Forum

The NewsBiscuit Community

Sign up or log in - lost password?

Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten

Cigarette Branding


(72 posts) (18 voices)
  • Started 4 years ago by Titus
  • Latest reply from Arthur

Tags:

  • Clint Eastwood smoked. Just saying.
  • Cough Sale Now On
  • How we all laughed
  • Taking 'comedy' out of 'observational co
  • Yet more valid but dull observations
123Next »
  1. Titus

    offline
    Member

    I am baffled why anyone takes seriously the objections which fag companies have to a ban on branding their products.

    The proposed ban places no restriction on buying, merely on selling.

    As a libertarian I am in favour of allowing people to smoke if they are daft enough (or addicted enough) to want to. I have a similar attitude to most toxic products. But what should be restricted is the active, vigorous promotion of such products, enticing new addicts/victims. After all, with most currently illegal drugs, dealing and selling is punished much more severely than mere possession or consumption. Many smokers, like many other addicted drug users, freely admit that they wish they had never started.

    Most hilarious of all is the claim by the manufacturers that bright, colourful branding does not increase overall consumption, but merely allows competition between bands. Yeah, right - so if such branding does not increase overall consumption, why are all the manufacturers so desparately anxious to retain it? If overall consumption really were to remain unaffected, the overall profitabilty of the industry as a whole would be unaffected. If anything in fact, it would increase their profits since they would no longer have to bear the considerable cost of branding and marketing their products.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. Lens Cap

    offline
    Member

    They are annoyed for the same reason alcohol companies would be pissed of if all drink had to be sold in plain packaging. Drinking causes a far bigger drain on the country, both financially and socially, than smoking. Yet drinks companies can still have eye catching ads and sponsorships on television. It is about an identity, and whether you like smoking or not, until it is illegal it should have the same rights to compete as any other product.

    Where do you stop making things branded for the sake of the nation. Fizzy drinks, crisps, bookmakers, etc. If the government wants to stop people smoking, make it illegal. If they don't wish to do that then thy have to be allowed to compete the same as other dangerous products can.

    I'm not a smoker, but do think it is an easy target, when now, there are bigger dangers to health for them to concentrate on

    Posted 4 years ago #
  3. Tripod

    offline
    Member

    I listened, this morning, to an apologist for the tobacco industry, explaining why cigarette packs should stay as they are, rather than being plain (apart for some rather gruesome pictures of smoking-related diseases). He said that organised crime would find the plain packets “easier to counterfeit”. They would adulterate the products and use “poor quality tobacco”.

    Tobacco is stuffed with so many carcinogens and toxins already: it’s hard to know what could possibly be added to make them more injurious to health.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. Smart Alex

    offline
    Member

    According to the World Health Organisation, smoking kills around 6 million people each year (about ten percent of this is through passive smoking). This means that just to stand still the tobacco industry has to find about 5.4 million new customers each year to replace those it's killed off - the other 0.6 million being passive smokers so they're just collateral damage and are of no importance to the industry.

    Finding these 5.4 million new customers each year is why the industry feels the need to advertise.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. Not Amused

    offline
    Member

    Luckily Cameron hasn't got anyone with obvious links to the tobacco industry so he could be accused of lobbying.
    The fact that Lynton Crosby's companies were involved in lobbying against packaging in Australia and have been representing the tobacco industry here for a while is purely coincidental and I think he will be a great asset when it comes to evaluating the success of the Australian scheme. A good advisor can put his bias aside and I am sure he will.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  6. Titus

    offline
    Member

    @Lens Cap: disagree.

    There is a total difference betwen beeing allowed to do something, however unwise and unhealthy, and being allowed actively and energetically to promote such an activity, especially for commercial gain.

    Smoking is unhealthy and therefore undesirable, but you should have the right to do it if that is what you choose. The proposed restrictions relate to the selling of cigarettes, not to their purchase. If you want to smoke, it is up to you to make the active decision to go and buy cigarettes. But there is no justification whatever for actively encouraging someone to smoke, especially if it wouldn't otherwise have ocurred to them.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. Lens Cap

    offline
    Member

    You can use the same argument for drink. I don't support the industry at all, but think there are bigger issues. Most of the kids I see smoking smoke roll ups. This has nothing to do with pretty packaging, it's because it's not £7.50+ a pack. Someone addicted to cigarettes is far less an issue than someone addicted to alcohol. I have no big issue with making it difficult for people to smoke, but think you should treat all things bad for your health the same way. I think alcohol is more distructive but am shown it every time I watch comedy on channel 4, watch come dine with me at 5.30pm and others.

    I'm neither pro or anti drink or smoking or drinkingI just believe you have to take personal opinion out of it and treat equal risks equally. But the tobacco is an easy evil industry and is therefore a lazy political target.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. beau-jolly

    offline
    Member

    Tripod touched on the issue here. There is actually a difference between B&H, Marlboro or Richmond. The latter being made from DIET. Dry Ice Enhanced Tobacco or fluffed up tobacco dust. Plain packaging means brands cannot be differenciated so their specific "brand benefit" (for want of a better term) cannot be identified. There is the assumption that the brand benefits are all purely social i.e this brand makes you look sophisticated and that one makes you look international. However there is also the; this brand is a blend of good quality Viginia or Turkish tobaccos and that brand is made from floor-sweepings. If I were to take up smoking ever again I would like to be able to know what I am buying. As you are not allowed to look at fags before you buy them now, how are brands supposed to tell you why theirs is unique? Don't tell me there is no difference between a Ziganov Turkish and a Booker own label. That is like saying alcohol kills then only selling fine Claret and strong cider in white painted milk bottles.

    A much bigger issue is the crazy broad-brush approach. The ban on packaging means that Cuban hand-rolled cigars, for example, cannot carry the ID band so you have to have faith that the big roll of leafes you just paid $30 for really is a Partagas Series D number 2. Because of this I understand that in Australia the first market to be forced underground (thus avoiding duty) was fine cigars.

    It's all academic anyway as the vast majority of tobacco smoked in the UK is illegally imported hand-rolling tobacco. Much of this is counterfeit, which is even more deadly and finances serious organised crime rather than the exchequer.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. Sinnick

    offline
    Member

    I'm glad you pointed out that the exchequer isn't organised.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. beau-jolly

    offline
    Member

    Alex: a lot of smokers die of non-smoking related causes too. EG being hit by a bus. You are right. Fag companies need people entering the market in similar volumes to those who are leaving it to maintian current volumes.
    I heard an interview last year with a fag Co. exec. (who appeared to be oblivious to any moral issue.) He explained that, yes, in the west consumpsion (haha!) was reducing but it was OK and we had no need to fret about (He had seriously missed the point) because it was more than compensated for by "emerging markets" in Africa, and South America in particular. What was so great was that legal restrictions were almost non-existant so it was perfectly legal for example to hand out free higher-than-normal-nicotine Marlboro to school kids to get them addicted: Legal because no-one had concidered a specific ban. That is why Philip Morris Jnr. resigned from his family's company (he kept his $bns though - not stupid)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  11. rickwestwell

    offline
    Member

    Advertising works to get new customers. The last place cigarette firms are allowed to advertise is on their own packets.

    Does anyone think for a second that a committed Silk Cut customer will give a flying fuck that their packet looks different? No.

    But if it stops me looking at it and thinking "Mmmmm... Silk Cut" (which I would) then it's probably stopped me from dying early.

    So purely selfishly, I support the plain packets thing, as it will definitely help me live longer. As far as I'm concerned, all other arguments are just trying to shorten my life, so I'm a bit anti.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. beau-jolly

    offline
    Member

    But Rick, here in the UK they are all behind cupboard doors (in big shops and soon to be so in small ones too) so you can't see them anyway and have to ask for them by name. No browsing permitted.
    If I smoked, which I don't, I would want to be able to make a clear decision about which brand I smoked based on quality or price the same as I would with any other legally distributed consumer product. Slik Cut for instance have different consumer "benefits" to Capstan Full Strength or Gauloises Disque Bleu. How are you going to make that choice if you are not allowed to know what is in the packet you've just bought? I guess you could try every brand until you settled on one you liked?

    Anyway I disagree. In this case advertsing works to switch the allegeance of existing category users.
    As someone said above, and I paraphrase; Ban them or fuck off out of it.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. Not Amused

    offline
    Member

    I think after one Gauloise you start to sound like Serge Gainsbourg. Most women change brand at that point.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. Gary Stanton

    offline
    Member

    Putting them in plain packets is just going to make them more sexy, if anything.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  15. Arthur

    offline
    Member

    It's not just a matter of hiding the packets behind blinds. Once purchased, the packets are seen by others and are the smoker's identifiable brand, as much as you might choose Calvin Klein or Tag Heuer or "Essential Waitrose" or whatever.

    Branding is immensely powerful -- more so than photographs of cancerous growths -- and that's why the tobacco producers are fighting hard to hold on to it as much as they possibly can.

    Equally significant, people don't make informed decisions about tobacco. The tobacco industry conned the public into thinking that filter tips and low tar blends were better for their health. They are, most emphatically, not. They result in the smoker inhaling a massively higher proportion of toxins for each milligram of nicotine he or she craves.

    They conned everyone that way, government health departments included.

    In summary, the tobacco industry has thrived on aggressive marketing of addictive products and if you give them an inch then they'll take a mile.

    SOURCE: years working in tobacco advertising in the 1970s-1980s and, prior to that, tobacco was the family business.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    Can we make homeopathy advertising illegal too, please?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. Arthur

    offline
    Member

    On the contrary, Al; I think we should make them spend a one-millionth part of their current advertising budgets and see if it works better.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. charlies_hat

    offline
    Member

    I'm quite plain looking, it doesn't make me any more attractive.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  19. Arthur

    offline
    Member

    Try coming out of the cupboard.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  20. Al OPecia

    offline
    Member

    I wonder what some honest cigarette advertising would look like?

    "Fill your lungs with irritating and toxic smoke, become addicted to a potent alkaloid, cough your lungs up and die of one of several long and drawn out deaths, after it's cost you a fortune"?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  21. Arthur

    offline
    Member

    An example of honest cigarette advertising would be "Stand outside with a Strand."

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjBHUQEiTPw

    Posted 4 years ago #
  22. bonjonelson

    offline
    Member

    Honesty in cigarette advertising? It has been tried:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  23. A.A.Arkwright

    offline
    Member

    I think anyone who sells fags should be forced to smoke 40 a day and if they sell booze a bottle of the cheapest vodka. I own a pie shop myself. I'm quite a big lad.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  24. Not Amused

    offline
    Member

    Bang go my ideas about opening an enema salon

    Posted 4 years ago #
  25. A.A.Arkwright

    offline
    Member

    I just realised I forgot to say what the booze seller should do with the bottle of vodka perhaps you can combine the two. I think a well known booze and fag seller, on here, has just one-stared me. Hopefully he'll be your first customer. I'll pay.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  26. beau-jolly

    offline
    Member

    I don't get that Mr. Arkwright. I sell fine booze so can't I be forced to drink fine booze? I don't sell cheap vodka so I'd have to buy it off someone else meaning that they would then have to drink it too.

    Arthur: Presumably you have earned a considerable amount from promoting cigarettes over the years. I don't hold that against you. I have been pedalling alcohol for decades and still do. What is your expert opinion of plain packaging? I suppose one effect would be to make illegal imports much easier to spot. Other than that will it make any difference to the volume smoked? Also how do you deal with sales of single fine cigars from a humador if they cannot show any "branding"?

    <edit> Not my one star and I don't sell fags.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  27. A.A.Arkwright

    offline
    Member

    Apologies, my good fellow, for mis-accusing you of the heinous crime of giving me the dreaded 1 star. My original comments were not directed at you, although I was aware, from comments I’d picked up, that you ran an off-licence establishment. However, you’ll have to forgive me for not giving a bugger about what you think every time I express an opinion. As for getting 1 stared I’ll probably get over it after a week or two in the Priory. I certainly don’t intend spending more than the rest of my life tracking down the culprit.

    I’m glad you don’t sell tobacco, as I regard anyone that sells it as total scum. If I stepped on a tobacco seller I wouldn’t want to clean them off I’d have to buy a new pair of shoes. An upsetting prospect for someone like myself. Obviously, making selling it illegal wouldn’t work though. Perhaps if the packets had labels like “Sold by shits to wankers” or “Smoking makes you look like a loser” that might have a beneficial effect.

    So you only sell fine booze and expensive vodka. Well, you’ll not see me outside your shop at 10 o’ clock tomorrow morning . Don’t kid yourself, though. Just because they’re buying the good stuff doesn’t mean a proportion of the people you’re supplying don’t have a serious problem.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  28. beau-jolly

    offline
    Member

    Sorry but I am scum. I sell tobacco. I don't sell fags but I do sell a range of hand made Cuban and Nicoraguan cigars for up to £22.50 each. I am sure they are just as deadly as 20 No.6 but the people who buy them appear to be quite well educated and I assume they are capable of making a rational decision.

    I wasn't sure if you meant me as you said "well known" but I wasn't aware of another booze and fag seller on here.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  29. A.A.Arkwright

    offline
    Member

    You don't need to apologise. If you're doing something you think is wrong stop doing it. That, though, probably isn't the case is it?
    I must remember to wear my oldest shoes if I'm ever in your area, just in case.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  30. charlies_hat

    offline
    Member

    removed in despair. sigh.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.