As World No Tobacco Day looms, Charles Sturt University (CSU) lecturer in Marketing and Project Management, Mr Andrew Mashman sees the government's push for plain cigarette packaging as a missed opportunity to reduce the amount of cigarette smokers in Australia.
Federal Health Minister Ms Nicola Roxon recently unveiled draft legislation requiring tobacco companies to print their brand name in a specific font. She has released the planned new design for packaging which includes disturbing images on olive green because research showed this was the least attractive colour for smokers.
But British American Tobacco Australia - whose brands include Winfield, Dunhill and Benson & Hedges - said the government's proposal would infringe international trademark and intellectual property laws.
“This is really a test case for the rest of the world,” says CSU School of Marketing and Management’s Mr Mashman. “It will go to the highest courts in Australia and will no doubt cost the government a lot of money. From a marketing and branding view, I think they’re missing the point a little.
“If the government is serious about reducing the sales of cigarettes there are other ways of doing it without damaging the intellectual property of brands. The government would have access to figures showing how many consumers smoke particular brands of cigarettes. They could develop a specific campaign to target one particular brand at a time, with the intention of making specific brands unattractive to consumers and hence decrease cigarette sales.”
According to a report prepared by Quit Victoria, Cancer Council Victoria, in May 2011, the tobacco industry claims plain packaging represents an acquisition of intellectual property and as such is prohibited under the terms of various international trade agreements. The industry has suggested the Australian Government would be forced to compensate the industry billions of dollars.
Papers by experts in constitutional and trademark law, on the other hand, suggest that international agreements permit governments to restrict use of trademarks to protect public health. They advise that plain packaging will not be an acquisition of intellectual property, as the Government does not intend to use the logos or brand imagery; it will simply be restricting the use of these marketing tools on cigarette packages.
“The concern is that, if the government can do this with cigarettes, they could easily do the same with alcohol and hypothetically, soft drinks and fast food.”
For non-smoker Mr Mashman, it comes down to brand identification.
“Branding is an important part of marketing for companies who want to communicate with their customers. For customers, branding differentiates offers that are out there. If you take the brands off packaging, the consumer can’t identify with the choices they have. For example, if a cigarette company comes up with a cigarette that helps you kick the habit, it’s impossible to communicate that to the consumer.”
Mr Mashman doesn’t believe the removal of branded packaging will change the buying habits of consumers.
“I think smokers already do a lot to hide the pack now. They are discreet about their smoking and keep cigarettes hidden in handbags or jacket pockets. They don’t wear them tucked under their sleeve anymore.”
With the new cigarette packaging laws potentially enforced as early as this year, Mr Mashman is concerned that the government hasn’t thought of more productive alternatives.
Social
Explore the world of social