Cigarette blanding won’t kill cigarette branding

While I agree Adam in the sense that big tobacco will simply innovate in other areas in order to differentiate themselves from the competition, the main emphasis of the governments plain pack push is not meant to get current smokers to quit, but to stop young people from taking it up (SBS News, http://bit.ly/a7863T ).

“For a start, most smokers have a very strong loyalty to their brand of choice.”
That’s true, however in the strategy of inhibiting first time impulse purchases, unbranded packaging has the effect of inhibiting any initial perception of cool or classy. Any marketing that is meant to result in purchase will have to be premeditated, and seeing how most tobacco marketing efforts are banned in Australia, this will probably result in your idea of marketing the actual product. In saying that, if smokers are seen as the promotional tool for their products, research is showing that their “reach and frequency” is starting to decline (Table 1a, Cancer Vic 2009, http://bit.ly/bYjg3b ).

I think you’re right in saying “I don’t think blanding something will lead to it being wiped out”, however the allure of smoking when you’re not addicted is the comfort of rebellion. I believe the biggest push we’re going to see is big tobacco aiming its marketing efforts at travelling tourists who will purchase branded packs overseas and bring them back for consumption.

What’s cooler: smoking no-name Marlboros or ‘the real thing’ from the states?

I wonder how much marketing knowledge Adam has – has he ever worked in marketing? I find the logic here not at all logical. Well done govt on what will be a highly effective initiative.

For a passionate, civil liberties-oriented perspective on this issue, see leading corporate communicator Craig Badings’ post: http://www.thoughtleadershipst.....-in-smoke/

@athan – good comments, thanks for sharing.

However, I still don’t think blanding the packets will significantly deter young people from the very first trial(s) – I think the reality is that this will often take place in a social setting i.e. with peer group influence. Very interesting point about the importation of original “continental” packs. What does everyone else think?

@Zac – let me ask you this: as a teenager, if someone tried to stop you from doing or having something you really wanted, did this: a) stop you or b) make you even more determined?! Don’t bland packs make it naughtier, more rebellious?

@I love the internet – have I ever worked in marketing?! Nah, but I did read about it on the internet once …

Worth noting that lack of brand differentiation has never hurt illicit drugs.

I completely agree with Adam. This is not going to significantly deter young people in the slightest. Teens who are trying or being peer pressured into smoking for the first time dont give a dam what the brand is, they just want the cigarette. The only thing that will SIGNIFICANTLY impact our smoking culture is to make it illegal. @i love the internet why do you think this will be “highly effective”?

I am with Athan.

@ I love the internet – Is marketing so esoteric that mere mortals cannot have an opinion?

@ Adam – thank you for sharing your thoughts with us, but I am inclined to agree with Athan

@ AdGrunt – nice question – i think the experience is the differentiating factor for illicit drugs – and in the past I know that some Ecstasy manufacturers did adopt branding on their illicit pills

The decision was based on the findings from a number of studies, but this is more about reducing supply than demand.

Reducing demand is addressed by raising prices, banning smokers etc. And it works.

Sure, if all cigarettes are generic people will still buy them and they’ll most likely choose brand names that have legacy appeal (like Marlboro) or new brand names that will evoke rich imagery created by a smart copywriter. But you have to applaud this as a step in the right direction. It makes it harder for cigarette brands to compete, no question. The strong brands will survive, the weak will slowly fade.

Over time, cigarettes should become commoditised, profit margins should shrink and it will no longer be such good business. Combine that with waning demand and you’ve got a strategy to reduce a social ill. A lot of people suggest banning cigarettes but there is a question of social liberty to deal with in that approach. Making it hard, ugly and unappealing for everyone is a better approach.

The only piece I see that needs an overhaul is the way the anti-smoking campaign communicates to those kids just starting to smoke. The message should not be ‘smoking kills’ it should be ‘smoking is stupid.’ Teenagers don’t fear death, they think they’re immune to it and like to kick sand in its face. What keeps them up at night is social rejection.

@AdGrunt – very good point. Wish I’d thought of it 🙂

@Sarah – thanks!
@The Differentiator – no thanks (only kidding)

@David – excellent last point about making smoking uncool. This made me think of the “Pinkie” campaign from the NSW Centre for Road Safety. Hit youth where it really hurts – social image rather than vital organs.

Good post Adam,
and I totally agree,
probably my only issue would be the ‘image’ of smoking and the ‘image’ of smoking a specific brand, I question whether for the younger generation who didn’t grow up with Marlboro man or Joe Camel whether this distinction blurs the line.

A young consumer can smoke to be cool (or whatever its called these days) but without an obvious brand identity maybe for new smokers they will trade down and smoke cheaper brands (i.e Holidays over Winnies)

It will be interesting to see if it changes the market dynamics, or just creates a brand new market for collector cigarette tins (as i suspect it probably will)

I think it’s wrong to look at ‘blanding’ in isolation in the case of social marketing for smoking.

The tactic of removing branding on cigarettes is just one in a spoke of behavioural change efforts around smoking.

For the marketers out there, it’s the four P’s but adding a couple of extra P’s.

Price – increases (25% tax increase today), Product – removing attraction and brand ‘loyalty’ (take the logo off), Place – stigmatising the behaviour (ban it from public places), Promotion – banning advertising for the product, Policy – educate public on health implications (advertising campaigns such as QUIT), Publics – young people considering taking up the behaviour.

I’d suggest that looking at the whole picture is important in debating whether or not ‘blanding’ is a good idea or not.

The four Ps tend to be distorted where psychoactive or addictive products are concerned.

E.g. – prohibition failed, and the “war on drugs” continues to fail, in spite of the opposing “fighters” being stoned, high or raving. (nod to Bill Hicks)

Yeah – I’m a bit libertarian. Legalise the lot, tax it according to support risk and let’s move on as happy bunnies.

I think some younger smokers will find the range of brown boxes a little more intimidating without any imagery/marketing to aid their choice, but the price is usually the main factor and the steadily increasing price is having a marked effect on that outcome.

‘too cool’ smokers (at least in my circle of friends) either smoke cigars, hand-rolled or more expensive ciggies, stored in a designer cigarette case — however you look at it, the plan branding won’t have any effect there. if the suggested styled paper takes off, even less so.

povo smokers, on the other hand will always opt for the cheapest biggest box no matter what, eg. Horizon — plain packaging can only enhance that image, with fewer scornful onlookers, even if the size of the box is a giveaway.

in the end people choose the less-painful pricetag, or the flavour they like — the beauty of the packaging is only skin deep.

Adam — the regulations that will accompany this legislation will specify standardisation of the cigarettes too – -no colours, no slim-lines, no stubbies — all the same
Simon

@simon chapman – is that so?! does regulation extend as far as physically altering the manufactured product, not just the packaging? If that’s the case – far out.

@gideon H and @magic monkey – interesting you both mention branded cigarette tins, I think you’re onto something here as a brand extension for the tobacco cos. Blanded packs could then simply be conceptualised as “refills”.

@karalee – the 4Ps (6Ps in the case of social marketing) is indeed a good way of looking at the big picture. And I do think the price increases WILL be effective at putting off some smokers. I just don’t think blanding packaging will do the same.

Interesting piece on p8 of Weekend AFR today about this issue (“Tobacco looks for new hooks”) coming to a similar conclusion

Just as the clothes don’t maketh the man, the packaging doesn’t maketh the brand. Shakespeare on Mumbrella … far out 🙂

Adam you didn’t happen to read my blog before writing this did you?

@AER Head in all honesty – no.

But just had a look now and it seems were both thinking along similar lines, which is cool with me. Hey, let’s try something … I’m shuffling a pack of cards … cutting the pack now … have picked out one card. Can you guess what it is?!

See link here for a big summary of what the proposal is all about http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.....eneric.pdf

@simon chapman interesting report, thanks for the link.

I see what you mean now about legislating the product design itself (p581 para 5). But would tinkering with the actual product itself (rather than just the packaging) set a problematic precedent for other industry sectors e.g. alcohol, fast food?

For example, would alcopops ultimately have to have their “fizz” removed to further minimise their point of difference and attractiveness for novice drinkers?

Suggest we need to look at the restrictions on how cigarettes are presented alongside the very significant increase in excise – the Price “P” will be a signficant issue amidst pressure on discretionary spending…have alook at how price increases tanked the pre-mixed spirits category…can’t be a bad thing anyways…no good comes from high alochol rocket fuel or cancer sticks!

I’m on team Athan with this one.

Contrary to popular assumption, this isn’t just a zany KRudd whimsy but a plan that’s been researched, attempted but sadly lobbied to death overseas so there are plenty of existing research stats that would support the idea that ‘blanding’ will work in the long term.

Yes, it’s arguable that plain packaging may not inspire existing smokers to quit, they are presumably addicted after all. It is likely however that their purchasing behaviour will change; brand loyalty will wane and brands will be favoured out of habit, name recognition and price in the short term.

And yes, tobacco companies will then undoubtedly find sly and fascinating ways to soldier on – but looking at the long term, these consumers are a dying audience (forgive the pun) and years of global research studies focused on capturing teenage views on smoking clearly indicates a strong emotional need for the badge to be a part of the package, and removing the badg’ability would render the product itself significantly less appealing.

Your teen dollar would clearly be better spent on the latest igadget badge, eight bottles of alcopop or any one of a million other brands stumbling over themselves to gain that elusive youth acceptance (brands that have the luxury of overt advertising channels to hand!). Thus harking the end of the smoking consumer’s family line.

Fascinating commentary. The effectiveness of cigarette regulation can be judged by the strength of the tobacco lobby response. It doesn’t matter what argument they use, their only interest is to sell more tobacco. This always involves killing more people. If they don’t like it, I do.

It certainly isn’t going to help Rudd’s ratings considering that the majority of Australian smokers vote Labor…well, maybe not anymore.