Cigarette advertising in the Republic of Korea: a case illustration of<i>The One</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Korea is regarded as the world's eighth largest cigarette market, which reflects a sizeable population of the country and roughly 40% of Korean men being smokers.1 2 Moreover, Korea has been identified as one of the lowest (machine-measured) tar delivery markets in the world. According to internal corporate documentation from Philip Morris, Korean smokers prefer lower (machine-measured) tar and nicotine products that are complemented with promotional appeals relating to luxury.3 The primary marketing communication channels utilised by tobacco firms in Korea appear to be the print media (ie, business and fashion magazines with a predominantly male readership, given legislation, the National Health Promotion Act, which stipulates that cigarette advertisements cannot be directed overtly towards women), retail merchandising (eg, ‘power-wall’ and sales-counter signage in convenience stores) and packaging.1 The Korean tobacco industry is dominated by four firms: Korean Tomorrow and Global (KT&G), Philip Morris International, Japan Tobacco International and British American Tobacco. KT&G has nearly a 70% market share, while Philip Morris International, Japan Tobacco International and British American Tobacco have a collective market share of approximately 30%.4 In this paper, we provide a semiotic analysis of packaging and promotions for KT&G's The One, which is a brand with a relatively low machine-measured tar delivery. Semiotics refers to the theory of signs, and offers an interpretive approach to the study of signs and produced meanings.5–7 As will be seen in this paper, The One packaging makes use of ‘white space’ to convey prestige, purity and healthiness consequently, it is argued that the use of white is generally ill-advised for plain packaging prototypes. We present several examples to show that important obligations of the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) have …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".