↓ Skip to main content

Exporting an Inherently Harmful Product: The Marketing of Virginia Slims Cigarettes in the United States, Japan, and Korea

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Business Ethics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
Title
Exporting an Inherently Harmful Product: The Marketing of Virginia Slims Cigarettes in the United States, Japan, and Korea
Published in
Journal of Business Ethics, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10551-015-2648-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Timothy Dewhirst, Wonkyong B. Lee, Geoffrey T. Fong, Pamela M. Ling

Abstract

Ethical issues surrounding the marketing and trade of controversial products such as tobacco require a better understanding. Virginia Slims, an exclusively women's cigarette brand first launched in 1968 in the USA, was introduced during the mid 1980s to major Asian markets, such as Japan and Korea, dominated by male smokers. By reviewing internal corporate documents, made public from litigation, we examine the marketing strategies used by Philip Morris as they entered new markets such as Japan and Korea and consider the extent that the company attempted to appeal to women in markets where comparatively few women were smokers. The case study of Virginia Slims reveals that the classification of "vulnerable" consumers is variable depending on culture, tobacco firms display responsive efforts and strategies when operating within a "mature" market, and cultural values played a role in informing Philip Morris' strategic decision to embrace an adaptive marketing approach, particularly when entering the Korean market. Finally, moral questions are raised with tobacco being identified as a priority product for export and international trade agreements being used by corporations, governments, or trade partners in efforts to undermine domestic public health policies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 18 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 25 36%
Social Sciences 8 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2017.
All research outputs
#5,616,007
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Business Ethics
#852
of 2,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,449
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Business Ethics
#9
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,847 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.