Plain Packaging For Tobacco Products

Amirani · 24-07-2013 11:54AM #1

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/american-business-warns-taoiseach-over-tobacco-proposals-1.1473559

I'm not completely sold on how effective this measure will be in stopping smoking, and I do think this is a bit of a nanny state measure. However, the attitude of some of these American lobby groups is quite funny. Trying to bully the Irish Government by suggesting these measures could scupper future EU/US trade deals.

Faith+1 · 24-07-2013 11:55AM

Meah!!:cool:

FatherLen · 24-07-2013 11:55AM

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

All it will do is make illegal distribution easier.

kneemos · 24-07-2013 12:00PM

You could still buy a particular brand then rather than a generic pack of cigerettes I presume.

Lapin · 24-07-2013 12:13PM

FatherLen wrote: »

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

True. Although the lack of any visible branding may be a factor in stopping young people taking up the habit in the first place.

Lapin · 24-07-2013 12:17PM

kneemos wrote: »

You could still buy a particular brand then rather than a generic pack of cigerettes I presume.

Yes. There just won't be any trade marks, logos, or brand slogans on the pack.

Just the name of the brand in plain text.

murpho999 · 24-07-2013 12:17PM

It's not going to have an effect immediately but it will stop recognition of colours and branding which will impact on younger people by not knowing distinguishing brands.

Over the long term I think it will lead to less smokers.

dr.bollocko · 24-07-2013 12:20PM

Main reason why every smoker I know and I are stopping smoking is the cost. That's why everyone's suddenly smoking rollies from their own tobacco pouch or buying them illegally off dodgy sellers.

It's cheaper.

kneemos · 24-07-2013 12:21PM

FatherLen wrote: »

This is going to do sweet fuck all to stop people smoking.

All it will do is make illegal distribution easier.

If the tobacco companies are against it there probably is some benefit in implementing it.

KingOfFairview · 24-07-2013 12:26PM

Folks, if the packaging, brand identity and logos didn't encourage people to but smokes then they wouldn't be spending millions designing them.

Dravokivich · 24-07-2013 12:52PM

KingOfFairview wrote: »

Folks, if the packaging, brand identity and logos didn't encourage people to but smokes then they wouldn't be spending millions designing them.

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

KingOfFairview · 24-07-2013 03:25PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

What does that tell you? Logos and packaging help sell products

FatherLen · 24-07-2013 03:30PM

kneemos wrote: »

If the tobacco companies are against it there probably is some benefit in implementing it.

The tobacco companies are against it because it eliminates brand awareness.

Karl Stein · 24-07-2013 03:31PM

Tobacco companies are scum. Anything that has a remote chance of helping reduce the number of people they make money from can only be good.

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

Dravokivich · 24-07-2013 03:57PM

KingOfFairview wrote: »

What does that tell you? Logos and packaging help sell products

It makes a difference in branding, you'd have to be interested in the type of product first.

Amirani · 24-07-2013 03:58PM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

You've made up that definition to suit your point of view.

the purple tin · 24-07-2013 04:01PM

Sure we'll give it a go. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

Gbear · 24-07-2013 04:10PM

Cathal Cloch wrote: »

Also, people should learn the different between 'nanny state' (trying to ban/restrict access to porn) and public health (banning the advertising of extremely harmful products).

There is no difference at all.

In either case it's "our betters" making decisions on our behalf. Ah sure it's grand. It's for our own good.:rolleyes:

I was fully in favour of the public smoking ban - you shouldn't be able to force others to smoke.

Other than that though, the government should **** off and mind it's own business. They already tax the **** out of cigarettes to the point where it's counter-productive.

People have to be trusted to make their own decisions and look after their own kids. They're the only ones that have a stake in the decision and as such should be the only ones allowed to make it.

seamus · 24-07-2013 04:12PM

They've done this recently in Oz, and preliminary figures and studies seem to suggest that this does in fact make a difference.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57595154/plain-cigarette-packaging-may-encourage-more-smokers-to-quit/

Don't underestimate the power of branding. Our enjoyment of a product is affected not only by the product itself, but also associations - look, feel, smell & sound plays a big part in it. Someone will tell you (hell, I'll tell you) that a pint out of a glass tastes better than a pint in a plastic cup. It doesn't. It's the same pint, but there's a psychological difference in the glass that makes you feel better about the pint and thus enjoy it more.
Likewise, some people have a ritual in their tea - you have to scald the cup first, or you have to rinse the pot, or whatever. It's all nonsense, it's in your head, you feel better when the ritual is followed and thus you think it tastes better.

Same for cigarettes, the colouring on your favourite brand's package is a psychological cue. If you take the cigarette from the a plain package, you miss that cue, and you don't enjoy the cigarette as much. I can guarantee you that if someone put your favourite brand into another brand's box (without telling you) and gave you one, you would tell me that it's not the same, it tastes different.

What I find interesting is that if people think this won't make a difference, then why oppose it? If the branding means nothing to you, what's the big deal?

Dravokivich · 24-07-2013 04:23PM

It's not the branding to the consumer, it's about forcibly removing branding from a producer.

kylith · 24-07-2013 04:25PM

I'm not sure it'll make much of a difference. It'll reduce brand recognition but if a kid wants to start smoking all they'll have to do is to find out the name of a brand and ask for that.

I'm never convinced that the government actually wants to stop people smoking; they're making too much money off it.

Fratton Fred · 24-07-2013 04:25PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Any company with a logo will spend a lot of money on it. Recent example being McCambridges taking Brennan's in for similarities in their packaging.

Which would probably affect my decision on which brand to buy, but by that time I would have already made the decision to buy a loaf of bread.

humbert · 24-07-2013 04:28PM

Branding and the money spent on it is generally so that you'll buy one brand over another rather than encouraging you to that product in the first place.

You'd think the general stench and visible negative impact on the person's appearance would put people off smoking. If that has failed I do wonder how much difference plain packaging can make!

Dravokivich · 24-07-2013 04:29PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Which would probably affect my decision on which brand to buy, but by that time I would have already made the decision to buy a loaf of bread.

That's what I was saying initially, but I had to stretch it out for the other guy.

Ishmael · 24-07-2013 04:43PM

Meh, so long as the taste the same, couldn't really care less about this.

Will this not save the tobacco companies millions also? No need for fancy packet designs and production cost is reduced due to less printing.

shruikan2553 · 24-07-2013 04:55PM

If the government really wanted to stop smoking they would just ban them and bring in those e cigarettes for awhile so people could ease themselves off of them. Instead they are just making it look like they care for our health.

ScumLord · 24-07-2013 04:57PM

Lapin wrote: »

True. Although the lack of any visible branding may be a factor in stopping young people taking up the habit in the first place.

It will confuse the face off our young media feed, consumer pig generation.

seamus wrote: »

Don't underestimate the power of branding. Our enjoyment of a product is affected not only by the product itself, but also associations - look, feel, smell & sound plays a big part in it. Someone will tell you (hell, I'll tell you) that a pint out of a glass tastes better than a pint in a plastic cup. It doesn't. It's the same pint, but there's a psychological difference in the glass that makes you feel better about the pint and thus enjoy it more.

That's like an affect of service on top of product. I don't think the brand will have as much of an effect as good service but it can be associated with good service (which can go on to backfire if people expect the service to be better than it actually is).

I think the majority of big companies are effectively eroding the effectiveness of brands these days, people are used to the brand trick and now it's mostly used for identification again. Outside of the big dependable brands good branding will only get a product noticed these days. A smaller company fighting up from obscurity won't have the same impact with their brand no matter how good they are.

readyletsgo · 24-07-2013 04:59PM

A bit of common sense is needed here...

This is not for adults who smoke right now, its for young kids (ages from 4/5 to 14/16) who will not notice the packaging. Thats it! Of course kids will try smoking, others wont.

The sad fact is (as a smoker myself) the govt. get something crazy like 79% in tax from each smoker each day, the tobacco company gets like 19% and the shop maybe 1% or 2% (keeping in mind that it costs the tobacco company something like 0.1cent per pack of 20 smokes to produce them). The Govt. doesnt want ANYONE to stop smoking and they know blank packaging is not going to stop people smoking, but they have to do something to show they 'care' and that they want the Irish public to be none smokers.

I'll stick to my Amber leaf anyway, same as half the country (which the Govt. have copped onto and hiked up the price on loose tobacco in the last budget).

Anyone know how much the govt. make annually in tax from sales of tobacco?

mikeym · 24-07-2013 05:14PM

Teenagers will always want to try out smoking whether or not theres a health warning or a bland pack of smokes.

Over the years the government has brought in drastic changes to deter people from smoking but it hasnt really done much.

The electronic cigarettes seem to be getting very popular and I predict the government will slap a big tax on those aswell.

Karl Stein · 24-07-2013 05:25PM

NiallSparky wrote: »

You've made up that definition to suit your point of view.

They're not definitions. They're explanations of the difference between 'waa waa waa nanny state' and public health.

Gbear wrote: »

There is no difference at all.

Yeah sure, in your own little fantasy world where everything the gosh darned gubbermint does is the nanny state gone mad.

Other than that though, the government should **** off and mind it's own business.

But not as long as its doing things that make you happy yeah? Like building roads, schools, airports, ports, policing, courts, prisons etc?

People have to be trusted to make their own decisions and look after their own kids.

How many kids would not attend school if their parents weren't compelled to send them? While we're at it shure lets get rid of social workers because, you know, trust parents.

They're the only ones that have a stake in the decision and as such should be the only ones allowed to make it.

Bollocks. Children who take up smoking can end up getting horrible diseases and burdening the health system. Public health campaigns have reduced smoking rates in the west year on year for decades.

Really 'waa waa waa nanny state' is not an argument. Take each government measure on its merits or lack thereof instead of parroting a Daily Mail sound-bite.

Knasher · 24-07-2013 05:30PM

I wonder if they are going to constantly vary what cigarettes are in which package. I don't smoke, but if I did I think I'd be much more likely to buy eyeball than gangrenous foot.

Plain Packaging For Tobacco Products

Comments