Branding matters for cigarette companies clinging to emotional connection

A landmark decision has been made by the Australian Government to remove branding and ‘design’ from cigarette packaging in a bid to stop (or at least reduce) the incidence of smoking in our country. It’s clear that since that decision has been made, we’ve come to know and understand the value that tobacco companies put on design. It’s positively refreshing to know that design has been recognized by our Government, as well as the tobacco industry, as a key influence in the perception of ourselves and our society.

During the last Australian federal election we were bombarded with Labor and Liberal campaign messages telling us why we shouldn’t vote for the other side. But, whilst the red vs blue battle was being fought, another, more devious war was waged; that of the Alliance of Australian Retailers Pty Ltd on the laws recently passed in that would prevent them from being able to use design and branding directly on their product packaging.

When I saw the first advertisement run by this organization, an organization I had never heard of, I was curious. Who are they? Can I vote for them? Are they an alternative to the two parties in which I had absolutely no loyalty or interest? Their TV advertisement sounded legitimate enough; it even finished with the typical political ad sign-off of someone speaking really fast about the person/s that authorized the advertisement. I felt myself compelled to find out more.

Who is the Alliance of Australian Retailers Pty Ltd? Well, first note the ‘Pty Ltd’ bit; that’s right, it’s a company; not an organization, not a community, a company.  According to their website they are “Owners of Australian corner stores, milk bars, newsagents and service stations who are fed up with excessive regulation that is making it harder for us to run our businesses.” Note how specific their membership is. Considering it’s an alliance for retailers it’s interesting to see that it doesn’t include the likes of the big retailers; there’s no Myer mentioned, no David Jones, no Woolworths, it appears to be just the small ‘aussie battlers’ whose core profits revolve around sales of cigarettes. If you take a closer look at the site you’ll find out who the major sponsors (they call them supporters) of this so-called “Alliance” are; the footer goes on to read, “We are supported by British American Tobacco Australia Ltd, Phillip Morris Ltd and Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd.” With that said, do I really need to go on?

That’s right, the Alliance of Australian Retailers Pty Ltd is a company that is funded and run by Australia’s largest Tobacco companies under the guise of a group of people with whom most Australians are proud to support and identify with, the aussie battler. It’s clear that these giants of the corporate world are not happy about the removal of ‘design’ from their packaging and I’m convinced it’s not because they would rather our society be enriched with colour, type and visual interest.

There have been many reasons given over the last few months as to why this new legislation, from the Alliance’s point of view, is a bad idea. Some sources have suggested that it would make it difficult for small shop owners to find the requested brand/cigarette strength for a customer when he or she requests it upon their next visit. This means a higher chance of a dissatisfied customer and the impending loss of business as a result. Others, including the Alliance themselves believe the legislation will be ineffective citing numerous international sources and the not-so convincing argument that “If customers can’t see the cigarettes because the display of them in Australian stores is also banned, how can plain packaging influence their decision to make the purchase or not.”

It seems a little preposterous, the arguments that the alliance has provided for opposing the new laws. To suggest that shop owners will take longer to identify a particular brand of cigarette when a customer asks for one might seem like the owner is forced to provide a negative customer experience by making the customer wait longer. But, I ask you, when was the last time you minded when you took a prescription to a pharmacist and you waited even as long as 10-15 minutes for the pharmacist to locate your particular drug, in it’s plain-packaged box, out of the other 1000s of drugs they have behind that mysterious counter? Have you not browsed the pharmacy shelves while you waited? Perhaps bought some headache tablets or band-aids that you didn’t think you needed until you saw them? Milk bars won’t vanish if owners take a little longer in identifying the cigarette packaging that a customer requested. Maybe it should be the societal norm to wait 10 minutes for your box of cigarettes so that you browse the snack foods and other impulse items moving you to leave with not only your cigarettes, but the latest issue of cosmo magazine, a stick of gum and a loaf of bread because you had the time to realize it was on special.

The second (among many) arguments that the Alliance uses is the fact that customers can’t see the store cigarette display anyway and so it would be a moot point to un-brand the packets; it’s likely to have little effect on their point-of-sale purchase decision right? Well, couldn’t this also be applied conversely; if they cannot see the packet anyway, why not un-brand it, that is, if you truly believe that branding and design plays no part in their decision making process at the point-of –sale. When you order a meal in a respected restaurant, you are not thinking about whether your spaghetti meatballs are being rolled in the kitchen by an Italian nonna with 30 years experience or whether the chef has taken them out of the freezer where they’ve been for the last 6 months, put them in the microwave for 3 minutes and served it to you on a large white plate. If you must have spaghetti meatballs, you’ll order them. The same goes with cigarettes.

It’s clear that the government’s new proposal has hit a nicotine-stained nerve. Those who have studied the affects of branding know how much value consumers put on the slogans on their t-shirts, the logos on the shoes they wear and yes, the colour of their cigarette packet they carry on them. If not, Naomi Klein’s book, “No Logo” is the quickest way to get educated on the subject. Will these new laws prevent current pack-a-day smokers from buying their next pack of cigarettes? Maybe not. Perhaps their buying decisions have gone beyond brand and are now simply a function of physiological need. Will it help a teenager whose anxious to form an identity, to be part of a group, re-consider cigarettes as their way in? Is it the act of smoking that’s cool? Or whether you smoke Winfield or Marlborough? There’s no doubt in my mind, and I’m sure the other designers’ minds out there, that unbranding cigarettes will make a dent in the perception of cigarettes as “cool”. Trying to reverse 80 years of marketing across 3 generations needs to start somewhere – I’m proud that it’s started here.

In my opinion, this legislation, first introduced to us by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s government might be the most influential legislation of our generation. It could be quite ironic that something so important was introduced in to our legal system by the shortest-serving PM in Australian political history. What’s inspiring for me is that these laws and the subsequent actions taken by the “Alliance” to oppose them are directly related to design. It highlights the importance of what we as designers know to be so very influential to a brand-consumer relationship. Sure, we’re discussing the eradication of design in this instance and I dare say, in many other circumstances, something like this would leave me disheartened and disappointed but, on the contrary, I find myself (and I believe any fellow graphic designer should be too) very much excited that our Australian government and the most profitable companies in the most dangerous industry in our country put so much value on design that one felt strongly enough to change the laws of our country to enforce it’s effect while the other so vehemently opposes it.