This section describes how tobacco product ranges supplied through the regulated market have changed over time in Australia, specifically, after the implementation of significant product and packaging regulations. It also discusses some of the different strategies used by tobacco companies to market their brands and products in Australia, including targeting products to different consumer groups, introducing appealing product features and evocative names, as well as extending and rationalising product ranges. Note that this section does not cover products sold that are not compliant with Australia’s excise/customs and packaging regulations—see InDepth 13A for further information.
The Australian tobacco market has been characterised by an extensive range of factory-made cigarette (FMC) and roll-your-own (RYO) products. As described in Table 10.7.1, a tobacco ‘brand’, or ‘brand family’, refers to the major brand name under which all sub-brands and variants are sold. A ‘sub-brand’ refers to a range of products under the major brand typically with a distinguishing feature, such as (up until 1 July 2025 in Australia) a filter innovation, flavour capsule, or non-standard cigarette stick size. A ‘variant’ is a variety within a brand or sub-brand, and a ‘product’ is a unique brand or sub-brand, variant, and pack size combination.
10.7.1 Tobacco product ranges within major Australian brands
10.7.1.1 Before and after the implementation of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023
On 1 July 2025, new regulations were implemented in Australia under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 that restricted the additives, physical characteristics, packaging, and naming of tobacco products.1 Specifically, these regulations:
- Standardised the size of tobacco products, so that FMC packs can only contain 20 cigarette sticks, and RYO pouches can contain only 30 grams of tobacco.
- Standardised the dimensions (length and diameter) of cigarette sticks, thereby banning extra-long and slim cigarettes.
- Standardised the characteristics and appearance of cigarette filters, thereby banning innovative filters, and flavour capsules and crushballs.
- Banned flavourings and certain ingredients including menthol or menthol derivatives, cloves, sugar, and vitamins.
- Introduced a range of prohibited terms for the naming of tobacco products including colours (e.g. blue, gold, red), terms that refer to or imply positive qualities (e.g. cool, extra, fresh, smooth, ultra), or terms that imply positive health effects (e.g. organic, natural, and additive-free).
Table 10.7.2 demonstrates the effect of these regulations on the size and characteristics of the regulated tobacco market in Australia. Between March and September 2025, the total number of FMC and RYO products reduced by 65% and 70% respectively. The reduction in the number of tobacco products was largely due to the regulations that standardised pack and pouch sizes.
At September 2025, there were no FMC products supplied through the regulated market in Australia that contained innovative filters, flavour capsules, menthol flavouring, or non-standard stick sizes. The regulations banning these attributes also contributed to the reduction in the number of FMC products, as well as the number of FMC sub-brands supplied for sale in the regulated market. For instance, within the JPS brand family, the sub-brands JPS Firm Touch Filter, JPS Crushball, JPS Superkings, and JPS 93mm Long are no longer permitted for sale in Australia. While the number of FMC products and sub-brands have substantially decreased as a result of the regulations, the number of FMC brands remains the same.
It is important to note that the Australian tobacco market has in recent years been characterised by considerable product churn as new products are introduced and other products discontinued frequently, so some of the change observed in Table 10.7.2 may be a point-in-time fluctuation rather than a permanent change in the market. For a detailed overview of the tobacco products currently available for sale in the regulated market in Australia see Section 10.5.
10.7.1.2 Before and after the implementation of plain packaging
In a series of studies examining the FMC products available for sale in Australia, it was observed that tobacco companies have relied on the use of variant names with colour associations, price-based market segments, and well-established brand names to market their products.
One study examined FMC brand and variant portfolios of the three major tobacco companies operating in Australia immediately before the implementation of plain packaging.2 This study identified that, on average, each brand supported an average of 6 variants (sub-brands were treated as variants in this study). This ranged from several brands only sold in one variety to up to 13 variants and sub-brands for the brand family Peter Jackson. The 12 leading brands supported a higher number of variants, 10 on average. Use of colours in variant names was high, with only three of the top 12 brands not using colour names. More than half of all variant names of the top 12 brands included specific colours (either just the colour or a colour-descriptor combination, such as Smooth Blue), and a further 8% used descriptors that had colour connotations, such as Night, Clear, and Frost. Menthol accounted for approximately 10% of variants among the top 12 brands. Variant (and sub-brand) names that were not colour-related tended to evoke connotations of quality, sophistication, modernity or advanced technology, size, and flavour.
In addition to the extensive range of variants available within FMC brands, the range of pack sizes on offer, including multi-buys and cartons were also examined.2 An average of 3.6 stock-keeping units per variant were identified (i.e. 3.6 pack sizes per brand-variant combination), with up to eight for the value brands Holiday, Horizon and Pall Mall. It was also noted that larger packs of 40s and 50s were not usually offered in mainstream and premium brands, instead twin packs of 2x20s or 2x25s were more common.
A 2016 study examined the three major tobacco companies’ brand portfolios over time, from 2006 to 2015.3 Over this period, a slight decline in the total number of brands was noted, while the overall number of variants per brand was relatively stable. However, this apparent stability in overall numbers concealed a period of substantial change in brand portfolios, particularly in the years immediately following the implementation of plain packaging. The variant ranges among the 12 leading brands expanded and the variant names of many products were modified, primarily to include colour descriptors (see Section 10.6.8.2 for a more detailed description).
A study assessing the FMC portfolio of British American Tobacco Australia (BATA) from 2012 to 2014 (the period of plain packaging implementation) observed that prices were highly dispersed within BATA’s own FMC range, with four distinct price segments being identified. The recommended retail price of the cheapest (small) product (Just Smokes 22s at $0.72 per stick) was 69% of the cost of the most expensive product per stick (Dunhill 20s at $1.05 per stick).4 It was further noted that premium brands tended to be offered in only one or two pack sizes (usually 20s and 25s), while budget brands were offered in many more sizes, from 20s up to 50s. Within each brand, price per stick incrementally decreased as pack size increased. Similarly, twin pack offers were cheaper per stick relative to the cost of two single packs. The authors of the study concluded that highly differentiated product portfolios and price options are offered within BATA’s product range, even post plain-packaging. Product differentiation, they argued, is a key strategy in effective tobacco marketing:
“Extensive tobacco product portfolios are differentiated to create maximum appeal for the numerous market segments, which vary according to factors such as demographics, lifestyles, aspirations and smoking habits.”
(Greenland et al., 2016)4
10.7.2 Price segmentation
The Australian FMC market is highly segmented. Each of the major tobacco companies operating in Australia offer a variety of brands that are most readily differentiated into price-based market segments. These are typically referred to as value (low cost), mainstream (mid-priced), and premium (most expensive),5 with a newer very cheap ‘super-value’ (or ‘ultra-low’) segment that emerged in the years following a very large tax increase (April 2010) and prior to the implementation of plain packaging.4,6 Most of the major tobacco companies offer multiple brands within each market segment. For instance, BATA currently offers two premium brands (Benson & Heges and Dunhill), one mainstream brand (Winfield), two value brands (Holiday and Pall Mall), and two super-value brands (Rothmans and Stradbroke). For more information about price segmentation, see Section 13.4.3.
Each brand or sub-brand may be tailored to appeal to different consumer groups in terms of demographic characteristics, geographic locations, and consumer motivations or values.2 In addition, variants are used to target particular consumers,3,4 including those with different flavour or sensory preferences, or those looking for specific product attributes. As described in Section 10.6.4.1, many FMC brands have previously introduced menthol capsule sub-brands. These FMC products contained a capsule of menthol flavouring in the filter than can be burst by the consumer to release a menthol flavour. Menthol capsule products were initially offered among premium brands, but were since introduced more widely as a premium feature in mainstream and value brands.7
10.7.3 Umbrella branding
The extensive product portfolios offered within brands has been described as an example of umbrella branding, or family branding.2 Umbrella branding is where existing well-established brands incorporate a wide range of product offerings, such as sub-brands, variants, and pack sizes.2,3 Umbrella branding is not unique to tobacco; however, it is a strategy that is particularly suited to the highly regulated tobacco market in Australia, where few opportunities for advertising of new products are available. For tobacco companies, there are several advantages to umbrella branding:
- Economies of scale are achieved in manufacture and marketing of new products within the established brand family.
- Use of the existing brand name and design elements facilitates brand recognition and transfers existing brand associations to the new product.
- Greater likelihood of customers trailing a new product with familiar elements compared to an unfamiliar product.
- Brand extensions are less likely to cannibalise sales from within the existing brand and other brands produced by the same company.2,3
In addition to incorporating new sub-brands, variants and pack sizes, tobacco companies have also revitalised and relaunched FMC brands already available in Australia. For instance, in 2009, Imperial Tobacco (IT) re-badged the long-established John Player Special as JPS—see Section 10.6.8.1. In 2012, BATA relaunched the previously premium, low-market share brand Rothmans as a super-value brand, lowering the recommended retail price by around $10 for a pack of 25s.8 Where previously available in only one stock-keeping unit (King Size Filter 25s), by 2016 the ‘new’ Rothmans was also offered in five variants (Blue, Gold, Red, Silver, and Menthol), packs of 20s, 30s and 40s, and with a Superkings brand extension.9
The major tobacco companies have also introduced new FMC brands to the Australian market that are popular in other countries. For example, Philip Morris International (PMI) introduced Bond Street in 2012, shortly before the implementation of plain packaging, and then Chesterfield in 2022. Similarly, IT has introduced several brands in the last decade including, Parker & Simpson in 2018, Lambert & Butler in 2021, and Classic in 2025.
10.7.4 Brand and product rationalisation
In concert with umbrella branding, tobacco companies have also engaged from time to time in the rationalisation of product offerings, most notably in the lead-up to plain packaging implementation. This included the removal of some pack sizes and variants within particular brands, and the discontinuation of some low market share brands.7 For example, IT circulated an information sheet to retailers in early 2012 that included the instruction: “if consumers ask for a recommendation on a suitable replacement for these products, please refer to the following list for products that will most closely meet their needs”, followed by details of the individual products being discontinued and their recommended replacements, such as Davidoff Classic or Davidoff Gold instead of Davidoff Rich Blue, or Escort 20s or 35s instead of 25s, or Horizon Blue 50 grams or 30 grams instead of Stockman’s Blue 50 grams.
Prior to the discontinuation of the value brand Brandon, IT included messages on the front of Brandon packs, noting that JPS is a suitable replacement brand within the IT brand portfolio—see Figure 10.7.1. BATA also rationalised many of its product offerings prior to, and in the years following plain packaging implementation. This included discontinuing the failed super-value brand Just Smokes and dramatically shrinking the range of Pall Mall and Holiday products available.8
10.7.5 Proliferation of roll-your-own product offerings
Like the FMC market, there has been much activity in the Australian RYO market, mostly occurring in the years immediately prior to the implementation of plain packaging, and continuing in the years since. Unlike FMC products, where the total number of brands offered has remained relatively stable while more sub-brands and variants have been introduced within existing brands, many new brands have entered the RYO market since approximately 2010.
10.7.5.1 Introduction of smaller RYO pouch sizes
The number of RYO products available on the Australian market has increased substantially over the last two decades. As demonstrated in Figure 10.7.2, until 2009, most of the RYO pouches on the market were available in 30 grams or 50 grams. In 2010, pouch sizes of 25 grams entered the market, followed by pouch sizes of 20 grams in 2016, and then pouch sizes of 15 grams in 2018. Rather than replacing existing products, these smaller pouch sizes were added to existing product ranges—another example of umbrella branding. The number of brand-pack size offerings was more than 50% larger in 2015 compared to 2001, and 2.5 times larger in 2019 than 2001. The proliferation of RYO products on the market corresponded to the increasing use of RYO tobacco, particularly exclusive use among females and young adults under 30 years of age.10
In July 2025, all RYO pouches in sizes other than 30 grams were discontinued following the pack standardisation regulations that were implemented under the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023. For further information about RYO pouch sizes, see Section 13.4.2.
10.7.5.2 Factory-made cigarette brand names applied to RYO products
The RYO market in Australia was traditionally dominated by a small number of unique brands that only sold RYO products, for example Drum, Champion, and Port Royal. The number of these ‘traditional’ RYO brands remained relatively stable at 12 between 2001 and 2016. There were only three FMC brands that also had RYO products on the Australian market in 2001. However, this number increased to six in 2009, and then to 13 in 2016.10 Many of these later entrants were positioned at prices (per stick equivalent) within the range of prices of the value or super-value segments of the FMC market. This is another illustration of umbrella branding, where tobacco companies have capitalised on the already established strong FMC brand identities when launching these new—predominantly cheap—RYO products.
Related reading
Relevant news and research
A comprehensive compilation of news items and research published on this topic
Read more on this topic
Test your knowledge
References
1. Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023 (Cth). 2025 [cited C2025C00142 (C02); Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2023A00118/latest/text.
2. Greenland SJ. Cigarette brand variant portfolio strategy and the use of colour in a darkening market. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(e1):e65-71. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23988859
3. Greenland SJ. The Australian experience following plain packaging: the impact on tobacco branding. Addiction, 2016; 111(12):2248-58. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27557863
4. Greenland SJ, Johnson L, and Seifi S. Tobacco manufacturer brand strategy following plain packaging in Australia: implications for social responsibility and policy. Social Responsibility Journal, 2016; 12(2):321-34. Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/SRJ-09-2015-0127
5. Carter SM. The Australian cigarette brand as product, person, and symbol. Tobacco Control, 2003; 12 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):iii79-86. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14645952
6. Bayly M, Scollo M, White S, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco price boards as a promotional strategy-a longitudinal observational study in Australian retailers. Tobacco Control, 2018; 27(4):427-33. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28735275
7. Scollo M, Occleston J, Bayly M, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(e1):e116-22. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789601
8. Scollo M, Bayly M, White S, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments in the Australian market in the 4 years following plain packaging. Tobacco Control, 2017. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28993520
9. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2016; 99 (July-August-September).
10. Bayly M, Scollo MM, and Wakefield MA. Who uses rollies? Trends in product offerings, price and use of roll-your-own tobacco in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2019; 28(3):317-24. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30030409
9. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders' Association. Price lists. The Australian Retail Tobacconist, 2016; 99(Jul-Sep).
10. Scollo M, Occleston J, Bayly M, Lindorff K, and Wakefield M. Tobacco product developments coinciding with the implementation of plain packaging in Australia. Tobacco Control, 2015; 24(e1):e116-22. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2014/04/30/tobaccocontrol-2013-051509.short