Tobacco Marketing

S

SineWave

Registered User
Messages
330
Something that has been itching me for a while now, and I would love to hear other posters views on it.

I noticed recently that a certain cigarette company has released a new package with rounder, prismic edges. This has probably been for two reasons;

1. Marketing advantage over competitors.
2. Marketing advantage aimed at starters (the brand in particular is quite popular among females).

It sickens me when I consider the technology and investment that has gone in to this, and the reasons behind it, which led me to a possible solution......for the better of all.

Imagine if the Irish Government took the novel step of introducing a ban on the sale of all tobacco products that were not packaged in a certain regulated fashion.

1. Standard size box dimensions, with standard opening.
2. Box to have a certain type of unattractive cardboard texture, made from recycled paper.
3. Standard sized small text and font on bottom, to indicate the brand to the user.
4. Biodegradeable sealing on box.
5. Non display of tobacco products in retailers.

In brief, make the packaging as unattractive as possible, so that it's presence on a table would indicate that the user is an addict and that there's nothing "cool" about the product that they are using.

By the way......I smoke and hate every pull!
 
SineWave said:
In brief, make the packaging as unattractive as possible, so that it's presence on a table would indicate that the user is an addict and that there's nothing "cool" about the product that they are using.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure that such an attempt at marginalisation would necessarily work. After all, remember how big a hit Death Cigarettes were for a while in spite of (or because of?) the morbid imagery employed on the packaging? (I'm not sure if they are still on the market.) I think that the money that would be spent on further regulation of packaging and branding might be better spent on continuing to educate people about the negative health effects (to themselves and others) of smoking. But if people do insist on smoking then (whatever about passive smoking affecting others) that's their prerogative and a decision for which they need to take individual personal responsibility.
 
Your idea doesn't sound bad, but I don't think it will deter smokers from buying them. I stopped smoking 18 months ago and haven't touched one since. But I know, when I was still addicted I would have smoked anything just to get nicotine into my body, no matter what the packaging looked like.
 
Ditto to the two previous posts. As the American comedian Dennis Leary used to observe in one of his old routines, you could package them in black with a skull-and-crossbones across the front and call them "Tumours", and people would still queue around the block to buy them...! :rolleyes:
 
I agree with the above statements in relation to existing smokers. I am more worried about the young impressionable ones, who are driven by branding in every walk of life.
 
Hi SineWave,

I seem to remember that the Canadian Government proposed something like this a few years back. I cant remember if it was successfull or not. You must remember that "Big Tobacco" is a very very powerful lobby and that they are not averse to using proxies to further their cause. Witness the so called "Hospitality Industry" who allowed "Big Tobacco" to hijack their legimate business concerns. "Big Tobacco" will respond to your suggestions by getting the advertising, packaging industries and the retail industry to do their dirty work.




ajapale

I tried the following google search which resulted in many interesting hits
( tobacco industry canada "plain packaging")
 
I'd have thought that enforcement of existing litter laws to prevent the widespread littering of butts and new legislation/enforcement to further restrict smoking in outdoor public places not specifically dedicated to smokers only (e.g. train platforms, outdoor music venues etc) would be more effective at getting over the message that smoking is anti-social.
 
I think it is such a great idea to allow only plain packaging.

Death Cigarettes worked not because the tobacco was better but because the package was perceived as 'cool.'
 
- how about adding more taxes on the cigarette !!

- all though the CPI would be effected and then all the public sector would be looking
for higher pay in line with inflation.......

- saying that I don't smoke and never did but a few people I know just gave it up because it was costing them too much ..

which is more powerful an add in TV or less money in your pocket ?
 
Marketing tools are more powerful; would we smoke in the first place if they weren't? Would we buy big cars when small cars get us there in the same time? Would we buy Guccis instead of Penneys if it wasn't for the lifestyle projected by marketing departments?
 
Other than Penny's clothes I haven't bought any of the items that you mention above and am presumably subject to the same marketing messages as most other people. There is such a thing as personal choice and personal responsibility when it comes to purchasing decisions as well as many other things.
 
I haven't bought any of the items that you mention above and am presumably subject to the same marketing messages as most other people.
Click to expand...

Ah. but you're unusual. This discussion has no relevance to you because you can stand outside the marketing and see it for what it is, in relation to these items at least. I presume you also don't smoke, so smoking marketing doesn't work on you.

When it comes to fighting smoking we don't care about people like you who can look after themselves. You are not (as far as I know) a 15 year old school girl.

I suspect there are many things you do buy where your decision is guided by marketing, and you don't even realise it. It all depends where you sit on the spectrum of awareness/intelligence. I suspect you sit higher on the spectrum than (most) 15 year old school girls.

The original posters suggestion was to remove one of the tools of the tobacco industry. I.e. it's packaging. This would in turn remove it's brand.
Why not take it a step further and force cigarettes to be sold completely unbranded. The consumer would just ask for....A Box of Cigarettes.
Let the shop decide which supplier they will purchase from.

Ban the sale of them outside of Pharmacies, since they are a drug. It would make it more difficult to buy them (especially by minors), but wouldn't remove people's freedom to get them if they wanted.

Of course all of these things could be tried. The net result would be more smuggling of cigarettes, and more people geting a couple of cartons brought home from abroad (which seems to be how most regular smokers survive anyway).

Rainyday is right. The best way to tackle the problem is not at the supply side, because there are ways around that. But at the use side. Make it as uncomfortable as possible to smoke.

I'd go so far as to stop all smoking in public. You can smoke in your house, or your garden shed, but not on the foot paths, or the train platform, or the bus stop.

I'd also make it an offence comparable with child abuse to smoke in a car with a baby.

-Rd
 
Doesn't mean you can't contribute to it, just that you and your ilk (which in this case includes me) aren't who it's about.

Having reached the age I have it's almost certain that I won't start smoking. So whether or not you or I are able to witstand Tobacco advertising is neither here nor there. You being able to resist marketing efforts is no benchmark, the question is can kids resist it.

-Rd
 
I got a great sugestion , leave us smokers alone, we have rights, many of us don't want to give up, many of us enjoy smoking so maybe you should but out.
 
You are not (as far as I know) a 15 year old school girl.
Click to expand...
At times like this I really, really miss that 'rofl' smilie...!
Clubman, could you not do something about it?
Or post an appropriate 'photoshoppage'..?

I'm the father of a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old schoolgirl and I seriously believe that the sound of me clearing out my lungs in the morning has put them both off smoking for life. I'm still smoking in moderation, but I agree that smokers should be hounded out of it in terms of reducing the number of places they can smoke. We'll piss and moan about it, but we'll smoke less as a result...

And anyone who smokes in an enclosed space with a baby deserves a kick in the [insert-your-euphemism-here]...
 
Hi Jem,

If cigarrettes were in plain packaging how would that infringe on your rights as an adult smoker?

ajapale
 
jem said:
I got a great sugestion , leave us smokers alone, we have rights, many of us don't want to give up, many of us enjoy smoking so maybe you should but out.
Click to expand...

No...you're a very evil and bad lot and should be made to suffer excrutiatingly for the rest of your [short] lives ;)
 
DrMoriarty said:
I'm the father of a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old schoolgirl and I seriously believe that the sound of me clearing out my lungs in the morning has put them both off smoking for life. I'm still smoking in moderation, but I agree that smokers should be hounded out of it in terms of reducing the number of places they can smoke. We'll piss and moan about it, but we'll smoke less as a result...
Click to expand...

Funny - I put my not smoking (other than the odd drunken fag - no smart remarks please - when I was young) down to my father giving me a pull out of his Players Navy Cut untipped cigarette when I was about five or six when he arrived home with a few pints on him one night. I was sick for a few days afterwards and reckon that this put me off them for life. Did the trick, possibly more by accident than design, but then again daltonr would probably have had the da locked up for child abuse! :) As it happens he himself eventually stopped smoking but died of lung cancer c. 15 years later and they were most likely a contributory factor. A load of other family members have suffered/died of cancer and respiratory problems most likely linked to smoking. :(
 
>> but then again daltonr would probably have had the da locked up for child abuse!

Not at all. I've seen a couple of proactive techniques to stop kids smoking, including forcing a kid to smoke a pack of 20 after catching him smoking.

My child abuse crime would apply only to people who routinely smoke in confined places with kids who are unable to speak for themselves or get up and go somewhere else. e.g. Those with kids strapped into baby seats in cars.

Amazing that you can't have a child without a seat belt in a car. But you can strap them in and force them to inhale smoke and that's fine.

JEM!!! We're coming to get you. You might as well get used to it. We won on the Pub smoking ban and eventually smoking in public will be as
socially acceptable as pissing in public.

-Rd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top