anti plain package smokes ads

[Olly]

A smoker wouldn't be able to get away with some of the things you've said, but they are true none the less. You've no doubt researched this information because of your condition and learnt things you never knew before. If people were more informed about smoking and health/cancer it wouldn't be such an emotional topic. Like you so rightly say - smoking is a risk factor and not the only cause because non smokers get lung cancer too. My brother in law got a terrible throat cancer usually only associated with very heavy smokers - he's been a non smoker all his life, a social drinker and heavily into fitness so where did he get that? More and more cancers are being proven to be caused by viruses! With all the changes going on in the world and people travelling with ease from country to country - it's no wonder cancers (all forms) are on the rise as we are exposed to more threats. It's not until you study cancer/health issues that you realise smoking can't be blamed for 'all the smoking related cancers' and the health costs blow out!

I've never bought a packet of cigarettes or smoked, so I have no idea if plain packaging will make a difference to an existing or new smoker. I dont think tobacco companies should be able to advertise, but I dont think packaging makes much difference to that.

The tobacco industry ads I think miss the mark from a marketing point of view. I'm thinking particularly of the "Prisoner" one, with the unattractive lady saying "just do as your told"... it comes across as being desperate. I think using an argument like the Olly did above about "what industry could they stop next" would probably be more effective, from a marketing point of view.

As a general principle, I think people should take responsibility for their own behaviour, whether its smoking, over-eating, drinking too much etc. We all have vices, and we all suffer their consequences. I dont think govt should "interfere" here. they can educate, encourage etc... but not actually stop our civil liberties.

Sometimes, our actions also impact on other people, and that is where govt should look to possibly step in, eg stopping drink driving, not smoking in public places, healthier food in school canteens etc.

Where I have the biggest "gripe" is people saying that because you've smoked you dont 'deserve" healthcare services, because you've brought it upon yourself. This is a very real attitude, particularly in Australia.

As someone who has lung cancer, I can tell you that the first question EVERYONE asks me is 'did you smoke". When I say no, the general feeling is that its somehow unjustified, or terribly unfair that I have cancer. But the flip side of that is that people who have smoked are treated like having cancer is their own fault. The same attitude isnt displayed to people with other cancers (the sympathy is, but not the blame). Recent research showed that Australians had the least sympathy of any of the nations surveyed towards people with lung cancer, because they felt it was the sufferers own fault.

OK... now I'm going to start preaching! The funding for lung cancer research is lower than all the other major cancers, despite it killing more people than breast, prostate and cervical combined. More women die from lung cancer than breast cancer. Some statistics say that up to 60% of people who are newly diagnosed are either never smokers or quit smoking decades ago. The survival rate for lung cancer is 15%, and has not changed for over 20 years. (as a comparison, breast cancer has gone from around 40%- 80%, I think in the past 15 years or so.). There is no early detection methods, like there are with breast and colon cancer. (In fact, there has recently been a breakthrough in this, with research showing survival rates could be doubled if smokers had a yearly CT scan...... and one of Australia's leading lung cancer doctors said it was a waste of money and we should be focusing on quit smoking campaigns...... can you imagine a similar approach being taken for breast cancer!!!!!!!! )

I have no problem at all with Quit smoking programs... they are essential. But smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer (and other cancers), not a direct cause. Lots of people who smoke never get lung cancer. and there are rapidly increasing numbers of people who never smoke who are getting lung cancer. Because of our attitudes of "smokers deserve to get lung cancer", we have neglected to fund research into early detection, treatment and cures.

All of us make lifestyle choices which are probably not the best for our health. We shouldnt stigmatise smokers, or punish them for their actions. By not taking lung cancer seriously, as a disease that anyone can get and no one deserves, we are doing just that.

OK, rant over!! you can go back to your packet of ciggies, your carton of beer or your block of chocolate now

 

[dan c]

Actually I think it is the principle. They haven't said a word for years even though there are constant new restrictions being put on them, but this latest move is just plain stupidity, wasteful gov spending and unfair business practice.

Olly, if tobacco companies were run by principled businessmen, they would have withdrawn their product from sale when it was revealed that cigarettes increased the chances of cancer and heart disease.

Instead, they denied the evidence for years, hid the evidence for years and paid off 'scientists' to bodgy statistics.

These ads are about protecting the bottom line, nothing more.

 

[dan c]

danc,

You dont have to get into a brawl in public to use alcohol irresponsibly

irrepsonsbile behaviour happens everyhwere and it happens a lot

Of course, we excuse it and say it's not irre[psonsible, so what if he did that he was p1ssed -

Read the whole post. I'm not excusing any behaviour, and I agree people can do stupid things when they've had to much to drink. My point is that the majority who have a drink on a Saturday night do so responsibly.

That doesn't mean there is zero trouble.

For example, the last time I had a drink was Friday night. I had one glass of wine. The last time I was intoxicated was probably two years ago. I've probably had, say 80 nights of responsible alcohol use since I last used it irresponsibly.

But when we think about alcohol use we automatically think about King St or drunken louts, not an old f@rt like me having a glass of wine after a tough week at work.

 

[BayView]

As a general principle, I think people should take responsibility for their own behaviour, whether its smoking, over-eating, drinking too much etc. We all have vices, and we all suffer their consequences. I dont think govt should "interfere" here. they can educate, encourage etc... but not actually stop our civil liberties.

Sometimes, our actions also impact on other people, and that is where govt should look to possibly step in, eg stopping drink driving, not smoking in public places, healthier food in school canteens etc.

The Gubbmint is now.

The reason why the Gubbmint steps in is because of the enormity of the problems/cost/associated victims with a particular problem like smoking

I just wonder how long it will be before they start to do similar things with alcohol; the cost to the community for health care/crime/domestic violence and general crimes caused by alcohol fuelled behaviour is enormous.

The problem with alcohol is it's place in our society; it is an enormous part of Aussie life, so it will be hard to implement reforms.

 

[jaycee]

Read the whole post. I'm not excusing any behaviour, and I agree people can do stupid things when they've had to much to drink. My point is that the majority who have a drink on a Saturday night do so responsibly.

That doesn't mean there is zero trouble.

For example, the last time I had a drink was Friday night. I had one glass of wine. The last time I was intoxicated was probably two years ago. I've probably had, say 80 nights of responsible alcohol use since I last used it irresponsibly.

But when we think about alcohol use we automatically think about King St or drunken louts, not an old f@rt like me having a glass of wine after a tough week at work.

I dunno mate. the old farts and the young and all in between make upd the sum of the society who we ae asking the question of.

In Europe I saw more repsonible alcohol management than I see here - what you said more common place.. with most age groups, including the young....

I still think we got a long way to go to catch up with that maturity and repsonibility towards alcohol personally.

To me irrepsonsible doesn't just mean getting so drunk that you act so vile / violently or disgracefully that it might end up on the news.

 

[Strannik]

But people drinking in King St are a minority of all people having a drink on a Friday or Saturday night. My point was, if we look at ALL the people having a drink on a Saturday night, the amount who get arrested / in a fight / intoxicated or drive drunk would be in the minority.

When looking at these things we tend to forget the silent majority who do behave responsibly.

the stuff you mentioned are not the only problems alcohol causes.

there is domestic violence, people injuring themselves while doing silly things drunk (like that guy who was planking on the balcony edge) and much more....

 

[dan c]

I dunno mate. the old farts and the young and all in between make upd the sum of the society who we ae asking the question of.

In Europe I saw more repsonible alcohol management than I see here - what you said more common place.. with most age groups, including the young....

I still think we got a long way to go to catch up with that maturity and repsonibility towards alcohol personally.

I pretty much agree, I had the same thoughts when I was in Europe.

To me irrepsonsible doesn't just mean getting so drunk that you act so vile / violently or disgracefully that it might end up on the news.

That was not my definition of irresponsible behaviour.

 

[jaycee]

I pretty much agree, I had the same thoughts when I was in Europe.And whow do we behave in comparison to this respnsible behaviour we see there (REmembrer I'm one fo the people I'm criticising, I' Austrlian, I'm not pointing fingers at strangers here....)?



That was not my definition of irresponsible behaviour.

So what are the things that are irrepsonsible and how well do we manage those things ?

 

[tom32]

Olly, if tobacco companies were run by principled businessmen, they would have withdrawn their product from sale when it was revealed that cigarettes increased the chances of cancer and heart disease.

Instead, they denied the evidence for years, hid the evidence for years and paid off 'scientists' to bodgy statistics.

These ads are about protecting the bottom line, nothing more.

If they did as you say they would not be considered principled businessman at all by the law. They would not be taking their fiduciary responsibility at all very seriously if they stopped doing business so would likely end up not able to run a company again, worst case prison time.

If you owned shares in a company and the CEO then said, right what we do is no good for the environment we are shutting down seeing the price of them wiped would you think the CEO is principled using your money and making a conscientious decision for you?

You must pursue profit in a sustainable way and unfortunately for cig companies this is selling smokes.

Agree though that anyone who takes on such a position is possibly not very principled to begin with.

 

[tom32]

But for the new smoker, how do they make that initial choice of what brand to smoke? I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me that the packaging is a factor. And this legislation to me is more about stopping people taking up smoking, rather than getting people to quit.

You touch on why removing brands from smokes is arguably counterproductive.

New smokers will make their decision on all that is left; Price.

Cig companies will compete on all that is left; Price.

So for an existing smoker its all good he smokes winfields and they become cheaper. For a new smoker cigs are now cheaper because they are simply a commodity with anyone being able to compete with the big players because brand image is not important, there is no branding. You will have "winston reds" and "benson and hedhogs" within months of this legislation being passed and they will all be cheap brands.

This is why big tobbacco is pissed. Not because it will reduce smoking rates, but because it will cruel their market share. When they can demonstrate this in a year or two, then they can sue the government. If it actually has an effect on smoking rates they will probably be battling suing the gov but I suspect it will not and so it will simply see big tobacco unfairly treated against new small players and may give them grounds to have a crack at the government.

 

[tom32]

The problem with alcohol is it's place in our society; it is an enormous part of Aussie life, so it will be hard to implement reforms.

Imagine how sports would complain then.

First it was cig advertising going out, but they still had drinks and more recently gambling. All pursuits of the modern Australian male who watches sport.

Loose drinks and gambling what is the Friday night football going to advertise then? Haberdashery? I can see a dramatic slide in revenue for them if ad bans got taken up to gambling and alcohol which occured to cigs 20 odd years ago.

 

[dan c]

If they did as you say they would not be considered principled businessman at all by the law. They would not be taking their fiduciary responsibility at all very seriously if they stopped doing business so would likely end up not able to run a company again, worst case prison time.

If you owned shares in a company and the CEO then said, right what we do is no good for the environment we are shutting down seeing the price of them wiped would you think the CEO is principled using your money and making a conscientious decision for you?

You must pursue profit in a sustainable way and unfortunately for cig companies this is selling smokes.

Agree though that anyone who takes on such a position is possibly not very principled to begin with.

Surely they have a responsibility to people concuming their product? Just like Toyota does, when it recalls 40,000 Camrys - at considerable cost - to fix a manufacturing defect.

Toyota would be better off financially to ignore the problem and cross their fingers and hope that no Camry drivers have to brake suddenly.

They could then lie to investigators and hide the truth - as big tobacco did - when they are eventually questioned.

Hide the evidence, lie to congress, pay off scientists, doesn't sound very principled to me.

 

[tom32]

Surely they have a responsibility to people concuming their product? Just like Toyota does, when it recalls 40,000 Camrys - at considerable cost - to fix a manufacturing defect.

Toyota would be better off financially to ignore the problem and cross their fingers and hope that no Camry drivers have to brake suddenly.

They could then lie to investigators and hide the truth - as big tobacco did - when they are eventually questioned.

Hide the evidence, lie to congress, pay off scientists, doesn't sound very principled to me.

In both cases they are doing what they think is best for their bottom line.

Having safety faults and being a car manufacturer is not a good mix in todays world.

Same with airlines. Have a plane drop out of the sky and the loss of an aircraft and the insurance costs are the least of your worries. The brand is in big trouble. I guess I should have put more emphasis on the sustainable profits bit above, as it is both profits and sustainable business they have to strive for, not one good year as bank CEO's appeared to have at the head of their agenda on wall street between 2004 and 2007...

Toyota had a brand image of being high quality. What they did prooved they were a quality company in my mind and I would be more likely to buy off them in future. Trying to hide from the flaws like other car companies have done in the past would put them in the same basket as these companies. They do not compete with them anymore and so need to be seen as a quality car company to compete with other high quality cars.

In terms of making smokes safer they actually would if there was an economic benifit to it. Governments have actually banned them making any claims on safety so it leaves them in the ridiculous situation that they are in now sticking with the same custom made smokes they were making in the 80s. Their is much known now about tobacco and ways of making them much safer however they cannot advertise it so it is pointless going down that road.

I kind of agree with you around principles, only pointing out if one of the CEO's of one woke up one day and decided he wanted to shut a smoke company down he actually would be prevented from doing so unless he owned it 100%. He is working for the company like any worker there and is not in a position to unilaterally decide to stop making ciggarretes.

 

[BayView]

Loose drinks and gambling what is the Friday night football going to advertise then? Haberdashery? I can see a dramatic slide in revenue for them if ad bans got taken up to gambling and alcohol which occured to cigs 20 odd years ago.

Who watches footy live anymore?

I love the Foxtel fast-foward and live pause. Ads are a memory.

There are a million other day-to day products that the average person uses which would fill the void - Iphones, KFC, Maccas, Hair products, Xbox, Cars, more cars, more Phones, Pizza Hut, more hair stuff and eye make-up, Glade smelly stuff, self-advertising Station ads, self-advertising news programs ads, and about 20 years worth of TAC ads to rekindle the safety thing, home loan ads, fifty different Lite and Easy ads, Jetstar, QLD ads, more Maccas and KFC, Harvey Norman....

 

[tom32]

Who watches footy live anymore?

I love the Foxtel fast-foward and live pause. Ads are a memory.

There are a million other day-to day products that the average person uses which would fill the void - Iphones, KFC, Maccas, Hair products, Xbox, Cars, more cars, more Phones, Pizza Hut, more hair stuff and eye make-up, Glade smelly stuff, self-advertising Station ads, self-advertising news programs ads, and about 20 years worth of TAC ads to rekindle the safety thing, home loan ads, fifty different Lite and Easy ads, Jetstar, QLD ads, more Maccas and KFC, Harvey Norman....

They make millions from advertising revenue, or at least the sale of the rights to screen the games live so someone must be watching the ads.

The demographic which does is people who buy beer and gamble. YEs they also buy i phones but this is not going to be worth as much as everyoen buys iphones. You have a demographic that has a propensity to consume beer and gamble. Best you play beer ads and gambling ads to them and leave the iphone ads for the news or times when the viewing public in general is watching. Same for most of the things you have listed, they are best played to a broader audience.

It is like kids programmes having ads for kids toys. Sure if kids toys were illegal to be advertised other things would screen but they would not pay as much as toy companies for this space.

The people who will pay most for the space to advertise to yobbo males are going to be beer makers and gambling suppliers. I don't see maccas etc making up the shortfall should they be made illegal. Sure they will take up the space if its at the right price but that space is not as valuable to a fast food chain as it is now to alcohol and gambling advertisers.

 

[BayView]

They make millions from advertising revenue, or at least the sale of the rights to screen the games live so someone must be watching the ads.

The demographic which does is people who buy beer and gamble. YEs they also buy i phones but this is not going to be worth as much as everyoen buys iphones. You have a demographic that has a propensity to consume beer and gamble. Best you play beer ads and gambling ads to them and leave the iphone ads for the news or times when the viewing public in general is watching. Same for most of the things you have listed, they are best played to a broader audience.

It is like kids programmes having ads for kids toys. Sure if kids toys were illegal to be advertised other things would screen but they would not pay as much as toy companies for this space.

The people who will pay most for the space to advertise to yobbo males are going to be beer makers and gambling suppliers. I don't see maccas etc making up the shortfall should they be made illegal. Sure they will take up the space if its at the right price but that space is not as valuable to a fast food chain as it is now to alcohol and gambling advertisers.

I would argue that the audience which watches footy on the teev is a lot broader than just yer beer drinkin', Winnie Blue smokin', TAB addicted yobbo.

Besides; these blokes are also into loads of other stuff that advertisers would like to capture.

One of my mates is heavily into a program to get a new golf course up and running. They need players.

Yobbos are also golfers and he knows it. The largest % of golfers are men - of all ages and walks of life. Unfortunately he can't afford the ad space on the AFL timeslots.