I've never profited from branding cigarettes, but the decision by the
Australian government to pass a law removing brand colors and logos
from packaging concerns me.
Good intentions almost
always lead to unintended consequences; banned songs enjoy a boost as
consumers clamor to rebel or see what the fuss is about, and what about
prohibition? Will the lack of a red triangle really be less glamorous to
the young than packaging shouting: "'This product is scandalous!' to
'authorities?'"
And where does it end?
What about alcohol, fatty foods, sugary drinks, and sweets? Should they
all be sold in plain packaging or unbranded? It's a slippery slope to a
nanny state, where consumer choice is curtailed and businesses
restricted.
Brands are major drivers
of economic growth, and without them a company's incentive to innovate
is removed. Why have the best or safest product if no one can
distinguish you from the rest?
Equally, why spend on
corporate social responsibility (CSR)? Brands empower and enable
consumers to select those companies they approve of. The environmental
policy of a company or how they treat their employees influences my
decision to buy a given branded product. Without the brand, however,
that power is removed and, by default, the business's interest in CSR.
The business's fear factor and liability is reduced substantially.
Furthermore, trust is
important to brands and they have to be careful not to breach that trust
or consumers will vote accordingly, with their wallets, as they decide
the source of a given product is no longer reliable or safe.
Obviously tobacco kills,
but at least known brands have to uphold certain standards (for example
the amount of nicotine contained in each cigarette) so consumers' trust
can be retained. According to the BBC in January, counterfeit cigarettes being sold in Sussex contained abnormally high levels of cancer-causing chemicals. There are many similar stories, including the UK's City of Stoke County Council highlighting that "people should be aware that fake tobacco is even more hazardous than the real thing."
By making packaging a
doddle to copy it gives rise to counterfeit cigarettes, even more
dangerous and cheaper than genuine brands, making it easier in the
process for young people to start and continue their habit.
We can assume that
smokers in Australia generally understand the health consequences of
smoking, so they are making an informed choice. Why not allow them to
choose which manufacturers they buy from too, rather than potentially
opening the floodgates to criminal products and non-liable sellers?
Cigarette companies in
Australia and elsewhere are restricted in their marketing, so are
building hardly any new brand value and awareness. I cannot imagine
building a new brand or reaching new audiences without undertaking
marketing, so these brands are simply identifiers and guarantors of, at
the very least, a certain standard of cigarette or tobacco. Those with
any real brand value have so principally amongst older smokers, who
remember the past marketing; do younger audiences recall the Marlboro
man and pick that brand because of that campaign? Not likely.
By all means ban smoking
in public places and create slow cultural change, but removing the
ability to identify one product from another and trashing intellectual
property rights is a state gone too far.
Cigarettes are damaging,
but restricting a legal business and consumer's freedom and choice of
legal products is a dangerous precedent. If they are that bad make them
illegal! Otherwise, if this law is upheld, expect debates about other
legal categories and products in due course and a future of identikit
products, in identikit packaging from less accountable businesses (or in
many cases illegal ones