Ad: “What Company Would Stand For This?
The tobacco Plain Packaging Bill could destroy brands that are woth millions, if not billions of dollars.
No company would stand for having its brand taking away and we’re no different. And it may infringe international trademark and intellectual property law.
The government also end up spending millions in legal fees defending an idea unproven anywhere in the world.
Don’t let the taxpayer foot the bill for a bad bill” British American Tobacco Australia Limited
In Australia, the Federal Government is going to pass a bill before parliament stipulating that, from next year on, all cigarettes sold in the country will be in plain packaging, removing all distinctive branding from cigarette packages. This is how the new packages are going to look like:
The reason behind this is the belief that cigarettes will become less attractive among young people who more often are exposed to brands. All advertisment related to tobacco was banned in Australia about 20 years ago. People who are in favour of this latest development argue that it will take away any of the remaining glamour associated with cigarettes.
The advertisement I have posted is a one page ad from British American Tobacco Australia Limited at The Weekend West newspaper. The idea of the ad is to highlight that a brand is an asset of the company and illustrates that plain packaging could destroy their brand, after all the brand will be out of circulation.
This ad also makes an association to the Coca-Cola brand to indicate that the brand is used by the tobacco industry like any other brand. Furthermore, it also focuses on the point that tobacco is not the only harmful product available to consumers.
I firmly believe that a brand is a property, and branding a right. Similar to copyrights or patents, a brand is not only owned by someone, it is an asset in which businesses and entrepreneurs invest in return for their investment.
Surely, forbidding private companies from using a brand they already own is a little different from taking over a factory’s machines and forbidding the owners from using them. The same applies to seizing a publishers copyright or businesses software. Therefore, what is the moral difference between taking over and shutting down a tobacco brand to taking over and shutting down a tobacco farm?
The outcome I can see is that if this law goes through, it would give marketers a new challenge to convey brand identity to their target market.
What a waste of effort do we want to go back to the American prohibition 1920's they banned alcohol and look what happened "BLACKMARKET TRADE" You can already buy illegal "chop chop" tobacco at the local shop at $30 a half kilo, if plain packaging is introduced how easy will it be to forge/counterfit these packets the good thing here in good old Australia is our tobacco Industry is regulated, the illegal tobacco that comes from the Phillipines as well as other countries is laced with chemicals eg "Formaldehyde", the illegal traders will sell these cheap nasty cigs to our children as young as 8yrs old, I smoke but there must be a better alternative to improving the wealth of illegal traders and besides smokers taxes pay for the rest of you whingers, more tax on pokies the evil that takes parent's away from their children now that's the way to go, must go I need a smoke !
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Australian Government already spend a lot of money with campaign to Stop smoking and also with information about Tobacco and they have good intentions regarding the health of the population and the use off Tobacco has a big influence in the life of the Australians.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying that i agree with banning the use of the brand in the product and i don't know if that's even a real Bill, could be only to bring some attention and some discussion on the issue!!
Also we can't say that Coca-cola is the same as a Tobacco company, right?!?!
Cheers Jeca!!
I agree with the decision. It's the government that, at the end, has to deal with high amount of sick people, demanding quality and special cares and spending millions with their treatments. So it's also an economic issue.
ReplyDeleteThis is absurd!!! If the Government believes that cigarettes make the body more prone to severe diseases, the natural consequence should be that the Government itself publishes studies concerning this matter. Advertising bans are incompatible with free will, which is the foundation of a democratic society!! In order to achieve good results, the Govenment should provide solid information for the population, and not ban advertising by law.
ReplyDeletethe government move,hurts democracy.Advertising is a right of private companies. The government should take specific measures to protect and guide the population. Particularly because there are thousands of other products advertised and sold freely affecting public health, causing even more losses to public coffers.
ReplyDelete