No, not talking about gentertainment here but cigarettes

Does anyone really start smoking because the packaging is a pretty colour?

No, but I know people that started smoke camels or lucky strikes because for some reason they were the cool brands at my school. This may have been less likely to happen if there was less branding involved.

Would the companies go to the effort of coming up with catchy designs and looks if it didn’t attract people to the product?

When I hear that monumental arsehole Rees-Mogg speaking in parliament, it automatically calibrates my moral compass.

What are the results when tried in Australia and Canada (or am I wrong?)? Anyone able to copy and paste from google?

EDIT: not sure it’s been tried in Canada…think they were the first to “hide” them in shops maybe.

I know people that started [to] smoke camels or lucky strikes because for some reason they were the cool brands at my school.

There’s part of the point – Presumably, they chose to start smoking and then chose the brand. Not the other way round. Surely?

Why don’t they put them in that clear moulded plastic packaging, then most people would give up.

Australia have had it since 2011 those opposing say it’s made no difference but then again I doubt it will in only 3 years.

This is likely to turn into a debate on the merits of branding. The outcome usually boils down to:

“Companies spend billions branding and marketing their products, so they must think it a worthwhile investment.”

vs

“Yes but I personally am in no way influenced by any branding nor marketing, nor have I ever been nor will I ever be, so it’s clearly a waste of time.”

Coming to a supermarket near you

its only a matter of time!

I reckon. I know I started smoking when I was 13 because I thought it made me awesome.
Basically anything not allowed that cool adults did was awesome. My brother was in the marines, he and all his mates smoked B&H so I smoked them, and they had a gold packet which looked sooooooooo coooool (to me 13 year old self, they had all just come back from the falklands you know, so they were like, were extra awesome).

Here are 40 Commando dug in at San Carlos

I later changed to lucky strikes purely because of Kevin Schwantz

See that, he is drifing and wheelying at the same time. 20 Lucky strikes please.

I feel thirsty now..

Coming to a supermarket near you

Iceland have already tried that!…

My first (and only) packet of fags as a kid were JPS – bought just because I thought this was so cool (and other JPS Lotuss that followed)…

Iceland have already tried that!…

I think Berry’s got there first! 🙂

It’s just another effort to push them ‘underground’, make them less visible to everyone and hopefully out of site out of mind for kids etc. I think anything’s worth a try.

Maybe they should make them so that they make your clothes, hair and breath stink bloody awful. Oh, hang on…

Considering the billions of pounds spent on brand identity, sponsorship and advertising, Id say that packaging probably has a huge effect.

This shouldve been done years ago- it was supposed to come in a year or 2 after the ban in pubs iirc, its just sad that the lobbysists have been able to have so much influence

It’s lip service, isn’t it.

The government can’t ban smoking because a) it’d just go underground and we’d be awash with illegal imports and counterfeits, and b) it’s worth a shitload to them in tax (if we ignore the elephant in the room about how much it costs in healthcare, anyway).

However, it needs to be seen to be doing something, hence the various half-arsed attempts to make it less attractive. If they really wanted to get rid of smoking they could just increase the age limit to buy them by a year, every year.

If the packaging makes no difference then the companies must be morons for spending so much on it.

Course, they would claim that tobacco advertising doesn’t influence anyone to start smoking; it only influences which brand people use. But we can discount that for being obvious bullshit.

DezB – Member
Maybe they should make them so that they make your clothes, hair and breath stink bloody awful. Oh, hang on…

I’ve been in my new flat since 10th march, the smoker left at end of november last year, all my cloths stink of fags, its in the woodwork.

Northwind, my point up there ^^^ was that as a 13 year old I think I was massivly influenced by it, so this is a good move (based on my non scientific anecdotal experience. Although I can’t believe I’m the only weak minded fool round here who has been influenced by advertising..)

They’d get this through as a free parliamentary vote. But thats not whats on offer here.

The proposal is for a ‘consultation exercise’ about doing it. Given the amount of money generated by the tax on fags, and also the lobbying power of both the tobacco and the advertising/marketing industries, the chances of this happening are about the same as the chance of me being elected the next pope.

More worrying…. actually, quite frankly moronic is this utter nonsense

Truly a new level of nanny state idiocy!

I smoked Marlboro for years because I drank Jack Daniels and fell asleep to a Duff McKagan and Izzy Stradlin poster every night of my teens.

Not so much subliminal messaging, more LOOK HOW COOL WE ARE.

Being a romantic rockstar sycophantic narcissist damaged my other organs, but freed my mind, maaaaan.

Edit: But now if I smoke it’s Old Holborn cause it reminds me of my dad and grandad, so there’s another influence.

“Yes but I personally am in no way influenced by any branding nor marketing, nor have I ever been nor will I ever be, so it’s clearly a waste of time.”

You are TJ and I claim my £5

binners – Member
More worrying…. actually, quite frankly moronic is this utter nonsense

Truly a new level of nanny state idiocy!

Don’t really get that either unless they can show that the e-cigs are affecting anyone else.

Personally if it doesn’t make me stink of smoke and I’m not breathing their nicotine then I don’t mind if people smoke e-cigs beside me in the pub or outside.

I wonder just what the stats are now to say vs 15 years ago. Are there more boxes of fags sold now? or then? and clearly the Taxable income is a mahooosive benefit to the UK as a whole that clearly the bans should be lifted on fags and we should encourage more to light up.

I don’t smoke, never have, but would welcome less regulation and more freedom of choice.

If you smoke you should know the health issues about it, so too you should be made aware just what a £’s individual’s cost to the NHS you will deduct from it, should you need it. But likewise how much of the tax you pay goes into funding the NHS.

If we cut the amount of smokers, then the taxable income comes down, who will fund the shortfall? Clearly this is the only argument and hence the lack of backbone this (and every other) Government has for not an all out Ban. They should just own up to that fact.

As I said before though,

The “shortfall” may well be offset by the NHS savings to be had on no longer having to treat smoking-related illnesses.

Without googling it, I’d always heard that smokers were net contributors to the exchequer. However, there are lots of hidden costs one assumes…time taken off work with annual smokers cough, increased asthma incidence among the children if smokers, costs incurred looking after premature or under-weight infants born to pregnant smokers. It’d be a difficult calculation to come up with the “true” cost of tabbing. Overall, it’d be difficult to argue that society wouldn’t be better off as a whole without smoking – though all the ex-smokers may then become part of the obesity crisis. 😀

But most people die through long age-related illnesses anyway. Smoking kills us sooner, saving pensions as well. So the NHS won’t benefit at all.

^^ thats what I heard, nett contributors….

I mean I hate smoking, first thing that happens once I get through the swinging doors of this place (having followed someone through) is they light up immmmmmmeadiattttllllyyyyy, a nano second as the door just finishes rotating and guess what? I get a face full of thier abhorant smoke.

But most people die through long age-related illnesses anyway. Smoking kills us sooner, saving pensions as well. So the NHS won’t benefit at all.

Indeed, another curve ball into the calculation. 😕

Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice too. I just wish this particular freedom wasn’t lining the pockets of Big Tobacco – proper boils on the arse of humanity that these companies are.

Johndoh, nice bit of selective quoting there:

“Yes but I personally am in no way influenced by any branding nor marketing, nor have I ever been nor will I ever be, so it’s clearly a waste of time.

You are TJ and I claim my £5″
Against

This is likely to turn into a debate on the merits of branding. The outcome usually boils down to:

“Companies spend billions branding and marketing their products, so they must think it a worthwhile investment.”

vs

“Yes but I personally am in no way influenced by any branding nor marketing, nor have I ever been nor will I ever be, so it’s clearly a waste of time.”
Personally, I’ve never smoked, literally tried it once and thought it was disgusting, never ever tempted after that.
Of course I’m influenced by advertising, it’s very useful to know what’s out there, and to have comparisons, but ant decision to buy is based on personal inspection, fit, look, comfort, taste, etc.
It was many years, for example, before I could actually drink Guiness. I wear Oakley sunnies, because they are very good, and were the only quality glasses for riding available in 1988, but I also wear Arnet, Ray Ban, Wiley-X…
On the other hand, I choose to wear jeans with absolutely no visible branding on whatsoever, and the same with some hoodies I bought recently.
I like to think I use marketing and branding to my advantage, and not be ruled by it.

Personally, I’m all for freedom of choice too. I just wish this particular freedom wasn’t lining the pockets of Big Tobacco – proper boils on the arse of humanity that these companies are.

So what we need is the growth of an even more expensive niche craft tobacco market like we have with the craft beer scene. It’ll help make cigarettes trendy again too! Oh, wait, that’s not what we’re going for, is it….

Johndoh, nice bit of selective quoting there:

I was just jesting, jeez.

That wasn’t too clear, though, was it.

Having a bad day? Think it’s time for you to take a deep breath and… r e l a x.

So what we need is the growth of an even more expensive niche craft tobacco market like we have with the craft beer scene.

Call into a tobacconist (if you can find one). You’ll find it’s always been there. 🙂

So what we need is the growth of an even more expensive niche craft tobacco market like we have with the craft beer scene.

As someone who used to smoke, the difference in quality between otc cigarettes and tobacconists blends was huge. If I smoked now, it would be rollies from a proper tobacco shop…

Moses – Member

But most people die through long age-related illnesses anyway. Smoking kills us sooner, saving pensions as well. So the NHS won’t benefit at all.

Mmm, complicated. Having people of working age die early or lose working time to illness is expensive, you invest 15-25 years in a fresh human to make them productive then they clock off early at 50 having soaked up expensive cancer treatment and been unavailable to work for ages, sure they’re not drawing a pension but that’s only one cost.

The calculations I’ve seen for net benefit always seem to focus only on the NHS, and on smokers only not passive smokers, so quite a small part of a big picture.

What’s happened to the Telegraph?
This crazy lefty tinfoil hat idea that somehow this cigarettes business was all timed to bury the Maria Miller story..
In fact in an amazing twist of chance, the badger cull and the nhs data announcements apparently all came out at the same time too. What are the chances? 😉 Alas the writer already made the ‘smoke and mirrors’ gag so I can’t.

Oh and fwiw, you follow the money don’t you? If a financially successful company and its financially successful competitors spend a bucketload on branding and image then it must be worth it to them.