Poll provides more propaganda for the "power of packaging"
Tuesday, March 18, 2014 at 0:30 Cancer Research has released the results of its latest poll.
Conducted by YouGov, tobacco control's favourite pollsters, CRUK reports that:
The power of packaging is twice as likely as celebrities to influence children (40 per cent vs 20 per cent) when they think about buying a product, according to a new YouGov survey released today, boosting the argument for putting tobacco in plain, standardised packs to discourage children from smoking cigarettes.
While only a fifth (20 per cent) said seeing a celebrity using a product would make them more likely to buy it, double this number said bright, colourful or interesting packaging would.
They added:
The survey found that children aged eight to 15 are more likely to think that bright, colourful or interesting packaging would tempt them to buy something in a shop (40 per cent).
The survey also reveals that children view some of the brightly coloured tobacco packets on sale in shops today much more positively than the proposed plain, standardised packs.
Where to start?
Children may indeed find "bright, colourful or interesting packaging" more tempting than "standardised packs".
Likewise, they may "view some of the brightly coloured tobacco packets on sale in shops today more positively than the proposed plain, standardised packs".
Neither statement is surprising but the poll is based on a false scenario. In the real world there won't be choice between "brightly coloured tobacco packets" and "plain, standardised packs".
At present the choice is between different coloured packs with not a 'plain' pack in sight. If standardised packs are introduced, the 'choice' will be restricted to packs that look almost identical.
There's also a huge difference between temptation and actually consuming cigarettes. After all, unless I'm very much mistaken, it's illegal to sell cigarettes to children. Proxy purchasing is about to be outlawed as well and from next year tobacco will be hidden from view in all shops, large and small.
There's little or no evidence that packaging has ever been a factor in determining whether children start smoking so even if plain packaging is introduced the temptation to smoke will still exist.
Many children are prone to be inquisitive, rebellious or easily influenced by their friends or siblings. That's life.
Peer pressure will remain the number one reason why teenagers start smoking and price will remain the most significant factor when choosing which brand to buy.
So forget standardised packs. If government wants to stop children smoking it should use existing legislation to crack down on rogue retailers and adults (including illicit traders) who sell cigarettes to children.
They should also wait and analyse the impact of the display ban after it has been fully implemented in 2015.
Why has this poll been conducted now? Here's a clue:
These figures have been released as the charity awaits results of an independent review of public health evidence for standard packs chaired by paediatrician Sir Cyril Chantler.
Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s head of tobacco policy, said: “This survey is a timely reminder of the huge marketing power of packaging on young people. Attractive packaging is a key reason that young people are tempted into a lifetime of nicotine addiction, an addiction that ends in death for half of all long-term smokers.
“These findings add to a weight of existing evidence proving that clever design gimmicks distract from health warnings and portray smoking as something glamorous and harmless. By stripping cigarette packs of these attractive designs and bright colours, standardised packaging will give millions of children one less reason to smoke. It’s vital that we protect our kids by reducing the attractiveness of this deadly habit.
“After the results from the Chantler review are published, we urge the government to make standard packaging a reality as soon as possible.”
Fingers crossed Sir Cyril ignores CRUK's spin because closer inspection of the small print reveals that the poll's sample size was just 554 children aged 8-15, which is little more than half the number normally considered acceptable for a representative national poll.
It will be interesting to see which newspapers, broadcasters and politicians fall for this nonsense.
Meanwhile see this post from March 2013: What children think is not reliable evidence.
Update: It's shortly after one o'clock in the morning and I can't find any mention of the poll anywhere, not even on the CRUK website.
It was embargoed until one minute past midnight and I seem to be the only person writing about it!
I'll check again in the morning.
PS. Just spotted this report: Cigarette packaging impact studied (MSN News). Includes quote from JTI.
Update: An identical report appears in the London Evening Standard but as far as I can tell the only national newspaper that mentions the poll is the Sun where there's a tiny piece on page 26.
Not even the BBC wants to know. How embarrassing.
Simon Clark
Cancer Research don't seem to have much confidence in their own poll.
Twelve hours after the embargo was lifted they have finally tweeted a link to the press release:
Press release: Concern over tobacco packaging as kids say packs have more influence than celebrities http://bit.ly/1eb2UKl
I clicked on the link (which took me to the CRUK website) and lo and behold a message read:
Access denied. You are not authorized to access this page.
Bizarre.
As it happens I have a copy of the press release so you'll have to take my word that it's a load of BS - unless, of course, you're "authorised" and can access the relevant page.
Update: I can access the page now.
Reader Comments (2)
Frankly, what adult who enjoys tobacco cares? I see no reason that anyone should. It is perfectly obvious that alternative outlets for tobacco products will emerge - as was the case in Prohibition America. But who gives a toss? Those who buy tiny amounts of tobacco products will continue to do so. Those who buy big amounts will find a different way.
The whole scenario is fluid. Who cares? The New Aristocrats (aka public health) have it at the moment, but a civil war will eventually occur. It is no accident that the EU, despite its supposed altruistic intentions, supports CONGLOMERATES. That is it be expected, since conglomerates are easier to control than millions of tiny enterprises.
What a mess!
The main point this poll stubbornly ignores is that bright packaging, although a very obvious marketing tool, will only affect people who are already consumers of that product.
For instance, you could package chewing gum in the 'glitziest' possible packaging, with flashing lights and bells, but it wouldn't induce me to buy any. Not because I dislike chewing gum, but because I just have no interest in it. To me, it is a pointless product, although I have been known to indulge occasionally. I was the same about it as a kid. However, ask me which chewing gum pack I like best out of a plain and 'glitzy' one, of course I'll choose the more attractive one.
I still won't buy any though.
And the same applies to cigarette packs. If a kid has no interest in smoking, then no 'glitzy' pack is going to change that. But of course he / she will find the better designed pack more attractive; that much is bloody obvious, and requires no 'research' to confirm that conclusion.
The only ones for whom packaging is of any significance at all are those who are already consumers of the product. For all others, the packaging is irrelevant.