Take a look at this ad.
We bet that you probably won’t even realise what it’s for until you’re about halfway through.
Although this ad is from the UK, , which will turn the packets of all the brands into the same, dull olive colour … that is generally accepted to be the least appealing in branding.
The tobacco giants were, predictably, angry and brought a court case alleging the Australian Government was infringing their trademark property (the brands).
Today the High Court has handed down their decision in the case and have upheld the right of the Australian Government to legislate for plain packaging. This from the Sydney Morning Herald:
The decision is expected to have significant influence globally with both the United Kingdom and New Zealand considering plain packaging.
Health experts have hailed the decision as a major victory for global health.
It clears the way for the government to impose a ban on all brand marks and logos on cigarettes, to take effect from December this year.
Large graphic health warnings will dominate the packs and the manufacturers’ brand names will be written in a small generic font.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon and Health Minister Tanya Plibersek declared: “This is a victory for all those families who have lost someone to a tobacco related illness.
“No longer when a smoker pulls out a packet of cigarettes will that packet be a mobile billboard.”
Smoking rates in Australia were 16.6 per cent in 2007 which the Australian Government wants to bring down to less than 10 per cent by 2018 through a combination of increased taxes and plain packaging.
The new laws will take effect on December 1 this year.
Do you think plain packaging will discourage people from taking up smoking?
Top Comments
Plain packaging will only hurt the tobacconists, which, like many retailers, are already hurting from online shopping.
As will many items, tobacco aficionados can easily buy their favourite brand of tobacco for personal use from an international supplier online, pay the import duties and taxes via customs and receive the product with all of its branding in place, free of any anti-smoking warnings and assured they have actually received a genuine product.
Moreover, even with the import duties and taxes, they will probably have paid much less than at their local tobacconist, who can't even determine from the plain packaging, if the product is the right product or if it is a genuine product.
Got my first plain package with graphic images this week so I kept my old box and swapped them into it.
My dear Mum died of Emphysema 2 years ago. She was only 66. She didn't just die suddenly, she was gravely sick for 10+ years.
When Mum started smoking as a teenager, cigarette branding was everywhere - magazines, billboards, the movies and, of course, the packet itself. As in Marketing 101, the brand messages were designed to convey a feeling or aspiration to the smoker: Dunhill = prestigious, Marlborough = Rough and rugged, Alpines = Cool and active (healthy even!) etc.. Kids starting smoking chose whichever brand they aspired to be like. So yes, branding makes an impact.
I think it is difficult for the current generation to understand how a new generation, that has never seen any branding associated with cigarettes, will respond to a product that has no glamourised images attached to it. A product that is now well known to kill people (says so on the packet), rob people of money, ruin their health and result in an addiction that is stronger than that of many hard drugs.
I believe that no branding for cigarettes, coupled with contemporary knowledge about the impacts of smoking, will result in it being boring enough to make some children uninterested.
The law comes into effect on my Mum's birthday - she would have been 68. A great present for my Mum, who knew too well the impacts of smoking, but could not kick the chemical addiction until it was too late...