Plain packaging? That's just for starters
Monday, July 1, 2013 at 9:36 Further to yesterday's post about 'talking' cigarette packs, an interesting document has come to our attention.
Entitled 'Tobacco Packaging Innovation', it's credited to Dr Richard Purves, Marisa de Andrade, Crawford Moodie and Jennifer McKell of the Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling.
It was posted online on June 20, 2013, which makes the following statement quite interesting:
Plain packaging was introduced in Australia in December 2012. The New Zealand Government announced plans to introduce plain packaging in February 2013, although no timeline has yet been set for doing so. Uptake of plain packaging outside of Australasia may be be more protracted.
A systematic review conducted to inform the UK consultation on plain packaging had 37 included studies, which collectively suggested that plain packaging may help; 1) reduce appeal of the pack, product and user [my emphasis]; 2) reduce consumer confusion about product harm as a consequence of pack colour and shape; 3) increase the salience of health warnings (Moodie et al, 2012a).
Note too the use of the words "may help".
In other words, seven months after the introduction of plain packaging in Australia, and a year after a "systematic review" of the evidence that included 37 hand-picked studies, the tobacco control industry can still offer nothing more than the vague hope that plain packaging "may help" reduce the appeal of cigarette packs or what they laughingly call "consumer confusion about product harm".
No wonder the Department of Health is dragging its heels over the publication of its report on the public consultation on standardised packaging which closed almost eleven months ago!
Undeterred by this calamitous failure of evidence, Purves et al ask, "So how else can the pack be used to communicate harm to smokers?":
Focus group research with young women smokers aged 16-24 years [were] recruited from Greater Glasgow to explore their response to four innovative measures to communicate health risk/cessation messages via the packaging.
The four "innovative measures" involved pack inserts, quick response (QR) barcodes, the cigarette itself, and audition ('talking') packaging.
Here's how they might be used:
Pack inserts could feature a cessation message (‘Quitting will improve your health’) or a health risk message (‘Smoking damages your lungs’).
QR barcodes could direct the user to either a national smoking helpline or the NHS choices website on the benefits of quitting.
Cigarettes could have the words ‘Smoking Kills’ printed vertically on both sides of the cigarette paper.
Audition packs would play a short pre-recorded short message:
To test the effect of the latter two audition packs were created. The first message was “Get help to quit, call 0800 0224 332 for more information on the options available”.
The second was “Smoking reduces fertility. If you are planning to have a child now or in the future smoking can reduce your chance of conception by up to 70 per cent”.
Purves et al report that the focus groups had "mixed feelings" about the possible impact of audition packs:
Some felt they would become accustomed to hearing it.
"I think you would probably get used to it but, because like you know, once you start smoking you just ignore it" (Group 4, 16-17, C2DE)
Others thought the messages may make them think about stopping or reducing consumption.
"I think that would maybe make you think twice about giving up" (Group 2, 18-24, C2DE)
"I’d maybe smoke less" (Group 7, 16-17, ABC1)
For some this appeared due to the annoyance of repeatedly hearing such messages, for others the message itself would be reinforced
Some people would maybe say "I need to pack that in because they packets are doing my nut in" (Group 1, 18-24, C2DE)
"It’s just hearing it every time you are opening it ... it would maybe start sinking in" (Group 7, 16-17, ABC1)
Those that thought audition packs had some impact, perceived the two messages differently
The message on fertility was perceived as ‘hard-hitting’, ‘effective’ and ‘off-putting’, particularly among 16-17 year olds, who said it may make them think about quitting.
"I would stop" (Group 6, 16-17, ABC1)
"I didn’t know it would reduce fertility and stuff so, I don’t know, I think you just wouldn’t bother doing it (Group 3, 16-17, ABC1)
Eventually the authors conclude that:
Article 2.1 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control encourages member Parties to implement measures beyond the Guidelines in order to protect public health.
With some creative thinking packaging can be manipulated, not to create or enhance appeal, but to communicate risk and cessation messages.
In general, even though quitting was a low priority for young women, all four measures were perceived to have potential value in communicating the health risks of smoking and cessation messages.
The pack inserts were considered helpful in terms of communicating additional information about health risks and the benefits of quitting, particularly if double sided inserts were used with an image on one side and more detailed information on the other.
There were mixed perceptions about ‘Smoking Kills’ on the cigarette itself. Most thought it would have little impact but some suggested that it would make them think about stopping, largely due to it being perceived as embarrassing.
There was general support for the inclusion of on-pack QR barcodes directing the user to available help. Most thought this would be helpful, at least if they or others were thinking about quitting, but could be easily avoided otherwise.
Finally, the ‘talking’ packs were perceived as off-putting, particularly the message about smoking lowering the chance of conception.
So, plain packaging may be tobacco control's current 'Holy Grail' but it's only a stepping stone to further invasive policies, the most notable of which is 'talking' cigarette packs that nag you to consider the health risks of smoking every time you open the pack.
You couldn't make it up.
Update: Yesterday's Scotland on Sunday report (Talking cigarette packs to encourage quitters) has been picked up by the Daily Record (Talking cigarette packets set to warn smokers of the health risks), the Scottish Sun ('Packet in' say talking ciggies) and other Scottish newspapers.
Reader Comments (12)
Someone has too much time on their hands.
Unreal. I shout at the T.V.
Now i am gonna shout at a fag pack.
;-)
It's always a stepping stone as was the blanket ban which was never about health but was needed to stigmatise those who refused to quit and that in itself allowed further discrimination against one targeted group of consumers.
I think "It's Not About Health" was a phrase I first coined to bring the issue to people's attention in July 2011 at my Lincoln protest because it isn't about health and hasn't been for a very long time. I also tweaked the Aus campaign message into "WE deserve to be heard" because as the highest paying taxed consumers we do.
The smoking issue is now about money, funding, jobs, salaries, control, hate, intolerance, and ruining the big bad "eviiiiiiil" tobacco companies. This latest wheeze is akin to letting vandals loose on the tobacco industry to ruin it. Once ruined, it won't disappear but will be controlled by the anti-smoker industry which will then change tune and tell us all how beneficial nicotine is as what's left of the industry is handed to Big Pharma. According to the WHO's 50 year plan this will happen by 2050. The first stage of that plan was the ban because nothing else could follow until they got it.
Why is our Govt failing to protect us from such abuse and public humiliation? If talking packs arrive then they will attract kids and young people to smoking. The bullies need future quitters to ensure they keep on paying their mortgages and have their annual holidays every year.
It seems to me the only solution to this hate campaign is political. Smokers must make their MPs see that they will lose seats over this. Time has come to vote only for those that support us and to vote the others out and to stop the tribal voting and support of parties that clearly aim to continue our persecution with our own money.
*sound of loudly ringing handbell and shouts of "unclean.UNCLEAN!"*
Which is what I will hack the first Nag Pack, I get my hands on, to say. Or maybe Jimmy Saville on mp3 saying "Little Girl, would you like to suck on my cigarette?".
Seriously, there could be a world of fun awaiting those of us with 'skillz' and who enjoy getting up the literal and figurative noses of the Self Righteous!
How about (in a german Dalek voice) "ENTNORMALISIERUNG, ENTNORMALISIERUNG!" ? Or maybe "DANGER DANGER IF YOU CAN HEAR THIS YOU WILL DIE OF CANCER"....
We can allways have Winston Churchill wartime speeches to put some fighting sprit into apathetic smokers.
Pack inserts? Those wouldn't be the same pack inserts that TC was squealing about the other week when PM used them to promote its website to its customers, would they?
Simon,
There is an article in the Daily Mirror about the smoking Ban with comments and a poll as to whether you support it or not.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/should-smoking-banned-public-places-2015161
Sheila
No doubt paid activists whose jobs depend on ensuring the smoking ban stays will be summoned to do what they are paid for and vote against to support the anti-smoker industry.
Well, now you really know the case is going badly for baccy control.
It used to be said that crusades start off well intentioned, soon become ridiculous and then become dangerous. Baccy control have been dangerous for a long time and, potentially, even more dangerous than they self manifest (kill smokers etc).
However, having been dangerous, they have become ridiculous again.
This, is a backwards crusade!
11 pm.
AGAINST THE BAN 76%. FOR 24%.
People are learning!
Junican - I keep getting an error message ( Error submitting your poll) when trying to vote, do you have to register?
Anyone else had this problem?
Thanks.
Daily Mirror Poll
For: 19%
Against: 81%
@ 14.27