Less anti-smoking advertising under the Coalition

House on fire? Or maybe someone's just burned the toast?
No, it's someone smoking at the door, facing outdoors. From Brand Republic

In this piece, Brand Republic speculates about the future of anti-smoking advertising in the current review and overhaul of government's central communications.

Anti-smoking ads were backed with a £26.7 million budget in 2008/09, which dropped to £14.6 million in 2009/10 and just £1.1 million in 2010/11.

I dread to think what they're spending these savings on, but a reduction in this particular budget is welcome news.

Stirling is proud to present ...

... The 'independent' academic review on plain packaging. The Department of Health has so described this document in this statement: last paragraph on the first page.

The Stirling Observer finds its local university at the centre of the plain packaging campaign, and is justifiably proud. It quotes Professor Linda Bauld:

Professor Bauld added: “This systematic review forms the basis for the UK wide consultation on whether plain packaging should be introduced. The studies we identified and describe in the review were remarkably consistent in their findings

(well, there's a surprise)

and clearly set out what effect plain packaging could have. 

“The public consultation will take place from April to July and will help the government to decide whether the UK will follow Australia’s lead, where plain packaging will be introduced by 2013. 

“I’d encourage people to have a look at the evidence set out in our review, make up their own minds about the issue and respond to the consultation.”

Thanks for that, Linda. (In case anyone wishes to take up this invitation, this is worth reading, from Dick Puddlecote.)

Equally proud is the adorable Richard Simpson MSP:

*S4M-02667 Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Scottish Labour Party): Plain Packaging of Tobacco Review of Evidence—That the Parliament congratulates the academics from the University of Stirling Management School, who have conducted a systematic review of plain tobacco packaging, which it believes has led to the UK Government’s consultation on whether tobacco should be sold in standardised, or plain, packaging; notes that the study team included Professor Gerard Hastings and Professor Linda Bauld, both of whom are members of the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies; notes that the review of evidence focuses on whether cigarettes should be sold in plain packs to reduce the attractiveness of the brand packaging and making the health warnings clear; further notes that the study claims that, in over three dozen other studies, it was shown that plain packaging can help smokers in three ways, by increasing the prominence and effectiveness of health warnings, by making the pack, and thereby smoking, less appealing and by removing the confusion about the relative harm that pack design can cause, and calls on all those who have concerns about the substantial number of new smokers each year in Scotland, who it understands are predominately young people, to respond to this consultation.

(Richard Simpson MSP is to be remembered for denying there was any need for a watertight case that the display ban would work. No doubt he feels the same about plain packaging.)

The 'independent' academic review in question is 'independent' only insofar as it is not officially part of the Department of Health. At least four of its six authors and at least two of their four institutions are set up to fight tobacco use and are funded for that purpose: to 'discover' (ad nauseum) the harms of tobacco and recommend restrictions on its use. Hardly objective or even a study, this is an attempt to assemble a brief in support of what government plans to do. Calling it an independent academic review is disgraceful and dishonest, and sadly what we have come to expect from the government in relation to tobacco control.

Just wouldn't it have been nice to have included the views of Ukraine, the US Chamber of Commerce, TransAtlantic Business Dialogue and other US business organisations that have protested, the International Chamber of Commerce, Brand Republic or even British American Tobacco? Perhaps an 'independent' academic review could have ensured representation of these views in the report, and even academics from relevant disciplines for assistance in compiling it.

But the wisdom of the health lobby trumps all of them.

Plain packaging moves across the world

In Australia the case opens in court as the tobacco companies defend their intellectual property against the plain packaging laws. The Australian government is confident of victory, arguing that it will not gain directly by confiscating tobacco brand markings.

The Commonwealth argues that even if big tobacco could prove the government was acquiring their property rights the manufacturers still wouldn't win in court.   

That's because the purpose of the plain packaging legislation - namely to improve public health - is within the scope of the Commonwealth's legislative power under the constitution's commerce, trade and external affairs powers.

This sounds like a blank cheque book: claim health grounds and you have a legal basis for any action. Even if the result were certain to be as the government claim, would this over-ride the legitimate requirements of traders to be able to legally brand their goods?

The legal arguments are beyond me but this link shows that opposition to the plain packaging proposals is shared with many bodies such as the US Chamber of Commerce. The Express has also opposed the policy. This link from Brand Republic gives a number of views including one from its own industry – not heard enough:

"Just focusing on the connection between branding and smoking behaviour may be a distorted way of looking at the way of branding. 

"Branding on pack is about differentiating product and competition on the basis of quality, reputation and price but if all the packs look the same you move very quickly towards a generic commoditised market place and that is typified by price competition. 

"It means there is a loss of incentive for companies to invest in quality and reputations because they have no way to communicate that to consumers. While I’m sure the familiar brands will continue, if you were to launch a new product into the market it can only be a price fighting product and if that is a means of reducing prices to consumers then actually it may result in more people smoking rather than less because it becomes a very price sensitive market.

Here the government consultation on plain packaging has opened: coordinated by the Department of Health to cover all the legislative assemblies as well as England. (It's worth responding: the EC had to publish responses to its Consultation on revising the Tobacco Products 2001 Directive. The public didn't like its proposals and this showed up in the consultation responses. It also showed that the tobacco company was not alone in opposing an extension to tobacco control. The more embarrassment they get the better.)

Simon Clark says in his blog that Andrew Lansley promised an independent review* of the evidence on plain packaging. I haven't read this review yet, but since it is co-authored by a team including Gerard Hastings, Linda Bauld and Crawfood Moodie (refer to front page of the report for their affiliations), it cannot be described as independent. As Simon says, 'there is not a single marketing, communications or branding expert on the panel'. Perhaps they would have been considered vested interests?

*yes he really did! Jesus, they surpass themselves. 'The Department of Health has ... commissioned an independent academic review of the existing evidence on the effects of plain packaging'. Said independent review is authored by a team of ten people, affiliated with the University of Nottingham, the Cancer Research UK Centre for Tobacco Control Research at the Institute of Social Marketing at Stirling University, and the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies. I've said this before: Cancer Research includes in its funding conditions for tobacco-related research the provision that research 'support current UK policy priorities', including plain packaging. How the {censored} does he get off with calling this an independent academic review?

h/tip Simon Clark for the link