Brandchannel | Debate | Does Australia's tobacco shock packaging go too far?

Does Australia's tobacco shock packaging go too far?

Pandora CharmsPandora Jewellery Pandora Australia

jackey - April 9, 2011

I think this is a good idea. That ad campaign by the tobacco industry is laughable. It will work, and I admit, even for people like myself -- I am a light smoker and I always feel disgusted by the graphics -- it's enough of a reminder to put me off them.

Aporia - April 10, 2011

Isn't this really political grandstanding? Cigarettes are easy targets packaging is only a differentiator in the marketplace.

Sam Schoemann - April 10, 2011

no, this is the move we must see in the UK total removal of tobacco branding!

Richard Huntington - April 10, 2011

el futuro del cigarrillo????

Francisco Rebolledo - April 11, 2011

Will Australian tobacco brands lose their consumer appeal w/o a product design, replaced by gross pics?

Nicole Torstenson - April 11, 2011

If the government wants to outlaw tobacco, then just do it. Stop the charade. Selling to children is illegal so they should not be able to do that. Selling to adults is not illegal so why can they not market to adults?

Zachary Scardino, Account Manager, Premier Merchandising - April 11, 2011

a href="http://www.fashionchristianlouboutinshoes.com/">christian louboutin is the symbol of women.It is said that a woman without christian louboutin sales knows nothing about fashion.That is right.If you want to be fashionable.Please christian louboutin shoes.A woman wearing

louboutin sale uk, louboutin sale uk - April 12, 2011

it is so goood

louboutin sale uk, louboutin sale uk, http://www.fashionchristianlouboutinshoes.com/ - April 12, 2011

Though I am a very infrequent cigarette smoker, I am a passionate cigar smoker, so I typically approach this topics w/ a relatively defensive attitude. However, the more I think about this packaging standardization, the more I feel that it could actually do some good, in the sense of swaying the casual cigarette smoker. There is, however, a valid argument that this tactic will have minor long-term effects. When mandatory deterrents reach such an extreme level, the public seems to find ways to circumvent them. New products and trends will often arise in an effort to combat these restrictions. With such intensely unappealing packaging, it would not be surprising to see a reignited consumer interest in cigarette cases. They are relatively inexpensive, reusable and customizable – seems like a pretty perfect alternative to these disturbing packs. Uniformed and inconspicuous packs may be a positive device to deter, however, my concern is that this level may simply produce creative consumers

Tyler Young, youngbrands.tumblr.com - April 12, 2011

My observation is that the primary objective seem to be to discourage smoking especially among the youth target group. If that be the case then the new packaging branding appears to be effectively communicating that by adopting an emotional perspective (fear and threat). The brand strategists should also consider engaging other mass mobilization tools considering the addictive nature of the product in question and that tobacco has been positively branded for a long time as a "cool !" product. To this regard, regulations should also extend to the tobacco itself in terms of influencing the taste, nicotine level, etc presented to the market.Williams K. Creans DipM MScM MCIM Chartered MarketerWillex Consulting Ltd, Uganda

Williams K. Creans DipM MScM MCIM Chartered Marketer, Marketing Consultant/ Projects Manager, WILLEX CONSULTING LTD, KAMPALA UGANDA - April 13, 2011

II don’t think that is going too far, we should however keep in mind that , putting all brands in a category in the same package, does not necessarily prevent people from using the product, it only put the burden of differentiation the different brands in that category on the consumer who might develop a strategy to differentiate the brands.

However we can also add another layer to this law by making the purchasing of cigarette more costly on the part of the consumer.

Peter Erskine, Analyst - April 13, 2011

I don’t think that is going too far, we should however keep in mind that , putting all brands in a category in the same package, does not necessarily prevent people from using the product, it only put the burden of differentiating the different brands in that category on the consumer who might develop a strategy to differentiate the brands.

However we can also add another layer to this law by making the purchasing of cigarette more costly on the part of the consumer.

Peter Erskine, Analyst - April 13, 2011

I'm against smoking but I think the Australian gov went too far. In a free market economy, brands from legal products should have some rights, as the right to use their own logo in their packages. But I think the disgusting images and warnings should remain in the packaging. One side with the shocking images, the other side with the brand logo. It will be an alegory of smoking itself; seems nice, but it's horrorific at the same time.

Illary Quiroz, Marketing, IMAPU SAC - April 15, 2011

a brand that stands for more harm than good is not a brand , brands are meant to enrich peoples live to live a better life not the other way around unbranding the puff is a good idea

SHANKAR BISWAS, head mktg, www.falcom.com.sa - April 16, 2011

If it won't work, then why do any of us branding professionals get paid at all?Of course it will work. That's why the tobacco pushers are spending big to fight it.They are terrified that it will be picked up around the world.Banning it outright while there is still a demand from addicts will only drive it underground and 're-glamorise" it. We have to eliminate the demand.The tobacco companies have no more right to operate than any other foul drug dealers.Mike and Mike are parroting the same vile propaganda as Big T - vested interest guys?I smoked for 30 years. Now I just want to live long enough to see my kids grow up.

working dog - April 17, 2011

Consider it a strategic move by the retailer to attract more digitally connected consumers and keep abreast of the staggering number of conversations taking place on social and mobile platforms daily kabbalah

jeny nguyen, cool, GS - April 20, 2011

If it's costing the Australian Government $31.5bn a year, how about withdrawing the medical support from smokers and putting it into education instead.

Controversial I know, but if you don't want it to cost, don't pay it.

Debbie - April 20, 2011

back to debate

RSS

| Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | FAQ