Editorial Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2008.027755 on 20 November 2008. Downloaded from

Scheffels shows how ‘‘ brands The plain truth about and cigarette package designs are given meaning in relation to personal character- packaging istics, to social identity and to positions in hierarchies of status...’’.25 In this way they 1 2 become props for self expression. Roper Gerard Hastings, Karine Gallopel-Morvan, and Shah27 confirm the symbolic impor- 3 tance of the brand among preadolescents Juan Miguel Rey allowing them to feel part of their reference group and, in the case of less Hymenopus coronatus (the Malaysian prey- form of promotion of the brand name and well off children, helping them disguise ing mantis) has a cunning hunting tech- values’’.6 their disadvantage. Similarly, research in nique. It disguises itself as an orchid; its In the case of tobacco, the pack has North America reveals how young people four walking legs are exquisite replicas of been used for years to generate evocative use branded to appear fashion- petals and its lethal jaws blend into the images such as luxury, freedom, glamour, able, popular and smart,18 and the most background. This makes it beautiful to status and masculinity or femininity,7–9 as recent research in Australia17 reinforces behold, but for the lizards and insects that well as to give smokers false comfort the evidence that plain packs—the plainer are its prey, ruthless and deadly. What about health consequences.10 It is also the the better—can strip away these layers of looks like a flower, and an enticing source marketing tool with most direct links to deceptive imagery. of nectar, is actually a death trap. the consumer11 and its power is increased As if this poisonous seduction was not The has learnt well because cigarettes are ‘‘badge products’’ enough, the pack livery also acts as a from H coronatus. It camouflages its which are conspicuously consumed, par- spoiler, distracting attention from the deadly product in elegantly decorated ticularly by the young, to make public health warning.9 28–31 Much time and packages making them look on the one statements about the user’s self image and effort has been put into strengthening hand uniquely attractive and on the other identity.11 12 Furthermore, as other forms these and they are a valuable and effective just like any branded product. Thus they of marketing have been removed, the pack public health measure, and yet clever pack acquire exclusivity and legitimacy. Like has become increasingly important to the designs are allowed to subvert them. H coronatus, tobacco companies also suc- tobacco industry,13 14 providing a vital None of this is wasted on the tobacco ceed in hunting and killing small crea- communication platform15 and link to companies. Analysis of their internal tures. It is abundantly clear that young other forms of marketing communication documents shows that they fully appreci- people are drawn into by brand- such as sponsorship.16 ate the marketing value of their packs and 32 ing and that liveried packs play an active Consumer research confirms this mar- will fight to keep them. They argue that http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ role in this process. keting power. Studies of the whole any restriction would represent an unfair The UK Government is therefore to be population show that liveried packs evoke interference in their creative and commer- applauded for its proposal to mandate positive images17 and, conversely, that cial freedom and infringe property plain packaging for cigarettes.1 This generic ones make the product and its rights.25 But these freedoms are negated would involve removing all distinctive perceived consumer less fashionable and by the harm being done to public heath signs from packs leaving only the name attractive.18–22 The young are particularly and the need to protect young people. of the brand in a standard colour and font, susceptible to these effects. Large-scale Furthermore, the pharmaceutical market along with the legally mandated informa- research in the UK has demonstrated that provides an interesting precedent: power- tion.2 It’s the equivalent of turning even after advertising is banned (the 2004 ful medicines, particularly addictive ones H coronatus into a piece of couch grass. Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act such as psychotropic drugs, routinely 2 The evidence for the harm done by prohibited tobacco advertising in the UK), come in plain packs. Tobacco is also on September 29, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. liveried packs is clear. The first concerns branding continues to drive teen smok- extremely addictive, carries enormous emerge from the business literature, ing23 and that awareness of packaging and health risks, but unlike a medicine, which emphasises that the pack in lots new pack design is a key element of this provides no objective benefits. of product categories has become far more ongoing marketing.24 An industry analyst Interestingly, despite their obvious than a simple container:3 it also adds interviewed in the latest issue of the trade opposition to generic packaging the value, makes the product distinctively magazine Tobacco Journal International tobacco industry does see it as a very real attractive and stimulates purchase and (TJI) confirmed this marketing value, possibility. In their 2007 Standard repeat purchase.4 It has become a key commenting that ‘‘more than half the Industrial Classification (SIC) submission long-term marketing investment5 that brand impact is in the design of the Philip Morris lists it as 1 of 10 ‘‘significant ‘‘allows the brand to develop its message cigarette packet’’.25 It is not surprising regulatory developments [that] will take to the consumer and to act as a valuable then that the leading business website place over the next few years in most of Brand Republic is trailing the fact that UK our markets’’.33 Similarly, the industry 1 University of Stirling and the Open University, Stirling, ‘‘tobacco brands are putting packaging analyst in TJI says that while ‘‘it is Scotland, UK; 2 University of Rennes 1, School of design at the heart of their marketing unlikely in the next year or 2, on a 5- or 3 Business Administration, Rennes, France; University of strategies’’, noting that Gallaher and 10-year view, then I think it is certainly Cadiz, School of Business Administration, Cadiz, Spain Imperial Tobacco have introduced design possible’’.25 He also notes that ‘‘it is Correspondence to: Gerard Hastings, Institute for innovations.26 important to remember that every Social Marketing and the Centre for Research, University of Stirling and the Open University, It is also clear that children, especially anti-tobacco proposal that has been con- Stirling FK9 4LA, Scotland, UK; those from deprived backgrounds, find sulted on by the UK government in the [email protected] tobacco brands particularly enticing. last 10 years has been implemented’’ and

Tobacco Control December 2008 Vol 17 No 6 361 Editorial Tob Control: first published as 10.1136/tc.2008.027755 on 20 November 2008. Downloaded from

(inadvertently) that the UK would be 10. Devlin E, Eadie D, Angus K. Low tar product behaviour. Report of study 1. Toronto, Ontario, category. Prepared for NHS Health Scotland. Glasgow, Canada: RBJ Health Management Associates, 1993. performing a valuable service to global UK: Centre for Tobacco Control Research, 2003. 23. Moodie C, Mackintosh AM, Brown A, et al. public health because ‘‘if it goes ahead in http://www.tobaccopapers.com/casestudies/index. Tobacco marketing awareness on youth smoking the UK, it will sweep across many htm#lowtarproduct (accessed 15 October 2008). susceptibility and perceived prevalence before and countries around the world in a few 11. Hammond D. Tobacco labelling & packaging after an advertising ban. Eur J Public Health 25 toolkit: a guide to FCTC Article 11. Tobacco Labelling 2008;18:484–90. years’’. Resource Centre 2008. http://www.igloo.org/ 24. Centre for Tobacco Control Research (CTCR). It is, then, the time for action. tobacco_labelling (accessed 15 October 2008). Point of sale display of tobacco products. London, UK: H coronatus is a wonderful natural phe- 12. D’Avernas JR, Northrup D, Foster MK, et al. Cancer Research UK, 2008. http://info. nomenon; tobacco branding is an obscene Cigarette packaging and event marketing increases cancerresearchuk.org/images/pdfs/ the attractiveness of smoking: a study of youth. tobcon_pointofsalereport (accessed 15 October man-made corruption of it. This lethal Working paper 28. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The 2008). product should be stripped of its enticing Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, 1997. 25. Rossell S. Little hope in appealing to natural justice: camouflage by mandating plain packaging. 13. Chapman S. Public health advocacy and tobacco TJI interview with Adam Spielman. Tob J Int 2008;4. control: making smoking history. Oxford, UK: http://www.tobaccojournal.com/ Competing interests: None. Blackwell, 2007. Little_hope_in_appealing_to_natural_justice.49195. 14. Wakefield M, Letcher T. My pack is cuter than your 0.html (accessed 15 October 2008). Tobacco Control 2008;17:361–362. pack. Tob Control 2002;11:154–6. 26. Bokaie J. Tobacco firms in pack design work. Brand doi:10.1136/tc.2008.027755 15. Slade J. The pack as advertisement. Tob Control Republic, 2008. http://www.brandrepublic.com/ 1997;6:169–70. News/846210/Tobacco-firms-pack-design-work/ REFERENCES 16. Carr-Cregg MRC, Gray AJ. ‘Generic’ packing: a (accessed 15 October 2008). possible solution to the marketing of tobacco to young 27. Roper S, Shah B. Vulnerable consumers: the social 1. Department of Health. Consultation on the future of people. Med J Australia 1990;153: 685–6. impact of branding on children. Equal Opportunities Int tobacco control. London, UK: Department of Health, 17. Germain D, Durkin SJ. How does 2007;26:712–28. 2008. Wakefield MA, increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence 28. Environics Research Group. Consumer research on the 2. Freeman B, Chapman S, Rimmer M. The case for the size of health warning messages – quantitative plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An 2008;103:580–90. experimental study. Tob Control 2008;17:416–21. study of Canadian youth. Health Canada. http://www. 3. Underwood RL, Klein NM, Burke RR. Packaging 18. Rootman I, Flay BR. A study on youth smoking: plain smoke-free.ca/warning/warningsResearch/ communication: attentional effects of product packaging, health warnings, event marketing and price environics-size-youth-english.pdf (accessed 15 imagery. J Product Brand Manage 2001;10:403–22. reductions. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of October 2008). 4. Meyers H, Lubliner MJ. The marketer’s guide to Toronto, University of Illinois at Chicago, York 29. Goldberg ME, Liefeld J, Madill J, et al. The effect of successful package design. Chicago, Illinois, USA: University, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Addiction plain packaging on response to health warnings. NTC Business Books, 1998. Research Foundation, 1995. Am J Public Health 1999;89:1434–5. 5. Biondo CG. Creating brand champions: a look at 19. Centre for Health Promotion. Effects of plain 30. Beede P, Lawson R, Shepherd M. The promotional brand packaging design during the past 40 years. The packaging on the image of tobacco products among impact of cigarettes packaging: a study of adolescent Advertiser 1998;Oct. youth. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto, responses to cigarette plain-packs. Dunedin, New 6. Roper S, Parker C. How (and where) the mighty have 1993. Zealand: University of Otago, 1991. fallen: branded litter. J Marketing Management 20. Madill-Marshall J, Goldberg MW, Gorn GJ, et al. 31. Beede P, Lawson R. The effect of plain packages on 2006;22:473–87. Two experiments assessing the visual and the perception of cigarette health warnings. Public 7. Thibodeau M, Martin J. Smoke gets in your semantic images associated with current and plain Health 1992;106: 315–22. cigarette packaging. Adv Consumer Res eyes: a fine blend of cigarette packaging and design. 32. Wakefield M, Morley JK, Horan JK, et al. The http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/ New York, USA: Abbeyville Press, 2001. 1996;23:267–8. as image: new evidence from 8. Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference: 21. Donovan RJ. Smokers’ and non-smokers’ reactions tobacco industry documents. Tob Control young adult smokers’ accounts of cigarette brands to standard packaging of cigarettes. Perth, Australia: 2002;11:73–80. and package design. Tob Control 2008;17:118–22. University of Western Australia, 1993. 33. Philip Morris International Inc. Registration filing 9. Cunningham R, Kyle K. The case for plain packaging. 22. RBJ Health Management Associates. Impact of to the SEC (form 10-12B). Philip Morris International Tob Control 1995;4:80–6. plain packaging of tobacco on youth perceptions and Inc, 2007;11–12. on September 29, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright.

Access all our original articles online even before they appear in a print issue!

Online First is an exciting innovation that allows the latest clinical research papers to go from acceptance to your browser within days, keeping you at the cutting edge of medicine. Simply follow the Online First link on the homepage and read the latest Online First articles that are available as unedited manuscripts in downloadable PDF form. The articles are peer reviewed, accepted for publication and indexed by PubMed but not yet included in a journal issue, so you’ll be among the first to read them!

362 Tobacco Control December 2008 Vol 17 No 6