Generic Packaging = Bigger Margins for Tobacco Companies?
Sorry to depart from confectionery - but some interesting developments nevertheless:
The impending decision from the European Union on generic cigarette packaging may draw to a close the wave of packaging innovation that has been seen in the past few years, but it does give rise to several uncomfortable questions. We should all consider whether we really feel it is the packaging in this instance which is selling the product - far be it for me to suggest that the power of packaging doesn't simply extend through all categories in equal measure and - why not?! - that we shouldn't simply do away with all other forms of marketing communications...but consider this:
Do we really feel that it is the power of the pack that is selling in its current format? The glory days of Woodbines and the earthy tones are long gone.
Now we have the original pack design infiltrated (now here I cast no judgement other than an aesthetic one) by the obligatory tumour or other such ghoulish imagery:
I've spoken to smokers who say they're relieved when they get one of the milder images (perhaps the flaccid phallic fag), as if the harmful power of the cigarette is contained in that very image - and why not make it light hearted when the situation reaches a groundbreaking level of intervention which pushes the concept of product control further than I believe it's ever been taken.
It's not that I feel the impact of the images is limited - in fact they work startlingly well as various studies have shown (http://bit.ly/9K1JJW; http://on-msn.com/cA6LJM; and most significantly - http://bit.ly/eg1A3w). But why then extend the hand of control still further into an area that may prove harder to justify...what effect generic packaging?
Will the following (plus one or more of the above images) reduce cigarette smoking's attractiveness to levels that will see it become as anachronistic as pipe smoking?
This is the debate and the area that will surely have occupied most of the discussion that has been going on in the corridors of Brussels. Or is it simply a case of taking some of the toys away from the industry to ensure that once and for all we're all clear that governments (note I refrain from saying politicians) don't promote smoking.
But I still have an even bigger question, which is that when you reduce the ultimate cost of the packaging, which removing colours, textured finishes, hot foil effects and quality of material will surely do, does this not simply make the tobacco companies richer? Certainly if you subscribe to my view that the downturn in smoking is linked clearly to social factors and an increasing focus on health (hence the use of health warnings) and not - shock - whether there's a picture of large dromedary on the packaging, then a move to standard packs will not adversely affect the revenues but will certainly increase the margins of the major producers.
It's even possible that further savings may be produced by the sheer economies of scale that will result in having the base pack share many of the same characteristics with all other brands across the portfolio.
So should we really see this as an imminent triumph over evil tobacco companies or simply a welcome boost to profits at a time when global trends are beginning to look bleak for them?
These are all my views - but I do hope you share some of my incredulity. AH.
The impending decision from the European Union on generic cigarette packaging may draw to a close the wave of packaging innovation that has been seen in the past few years, but it does give rise to several uncomfortable questions. We should all consider whether we really feel it is the packaging in this instance which is selling the product - far be it for me to suggest that the power of packaging doesn't simply extend through all categories in equal measure and - why not?! - that we shouldn't simply do away with all other forms of marketing communications...but consider this:
Do we really feel that it is the power of the pack that is selling in its current format? The glory days of Woodbines and the earthy tones are long gone.
Now we have the original pack design infiltrated (now here I cast no judgement other than an aesthetic one) by the obligatory tumour or other such ghoulish imagery:
I've spoken to smokers who say they're relieved when they get one of the milder images (perhaps the flaccid phallic fag), as if the harmful power of the cigarette is contained in that very image - and why not make it light hearted when the situation reaches a groundbreaking level of intervention which pushes the concept of product control further than I believe it's ever been taken.
It's not that I feel the impact of the images is limited - in fact they work startlingly well as various studies have shown (http://bit.ly/9K1JJW; http://on-msn.com/cA6LJM; and most significantly - http://bit.ly/eg1A3w). But why then extend the hand of control still further into an area that may prove harder to justify...what effect generic packaging?
Will the following (plus one or more of the above images) reduce cigarette smoking's attractiveness to levels that will see it become as anachronistic as pipe smoking?
 |
| Image Credit: Getty |
This is the debate and the area that will surely have occupied most of the discussion that has been going on in the corridors of Brussels. Or is it simply a case of taking some of the toys away from the industry to ensure that once and for all we're all clear that governments (note I refrain from saying politicians) don't promote smoking.
But I still have an even bigger question, which is that when you reduce the ultimate cost of the packaging, which removing colours, textured finishes, hot foil effects and quality of material will surely do, does this not simply make the tobacco companies richer? Certainly if you subscribe to my view that the downturn in smoking is linked clearly to social factors and an increasing focus on health (hence the use of health warnings) and not - shock - whether there's a picture of large dromedary on the packaging, then a move to standard packs will not adversely affect the revenues but will certainly increase the margins of the major producers.
It's even possible that further savings may be produced by the sheer economies of scale that will result in having the base pack share many of the same characteristics with all other brands across the portfolio.
So should we really see this as an imminent triumph over evil tobacco companies or simply a welcome boost to profits at a time when global trends are beginning to look bleak for them?
These are all my views - but I do hope you share some of my incredulity. AH.
Comments
Post a Comment