Longbeach cigarettes

Licensing edit Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover Texts, and no Back Cover Texts.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 License.
This licensing tag was added to this file as part of the GFDL licensing update. This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else’s trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia Logos. This is a candidate to be copied to Wikimedia Commons. Freely licensed or public domain media are more accessible to other Wikimedia projects if placed on Commons. Any user may perform this move please see Moving files to the Commons for more information.

Please thoroughly review the copyright status of this file and ensure that it is actually eligible for transfer to Commons. If you are concerned that this file could have problems with its attribution information and/or copyright status, then remove this notice and DO NOT transfer it to Commons. By transferring this file to Commons, you acknowledge you have read this message and are willing to accept any and all consequences for inappropriate transfers. Repeat violators will be blocked from editing.

If you have checked the file and it is OK to move to Commons add “ human username” to the template so other users can see it has been checked and can help you copy the file to Commons.

If the file has already been moved to Commons, then consider nominating the file for deletion or changing the template to Now Commons

If the file can’t be moved to Commons because it doesn’t fit Commons’ scope, then use reason Why it can’t be moved to Commons

If you think that a local copy of this file should be kept, then use Keep local . Consider using reason Why the English Wikipedia needs a local copy

Please ensure that the file has a properly descriptive and unambiguous name before moving it to Commons. See here when to rename a file.

Copy to Commons via wmfLabs CommonsHelper

Debranding cigarettes will prove the power of brand

E-cigarette use doubles among teen students, cdc reports – cbs news

Australian plain cigarette packaging, featuring graphic warnings

The power of branding will be proved if a review on plain packaging for cigarettes leads to new laws in England.

Since last December cigarette packets in Australia have been confined to a drab olive green (a colour with a proven low appeal), bear photos of smoking related disease, and, crucially, are only differentiated by the brand name in small, plain type. England may be set to do the same in the next few years, and could follow commitments by Scotland and Ireland.

The plain packaging initiative is vastly different from January s Selfridges experiment which temporarily debranded iconic products like Marmite, Clinique and Heinz Beans, stripping them of their name and logo but leaving brand colours and shape. Selfridges debranding left the products speaking even louder to the consumer. This won t work with debranded cigarettes, stripped of their individual personalities, and dealt a death blow by deterrent pictures.

This will be a total de glamorisation of cigarettes. With most forms of tobacco advertising banned in the UK ten years ago, the industry has relied more than ever on cigarette packets as micro billboards, with limited editions regularly launched. Every time a smoker is seen with a packet in hand, that brand is essentially being advertised, especially if its holder is perceived as positively representing that brand.

If you remove marketing and branding from cigarettes, you are left with no differentiator between brands. They are then not brands, but merely products. This will be reinforced over time, as the memory of those purple, red and white shades fades.

What I love about the potential of this initiative apart from the obvious and fantastic smoking deterrent is its unique and real life measure of the power of branding. The graphic shots of smoking related disease make it difficult to quantify the part plain packaging will play in the probable decline in sales, but there has still never been a better opportunity to track consumer attitudes, behaviour and sales to the removal of branding.

There is already evidence for the impact on brand perception. Reduced to their plain type brand name only, cigarettes will no longer use terms such as smooth gold or silver , which, according to Action on Smoking and Health, make the cigarettes they describe seem lower tar than regular varieties of the same brands.

Research by the British Heart Foundation has found one in six young adults said they consider pack design when deciding which cigarettes to buy, with one in eight choosing a brand because it looked cool .

Packaging is so powerful that it is even able to alter perceived taste. Echoing the famous trials using Pepsi and Coca Cola, which revealed preference in many cases only when clues were given on which brand was being tasted, 70 per cent of smokers were more likely to say they found plain packaged cigarettes less satisfying. Plain pack smokers were 66 per cent more likely than smokers still using branded packs to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago.

More than four fifths of plain pack smokers were more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the previous week, while half of the young people surveyed said that standardised cigarette packaging had stopped them from smoking.

Of course, the grisly pictures emblazoning the packets, the ancillary health campaign and the hefty tax increase won t have helped tobacco s cause in Australia either but it s interesting that Big Tobacco has chosen to fight standardised packaging in particular, probably because it is the last vanguard of differentiation.

Worried tobacco giant Philip Morris sees plain packaging as reducing the brand to the manufacturer of an effectively undifferentiated commodity . So worried in fact that this summer it launched a one month stealth campaign to mobilise a grassroots movement by smokers against encroaching regulation. Messages were placed inside Marlboro packets, directing smokers to a site acting as the community for Britain s smokers .

So, branding community, here may be the evidence that (in reverse) validates what we all know already but struggle to justify that brand is one of the most valuable assets a company has. The tobacco companies are rattled because even when banned from advertising, sponsorship and point of sale communications, they have until now been able to use their packaging to create a brand and communicate differentiation and visual distinction, thereby attracting customers and generating sales.

The research in Australia already proves that when cigarette brands are reduced to unified packaging and a plain text wordmark, consumer perceptions change and even taste is negatively affected. It may spell the end one day of Big Tobacco, but it s a boon for branding.

On a general note, now that the vice of smoking is being marginalised, the human race will of course start turning to new ones. The two frontrunners over the next ten years have got to be overconsumption of fatty/sugary foods, and addiction to smartphones/smart glasses, etc with the related impact of never again having any disconnected moments of your life.

Hmm, I think I already know what my two new year s resolutions should be

Jens Lundgaard is founder and chief executive of Brandworkz.