilation.46
PM and its advertising agency, Leo Burnett, conducted their own set of tracking studies in the early 1990s in an effort to determine the impact of assimilation on the Hispanic market and to formulate a subsequent outreach strategy.33,49–53 According to PM, understanding and tracking assimilation over time was important because Hispanics’ degree of assimilation predicted their overall values, attitudes, cultural orientations, media/product consumption patterns, and reactions to advertising.51
Some of the documents illustrated how the industry recognized variations in assimilation levels according to national origin and geographic location. For example:
Although Hispanics will probably retain their cultural differences, the degree to which they are becoming "Americanized" seems to vary from city to city. As a result of these differences, regional marketing activities, based upon both the Spanish cultural heritage and the local environment, may be more effective in reaching Hispanic smokers than a national program.30
During 1991–1992, RJR was concerned about the poor performance of Camel in heavily Hispanic markets such as Los Angeles and attributed this problem to the poor performance of the brand among "non-assimilated" Hispanics. Consequently, the company increased its efforts to "better understand the assimilated/non-assimilated phenomenon within the Hispanic community" and "improve Camel’s performance among the non-assimilated Hispanic smoker."54,55 RJR’s definition of "non-assimilated Hispanic" included the following components: "Spanish-driven," "less than five years of residence in the US," "maintains cultural roots," and "low socioeconomic level." This definition fit 50% of the Southern California Hispanic market at the time.54,55 Similarly, PM sought to understand the strong Marlboro loyalty among Mexican Americans, conducting research on the purchasing patterns of "totally assimilated," "partially assimilated," and "unassimilated" Mexican consumers to determine differences in brand loyalty to Marlboro among these subgroups.38
In regard to the Asian American market, RJR stressed the need to understand "the changing balance of being Asian and being American among [this] target audience."56 PM characterized the 4 largest Asian American groups according to the extent to which they were foreign born and their assimilation level. While the majority of Chinese and Korean Americans were foreign born, more than 70% of Japanese Americans were US born and consequently represented "America’s most assimilated Asian-Americans." Filipinos were characterized as "the least ‘foreign’ of all [foreign-born] Asian-Americans" owing to their strong command of English.36
Coordinated Marketing to Immigrants and Their Countries of Origin
The tobacco companies analyzed the domestic market performance of cigarette brands among specific immigrant groups in relation to their performance in the respective countries of origin. For instance, PM made an effort to understand why Marlboro’s market share in Mexico was only half of its share among Mexicans in the United States so that the company could increase cigarette sales among US immigrants.57 RJR developed a binational border area marketing program aimed at penetrating the 5 major US–Mexico metropolitan areas in a synchronized fashion.54
Tobacco companies carefully tracked postimmigration cigarette brand switching behaviors. In a report commissioned by PM, Leo Burnett noted that "it was important to reach [new immigrants] early as they shape their brand preferences in the US."52 BAT and its subsidiary, B&W, coordinated their targeting of the Asian and Asian American markets for the 555 brand.35,40,58–60 In 1992, among its advertising objectives for 555, BAT included "reach[ing] Asian Americans, primarily Chinese, with an awareness of the heritage of 555 from their immigrating countries" and "reinforce[ing] the premium, well established and quality image of 555 that is inherent in the brand from the smokers[’] country of origin."58
B&W reported that while 555 was popular in mainland China, Chinese immigrants living in the United States were reluctant to try this brand in their new homeland because they associated it with "government officials in China."40 B&W also noted that Vietnamese smokers associated this brand with "positive images and nostalgic memories of Vietnam" but that their brand loyalty might weaken if they realized that, unlike in Vietnam, 555 was not a "status symbol" in the United States.40
While 555 evoked images among both Chinese and Vietnamese smokers of their countries of origin, Marlboro was associated with "American culture."40 This brand was rejected by those individuals "who expressed negative sentiments towards the American culture and took strong pride in their own," whereas it was appealing to individuals "who want[ed] to ‘blend in’ with American culture."40 B&W was concerned that "Marlboro’s youth-oriented image [was] likely to lure away many younger [Chinese and Vietnamese] adult smokers who were rightfully 555’s overseas,"35 and noted that there was untapped potential among Indian and Pakistani smokers who had "positive exposure to 555 in their homelands."35
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
We found evidence of the tobacco industry’s efforts to achieve a sophisticated characterization of tobacco use patterns among Asian and Hispanic immigrants (e.g., brand loyalty) according to their geographic location, assimilation level, and smoking patterns in their countries of origin. Our preliminary findings underscore the need to investigate further the tobacco industry’s characterization of the assimilated and non-assimilated immigrant markets, and its specific strategies for targeting these groups, in order to develop informed national and international tobacco control countermarketing strategies designed to protect both immigrant populations and their countries of origin.
Public health researchers are currently striving to add foreign-born status to US tobacco surveillance systems and to better understand the causes of its protective effect in regard to smoking.6 The present study showed that the major cigarette manufacturers in the United States are aware of the protective effect of limited assimilation on immigrants’ tobacco use and have been considering ways to undo it.
As a result of its pilot nature, our study involved several limitations that can be addressed in future research. First, we were unable to mine the approximately 8000 documents generated with the keywords "Hispanic" and "Asian." It is noteworthy, though, that despite our limited search, we were able to uncover evidence of industry efforts directed toward immigrants; more comprehensive searches are likely to unearth additional rich information.
Second, we focused on the tobacco industry’s conceptualization of immigrant markets. Further research is needed to understand specific marketing strategies (e.g., product creation, positioning, pricing, and promotion) directed toward increasing tobacco use among immigrants. Our searches uncovered examples of such strategies that we are pursuing further; examples are RJR’s Hispanic Tracking System (which involves comprehensive surveys of the Hispanic market, including assimilation levels), established in 1988, and its Regional Initiative Program (a marketing initiative aimed at the major US Hispanic markets), established in the early 1990s.
Third, we found that, to some extent, all companies have categorized Hispanic and Asian immigrant markets, but our searches yielded more evidence of this practice on the part of the 2 largest manufacturers than on the part of the others. PM and RJR appeared to engage in the most comprehensive and sophisticated marketing efforts aimed at these groups, as evidenced by the research studies they commissioned33,44–47,49–51 with the explicit purpose of gaining an understanding of immigrant markets and the role of assimilation. Other tobacco companies recognized that RJR and PM had addressed these markets more extensively,34 and B&W as well engaged in significant market research efforts in promoting the 555 brand among Asian immigrants.40,58,60 Future, more comprehensive searches may reveal that American Tobacco, BAT, and Lorillard also engaged in extensive marketing efforts aimed at immigrants.
Fourth, the documents we identified, as well as the industry’s characterization of its targeting of Asians in such documents,28 yielded more evidence of targeting of Hispanic immigrants than of Asian immigrants, especially owing to RJR and PM’s comprehensive targeting of Hispanics. However, given the size of the tobacco document collections, it would not be appropriate to draw such conclusions from this study.
Muggli et al.61 analyzed 1985 to 1995 tobacco industry documents regarding the Asian/Pacific Islander population of the United States and found that this population became a priority for the industry in the 1980s. They also found strong evidence of the industry’s awareness of the high population growth and purchasing power of this group, the high smoking rates in their countries of origin, and the marketing possibilities offered by their desire to assimilate to American culture. Our findings corroborated those of Muggli et al. In addition, we showed that targeting of immigrants has been a point of convergence in the industry’s marketing efforts aimed at Hispanic and Asian Americans. In both markets, the tobacco industry has used geographic targeting, segmentation according to assimilation status, and coordinated targeting of immigrants and their countries of origin.
Finally, although our study uncovered evidence of targeting of immigrants and their countries of origin, a deeper understanding of such coordinated targeting efforts may help enhance global tobacco control. There is a need for studies analyzing the industry’s marketing efforts aimed at specific national-origin groups (e.g., Mexican Americans and Vietnamese Americans) as well as their countries of origin.
Tobacco use is increasingly being seen as a global health issue.62–67 Of major concern are the disparities in tobacco use patterns between developed and less developed countries. In developed countries, tobacco use has declined in the past 45 years and is becoming socially unacceptable; however, in less developed countries tobacco use has increased, along with the social acceptability of smoking.65,68 For example, in the United States, the smoking prevalence rate among adults decreased from 42% in 1965 to 24% in 1998.2 Conversely, between the mid-1950s and mid-1990s, rates in developing countries increased from 20% to 50% among men and from virtually 0% to 8% among women.68 Furthermore, the majority of recent US immigrants hail from less developed countries in Asia and Latin America, where tobacco use is becoming more widespread.
As the domestic policy environment becomes less favorable to tobacco interests, the US tobacco industry is intensifying its operations in less developed countries.69–71 Our findings suggest that tobacco companies are not only aware of the interaction between assimilation and tobacco use but target US immigrant groups and their countries of origin in a coordinated fashion. Knowledge of the tobacco industry’s targeting of immigrants can be used by US state health departments and community-based voluntary organizations to develop countermarketing strategies.72
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Contributors
D. Acevedo-Garcia conceived the study, conducted the tobacco industry document searches and analyses, and wrote the article. E. Barbeau and J. A. Bishop contributed to the design and analysis of the study and edited the article. J. Pan and K. M. Emmons reviewed and edited the article.
Human Participant Protection
No protocol approval was needed for this study
Accepted for publication November 21, 2003.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
1. Pamuk E, Makuc D, Heck K, Reuben C, Lochner K. Socioeconomic Status and Health Chartbook. Hyattsville, Md: National Center for Health Statistics; 1998.
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 1998. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2000;49: 881–884.[Medline]
3. Barbeau E, Krieger N, Soobader M-J. Working class matters: socioeconomic disadvantage, race/ethnicity, gender, and smoking in the National Health Interview Survey, 2000. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:269–278.
4. Coming to America: A Profile of the Nation’s Foreign Born. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2000.
5. Schmidley AD. The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2002. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2003.
6. Baluja KF, Park J, Myers D. Inclusion of immigrant status in smoking prevalence statistics. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:642–646.
7. Harris KM. The health status and risk behaviors of adolescents in immigrant families. In: Hernandez DJ, ed. Children of Immigrants: Health, Adjustment and Public Assistance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999:286–315.
8. Perez-Stable EJ, Ramirez A, Villareal R, et al. Cigarette smoking behavior among US Latino men and women from different countries of origin. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1424–1430.
9. Franzini L, Ribble JC, Keddie AM. Understanding the Hispanic paradox. Ethn Dis. 2001;11:496–518.[Medline]
10. Fuentes-Afflick E, Lurie P. Low birth weight and Latino ethnicity: examining the epidemiologic paradox. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:665–674.
11. Scribner R. Paradox as paradigm—the health outcomes of Mexican Americans. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:303–305.
12. Palloni A, Morenoff JD. Interpreting the paradoxical in the Hispanic paradox: demographic and epidemiologic approaches. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001;954: 140–174.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Chen X, Unger JB, Johnson CA. Is acculturation a risk factor for early smoking initiation among Chinese American minors? A comparative perspective. Tob Control. 1999;8:402–410.
14. Acevedo MC. The role of acculturation in explaining ethnic differences in the prenatal health-risk behaviors, mental health, and parenting beliefs of Mexican American and European American at-risk women. Child Abuse Negl. 2000;24:111–127.[Web of Science][Medline]
15. Cobas JA, Balcazar H, Benin MB, Keith VM, Chong Y. Acculturation and low-birthweight infants among Latino women: a reanalysis of HHANES data with structural equation models. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:394–396.
16. Amaro H, Whitaker R, Coffman G, Heeren T. Acculturation and marijuana and cocaine use: findings from HHANES 1982–84. Am J Public Health. 1990; 80(suppl):54–60.
17. Coonrod DV, Balcazar H, Brady J, Garcia S, Van Tine M. Smoking, acculturation and family cohesion in Mexican-American women. Ethn Dis. 1999;9: 434–440.[Medline]
18. Kerner JF, Breen N, Tefft MC, Silsby J. Tobacco use among multi-ethnic Latino populations. Ethn Dis. 1998;8:167–183.[Medline]
19. Tobacco Use Among US Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups—African Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 1998.
20. Unger JB, Cruz TB, Rohrbach LA, et al. English language use as a risk factor for smoking initiation among Hispanic and Asian American adolescents: evidence for mediation by tobacco-related beliefs and social norms. Health Psychol. 2000;19:403–410.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Cigarette smoking among Southeast Asian immigrants—Washington State, 1989. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1992;41:854–855.[Medline]
22. Chen X, Unger JB, Cruz TB, Johnson CA. Smoking patterns of Asian-American youth in California and their relationship with acculturation. J Adolesc Health. 1999;24:321–328.[Web of Science][Medline]
23. Siegel D, Faigeles B. Smoking and socioeconomic status in a population-based inner city sample of African-Americans, Latinos and whites. J Cardiovasc Risk. 1996;3:295–300.[Medline]
24. Balbach ED, Gasior R, Barbeau EM. Tobacco industry documents: comparing the Minnesota Depository and Internet access. Tob Control. 2002;11:68–72.
25. Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Analyzing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320:114–116.
26. Rumbaut RG, Portes A. Introduction—ethnogenesis: coming of age in immigrant America. In: Rumbaut RG, Portes A, eds. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press; 2001:1–19.
27. Borjas GJ. Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1999.
28. Prospectus: special markets—Asian Americans. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 507091820–1824. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rrf28c00. Accessed August 8, 2003.
29. Hispanic market opportunity assessment progress update presentation. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 505336674–6721. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/xli25d00. Accessed August 8, 2003.
30. Hispanic market overview. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 504051125–1153. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hbg75d00. Accessed August 21, 2003.
31. Hispanic market: 1985. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 504667010–7019. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oqa65d00. Accessed August 21, 2003.
32. The Hispanic-American market and its implications for marketers. Ogilvy & Mather. Bates No. 670616220–6427. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqu13f00. Accessed August 26, 2003.
33. Action plan for the US Hispanic market. Leo Burnett Agency, Philip Morris. Bates No. 2043022839–2946. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/bps03e00. Accessed September 8, 2003.
34. Kavanaugh MJ. Raleigh con Filtro/Fiesta—Hispanic market development program. Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 524102081–2082. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jav23f00. Accessed August 27, 2003.
35. An ideal plan for B&W in the Asian American market. L 3 Advertising Inc, Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 502010038–0047. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lqt03f00. Accessed September 11, 2003.
36. Cohen D. Asian American market study. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2045652289–2299. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dsg36e00. Accessed September 8, 2003.
37. Stanley P. Consumer research reports: consumer performance in major Hispanic markets. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 505310452–0468. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rj125d00. Accessed August 19, 2003.
38. Hispanic Marlboro smokers. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2049162714–2747. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/txx95e00. Accessed August 25, 2003.
39. Falk D. Hispanic market in Miami, Florida. Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 555006580–6582. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nyz13f00. Accessed September 10, 2003.
40. 555 performance study: 96 Asian focus groups, New York and San Francisco metro. Strategic Marketing Asia Ltd, Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 502033026–3075. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/apr91d00. Accessed September 11, 2003.
41. Kovatch M, Sonego F. Expanding opportunities in a growing segment profile: the Black and Hispanic market in Chicago. Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 670135322–5348. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ykw79e00. Accessed September 10, 2003.
42. Yankelovich D. A study of the Hispanic market by Yankelovich, Skelly & White, Inc. Bates No. 670638118–8138. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/oju13f00. Accessed September 5, 2003.
43. Opportunity assessment: Hispanic market. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 509148364–8425. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rjd38c00. Accessed August 21, 2003.
44. Hispanic assimilation index. National Family Opinion, RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 507522594–2613. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hdm24d00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
45. Hispanic assimilation and growth. National Family Opinion, RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 509227676–7682. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/szd38c00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
46. Hispanic assimilation analysis: Hispanic adult smokers aged 18–24. National Family Opinion, RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 509162818–2868. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/szz73d00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
47. Simmons S. Relative Hispanic population sizes: 18–24 within assimilation level. National Family Opinion, RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 507521742–1745. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qbm24d00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
48. Winston 1997: Hispanic tracker—pre-wave results. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 517094159–4159. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/nkr82d00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
49. The U.S. Hispanic market overview for Virginia Slims. Leo Burnett Agency, Philip Morris. Bates No. 2041817689–7750. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/orr66e00. Accessed September 8, 2003.
50. Hispanic orientation: 1992. Leo Burnett Agency, Philip Morris. Bates No. 2042911541–1579. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/qvw95e00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
51. Demystifying the US Hispanic market. Leo Burnett Agency, Philip Morris. Bates No. 2060124376–4419. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/lsr76e00. Accessed September 8, 2003.
52. Marlboro: Hispanic marketing and media objectives and strategies. Leo Burnett Agency, Philip Morris. Bates No. 2045414266–4285. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fhz76e00. Accessed September 2, 2003.
53. Rodriguez Y. Marketing to Hispanic smokers: a survey study of assimilation and cigarette brand preference. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2049162931–2980. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ist83e00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
54. 1991 regional initiative business plan. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 508737339–7372. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/puz83d00. Accessed July 25, 2003.
55. 1992 regional initiative program: Southern California region. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 518049874–9911. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zdb82d00. Accessed July 28, 2003.
56. Kang E. Asian American market. RJ Reynolds. Bates No. 522416347/6385. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/dmq01d00. Accessed August 21, 2003.
57. Marlboro Hispanic market qualitative research. Philip Morris. Bates No. 2061809833–9836. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/one07e00. Accessed September 4, 2003.
58. 555—preliminary 1992 media plan. British American Tobacco Co. Bates No. 503852954–2959. Available at: http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/batco/html/200/297/index.html. Accessed September 15, 2003.
59. A P.R. proposal for State Express 555 rally program in the Asian American market. L 3 Advertising Inc, Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 502010197–0201. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/vsn91d00. Accessed September 11, 2003.
60. 555 GCS tracking study: US Asian market supplement 1994 & 1996 summary tables. Brown & Williamson. Bates No. 461219003–9021. Available at: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hqj81d00. Accessed September 11, 2003.
61. Muggli ME, Pollay R, Lew R, Joseph A. Targeting of Asian American and Pacific Islanders by the tobacco industry: results from the Minnesota Tobacco Document Depository. Tob Control. 2002;11:201–209.
62. Mackay J. The global tobacco epidemic: the next 25 years. Public Health Rep. 1998;113:14–21.[Web of Science][Medline]
63. Bartecchi CE, MacKenzie TD, Schrier RW. The global tobacco epidemic. Scientific Am. 1995;272(5): 44–51.
64. Rafei UM. Tobacco epidemic. J Indian Med Assoc. 1999;97:374.[Medline]
65. Lopez AD, Collishaw NE, Piha T. A descriptive model of the cigarette epidemic in developed countries. Tob Control. 1994;3:242–247.
66. Confronting the Epidemic: A Global Agenda for Tobacco Control Research. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1999.
67. Lopez AD. Counting the dead in China: measuring tobacco’s impact in the developing world. BMJ. 1998;317:1399–1400.
68. What in the World Works? Singapore: World Health Organization; 1999.
69. Jenkins CN, Dai PX, Ngoc DH, et al. Tobacco use in Vietnam: prevalence, predictors, and the role of the transnational tobacco corporations. JAMA. 1997;277:1726–1731.
70. Stebbins KR. Tobacco or health in the Third World: a political economy perspective with emphasis on Mexico. Int J Health Serv. 1987;17:521–536.[Web of Science][Medline]
71. Mackay J. Battling upstream against the tobacco epidemic in China. Tob Control. 1997;6:9–10.[Medline]
72. Ling P, Glantz S. Using tobacco-industry marketing research to design more effective tobacco-control campaigns. JAMA. 2002;287:2983–2989.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Otsuki Social connectedness and smoking behaviors among Asian American college students: An electronic diary study Nicotine Tob Res, April 3, 2009; (2009) ntp028v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. A. Smith, K. Thomson, N. Offen, and R. E. Malone "If You Know You Exist, It's Just Marketing Poison": Meanings of Tobacco Industry Targeting in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community Am J Public Health, June 1, 2008; 98(6): 996 - 1003. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. H. Chae, D. T. Takeuchi, E. M. Barbeau, G. G. Bennett, J. Lindsey, and N. Krieger Unfair Treatment, Racial/Ethnic Discrimination, Ethnic Identification, and Smoking Among Asian Americans in the National Latino and Asian American Study Am J Public Health, March 1, 2008; 98(3): 485 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. Lee Critical Health Psychology: Who Benefits? J Health Psychol, May 1, 2006; 11(3): 355 - 359. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |