Should the Government ban logos on cigarette packets?

The government is considering banning tobacco companies from using brands and logos on cigarette packaging and limiting retail displays.

It is also mulling over plans to outlaw packs of 10, while limiting access to vending machines.

The move is the latest in a series of far reaching restrictions on the sale and marketing of tobacco since New Labour came to power in 1997.

The new proposals are aimed at reducing the number of under-16s who smoke and reducing the burden of smoking-related diseases on the NHS, but is it a step too far? How can a brand differentiate itself without brand names and logos?

I think the other Gordon might agree with you there. Tax is his answer to everything.

Banning branding and logos on packs will achieve nothing (apart from maybe saving the cigarette companies some printing costs.)

It especially won't achieve anything in the under-16 bracket, it isn't the pretty shiny packaging that makes kids smoke. It will just mean that kids might switch from chav-brands like B&H to whatever is cheapest ie: dirty Richmonds. 

I think Gordon Brown should double the tax as above. Do it whilst your in power MR.Brown as you won't be in power next General Election. At least you'll be remembered for 'something' other then your ridiculous mouth movement when you talk. 

Won't companies just start to produce their own silver cigarette carton holders - or it could mean the return to the old style silver cigarette cases. It's a silly idea to ban the branding, kids just want to smoke to look older - and the older smokers won't stop unless they really want to - a non-branded packet aint going to make any difference.

But they'll still have to carry health warnings won't they? So you could ask for them by the health warning that they carry. That would be novel branding. Oh, then you're back to branded cigarettes, darn. And all the health education against smoking would inadvertantly promote the cigarettes. Heck, now the government's promoting smoking.

Kids will always do the thing you tell them they shouldn't, but still the article reports decreased uptake, so something's working. Maybe rather than attacking the branding more tobacco tax revenues should go towards that. Invest more in the channel you know is working.

If they double the tax on tobacco products in the UK even more people will buy illegally imported cigarettes, fueling an already growing black market. This will not reduce the number of smokers by any significant amount, it will just push their money in to the black market and further reduce the tax revenues available to the Government. The extra tax raised through the increase (which we niaively dream would be pumped in to the NHS) would then be needed to cover tax shortfalls and funding crisis for the next oil war.

would it not be much easier for the government to restrict the sale of cigarettes in certain retailers to make it less accessible to the public? e.g. stop selling cigarettes in tesco express and keep it strictly a high street thing. Maybe people won't be bothered having to go all the way into town to get some fags and eventually quit. 

The British government is looking at several ideas aimed at keeping young people from smoking, including one banning tobacco company logos on cigarette packs.

---------------------------------

Angelinjones

 

Internet Marketing

They will never ban cigerates for the reason that the UK gets most of its tax money from cigerets an petrol so if cigerets got banned petrol prices will saw

 I think that this is really tough on the cigarrete producers.  The industry will certainly suffer and shareholders will pay for it. In return, this will take away the incentive of being in this industry and will hopfully result in less tobaco businesses.

Banning the logos won't make any difference. Unless the box is totally standardised consumers will quickly find a way to differentiate between packs and select one they believe they prefer or have an affinity with.

Equally, as they have in the past, cigarette manufacturers would find subtle ways to trigger brand associations (like Silk Cut did with their use of purple silk).

Studies have shown that warnings on packs have no impact on the level of craving smokers feel when they see a pack - I'm not talking about what respondents claim, I'm referring to brain image data.  So there's no reason to believe that logo free packs would reduce the appeal of the cigarettes they contain. 

The powerful associations with smoking have  been created through established advertising and, perhaps more importantly, the occasions (and especially the first few occasions) when smoking takes place: smoking is sociability, relaxation, bonding, freedom and rebellion far more than it is the brand logo itself.

I should add that I am vehemently anti-smoking and would support any move that genuinely reduced the appeal of these anti-social death-sticks.  There are ways to achieve this but governments prefer the bold gestures rather than an effective approach.

Philip Graves (Consumer Behaviour Consultant)

Logos have got nothing to do with whether a smoker decides to smoke or not. I don't know a single smoker who doesn't know the dangers of their habit. Unless smoking was guaranteed to end in early death, it's a risk they'll always be prepared to take. Ironically, the more dangerous smoking is portrayed to be, the more likely youngsters are attracted to it...that's "cool"...the brands are not. People will wear Marlboro with its association with Ferrari etc. Have yet to see anyone wear an "Embassy" t-shirt!

I absolutely agree with you.  Originally, brands played big role in this industry, however nowadays, especially with the rise in price of cigarettes, people are more price conscious and do not care as much about the brand.

So, as a consumer, I'm meant to ask for a pack of the gold and white ones...? Or a small pack of green tobacco with the gold trim? Ridiculous. Brands could still differentiate themselves with colours.... unless the govt goes whole-hog and imposes plain 'Brown' packaging with an imposed font. Either way he'll need to keep the tobacco companies sweet as he can't afford to lose that revenue stream...