Chapter 11 Tobacco advertising and promotion

Transcription

Tobacco in Australia
Facts & Issues
A comprehensive online resource
tobaccoinaustralia.org.au
Book excerpt
List of chapters available at
Introduction
Chapter 1 Trends in the prevalence of smoking
Chapter 2 Trends in tobacco consumption
Chapter 3 The health effects of active smoking
Chapter 4 The health effects of secondhand smoke
Chapter 5 Factors influencing the uptake and prevention of smoking
Chapter 6 Addiction
Chapter 7 Smoking cessation
Chapter 8 Tobacco use among Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders
Chapter 9 Smoking and social disadvantage
Chapter 10 The tobacco industry in Australian society
Chapter 11 Tobacco advertising and promotion
Chapter 12 The construction and labelling of Australian cigarettes
Chapter 13 The pricing and taxation of tobacco products in Australia
Chapter 14 Social marketing and public education campaigns
Chapter 15 Smokefree environments
Chapter 16 Tobacco litigation in Australia
Chapter 17 The economics of tobacco control
Chapter 18 The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
Appendix 1 Useful weblinks to tobacco resources
Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues. Fourth Edition
A comprehensive review of the major issues in smoking and health in Australia, compiled by Cancer Council Victoria.
First edition published by ASH (Australia) Limited, Surry Hills, NSW, 1989
Second edition published by the Victorian Smoking and Health Program, Carlton South, Victoria (Quit Victoria), 1995
Third edition published by Cancer Council Victoria 2008 in electronic format only.
ISBN number: 978-0-947283-76-6
Suggested citation:
Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. 4th edn. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2012. Available from www.TobaccoInAustralia.org.au
OR
<Author(s) of relevant chapter section>, <Name of chapter section> in Scollo, MM and Winstanley, MH [editors]. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and issues. 4th edn. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria; 2012.
<Last updated on (date of latest update of relevant chapter section)> Available from < url of relevant chapter or section>
Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues; 4th Edition updates earlier editions of the book published in 1995, 1989 and 2008. This edition is greatly expanded, comprising chapters written and reviewed by authors
with expertise in each subject area. Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues is available online, free of charge. A hard copy version of this publication has not been produced.
This work has been produced with the objective of bringing about a reduction in death and disease caused by tobacco use. Much of it has been derived from other published sources and these should be quoted
where appropriate. The text may be freely reproduced and figures and graphs (except where reproduced from other sources) may be used, giving appropriate acknowledgement to Cancer Council Victoria.
Editors and authors of this work have tried to ensure that the text is free from errors or inconsistencies. However in a resource of this size it is probable that some irregularities remain. Please notify Cancer
Council Victoria if you become aware of matters in the text that require correction.
Editorial views expressed in Tobacco in Australia: Facts and Issues. Fourth Edition are those of the authors.
The update of this publication was funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
Cancer Council Victoria
1 Rathdowne Street
Carlton VIC 3053
Project manager: Michelle Scollo Senior Policy Adviser, with assistance from Merryn Pearce, Policy and Projects Officer, Quit Victoria.
Editorial advice and editing: Rosemary Moore
Website design: Creative Services, Cancer Council Victoria
Design and production: Jean Anselmi Communications
Proofreading: Caz Garvey
Tobacco in Australia
Facts & Issues
Chapter 11
A comprehensive online resource
Tobacco advertising and promotion
Chapter 11: Tobacco
advertising and promotion
i
Chapter 11
Tobacco advertising and
promotion
Table of contents
Becky Freeman
Indra Haslam
Vicki Tumini
11.0 Background.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
11.1 The merits of banning tobacco advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11.1.1
Tobacco advertising increases youth smoking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
11.1.2
Marketing to ‘over 18s’.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
11.1.3
Awareness of tobacco marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1.4
Industry arguments to retain tobacco advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1.4.1 Freedom of speech. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
11.1.4.2 Legal product.. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1.4.3 Brand switching.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.1.5
The effects of advertising bans.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
11.2 Tobacco industry expenditure on advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
11.3 Commonwealth (national) legislation.. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.3.1
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
11.3.1.1 Advertising permitted under the
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.3.2
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Act 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11.3.3
Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act..............................15
11.3.4
National Preventative Health Strategy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
11.4 State and territory legislation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.4.1
Australian Capital Territory.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.4.1.1 Display of tobacco products.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
11.4.2
New South Wales.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.4.2.1 Packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.4.2.2 Display restrictions.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
11.4.3
Northern Territory.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Date of last update: 20 May 2011
ii
Tobacco in Australia:
Facts and Issues
11.4.4
Queensland.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
11.4.4.1 Display restrictions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.4.5
South Australia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.4.5.1 Mobile tobacco sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.4.5.2 Split cigarette packets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
11.4.5.3 Products appealing to children. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.4.5.4 Display of tobacco products.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.4.6
Tasmania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11.4.6.1 Displaying graphic warnings at tobacco display.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.4.6.2 Pending legislative changes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.4.7
Victoria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
11.4.7.1 Underage ‘music/dance’ events. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.4.7.2 Buzz marketing and non-branded advertising.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
11.4.8
Western Australia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
11.4.8.1 Restriction of tobacco product displays.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.4.8.2 Summary of national legislation restricting
promotion of tobacco products.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
11.5 Tobacco advertising legislation violations.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.5.1Breaches of the national Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
11.5.2
New South Wales prosecution of Coles Express
(Eureka Operations).. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11.5.3
Advertising Standards Bureau.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
11.6 Marketing of tobacco in the age of advertising bans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
11.7 Promotional events.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
11.8 Trade promotions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
11.9 Tobacco displays as advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
11.9.1
International display bans.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11.9.2
The Australian retail setting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11.9.3
Vending machines.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
11.10 Packaging as promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.10.1 The pack as a promotional tool. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
11.10.2 Packaging to increase product appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
11.10.2.1 Value-based packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
11.10.2.2 Image-based packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
11.10.2.3 Novel packaging (sometimes called gimmick
packaging).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
11.10.2.4 Green environmentally friendly packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 11: Tobacco
iii
11.10.3 Package design to distract from consumer information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.10.3.1 Packaging that conveys varying levels of harm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
11.10.3.2 Overshadowing or camouflaging health warnings. . . . . . . . . . . 54
11.10.4 Plain packaging as a solution to the misleading and
promotional power of packaging.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
11.10.5 Predicted effects of plain packaging.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
11.10.5.1 Effects of plain packaging on effectiveness of
health warnings.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
11.10.5.2 Effects of plain packaging on perceptions of
harmfulness. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
11.10.5.3 Effects of plain packaging on appeal of products. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
11.10.5.4 Combined effect of plain packaging and health
warnings on product appeal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
11.10.6 Australian announcement of plain packaging legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
11.10.6.1 Health sector response to proposed legislation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
11.10.6.2 Financial market response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
11.10.6.3 Response from retail groups.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
11.10.6.4 Direct response by tobacco companies.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
11.10.6.5 Extensive requests for information under
Freedom of Information legislation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.10.7 Analysis of major industry arguments against plain
packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.10.7.1 Won’t work.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
11.10.7.2 Inconvenience, errors and lost trade for retailers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11.10.7.3 Acquisition of intellectual property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
11.10.7.4 Facilitation of illicit trade.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.10.8 Milestones in adoption of legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
11.10.9 Major milestones in legal challenges to the legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
11.10.10 International flow-on effects.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
11.10.11 Initial industry responses to attempt to mitigate the
impact of legislation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
11.10.11.1Assurances to smokers about product quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
11.10.11.2New brands, pack sizes, brand variants and
brand extensions introduced prior to
implementation of plain packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
11.10.12 Implementation of Act.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
11.11 Smoking in movies as promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
11.11.1 Counter-advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
11.11.2 The tobacco industry and movies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
11.11.3 Bollywood and smoking.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
11.11.4 Proposed policy options.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
11.12 Internet promotion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Attachment 11.1......................................................................................................................
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act report to parliament. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

iv
Facts and Issues
Tables and figures
Table 11.1.1
Awareness of tobacco marketing among Australian
smokers in the previous six months, 2006 (n=1767).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 11.2.1
Sleeves used to create a twin pack of cigarettes offered at a
price discount.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 11.4.1
DJ Mix flavoured cigarettes that are banned for sale in South
Australia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 11.4.2
Graphic warning required at the retail tobacco display in
Tasmania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 11.4.3
Non-branded tobacco advertising at tobacco point of sale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 11.4.1
Overview of advertising restrictions by state and territory
as at 1 January 2011.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 11.5.1
Peter Jackson within-pack advertising. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 11.9.1
A cigarette display ‘powerwall’ in a supermarket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 11.9.2
An ACT tobacco display following the implementation of
the ban.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 11.9.3
Cigarette vending machine in a bar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Figure 11.10.1 Philip Morris Australia’s Longbeach Slims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Figure 11.10.3 British brand, Royals, with bonus 4 cigarettes, and
price-marked John Player Specials. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 11.10.2 Deal cigarettes, imported from Germany by Coles as a
‘home brand’ 52.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Figure 11.10.4a Original style Dunhill cigarettes compared with updated
metallic Dunhill packs, purchased Australia 2010.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 11.10.5 Dunhill packs, Premier Red (left) compared with Dunhill
Essence Red, purchased 2010 and Dunhill Essence Red in
packs and in tins (right).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 11.10.4b.Updated metallic Dunhill packs, full set,
purchased Australia 2010. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 11.10.6 Female brands Davidoff, Vogue Superslims and Dunhill Essence. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 11.10.7 Novelty brands Trojan Tobacco’s Peel Menthol Orange and
DJ Mix and Sobranie Cocktail cigarettes; Imperial Tobacco’s
Davidoff (top right) and Red Fortune Bamboo (bottom left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter 11: Tobacco
v
Figure 11.10.8 Split package of Dunhill cigarettes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Figure 11.10.9 Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes packed in a tin container with a
removable warning.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 11.10.10 Peter Stuyvesant without the label, and Winfield and Dunhill
Essence, also sold in tins.. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 11.10.12 Dunhill Signature series and My Mixture series. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 11.10.11 Winfield limited edition series, 2004 and circa 2010.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 11.10.13 Dunhill My Mixture series.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 11.10.14 Collector packs with artwork by Paresh Maity, produced
by Imperial Tobacco Company in India in 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 11.10.15 British American Tobacco’s Winfield 25s and Philip Morris
Australia’s Peter Jackson 30s in full range of variants, 2010.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 11.10.16 Winfield Extra Mild, later known as Winfield Blues (top
selling brand in Australia), purchased Carlton Melbourne
Australia circa 1993, 2008 and July 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 11.10.17 ‘Force No Friend, Fear No Foe’ motto printed underneath the
Winfield crest in the 1996 pack design, and more prominently
on the side of the pack in this Winfield Blue, purchased
July 2012.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 11.10.18 Level of attractiveness of increasingly plainer tobacco
packaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Table 11.10.1 Pack ratings of appeal, taste, tar level and health risk for
individual packs (n=512).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 11.10.19 Advertisements placed by the Alliance of Australian
Retailers in Melbourne Age and other Australian newspapers,
20 April to early May 2011.. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Figure 11.10.20 Advertisement in The Australian run by the Public Health
Association of Australia, VicHealth, the Heart Foundation,
the Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Cancer
Council Australia and Action on Smoking and Health. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Figure 11.10.21 Winfield cigarettes with message reassuring smokers about
continuing quality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 11.10.22 Winfield cigarettes including sticker with message reassuring
smokers about continuing quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Figure 11.10.23 Philip Morris pack insert reassuring smokers about
continuing quality.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

vi
Facts and Issues
Figure 11.10.24 Peter Stuyvesant promotional cartons reinforcing the message
‘It’s what on the inside that counts’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 11.10.25 Philip Morris Australia’s Bond Street introduced February
2012 and British American Tobacco’s Just Smokes,
introduced May 2012.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 11.10.26 Winfield Gold cigarettes sold in packs of four and termed
‘Slab’ consistent with Australian vernacular description of
beer cans purchased in bulk.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Figure 11.10.27 Philip Morris’ Peter Jackson Hybrids and Marlboro Ice Blast
variant; Imperial Tobacco’s John Player Special Ice menthol
variant... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 11.10.29 Packs of British American Tobacco Australia’s Winfield Blue
(the leading brand of cigarettes in Australia) and
Philip Morris Australia’s Marlboro Red (the leading brand
of cigarettes internationally) purchased in Carlton Victoria
November 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 11.10.28 Imperial Tobacco’s JPS, JPS Superkings and JPS Nano. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Figure 11.12.1 A fan page for the BAT brand Lucky Strike. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

1
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.0
Background
Australia got off to a slow start compared to other English-speaking Commonwealth countries in introducing
bans on the broadcast of tobacco advertisements on television and radio, but since the 1980s Australia has been
a pioneer in the control of tobacco advertising and promotion. As early as the 1960s, tobacco control advocates
such as Dr Cotter Harvey, founder of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health (ACOSH), and Dr Nigel
Gray, then director of the Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria (now Cancer Council Victoria), aimed to put tobacco
advertising on the political agenda. Legislation to ban advertising of tobacco products was ACOSH’s first major
goal1 and Gray’s most important target in his lifelong commitment to cancer prevention.2 Both men wrote countless
letters on the topic and tirelessly sought representations with government ministers at both state and national
levels. Dr Gray alone wrote to 14 different Ministers for Communication under seven different governments over
the following 20 years.3 In 1971, with smoking rates at record levels and frustrated by the slow pace of change, the
Cancer Council produced a groundbreaking series of television commercials featuring high-profile TV actors and
comedians parodying popular tobacco advertisements of the time and enlisting the support (including in another
advertisement) of Nobel prize-winning Victorian virologist Sir Macfarlane Burnet.i It was not until 1973 that a ban
on the broadcast of advertisements for tobacco products was finally introduced.
Direct cigarette advertising on radio and television was phased out over the three years between 1 September 1973
and 1 September 1976. Advertising which was construed as ‘accidental or incidental’ to a broadcast or transmission
was allowed to continue, a provision included as a late amendment to the legislation before it was passed in 1976.
There is little doubt that this amendment occurred in direct response to tobacco industry lobbying. The tobacco
industry had already managed to ensure major exposure on television in the US following a direct advertising ban
by engaging in sponsorship of sport: they planned to do the same in Australia, provided the legislation gave them
the opportunity. Internal industry documents from the 1970s record the Australian general manager of Rothmans
stating that the imminent:
… the reason for the existence of the Rothmans National Sport Foundations and our sponsorships which are
being developed in anticipation of restrictive advertising action in Australia.’4
In October 1988, the then Minister for Health, the Hon. Dr Neal Blewett, stated his support for a national ban
on tobacco advertising in newspapers and magazines, advising that he would proceed with legislation provided
he had the support of the states. In the following year Australian Government support was gained for a ban in
the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority. In May 1989, that
committee, comprising representatives from all major political parties, unanimously recommended to parliament
that tobacco advertising be completely banned. In August 1989, Democrat Senator Janet Powell announced
her intention to table the Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Bill, which proposed a
ban on tobacco advertising in the print media, billboards and cinema, and to outlaw sporting sponsorship. The
legislation was subsequently amended by the government to include print media (locally produced newspapers
and magazines), but to exclude cinema, billboard and sponsorship advertising, on the grounds that these more
correctly fell within state jurisdictions. The Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act was passed on
December 28, 1989.5
New legislation passed in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia between 1987 and 1990 sought to outlaw
tobacco advertising through sport and the arts. Elsewhere in Australia the ‘accidental or incidental’ exemption
in the Broadcasting Act and the 1989 legislation continued to allow advertising of tobacco products on player
uniforms and at sporting venues. These were clearly readable in television broadcasts and newspaper photographs
throughout the entire country. The association of sports people with tobacco was hugely beneficial to the image
of tobacco products. Sponsorship of sport and the arts also gave tobacco company executives access to politicians
in an informal environment at functions associated with sporting and cultural events. With tobacco companies
sponsoring all of the football codes (Australian Rules, rugby and soccer), the Australian Opens in tennis and golf,
motor racing in all forms, major opera and ballet companies and many other sports, arts and cultural groups,
events and festivals, tobacco advertisements were ubiquitous. Sport became the major battleground for further
i
See http://www.cancervic.org.au/about/70-years/history-1970s
Section: 11.0
2
Facts and Issues
restrictions on tobacco advertising during the early 1990s, particularly after health promotion foundations in
Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and elsewhere demonstrated that alternative sponsors were not so
difficult to attract.6
With the passage on 17 December 1992 of the Australian Government’s Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (the
Act),7 most forms of tobacco sponsorship were phased out by December 1995, with cricket sponsorship concluding
on 30 April 1996. (Sponsorship exemptions were granted to events that were of international importance that
would otherwise not be held in Australia if sponsorship were banned.) Finally, after 31 December 1995, advertising
on billboards, illuminated signs and other outdoor signs could no longer be displayed. The maximum penalty for
any regulated corporation to ‘knowingly or recklessly’ publish, or authorise or cause a tobacco advertisement to
be published is 120 penalty units. Under the Act, ‘Accidental or incidental’ publication of tobacco advertisements
is permitted if the advertisement is an accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of other matter
and the publisher does not receive any direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the
advertisement (in addition to any direct or indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing the other matter).
The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) defines tobacco advertising and promotion
as ‘any form of commercial communication, recommendation or action with the aim, effect or likely effect of
promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly’ (p4) and requires that each country shall
‘undertake a comprehensive ban on all tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship’ (p11).8 Australia has
signed and ratified the treaty and is therefore bound by these terms.
Because of the comprehensiveness of its legislation, in 2001 Australia was described by British American Tobacco
Australia officials as having one of the ‘darkest markets in the world’, rivalled only by Canada, in which to market
tobacco products (piii1).2 Despite this situation, marketing of tobacco products continues today. While Australia
closed most ‘above-the-line’ marketing opportunities to tobacco companies, the industry focused instead on nontraditional means of promotion, capitalising on legislative gaps and loopholes. Industry marketing efforts since
the later 1990s have included event promotions, trade marketing, in-store displays and innovative packaging.9,10
To address these methods of promotion, since the early 2000s, Australian states and territories introduced retail
display bans of tobacco products. Additionally, the Australian Government has introduced the Tobacco Advertising
Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010 which seeks to make it an offence to advertise tobacco products on the Internet
and in other forms of electronic media. The Internet is clearly a major vehicle by which young people can be
exposed to tobacco advertising and promotion and this legislative change aims to bring electronic means of
advertising, whether on the Internet or by other electronic means, into line with other restrictions in place for
other media. At the time of writing, Australia is introducing world-leading legislation to implement its 29 April
2010 announcement11,12 that, as of 1 July 2012, all tobacco products will be required to be sold in standardised, plain
packaging.
This chapter outlines why tobacco advertising is a problem, examines existing Australian national, state and
territory tobacco advertising legislation, and details recent and current marketing strategies of the tobacco
industry. A glossary of key advertising terms can be found in the box below.
Section: 11.0
Chapter 11: Tobacco
3
Glossary of key advertising terms
Above-the-line: marketing via the mass media (print, television, radio, posters/billboards and cinema)10
Advertising: any paid form of non-personal presentation and promotion of ideas, goods or services by an
identified sponsor13
Below-the-line: marketing via methods other than mass media (print, television, radio, posters/billboards
and cinema)10
Branding: the use of a name, term, symbol or design to identify a product14
Buzz marketing: using popular entertainment or news to encourage people to talk about a brand or product15
Dark market: highly restricted marketing environment9
Guerrilla marketing: a form of unconventional marketing, such as chalk messages on a sidewalk, which is
often associated with staged events16
Marketing: business activities that direct the exchange of goods and services between producers and
consumers16 and includes not only the advertising and other forms of promotion of products but also
pricing, packaging and distribution or ‘placement’ (known as the ‘four Ps’ of marketing)
Mobile seller: a salesperson who carries tobacco products in a tray or container for the purpose of selling
the product directly to customers in venues such as bars or outdoor events
Non-branded advertising: advertising that promotes smoking but contains no specific tobacco brand
Open source marketing: collaboration between consumers and brand owners on the development and
promotion of products and services17
Point-of-sale marketing: the arrangements of product and placement of promotional material in retail stores18
Product placement: paid promotion of a product or brand through movies, television and other
entertainment media, often incorporated into the storyline19
Promotion: the co-ordination of all seller-initiated efforts to set up channels of information and persuasion
to sell goods and services or to promote an idea. The tools can include advertising, direct marketing
(communicating directly with consumers), sales promotion (marketing aimed at the sales force or
distributors) and public relations (execution of strategies that earn public understanding and acceptance)20
Relationship marketing: the ongoing process of identifying and maintaining contact with high-value
consumers16
Social network marketing: unlike traditional forms of marketing that seek to target customers with
advertisements, companies and marketers that successfully join in this complex network of relations seek to
befriend their customers by incorporating them into cyberspace social networks21
(Tobacco) sponsorship: any form of contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim, effect or
likely effect of promoting a tobacco product or tobacco use either directly or indirectly22
Split packs: tobacco packs that can be divided into multiple, smaller packs once purchased; the smaller
packs sometimes do not bear the required health warnings and information
Tobacco display: tobacco products visible at retail stores
Trade marketing: marketing that relates to increasing demand for products at wholesaler, retailer or
distributor level rather than more directly at the consumer level
Viral marketing: creating entertaining or informative messages that are designed to be passed along, like a
virus, in an exponential fashion, often electronically or by email15
Word-of-mouth marketing: the creation and dissemination of advertising that encourages people to talk
about the brand or products; includes buzz marketing and viral marketing, known as word of mouse when
conducted electronically15
Section: 11.0
4
Facts and Issues
References
1. The Cancer Council Western Australia. The progress of tobacco control in Western Australia: achievements, challenges and hopes for the future. Perth: The Cancer Council Western Australia,
2008. Available from: http://www.cancerwa.asn.au/resources/2010-07-07-Tobacco-Control-Monograph.pdf
2. Gray N. Public health, preventive medicine, politics and the law. Cancer Forum 1988;12:5–8.
3. Walker R. Under fire. A history of tobacco smoking in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1984.
4. Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Pty Ltd. Minutes of Management Meeting, held November 1970, No 54. 1970
5. Smoking and Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act 1989. No.181 Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/satpaa1989562/
6. Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. The story of VicHealth: a world first in health promotion. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, 2005. Available from: http://www.
vichealth.vic.gov.au/About-VicHealth/Story-of-VicHealth.aspx
7. Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (Cth). No. 218 Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tapa1992314/
8. World Health Organization. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Geneva: World Health Organization, adopted 16 June 2003, entered into force 27 February 2005. Available from:
http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf
9. Chapman S, Byrne F and Carter SM. ‘Australia is one of the darkest markets in the world’: the global importance of Australian tobacco control. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii1–iii3.
Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii1
10. Carter SM. Going below the line: creating transportable brands for Australia’s dark market. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii87-iii94. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii87
11. Rudd K, Swan W and Roxon N. Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Health. Anti-Smoking Action. [Media release]. Canberra: Office of the Prime Minister, 29 April 2010 [viewed 3
September 2010]. Available from: http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/anti-smoking-action/
12. Australian Government. Taking preventative action: Government’s response to Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2010. Available
from: http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/report-preventativehealthcare
13. Kotler P, Brown L, Adam S and Armstrong G. Marketing. 6 ed. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia, 2004.
14. National Cancer Institute. Part 2-Tobacco marketing. In: The Role of the Media. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph no. 19. Bethesda MD: US Department of Health and Human
Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2008. Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/19/index.html
15. Word of Mouth Marketing Association. Types of Word of Mouth Marketing. Word of Mouth Marketing Association 2007, [viewed 20 May 2007]. Available from: http://www.womma.org/
wom101/06/
16. Wells W, Moriarty S and Burnett J. Advertising principles and practice. 7 ed. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006.
17. Freeman B and Chapman S. Open source marketing: Camel cigarette brand marketing in the Web 2.0 world. Tobacco Control 2009;18(3):212-7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.
com/content/18/3/212.full
18. Carter SM. New frontier, new power: the retail environment in Australia’s dark market. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii95-iii101. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
19. George L. Is Kiefer Sutherland trying to sell you something? Maclean’s 2005;8(30-5) Available from: http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20050221_100566_100566
20. Belch G and Belch M. Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2004.
21. Freeman B and Chapman S. British American Tobacco on Facebook: undermining Article 13 of the global World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco
Control 2010;19(3):e1-9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/3/e1.abstract
22. World Health Organization. MPOWER: A policy package to reverse the tobacco epidemic. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/tobacco/
mpower/mpower_english.pdf
Section: 11.0
5
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.1
The merits of banning tobacco advertising
Tobacco companies have always defended their promotions by claiming that advertising serves only to encourage
adult smokers to switch or try new brands.1
‘Our business is not about persuading people to smoke; it is about offering quality brands to adults who have
already taken the decision to smoke.’ British American Tobacco Australia website 20112
Encouraging use of particular brands among existing users is certainly one important function of tobacco
advertising. However, published research shows that tobacco advertising is also associated with an increase in
overall tobacco consumption.3 Smokers can be prompted to smoke more frequently and those who are in the
process of quitting can be lured back to the product through the promotion of familiar and reassuring brands. New
smokers, primarily adolescents, enter the cigarette market every day. About 16 500 teenagers under the age of 18
make the transition from experimental to established patterns of smoking each year in Australia—refer Chapter 1,
Section 1.6.
Restriction of the advertising of tobacco products is an important focus for comprehensive tobacco control.
The 2008 National Cancer Institute’s Monograph 19, The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco
Use, summarises the primary arguments in support of implementing comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising3.4:
<< the devastating health consequences of tobacco use
<< the deceptive and misleading nature of tobacco marketing campaigns
<< the unavoidable exposure of youth to these campaigns
<< the failure of the tobacco industry to effectively self-regulate
<< the ineffectiveness of implementing only partial advertising bans.
An earlier report by the US Surgeon General in 2000 similarly highlighted the influential nature of industry
advertising and promotion3:
<< Despite the overwhelming evidence of the adverse health effects from tobacco use, efforts to prevent the onset
or continuance of tobacco use face the pervasive challenge of promotional activity by the tobacco industry.
<< The tobacco industry uses a variety of marketing tools and strategies to influence consumer preference, thereby
increasing market share and attracting new consumers.
<< Advertising increases consumption of tobacco products by encouraging children or young adults to experiment
with tobacco products and initiate regular use, reducing current smokers’ motivation to quit and cuing former
smokers to resume smoking.
<< Among all US manufacturers, the tobacco industry is one of the most intense in marketing its products. Only
the automobile industry markets its products more heavily.
11.1.1
Tobacco advertising increases youth smoking
The industry commonly claims that its promotional activities are not intended to influence and have no impact
on children. In contrast, numerous academic reviews have identified tobacco advertising as a key influence on
youth to initiate smoking.5–9 Youth exposed to tobacco advertising hold positive attitudes towards tobacco use.8 The
industry argues that in the absence of causal proof (that advertising directly induces children to smoke) there is
insufficient evidence to justify banning tobacco advertising. However, research examining the impact of the UK’s
Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act on youth smoking found that the advertising ban reduced adolescents’
smoking intentions by signifying smoking to be less normative and socially unacceptable.10,11
By evaluating the available literature on tobacco promotion against the Bradford Hill criteria, originally developed
to explain disease causality, DiFranza and colleagues demonstrated that exposure to tobacco advertising directly
causes youth to take up smoking.12 Epidemiologists use these stringent criteria to determine whether a causal
Section: 11.1.1
6
Facts and Issues
link (rather than a statistical association) exists between exposure to a risk factor and development of a disease.
The researchers found that the body of published evidence supports the criteria for causality: ‘First, children
are exposed to tobacco promotion before the initiation of tobacco use. Second, exposure increases the risk for
initiation. Third, there is a dose–response relationship, with greater exposure resulting in higher risk. Fourth,
the association between exposure and increased risk is robust; it is observed with various study methods, in
multiple populations, and with various forms of promotion and persists after controlling for other factors. Fifth,
scientifically plausible and theoretically based mechanisms whereby promotion could influence initiation exist.
Finally, no explanation other than causality can account for the evidence’ (p1245).11
In 1984, Philip Morris lamented how best to address the decreasing sales of its flagship brand, Marlboro, in
Australia: ‘The key problem seems to be its lack of appeal to younger smokers and this is the area which needs to
be addressed. One possibility might be to concentrate on sampling and promotion as many young smokers have
never had any first-hand experience with the product’ (p1).12 Again, in 1990, Philip Morris recognised the potential
for increased sales among Australia’s large youth population, ‘given predisposition to try/adopt new brands, this
segment represents significant market opportunity’ (p16).13
Australian experimental research with young smokers and non-smokers showed that incidental positive smoking
imagery in magazines (this included photographs of popular musicians, actors and models smoking cigarettes)
could also generate the same sorts of consumer effects attributed to tobacco advertising, including intention
to smoke.14 Adolescent smokers were particularly attuned to smoking imagery and reported that such imagery
increased their urge to smoke and reduced their desire to quit. The authors call for increased monitoring of
incidental smoking imagery portrayals in all popular entertainment media to ascertain whether greater regulation
is warranted.
11.1.2
Marketing to ‘over 18s’
When analysing marketing strategies and effects, it is important to avoid arbitrarily drawing the transition of youth
to adulthood as a single event that happens on one’s 18th birthday. Decisions made by those turning 18 are plainly
affected by influences to which they are exposed before turning 18, including advertising. In internal documents
the industry acknowledges the importance of capturing the youth market. The tobacco industry actually uses
the term ‘young adult’ to describe the youth market: ‘From time to time when describing market categories and
target audiences we use references such as young smokers, young market, youth market etc. These terms do not
accurately describe what we are talking about. When describing the low-age end of the cigarette business, the
term ‘young adult smoker’ or ‘young adult smoking market’ should be used. Please advise all members of your
department that these terms should be used in all written materials in the future’ (p1).11
Along with their parent companies abroad, Australian tobacco companies developed a ‘youth strategy’ that has
evolved from unabashed marketing to children in the 1950s15 to denial of this practice from the late 1960s, and
eventually to the present-day position of concern to show themselves as a socially responsible industry actively
campaigning against teenage smoking.16 A core part of this social responsibility is the claim to only market tobacco
products to adults aged 18 and over, and to support certain youth tobacco prevention programs. However, as
Carter notes: ‘It is commonly observed that teens tend to mimic those just older than themselves and strive to
establish themselves as independent, and that the industry’s youth smoking programs play to those characteristics
by emphasising the ‘‘forbidden fruit’’ aspects of smoking. As years of dedicated research, media circulation
demographics, and even common sense dictates, it is impossible to quarantine those under 18 years of age from
aspiring to, or participating in, activities designed for those over 18’ (piii75).16
The marketing methods employed by the tobacco industry are often conspicuously connected to youthful interests
and activities. Sales tents at music festivals,17 development and distribution of lifestyle magazines,18 concert
sponsorship19 and partnerships with fashion outlets and events20 are just a few examples of how the industry
strategically targets the young adult audience.
An RJ Reynolds report explains the vital importance of young smokers: ‘Younger adult smokers have been the
critical factor in the growth and decline of every major brand and company over the last 50 years. They will
Section: 11.1.2
Chapter 11: Tobacco
7
continue to be just as important to brands/ companies in the future for two simple reasons: The renewal of the
market stems almost entirely from 18-year-old smokers. No more than 5% of smokers start after age 24. (And) the
brand loyalty of 18-year-old smokers far outweighs any tendency to switch with age’ (p1).21
11.1.3
Awareness of tobacco marketing
As part of a four-country study on
tobacco control in 2006, 1767 Australian
adult smokers were surveyed about
their awareness of tobacco industry
advertising.22 The research findings
are detailed in Table 11.1.1. Generally,
respondents reported low awareness of
most types of advertising, reflecting the
fact that tobacco advertising has become
increasingly restricted in all states and
territories since the 1990s. There were
relatively high levels of awareness of
advertising in stores (33%), of special
price offers for cigarettes (23%) and
of sports sponsorship (21.6%). This is
consistent with the 2003 findings of
Harris and colleagues23 using the same
survey tool, and reflects gaps in tobacco
advertising legislation. At the time of
the 2006 survey, no state or territory had
yet banned the retail display of tobacco
products, and sponsorship of the highprofile Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix
ended only months before the survey.
11.1.4
Table 11.1.1
Awareness of tobacco marketing among Australian smokers in the previous six months,
2006 (n=1767)
% of respondents
aware
Salience: noticed things that encourage smoking in the last 6 months
Type of marketing
Noticed tobacco advertisements in any of the five media
(television, radio, posters/billboards, newspaper/magazines
and stores)
Noticed tobacco advertisement in stores
Sponsorship
Noticed sports sponsorship
Noticed arts sponsorship
Noticed any type of sponsorship
Promotions
Noticed special price offers for cigarettes
Noticed any form of promotion (excluding special price offers,
and including free samples of cigarettes, gifts/discounts on other
products, clothing with cigarettes brand name and competitions
linked to cigarettes)
Total noticing tobacco marketing in any channel
18.9
40.2
33.0
21.6
1.9
22.1
23.0
31.0
60.3
Source: Yong HH, Borland R, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Ritthiphakdee B, Awang R, et al. Levels and correlates of
awareness of tobacco promotional activities among adult smokers in Malaysia and Thailand: findings from the
International Tobacco Control Southeast Asia (IT C-SEA) Survey. Tobacco Control. 2008;17(1):46–52.
Industry arguments to retain tobacco advertising
In addition to its claims that advertising does not influence the uptake of smoking by young people, and that
advertising bans would not be at all effective in reducing smoking, the tobacco industry uses other ‘key messages’
when lobbying against advertising bans.
11.1.4.1
Freedom of speech
Companies often cite ‘freedom of speech’ protection, arguing that they have a right to inform consumers about
their products. This erroneously implies that cigarette advertisements contain important consumer information
and that smokers base their decision to smoke by weighing up such information and making an educated choice.
Most cigarette advertising has little to no ‘information’ other than the brand name. This argument also ignores the
fact that most smokers commence before they are consenting adults—refer Chapter 1, Section 1.6 and Chapter 5.
Most smokers are also inadequately informed about the harms of smoking, in part due to historic tobacco
industry efforts to discredit health information.23 Tobacco companies have only in relatively recent times publicly
Section: 11.1.4.1
8
Facts and Issues
acknowledged that smoking causes disease, having ‘maintained the stance that smoking had not been proven to be
injurious to health through 1999’ (pi110).24
11.1.4.2
Legal product
A common industry argument is that tobacco is a legal product and therefore should be legal to advertise.
Manufacturers of other legal products, however, are also subject to a range of advertising restrictions and
conditions, including for public health reasons.25 Internationally, governments have banned or restricted
advertising for other legal products, such as prescription-only pharmaceuticals, guns, explosives and some
industrial chemicals.26 Further, tobacco is not freely sold in Australia; it is illegal to sell cigarettes to children (under
age 18) and most states and territories require retailers to obtain a tobacco sales licence. In that context, advertising
restrictions cannot be described as inconsistent.
11.1.4.3
Brand switching
As previously described, the industry publicly states that advertising and promotion only serve to encourage brand
switching among adult smokers. Clive Turner, when with the UK-based Tobacco Advisory Council, encapsulated
the industry position: ‘Certainly no tobacco advertising is concerned with encouraging non-smokers to start or
existing smokers to smoke more and it seems blindingly obvious that, unless you are a smoker, tobacco advertising
or sponsorship has absolutely no influence whatsoever in persuading or motivating a purchase’ (p8).1 But according
to advertising executive Emerson Foote, former CEO of the international advertising group McCann-Erickson,
which has handled millions of dollars in tobacco industry accounts: ‘The cigarette industry has been artfully
maintaining that cigarette advertising has nothing to do with total sales. This is complete and utter nonsense. The
industry knows it is nonsense. I am always amused by the suggestion that advertising, a function that has been
shown to increase consumption of virtually every other product, somehow miraculously fails to work for tobacco
products’ (p8).1
While brand switching does occur, it is not common among smokers. As part of a retail intercept survey with
smokers who had made a tobacco purchase immediately beforehand, only 5% (11 of 206 participants) responded
that they had not bought their usual brand.27 When asked ‘What prompted you to try this brand?’ five said they
were trying a different brand on the recommendation of another person, and only six said they wanted to ‘try
something different’ or ‘felt like a change’.
11.1.5
The effects of advertising bans
The effectiveness of advertising bans in reducing tobacco use and ‘denormalising’ tobacco products are much more
plausible reasons for tobacco industry opposition. Advertising bans lead to dramatic declines in the awareness of
tobacco industry promotional activities.22 More importantly, regulating advertising and promotion can reduce both
the prevalence and initiation of smoking. Based on an analysis of tobacco use before and after the introduction
of advertising bans in numerous countries, it is estimated that comprehensive advertising bans reduce smoking
initiation by an average of 6% and smoking prevalence by an average of 4%. A partial ban is likely to only reduce
prevalence and initiation by 2%.6
Empirical evidence also shows that comprehensive advertising bans reduce tobacco consumption, but that
incomplete bans have little or no effect because companies transfer expenditure to media in which advertising
is still allowed.28, 29 A review of the effects of tobacco adverting ban laws in 30 developing countries showed that
comprehensive bans resulted in a 23.5% reduction in per capita consumption of tobacco.30 Comprehensive
advertising bans are essential to reducing the health burden of tobacco use.
Section: 11.1.5
9
Chapter 11: Tobacco
References to Section 11.1
1. Hammond R and Rowell A. Trust us: we’re the tobacco industry. London: ASH (UK) 2001, Last modified May 2001 viewed 2 May 2007. Available from: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/
documents/ASH_135.pdf
2. British American Tobacco Australia. Information for consumers, marketing. Sydney: 2010, [viewed. Available from: http://www.bata.com.au/group/sites/BAT_7WYKG8.nsf/
vwPagesWebLive/DO7WYLGW?opendocument&SKN=1
3. US Department of Health and Human Services. Highlights: tobacco advertising and promotion. In: Reducing tobacco use: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta GA, 2000. Available
from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2000/highlights/advertising/index.htm
4. National Cancer Institute. The Role of the Media. Smoking and Tobacco Control Monograph no. 19. Bethesda, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of
Health, National Cancer Institute, 2008. Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/tcrb/monographs/19/index.html
5. DiFranza J, Wellman R, Sargent J, Weitzman M, Hipple B and Winickoff J. Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics
2006;117(6):e1237-48. Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/117/6/e1237
6. Levy DT, Chaloupka F and Gitchell J. The effects of tobacco control policies on smoking rates: a tobacco control scorecard. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice
2004;10(4):338–53. Available from: http://www.lphi.org/LPHIadmin/uploads/TobaccoControlPolicies-56291.pdf
7. Lovato C, Linn G, Stead L and Best A. Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003(15 May
2008) Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab003439.html
8. Wellman R, Sugarman D, DiFranza J and JP. W. The extent to which tobacco marketing and tobacco use in films contribute to children’s use of tobacco: a meta-analysis. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2006;160(12):1285-96. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/12/1285
9. Krugman D, Quinn W, Sung Y and Morrison M. Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. Journal of Health Communication
2005;10(3):261-78. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a714034939~fulltext=713240928
10. Brown A and Moodie C. The influence of tobacco marketing on adolescent smoking intentions via normative beliefs. Health Education Research 2009;24(4):721-33. Available from: http://
her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/cyp007v1
11. Pittman RA. -- No Title, Brown & Williamson. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California 1975, viewed 23 May 2007. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/
jwd14f00
12. Zelkowitz D. Australia Philip Morris. Melbourne: Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco 1984, viewed September 2004. Available from: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/bmr98e00
13. Leo Burnett Agency. Exploratory Marlboro Strategic Research Australia Media release. Philip Morris 23 Feb. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San Francisco 1990,
viewed September 2004. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/plt75e00
14. Carter OBJ, Donovan RJ, Weller NM and Jalleh G. Impact of smoking images in magazines on the smoking attitudes and intentions of youth: an experimental investigation. Tobacco
Control 2007;16(6):368-72. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/16/6/368
15. Tofler A and Chapman S. “Some convincing arguments to pass back to nervous customers”: the role of the tobacco retailer in the Australian tobacco industry’s smoker reassurance
campaign, 1953-1978. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii7-iii12. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/12/suppl_3/iii7
16. Carter SM. From legitimate consumers to public relations pawns: the tobacco industry and young Australians. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii71-iii78. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii71
17. Jalleh G, Donovan RJ, Stewart S and Sullivan D. Selling or promotion? Tobacco Control 2005;14(6):430. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/14/6/430
18. Cortese D, Lewis M and Ling P. Tobacco industry lifestyle magazines targeted to young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health 2009;45(3):268–80. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=19699423
19. AFP. Kelly Clarkson’s sponsorship with tobacco company for Indonesia tour will not proceed. Herald Sun, Melbourne 2010:23 Apr. Available from: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/
entertainment/music/kelly-clarksons-sponsorship-with-tobacco-company-for-indonesia-tour-will-not-proceeed/story-e6frf9hf-1225857337228
20. Starke P. Secret smokes party for VIPs Adelaide Now, Adelaide 2009:5 Apr. Available from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/secret-smokes-party-for-vips/
story-e6frea83-1225698284539
21. Burrows DS. February 29, Younger adult smokers: strategies and opportunities Bates no. 501928462-8550 RJ Reynolds. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, University of California, San
Francisco 1984, viewed 12 September 2010. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fet29d00/pdf
22. Yong HH, Borland R, Hammond D, Sirirassamee B, Ritthiphakdee B, Awang R, et al. Levels and correlates of awareness of tobacco promotional activities among adult smokers in Malaysia
and Thailand: findings from the International Tobacco Control Southeast Asia (ITC-SEA) Survey. Tobacco Control 2008;17(1):46–52. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/
content/abstract/17/1/46
23. Harris F, MacKintosh AM, Anderson S, Hastings G, Borland R, Fong GT, et al. Effects of the 2003 advertising/promotion ban in the United Kingdom on awareness of tobacco marketing:
findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) Four Country Survey. Tobacco Control 2006;15(suppl. 3):iii26–iii33. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/
abstract/15/suppl_3/iii26
24. Chapman S and Liberman J. Ensuring smokers are adequately informed: reflections on consumer rights, manufacturer responsibilities, and policy implications. Tobacco Control
2005;14(suppl. 2):ii8–ii13. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/suppl_2/ii8
25. Cummings KM, Morley CP, Horan JK, Steger C and Leavell NR. Marketing to America’s youth: evidence from corporate documents. Tobacco Control 2002;11(suppl.1):i5-i17. Available from:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/suppl_1/i5
26. Framework Convention Alliance on Tobacco Control. Tobacco advertising and promotion. 2005, viewed May 2007. Available from: http://fctc.org/factsheets/9.pdf
Section: 11.1.5
10
Facts and Issues
27. Carter O, Mills B and Donovan R. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on unplanned purchases: results from immediate post-purchase interviews. Tobacco Control 2009;18(3):21821. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/18/3/218.full
28. Saffer H and Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. Journal of Health Economics 2000;19(6):1117–37. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/11186847
29. Quentin W, Neubauer S, Leidl R and König H-H. Advertising bans as a means of tobacco control policy: a systematic literature review of time-series analyses. International Journal of Public
Health 2007;52(5):295-307(5):295-307. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00038-007-5131-0
30. Blecher E. The impact of tobacco advertising bans on consumption in developing countries. Journal of health economics 2008;27(4):930 – 42. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/18440661
Section: 11.1.5
11
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.2
Tobacco industry expenditure on advertising
It is difficult to assess how much money the Australian tobacco industry invests in advertising and promoting its
products. In the US, all tobacco companies must annually report the total amount that is spent on advertising and
promotion to the Federal Trade Commission. Unlike their American counterparts, Australian tobacco companies
are not legally required to disclose equivalent information. It is not easy to compare expenditure in the US with
Australia as very few forms of tobacco advertising are actually banned in the US. It is useful, however, to note
that in 2006 (the most recent data available at the time of publication) the majority of the reported advertising
spend in the US, at 81% of the total spending, was on promotional allowances to retailers and wholesalers.1 This
includes price discounts paid to cigarette retailers or wholesalers in order to reduce the price of cigarettes to
consumers, allowances paid to cigarette retailers in order to facilitate the sale
or placement of cigarettes (e.g. payments for stocking, shelving, displaying
and merchandising brands; volume rebates; and incentive payments), and
promotional allowances paid to cigarette wholesalers (e.g. payments for volume
rebates, incentive payments, value-added services and promotional executions).
These types of retailer promotional allowances are also permitted in Australia.
For example, in 2009, ASH Australia reported that twin packs of cigarettes
were being sold at prices discounted by as much as $5 per twin pack and that
retailers were being offered prizes for displaying and promoting certain brands.
As part of the promotion, British American Tobacco sales representatives
delivered sleeves (Figure 11.2.1) to shopkeepers to create the twin packs. Any
kind of promotion or display of such products would however be prohibited
in most states in Australia under laws requiring products to be stored out of
sight—see Section 11.6.3.
The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)
requires: ‘if (a party) does not have a comprehensive ban on advertising and
sponsorship, the disclosure {should occur} to relevant governmental authorities
of expenditures by the tobacco industry on advertising, promotion and
sponsorship not yet prohibited’ (p12).2
Figure 11.2.1
Sleeves used to create a twin pack of
cigarettes offered at a price discount
Source: http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/Market5.jpg
Section: 11.2
12
Facts and Issues
References
1. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission cigarette report for 2006. 2009; Available from: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/08/090812cigarettereport.pdf.
2. World Health Organization, Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. adopted 16 June 2003, entered into force 27 February 2005, World Health Organization: Geneva.
Section: 11.2
13
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.3
Commonwealth (national) legislation
Advertising of tobacco products in Australia has been progressively restricted since the 1970s. As described
earlier, cigarette advertising bans on radio and television have been in place since 1976. In 1989, the Australian
Government introduced the Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act 1989, which prohibited advertising of
tobacco products in all newspapers and magazines, effective from December 1990.
The Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act 1989, in conjunction with the amended Broadcasting Act 1942,
prohibited direct advertising in the print and broadcast media. The Tobacco Products Advertisements (Prohibition) Act
1989 was repealed in December 1992 by the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (TAP Act) that came into effect on
1 July 1993.1
In 2007, the Australian Government published a guide to the TAP Act that outlines what is and is not allowed
under the Act.2 The guide is designed to assist people who sell tobacco products (such as tobacconists, service
stations and grocery shop owners), those whose work involves publishing or broadcasting (such as advertising
agents and people who work in the media), and people who deal with the tobacco industry (such as sporting or
cultural groups seeking sponsorship).
11.3.1
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992
The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992i was introduced to provide a national standard for tobacco advertising.
The objectives of the TAP Act are:
1. Limit the exposure of the public to messages and images that may persuade them:
a) to start smoking, or to continue smoking or
b) to use, or to continue using, tobacco products.
2. Improve public health.
The TAP Act defines an advertisement as any writing, still or moving picture, sign, symbol or other visual
image, or any audible message, or any combination of two or more of those things, that gives publicity to, or
otherwise promotes or is intended to promote:
a) smoking
b) the purchase or use of a tobacco product or a range of tobacco products
c) the whole or a part of a trademark that is registered under the Trade Marks Act 1955 in respect of goods that
are or include tobacco products
d) the whole or a part of a design that is registered under the Designs Act 2003 in relation to products that are or
include tobacco products
e) the whole or a part of the name of a person:
f) who is a manufacturer of tobacco products and
g) whose name appears on, or on the packaging of, some or all of those products
h) any other words (for example the whole or a part of a brand name) or designs, or combination of words
and designs, that are closely associated with a tobacco product or a range of tobacco products (whether also
closely associated with other kinds of products).
The TAP Act imposes restrictions on the broadcasting and publishing of tobacco advertisements. The
prohibitions cover print media advertising; advertisements in the form of films, videos, television or radio
and the internet; advertising on tickets; advertising of sponsorship; the sale or supply of any item containing a
tobacco advertisement; and outdoor advertising on billboards or public transport. Under the TAP Act tobacco
i
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tapa1992314/index.html
Section: 11.3.1
14
Facts and Issues
can still be sold via direct mail, the Internet and at points of sale, however the TAP Act and state and territory
legislation impose restrictions on the advertising and promotion of tobacco.3 In circumstances where state or
territory legislation enforces more restrictive practices than the Commonwealth (national) legislation, the state or
territory legislation takes precedence. The TAP Act has undergone several amendments to further restrict tobacco
advertising and sponsorship.
11.3.1.1
Advertising permitted under the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act
All tobacco advertising and sponsorship was completely banned, with limited exceptions, by the passage of the
TAP Act. ‘Accidental or incidental’ publication of tobacco advertisements is permitted if the advertisement is an
accidental or incidental accompaniment to the publication of other matter and the publisher does not receive any
direct or indirect benefit (whether financial or not) for publishing the advertisement (in addition to any direct or
indirect benefit that the person receives for publishing the other matter).
An individual may publish a tobacco advertisement if it is not in the course of the manufacture, distribution or
sale of tobacco products. The individual must have published on his or her own initiative and received no benefit
in doing so. For example, individuals not associated with tobacco companies may wear clothing produced overseas
that is branded with tobacco industry trademarks without breaching the Act.
Advertising exceptions also include advertisements broadcast or published:
<< during political discourse
<< at point of sale, unless regulated by the state or territory
<< in periodicals printed outside Australia and not principally designed for Australia
<< as information in trade publications (those circulated only to the tobacco or tobacco retailing sectors)
<< on aircraft during international flights.
When the TAP Act was originally passed, the then Minister for Health and Aged Care was given discretionary
power to grant sponsorship exemptions to events that were of international importance that would otherwise not
be held in Australia if sponsorship were banned. Several exemptions were initially granted including:4
<< Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix
<< Rally Australia
<< Australian Ladies Masters Golf
<< Whitbread Round the World Yacht Race
<< America’s Cup (sailing)
<< Indy Car Grand Prix
<< Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix
<< Winfield Cup (rugby league)
<< Benson and Hedges Cup (cricket).
11.3.2
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Act 2000
Under the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Act 2000, passed in November 2000, the original discretion
which permitted the minister to grant an exemption for international sporting and cultural events was revoked.5
As of October 2006, no further events were permitted to display tobacco brand advertising. Furthermore, no new
events were granted an exemption as of October 2000. This amendment made Australia one of the first countries
to legislate for an end to tobacco sponsorship of international sporting and cultural events.6 At the time of the
amendment in 2000, there were five events of international significance that were permitted to carry tobacco
sponsorship when they were staged in Australia. They were the:
Section: 11.3.2
15
Chapter 11: Tobacco
<< Ladies Masters (golf)
<< Indy 300
<< Rally Australia
<< Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix
<< Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix.
Both the motorcycle and formula 1 grands prix continued to carry tobacco sponsorship until the 1 October 2006
deadline.7
At the 2007 Formula 1 Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne the Ferrari team was the only team to continue to be
sponsored by a tobacco company, in this case Philip Morris using the brand Marlboro. While the Ferrari team
was not permitted to exhibit any of this sponsorship, the car and driver uniforms were ‘branded’ with a distinctive
white barcode. The race team was therefore effectively promoting the well-known red and white colours of
Marlboro, illustrating how advertising can still continue to function after a ban. Subsequent races in other nations
where tobacco sponsorship is not prohibited saw the ‘official’ Marlboro logo back on the car.8 Australian formula 1
viewers are exposed to this marketing through television broadcasts.
Amid continuing controversy that the white barcode was subliminal advertising for Marlboro, Ferrari announced
that it would be removed from cars as of the fifth race, the Barcelona Grand Prix, of the 2010 racing season.9
The bar code will remain on the driver and team uniforms for the remainder of the 2010 racing season. In July
2010, Ferrari unveiled a new logo without the controversial barcode design. The new logo was to be used on all
cars and uniforms for the 2011 season and the team will continue to be called Scuderia Ferrari Marlboro. Some
blog commentators have suggested this new logo is also suggestive of the iconic red chevron found on Marlboro
packages.
The 2000 amendment also required reporting by the health minister of any contraventions of the TAP Act to
parliament. Specifically, the amendment requires that a report be prepared on:
a) the number and nature of any contraventions of the Act occurring in the preceding 12 months
b) action taken by the minister or a Commonwealth (national) agency in response to each contravention.
The report is presented annually to parliament and contains information regarding prosecutions under the TAP
Act. The report does not currently include summaries of received complaints or of advertisements that are found in
breach of the TAP Act but not subsequently prosecuted. A sample report can be found in Attachment 11.1.
11.3.3
Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act
A review of the TAP Act was announced by Trish Worth, Parliamentary Secretary to the Federal Minister for
Health and Ageing on May 31, 2002. An in-depth submission to the Australian Government Department of Health
and Ageing review by the Cancer Council Australia (supported by other health groups) outlined that while the
TAP Act has been successful in limiting public exposure to traditional forms of tobacco advertising, it has been
less effective in countering other forms of marketing.10 These ‘below-the-line’ forms of tobacco marketing include
social networking sites, sales promotions at public events, point-of-sale advertising, ‘guerrilla marketing’ and textmessage promotions.11
During the time of the review, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee issued a report, Tobacco
Advertising Prohibition, in September 2004, which recommended that changes be made to strengthen the TAP
Act, particularly in the areas of film, internet and misleading promotions.12 The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition
(Film, Internet and Misleading Promotion) Amendment Bill 2004 served as a proposed draft of these changes. The
objectives of the bill were to:13
<< ensure that the intent and operation of the TAP Act maintains pace with technological advances in advertising
and remains current and effective by adding Internet advertising to the means of tobacco advertising which are
prohibited
<< prohibit the offering for sale of tobacco products on the Internet
Section: 11.3.3
16
Facts and Issues
<< prohibit the use of certain words in advertising which are misleading, deceptive and are not conducive to public
health.
In 2005 the Australian Government Department of Health issued a response to the 2002 review and concluded that
the TAP Act was currently working well to protect the Australian public from advertising messages and the gains
made by making amendments to the Act would be insignificant.14 As a result, no changes to the TAP Act resulted
from the review.
11.3.4
National Preventative Health Strategy
The launch of the National Preventative Health Strategy on 1 September 2009 by the Minister for Health and
Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, offered another opportunity to recommend significant changes to the TAP
Act. The Strategy provides a blueprint for tackling the burden of chronic disease currently caused by obesity,
tobacco and excessive consumption of alcohol. It is directed at primary prevention and addresses all relevant arms
of policy and all available points of leverage, in both the health and non-health sectors. The Strategy comprises
three parts: an overview; a roadmap for action; and technical papers focused on the three key areas of obesity,
tobacco15 and alcohol.
The roadmap for action included the following recommendations to strengthen restrictions on tobacco
advertising:16
<< Eliminate promotion of tobacco products through design of packaging
<< Legislate to eliminate all remaining forms of promotion including advertising of price specials, public relations
activities, payments to retailers and proprietors of hospitality venues, promotion through packaging and, as far
as feasible, through new and emerging forms of media
<< Regulate to require mandatory reporting of amounts spent on any form of promotion – on payments to public
relations companies or any other third parties, as well as details of any other promotional expenditure
<< Amend legislation to ensure that tobacco is out-of-sight in retail outlets in all jurisdictions
<< Make smoking a ‘classifiable element’ in movies and video games.
On 11 May 2010 the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, released Taking Preventative
Action, the government’s response to the report of the National Preventative Health Taskforce.17 The Australian
Government responded to each of the recommendations made by the taskforce and this included the
announcement of major reforms to further restrict tobacco advertising and promotion.17 Specifically tobacco
advertising bans will be strengthened by the following actions:
<< developing legislation to introduce mandatory plain packaging of tobacco products from 1 January 2012 with
full implementation from 1 July 2012 (see section 11.6.4 for a complete review of plain packaging including the
proposed legislation)
<< amending the TAP Act to clarify that advertisements published via the Internet are prohibited
<< introducing legislation to restrict Australian internet advertising of tobacco products, bringing the Internet –
and other electronic media – into line with restrictions in other media
<< working with states and territories to develop an action plan for ending other forms of tobacco promotion,
and for possible mandatory reporting of promotion expenditure, in the next iteration of the National Tobacco
Strategy.
The Australian Government did not support additional recommendations to ban all retail tobacco displays at the
national level and to include smoking as a classifiable element in movies and games at that time.
Section: 11.3.4
17
Chapter 11: Tobacco
References
1. Chapman S. Federal legislation at a glance. Tobacco Control Supersite. Sydney: The University of Sydney 2010, viewed 29 September 2010. Available from: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.
au/federal-legislation/
2. Department of Health and Ageing. Easy guide to the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. Canberra: Australian Governement Department of Health and Ageing 2007, viewed 15
August 2010. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/355399AFA90CFB88CA25734F0008A847/$File/prohibition-act.pdf
3. Quit South Australia. Tobacco and the law. Adelaide: Quit South Australia 2007, viewed 7 May 2007. Available from: http://www.quitsa.org.au/cms_resources/documents/
infosheet_tobacco_law.pdf
4. Meade A. Tobacco ad bans a threat to sport. Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney 1994:1 Jun.
5. Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Act 2000 (Cth). No 135 Available from: http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/comact/10/6249/top.htm
6. Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (Cth). No. 218 Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tapa1992314/
7. Pyne C. Tobacco advertising banned at Australian sports Media release. Canberra: Ageing, AGDoHa, 29 September 2006 viewed September 2006.
8. Spurgeon B. Formula One: a view from the paddock. A new art to F1 photograph. New York: New York Times Blogs 2007, viewed 6 May 2007. Available from: http://blogs.iht.com/
tribtalk/sports/f1/?p=258
9. Baldwin A. Ferrari remove bar code livery from F1 cars. Reuters, 2007:7 May. Available from: http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-48292720100506
10. VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control Cancer Council Victoria. Submission to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992.
Melbourne: Cancer Council Australia, 2003.
11. Cancer Council New South Wales. Bad news for TAP Act Media release. Sydney: Jul 2005 viewed 1 May 2007. Available from: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.
asp?pageid=2063
12. Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Secretariat. Tobacco advertising prohibition. Canberra: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2004. Available from: http://www.
aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/tob_adv_proh/report/report.pdf
13. Tobacco Advertising Prohibition (Film, Internet and Misleading Promotion) Amendment Bill, 2004, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, The Senate, Available from: http://
www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/tob_adv_proh/documents_tor/exp_draft_tob_advert_bill.pdf
14. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing,
2005. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pubhlth-strateg-drugs-tobacco-consult-index.htm
15. Tobacco Working Group. Technical report no. 2. Tobacco in Australia: making smoking history. Canberra: National Preventative Health Taskforce, 2008. Available from: http://www.
preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/tech-tobacco
16. Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. Preventative Health Taskforce: Commonwealth of Australia 2008, Last modified 21 May 2008 viewed 10 June
2008. Available from: http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/discussion-healthiest
Section: 11.3.4
18
Facts and Issues
11.4
State and territory legislation
Australian states and territories are able to enact regulations that are more restrictive than the Commonwealth
national Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (TAP Act). To varying degrees all states and territories legislate
controls on the advertising and promotion of tobacco products. Where the TAP Act does not restrict point-of-sale
advertising and the display of tobacco in retail locations, the states and territories all have their own restrictions
and controls. A summary of legislation for each state and territory follows. Table 11.4.1 at the end of this section
provides an overview of state and territory legislation.
11.4.1
Australian Capital Territory
Advertising and promotion of tobacco is controlled by the Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT), including all amendments1.
The Act sets out strict requirements for how smoking products (tobacco and herbal smoking products) can be
advertised and displayed.
A smoking advertisement is defined as anything (writing, sound or a picture, symbol, light or other visible device,
object or sign) that a reasonable person would consider publicises or promotes:
<< the purchase or use of a smoking product
<< the trademark or brand name, or part of a trademark or brand name, of a smoking product.
Items that advertise or promote tobacco products or tobacco smoking are not permitted at point of sale. No gifts,
rewards schemes or ‘value-added’ promotional items can be associated with the purchase of tobacco products. A
tobacco product itself cannot be given away if this promotes the sale of a tobacco product. It is illegal to conduct
a competition that promotes smoking or promotes a tobacco product. Examples of prohibited advertising include
brand-name promotional material, and toys, novelty items or clothes with a tobacco name or logo.
Amendments made to the Act by the Tobacco Amendment Act 2008 (ACT) prohibited the sale of cigarette packets
designed to be divided into portions containing fewer than 20 cigarettes each, commonly known as ‘split packets’,
and prohibited the offer of customer rewards in association with the sale of smoking products. The Minister for
Health was also given the power to declare that a smoking product is prohibited if it has a distinctive fruity, sweet
or confectionery-like character, and the nature of the product or the product’s package or packaging could be
attractive to children.2i
11.4.1.1
Display of tobacco products
The 2008 amendments to the Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT) also introduced new restrictions banning the display of
smoking products at point of sale. From 31 December 2010, all retailers will be required to store smoking products
out of sight of customers.ii This provision applied to standard tobacconists from 1 January 2010, and from specialist
tobacconists from 1 January 2011.iii One point of sale is permitted per retail outlet. Licensed premises may have up
to five points of sale.iv Price tickets must comply with size and design requirements (they must use 12 point Times
New Roman font, and be no larger than 15cm squared).
i
ii
Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT) s.21. See also: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2009-53/current/pdf/2009-53.pdf for declaration of prohibited products.
Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT) s.10 states that a smoking product at a point of sale for a retail or wholesale outlet must be stored out of view of the outlet’s customers. Ibid s.101 outlines the
commencement details for the new point of sale provisions. See Ibid s.101(2) for the definition of ‘Specialist Tobacconist’
iii See Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT) s.101(2) for the definition of ‘Specialist Tobacconist’
iv Restrictions on the number of points of sale are set out in s.8 of the Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT)
Section: 11.4.1.1
Chapter 11: Tobacco
19
11.4.2
New South Wales
Two key pieces of legislation relate to the advertising and promotion of tobacco products in New South Wales: the
Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW)3 and the Public Health (Tobacco) Regulation 2009.4 This Act incorporates the
tobacco control elements of the NSW Public Health Act 1991 which operated prior to 2008.
These two pieces of legislation prohibit overt advertising of tobacco products and also regulate the display
of tobacco products at point of sale. In addition, the Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 prohibits tobacco related
promotions, sponsorships, competitions, incentive promotions, loyalty schemes and free sampling of tobacco.i One
point of sale per retail outlet is permitted.ii Licensed premises may have one point of sale and one staff-operated
vending machine.
11.4.2.1
Packaging
Uniquely and significantly, the 2009 New South Wales regulation acknowledges that images on the package itself
constitute advertising. Limits on the maximum allowable size of a tobacco package to 1800 cubic centimetresiii
means that on-pack advertising is permitted only on carton-sized packages or smaller. The regulation also prohibits
certain types of on-pack advertising elements including:iv
<< statements alluding to sporting, sexual or business success
<< people or cartoon characters
<< scenes, activities, words, representations or illustrations that have appeal to children or young persons
<< holograms
Additionally, if a package containing tobacco products also contains within it any tobacco advertisement (not being
an advertisement printed on the products themselves), the advertisement must also display a health warning.v
11.4.2.2
Display restrictions
Retailers other than NSW Department of Health approved specialist tobacconists were banned from displaying
tobacco products at point of sale from 1 July 2010 (large retailers and tobacco vending machine operators were
required to comply with the ban from 1 January 2010).vi Approved specialist tobacconists in New South Wales have
until 1 July 2013 to comply with the full display ban and may display tobacco products, non-tobacco smoking
products and smoking accessories in accordance with the regulations in the intervening period.vii Either a single
price board or price tickets may be displayed, but not both. Price tickets may not use more than two colours, and
must be 35cm squared or less in area. The information that can be included on a price ticket is limited to the name
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
vii
For additional information on the history of tobacco advertising legislation in New South Wales see: Chapman S. Anatomy of a campaign: the attempt to defeat the NSW Tobacco
Advertising Prohibition Bill 1991. Tobacco Control 1992;1:50-6.
Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW) s.10
Public Health (Tobacco) Regulation 2009 (NSW) r.4
Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW) s.9 provides that an occupier must ensure that members of the pubic cannot see any tobacco products or non-tobacco smoking products that are
available for sale from inside or outside the premises. Retailers that employed more than 50 people immediately before the introduction date had until 1 January 2010 to comply, and
other retailers (excluding specialist tobacconists) had to comply from 1 July 2010.
Public Health (Tobacco) Regulation 2009 (NSW) sch1, clause 5(3)(b) provides that a specialist tobacconist does not commit an offence against section 9 of the Act by displaying tobacco
products, non-tobacco smoking products or smoking accessories during the period of 3 years from 1 July 2010 until 1 July 2013 if those products and accessories are displayed in
accordance with the regulations.
Section: 11.4.2.2
20
Facts and Issues
of the product line, a bar code, the price and a symbol identifying the country of origin.i A health warning must be
displayed at the point of sale and on any vending machine.ii
11.4.3
Northern Territory
Legislation and regulation pertaining to tobacco advertising in the Northern Territory falls under the Tobacco
Control Act 2002 (NT)5 and the Tobacco Control Regulations6. The Act and Regulations were significantly amended
by the Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (NT).7
Tobacco advertising was banned from 31 May 2003. No tobacco advertisements of any type may be displayed,
published or broadcast. All tobacco advertising at point-of-sale such as posters, backlit signs, desk pads, flags
and floor stickers is also banned. Retail staff are not permitted to wear clothing or other items with tobacco logos
or trademarks. Shops cannot be decorated in tobacco brand colours. Retailers cannot advertise brand names
of cigarettes or the sale of cigarettes at discounted prices, including using expressions such as ‘cheap smokes’ or
‘discount cigarettes’. All giveaways, competitions and other-value added marketing are prohibited.iii
Tobacco must be sold over the counter from a premises with a licence to sell tobacco products. This means that
mobile cigarette ‘girls and boys’ who typically approach young people in nightclubs and pubs are not permitted.iv
11.4.3.1
Amendments to the Tobacco Control Act 2002 (NT) made by the Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (NT) mean
that the display of tobacco products by all retailers has been banned in the Northern Territory since 2 January 2011.v
Occupiers of premises from which tobacco products are sold must ensure the products cannot be seen from inside
or outside the premises.vi One point of sale is permitted. Licensed venues may have one over-the-counter point of
sale and one vending machine in each bar area of the premises. A health warning must be displayed at point of sale,
including vending machines. Either a price board or shelf tickets may be displayed, not both.
11.4.4
Queensland
Tobacco advertising and promotion is controlled and restricted by the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act (Qld)
19988 and the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Regulations 2010.9 The Act prohibits tobacco advertising including
any promotions, competitions, and product giveaways. This also extends to any images of the consumption of
tobacco products at retail point-of-sale.
A review of Queensland’s tobacco laws was carried out in early 2004. The review informed the drafting of new
tobacco laws under the Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Bill 2004, which was passed by the
Queensland Parliament on 11 November 2004.10 The new laws commenced in phases between 1 January 2005 and
1 July 2006 and include restrictions on how tobacco products can be displayed at retail outlets and a ban on
tobacco advertising or competitions.
i
ii
iii
iv
v
vi
See Division 2, part 17 http://www.health.nt.gov.au/Alcohol_and_Other_Drugs/Tobacco/Tobacco_Retail_Outlets/index.aspx
See sections 24 and 25
Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (NT) clause 20
Tobacco Control Act (2002) (NT) s.20
Section: 11.4.4
Chapter 11: Tobacco
21
11.4.4.1
An overview of the tobacco display laws which came into effect in Queensland on 31 December 2005 is as follows10:
<< only one smoking product display per retail outlet is allowed and mandatory signs must be displayed
<< smoking product displays can be no more than one square metre
<< in tobacconists only, smoking product displays can be up to three square metres
<< additional smoking products must be totally covered
<< cigarette carton displays are prohibited
<< display panels, tobacco special tickets and smoking products in shopper loyalty programs are prohibited
<< unbranded advertising of smoking products (e.g. Cigarettes sold here) is prohibited
<< a quit-smoking sign must be displayed at the main point of sale
On 29 April 2010, the Queensland Minister for Health announced that the Queensland Government would ban
displays of smoking and smoking related products at all general retailers and specialist tobacconists by mid-2011.11
11.4.5
South Australia
The two main pieces of legislation that affect the advertising and promotion of tobacco products in South Australia
are the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 199712 and the Tobacco Products Regulations 200413. All activities intended
to publicise or promote the purchase or use of tobacco products are banned. This includes advertising and
promotional material at point of sale.i The offer of prizes, gifts or other benefits in association with the sale of a
tobacco product is prohibited. From 1 June 2008, customer reward or loyalty schemes in connection with the sale
of tobacco products were also prohibited.ii
11.4.5.1
Mobile tobacco sales
Tobacco vendors typically dressed in bright tobacco company colours who approach young patrons in nightclubs—
offering tobacco products for sale— had been a common form of promotion in South Australia. On 6 December
2004 the use of mobile displays such as tobacco trays was banned.
11.4.5.2
Split cigarette packets
The South Australian Government introduced a variation of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2004 to prohibit the
sale of cigarette packets that are designed to be divided into portions that contain fewer than 20 cigarettes each,
commonly known as ‘split packets’. Such packages were declared prohibited via a notice in the South Australian
Gazette on 9 November 2006 and the ban came into effect on 10 November 2006.14
i
ii
For additional information on the history of tobacco advertising legislation in South Australia see: Chapman S and Reynolds C. Regulating tobacco - The South Australian Tobacco Products
Control Act 1986. Community Health Studies 1987;11(suppl):9-15.
Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 (SA) s.42 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/tpra1997293/
Section: 11.4.5.2
22
Facts and Issues
11.4.5.3
Products appealing to children
On 1 November 2006, the South Australian Government banned
the sale of tobacco products that have a distinctive fruity, sweet
or confectionery character.15 (See Figure 11.4.1 for an example
of banned product, the DJ Mix brand.) The display of fruit or
confectionery flavoured cigarettes at point of sale, and the inclusion
of such cigarettes on price tickets or price boards was banned with
effect from 10 April 2008.i
11.4.5.4
Display of tobacco products
Figure 11.4.1
DJ Mix flavoured cigarettes that are banned for sale in
South Australia
The number of tobacco points of sale per premises was limited on 31 March 2006, with all non liquor licensed
premises limited to one point of sale and liquor licensed premises limited to a maximum of five points of sale.
Amendments to the Tobacco Products Regulations 2004 restricting the display of tobacco products came into operation
on 1 November 2007. Tobacco displays must not exceed three square metres, and must carry an A3 (420 x 297mm)
sized graphic warning of the effects of smoking adjacent to the packets. Alternatively, displays of one or less
square metre must carry an A4 (297 x 210mm) size graphic warning. The display of cigarette cartons is banned,
and only one packet or one picture of a packet may be displayed for each product line. Specialist tobacconists can
use an additional one square metre for the display of cigars only. Prescribed shops, (those that have a floor area
that exceeds 200 square metres) must ensure that tobacco displays cannot be visible from outside of their shops.
Displays in large petrol stations must not be visible beyond the boundaries of the service station.16
Variations to retail tobacco licences commenced on 19 January 2009, preventing tobacco products from being
displayed at booths, tents or other temporary structures or at points of sale that are available for not more than
two weeks in a year. The licence conditions also prevent vendors from providing inducements to encourage young
people to frequent the points of sale, inducements include furnishings and entertainment and signage is limited to
only prescribed signage.
On 31 May 2010, the South Australian Minister for Health announced that the South Australian Government
would introduce measures to ban the display of tobacco products at the point of sale by January 2012.17
11.4.6
Tasmania
The control of the marketing and promotion of tobacco products in Tasmania falls under the Public Health Act 1997
(Tas).18 In addition to banning overt advertising and promotion, including at point of sale, the Public Health Act 1997
contains restrictions on the display of tobacco products, including:
<< items designed or marketed for use by children including confectionery being displayed within 75cm of tobacco
products
<< the display of one packet per product line to a maximum of 150 packets
<< vending machines may have a maximum of 40 vending chips displaying images of tobacco products
<< approved health warning notices are required to be displayed where tobacco products are displayed and on
vending machines
<< there are limitations on how price tickets and price information can be displayed.
From 1 February 2011, a complete ban on the display of tobacco products commenced (except for specialist
tobacconists). Specialist tobacconists in Tasmania must confine displays to four square metres.
i
Tobacco Products Regulations 2004 (SA) r.6
Section: 11.4.6
23
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.4.6.1
Displaying graphic warnings at tobacco display
In 2004 a statutory requirement was issued
to all licensed tobacco retailers in Tasmania
to display a specific graphic health warning
on the retail tobacco display (as opposed
to at the point of sale). The diseased mouth
graphic warning is the same one as appears
on the cigarette packets themselves (Figure
11.4.2). The regulatory system allows the
point-of-display warnings to be varied in a
flexible manner without legislative changes,
meaning that the warning could be varied
should the government require this.
One outcome of this requirement was that
40 Tasmanian retailers, including one of
Australia’s two major supermarket chains
Figure 11.4.2
(Coles), voluntarily moved their tobacco
Graphic warning required at the retail tobacco display in Tasmania
products entirely out of public sight to
Source: Figure 5, Selling Tobacco Products in Tasmania, A Guide to Tasmanian Legislation http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.
avoid displaying the graphic warning. This
au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53803/Selling_Tobacco_Products_in_Tasmania.pdf
unexpectedly provided evidence for the
technical and financial feasibility of requiring all retailers to move their tobacco products out of sight.19 This
measure was subsequently introduced and a complete ban on the display of tobacco products in retail outlets
commenced in February 2011 (except for specialist tobacconists).
11.4.6.2
Pending legislative changes
On 30 August 2010, the Hon. Michelle O’Byrne, Minister for Health, released a discussion paper to further
strengthen Tasmanian tobacco control laws.20 The paper includes proposals that would:
<< ban tobacco product vending machines
<< ban or restrict specialist tobacconists’ displays, and /or phase out of specialist tobacconists
<< remove tobacco and tobacco products from reward schemes
<< ban tobacco sales at all temporary events such as music, sport or art festivals or where the majority of patrons
are likely to be under 18
Submissions on the discussion paper were due on 1 October 2010 and are still being considered at time of writing.
11.4.7
Victoria
Two pieces of legislation restrict the marketing and promotion of tobacco in Victoria, the Tobacco Act 1987 (Vic)21 and
the Tobacco Regulations 2007 (Vic).22
The Victorian Tobacco Act 1987 was the first legislation in Australia to ban advertising outdoors on billboards and
shops, and was at the time one of the most far-reaching government tobacco control initiatives anywhere in
the world.23 While it didn’t go so far as to ban advertising through sponsorship of sport, it did establish a health
promotion levy that was used by the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation to offer sporting groups in the state
alternative funding to promote health messages such as Quit and Sunsmart, a model shortly afterwards copied in
South Australia and Western Australia—refer Section 15.2 Facts and Issues, 1995.24
Section: 11.4.7
24
Facts and Issues
On 1 March 2006, significant amendments came into effect that strengthened restrictions on the sale and
advertising of tobacco. In summary, the amendments affecting advertising and promotion included:25
<< banning smoking, the promotion of tobacco products and the sale of tobacco products at underage ‘music/
dance’ events
<< widening the definition of ‘tobacco advertisement’ to include non-branded advertising, buzz marketing (as
defined by the Act) and the advertising of cigarette papers
<< banning ‘buzz marketing’ and non-branded tobacco advertising
Further significant amendments to the Act were made in August 2009 with the passing of the Tobacco Amendment
(Protection of Children) Act 2009 (Vic). The amendments provide for:
<< a ban on the display of tobacco products at point of sale from 1 January 2011, with an exemption for certified
‘specialist tobacconists’
<< a prohibition on the sale of tobacco products from temporary outlets
<< a power for the Minister for Health to ban the sale of certain tobacco products and packaging that appeal to
young people.
11.4.7.1
Underage ‘music/dance’ events
An underage ‘music/dance’ event is defined in the Victorian legislation as an event that26:
<< involves the provision of music (whether live or recorded and whether for listening to or dancing to or both)
<< is predominantly organised or intended for, or predominantly attended by persons under the age of 18 years
<< is open to members of the public (whether with or without payment)
<< takes place in any area or premises other than a private residence.
Examples of events that which are affected include:
<< ‘FReeZa’i events
<< ‘Blue Light’ discosii
<< underage events held at licensed premises
<< school-run events.
All people who attend the event are prohibited from smoking, including adults and young people. This also
applies to all outdoor areas of underage ‘music/dance’ events. Tobacco products cannot be sold at these events.
Event organisers must ensure that cigarette vending machines, tobacco advertisements and tobacco displays are
completely covered in an opaque material or removed while an underage ‘music/dance’ event is taking place.
11.4.7.2
Buzz marketing and non-branded advertising
The Victoria Department of Human Services defines buzz marketing as the use of colours, images and props to
create an environment consistent with a brand’s identity or reminiscent of previous tobacco advertising.27 Generally,
buzz marketing is undertaken in nightclubs, at dance events, fashion events, or other similar events. Since branded
tobacco advertising is prohibited in shops that sell tobacco, many traditional advertisements have been replaced
with non-branded ‘suggestive’ methods to promote tobacco use. Non-branded tobacco advertising includes backlit
posters directly above cigarette displays, depicting images of smoking paraphernalia such as matches and lighters
(Figure 11.4.3). Although these posters do not promote a particular brand of tobacco, they are attractive to the eye
i
ii
FReeZa events are for young Victorians to enjoy live band gigs and dance parties in drug and alcohol-free, supervised, safe and secure venues. http://www.freeza.vic.gov.au/info/info.htm
Blue Light aims to assist the police to ‘rectify the imbalance of pro-active and re-active policing among young people’. It provides young people ‘with positive alternatives and strategies to
avoid becoming an offender or victim of crime’. The discos are held in community venues and supervised by the police.
Section: 11.4.7.2
25
Chapter 11: Tobacco
and may encourage and promote the consumption of tobacco.
Non-branded tobacco advertisements are also banned outside
of retail outlets. Additionally, advertisements of ‘cheap’ or
‘discount’ cigarettes are also prohibited.
11.4.7.3
The Tobacco Act 1997 (Vic) includes restrictions on how tobacco
products can be displayed. From 1 January 2011, tobacco
products must be kept out of sight at all retail outlets other
than certified specialist tobacconists and on-airport duty free
outlets.i
Where displays are permitted, they must comply with the
following restrictions:
Figure 11.4.3
Non-branded tobacco advertising at tobacco point of sale
Source:http://www.health.vic.gov.au/tobaccoreforms/downloads/buzz_marketing_
factsheet.pdf
<< only one packet of each tobacco product line may be
shown. Different size packages are not treated as different
product lines
<< cartons may not be displayed. An exception to this applies in the case of duty free outlets beyond the customs
barrier at Melbourne Airport, which are permitted to display cigarette cartons
<< price tickets and price boards are permitted subject to the restrictions outlined in the regulations as to the size,
format and information that may be included
<< the total display area for advertising tobacco products must not be larger than four square metres
<< no lights or other accents are permitted as part of the display
<< a black and white health warning/smoking cessation sign must be displayed either at the entrance or near the
tobacco display.
11.4.8
Western Australia
In Western Australia, tobacco advertising and promotion is controlled through the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006
(WA)28 and the Tobacco Products Control Regulations 2006 (WA).29
The Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) repealed the 1990 Act.ii The Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act 2009
(WA)30 was assented to on 22 September 2009, and amended the Act to introduce new restrictions in specific
places and on tobacco displays.
The Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) includes provisions that ban advertising, promotion and sponsorship.
Advertising is banned at point of sale unless the advertisement only advises about the availability of tobacco for
sale; advertising of any price discounting is not permitted. Prizes and competitions are banned and no free samples
can be distributed. Mobile sellers, defined as people carrying tobacco products, are prohibited.iii Only one point of
sale per retailer is permitted.iv The sale of cigarettes in packets of fewer than 20 is prohibited.v Vending machines are
permitted only in licensed premises or mining amenities.vi
i
ii
Tobacco Amendment (Protection of Children) Act 2009 s.2 and s.5
An overview of the events leading to the enactment of the Tobacco Products Act 1990 can be read in: Musk AW, Shean R, Walker N, Swanson M. Progress on smoking control in Western
Australia. British Medical Journal. 1994;308:395–8.
iii Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) s.28
iv Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) s.20
v Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) s.21
vi Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) s.27
Section: 11.4.8
26
Facts and Issues
11.4.8.1
Restriction of tobacco product displays
Under the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA)28 as amended by the Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act 2009,30 the
display of a tobacco product, package or smoking implement in retail premises other than specialist tobacco retail
premises will be prohibited with effect from 22 September 2010.
11.4.8.2
Summary of national legislation restricting promotion of tobacco products
Table 11.4.1
Overview of advertising restrictions by state and territory as at 1 January 2011
Display bans
Pointof-sale
Implementation
Exemptions
advertising date
Australian
Capital
Territory
New South
Wales
Prohibited
Prohibited
Promotions, Mobile
contests and (transportable) Vending machines
giveaways
tobacco sales
31 December 2009 Specialist
Prohibited
tobacconists until
31 December 2010
All retailers
Specialist
Prohibited
1 July 2010
tobacconists until
1 July 2013
Large retailers by
1 Jan 2010
None
Prohibited*
Prohibited
Restricted to licensed
premises
Single machine per
premises
Other
Packages cannot bear images that
appeal to children or images of
people, cartoons, or holograms
Northern
Territory
Queensland
Prohibited
2 January 2011
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
June/July 2011†
Prohibited
None
South
Australia
Tasmania
Prohibited
1 January 2012‡
Prohibited
Prohibited
Seller must operate
premises, buyer operated
Seller must operate
Prohibited
1 February 2011
Prohibited
None
Seller must operate
Victoria
Prohibited
1 January 2011
Specialist
tobacconists
Specialist
tobacconists
Prohibited
Western
Australia
Prohibited
22 September
2010
Specialist
tobacconists
Prohibited
n/a
Buzz marketing and non-branded
(buzz marketing premises, buyer operated advertising banned
is banned)
Smoking and the sale of tobacco
banned from underage music events
Prohibited
*
Prohibition on sale of smoking products by vending machine
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person places a vending machine on premises; and
(b) the vending machine is used, or is available for use, by members of the public.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person occupies premises where there is a vending machine; and
(b) the vending machine is used, or is available for use, by members of the public.
Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.
†
On 29 April 2010, the Queensland Minister for Health announced that the Queensland Government would ban
displays of smoking and smoking related products at all general retailers and specialist tobacconists by mid-2011.
‡
as proposed on 31 May 2010
Section: 11.4.8.2
Chapter 11: Tobacco
27
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT). Available from: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1927-14/current/pdf/1927-14.pdf
Tobacco (Prohibited Smoking Products), 2009. Declaration no. 1 Department of Health ACT. Available from: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/ni/2009-53/current/pdf/2009-53.pdf
Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW). Act no. 94 Available from: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewtop/inforce/act+94+2008+FIRST+0+N/
Public Health (Tobacco) Regulation, 2009 (NSW). Regulation no.294 Department of Health NSW. Available from: http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/viewPublic Health (Tobacco)
Regulation 2009top/inforce/subordleg+294+2009+FIRST+0+N/
Tobacco Control Act 2002 (NT). Available from: http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/Acts.nsf/84c76a0f7bf3fb726925649e001c03bb/f8c75880f46ac4dc69256c54007caa1a?OpenDocume
nt&ExpandSection=4.1#_Section4.1
Tobacco Control Regulations, 2002 (NT). Available from: http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/Acts.nsf/82d4ce7bedc4293169256bf90000aa68/757df58e4f56552469256c8d000cdae6?Op
enDocument
Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Act (NT) 2010. Act no. 25 Available from: http://notes.nt.gov.au/dcm/legislat/Acts.nsf/84c76a0f7bf3fb726925649e001c03bb/6791e9c4441a82
076925771b0004465c?OpenDocument
Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Act 1998 (Qld). Available from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TobacoPrPrSuA98.pdf
Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Regulation (Qld), 2010. Department of Health Queensland. Available from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/
TobaccoOSmPrR10.pdf
Tobacco and Other Smoking Products Amendment Act 2004 (Qld). Act no. 47 Available from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/ACTS/2004/04AC047.pdf
Queensland Government and Deputy Premier and Minister for Health the Hon. Paul Lucas. Ban on tobacco displays in Queensland by mid-2011 Media release. Brisbane: 29 April 2010
viewed 21 August 2010. Available from: http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=69544
Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 (SA). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/tpra1997293/
Tobacco Products Regulations, 2004 (SA). Government of South Australia. Available from: http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/TOBACCO%20PRODUCTS%20REGULATIONS%20
2004.aspx
Department of Health South Australia. Tobacco control in South Australia. Adelaide: Department of Health South Australia 2006, viewed 22 April 2007. Available from: http://www.
tobaccolaws.sa.gov.au/Default.aspx?tabid=96
Government of South Australia. News: Fruit flavoured cigarettes banned in SA Media release. Government of South Australia, 1 November 2006 viewed 1 May 2007. Available from:
http://www.premier.sa.gov.au/news.php?id=862
Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia. Tobacco point of sale display restrictions: Information for tobacco retailers. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services South Australia 2006, viewed
23 April 2007. Available from: http://www.tobaccolaws.sa.gov.au/Portals/0/TR_DisplayRestrictionsBooklet.pdf
Government of South Australia. New measures to stub out smoking Media release. Government of South Australia, 10 May 2010 viewed July 2010. Available from: http://www.ministers.
sa.gov.au/images/stories/mediareleasesMAY10/smoke-free.pdf
Public Health Amendment Act 2007 (Tas). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/pha1997126/
Bicevskis M. Graphic point-of-display tobacco health warnings in Tasmania: expected and unexpected benefits. 13th World Conference on Smoking OR Health. Helsinki, 2006. Available
from: http://2006.confex.com/uicc/wctoh/techprogram/P5024.HTM
Department of Health and Human Services Tasmania. Building on our strengths. Public Health Act 1997. Discussion paper released by the Director of Public Health. Hobart: 2010.
Available from: http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/news_and_media/?a=62356
Tobacco Act 1987 (Vic). Act no. 81 Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ta198773/
Tobacco Regulations, 2007 (Vic). S.R. no. 109/2007. Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/tr2007182/
Powles J, W and Gifford S. Health of nations: lessons from Victoria, Australia. British Medical Journal 1993;306(9 January):125−6. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/8435611
Winstanley M, Woodward S and Walker N. Tobacco in Australia: facts and issues, 1995. 2nd edn. Carlton South: Victorian Smoking and Health Program, 1995. Available from: http://www.
quit.org.au/quit/FandI/welcome.htm
Department of Human Services. New tobacco laws: an overview. Melbourne: Victorian Government 2005, viewed 22 April 2007. Available from: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/
tobaccoreforms/downloads/overview_factsheet.pdf
Department of Human Services. New tobacco laws: underage ‘music/dance’ events. Melbourne: Department of Human Services 2005, viewed 24 April 2007. Available from: http://www.
health.vic.gov.au/tobaccoreforms/downloads/underage_events_factsheet.pdf
Department of Human Services. New tobacco laws: banning of ‘buzz marketing’ and non-branded tobacco advertising. Melbourne: Department of Human Services 2005, viewed 22 April
2007. Available from: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/tobaccoreforms/downloads/buzz_marketing_factsheet.pdf
Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/tpca2006271/
Tobacco Products Control Regulations, 2006 (WA). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/tpcr2006380/
Tobacco Products Control Amendment Act 2009 (WA). Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/num_act/tpcaa200922o2009397/
Section: 11.4.8.2
28
Facts and Issues
11.5
Tobacco advertising legislation violations
There have been violations of both Commonwealth (national) and state and territory tobacco advertising
legislation. Key examples of these breaches are detailed below.
11.5.1
Breaches of the national Tobacco Advertising
Prohibition Act
As most violations and suspected violations of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (TAP Act) have not resulted
in prosecution it is difficult to assess the extent to which the Act is being violated and enforced. As previously
discussed in this chapter, annual reports on contraventions of the TAP Act contain limited information on
prosecutions only. It is also uncommon for complaints to result in a prosecution. This is because the Department of
Health and Ageing investigates every complaint and is usually able to have any potential breaches to the TAP Act
removed within a short time frame.1 In 2005 and 2006 a total of 36 complaints were made about possible breaches
to the TAP Act, all of which were investigated and either dropped or resolved without prosecution.2 The media
often reports on possible violations to the TAP Act and is the primary source of information on complaints made
to the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
In 2002, the Australian Broadcasting Authority (ABA) found that three Nine network licensees had broadcast
a tobacco advertisement in contravention of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (Cth) (TAP Act), thereby
breaching the conditions of their broadcasting licenses. Footage of the actor Russell Crowe smoking and displaying
a pack of Marlboro cigarettes was shown in the ‘60 Minutes’ program aired on 29 October 2000. The ABA found
that airing of the footage amounted to a reckless broadcast of a tobacco advertisement under the TAP Act, contrary
to the broadcasters’ licence conditions under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth). On review, the Federal Court
affirmed the ABA’s decision.3i As the broadcasters had not previously breached this licence condition, the ABA did
not prosecute or issue fines.
In 2001, Channel Ten was found to have broadcast a tobacco advertisement, in violation of the TAP Act, during
a women’s golf tournament. Channel Ten had shown signage for Philip Morris’s Alpine cigarette brand and in
interviewing the sales manager had made particular reference to the company’s name. The network was not
prosecuted but was advised to take further precautions during live interviews to avoid broadcasting tobacco
advertisements and to provide staff with training on the provisions of the TAP Act.4
In April 2006 the Melbourne radio station 3AW was found to have broadcast three tobacco advertisements during
an archival radio play broadcast. The station was held to be in breach of the TAP Act but was not prosecuted as
the licensee was a first-time offender and agreed to: ‘take steps to ensure that all future archival broadcasts are
considered and reviewed prior to broadcasting, so that any potentially unlawful material is identified and removed
from any further proposed broadcasts’ (p9).5 In March 2007, print advertisements and billboards promoting a
concert by US R & B singer–songwriter, Beyoncé (Knowles), were found to be potentially in breach of the TAP
Act. The singer was shown posing with an old-fashioned cigarette holder—see http://news.softpedia.com/news/
Smoking-Could-Get-Beyonce-039-s-Australian-Tour-Nixed-47485.shtml.The concert promoters were advised
to remove the advertisements or potentially face prosecution.6 Subsequent print versions of the advertisement
contained the identical image of the singer with the cigarette holder digitally removed.
In January 2008, the market research company, Feedback Plus, was warned by the Australian Government
Department of Health and Ageing that it was potentially breaching the TAP Act by recruiting non-smokers to a
cigarette taste testing survey.7 Feedback Plus sent out a survey recruitment email in November 2007 saying that
i
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority 2002 FCA 898 (18 July 2002) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/2002/896.html?stem=0&syno
nyms=0&query=2002%20and%20crowe
Section: 11.5.1
29
Chapter 11: Tobacco
participants would be given free cigarettes to smoke at home and then be paid for filling out surveys. The email
stated that ‘taste testing is not limited to smokers. New registrations via the webpage for the testing panel ... have a
chance at winning an instant $200 cash.’ No further action was taken after Feedback Plus agreed to stop the survey
and to refrain from undertaking any future surveys that included the distribution of free cigarettes.
In February 2008, The Weekend Australian was warned to comply with the TAP Act after publishing an ad
that included an image of a bikini-clad woman smoking a water pipe in a Beirut conflict zone—see http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/6/363.2.full The image was taken in June 2005 by AFP at Beirut’s SaintGeorges Hotel. Editor-in-chief of The Australian and The Weekend Australian, Chris Mitchell, said the image did
not intend to push smoking.8 In 2007 the Advertising Standards Bureau had dismissed a similar complaint against
the same ad.
In March 2009, following a complaint in September 2008, the Australian Communications Media Authority
(ACMA) found that Briz31, the licensee of community television station QCTV Brisbane, breached its licence
conditions by broadcasting tobacco advertisements.9 The advertisements appeared in Dragnet, a program produced
in the 1950s. ACMA accepted QCTV’s submission that it did not intentionally broadcast the advertisements and
that the breaches were a consequence of a breakdown in its internal editing procedures. QCTV agreed to a new
vetting process and better training of staff and no further action was recommended.
In April 2010 the Department of Health and Ageing
launched an investigation of the use of cricket imagery
inside packs of Peter Jackson cigarettes.10 In a clear
demonstration that Cricket Australia has completely
severed its historic ties to tobacco sponsorship, Peter
Young, General Manager of Public Affairs for Cricket
Australia, said the cigarette packs had been sent to its
legal department for review, but that as no trademarks
had been used it was unlikely that Cricket Australia could
prevent the images from being used.11 Philip Morris,
manufacturers of the brand, also uses images of other
iconic Australian pastimes, such as horse racing, for the
in-pack promotions (Figure 11.5.1).
Figure 11.5.1
Peter Jackson within-pack advertising
In July 2010, the fashion line Nena & Pasadena, owned
by high-profile sports figure, Lance Franklin, was subject
Source: http://www.ashaust.org.au/Pictures/InsidePack2010peterj.jpg
to complaints regarding the design of a T-shirt that
featured an image of a model smoking. The creator of
the T-shirt denied that the image promoted smoking and suggested that the words, ‘Dirty Habit’, printed on the
T-shirt, demonstrated that the company actually denounced smoking. The Department of Health and Ageing said
it would investigate to determine if there was a breach of the TAP Act. The T-shirt design is no longer featured on
the company’s website.12
It is interesting to note that most of the publicised complaints of violations of the TAP Act do not directly involve
the tobacco industry but are against other entities that employ tobacco imagery to promote seemingly unrelated
goods and services.
11.5.2
New South Wales prosecution of Coles Express (Eureka
Operations)
In August 2009, the operator of Coles Express service stations in New South Wales, Eureka Operations, was fined
$107 000 and ordered to pay an additional $50 000 in court costs after being convicted of verbally promoting
discounts on cigarettes. The Chief Health Officer in New South Wales, Dr Kerry Chant, said NSW Health had
prosecuted the retail chain giant for instructing its employees to verbally encourage customers to purchase tobacco
Section: 11.5.2
30
Facts and Issues
products.13 When a customer requested a single pack of cigarettes, Coles Express employees were instructed to
inform the customer that they could buy a second pack at a reduced rate.
In response, Wesfarmers stated in its annual sustainability report that:
‘We take our tobacco compliance responsibilities seriously and this year ensured that our store teams in New
South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory were updated on the recent changes in tobacco legislation.
Last year we reported that the NSW Department of Health had commenced proceedings against Eureka
Operations, alleging that a verbal multi-buy offer at 26 Coles Express stores was a breach of the tobacco
advertising prohibition in the Public Health Act. We ceased the offer immediately upon being notified that
the Health Department considered the offer to be a breach of the Public Health Act. The Supreme Court
determined that the conduct at three sites did constitute an offence and Eureka Operations pleaded guilty to
the remaining 23 charges.’14
11.5.3
Advertising Standards Bureau
Advertisements that promote smoking can also be reviewed by the Advertising Standards Bureau (ASB)i if a
complaint is submitted. The ASB is national system of advertising self-regulation and provides a free public
service of complaint resolution. It provides determinations on complaints about most forms of advertising in
relation to issues including the use of language; the discriminatory portrayal of people; concern for children;
portrayals of violence, sex, sexuality and nudity; and health and safety. The ASB can only advise companies to
modify or withdraw their advertisements, based on received complaints. Should a company choose not to accept
the ASB recommendation, the ASB has no enforcement capabilities.
The ASB receives many complaints about the portrayal of tobacco and tobacco-related issues. A keyword search of
the online complaints database showed that more than 40 complaints involving tobacco had been received since
1998. The bulk of these complaints were not upheld and most were actually aimed at state-run anti-smoking mass
media campaigns that viewers found either too confronting or inappropriate for general view.
Complaints about advertisements for quit smoking medications have been upheld. In February 2010, an
Australia Day advertisement for Nicabate Pre-Quit, a transdermal nicotine patch, which featured images of a
smoking kangaroo and emu, was found to promote ‘a positive depiction of smoking that is contrary to prevailing
community standards on health and safety’.15ii In February 2006, an advertisement for Nicotinel Gum, a smoking
cessation product sold in Australia by Novartis, was found to contain ‘stylised and glamorous visual imagery of the
smoking woman (that) strongly linked glamour, excitement and positive messages to smoking in the first place’
(p2).16 Novartis, the makers of the product, agreed to modify the advertisement. The modified ad was once again
subject to complaints in November 2007 and the ASB determined that the only marginally different ad continued
to glamorise smoking. Novartis agreed to stop running the ads. The ASB has also upheld complaints for other
advertisements that promote smoking, including:17
<< April 2007, magazine Cosmo Bride, images of a woman smoking in a clothing advertisement
<< September 2006, clothing manufacturer George Gross/Harry Who, images of smokers in a clothing
advertisement in a catalogue
<< July 2006, Everlast, image of a young boy smoking in a clothing advertisementiii
i
ii
http://www.advertisingstandardsbureau.com.au/pages/index.asp
See Australia Day advertisements for Nicabate Pre-Quit Source: http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/nicabate_prequit_roo and http://adsoftheworld.com/media/print/nicabate_
prequit_emu
iii Despite the company declaring the advertisement would be removed, this advertisement reappeared on billboards and posters around Australia in April 2007. Source: http://
campaignbrief.blogspot.com/search?q=Everlast
Section: 11.5.3
31
Chapter 11: Tobacco
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Lee J. And the poised light up, blowing smoke at the law. The Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney 2007:3 Mar.
Canberra insider. Government business. A smoking gun. Australian Financial Review, Sydney 2007:10 Aug.
Gerard I. Nine’s appeal extinguished. The Australian, Sydney 2002:19 Jul.
Sibley D. Network Ten guilty over tobacco advert. Canberra Times, 2001:30 May.
Australian Communications and Media Authority. Investigation report no.1698. Canberra: 2006, viewed 1 May 2007. Available from: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEBWR/_assets/main/
LIB100631/3AW%20Report%201698.pdf
Adams C, Denney L and Miller M. Cig ban bid is too late. Herald Sun, Melbourne 2007:21 Mar.
Kontominas B. Firm doling out free cigarettes reprimanded. The Sydney Morning Herald, 2008:9 Jan.
Sinclair L. War image in ad sparks smoking complaint. The Australian, Sydney 2008:1 Feb.
Australian Communications and Media Authority. ACMA finds Brisbane community television service in breach of its licence conditions for broadcasting tobacco advertisements Media
release. Sydney: ACMA, 11 March 2009 viewed September 2010. Available from: http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD..PC/pc=PC_311658
Anonymous. Hidden cigarette message inquiry. MX (Australia), 2010:7 Apr.
Anonymous. Cig image is not cricket. MX (Australia) 2010:9 April.
McArthur G. Lance Franklin may be forced to remove designer T-shirt from sale. Herald Sun, Melbourne 2010:7 Jul. Available from: http://www.news.com.au/lance-franklin-may-beforced-to-remove-designer-t-shirt-from-sale/story-e6frf7jo-1225888713968?from=public_rss
Ferre J. Coles Express receives $107,000 fine for cigarette advertising. AFN Thought for Food, Melbourne 2009:3 Aug. Available from: http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2009/08/13/
coles-express-receives-107000-fine-for-cigarette-advertising.html
Wesfarmers. Sustainability report 2009. Perth: Wesfarmers 2009, viewed 12 September 2010. Available from: http://www.wesfarmers.com.au/sustainabilityreport2009/coles.html
Advertising Standards Bureau. Case report: Glaxo Smith Kline (health product). Sydney: ASB 2010, viewed September 2010. Available from: http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/
casestudy_search.asp
Advertising Standards Bureau. Case report: Novartis Consumer Health Australasia (Nicotinell - Keep the flame) (health products). ASB 2010, [viewed. Available from: http://www.
adstandards.com.au/pages/casestudy_search.asp
Advertising Standard Bureau. Search Complaints Database. Sydney: ASB, 2010. viewed August 2008; Available from: http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/casestudy_search.asp
Section: 11.5.3
32
Facts and Issues
11.6
Marketing of tobacco in the age of advertising bans
As traditional forms of marketing have been closed to the tobacco industry, companies have sought out novel ways
of promoting their products. An advertising ban does not mean that tobacco companies will no longer seek to
market their products; it means they will continue to market their products through avenues that have not been
closed by the ban. Advertising bans may not reduce the total level of advertising expenditure but result in shifting
resources to other forms of marketing and promotion.1 When more of the remaining media are eliminated, the
options for substitution are also eliminated. Several ‘below-the-line’ advertising techniques were indentified in
Australia in the years following introduction of the TAP Act2–5:
<< event promotions, including dance parties, fashion shows and music festivals
<< marketing to retailers and other sectors of the tobacco trade
<< point-of-sale marketing
<< packaging design
<< brand stretching
<< internet-based marketing and the development of corporate websites
<< advertising in international magazines
<< text-message promotions and mobile phone applications
<< product placement in movies.
The material that follows documents examples of this kind of advertising and also subsequent legislation aiming to
restrict it.
The continued innovation in marketing methods, particularly through electronic media, necessitates constant
and systematic monitoring of all marketing activities of the tobacco industry. The Preventative Health Taskforce
recommends tobacco companies report their annual marketing and promotional activities and budgets to the
Australian Government, which would assist tobacco control stakeholders in identifying important gaps in
legislation.5
Section: 11.6
33
Chapter 11: Tobacco
References
1. Saffer H and Chaloupka F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. Journal of Health Economics 2000;19(6):1117–37. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/11186847
2. Carter SM. Going below the line: creating transportable brands for Australia’s dark market. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii87−iii94. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
3. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission cigarette report for 2006. Washington: US Government 2009, viewed 30 August 2010. Available from: http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/
08/090812cigarettereport.pdf
4. Advertising Standard Bureau. Search Complaints Database. Sydney: ASB, 2010. viewed August 2008; Available from: http://www.adstandards.com.au/pages/casestudy_search.asp
5. Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Available from: http://www.
preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/national-preventative-health-strategy-1lp
Section: 11.6
34
Facts and Issues
11.7
Promotional events
In its submission to the 2003 Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (TAP Act) review, the Cancer Council Australia
highlighted how the tobacco industry uses event-based marketing to promote its products to young people:
‘Typically, products are sold and displayed in a glamorous or “cool” setting, such as a nightclub or fashion or music
event. The product benefits from the associations created with the event or venue, the people present at the event
or venue, and other brands that are being marketed there. The events and venues generally have no restrictions on
smoking, creating a perfect environment in which to create the desired associations between smoking and both the
other experiences being enjoyed and the positive elements of the surrounding context and environment as a whole.
Many of these events, particularly outdoor music events, are not restricted to those over the age of 18, so the youth
who are exposed to the marketing are both young adults and much younger teenagers’(p14).1
The submission detailed more than 25 examples of event-based marketing across Australia. An illustrative example
of historical interest, Wavesnet, is highlighted in the boxed case study.i
Despite state-level attempts to control these activities (most states have banned mobile cigarette girls and boys and
most states have also now banned all tobacco sales from under 18 events) —see summary at the end of Section
11.4—event-based marketed persisted for some time. Two examples include:
<< The Big Day Out (2007), the biggest outdoor youth music event of the Australian summer, held in cities around
the country, granted exclusive sales right to Imperial Tobacco. At the Sydney event, Imperial promoted and
sold the Peter Stuyvesant brand. The cigarettes are sold from ‘smoking lounges’ where patrons could stop and
smoke.2 The company stated that this was purely a sales agreement, not a promotional opportunity.
<< In April 2007, guests of a Fashion TV Red Ribbon Foundation party at the Sydney Opera House were given
complimentary packages of Davidoff cigarettes.3 While it is prohibited in New South Wales to distribute free
samples of cigarettes to members of the public, events that are restricted to members of a relevant trade (i.e.
hospitality) are permitted to distribute free samples. It is unclear from media reports if the event in question
was a relevant trade-specific party.
i
This example is extracted from: Harper TA and Martin JE. Under the radar: how the tobacco industry targets youth in Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review 2002;21(4):387–92.
Section: 11.7
35
Chapter 11: Tobacco
Wavesnet: a case study of event-based marketing
For many years tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris has been communicating with the predominantly
female smokers of its brand Alpine cigarettes in various guises. The strategy began in the late 1990s with
a quarterly magazine called Waves and the sponsorship of graduate designers fashion shows, and then
developed to include gifts such as make-up and cosmetic bags sold with Alpine packs. Part of the aim was
to develop a database of Alpine smokers, which apparently numbered about 40 000 by the time the Internet
was integrated into the mix. Databases are important to tobacco companies as they provide a way of
communicating directly with their customers and constitute a valuable source of market research.
The internet strategy began with the registration of Wavesnet as a company in October 2000 and the
development of a funky website (www.wavesnet.net) as a promotional tool. Mojo, the advertising agency
managing the Alpine account, established the site. The link to Philip Morris was not immediately evident;
however, a search of who controls the Wavesnet company revealed that it has three directors and a company
secretary who are either directors of Mojo or its holding company, Publicis. Philip Morris has since
confirmed that it licensed the use of the Wavesnet trademark to Publicis.
The Wavesnet website promoted accessories and a series of young designer fashion shows—Fashion’s
Future Designer Awards—in nightclubs in a number of capital cities. It also included an online survey
where visitors to the site could subscribe and obtain free entry to the fashion shows, free drinks, gifts and
invitations to future events. The fashion awards were also promoted in women’s magazines. The site was
promoted to young women in various media as a place to ‘shop 4 the latest accessories @ www.wavesnet.
net … & 10% off everything when u join wavesnet’. Later the promoters became more explicit in their event
promotion, running a series of dance parties under the banner Glisten.
The events heavily promoted Alpine cigarettes, a brand almost exclusively smoked by women. The colours
used on the website and at the events were themed around the colours on the Alpine packs. The only
cigarettes available during the event were Alpine cigarettes sold by women in outfits colour co-ordinated
with the pack and the lighting. An organiser for other major events has revealed that in return for handing
over sponsorship dollars for another event, Philip Morris wanted ‘its corporate colours to be evident at the
rave, and for cigarette sellers in fetching outfits to roam the dance floors looking for customers’, thereby
achieving greater exposure of tobacco products to potential customers.
Computer terminals at the Wavesnet fashion events allowed attendees to sign up on-site. Wavesnet’s general
manager confirmed that there were plans to host more events and that building up a database of members’
likes and dislikes was one of the reasons for the existence of the Wavesnet website.
A key element of the strategy is affinity marketing— leveraging the power of other popular youth brands
and products such as cosmetics, compact disks, confectionery, lingerie and clothing with the target market.
At the State final of Wavesnet’s Fashion’s Future Design Awards—Who will you be wearing next?—in
Melbourne, all attendees were given free gift packs including products such as lingerie, jewellery, herbal tea,
mouse pads, magazines, CDs and confectionery.
Not all the sponsors were informed about the involvement of Philip Morris and Alpine cigarettes. The editor
of a female online magazine, Femail, which promoted Wavesnet’s Fashion’s Future Design Awards, was not
aware that its paid advertorial was sponsored by Philip Morris or that the company owned the Wavesnet
trademark. Philip Morris’s involvement was not mentioned in the online copy. Later, other sponsors of the
Glisten events were also concerned at being linked to Philip Morris; for example, one of the co-sponsors, De
Jour tampons, withdrew its support after it was told of Philip Morris’s involvement. The company owner said
that she did not want her company associated with Philip Morris and would not have agreed to be involved
had she known of this prior to the events.
Following controversy over the Wavesnet operation, the entire operation was repackaged under the new
name of ‘Glisten’.
Section: 11.7
36
Facts and Issues
References
2. Cancer Council NSW. Companies target music festivals. Cancer Council NSW TAGlines, Sydney 2007:January/February. Available from: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.
asp?pageid=2209#3
3. Byrnes H and McIlveen L. Fashion’s smoke signal. Daily Telegraph Sydney 2007:28 April.
Section: 11.7
37
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.8
Trade promotions
Tobacco trade promotional events blur the line between business-to-business marketing, which is permitted
in Australia, and consumer advertising, which is clearly banned in all states and territories. The guest list for a
VIP party sponsored by cigarette brand Peter Stuyvesant, held in April 2009 at the State Government-owned
Queens Theatre in Adelaide, included influential bar and club owners, operators and employees.1 Imperial held
a similar party in 2008 at the Old Melbourne Gaol. Invitations to the event were delivered in a stainless steel box
and included a free pack of Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes. Attendees of the high-security, secret event also reported
receiving free cigarettes during the event.2 Online media site, The Enthusiast, describes Peter Stuyvesant as ‘the
unofficial cancer stick of choice among hipsters and indie types.’3 Associating the brand with the trendsetting
young adults that are typically employed by bars and clubs reinforces this connection.
The lavish private party followed the Imperial sales initiative to stock Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes in chic fashion
outlets in Adelaide. In December 2008, an investigation by the Sunday Mail revealed that:4
<< cash incentives of up to $2000 a year were offered to stores agreeing to sell cigarettes
<< smoking was promoted as safe and cool in literature given to targeted fashion outletsi
<< free cigarettes were handed out to stockists
<< lunches and a cruise had been held for businesses which sold the brand.
The Sunday Mail article reported that the sales tactic was ‘very typical in terms of the industry wanting to associate
a product that kills with glamour and this high-end fashion’. Due to the resulting public and political outrage,
Imperial announced a week later that it would withdraw all cigarettes from the fashion outlets by 31 January 2009.5
The tobacco industry also places advertisements about new products or changes to current products in key trade
and retail publications. A double-page ad for Marlboro appeared in the March 2010 issue of Bartender magazine.
Tobacco industry employees also attend and present at retailer conferences and meetings. For example, delegates
at the 2010 Australian Liquor Stores Association conference heard a representative from British American Tobacco
Australia, discuss ‘potential opportunities for profit within the category while complying with the new display ban
regulations’.6
i
The advertisement read “It used to be extremely dangerous. Now the only danger is you’re not the coolest cat on the block” Source: http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/Lv4res2.gif
Section: 11.8
38
Facts and Issues
References
1. Starke P. Secret smokes party for VIPs Adelaide Now, Adelaide 2009:5 Apr. Available from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/secret-smokes-party-for-vips/
story-e6frea83-1225698284539
2. Devlin R, Vlach A and Sobolewski H. Secret cancer stick society. The Advertiser, Adelaide 2009:9 Apr.
3. Campbell M. Peter Stuyvesant’s Adelaide smokeasy Media release. The Enthusiast: 5 Apr 2009 viewed April 2009. Available from: http://www.theenthusiast.com.au/archives/2009/
peter-stuyvesants-adelaide-smokeasy/
4. Kelton S. Smokes alarm as fashion outlets targeted. Sunday Mail, Adelaide 2008:13 Dec. Available from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/smokes-alarm-asfashion-outlets-targeted/story-e6frea83-1111118310103
5. Kelton S. Cigarette push stubbed out. Sunday Mail, Adelaide 2008:20 Dec. Available from: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/cigarette-push-stubbed-out/
story-e6frea83-1111118376380
6. Looker A. BATA lights up ALSA conference. The Shout 2010, viewed September 2010. Available from: http://www.theshout.com.au/2010/08/25/article/BATA-lights-up-ALSAConference-video/HODTTFQRES.html
Section: 11.8
39
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.9
Tobacco displays as advertising
Prohibiting the sale of tobacco products
to children under 18 is intended to
restrict their access to tobacco. This
is undermined and contradicted by
the bright displays that attract these
same children (Figure 11.9.1). Because
tobacco is displayed alongside other
universally purchased consumer
goods, displays create the impression
that tobacco is much more socially
acceptable and commonly used than
is truly the case.1 Focus group research
with both smokers and non-smokers
has found support for display bans.2 The
removal of displays is seen as a ‘logical
extension’ of advertising bans (p401).2
The Australian Capital Territory, New
South Wales, the Northern Territory,
Tasmania, Victoria and Western
Figure 11.9.1
Australia have legislated to ban the
A cigarette display ‘powerwall’ in a supermarket
display of tobacco products at retail
Source: Simon Chapman private collection
outletsi (Figure 11.9.2). There are some
exceptions for specialist tobacconists.
Queensland and South Australia have announced their
intention to ban point-of-sale display of tobacco products.ii
The industry argues that displays are necessary to provide
information to adult smokers about different brands in order
to encourage brand switching. Research in 2006 showed
that 90% of adult smokers in Victoria never decide on what
brand they will purchase at retail and only 1% said they
always decided on what brand based on the retail display.3
These findings suggest that adults virtually never use the
information that the industry states that the displays impart.
Displays do however stimulate adult smokers to purchase
cigarettes and act as cues to smoke, even among those not
intending to buy cigarettes and those trying to quit smoking.
In a telephone survey of 2996 adults in Victoria, 25.2% of
smokers purchased cigarettes on impulse as a result of seeing
a cigarette display.4 Thirty-eight per cent of smokers who
had tried to quit in the past 12 months and 33.9% of recent
quitters experienced an urge to buy cigarettes as a result of
seeing retail cigarette displays. One-third of smokers thought
the removal of cigarette displays from stores would make
i
ii
Figure 11.9.2
An ACT tobacco display following the implementation of the ban
Source: http://www.ashaust.org.au/Pictures/OutSightServoACT10.jpg
Tobacco Act 1927 (ACT) s. 10; Public Health (Tobacco) Act 2008 (NSW) s. 9; Tobacco Control Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (NT) clause 20; Public Health Act 1997 (Tas) s. 72A (4A);
Tobacco Amendment (Protection of Children) Act 2009 (Vic) ss. 2 and 5; Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 (WA) s. 22.
Hill, J. New measures to stub out smoking Media release. Adelaide: Government of South Australia, 31 May 2010. Available from: http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/images/stories/
mediareleasesMAY10/smoke-free.pdf Luca P. Ban on tobacco displays in Queensland by mid-2011 Media release. Queensland Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, 29 April 2010
http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/mms/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=69544
Section: 11.9
40
Facts and Issues
it easier for them to quit. In an Australian intercept survey of 206 adult daily smokers who had been observed
making a tobacco purchase, 22% of participants had made an unplanned cigarette purchase.5 Point-of-sale displays
influenced nearly four times as many unplanned as planned purchases (47% vs. 12%).
In another Australian study designed to assess whether sensitivity to retail tobacco displays influenced the
likelihood of a smoker successfully quitting, displays were found to make quitting more difficult for smokers most
sensitive to the presence of displays.6 Increased sensitivity to displays was measured as more frequently noticing
displays, impulsively purchasing tobacco and deciding on brand of purchase based on what products were on
display.
There is evidence that displays also influence children’s smoking relevant attitudes and intentions. Experimental
research with Australian adolescents found that the presence of tobacco displays influenced their beliefs about
the ease of purchasing cigarettes, increased their ability to recall cigarette brands and weakened their resolve not
to smoke in the future.7 A Canadian study found that schoolchildren from neighbourhoods with high amounts of
in-store tobacco promotions had higher rates of smoking than schoolchildren from neighbourhoods with shops
that had few such promotions.8 Year 10 students (age 14–15) in New Zealand who visited shops more than once
per week were more susceptible to smoking than those students who visited shops less than weekly.9
11.9.1
International display bans
Governments of Norway (1 January 2010), Ireland (1 July 2009), Iceland (1 August 2001) and Thailand
(24 September 2005) have banned all tobacco advertising and displays at retail. A retail display ban proved so
successful in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan (adopted 11 March 2002) that all Canadian provinces
and territories have since banned retail displays. The Saskatchewan legislation was subjected to and survived a
lengthy tobacco industry legal challenge to the Supreme Court of Canada.10 Health Canada, the Canadian national
government agency responsible for tobacco control, describes the marketing potential of tobacco displays as
follows: ‘The ubiquitous presence of these displays means that they reach young people, former smokers and
smokers trying to quit. Their presence makes tobacco products socially prominent, and this prominence conflicts
with the health message that tobacco products are harmful. Such displays may undermine government efforts to
protect young people and others from inducements to use tobacco products and from becoming dependent on
them’ (p1).11 Display bans are on the legislative agenda for tobacco control in the UK12 and New Zealand.13
Philip Morris International has developed a websitei to counter the growing global adoption of point-of-sale
display bans. Consultant produced reports on the website argue that display bans ‘don’t work’ and actually increase
smoking among teenagers.14 On the other hand, the site also posits that display bans have negative impacts on
retailers, including losing revenue, increasing costs, complicating the sales process and threatening security. As
an alternative to display bans, Philip Morris International recommends the continued enforcement of minimum
age-of-purchase laws.
11.9.2
The Australian retail setting
Australian tobacco industry document research reveals that as cigarette marketing became increasingly restrictive
in Australia, the retail environment evolved as the primary communication vehicle for building cigarette brands.15
The industry employs techniques such as strengthening on-pack brand imagery, redesigning point-of-sale
hardware to emphasise particular brands, forming alliances with retailers, rewarding retailers through loyalty
programs, and promoting brands through retail trade magazines. Carter concluded that: ‘The point-of-sale, always
an important marketing environment for the Australian cigarette industry, has been transformed in the last five
decades. Originally retail marketing was a mere support mechanism for above-the-line activities. When abovethe-line was banned, the retail environment became the front line for brand building, absorbing massive resources
i
http://www.productdisplayban.com
Section: 11.9.2
41
Chapter 11: Tobacco
and being seen as the primary site for sustaining relationships with the consumer. When retail advertising was
restricted by some states, the industry conceded only incrementally and under duress. The fact that the law is
broken in retail marketing suggests that the retail promotions, however modest, are still highly prized in Australia’s
dark market’ (p.iii99).16
An article written by tobacco control advocate Todd Harper states that retailers have received guidance on how to
maximise sales of tobacco products.17 A national industry organisation representing fuel retail outlets in Australia
advised retailers to:
<< ‘Strategically place cigarette dispenser, ideally behind the point of sale unit in full view of customers.
<< Have a minimum range of premium and leading brands on display, remember smokers are very loyal to ‘their’
brand. If the range is too narrow they will not come back.
<< Enlist the support of the cigarette manufacturers, when placing an order request a visit from a sales
representative, they are ‘experts’, and if you ask the right questions they can provide very useful advice’ (p270).17
Additionally, the article states that retailers were advised to support the tobacco industry associated National
Association of Tobacco Retailers, an advocacy group which opposed tobacco display bans.17
State and territory display restrictions, prior to bans, often included allowing only one packet of each product line
to be displayed. Australian tobacco companies exploited this loophole by introducing more products lines18. For
example:
<< Peter Jackson product lines have almost doubled from 1999 to 2005, increasing from 11 to 21
<< Winfield went from 11 product lines in 1998 to 18 in 2004.
Despite these efforts, all states and territories have adopted or announced intentions to adopt bans on the display of
tobacco products at retail. These bans are being phased in across the country between 2010 and 2013.
While display bans do put tobacco products out of sight, they do not limit the availability of tobacco products for
purchase. As researchers in New South Wales note, ‘Relatively little attention has been given to the retail availability
of tobacco products despite the likelihood that ubiquitous supply may represent a primary form of tobacco
promotion in Australia’.19 This study on retail outlet density and smoker perceptions and behaviour found:
<< 88% of smokers reported daily retail availability of tobacco in walking distance
<< one tobacco outlet for every 77 smokers
<< no clear association between socio-economic status and availability of tobacco
<< reduced availability of tobacco is likely to benefit smokers who wish to quit
<< high availability appears to affect consumption and quitting behaviours.
The study concluded that some groups of smokers appear vulnerable to the availability of tobacco and a reduction
in the availability of tobacco is likely to benefit smokers who wish to quit. No state or territory currently limits the
number of tobacco retail licences.20
The tobacco industry has also experimented with opening innovative retail outlets. In June 2007, it was reported
that Philip Morris was opening a ‘concept store’ on fashionable Chapel Street in Melbourne’s South Yarra.
Tobacco control advocates argued that the planned shop was ‘the latest initiative by the tobacco industry to lure
new customers from the most vulnerable demographic’ (p1).21 In addition to stocking both Philip Morris and
competitor cigarette brands, the store will include ‘retractable windows’ in order to accommodate smokers under
Victoria’s indoor smoking ban. The concept store opened as the New Movement Tobacconist and in December
2007 was the site of the Australian launch of Philip Morris’s controversial ‘Heatbar’ device.22 Heatbar is a handheld
device that heats up, instead of burns, specially formulated cigarettes and purportedly reduces secondhand smoke
exposure. There are no proven health benefits to using such a device.
Section: 11.9.2
42
Facts and Issues
11.9.3
Vending machines
The cigarette vending machine functions as a self-service form of display. The Australian Capital Territory, New
South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania ban self-operated vending machines; the seller must operate any
machine on behalf of the purchaser. All other states and territories restrict vending machines to designated areas
such as licensed or gaming premises, but allow members of the public to operate the machines. As described by
the VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, the placement of vending machines at adult social venues or events
‘operates to create, or reinforce, a damaging association between the venue or event, and the enjoyment that is had
there, and the use of tobacco products or particular brands of tobacco products’ (p22).23 Vending machines can also
serve to glamorise tobacco products by showcasing them in attractive and eye-catching displays (Figure 11.9.3).
Figure 11.9.3
Cigarette vending machine in a bar
Source: VicHealth Centre for Tobacco Control, Cancer Council Victoria. Submission to the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing review of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992. Melbourne:
Cancer Council Australia, 2003.
Section: 11.9.3
43
Chapter 11: Tobacco
References
1. Department of Health and Human Services Tasmania. Discussion paper: Strengthening measures to protect children from tobacco. Hobart: DHHST, 2006. Available from: http://www.
dhhs.tas.gov.au/agency/pro/tobacco/documents/DISCUSSION_PAPER.PDF
2. Carter SM and Chapman S. Smokers and non-smokers talk about regulatory options in tobacco control. Tobacco Control 2006;15(5):398-404. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/
cgi/content/abstract/15/5/398
3. Wakefield M and Germain D. Adult smokers use of point of sale displays to select cigarette brands. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 2006;30(5):483–4. Available
from: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118731486/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
4. Wakefield M, Germain D and Henriksen L. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on impulse purchase. Addiction 2008;103(2):322–8. Available from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.
com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02062.x
5. Carter O, Mills B and Donovan R. The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on unplanned purchases: results from immediate post-purchase interviews. Tobacco Control 2009;18(3):21821. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/18/3/218.full
6. Germain D, McCarthy M and Wakefield M. Smoker sensitivity to retail tobacco displays and quitting: a cohort study. Addiction 2010;105(1):159-63. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/19804457
7. Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S and Henriksen L. An experimental study of effects on schoolchildren of exposure to point-of-sale cigarette advertising and pack displays. Health Educ.
Res. 2006;21(3):338-47. Available from: http://her.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/338
8. Lovato C, Hsu H, Sabiston C, Hadd V and Nykiforuk C. Tobacco point-of-purchase marketing in school neighbourhoods and school smoking prevalence: a descriptive study. Canadian
Journal of Public Health 2007;98(4):265-70. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17896733&ordinalpos=
20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVBrief
9. Paynter J, Edwards R, Schluter PJ and McDuff I. Point of sale tobacco displays and smoking among 14-15 year olds in New Zealand: a cross-sectional study. Tobacco Control
2009;18(4):268-74. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/4/268
10. Saskatchewan Coalition for Tobacco Reduction. Legislation. Saskatchewan. SCTR 2010, viewed September 2010. Available from: http://www.sctr.sk.ca/legislation.php
11. Health Canada Tobacco Control Programme. A proposal to regulate the display and promotion of tobacco and tobacco-related products at retail. Ottawa: Health Canada 2006, [viewed.
Available from: http://hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/commun/consultation/current-actuelle/tob-ret/tab_e.html
12. Campbell D. Cigarette point-of-sale displays ban must go ahead, say leading doctors. The Guardian, London 2010:12 Sep. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/
sep/12/cigarette-display-ban
13. Action on Smoking and Health New Zealand. ASH delighted Bill picked for tobacco display ban Media release. ASH, 9 September 2010 viewed 11 September 2010. Available from: http://
www.scoop.co.nz/stories/GE1009/S00051/ash-delighted-bill-picked-for-tobacco-display-ban.htm
14. Basham P. Canada’s ruinous tobacco display ban: economic and public health lessons. IEA discussion paper, no. 29. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2010. Available from: http://
www.productdisplayban.com/NR/rdonlyres/4A51E33A-03AA-48A7-B61A-BF34EA3DAD61/0/IEA.pdf
15. Carter SM. New frontier, new power: the retail environment in Australia’s dark market. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii95-iii101. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/
16. Chapman S, Byrne F and Carter SM. ‘Australia is one of the darkest markets in the world’: the global importance of Australian tobacco control. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii1–iii3.
Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii1
17. Harper T. Why the tobacco industry fears point of sale display bans. Tobacco Control 2006;15(3):270–1. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/270
18. Ferguson J. New smoke ban push. Herald Sun, Melbourne 2005:16 Feb.
19. Paul C, Mee K, Judd T, Walsh R, Tang A, Penman A, et al. Anywhere, anytime: retail access to tobacco in New South Wales and its potential impact on consumption and quitting. Social
Science & Medicine 2010;71(4):799-806. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20554363
20. Chapman S. Federal legislation at a glance. Tobacco Control Supersite. Sydney: The University of Sydney 2010, viewed 29 September 2010. Available from: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.
au/federal-legislation/
21. Houston C. Critics slam Philip Morris’ slick new smokes store. The Age, Melbourne 2007:26 Jun. Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/06/15/1181414549984.html
22. Houston C. Smoking device has Quit fuming. The Age, Melbourne 2007:10 Dec. Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/12/10/1197135374466.html
Section: 11.9.3
44
Facts and Issues
11.10
Packaging as promotion
By Michelle Scollo and Dr Becky Freeman, updated October 2012
This section explores the concept of packaging as a promotional tool (11.10.1) and describes recent trends in
the packaging of cigarettes and other tobacco products (11.10.2 and 11.10.3). It summarises the history of plain
packaging as a policy response (11.10.4). It briefly outlines research that suggests that plain packaging would
increase the effectiveness of health warnings, reduce false health beliefs about cigarettes, and reduce brand appeal
especially among youth and young adults (11.10.5). Subsection 11.10.6 describes the response to Australia’s
legislation mandating plain packaging and Subsection 11.10.7 discusses the main arguments against the legislation.
Sub sections 11.10.8 to 11.10.10 set out major milestones in adoption of the legislation, legal challenges and
international flow-on effects. Section 11.10.11 briefly describes initial responses by Australian tobacco companies
observed during the implementation period to attempt to mitigate the impact of plain packaging legislation.
11.10.1
The pack as a promotional tool
Packaging ‘act(s) as a promotional tool in its own right.’
Palmer A. The product. In Palmer, AJ, eds, In: Principles of marketing. 2000 1 p215
‘The package, sometimes referred to as the ‘silent salesman’, makes the final sales pitch, seals
the commitment and gets itself placed in the shopping trolley.’
Underwood and Ozanne Journal of Marketing Communication 1998 2 p208
‘… if you smoke, a cigarette pack is one of the few things you use regularly that makes a
statement about you. A cigarette pack is the only thing you take out of your pocket 20 times
a day and lay out for everyone to see. That’s a lot different than buying your soap powder in
generic packaging.’
Brown and Williamson employee 3 p5
The concept of a mix of marketing functions was conceived by Professor Neil Borden of the Harvard Business
School. Perhaps the best known definition of this mix is that proposed by McCarthy who talked of the ‘four Ps’
of marketing.4 In the later years of the 20th century packaging increasingly has been regarded as a fifth ‘P’ in the
marketing mix.5 Packaging differentiates brands, being particularly important in homogenous consumer products
such as cigarettes.6i It can also help to increase the appeal of the product. Colours and typeface have long been
known to elicit particular responses in consumers, often shaped by strong social and cultural forces. Imagery and
symbols also exert powerful effects, linking desirable attributes with particular brands. The world’s most popular
cigarette brand, Marlboro,7 can readily be identified through its iconic red chevron. Sociologically, a symbol acts as a
stimulus eliciting a particular response based on people’s understanding of meaning (see Jefkins, 1987, p298 8). The
heraldic coat of arms on Benson and Hedges packs for instance is an abstract wordless symbol that imparts notions of
status and attested quality.
With the advertising of tobacco increasingly banned in more and more forms throughout the world, the pack has
fast become the most important promotional vehicle for reaching potential and current smokers.9–15
The Government of Norway introduced what was the world’s most comprehensive ban on advertising in 1975, and
yet a qualitative study conducted in 2003 of young adult Norwegian smokers aged 18–23 (born five to ten years
after the ban came into place) highlights how tobacco products continue to be marketed to this demographic group
through persuasive cigarette pack design. The study showed how cigarette brands and cigarette package designs
give meaning to personal characteristics, to social identity and to positions in hierarchies of status. In the young
i
Portions of this material are drawn from: Freeman B, Chapman S and Rimmer M. Review: the case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction 2008;103:580–90. Available
from http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/tobacco-related-papers/Addiction_generic.pdf
Section: 11.10.1
Date of last update: 20 October 2012
Chapter 11: Tobacco
45
smokers’ accounts, brands appeared to add ‘an extra dimension to the social meaning of smoking in their daily
life’.16
More recently several nations have banned the open display of tobacco products in retail locations. These
jurisdictions have reasoned:
‘Power walls and counter top displays are highly visible and eye-catching. They present
an unavoidable and unfortunate spill of promotional imagery and product reminders to
vulnerable consumers including young people, former smokers … and smokers of all ages who
are trying to quit’.
Health Canada Tobacco Control Programme, 2006 17 p8
With removal of point of sale as an opportunity for promotion Philip Morris has predicted that, in the future, pack
design alone will drive brand imagery.18 Unless governments impose further restrictions on packaging, bans on the
retail display of tobacco will encourage a further shift in industry investment towards innovative pack design, with
the pack functioning as one of the last remaining vehicles for product promotion.
A long-term panel study by Moodie and Hastings19 found that packaging has been a very strong theme in the
tobacco trade press and that smokers have been particularly attentive to value-based packaging.
Pack design doesn’t just communicate the ‘personality’ of a cigarette brand to the smoker... it also allows smokers
to project these characteristics to others when they handle and display the package throughout their daily
routines.15 Just as designer clothing, accessories and cars serve as social cues to style, status, values and character,
so too can cigarette packs signify a range of attributes about users. As ‘badge products’, cigarettes can reinforce
the characteristics conjured by brand image.3,15,20–23 This behaviour not only affects the single consumer but also
exerts a powerful effect on their friends, associates and even casual contacts. Consumer theory and research has
demonstrated that incidental consumer brand encounters (ICBEs) powerfully affect buying patterns in ways in
which the consumer is not fully aware. A series of four studies by Ferraro, Bettmand and Chartrand published in
the Journal for Consumer Research in 2008 for instance found that repeated exposure to simulated ICBEs:
‘increases choice of the focal brand among people not aware of the brand exposure, that
perceptual fluency underlies these effects and these effects are moderated by perceivers
automatic responses to the type of user observed with the brand.’
Ferraro et al, Journal of Consumer Research 2008 24 p729
Hoek et al 25 describe the marketing literature concerning brands and the importance of brand imagery for young
people in the process of shaping their public persona in the world. This process of identity creation allows tobacco
manufacturers to sell status, social acceptance, glamour and adventure. Young people can use cigarettes to help
convey these attributes as part of a social persona they wish to convey to their peers.16
Individuals who place a great deal of significance on the visual aesthetics of design—Bloch, Brunel and Arnold26
refer to this as the ‘centrality of visual product aesthetics’ (CVPA)—tend to be the people who set the trends in
fashion, architecture and consumer goods. Branding and pack design would appear to be particularly important to
young people.
‘...young smokers in particular are packaging and design literate’.
Market researchers for Silk Cut brand Haslam Drury Partnership27
Unique among industries, the tobacco industry has long claimed that it has no interest in attracting new customers
(i.e. non-smokers) but is interested only in stimulating brand-switching and in maintaining brand loyalty in
current customers.28 However internal industry documents candidly acknowledge the vital importance of attracting
new (predominantly young) smokers.29–34 Young smokers are important to the long-term viability of the tobacco
industry:
‘Brands must have high penetration among young adult smokers, as success in this segment
confirms a brand’s image as ‘younger’ and ensures longer-term usage of the brand by those
consumers.’
Lambat Tobacco Reporter, February 20077
Section: 11.10.1
46
Facts and Issues
11.10.2
Packaging to increase product appeal
In the early 1900s before the advent of television, collectable cigarette cards were a major form of in-pack
promotion.35 In the latter decades of the 20th century tobacco companies recognised very quickly that greater
attention would need to be paid to packaging in an environment where advertising was becoming increasingly
restricted.36
‘In a future where increasingly the product may have to sell itself through the pack, a fuller
understanding of the way in which perception of such packs affects perception of their
contents is desirable ... imagery powerfully and measurably modifies the perceived smoking
characteristics of the cigarettes associated with it. Further research is intended to determine
both underlying bases of pack image influence (e .g . colour, pattern, etc .) and levels of
responsiveness within the consumer population to the influence of imagery.’
Ferris, British American Tobacco, 198036
Internal industry documents confirm that companies invested significant research effort into pack design in order
to communicate specific messages to specific demographic groups, including young people.15,29,37 In the early 1990s
a presenter addressing marketing staff at Philip Morris remarked that smokers:
‘ ... are ready for change’ and ‘once exposed to innovative {packaging} especially young adults
see their current packaging as dated and boring.’
Anon, 1992, Philip Morris document collection38 p2
The presenter went on to encourage…
‘Packs aimed at younger women should be ‘slick, sleek, flashy, glittery, shiny, silky, bold’.
Anon, 1992, Philip Morris document collection38 p9
The tobacco industry trade magazine, World Tobacco, contains numerous examples of frank appeals to manufacturers
to utilise packaging as an advertising vehicle.12–14,39–42 Tobacco manufacturers are advised:
‘if your brand can no longer shout from billboards, let alone from the cinema screen or the
pages of a glossy magazine … it can at least court smokers from the retailer’s shelf, or from
wherever it is placed by those already wed to it.’
Eindhoven, World Tobacco 199910 p17
One packaging firm urged tobacco companies to skirt ‘Draconian legislation’ by using pack over-wrapping to
create an in-store advertisement:
‘Where cigarette advertising is banned by law’ says the company, ‘the retailer can ‘quite
coincidentally’ stack up a kind of billboard using the products at the point of sale if, for
example, the cigarette cartons of a particular brand bear different parts of an overall design,
which complete a puzzle or a caption when stacked up.’
Anon, World Tobacco 2006 43 p38
Advances in printing technology enabled printing of on-pack imagery on the inner frame card,44 outer film
and tear tape,42 and the incorporation of holograms, collectable art, metallic finishes,43 multi-fold stickers,13
photographs, and retro images in pack design. 45,46,47 One manufacturer commented in the trade press that:
‘With the uptake of printed inner frame cards what we will increasingly see is the pack being
viewed as a total opportunity for communications—from printed outer film and tear tape
through to the inner frame and inner bundle. Each pack component will provide an integrated
function as part of a carefully planned brand or information communications campaign.’
Mawditt, World Tobacco 2006 44 p37
Moodie and Hastings19,48 and Ford, Moodie and Hastings5 in a comprehensive report for the Centre for Tobacco
Control Research at the University of Stirling49 document numerous changes in packaging evident in the British
market following the introduction of legislation that banned print and outdoor advertising, promotion and
sponsorship. Packaging strategies include:
Section: 11.10.2
Chapter 11: Tobacco
47
<< value-based packaging
<< image-based packaging
<< novel or ‘innovation’ packaging
<< ‘green’ or environmentally sustainable packaging.
Examples of each form of packaging drawn from these papers are described below together with a number of
Australian examples.
11.10.2.1
Value-based packaging
Value-based packaging has included:
<< selling products in smaller pack sizes
<< selling products in pack sizes larger than the traditional 20 cigarette and 12.5 grams of tobacco
<< revamping packaging of brands traditionally seen as ‘value’
<< simple designs which communicate ‘value-for-money’
<< price-marking (printing the price on the brand) to imply a ‘special’ low price.
Selling products in smaller pack sizes
In the United Kingdom, Imperial Tobacco has packaged small classic filter cigars in packs of five for £1.39 (The
Grocer, 2002).19 Various brands of cigarettes have been marketed in packs of 14 (for instance Camel in 2006 and
Benson and Hedges featuring the number ‘14’ in Lego-style packaging).
In Australia, the traditionally conservative John Player Premium brand (sold in Australian in packs of 35s and later
30s) was revamped and re-launched as John Player Special in packs of 25s in 2009. In late 2011, the brand was
extended to JPS Superkings sold in packs of 20s.
Selling products in pack sizes larger than the traditional 20 cigarettes and 12.5 g of
smoking tobacco
In the United Kingdom ‘supersizing’ has included Royals 24s and Golden Virginia and Amber Leaf smoking tobacco in
packs of 25 and 50 grams.
In Australia, in addition to the 30s, 35s, 40s and 50s that have been on the market for
several decades —refer Chapter 13, Section 13.3—packs have recently come onto the
market as 22s (Holiday 22s in February 2012) and 26s (Bond Street 26s, February 2012).50
Revamping packaging of brands traditionally seen as ‘value’
In the United Kingdom, examples include redesign of Gallaher’s Mayfair brand and British
American Tobacco’s Royals and Windsor Blue with a new silver logo in January 2006.
In Australia, Longbeach, traditionally a value brand, introduced a more elegant looking
Slims (first noted on price lists) in February 2010.51
Figure 11.10.1
Philip Morris Australia’s
Longbeach Slims
Source: Quit Victoria 2010
Section: 11.10.2.1
48
Facts and Issues
Simple designs which communicate ‘value-for-money’
In the United Kingdom, the Royal brand was simplified in May 2006.
In Australia, the simple packaging of Philip Morris Choice cigarettes
(introduced in 2006) supports its image as a ‘value’ brand and the simple
red packaging and name ‘Deal’ encapsulates the ‘value’ message for the
Coles home brand.
Price-marking (printing the price on the brand) to imply
a ‘special’ low price
Price-marking has not been observed in Australia, but in the United
Kingdom it has included Basic Superkings in 2005, John Player Specials and King
Edward Coronets in 2006 and Golden Virginia smoking tobacco in 2008.19
Figure 11.10.2
Deal cigarettes, imported from Germany by Coles
as a ‘home brand’ 52
11.10.2.2
Image-based packaging
Image-based marketing has included design of packs to
appeal to various segments of the market, in particular
younger and female smokers.
Companies in both the United Kingdom and Australia
redesigned the livery of many brands between 2004 and
2010. Moodie and Hastings have compiled extensive
materials highlighting changes in brands documented
Figure 11.10.3 in the British advertising trade press over that period.19
British brand, Royals, with bonus 4 cigarettes, and price-marked John
Gallaher’s Silk Cut released a new Slims variant in eyePlayer Specials
catching packaging which featured an embossed Silk Cut
Source: Moodie and Hastings48
logo in the brand’s trademark purple. In March 2005 The
Grocer magazine noted that Hamlet’s new Smooth variant
heralded ‘a new era’ of packaging design. In June 2006 The Convenience Store magazine noted the introduction of
new pack design in the Richmond cigarette range. Shortly afterwards Imperial Tobacco unveiled a new pack design
for Embassy No 1, replacing the traditional red and maroon stripe with a figure ‘One’. The Forecourt Trader reported
in August 2008 that two of Imperial Tobacco’s top brands, Windsor Blue and Golden Virginia were to be redesigned,
Windsor Blue with a more vibrant blue colour and silver lettering to suggest premium status, and Golden Virginia in a
new metallic pack. In October 2008 also in the United Kingdom, The Forecourt Trader reported that Benson and Hedges
was to feature five different gold-themed designs—Gold Disc, Gold Standard, Gold Mine, Gold Rush and Gold
Credit Card. In the same month, Off Licence News reported that Camel packaging was to add an embossed logo and
refreshed imagery to appeal to ‘style conscious adult smokers in urban areas’.19
In January 2009, The Grocer reported that Gallahar was ‘tweaking’ the design of Benson & Hedges Gold and Silver in
the United Kingdom. The redesigned brands featured a modernised typeface and logo. And the brands’ red seal
was replaced with a new triangle design.19 In Australia subtle changes to cigarette packs and trademarks were also
observed on Benson & Hedges packs as early as 2002.53 When researchers called the company to enquire about the
changes, an employee said they were ‘playing with the logo because we can’t do any advertising any more’ (p154).53
One of the most striking examples of package re-design is that of Dunhill. In June 2005 in the United Kingdom,
The Grocer magazine reported that a new Dunhill logo had been created and that the royal coat of arms had been
simplified and reduced in size.54 According to the article, Dunhills’ rebranding included a new look and taste aimed
at 20–35 year old smokers. The packaging was designed to give a modern aspirational image.19, 54
Section: 11.10.2.2
Chapter 11: Tobacco
49
British American Tobacco Australia also experimented extensively with packaging for Dunhill in Australia since
2006. Over the years, conservative packaging for Dunhill was replaced with a slick, contemporary metallic range of
packs similar to the material used in ultra-modern consumer goods such as I-pods.
Figure 11.10.4a Figure 11.10.4b. Original style Dunhill cigarettes compared with updated
metallic Dunhill packs, purchased Australia 2010
Updated metallic Dunhill packs, full set,
purchased Australia 2010
Source: Simon Chapman collection and Quit Victoria
Source: Quit Victoria
An exceptionally small pack containing 20 small cigarettes, Dunhill Essence, came onto the market in Australia in
early 2007. Resembling a slim-line package of scent and containing super-slim cigarettes, the brand appeared to be
targeted at young females. This brand extension remained on price lists until January 2012.50
Figure 11.10.5 Dunhill packs, Premier Red (left) compared with Dunhill Essence Red, purchased 2010 and Dunhill Essence Red in packs and in tins (right)
New package formats and collectable series with special packaging
apparently aimed at a more youthful market were vigorously
promoted to retailers—see Figures 11.10. 12 and 11.10.13.
Targeting younger and female smokers
Several other brands sold in Australia are quite clearly designed
to appeal to young female smokers—tall, slim packets of Vogue
Superslims by British American Tobacco and Davidoff with its
elegantly bevelled edge sold by Imperial Tobacco, both imported
from Germany, being notable examples.
Other brands would seem to appeal to an even younger female
market. Trojan Tobacco Company’s DJ Mix Special Feel Strawberry
(pictured at the bottom right below), Lemon Fresh and Ice Green
Apple appeared in the Australian Retail Tobacconist price lists between
Figure 11.10.6 Female brands Davidoff, Vogue Superslims and Dunhill
Essence
Source: Quit Victoria, August 2011
Section: 11.10.2.2
50
Facts and Issues
August 2005 and January 2012.50 Peel Menthol Orange flavoured
cigarettes (top left) appeared between August 2005 and January
2009. Sobranie brightly coloured novelty cocktail cigarettes (each
cigarette a different colour) appeared on price lists in February 2007
and was still listed in July 2012.55 Red Fortune Bamboo manufactured
by Imperial Tobacco with its ‘Asian chic’ package design was
introduced early in 2011.56
11.10.2.3
Novel packaging (sometimes called gimmick
packaging)
As cited by Ford, Moodie and
Hastings:5
Figure 11.10.7 Novelty brands Trojan Tobacco’s Peel Menthol Orange
and DJ Mix and Sobranie Cocktail cigarettes; Imperial
Tobacco’s Davidoff (top right) and Red Fortune Bamboo
(bottom left)
‘Jugger (1999) argues that the best way to obtain competitive
advantage in an overloaded consumer goods market is
Source: Quit Victoria August 2011
through innovation in packaging. Innovative packaging
is thought to change perceptions and create new market
positions (Rundh 2005) and represents a shift in focus from
graphic design towards the structural design of packaging (van den Beg-Weitzel and van de
Larr, 2006)’
Ford, Moodie and Hastings, 20125 p 341
Moodie and Hasting19 and Ford, Moodie and Hastings5 outline numerous innovations in packaging design:
<< Novel ways of opening the pack
<< Novel shaped and sized packs
<< Novel pack materials
<< Themed packs to encourage collection of sets.
Novel ways of opening the pack
British trade magazine, Convenience Store reported in 2006 that Benson and Hedges had introduced a silver pack which
replaced the conventional flip top box with a pack that slid open horizontally, to which manufacturer Gallahar
later attributed a 46.5% increase in sales of that brand.5 In the same month, The Forecourt Trader reported that Golden
Virginia smoking tobacco had been launched in 14 gram cigarettestyle box packs, each containing two individually wrapped blocks of
tobacco. The design allowed the box to hold rolling papers, filter tips
and lighter once one of the blocks was removed.
British American Tobacco Australia introduced split Dunhill packs
in October 2006.57 The pack could be split along a perforated line
to create two mini packs, easily shared between two smokers
perhaps unable to afford a full pack (Figure 11.10.8). Once split,
one of the two packs did not bear the mandatory graphic health
warning. British American Tobacco Australia was forced to remove
the packets from the market when it was found to be in breach
of tobacco product labelling laws.58 It also marketed a range with
spring-loaded lids with internal pop-ups as well as double-sided
cases.
A study by Borland, Savvas, Sharkie and Moore conducted in
Australia in 201159 found significant differences between packs of
different shapes on attractiveness, perceived quality and distraction
Section: 11.10.2.3
Figure 11.10.8 Split package of Dunhill cigarettes
Source: ASH Australia, 2006
Chapter 11: Tobacco
51
from graphic health warnings. Standard packs were ranked less attractive and of lower quality than bevelled and
rounded packs. Standard packs were less distracting to health warnings and pack openings were perceived as
different on quality of cigarettes contained and extent of distraction to warnings. The standard flip-top was rated
significantly lower in distracting from warnings than all other openings.
Novel pack materials
Convenience Store reported in September 2006 that Amber Leaf tobacco would be available in the United Kingdom in
retro-style tins. Special edition Lambert & Butler tobacco has also been sold in tins.19
In February 2006, one month prior to the adoption of picture-based warnings on tobacco packages in Australia,
Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes were being sold in ‘trendy retro-style tins’ which, unlike soft packets of cigarettes with onpack printed warnings, had health warning stickers that were easily peeled off (p151)60 (Figure 11.10.9). Retailers
reported that the tins were very popular with younger smokers.
Figure 11.10.9 Figure 11.10.10 Peter Stuyvesant cigarettes packed in a tin container with a removable
warning
Peter Stuyvesant without the label, and Winfield and Dunhill Essence, also
sold in tins
Source: ASH Australia, 2006
Novel pack shapes and sizes
Convenience Store reported in March 2007 that British brand Silk Cut Graphite would be sold in a
pack with a silver bevel edge designed to give a masculine appeal. The Grocer in November 2008
introduced a limited edition pack in a hexagonal shape.19 Later Silk Cut was released in textured
packaging as a ‘touch’ pack (Off Licence News 2010 cited in Ford, Hastings and Moodie).5
Production of limited edition series
In the United Kingdom, images of motor car racing on limited edition packs of Marlboro were noted in June 2005.5
The Sovereign brand was produced in a series of ‘Cityscapes’ themed designs in 2009. In May 2006 Camel Art packs
featured an eye-catching art-deco design attempting to emphasise the style and quality of the brand.61 In May
2008, Off Licence News reported that Lambert & Butler had produced a special edition holographic pack to mark 10
years as one of the leading cigarette brands in the United Kingdom.62 In January 2009, The Forcourt Trader reported
Section: 11.10.2.3
52
Facts and Issues
that Golden Virginia smoking
tobacco was being sold in a
series of limited-edition 14
gram packs featuring eight
different leaf designs.63
Winfield experimented with
limited edition packs in
Australia with its ‘blokey’
series in 2004, then again
with its summer series in
2010.
Dunhill also experimented
with limited edition series
such as the Signature
series, and the My Mixture
collectable set.
Figure 11.10.11 Winfield limited edition series, 2004 and circa 2010
Source: Quit Victoria, 2010
Figure 11.10.12 Dunhill Signature series and My Mixture series
Section: 11.10.2.3
Chapter 11: Tobacco
53
Figure 11.10.13 Dunhill My Mixture series
In India in 2012, Imperial Tobacco Company introduced
collector packs for the Flake brand featuring artwork by
prominent artist Paresh Maity.64
11.10.2.4
Green environmentally friendly packaging
Ford, Moodie and Hastings document a number of cases
of sustainable packaging, for instance use of papers from
plantation forests.5 In the United Kingdom, Rizla rolling
papers are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council
(FSC), with the scheme’s logo marked on packaging.i5
Figure 11.10.14 Collector packs with artwork by Paresh Maity, produced by Imperial
Tobacco Company in India in 2012
Source: Reproduced with the kind permission of the Business Standard, India
11.10.3
Package design to distract from
consumer information
Packaging design can distract from consumer information in at least two ways: first by communicating information
about harm other than that prescribed by legislation, and secondly by distracting from health warnings.
11.10.3.1
Packaging that conveys varying levels of harm
The descriptive terms ‘light’ and ‘mild’ were removed from packs in Australia in 2005 following settlement of
legal action concerning misleading advertising by tobacco companies initiated by the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission—see Chapter 16, Section 16.2.1. The industry responded by developing colour-coded
packages with new terms:
i
See http://www.imperial-tobacco.com/index.asp?page=646
Section: 11.10.3.1
54
Facts and Issues
‘Now your Horizon customers can get their favourite brand in an exciting new look pack. With
new descriptors and clearer numbers all our packs are much easier to identify. Research proves
that your customers will find the new pack more appealing and a lot easier to recognize’.
King and Borland 2005,65 p214 citing Imperial Tobacco Australia advertisement in the Australian Retail
Tobacconist66
Figure 11.10.15 British American Tobacco’s Winfield 25s and Philip Morris Australia’s Peter Jackson 30s
in full range of variants, 2010
11.10.3.2
Overshadowing or camouflaging health warnings
International packaging manufacturers and designers remained optimistic about opportunities to increase the
appeal of cigarette packs despite the intrusive health warnings starting to be introduced in many countries from the
early 2000s—see Chapter 12A1 Health warnings, Section 12A1.2.
In January 2006, packaging consultant Christian Rommel wrote in the World Tobacco magazine of several possible
approaches to dealing with the ‘eyesore that is the death notice’... ‘First, to ignore it, second to conceal it, third, to
caricature it.’ With regard to the first option, he writes:
‘... in order to produce an attractive counterpoint to the omnipresent and gloomy warning
statements, designers dig deep into the refinement box. Working with elaborate blind or
imprinted laminations, special neon, metallic or fluorescent colourings, pearlescent print
underneath or overprinting, iridescent laminations, haptically appealing serigraphy, threedimensional holograms, solid-coloured papers or even cuttings.’
Rommel, World Tobacco January 2006 14 p 17
With regard to the second option Rommel describes concealing the pack through ‘labels or carton covers in the
necessary size, colour format and design’ or by offering for sale refillable ‘plastic, aluminium or leather cigarettes
cases for an extra charge.’ 14 p17
Regarding the third option—caricature—Rommel states:
Is it even acceptable to make fun of the health warnings? Is it politically correct to ridicule
them? Is it allowed to make persiflage of these warnings which with respect to human health
are absolutely justified? Obviously the act of smoking involves playing with fire, but do we
really need to utilize this fact in the package design? On the other hand, why not?’
Rommel’s proposed solution to the problem of the health warnings is to ‘actively engage with its limitations’.
Section: 11.10.3.2
Chapter 11: Tobacco
55
‘The motto could read: “Do not exclude but incorporate.” The health warnings could be used as
elements within the design. Instead of desperately trying to ignore or conceal them, it could be
an entirely novel approach to engage creatively with them.’
‘It might even be the case that the force of government legislation will bring about an entirely
new breed of fascinating cigarettes packages that might once again be worth collecting.’
The package design of many major
brands in Australia changed subtly in
typeface, colour or design in or shortly
after 2006, following the introduction
of graphic health warnings taking up
30% of the front of cigarette packs—see
Chapter 12A.1 Health warnings.
In line with Rommel’s proposition,
several brands included slogans on
packaging which appeared to flout the
idea of reducing risks to health, for
instance the inclusion of the ‘Force
No Friend; Fear No Foe’ motto on the
side of Winfield packs newly designed
in 2010. The motto ‘I Force No Friend;
I Fear No Foe’ previously appeared in
earlier pack designs (in packs bearing
the 1996-style warnings) in very small
lettering underneath the Winfield crest.
Figure 11.10.16 Winfield Extra Mild, later known as Winfield Blues (top selling brand in Australia), purchased
Carlton Melbourne Australia circa 1993, 2008 and July 2012
Source: Cancer Council Victoria collection
Figure 11.10.17 ‘Force No Friend, Fear No Foe’ motto printed underneath the Winfield crest in the
1996 pack design, and more prominently on the side of the pack in this Winfield
Blue, purchased July 2012
Source: Quit Victoria collection
Section: 11.10.3.2
56
Facts and Issues
11.10.4
Plain packaging as a solution to the misleading and promotional
power of packaging
The idea of plain packaging was first conceived in Canada in the late 1980s during a legal challenge to Canadian
legislation banning tobacco advertising. Tobacco control advocates were struck by testimony of an Imperial
Tobacco executive who agreed during questioning that smokers were generally unable to discriminate between
brands when blind-tested and that packaging was vital.67
‘It’s very difficult for people to discriminate blind-tested. Put it in a package and put a name on
it, then it has a lot of product characteristics’.
Aubin, British American Tobacco 1989 67 p1
This corroborated an earlier comment by a British American Tobacco official that:
‘ ... one of every two smokers is not able to distinguish in blind (masked) tests between similar
cigarettes … for most smokers and the decisive group of new, younger smokers, the consumer’s
choice is dictated more by psychological, image factors than by relatively minor differences in
smoking characteristics.’
British American Tobacco 1978 68 p5
Proposals for plain packaging were put to governments on several occasions over the following two decades.
In its comprehensive review of the impact of tobacco promotion on tobacco use, the Department of Health’s
Toxic Substances Board recommended in 1989 that cigarettes be sold in New Zealand in white packs with simple
black text and no colours or logos.69 New Zealand health advocates in 199069 noted that restrictions in tobacco
advertising would only be partly successful as the ‘pack itself is a powerful form of advertising’.69
In Australia in 1992, the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer recommended on the basis of its findings
about the impact of packaging on the effectiveness of warnings that ‘regulations be extended to cover the colours,
design and wording of the entire exterior of the pack’ (p18).70 In 1995, Canadians Cunningham and Kyle argued
for the plain, ‘generic’ packaging of tobacco products, stressing that the pack was a key promotional vehicle and as
such should be subject to the same controls that apply to all forms of tobacco advertising.71
Plain packaging was advocated by several New Zealand public health specialists in 2008.72 In 2008, the Australian
national Preventative Health Taskforce included recommendations for plain packaging in its draft discussion
paper outlining a range of possible measures to make Australia the healthiest country in the world by 2020.73,74
The proposal was included in the strategy released in 2009.75 Late in 2009, in an editorial concerning one of the
numerous studies published between 2008 and 2011—see Section 11.10.5— Moodie and Hastings76 called for the
introduction of plain packs of identical shape, method of opening, base colour, devoid of ‘all’ promotional items.
At their meeting 17–22 November 2008, Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control adopted
guidelines on advertising and package labelling that recommend the use of plain packaging.77
Commentators suggested that plain packaging would require the removal of all brand imagery from cigarette
packs, permitting manufacturers to only print the brand name in a mandated size, font and place, in addition
to health warnings and other legally required product information such as toxic constituents, tax-paid seals,
or package contents.71 The size and shape of the package would also need to be regulated in order to outlaw
novelty pack shapes. All Australian states and territories already prohibit sale of single cigarettes and mandate
the minimum number of cigarettes in a pack (20 cigarettes), reasoning that small packs, being less expensive, are
more attractive to youth. Advocates argued that plain packaging should encompass pack interiors and the cigarette
itself, given the demonstrated potential for manufacturers to use colours, bandings and markings and different
length and gauges to make cigarettes more ‘interesting’ and appealing. Legislation to mandate plain packaging that
covered all aspects of cigarette and pack design would, advocates argued, effectively standardise the appearance of
all cigarette packages and cigarettes, greatly reducing the status-signalling roles and appeal of cigarettes.78
Section: 11.10.4
Chapter 11: Tobacco
57
11.10.5
Predicted effects of plain packaging
As plain packaging has never before been legislated prior to 2011, evidence about the possible impact had been
necessarily derived from experimental studies where subjects were typically presented with both branded and
mocked-up plain packs and asked about associations and preferences.
In 1995, an expert panel provided to the Canadian Department of Health a comprehensive review of the likely
effects of plain packaging entitled When Packages Can’t Speak: Possible Impacts of Plain and Generic Packaging of Tobacco
Products.79
To that time, four studies had been conducted on plain packaging of cigarettes:
<< the so-called Marlboro study (Trachtenberg, 1987)80
<< the New Zealand study (Beede and Lawson, 1991and 199281, 82; Beede et. al., 199083)
<< the Australian study (Centre for Behavioral Research in Cancer, 1992)84 and
<< the University of Toronto study (Centre for Health Promotion, 1993).85
The expert panel found that all four studies produced some evidence to support the hypothesis that plain and
generic packaging made cigarettes less attractive and appealing. No comparable study providing contrary evidence
was known to exist.79
The research objectives of the Canadian expert panel were:
<< to assess the potential impact of plain and generic packaging of cigarettes on the likelihood of smoking uptake
<< to assess the potential impact of plain and generic packaging of cigarettes on the recognition and recall of health
warning messages on cigarette packages
<< to assess the potential impact of plain and generic packaging of cigarettes on the likelihood of cessation of
smoking
<< to evaluate alternative designs for plain and generic packaging of cigarettes in terms of their potential impact on
the uptake or cessation of smoking
<< to project possible industry responses to plain and generic packaging by examining historical evidence
and theory of competition regarding the actions of companies in industries characterized by increasing
commoditisation.
To tackle these five overall objectives, the expert panel conceived, conducted and analysed findings of a battery of
six different studies employing five methodological approaches.79
Study 1) National Survey of Adolescents
2) Word Image Survey 3) Visual Image Experiment 4) Recall and Recognition Experiment 5) Conjoint Experiment 6) Analysis of Industry Effects Method
Survey - direct questioning / within-subject design
Survey - direct questioning / within-subject design
Experiment - direct questioning / within and between-subject design
Experiment - direct questioning / between-subject design
Experiment - indirect questioning / within-subject design
Analysis of precedents of industry competitive and strategy activities in commodity industries
The national survey of adolescents demonstrated that teenagers were highly aware of cigarette brands. Around
90% were able to recognise the two major Canadian brands even when brand names were removed from
packaging, with experimenters on average able to recognise 2.9 brands and regular/frequent smokers 5.9 brands.
For all brands, ‘package approaches’ were the first thing mentioned by the majority of respondents who correctly
identified the brand as methods by which companies promoted awareness of brands. While teenagers rarely admit
to the likelihood of promotional strategies affecting them, a surprisingly large proportion reported that having
cigarettes available only in plain packaging would bother them a lot (23.8%). Many respondents believed that
having cigarettes available only in plain and generic packages would have an effect on the number of teenagers who
would start smoking. More than one third (35.8%) believed that a few less would start smoking and 13.5% believed
that a lot fewer would start smoking. Almost forty per cent (38.2%) believed that plain packaging would prompt
more teenagers to stop smoking.79
Section: 11.10.5
58
Facts and Issues
The word image survey aimed to assess the associations teenagers made about products and about smokers
through comparing the packaging of a popular and less well-known brand to plain packaging. The current,
branded packaging was associated with a more positive image than the plain white packaging. The researchers
concluded that while plain packaging would not reduce the ability of teenagers to use cigarettes to convey an image
of being a teen smoker, packaging cigarettes in plain and generic packages would reduce the abilities of brands to
differentiate themselves from each other and therefore the ability to link personal image with the brand. To the
extent that teens attempt to use a particular cigarette brand as a badge of their own self-image, a particular brand
would become a less useful instrument.79,86
The visual image experiment indicated that teens are much less likely to associate specific brands with specific
personal characteristics when packs are plain, and even less so when plain packs also featured a photo of a lung.79
The researchers conclude that:
Denuding cigarette packages of major elements of their brand markings (other than
their name) appears to limit teenagers’ capacity to associate specific images with specific
brands. Under these circumstances, these brands lose their badge value and self-defining
characteristics. When these characteristics represent key motivators in teenagers’ decisions to
smoke, then it seems reasonable to conclude that plain and generic packaging can be a useful
strategy in attempting to demarket cigarettes to teenagers because it would make it more
difficult to build or maintain brand equity.
Canadian Expert panel report 79 Section 6.3.4, p 101
The recall experiment found that at least one warning, ‘Smoking can kill you,’ was better remembered when it was
on the plain package where the rest of the package had fewer ‘competing’ messages. The teens favourite brand, du
Maurier, was recalled less when it was in a plain package as opposed to the familiar red package.
Conjoint analysis is a multivariate technique used specifically to understand how consumers develop preferences
for products and services based on the simple premise that consumers evaluate the utility of a product or service
idea (real or hypothetical) by combining the separate amounts of utility provided by each attribute. While price
was found to be the most important contributor to decisions about smoking, researchers concluded that plain
packaging would also influence decisions about uptake of smoking and quitting.
On the basis of a detailed analysis of the findings of all five of these studies—see chart 1, pages 152–5—, the expert
panel concluded:
Virtually all the findings of these five studies converge on the following conclusions: Plain and
generic packaging of tobacco products (all other things being equal), through its impact on
image formation and retention, recall and recognition, knowledge, and consumer attitudes
and perceived utilities, would likely depress the incidence of smoking uptake by non-smoking
teens, and increase the incidence of smoking cessation by teen and adult smokers. This impact
would vary across the population. The extent of change in incidence is impossible to assess
except through field experiments conducted over time.
Canadian Expert Panel report 79 p158
Since the Canadian expert review, further research has been conducted in Canada,87–91 Australia,92–96 the United
Kingdom, 49,97–102 New Zealand25,103,104 France105 and Norway.106 This research has focussed on the effects of plain
packaging on awareness, recall and impact of health warnings,82,84,90,104 on perceptions of riskiness of tobacco
products,91,98 and of the appeal of brands and products.25,81,83,87,92–94,101,103,105
In a review of evidence on the effects of plain packaging conducted up to 2009, Hammond concluded:107
Tobacco packaging and labeling policies have emerged as prominent and cost-effective tobacco
control measures. Although packaging policies have primarily focused on health warnings,
there is growing recognition of the importance of packaging as a marketing tool for the
tobacco industry. The current paper reviews evidence on the potential impact of standardizing
the color and design of tobacco packages—so called ‘plain’ packaging. The evidence indicates
three primary benefits of plain packaging: increasing the effectiveness of health warnings,
reducing false health beliefs about cigarettes, and reducing brand appeal especially among
youth and young adults. Overall, the research to date suggests that ‘plain’ packaging
Section: 11.10.5
Chapter 11: Tobacco
59
regulations would be an effective tobacco control measure, particularly in jurisdictions with
comprehensive restrictions on other forms of marketing.
Hammond, 2010 107 pS226
A systematic review of the literature including all of the studies above published up to 2011 and including a
number of unpublished manuscripts (not cited here) was published in 2012 to assist the British government with
consultation on its proposal to introduce standardised packaging in the United Kingdom.108 The literature review
analyses the findings of 37 studies in detail and provides a full technical commentary on the strength of the
evidence for plain packaging.
Findings of some of the major studies are described below.
11.10.5.1
Effects of plain packaging on effectiveness of health warnings
Plain packaging research shows consistently that pack brand imagery distracts from and therefore reduces the
impact of health warnings. Students have an enhanced ability to recall health warnings on plain packs.82,90 Health
warnings on plain packs are seen as being more serious than the same warnings on branded packs, suggesting that
brand imagery diffuses the overall impact of health warnings.89 A multi-country survey examining the effectiveness
of warnings showed that smokers in Canada, who were at the time of the study exposed to large, picture-based
warnings, were significantly more likely to report thinking about the health risks of smoking, to stop themselves
from having a cigarette, and to think about quitting because of the health warnings.109 The same study also showed
that the larger and more prominent a health warning, the more likely it was to be recalled. Plain packaging
would free up more space on the pack that could be used for larger health warnings and other consumer health
information.
An eye-tracking study by Munafo and colleagues found that among non-smokers and non-daily cigarette smokers,
plain packaging appeared to increase visual attention towards health warning information and away from brand
information.99 Research commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing to assist
with specification of design of plain packaging also detected greater attention to health warnings with increasingly
plainer packaging.110
11.10.5.2
Effects of plain packaging on perceptions of harmfulness
Unregulated package colouring and imagery contributes to consumer misperceptions that ‘light and mild’ brands
are safer.15,18,91,111 The colour of the pack is also associated with perceptions of risk and brand appeal. Compared with
Marlboro packs with a red logo, Marlboro packs with a gold logo were rated as a lower health risk by 53% and easier
to quit by 31% of adult smokers in a British study.98 Researchers concluded that removing colours from packs (plain
packaging), as well as terms such as ‘smooth’ ‘gold’ and ‘silver’ would significantly reduce false beliefs and increase
compliance with existing legislation. In an on-line study of young adults aged 10–17 years in the United Kingdom,
lighter coloured packs were typically viewed as the ‘least harmful’.101 In another on-line survey involving 947
16- to 19-year-old female subjects in the United Kingdom, participants were randomised to view 10 cigarette packs
designed according to one of four experimental conditions: fully branded female packs, the same packs without
descriptor words, the same packs without brand imagery or descriptors (‘plain’ packs), and branded non-female
brands. Plain packs were associated with fewer false beliefs about health risks compared with branded packs.
Removing brand descriptors from packs significantly reduced measures of appeal and taste, particularly for brands
with flavour descriptors, such as ‘cherry’ and ‘vanilla’.102
Research conducted for the Australian Government96 indicated that plain packs in the darker candidate colours
being tested were perceived as being harder to quit and more harmful to health than branded packs, particularly
those currently in lighter colours.
Section: 11.10.5.2
60
Facts and Issues
11.10.5.3
Effects of plain packaging on appeal of
products
The appeal of tobacco products can be understood in terms
of the appeal of the pack, perceptions about the sensory
appeal of the product (in terms of taste, smoothness etc)
and the types or characteristics of people likely to use
particular brands.
An Australian study published in 2008 involving more
than 800 adult smokers examined the effects on the appeal
of tobacco products when progressively reducing the
amount of pack branding design information. As illustrated
in Figure 11.10.18, the plainest packs were seen as less
attractive (brand/pack characteristic), smokers of the
packs were seen as significantly less stylish and sociable
(smoker characteristic) and the cigarettes in the packs were
thought to be less satisfying and of lower quality (sensory
perception).93
65
60
55
50
45
Positive
pack
attributes
Positive
sensory
features
Positive
smoker
attributes
40
Figure 11.10.18 Level of attractiveness of increasingly plainer tobacco packaging
Source: Wakefield et al 200893
A similarly designed study involving adolescents published
in 2009 found that progressively removing brand elements such as colour, branded fonts and non-health warning
or brand imagery from cigarette packs, resulted in adolescent smokers seeing packs as less appealing, having more
negative expectations of cigarette taste and rating attributes of a typical smoker of the pack less positively.94
A Canadian study published online in 2011 examined the effects of removal of brand imagery on young female
smokers aged 18–25 years.112 Participants were asked to view female-oriented brands as currently packaged; images
of the same packs with brand names but without descriptors; the same brand without brand imagery or descriptors
in plain white colouring; and fully branded non-female brands. They were then asked to rate each pack for appeal,
taste, health risks and tar levels. The highest-rated female pack, Capri Cherry, was rated ‘more appealing than other
brands’ by almost 67% of participants. The researchers found that removing descriptors and colours from packs
substantially reduced the appeal of female-oriented brands for female smokers: for example, the appeal of Capri
Cherry fell from 67% to 17% among women who viewed plain packs without the word ‘Cherry’. Plain packs were
also associated with significantly fewer positive characteristics than fully branded packs, including glamour, being
slim, popular, attractive and sophisticated.112
Of particular note, young women in the plain pack condition were significantly less likely to believe that smoking
helps people stay slim compared to participants in the no descriptors condition (β=−0.31, p=0.03).
A small naturalistic pilot study in Glasgow in Scotland (n=18) in which smokers used their own cigarettes in
brown plain packs constructed by the researchers found that in comparison with branded packaging, plain
packaging increased negative perceptions and feelings about the pack and about smoking.100
‘ Plain packaging also increased avoidant behaviour (hiding the pack, covering the pack),
certain smoking cessation behaviours, such as smoking less around others and forgoing
cigarettes, and thinking about quitting. Almost half (n=8) of those in the post-study interview,
predominantly women (n=6), reported that the use of plain packs had either increased
avoidant behaviour or reduced consumption.’
Moodie et al, 2011100 p 367
A study of adult smokers and non-smokers in France using computer-assisted personal interviewing found
that plain packs were less likely than regular packs and particularly limited edition packs (with novel designs or
innovations) to be considered attractive, attention grabbing and likely to motivate youth purchase. 105 Plain packs
were also rated as the most effective in convincing non-smokers not to start and smokers to reduce consumption
and quit.
Section: 11.10.5.3
Chapter 11: Tobacco
61
Table 11.10.1 Pack ratings of appeal, taste, tar level and health risk for individual packs (n=512)
‘A little’ or ‘a lot’ more appealing than other brands (percentage agreement)
Standard
66.7a
66.0a
60.3a
60.3a
55.3a
47.5
38.3
27.7
No descriptors
64.0b
52.0a
56.8
49.6a
46.0b
35.2
31.5
29.6
Plain
16.5ab
14.8a
44.3a
14.8a
19.7ab
36.9
31.7
21.3
‘A little’ or ‘a lot’ better taste than other brands (percentage agreement)
Standard
58.2a
58.9a
22.7
17.0
31.9a
24.8
9.9
10.0
No descriptors
26.4a
28a
31.2
20.8
23.4
25.8
12.9
17.7
Plain
8.2a
5.7a
19.4
12.3
15.6a
23.4
9.0
14.5
‘A little’ or ‘a lot’ less tar than other brands (percentage agreement)
Standard
9.2
9.9
14.9
3.5
16.3
14.9
14.9
3.6
No descriptors
17.6a
12.1
20.0a
8.0
18.4
16.8
8.8
7.2
Plain
7.4a
9.9
10.7a
9.0
12.4
13.9
13.1
5.7
‘A little’ or ‘a lot’ less health risk than other brands (percentage agreement)
Standard
5.7
5.0
5.0a
2.1
7.8
7.1
7.1
0.7
No descriptors
12.8a
8.8
14.4ab
5.6
9.6
9.6
5.6
7.2
Plain
3.3a
4.1
6.6b
6.6
4.1
8.2
8.2
4.1
Note: Letters are used to indicate statistical significance between values in the same column. Values with the same letter are significantly different at the p<0.05 level.
Source: Doxey and Hammond, Tobacco Control 2011112
More than half of the young people in an on-line study of British teenagers aged 10–17 years indicated that
product packaging was an ‘important’ or ‘very important’ influence in young people’s choice of cigarettes.101 Narrow
perfume style packs and slide packs that opened from the side were noted as particularly attractive. Plain packs
were rated as unattractive by more than 90 per cent of participants. More than two-thirds agreed that the users of
plain packs could be described as ‘unfashionable’ or ‘old’.
The research study conducted for the Australian Government to guide the development of plain packaging
legislation96 indicated that plain packs in the darker candidate colours being tested were perceived as containing
cigarettes of lower quality and ones that smokers would be less likely to consider smoking (Study 4).96
In a series of focus groups exploring brand symbolism and social identity among young adult smokers in New
Zealand, Hoek et al25 used thematic analysis of transcript data to explore how plain packaging would affect the
symbolic status of cigarette brands. They concluded that replacing branding with larger health warnings weakened
the social benefits that brands conferred on users. Plain packaging undermined the aspirational connotations of
cigarette brands by breaking the connection between the brand and desirable social attributes and admired social
groups.25
Hammond et al’s on-line study of young female smokers published in 2012102 found that plain packs were
significantly less likely than fully or partially branded products to be associated with positive images, such as
glamour, sophistication, and slimness. Most importantly, ‘respondents were significantly less likely to accept a pack
of cigarettes when offered only plain versus branded packs’. 102 p1
Section: 11.10.5.3
62
Facts and Issues
11.10.5.4
Combined effect of plain packaging and health warnings on product appeal
Might it be possible to reduce product appeal without resorting to plain packaging, just by increasing the size of the
health warning?
A New Zealand study published in Tobacco Control in 2010103 examined the combined effects of health warnings and
plain packaging on the appeal of tobacco products. Packs with the greatest number of branding elements were still
preferred even with a 50% warning but were less likely to be chosen with a 75% warning. Plain packs with 75%
health warnings were significantly more likely to elicit cessation-linked behaviours than were branded packs with
the current 30% front-of-pack warnings.
Is there any advantage in requiring health warnings larger than 75% of the front of the pack?
An Australian study funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, results of which were presented
at the 2011 meeting of the Society for Research in Tobacco and Nicotine and later published in the journal
Addiction, further examined the impact of plain packaging and health warnings on pack appeal95.95 Consistent with
previous research,93 plain packaging was found to decrease taste expectations and the positive image of brands and
increase the negative aspects of brand image, and reduce purchase intention. While larger health warnings have
been found to be more noticeable, memorable and likely to elicit cessation-related attitudes and behaviours—refer
Section A12.1—, this study found that removing the colour and design features of packaging was more effective
than increasing health warnings in reducing the appeal of brands. Once packs were plain, increasing the size of
health warnings beyond a certain point (from 75 to 90%) did not further reduce brand appeal.
11.10.6
Australian announcement of plain packaging legislation
On 29 April 2010, in what was heralded as a new benchmark in global leadership for tobacco control,113 the
Australian Government announced that it would be developing legislation to introduce mandatory plain packaging
of tobacco products in 2012.114 The announcement was part of the Government’s response to the National
Preventative Health Taskforce which recommended a range of initiatives to reduce tobacco smoking, under 11 key
action areas. Recommendation 5.2.1 called for the Government to end promotion of tobacco products through
package design.75 It also followed consideration by the Senate Community Affairs Committee of a private member’s
bill to mandate plain packaging brought forward by Senator Steve Fielding.115
The Australian Government’s response to the national Preventative Health Taskforce recommendations114 specified
that the intent of the legislation, would be to:
<< increase the noticeability, recall and impact of health warning messages
<< reduce the ability of packaging to mislead consumers to believe that some products may be less harmful than
others
<< reduce the attractiveness of the tobacco product, for both adults and children
<< reduce the appeal and desirability of smoking generally.
On 7 April 2011, the Australian Government released a consultation paper116 and draft exposure legislation117 prior
to introduction of the bill in the Australian Parliament on 6 July 2011.118 Extensive research was undertaken to
determine the optimal specifications for packaging and warnings.110
11.10.6.1
Health sector response to proposed legislation
The Australian Government’s announcement about its intention to introduce plain packaging received
overwhelming support from the health sector, with spokespeople describing the announcement as ‘the most
Section: 11.10.6.1
Chapter 11: Tobacco
63
important national development in tobacco control since tobacco advertising was banned in the ’90s119 and
commenting that it was ‘difficult to exaggerate the importance’ of such reforms.113,120
11.10.6.2
Financial market response
While health groups and experts praised the move, financial markets appeared to view the legislation as a big risk
for industry profitability. Investment bank Citigroup, immediately issued a statement expressing the view that
plain packaging was the ‘biggest regulatory threat to the industry, as packaging is the most important way tobacco
companies have to communicate with the consumer and differentiate their products.’121
11.10.6.3
Response from retail groups
During the Australian federal election campaign in August 2010 a newly formed retail sector organisation, the
Alliance of Australian Retailers, launched a counter mass-media campaign with the goal of stopping the plain
packaging legislation.122 Advertisements featuring portrayals of concerned retailers saying that plain packaging
would not work and would damage their business appeared nationally in newspapers, on television and radio.i
Figure 11.10.19
Advertisements placed by the Alliance of Australian Retailers in Melbourne Age and other Australian newspapers, 20 April to early May 2011
Days after the launch of the campaign, major retailers withdrew their support. The Australian Association of
Convenience Stores (AACS) withdrew its support after being forced to do so by the national grocery retailer,
Coles. Coles, which chairs the board of the AACS, forced the board to withdraw the retail group and its members,
including Caltex, Shell and BP, from the campaign, after being misled on the nature of the advertisements.123
Woolworths revoked its membership to the AACS over the campaign and demanded that its $15 000 in annual fees
be returned.124
i
The television advertisements can be viewed here from http://www.youtube.com/user/analogcreative/videos?view=0
Radio advertisements can be viewed here: http://australianretailers.com.au/latestnews.html
Section: 11.10.6.3
64
Facts and Issues
Health groups responded to the media campaign by placing a national newspaper advertisement of their own
(Figure 11.10.20) and filing a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission based on
the misleading nature of the Alliance of Australian Retailers advertisements.125 Despite the media campaign, the
Australian Government remained firmly committed to the policy.
On the 30 August 2010, the Alliance of Australian Retailers’ website appeared to have been hacked. As reported by
Crikey, the Alliance website was changed to read:
‘In the interest of public health and aligning with society’s values, we have decided to end this
campaign. All Australian Retailers operate in mixed communities, and we believe the greater
good of the non-smoking majority is worth more than that of the smoking minority.
‘Current smokers will continue to smoke regardless of packaging. We refuse to give incentive
to those that don’t smoke in any form whatsoever—thus we have ended our campaign against
plain packaging.’ 126
On 10 September 2010, Australian Broadcasting Corporation television program Lateline revealed, using leaked
internal documents, e-mails and contracts, the full extent of tobacco industry influence on the Alliance of
Australian Retailers campaign. 127 On the day the alliance was formed it received funds from Imperial Tobacco
Australia ($1 million), British American Tobacco Australia ($2.2 million) and Philip Morris ($2.1 million). It
was further revealed that in May, before the formation of the alliance, Philip Morris’ Australian corporate affairs
manager, Chris Argent, was seeking advice from the lobbying and public relations firm, the Civic Group. Philip
Morris was seeking advice and assistance for a campaign to stop plain packaging laws during the federal election.
The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) and the Public Health Association of Australia
responded to the revelations by calling on the Australian Government to legislate for complete bans on all tobacco
industry advertising and to force tobacco companies to release full details of lobbying, political donations and
marketing plans and budgets.128
Figure 11.10.20 Advertisement in The Australian run by the Public Health Association of Australia, VicHealth, the Heart Foundation, the Australian
Council on Smoking and Health, Cancer Council Australia and Action on Smoking and Health
Source: http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/~/media/ResourceCentre/MediaCentre/Images/PHA0001_Press_140x376%20(7).ashx
A survey of 2 101 Victorians released in March 2011 found that the Alliance of Australian Retailers campaign
failed to persuade people that plain packaging would not be effective, with 86.2% saying that it made no difference
to their views about plain packaging and 8.4% of respondents claiming that the advertisement increased their
support.129
Section: 11.10.6.3
Chapter 11: Tobacco
65
11.10.6.4
Direct response by tobacco companies
Imperial Tobacco Australia
Imperial Tobacco Australia stated at the time of the Government’s announcement that it would ‘make every
effort to protect its brands and associated intellectual property and including, if necessary, take legal action’,130 and
repeated this position on the release of the draft legislation.
Imperial Tobacco, whose brands include Gauloises, said it would ‘robustly challenge’ the move,
which it described as ‘disproportionate and misguided’.
‘Plain packaging has not been introduced in any country in the world and there is no evidence
to support the government’s claim that this will reduce smoking,’ the company said in a
statement.’131
Philip Morris International
Presumably in anticipation of the legislation, Philip Morris International launched an entire websitei dedicated
to plain packaging months prior to the announcement. The website featured video interviews with retailers from
Australia and the United Kingdom, an animated clip on why plain packaging will fail, and pages promoting the
views that plain packaging will not work, violates trademark rights and will increase illicit trade. In response to the
release of draft legislation, Chris Argent, a spokesman for Philip Morris told AAP that plain packaging would fuel
the illicit trade in tobacco products:
‘We’ll continue to oppose plain packaging in every way possible because of those serious issues
that the government hasn’t taken into account when pursuing this policy.’
Chris Argent, Philip Morris 2010 131
British American Tobacco
British American Tobacco’s London-based website also included a position statement on plain packaging.132 In
addition to arguing that the measure would not be effective, British American Tobacco claimed:
‘Generic packaging would make it harder to prevent smuggled and counterfeit products
entering a market, eroding government tax revenue and disrupting efforts to tackle the illegal
trade in tobacco products that plays a significant role in funding international crime and
terrorism.’
British American Tobacco website 132
In response to the Government’s release of the exposure bill, British American Tobacco Australasia spokesperson
Scott McIntyre stated that such legislation would result in claims for compensation that would be borne by
taxpayers.133
Further details on industry reaction
For a list of media appearances and lobbying activities by tobacco industry representatives related to plain
packaging, see timeline prepared by ASH Australia and the University of Sydney at http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.
au/plain-packaging-in-australia/ Extracts below:
i
http://www.plain-packaging.com (no longer operational)
Section: 11.10.6.4
66
Facts and Issues
14 June 2011: Story about the US Coalition the ‘Emergency Committee for American Trade’
on why they oppose plain packs (Dr Cal Cohen) ABC TV.
11 July 2011: Story about tobacco companies recruiting retailers to call politicians.
2 Sept 2011: Philip Morris using FOI laws to acquire information from researchers in the
United Kingdom.
14 Oct 2011: BATA threatens to suspend supply of cigarettes if Australian implementation
date not changed.
11 March 2012: London Economics consultancy publishes ‘The role of packaging imagery
on consumer preferences for experience goods: A consumer behavioural experiment’ funded
by Philip Morris. Suggests that ‘packaging imagery is a source of information that helps
consumers differentiate between alternative product characteristics’.
11.10.6.5
Extensive requests for information under Freedom of Information legislation
On 21 October 2010, Australian Greens health spokesperson Senator Rachel Siewert revealed that the Senate
Estimates Community Affairs Committee had been informed that an unnamed tobacco company had made at least
19 requests through Freedom of Information provisions (http://media.crikey.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/
Tobacco-FOI-Req-to-DHA.pdf) for information about government deliberations on plain packaging going back to
1992.134 The then Minister for Health and Ageing the Hon Nicola Roxon MP later confirmed extensive requests by
all three companies.135 Between April 2010 and February 2012, the Department of Health and Ageing dealt with 64
Freedom of Information requests. The cost of processing 10 requests from British American Tobacco Australia was
estimated at $643 000. i135
11.10.7
Analysis of major industry arguments against plain packaging
Industry arguments against the introduction of plain packaging have included firstly that there is a lack of evidence
that plain packaging would result in reduced smoking; secondly that it would be difficult and time-consuming
for retailers in small convenience outlets, resulting in errors and delays in serving likely to result in loss of sales
to supermarkets and other outlets able to sell at discounted rates; thirdly that such legislation would breach
international agreements concerning intellectual property; and finally that it would facilitate illicit trade.
Health groups argue that the harmfulness and addictiveness of tobacco products is sufficient to warrant restriction
of all forms of promotion and that packaging is clearly a form of promotion and therefore should not be allowed.
Counter-arguments to each of the industry arguments are outlined below.
11.10.7.1
Won’t work
As indicated in Section 11.10.3, plain packaging has not yet been implemented anywhere in the world, so
conclusions about its likely effectiveness have to be based on knowledge about the effects of packaging in general,
and studies testing the reactions of respondents exposed to different packaging options under experimental
conditions. There are strong grounds for believing that current packaging glamourises smoking and that plain
packaging would improve the effectiveness of health warnings, reduce misconceptions about relative harmfulness
of various brands and reduce the overall appeal of tobacco products in terms of perceived attractiveness of the
pack, expectations about and experience of taste and perceptions about the kinds of people believed to be likely
i
See pages 174–6
Section: 11.10.7.1
Chapter 11: Tobacco
67
to use particular brands. The effects could be expected to be particularly strong among young people establishing
their identity and image among their peers—see Section 11.10.5.3. From an analysis of the effects of two previous
sets of restrictions on advertising, economists Clark and Prentice concluded that entry into the market by
competitors was unlikely to be significant and that greater consumption of illegal cigarettes was also unlikely. 136
The authors go on to state:
‘Provided that tax increases offset any induced fall in prices, plain packaging will reduce
cigarette consumption.’
Clarke and Prentice 2012136
11.10.7.2
Inconvenience, errors and lost trade for retailers
The Alliance of Australian Retailers has stated that plain packaging would make it more time-consuming for
retailers to find cigarette packets when customers come in to make a quick purchase. The basis of these claims
was the findings of a survey of a very small number of retailers, apparently fewer than ten.137 With an erosion of
convenience to the purchaser, the Alliance feared that more customers would turn to supermarkets and other
retailers able to sell large volumes of stock at discounted rates.138
While some retailers suggest that plain packing would involve some loss of convenience, any such effect would
apply equally to discount as to convenience outlets. Containers holding stock can be clearly labelled and placed
in alphabetical order to speed up identification. The draft legislation released by the Australian Government116
proposed (and the legislation adopted as law139 specified) that the brand name be permitted to be large enough
to be seen by retailers. The font size specified in draft legislation was developed after research conducted for the
Australian Government,96 which included face to face interviews with retailers aged 40 years and over (Study 3).
A simulation study by Carter and his colleagues found that plain packaging actually reduced transaction time and
errors in pack selection, from an average of 3.17 to 2.92 seconds.140
11.10.7.3
Acquisition of intellectual property
One of the most vocal opponents of the proposed legislation was Tim Wilson of the Institute of Public Affairs.
Wilson received widespread media coverage for his views that plain packaging legislation was equivalent to
acquiring the intellectual property of tobacco companies and hence in contravention of Section 51 (xxxi) of
the Australian Constitution and various international conventions and trade agreements.141 He argued that the
Government would be forced to compensate tobacco companies up to $A3 billion dollars annually.142 The $A3b
mentioned in Wilson’s report appears to be very roughly calculated based on one third of the amount of total
turnover of sales of tobacco products in Australia including revenue from excise and customs duty and goods and
services tax.141
Wilson’s views about Government liability were quickly dismissed by senior law experts. Professor Mark Davison
of Monash University said this line of argument was
‘... so weak, it’s non-existent. There is no right to use a trademark given by the World Trade
Organization agreement. There is a right to prevent others using your trademark but that does
not translate into a right to use your own trademark.’
Davison cited in article by Berkovic, The Australian 2010 143
In a seminar organised by the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia, Professor Davison
comprehensively rebutted Wilsons’ arguments144 noting that countries were permitted to amend their intellectual
property laws to protect public health. Professor Davison argued that plain packaging does not equate to acquiring
the intellectual property of tobacco companies, because the Australian Government does not intend to use the
logos and tobacco companies will still maintain full rights to their logos and brand imagery; they will simply no
longer be able to use these marketing tools on cigarette packages.145
Section: 11.10.7.3
68
Facts and Issues
The legislation provided that in the event (which the Government considered unlikely) that preventing the use
of trademarks was found to be contrary to Section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution, then trademarks would be
allowed but would have to conform to restrictions (for instance on size and placement) that would be specified in
regulations.
On 15 August 2012 the High Court of Australia indicated in its brief ‘pronouncement of orders’ that the legislation
was not contrary to the Constitution.146 The detailed reasoning for the decision released by the Court on the
5 October 2012 indicated that the legislation did not result in an acquisition of any property to which section
51(xxxi) of the Constitution applies and that it was within the legislative competence of the Parliament.147
11.10.7.4
Facilitation of illicit trade
Several companies have argued that plain packaging would facilitate illicit trade and increase use among minors.132
As is discussed in full in Chapter 13, Section 13.7, reports funded by the tobacco industry attempting to quantify
the extent of illicit trade148–150 appear to have generated exaggerated estimates that do not correspond with estimates
derived from Australian Government surveys151,152 or assessments by Australian Government revenue collection
agencies153—see Section 13.7.4.8. A review of literature concerning illicit trade in tobacco products conducted
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer154 found that illicit trade tended to be more common in
countries with high levels of international trade, lax customs surveillance and where political instability facilitates
corruption among government officials and reduces the probability of detection—see Section 13.7.2. None of these
conditions apply in Australia. In its 2011 annual report, the World Customs Organization reported lower numbers
of detections and lower quantities of illicit tobacco products seized by customs authorities in member countries
compared to 2010.155
The draft legislation released by the Australian Government116 and the legislation as passed into law139 specified
that anti-counterfeiting measures would be allowed on packs including alphanumeric codes and covert markings.
Forensic-level differentiation of the content of the cardboard and other material is not prohibited. The Australian
Government has also increased penalties for those found guilty of engaging in illicit trade in tobacco.156
11.10.8
Milestones in adoption of legislation
Legislation mandating plain packaging was passed by the Australian Parliament on 21 November 2011— see
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148
The legislation makes it an offence to:
‘... sell, supply, purchase, package or manufacture tobacco products or packaging for retail sale,
that are not compliant with plain packaging requirements. These offences apply to manufacturers,
packagers, wholesalers, distributors and retailers of tobacco products in Australia who fail
to comply with the plain packaging requirements.157 Chapter 2 of the Act sets out detailed
requirements relating to the packaging of tobacco products and the products themselves.’
Explanatory memorandum 157
The Act also provides for regulations to prescribe additional requirements:
‘The effect of the requirements will be that tobacco company branding, logos, symbols and
other images that may have the effect of advertising or promoting the use of the tobacco
product will not be able to appear on tobacco products or their packaging. So as to identify
the particular brand or variant of a tobacco product, the brand name and variant name will be
allowed on packaging in specified locations, with a specified ‘plain’ appearance. Information
which is required by other legislation or regulations, such as trade descriptions and graphic
health warnings, will also be allowed to appear.’
Section: 11.10.8
Chapter 11: Tobacco
69
The Act
‘... prevents a trade mark from being placed on tobacco products or their retail packaging, so
as to prevent trade marks from being used as design features to detract attention from health
warnings, or otherwise to promote the use of tobacco products. However, {it also} ensures that
its operation will not affect trade mark owners’ ability to protect their trade marks from use by
other persons, and to register and maintain the registration of a trade mark. Owners of trade
marks in relation to tobacco products will be able to use their trade marks, other than on retail
packaging and the products themselves, in ways that do not contravene the TAP Acti or other
laws, for example on business correspondence.’
For a full summary of the provisions of the Act, refer to the explanatory memorandum—Tobacco Plain Packaging
Bill 2011, available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011B00128/Explanatory%20Memorandum/Text 157
For a full summary of the provisions of the Regulations, refer to the explanatory statement to the regulations—
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02644/Download and to the amendments to those regulations - http://
www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00563/Download.
While the legislation was not signed into law until 1 December 2011, proposals for plain packaging in Australia
date back to the early 1990s. The Australian Government approved the release of a discussion paper proposing
plain packaging as one of a range of possible measures to address preventable disease, by the National Preventative
Health Taskforce, on 10 October 2008.74
Major milestones in the development of this legislation are listed below.
15 Apr 1992: Australian Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (composed of health and police ministers) proposes
large new warnings and asks for a report on plain packaging. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/sak43a99
This was after consideration of a report produced for it which recommended on the basis of its findings about
the impact of packaging on the effectiveness of warnings, that ‘regulations be extended to cover the colours,
design and wording of the entire exterior of the pack’ (p18).
Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer. Paper 13: Adolescents’ reactions to cigarette packs modified to
increase extent and impact of health warnings: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gku34e00/pdf
24 Jul 1995: Advisor to (then) Australian Health Minister the Hon Carmen Lawrence MP is quoted in the Sydney
Morning Herald as ruling out the idea of plain packaging, citing a need to explore international trade and legal
issues. http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/btn63a99
15 Dec 1995: Australian Senate Community Affairs References Committee releases its (160-page) report. ‘The
Committee considers that, on the basis of the evidence received, there is not sufficient evidence to recommend
that tobacco products be sold in generic packaging.’ http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/uxq81b00
Sep 1997: Australian Government formally replies to Senate Committee Report:
‘In response to the mounting interest in generic packaging, the Commonwealth obtained advice from the
Attorney General’s Department on the legal and constitutional barriers to generic packaging. This advice
indicates that the Commonwealth does possess powers under the Constitution to introduce such packaging but
that any attempt to use these powers to introduce further tobacco control legislation needs to be considered in
the context of the increasingly critical attention being focussed on the necessity, appropriateness, justification
and basis for regulation by such bodies as the Office of Regulatory Review, the High Court, and Senate Standing
Committees. In addition, further regulation needs to be considered in the context of Australia’s international
obligations regarding free trade under the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), and our obligations
under International covenants such as the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, and the
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).’
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jer01d00
April 2008: Release of Freeman B, Chapman S and Rimmer M. The case for the plain packaging of tobacco
products. Addiction 2008;103:580–90. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18339104
i
The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (Cth) Available from: www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010C00100
Section: 11.10.8
70
Facts and Issues
9 April 2008: Health Minister the Hon Nicola Roxon MP announces establishment of the National Preventative
Health Taskforce. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr08-nr-nr046.
htm?OpenDocument&yr=2008&mth=4
10 Oct 2008: Release for consultation of the draft report of the Preventative Health Taskforce, entitled Australia:
the healthiest country by 2020, including a large number of recommendations including one concerning plain
packaging of tobacco products.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr08-nr-nr133.htm
17–22 Nov 2008: At the third Conference of Parties in Durban South Africa (http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/
sessions/third_session_cop/en/index.html), Parties to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
adopt Guidelines on advertising, promotion and sponsorship (article 13) (http://www.who.int/fctc/protocol/
guidelines/adopted/article_13/en/index.html) and Guidelines on Packaging and labelling (article 11) (http://
www.who.int/fctc/protocol/guidelines/adopted/article_11/en/index.html) that recommend the use of plain
packaging.
Oct to Nov 2008: Consultation sessions by the National Preventative Health Taskforce. http://www.
preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/engagement-and-consultation1lp
1 Dec 2008: Publication of report on first Australian research experiment on plain packaging. Wakefield M,
Germain D and Durkin S. How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’
perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tobacco Control 2008;17(6):416–21.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/6/416.abstract
15 Apr 2009: National Preventative Health Taskforce announces (http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/
preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/media-alert-15apr09) that it has considered more than 400
submissions received on its draft report released in October. http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/
preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/submissions-1lp
30 Jun 2009: National Preventative Health Taskforce provides final report (http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/
internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/submissions-1lp) to Government for consideration, entitled
National Preventative Health Strategy – the roadmap for action. http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/
preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/nphs-roadmap
20 Aug 2009: Australian Senator Steve Fielding introduces (www.aph.gov.au/binaries/senate/work/journals/2009/
jnlp_084.pdf) the Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009 which
would have required plain packaging of tobacco products. This was referred for consideration to the Senate
Community Affairs Committee which heard submissions and completed a report which was later tabled in the
Senate on the 28 September 2010158
1 Sep 2009: The Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP releases the final report of the
Preventative Health Taskforce which recommends plain packaging as part of a comprehensive package of
measures to make Australia the healthiest country in the world by 2020.
Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. National Preventative Health Strategy. Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.
nsf/Content/national-preventative-health-strategy-1lp
‘Plain packaging would prohibit brand imagery, colours, corporate logos and trademarks, permitting
manufacturers only to print the brand name in a mandated size, font and place, in addition to required health
warnings and other legally mandated product information such as toxic constituents, taxpaid seals or package
contents. A standard cardboard texture would be mandatory, and the size and shape of the package and
cellophane wrapper would also be prescribed. A detailed analysis of current marketing practices78 suggests that
plain packaging would also need to encompass pack interiors and the cigarette itself, given the potential for
manufacturers to use colours, bandings and markings, and different length and gauges to make cigarettes more
‘interesting’ and appealing. Any use of perfuming, incorporation of audio chips or affixing of ‘onserts’ would
also need to be banned.’
Tobacco Working Group. Technical report no. 2. Tobacco in Australia: making smoking history. Canberra: National
Preventative Health Taskforce, 2008. http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.
nsf/Content/tech-tobacco
Section: 11.10.8
Chapter 11: Tobacco
71
Roxon remarks at the launch of the document ‘we are killing people by not acting’. http://www.health.gov.au/
internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/tr-yr09-nr-nrsp010909.htm?OpenDocument&yr=2009&mth=9
14 Oct 2009: Publication on line of Germain D, Wakefield MA and Durkin SJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette
brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? Journal of Adolescent Health 2010;46(4):385–92. Available
from: www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(09)00341-3/abstract
29 Apr 2010: The Australian Government announced its decision to implement plain packaging for tobacco
products and to mandate updated and expanded graphic health warnings at the same time.
7 Apr 2011: Release by the Australian Government of an exposure draft of the legislation alongside a consultation
paper, with comments to be received within the following 60 days. http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/
publishing.nsf/Content/tpp-bill2011#.URRoOuhop9I
23 May 2011: Review of the evidence published by Cancer Council Victoria. http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/
assets/pdfs/tobacco-industry/Background-report-on-plain-packaging.pdf
29 May 2011: Release of results of research showed plain packaging of cigarettes was supported by the majority of
Australians. http://www.cancer.org.au/Newsmedia/mediareleases/mediareleases2011/29May2011.htm
31 May 2011: Opposition announces it would not oppose plain packs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99vJVdiq
DSc&feature=related
6 Jun 2011: Over 250 submissions received by Government on draft plain packaging legislation.
http://yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/plainpack-tobacco#.URRpJ-hop9I
6 Jul 2011: Bill introduced into House of Representatives, read and second reading moved.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr060711.pdf
7 Jul 2011: House of Representatives refers Bill to Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/haa/billtobaccopackage/media/media01.pdf
22 Jul 2011: Submissions close for House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing Inquiry
into Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/haa/billtobaccopackage/index.
htm
4 Aug 2011: Hearings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing.
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/haa/billtobaccopackage/hearings.htm
4 Aug 2011: Cancer Council Victoria releases updated evidence review (http://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/
mini_sites/Plain-facts/TCUCCVEvOverview_FINALAUG122011.pdf) and review of Deloitte report on illicit
trade. http://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/mini_sites/Plain-facts/CommtsDeloitte12.8.11_FINAL.pdf
18 Aug 2011: Senate refers Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 (http://parlinfo.aph.gov.
au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4613%22) to Legal and
Constitutional Affairs Committee which calls for submissions (by 2 September 2011). http://www.aph.gov.au/
Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/trade_marks_amendment/index.htm
22 Aug 2011: House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Aged Care tables the report on its
inquiry into Tobacco Plain Packaging. http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/haa/billtobaccopackage/report.
htm
24 Aug 2011: Second reading debate, third reading agreed to passage of legislation through House of
Representatives http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr240811.pdf
25 Aug 2011: Bill introduced and read a first time in Senate, then second reading moved. http://www.aph.gov.au/
hansard/senate/dailys/ds250811.pdf
2 Sep 2011: Submissions received by Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/
Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/trade_marks_amendment/submissions.htm
13 Sep 2011: Hearings of the Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. http://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/trade_marks_amendment/index.htm
17 Sep 2011: Release of new graphic health warnings for tobacco products. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/
ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr183.htm?OpenDocument&yr=2011&mth=09
19 Sep 2011: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee provides report159 to Senate. http://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/trade_marks_amendment/report/
index.htm
Section: 11.10.8
72
Facts and Issues
11 Oct 2011: Second reading debate in Senate commences. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/
ds111011.pdf
2 Nov 2011: The then Minister for Health the Hon Nicola Roxon MP announces that the implementation
of plain packaging will be delayed until December 1, 2012 as a result of delays in the Senate review
of the bill.i http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr226.
9 and 10 Nov 2011: Bills return to Senate including revised timelines. Second reading debate continues
(http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hanssen261110) and Second reading agreed
to, Third reading agreed to. Trade Marks (Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 passes the Australian
Senate. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr238.
21 Nov 2011: Final passage of amended Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill through House of Representatives
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr243.
Vote on Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill as amended by the Senate. The Bill passes the Australian Parliament
including amendments to extend the timeframe for implementation.
Official Hansard No 18, Monday 21 November, Forty-third Parliament, First session--Fourth period
2011:12913. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/hansardr/e3438d90-354a-4802-85406d3a85164a3a/toc_pdf/House of Representatives_2011_11_21_651_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#s
earch=%22chamber/hansardr/e3438d90-354a-4802-8540-6d3a85164a3a/0
1 Dec 2011: Signing into law by Governor General of Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 and Trade Marks Amendment
Plain Packaging Act 2011.160 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148
7 Dec 2011: Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations made (registered 12 December, tabled in the House of
Representatives and Senate on 7 February 2012).161 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02644/Download
22 Dec 2011: Release of new Information Standard specifying enlarged graphic health warnings (http://www.
productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/991370) for tobacco products Competition and Consumer
(Tobacco) Information Standard 2011.162 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02766
8 Mar 2012: Making of Tobacco Plain Packaging Amendment Regulation 2012, tabled in House of Representatives
and Senate on 14 March 2012. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00563
Oct —Nov 2012: Some packs in plain packaging start to appear in retail outlets.
1 Dec 2012: From this date, all tobacco packages in Australia must appear in plain packaging as specified in the
Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148
11.10.9
Major milestones in legal challenges to the legislation
The Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 has been challenged in several legal fora.
Constitutional challenges filed in Australia’s High Court centred on section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution
which allows Parliament to make laws with respect to ‘the acquisition of property on just terms’. These challenges
were dismissed in August 2011. Other claims have been made under World Trade Organization agreements,
including those dealing with intellectual property and technical barriers to trade.163 164 Philip Morris Asia Limited
has also challenged Australia’s plain packaging measures under a bilateral investment treaty between Australia and
Hong Kong.
Major developments to date include the following:
7 Jun 2011: Dominican Republic raises concerns about legislation at the World Trade Organization Trade-Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) council meeting. Support or sympathy for the Dominican
i
For explanation of the amendments that were required in order to delay implementation of the legislation, see http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r4613_
ems_868b76ac-afab-4e0d-84a2-5a95d5543192/upload_pdf/361981sem.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
Section: 11.10.9
Chapter 11: Tobacco
73
Republic came from Honduras, Nicaragua, Ukraine, the Philippines, Zambia, Mexico, Cuba and Ecuador.
New Zealand, Uruguay and Norway said Australia’s draft law is justified. India did not comment on the law
specifically but said studies show that plain packaging does reduce smoking. India, Brazil and Cuba stressed
their view that countries have the right to implement public health policies without intellectual property being
an obstacle — referring directly or indirectly to the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
Concerns were also raised at subsequent TRIPS and Technical Barriers to Trade meetings.
21 Nov 2011: Philip Morris Asia Limited , Hong Kong, owner of Australian affiliate, Philip Morris Limited,
announces that it has begun legal proceedings against the Australian Government by serving a Notice
of Arbitration under Australia’s Bilateral Investment Treaty with Hong Kong. http://www.pmi.com/eng/
media_center/press_releases/Pages/201111211453.aspx
See related documents: Attorney-General’s Department. Investor-State Arbitration - Tobacco Plain Packaging.
Canberra: Australian Government, 2011 http://ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/page/8F5B65DEBCAED226CA257
96D006B4857
1 Dec 2011: Tobacco companies told they have a full twelve months to prepare to comply with
legislation. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr255.
Dec 2011: British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris Limited
each file a Writ Of Summons in the High Court.
15 Dec 2011: Health Minister the Hon Nicola Roxon MP named Attorney-General in Cabinet reshuffle, vows to
continue fight for plain packaging.
22 Dec 2011: Attorney-General the Hon Nicola Roxon MP accuses Philip Morris of corporate restructuring to
assist its case under the Australia–Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/
ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr265.htm
14 Apr 2012: Japan Tobacco International says that Australian Government will ‘benefit’ if fewer people die from
tobacco after plain packs. This argument was part of building a case about whether ‘acquisition’ of brands
‘benefits’ others. http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/tobacco-giant-asks-for-package-payment-201204131wyu1.html
17–19 Apr 2012: High Court cases heard in Canberra. High Court submissions and transcripts of proceedings
(British American Tobacco: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s389/2011 and Japan Tobacco: http://www.
hcourt.gov.au/cases/case-s409/2011)
15 Aug 2012: The High Court hands down its orders that the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011 is not contrary to
section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.147 http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00563
28 Sep 2012: World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body agrees to establish a dispute settlement panel at
the request of Ukraine, to hear a complaint brought by Ukraine against Australia regarding its plain packaging
measures. A record number of 34 WTO members indicated they will join the dispute as third parties. On 15
October, Honduras also submitted a request to the Dispute Settlement Body to establish a dispute settlement
panel, which Australia rejected at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting on 19 November.
5 Oct 2012: High Court publishes its reasons for rejecting the constitutional challenges.146 http://www.hcourt.gov.
au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/projt-2012-08-15.pdf
9 Nov 2012: The Dominican Republic requests the establishment of a panel under the dispute settlement
procedures of the World Trade Organization and asks that this request be included on the agenda of the
WTO Dispute Settlement Body meeting on 17 December 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/13/
idUS76684+13-Nov-2012+HUG20121113
11.10.10
International flow-on effects
Australia’s legislation has been applauded by respected commentators in tobacco control165,166 and by international
health authorities. It has also strengthened the resolve of several other governments to follow Australia’s example.
Section: 11.10.10
74
Facts and Issues
In November 2010 the British Health Secretary Andrew Lansley issued a policy document suggesting that ‘the
government will look at whether the plain packaging of tobacco products could be an effective way to reduce the
number of young people taking up smoking and to help those who are trying to quit smoking.’167 On 9 March 2011,
the British government released a tobacco control plan which repeated its statement of intention to consider plain
packaging. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Tobacco Control Plan for England:168
‘We will consult on options to reduce the promotional impact of tobacco packaging, including
plain packaging, before the end of 2011’.168 p22
On 16 April 2012, the British government opened public consultation (http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/
standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view) on plain packs, including a major systematic review of
evidence; impact assessment; and equality impact assessment.
In December 2010 French National Assembly member, Yves Bur (a member of the UMP party and representative
of the Bas-Rhin region), introduced a Bill to implement plain packaging.169 In March 2012 he presented a report
on recommended policies for tobacco control commissioned by the French minister for labour, employment and
health, Mr Xavier Bertrand, which urged support for amendment of European Union regulations to mandate plain
packaging.170
Belgium’s health minister has also expressed support for plain packaging. In response to a question in parliament
he stated:
‘With plain packaging, only the brand name is displayed in a standard format. The impact of
such labelling to reduce the attractiveness and increase the impact of health warning messages,
especially for young new smokers, has been shown in several studies...I continue to support
such measures, including at the European level.’ (unofficial translation)
Transcript of remarks 171
In its response to the report of the Maori Affairs Committee which some months previously had recommended
plain packaging,172 the New Zealand government stated on 14 March 2011:
‘The Government is monitoring Australia’s progress on its proposal to legislate for plain
packaging of tobacco products in 2012, and will consider the possibility of New Zealand
aligning with Australia. New Zealand Government officials have commenced discussions with
respective Australian counterparts on the possible alignment. An initial report back to Cabinet
is due by 30 June 2011.’
Government of New Zealand 173 p7–8
On 23 July 2012 the New Zealand Government announced agreement in principle to introduce plain packaging
subject to the outcome of consultation. Comments on the legislation were received up to 12 October 2012.
Other international events of interest included the following:
19 Sep 2011: The Hon Nicola Roxon’s statement to the UN General Assembly NCDs High-Level Meeting.
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr189.htm
26 Sep 2011: World health Ministers congratulate Roxon at United Nations meeting in New York.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3326101.htm
10–11 Jan 2012: WHO hosts world’s first technical meeting on plain packaging in Brunei Durassalem, focused on
lessons from Australia’s efforts for other nations. Attended by delegates from Australia, Brazil, Brunei, China,
Cambodia, Egypt, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand, Panama, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom,
Uruguay and Vietnam.
12 Apr 2012: Brendan Nelson, High Commissioner to European parliament, speaks on plain packaging.
http://t.co/gozScnMR
13 Apr 2012: British tobacco stocks hit by concern about plain packs. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/
marketreport/9203774/Cigarette-makers-fade-on-fears-of-plain-packaging.html
14 Apr 2012: Health secretary Lansley says Australia has inspired the United Kingdom to consider plain packs.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-14/australia-inspires-uk-to-seek-cigarette-plain-packaging/3950160
Section: 11.10.10
Chapter 11: Tobacco
75
11.10.11
Initial industry responses to attempt to mitigate the impact of
legislation
In the months leading up to 1 December 2012 (the date after which only plain packs could be sold in Australia)
tobacco companies employed a number of strategies to attempt to mitigate the effects of the legislation. These
activities included reassuring smokers about the continuing quality of well-known brands, the issuing of special
editions and collector packs, and the launching of a number of new brands and variants.
11.10.11.1
Assurances to smokers about product quality
British American Tobacco Australia altered the packaging
of Winfield Blue in 2011 with a message emphasising its
status as the top-selling brand in Australia, ‘True Blue
Aussie Original since 1972’.
It also provided stickers reassuring smokers that the
quality of its number one brand, Winfield, would continue
unchanged despite the imminent new packaging.
Philip Morris provided customers with similar assurances
through pack inserts.
Figure 11.10.21 Winfield cigarettes with message reassuring smokers about continuing
quality
Source: Quit Victoria collection
Imperial Tobacco Australia took a more dramatic
approach with its Peter Stuyvesant brand, attempting to get
in early with a 50–50 tear off design promoting the ‘same
on the inside’ message.
11.10.11.2
New brands, pack sizes, brand variants
and brand extensions introduced prior to
implementation of plain packaging
Figure 11.10.22
Winfield cigarettes including sticker with message reassuring smokers
After the legislation was passed, Philip Morris and British
about continuing quality
American Tobacco both each released a brand that might
Source: ASH Australia packwatch website
be predicted to fare better than many current brands after
the transition to plain packaging. The exclusively named
but very plainly packaged Bond Street (an existing brand
available for many years outside Australia) was introduced
in plain cardboard packaging in a novel 26s pack size in
February 2012. This provided an extra cigarette compared
to the usual 25s and (being quite plain) was of a design that
would have to change less dramatically than that of many
other brightly coloured brands. British American Tobacco
Australia’s less elegant but ‘to the point’ Just Smokes was
introduced in May 2012 priced well below almost every other
brand on the market (Coles and Woolworths online June
Figure 11.10.23
2012).
Philip Morris pack insert reassuring smokers about continuing quality
Source: ASH Australia Packwatch website—see http://www.ashaust.org.au/lv4/MarketingPloys.
htm#PACKWATCH
Section: 11.10.11.2
76
Facts and Issues
Figure 11.10.24
Peter Stuyvesant promotional cartons reinforcing the message ‘It’s what on the inside that counts’
British American Tobacco Australia also employed the ‘extra couple of cigarettes’ strategy, selling Holiday in packs of 22s.
Imperial Tobacco Australia followed some months later with Horizon 21s. Winfield Gold has in the past been packaged as
four packs and termed ‘Slab’, consistent with Australian vernacular description of beer cans purchased in bulk.
Figure 11.10.25 Philip Morris Australia’s Bond Street introduced February
2012 and British American Tobacco’s Just Smokes,
introduced May 2012
Section: 11.10.11.2
Figure 11.10.26 Winfield Gold cigarettes sold in packs of four and termed
‘Slab’ consistent with Australian vernacular description of
beer cans purchased in bulk
Source: ASH Australia packwatch website
Chapter 11: Tobacco
77
Several new brand variants were launched in the period leading up to implementation of the legislation, with new
menthol variants and ‘hybrids’ released for several major brands. The hybrids provided customers with menthol
capsules in the filter that could be squeezed to add menthol to their cigarettes.
Figure 11.10.27 Philip Morris’ Peter Jackson Hybrids and Marlboro Ice Blast variant; Imperial Tobacco’s John Player Special Ice menthol variant.
Source: Quit Victoria 2012 and ASH Packwatch website, 2012
Late in 2011, Imperial Tobacco Australia launched an extension to John
Player Special (packs for which had been re-badged ‘JPS’ in 2009). JPS
Superkings were sold in packs of 20s and were longer than the standard JPS
25s. A further variation of JPS 20s—a much smaller pack, with ‘techno’looking packaging and a ‘techno’-sounding name ‘JPS Nano’—was released
in mid-2012. JPS Nano was noted for sale in Melbourne stores from July
2012.
A further variation, JPS Duo, was noted from November 2012, just one
month before the last date on which branded packages could be sold
in Australia. The width of the packaging for JPS Nano was smaller than
the minimum dimension required by the Tobacco Plain Packaging
Regulations 2012.161
11.10.12
Implementation of Act
Cigarettes and smoking tobacco in plain packaging were noted in retail
outlets in Australia from October 2012.
Figure 11.10.28
Imperial Tobacco’s JPS, JPS Superkings and JPS Nano
From 1 December 2012, all cigarettes and other tobacco products sold
in Australia must comply with the Tobacco Plain
Packaging Act 2011.
Figure 11.10.29 Packs of British American Tobacco Australia’s Winfield Blue (the leading
brand of cigarettes in Australia) and Philip Morris Australia’s Marlboro
Red (the leading brand of cigarettes internationally) purchased in Carlton
Victoria November 2012
Section: 11.10.12
78
Facts and Issues
References
1. Palmer A. The product. In: Palmer, AJ, ed. Principles of marketing. London: Oxford University Press/Books, 2000. 215-38. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=t
rue&db=buh&AN=7500349&site=ehost-live
2. Underwood R and Ozanne J. Is your package an effective communicator? A normative framework for increasing the communicative competence of packaging. Journal of Marketing
Communication 1998;4(4):207–20. Available from: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rjmc/1998/00000004/00000004/art00002?token=0042161894d0d27e41225f
406a5e2c6b465d487667627b49576b64276a79595d88
3. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation. Untitled (Speech notes of a Brown and Williamson employee.) Media release. No Date. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library University of
California, San Francisco, 1985 [viewed September 2010]. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/knn70f00
4. Baker M. Macmillan Dictionary of Marketing and Advertising: Macmillan, 1985.
5. Ford A, Moodie C and Hastings G. The role of packaging for consumer products: understanding the move towards ‘plain’ tobacco packaging. Addiction Research and Theory
2012;20(4):339-47. Available from: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/16066359.2011.632700
6. Underwood R. The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 2003;11(1):62.
7. Lambat I. Top dogs. What it takes to enter into the league of global bestsellers—and how to remain there Tobacco Reporter 2007;February:40-4.
8. Jefkins F. Dictionary of Marketing and Communication. Glasgow: Blackie, 1987.
9. Weeks C. Tobacco marketers get more creative as restrictions grow. Ottawa Citizen, 2006:13 Nov.
10. Eindhoven G. Elegant packs promote image, defend property rights. World Tobacco 1999(170):16-18.
11. Anghelides B. Conjuring pack appeal. World Tobacco 2004;200(May):35-40.
12. Cork A. A matter of image. World Tobacco 2004(203):2.
13. Anon. Accu-pac provides extra pack. World Tobacco 2005(208):55-5.
14. Rommel C. The final warnings. World Tobacco 2006(203):2.
15. Wakefield M, Morley C, Horan JK and Cummings KM. The cigarette pack as image: new evidence from tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control 2002;11(suppl.1):i73-i80. Available
from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/suppl_1/i73
16. Scheffels J. A difference that makes a difference: young adult smokers’ accounts of cigarette brands and package design. Tobacco Control 2008;17(2):118–22. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/118
17. Health Canada Tobacco Control Programme. A proposal to regulate the display and promotion of tobacco and tobacco-related products at retail. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2006 [viewed
September 2006]. Available from: http://hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/commun/consultation/current-actuelle/tob-ret/tab_e.html
18. Philip Morris Limited. Marketing new products in a restrictive environment. Philip Morris international meeting, Naples, Florida, June 1990. Bates No: 2044762173-2364. Philip Morris
Ltd, 1990. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/yhs55e00/pdf
19. Moodie C and Hastings GB. Making the pack the hero, tobacco industry response to marketing restrictions in the UK: findings from a long-term audit. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction 2011;9(1):24-38. Available from: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2116132350656k6/
20. Henningfield JE, Benowitz NL, Slade J, Houston TP, Davis RM, Deitchman SD, et al. Reducing the addictiveness of cigarettes. Tobacco Control 1998;7(3):281-93. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/3/281
21. Barbeau EM, Leavy-Sperounis A and Balbach ED. Smoking, social class, and gender: what can public health learn from the tobacco industry about disparities in smoking? Tobacco Control
2004;13(2):115-20. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/2/115
22. Poland BD, Cohen JE, Ashley MJ, Adlaf E, Ferrence R, Pederson LL, et al. Heterogeneity among smokers and non-smokers in attitudes and behaviour regarding smoking and smoking
restrictions. Tobacco Control 2000;9(4):364–71. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/9/4/364
23. Pollay R. Export “A” ads are extremely expert, eh? Tobacco Control 2001;10(1):71-4. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/10/1/71
24. Ferraro R, Bettman J and Chartrand TL. The power of strangers: The effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research 2009;35:729-41.
25. Hoek J, Gendall P, Gifford H, Pirikahu G, McCool J, Pene G, et al. Tobacco branding, plain packaging, pictorial warnings, and symbolic consumption. Qualitative Health Research
2012;22(5):630-9. Available from: http://qhr.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/12/21/1049732311431070.long
26. Bloch P, Brunel F and Arnold T. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aethetics: concept and measurement. Journal of Consumer Research 2003;29:551-65.
27. Haslam Drury Partnership. Gallaher Ltd: Silk Cut packaging development qualitative debrief. London: 1997. Available from: http://www.tobaccopapers.com/PDFs/0400-0499/0462.pdf
28. Hammond R and Rowell A. Trust us: we’re the tobacco industry. London: ASH (UK), 2001 Last modified May 2001 [viewed 2 May 2007]. Available from: http://www.ash.org.uk/files/
documents/ASH_135.pdf
29. Cummings KM, Morley CP, Horan JK, Steger C and Leavell NR. Marketing to America’s youth: evidence from corporate documents. Tobacco Control 2002;11(suppl.1):i5-i17. Available from:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/suppl_1/i5
30. Chaloupka FJ, Cummings KM, Morley CP and Horan JK. Tax, price and cigarette smoking: evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing
strategies. Tobacco Control 2002;11(suppl.1):i62-i72. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/suppl_1/i62
31. Carter SM. From legitimate consumers to public relations pawns: the tobacco industry and young Australians. Tobacco Control 2003;12(suppl. 3):iii71-iii78. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/12/suppl_3/iii71
32. Krugman D, Quinn W, Sung Y and Morrison M. Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. Journal of Health Communication
2005;10(3):261-78. Available from: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a714034939~fulltext=713240928
Section: 11.10.12
Chapter 11: Tobacco
79
33. Perry CL. The tobacco industry and underage youth smoking: tobacco industry documents from the Minnesota litigation. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 1999;153(9):93541. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/153/9/935
34. Pollay RW. Targeting youth and concerned smokers: evidence from Canadian tobacco industry documents. Tobacco Control 2000;9(2):136-47. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.
com/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/136
35. Blum A. Cigarette cards-irony in propaganda. Tobacco Control 1995;1995(2):117-18. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/4/2/117
36. Ferris R. The influence of brand identification and imagery on subjective evaluation of cigarettes. Report No. RD.1752-C. Restricted, 18 July 1980. Bates No. 103411673-103411674.
British-American Tobacco Co. Ltd Group, 1980. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/action/document/page?tid=trz25a99
37. Difranza J, Clark D and Pollay R. Cigarette package design: opportunities for disease prevention. Tobacco Induced Diseases 2003;1(2):97-109. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/19570250
38. Anon. Opportunities in packaging innovation. Philip Morris, 1992 [viewed 29 March 2007]. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/hwe36e00
39. Anon. KOOL new look. World Tobacco 2002(188):6.
40. Joy R. Brand identity becomes brand experience. World Tobacco 2001(184):10.
41. Joy R. Packs will carry the message. World Tobacco 2003(197):61-2.
42. Anon. Conjuring pack appeal. World Tobacco 2004;200:35-40.
43. Anon. A new level in foil. World Tobacco 2006(215):82.
44. Mawditt N. Putting pack opportunities back into the frame. World Tobacco 2006(212):36-7.
45. Simpson D. Hong Kong: Marlboro tries it on (the pack). Tobacco Control 2002;11(3):171. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/11/3/171
46. Slade J. The pack as advertisement. Tobacco Control 1997;6:169-70.
47. Zimmel S. Graphic expansion of pack printing. World Tobacco 2003;194:39.
48. Moodie C and Hastings G. Tobacco packaging as promotion. Tobacco Control 2010;19(2):168-70. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/2/168.short
49. Ford A. The packaging of tobacco products. Stirling: Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling, 2012. Available from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/
groups/cr_common/@nre/@new/@pre/documents/generalcontent/cr_086687.pdf
50. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders’ Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist 2012;84(no. 5 Feb-Apr):1-2.
51. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders’ Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist 2010;75(no. 2 Feb-Mar):x-x.
52. Squires R. Coles importing cheap cigarettes from Germany and selling them at discount prices. The Sunday Telegraph, (Sydney) 2010:18 July. Available from: http://www.news.com.au/
business/coles-importing-cheap-cigarettes-from-germany-and-selling-them-at-discount-prices/story-e6frfm1i-1225893467835
53. Wakefield M and Letcher T. My pack is cuter than your pack. Tobacco Control 2002;11:154-6. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/154
54. Dunhill gets smoother. The Grocer 2005;18 Jun Available from: http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/dunhill-gets-smoother/102820.articlehttp://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/
fullstory.php/aid/2726/Still_burning_bright.html
55. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders’ Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist 2012;84(no. 6 May-July):1-2.
56. NSW Retail Tobacco Traders’ Association. Price lists-cigarettes. The Australian Retail Tobacconist 2011;80(no. 1 Feb-Mar-Apr):1-2.
57. Chapman S. Australia: British American Tobacco ‘addresses’ youth smoking. Tobacco Control 2007;16(1):2-3.
58. Anon. Cigarette split pack defeated. The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney) 2006:18 Nov. Available from: http://global.factiva.com.ezproxy.library.usyd.edu.au/ha/default.aspx
59. Borland R, Savvas S, Sharkie F and Moore K. The impact of structural packaging design on young adult smokers’ perceptions of tobacco products. Tobacco Control 2012 Available from:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/12/12/tobaccocontrol-2011-050078.abstract
60. Swanson MG. Australia: health warnings canned. Tobacco Control 2006;15(3):151. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/15/3/151?rss=1
61. Gantry shake up. The Forecourt Trader 2006;2 May:52. Available from: http://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/1254/Gantry_shake_up.html
62. In brief. Off License News 2008;2 May Available from: http://www.offlicencenews.co.uk/news/archivestory.php/aid/8438/In_brief.html
63. Still burning bright. The Forecourt Trader 2009;January:52. Available from: http://www.forecourttrader.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2726/Still_burning_bright.html
64. Dutt IA. Paresh Maity designs for ITC, upsets anti-smoking lobby. Business Standard, (Kolkata) 2012:Aug 30. Available from: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/pareshmaity-designs-for-itc-upsets-anti-smoking-lobby/484871
65. King B and Borland R. What was ‘light’ and ‘mild’ is now ‘smooth’ and ‘fine’: new labelling of Australian cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2005;14(3):214–5. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/14/3/214
66. The dawn of a new look horizon (advert). The Australian Retail Tobacconist 2004;64(Dec 2004/Jan 2005)
67. Aubin H. Are ‘generic’ packs cigarettes’ future? Media release. 08/e Nov 1989. British American Tobacco, 1989 [viewed September 2010]. Available from: http://bat.library.ucsf.edu//tid/
per26a99
68. British American Tobacco. The vanishing media [Media release]. British American Tobacco, 1978 [viewed September 2007]. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/jlf17a99
69. Carr-Cregg M and Gray A. ‘Generic’ packing: a possible solution to the marketing of tobacco to young people. Medical Journal of Australia 1990;153:685-6.
70. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer. Health warnings and contents labelling on tobacco products. Melbourne: Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria, 1992. Available from: http://legacy.
library.ucsf.edu/tid/gku34e00/pdf
71. Cunningham R and Kyle K. The case for plain packaging. Tobacco Control 1995;4:85-7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/4/1/80
72. Thomson G, Wilson N and Hoek J. A call to reduce harm from tobacco pack marketing and bolster consumer health protection in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical Journal
2008;121(1284):98–101. Available from: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/121-1284/
Section: 11.10.12
80
Facts and Issues
73. Tobacco Working Group. Technical report no. 2. Tobacco in Australia: making smoking history. Canberra: National Preventative Health Taskforce, 2008. Available from: http://www.
preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/tech-tobacco
74. Preventative Health Taskforce. Australia: the healthiest country by 2020. Preventative Health Taskforce: Commonwealth of Australia, 2008 Last modified 21 May 2008 [viewed 10 June
2008]. Available from: http://www.preventativehealth.org.au/internet/preventativehealth/publishing.nsf/Content/discussion-healthiest
76. Moodie C and Hastings G. Plain packaging: a time for action. European Journal of Public Health 2010;20(1):10-11. Available from: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/
ckp186v1
77. Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Guidelines for implementation of Article 11: Guidelines on packaging and labelling
of tobacco products. Adopted at third session, Durban South Africa 17-22 November 2008, World Health Organization, 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/fctc/protocol/
guidelines/adopted/guidel_2011/en/index.html
78. Freeman B, Chapman S and Rimmer M. The case for the plain packaging of tobacco products. Addiction 2008;103:580-90. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/18339104
79. Goldberg M, Kindra G, Lefebvre J, Tribu L, Liefeld J and Madillmarshall J. When packages can’t speak: possible impacts of plain and generic packaging of tobacco products. Legacy Tobacco
Documents, University of California, San Francisco, 1995 [viewed September 2010]. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/rce50d00
80. Trachtenberg JA. Here’s one tough cowboy. Forbes 1987;February 9:108-10.
81. Beede P and Lawson R. Brand image attraction: the promotional impact of cigarette packaging. The New Zealand Family Physician 1991;18:175–7. Available from: http://legacy.library.
ucsf.edu/tid/sbf82f00/pdf;jsessionid=91CC73BD30F1A094EE18521634D49295
82. Beede P and Lawson R. The effect of plain packages on the perception of cigarette health warnings. Public Health 1992;106(4):315–22. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/1529094
83. Beede P, Lawson R and Shephard M. The promotional impact of cigarette packaging: a study of adolescent responses to cigarette plain-packs. ANZAME. Launceston, Australia: University
of Otago, 1990. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/enu22e00/pdf
84. Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer. Paper 13: Adolescents’ reactions to cigarette packs modified to increase extent and impact of health warnings. In: Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria,
ed. Health warnings and product labelling on tobacco products. Melbourne, 1992. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/gku34e00/pdf
85. Centre for Health Promotion. Effects of plain packaging on the image of tobacco products among youth. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1993. Available from: http://tobaccodocuments.
org/pm/2504106502-6535.html
86. Madill-Marshall J, Goldberg M and Gorn G. Two experiments assessing the visual and semantic images associated with current and plain cigarette packaging. Advertising and Consumer
Research 1996;23(267-8)
87. Northrup D and Pollard J. Plain packaging and other tobacco issues: a survey of grade 7 and grade 9 Ontario students. Institute for Social Research Newsletter, 1995 [viewed August
2007]. Available from: http://www.math.yorku.ca/ISR/newsletter.archives/fall.1995/plain.htm
88. RBJ Health Management Associates. Impact of plain packaging of tobacco on youth perceptions and behaviour. Report of study 1. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: RBJ Health Management
Associates, 1993. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ktl70g00
89. Rootman I and Flay B. A study on youth smoking: plain packaging, health warnings, event marketing and price reductions. Toronto: University of Toronto, University of Illinois at Chicago,
York University, Ontario, Tobacco Research Unit, Addiction Research Foundation, 1995. Available from: http://www.smoke-free.ca/plain-packaging/documents/1995/Rootmanyouthsmoking.pdf
90. Goldberg M, Liefeld J, Madil J and Vredenburg H. The effect of plain packaging on response to health warnings. American Journal of Public Health 1999;89(9):1434–5. Available from:
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/89/9/1434
91. Hammond D and Parkinson C. The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Journal of Public Health (Oxford) 2009;31(3):345-53. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/19636066
92. Donovan R. Smokers’ and non-smokers’ reactions to standard packaging of cigarettes. Perth, Australia: University of Western Australia. 1993.
93. Wakefield M, Germain D and Durkin S. How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perceptions about brand image? An experimental study. Tobacco
94. Germain D, Wakefield MA and Durkin SJ. Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand image: does plain packaging make a difference? Journal of Adolescent Health 2009;46(4):385-92.
Available from: www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(09)00341-3/abstract
95. Wakefield M, Germain D, Durkin S, Hammond D, Goldberg M and Borland R. Do larger pictorial health warnings diminish the need for plain packaging of cigarettes? Addiction
2012;107(6):1159–67. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03774.x/full
96. Parr V, Tan B, Ell P and Miller K. Market research to determine effective plain packaging of tobacco products. Sydney: GfK Blue Moon, 2011. Available from: http://www.yourhealth.gov.au/
internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/8B0333A18648BCF3CA25796E0023D826/$File/Market%20Research%20-%20Plain%20Packaging%20of%20Tobacco%20Products.pdf
97. Moodie C and Ford A. Young adult smokers’ perceptions of cigarette pack innovation, pack colour and plain packaging. Australasian Marketing Journal 2011;19(3):174-80.
98. Hammond D, Dockrell M, Arnott D, Lee A and McNeill A. Cigarette pack design and perceptions of risk among UK adults and youth. European Journal of Public Health 2009;19(6):631–7.
Available from: http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/6/631
99. Munafo M, Roberts N, Bauld L and Leonards U. Plain packaging increases visual attention to health warnings on cigarette packs in non-smokers and weekly smokers but not daily
smokers. Addiction 2011;106(8):1505-10. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21401767
100. Moodie C, Mackintosh AM, Hastings G and Ford A. Young adult smokers’ perceptions of plain packaging: a pilot naturalistic study. Tobacco Control 2011;20(5):367-73. Available from:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/5/367.abstract
Section: 11.10.12
Chapter 11: Tobacco
81
101. Moodie C, Ford A, Mackintosh AM and Hastings G. Young people’s perceptions of cigarette packaging and plain packaging: an online survey. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2012;14(1):98105. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22025540
102. Hammond D, Daniel S and White CM. The effect of cigarette branding and plain packaging on female youth in the United Kingdom. Journal of Adolescent Health 2012;Online Available
from: http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X%2812%2900222-4/abstract
103. Hoek J, Wong C, Gendall P, Louviere J and Cong K. Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers. Tobacco Control 2011;20(3):183-8 Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.
com/content/early/2010/10/21/tc.2010.037861.full
104. McCool J, Webb L, Cameron LD and Hoek J. Graphic warning labels on plain cigarette packs: will they make a difference to adolescents? Social Science Medicine 2012;74(8):1269-73.
Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22385817
105. Gallopel-Morvan K, Moodie C, Hammond D, Eker F, Beguinot E and Martinet Y. Consumer perceptions of cigarette pack design in France: a comparison of regular, limited edition and plain
packaging. Tobacco Control 2012 Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21998127
106. Scheffels J and Saebo G. Perceptions of plain and branded cigarette packaging among Norwegian youth and adults: a focus group study. Nicotine & Tobacco Research 2012;[Epub ahead
of print] Available from: http://ntr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/24/ntr.nts153
107. Hammond D. Plain packaging regulations for tobacco products: the impact of standardizing the color and design of cigarette packs. Salud Pública de México 2010;52(suppl. 2 ):226–32.
Available from: http://www.scielosp.org/pdf/spm/v52s2/a18v52s2.pdf
108. Moodie C, Stead M, Baulda L, McNeill A, Angusa K, Hinds K, et al. Plain tobacco packaging: a systematic review. Stirling, Scotland: University of Stirling, 2011. Available from: http://phrc.
lshtm.ac.uk/project_2011-2016_006.html
109. Hammond D, Fong G, Borland R, Cummings KM, McNeill A and Driezen P. Text and graphic warnings on cigarette packages: findings from the international tobacco control four country
study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2007;32(3):202–9. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296472
110. Gfk Blue Moon. Market research reports on tobacco plain packaging and graphic health warnings. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011. Available from: http://www.
yourhealth.gov.au/internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-plainpack#.T3Ug6dmFQ8m
111. Pollay RW and Dewhirst T. A Premiere example of the illusion of harm reduction cigarettes in the 1990s. Tobacco Control 2003;12(3):322-32. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.
com/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/322
112. Doxey J and Hammond D. Deadly in pink: the impact of cigarette packaging among young women. Tobacco Control 2011;20(5):353-60. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/
content/20/5/353.abstract
113. Freeman B and Chapman S. On ciggies, Australia the world leader in public health reform. (Sydney) 2010:30 Apr. Available from: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/30/on-ciggiesaustralia-the-world-leader-in-public-health-reform/
115. Final Report Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009, 2010, Senate Community Affairs Committee, Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/
committee/clac_ctte/plain_tobacco_packaging_09/index.htm
116. Australian Government. Public consultation on plain packaging of tobacco products. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011. Available from: http://yourhealth.gov.au/
internet/yourhealth/publishing.nsf/Content/plainpack-tobacco
117. Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011, 2011, Available from: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4613%22
118. Nicola Roxon Minister for Health and Ageing. World’s toughest anti-smoking laws released [Media release]. Canberra: Department of Health and Ageing, 2011 [viewed 9 April 2011].
Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-nr-nr064.htm
119. Sweet M. Plain tobacco packs – ‘draconian’ or a massive win for public health? [Media release]. Sydney: Croakey (Crikey), 29 Apr 2010 [viewed 25 April 2010]. Available from: http://
blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2010/04/29/plain-tobacco-packs-draconian-or-a-massive-win-for-public-health/#comments
120. Casben L. Tobacco companies rally against plain packaging. ABC News, (Sydney) 2010:29 Apr. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885343.
htm?section=business
121. Action on Smoking and Health UK. Australia to ban cigarette packet branding [Media release]. ASH UK, 29 April 2010 [viewed 30 April 2010]. Available from: http://www.ash.org.uk/
media-room/news/ash-daily-news/ash-daily-news-for-01-10-2002/:ash-daily-news-for-29-april-2010
122. Lloyd P. Tobacco industry rejects plain packets. Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (Sydney) 2010:Broadcast 4 August. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
content/2010/s2972652.htm
123. Benson S. Coles pulls out of pro-cigarette campaign. The Daily Telegraph, (Sydney) 2010:12 Sep. Available from: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/business/coles-pulls-out-of-procigarette-campaign/story-e6frez7r-1225903660384
124. Benson S. Woolies pulls plug over ads. Daily Telegraph, (Sydney) 2010:12 September 2010. Available from: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/election/woolies-pulls-plug-over-ads/
story-fn5zm695-1225904675110
125. Anon. Smoking ad ‘deceit’. The Age, (Melbourne) 2010:12 Sep. Available from: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/smoking-ad-deceit-20100813-1239o.html
126. Whittaker J. Smoking kills, says big tobacco on hacked plain packaging campaign site. Crikey, 2010:12 Sept. Available from: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/30/smoking-kills-saysbig-tobacco-on-hacked-plain-packaging-campaign-site/
127. Lloyd P. The tobacco files. Lateline, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, (Sydney) Broadcast 12 September 2010. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/
s3008987.htm
128. VicHealth. Plain packaging campaign revealed as a farce on ABCs Lateline [Media release]. Carlton: VicHealth, 2010 [viewed 12 September 2010]. Available from: http://www.vichealth.
vic.gov.au/Media-Centre/Media-Releases-by-Topic/Smoking-and-tobacco-control/Plain-packaging-campaign-revealed-as-a-farce.aspx
129. Quit Victoria. Tobacco industry persuades people to support plain packaging of cigarettes [Media release]. Melbourne: Cancer Council Victoria, 27 March 2011 [viewed 9 April 2011].
Section: 11.10.12
82
Facts and Issues
130. Imperial Tobacco. Imperial Tobacco to defend its trademarks [Media release]. Sydney: 30 April 2010 [viewed 30 April 2010]. Available from: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/
pdfs/tobacco-industry/imperial-press-release.pdf
131. Australian Associated Press. Tobacco giants oppose plain packaging. Business Spectator, 2011:7 Apr. Available from: Link no longer available at http://www.businessspectator.com.au/
bs.nsf/Article/Tobacco-giants-oppose-plain-packaging-FPA34?opendocument&src=rss
132. Plain packaging. London: British American Tobacco 2010 Last modified 18 February 2011 [viewed 9 April 2011]. Available from: http://www.bat.com/group/sites/uk__3mnfen.nsf/
vwPagesWebLive/DO7J7DCZ?opendocument&SKN=1
133. News on ABC. Scott McIntyre from British American Tobacco Australasia, Plain packaging will cost taxpayers: BATA. YouTube, 2011. Available from: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=wEXH7mqEEWE
134. Rachel Siewert Australian Greens. Tobacco industry fight to undermine health initiatives uncovered [Media release]. Canberra: 21 October 2010 [viewed 8 April 2011]. Available from:
http://rachel-siewert.greensmps.org.au/content/media-release/tobacco-industry-fight-undermine-health-initiatives-uncovered
135. Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Official Committee Hansard Wedensday 15 February. Estimates, Senate, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2012. Available
from: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/4c49d0f2-f9fb-47d6-9c15-f3211561297f/toc_pdf/Community%20Affairs%20Legislation%20
Committee_2012_02_15_797_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/4c49d0f2-f9fb-47d6-9c15-f3211561297f/0000%22
136. Clarke H and Prentice D. Will plain packaging reduce cigarette consumption? Economic Papers: A Journal of Applied Economics and Policy 2012;31(3):303-17. Available from: http://
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2042296
137. Deloitte. Potential impact on retailers from the introduction of plain tobacco packaging. February 2011. Sydney: Alliance of Australian Retailers, 2011. Available from: https://www.
australianretailers.com.au/downloads/pdf/deloitte/2011_01_31_AAR_Plain_Packaging2.pdf
138. Deloitte. Plain packaging and channel shift. June. Sydney: Alliance of Australian Retailers, 2011. Available from: https://www.australianretailers.com.au/downloads/pdf/deloitte/
Potential_impact_of_channel_shift.pdf
139. Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148
140. Carter OBJ, Mills BW, Phan T and Bremner JR. Measuring the effect of cigarette plain packaging on transaction times and selection errors in a simulation experiment. Tobacco Control 2011
Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/09/23/tobaccocontrol-2011-050087.abstract
141. Wilson T. Governing in ignorance: Australian governments legislating, without understanding, intellectual property . Version 2. Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2010. Available from:
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1275976632_document_100508_-_paper_-_governing_in_ignorance.pdf
142. Institute of Public Affairs. Plain packaging may require up to $3.4 billion taxpayer gift annually to big tobacco and film companies: new report released for world intellectual
property day [Media release]. Melbourne: IPA, 2010 [viewed 27 April 2010]. Available from: http://www.ipa.org.au/library/publication/1272344059_document_governing_in_
ignorance_-_26042010.pdf
143. Berkovic N. Legal experts back Canberra. The Australian, (Sydney) 2010:30 Apr. Available from: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/legal-experts-back-canberra/storye6frgczf-1225860371872
144. Davison M. Banning tobacco logos: a look at the issues. Melbourne: Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia University of Melbourne, 2010. Available from: http://www.ipria.
org/events/seminar/2010/Presentations/Mark%20Davison%20-%20Tobacco%20Presentation%20%5BCompatibility%20Mode%5D.pdf
145. Davison M. Plain packaging of cigarettes: would it be lawful? Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 2010;23(5):105–8. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.
cfm?abstract_id=1926473
146. JT International v Commonwealth of Australia; British American Tobacco Australasia Limited & Ors v Commonwealth of Australia 2012 Available from: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/
publications/judgment-summaries/2012/projt-2012-08-15.pdf
147. JT International SA v Commonwealth of Australia 2012 High Court of Australia.Available from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/43.html
148. Deloitte. Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia. February 2011. Sydney: Prepared for British American Tobacco Australia Limited, Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited,
2011. Available from: http://www.bata.com.au/group/sites/bat_7wykg8.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO7WZEX6/$FILE/medMD8EHAM5.pdf?openelement
149. Deloitte. Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia: an update. June 2011. Sydney: Prepared for British American Tobacco Australia Limited, Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia
Limited, 2011.
150. Deloitte. Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia: Report for 2011: A report prepared for British American Tobacco Australia Limited, Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited,
May 2012. Sydney: Prepared for British American Tobacco Australia Limited, Philip Morris Limited and Imperial Tobacco Australia Limited, 2012. Available from: http://www.bata.com.au/
group/sites/BAT_7WYKG8.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO7WZEX6?opendocument&SKN=1
151. Quit Victoria. Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia: a report prepared by Deloitte for British American Tobacco, Philip Morris Ltd and Imperial Tobacco: a critique prepared March 2011,
updated August and November 2011. Melbourne, Australia: Cancer Council Victoria, 2011. Available from: http://www.cancervic.org.au/plainfacts/browse.asp?ContainerID=plainfactsmyths
152. Quit Victoria. Illicit trade of tobacco in Australia: a report prepared by Deloitte for British American Tobacco, Philip Morris Ltd and Imperial Tobacco: a critique prepared April 2012.
Melbourne, Australia: Cancer Council Victoria, 2012. Available from: http://www.cancervic.org.au/plainfacts/browse.asp?ContainerID=plainfacts-myths
153. Senate Community Affairs Committee. Answers to estimates questions on notice health and ageing portfolio. Canberra: Senate, 2011. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/estimates/add_1011/doha/032.pdf
154. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Chapter 8. Tax avoidance and tax evasion. Effectiveness of tax and price policies for tobacco control. Lyon, France: IARC, 2011. Available from:
http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/list/handbooks/
155. World Customs Organization. World Customs Organization annual report, 2011, tobacco extracts. Brussels: WCO, 2012. Available from: http://www.wcoomd.org/files/1.%20Public%20
files/PDFandDocuments/Press%20releases/Extract_Customs_Tobacco_2011.pdf
Section: 11.10.12
Chapter 11: Tobacco
83
156. Customs Amendment (Smuggled Tobacco) Bill 2012(Cth). Available from: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2F
r4858_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0
157. Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011: Explanatory Memorandum, 2011, Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011B00128/Explanatory%20
Memorandum/Text
158. Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Plain Tobacco Packaging (Removing Branding from Cigarette Packs) Bill 2009 (presented out of session on 26 August 2010). 3219 28
September, Senate, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=clac_ctte/
completed_inquiries/2008-10.htm
159. Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 {Provisions}. Senate, Canberra: Parliament of Australia,
2011. Available from: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/trade_marks_amendment/report/index.htm
160. Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011, Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011A00148
161. Tobacco Plain Packaging Regulations, 2011. Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02644/Download
162. Competition and Consumer (Tobacco) Information Standard, 2011. Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02766
163. Mitchell AD and Studdert DM. Plain packaging of tobacco products in Australia: a novel regulation faces legal challenge. Journal of American Medical Association 2012;307(3):261-2.
Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22253391
164. Mitchell AD and Voon T. Face off: assessing WTO challenges to Australia’s scheme for plain tobacco packaging. Public Law Review 2012;22(3):218-40. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.
com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1995015
165. West R. Preventing tobacco companies from advertising using their packaging could be an important component of comprehensive tobacco control: a commentary on Australia’s plain
packaging of cigarettes. Drug & Alcohol Review 2012;30(6):681-2. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21950467
166. Chapman S and Freeman B. From brand to bland--the demise of cigarette packaging. British Medical Journal 2011;343:d4376. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.
d4376.long
167. Secretary of State for Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: our strategy for public health in England. London: 2010. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/
dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/documents/digitalasset/dh_122347.pdf
168. Secretary of State for Health. Healthy Lives, Healthy People: a tobacco control plan for England. London: Government of the United Kingdom, 2011. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.
uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_124960.pdf
169. Proposition de loi visant instauration un paquet de cigarettes neutre et standardis (Bill aiming to establish plain and standardized packaging for cigarettes), 2010, no. 3005. Available
from: http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/dossiers/paquet_cigarettes_neutre.asp
170. Bur Y. Propositions pour une nouvelle politique de lutte contre le tabac: rapport au Ministre du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Santé. Paris: 2012. Available from: http://www.sante.gouv.fr/
IMG/pdf/rapport_Y_Bur_nouvelle_politique_de_lutte_contre_le_tabac.pdf
171. Mme Sarah Smeyers Minister for Health Belgium. Record of proceedings 19 January. Brussels: Chambre des Respresentants de Belgique, 2011. Available from: http://www.dekamer.be/
doc/CCRA/pdf/53/ac096.pdf
172. Maori Affairs Committee. Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Maori: report of the Maori Affairs Committee. Wellington: Parliament of
New Zealand, 2010. Available from: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/SC/Documents/Reports/6/e/a/49DBSCH_SCR4900_1-Inquiry-into-the-tobacco-industry-in-Aotearoa-and.
htm
173. Government of New Zealand. Government Response to the Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on its Inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco
use for Māori. Wellington: 2011. Available from: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3AAA09C2-AD68-4253-85AE-BCE90128C1A0/188520/DBHOH_PAP_21175_GovernmentFin
alResponsetoReportoft.pdf
Section: 11.10.12
84
Facts and Issues
11.11
Smoking in movies as promotion
While advertisements for cigarettes can no longer be shown in cinemas before movies, audiences are often
exposed to pro-smoking imagery during the movie. In 2002, the total amount of smoking in movies was greater in
youth-rated films than adult-rated films, significantly increasing adolescent exposure to movie smoking. Smoking
in the movies decreased from 1950 to 1990 and then increased rapidly so that smoking in movies in 2002 was
as common as in 1950.1 A 2006 study, the most comprehensive research to date examining total depictions of
smoking in movies, found that the total number of smoking characters is declining.2 The study included the top
100 US box office hits for each year from 1996 to 2004. This downward trend was, however, weakest in films aimed
at an adolescent audience. Although many of the movies included in the study depict no adult smoking, more
than one-third depict smoking as being more prevalent than among US adults at the time of release. A 2010 study
that controlled for the methodological problems of assessing smoking portrayals in movies over time found that
tobacco content has declined considerably in movies since 1950. Total tobacco-related content peaked around
1961, while the decline in portrayal of main character use was already underway in 1950.3 This pattern closely
parallels the time frame of drops in US per capita cigarette consumption and the increase in tobacco control efforts.
A UK study also found a significant drop in smoking depictions in movies over a 20-year period from 1989 to
2008.4
Several review articles have shown that smoking in movies is associated with increases in adolescent smoking
initiation.1,5–7 A possible limiting factor of this body of research is that the majority of the studies have been
conducted with American youth.8 However, a UK study found that British youths were exposed to 28% more
smoking impressions in UK youth-rated movies than US youth-rated movies, because 79% of movies rated for
adults in the US are classified as suitable for youths in the UK, reflecting the less conservative nature of film
classification in the UK.9
In a US cohort study, 52.2% of smoking initiation was attributed to exposure to smoking in movies.10 A longer
term cohort study of non-smoking youth found that those youth who had watched more movies with smoking
depictions were more likely to be smokers at the seven-year follow-up. After controlling for baseline characteristics,
the authors estimated that 34.9% of established smoking in this cohort could be attributed to movie smoking
exposure.11 A criticism of such studies is that smoking may be just one of a constellation of movie characteristics
that have broad appeal to children attracted to such films.12 If smoking were removed from such movies, youth
who are more likely to smoke may still be attracted to the same sort of films because of wider characteristics of
characters and scenes in such movies. Smoking scenes may therefore not be independently predictive of smoking
among youth.
Depictions of smoking also enhance positive views of smokers and increase intent to smoke. Teenagers whose
favourite stars smoke on the big screen are three times more likely to smoke than those whose favourite stars do
not smoke.13 Adolescents who smoke are also more likely to find smoking characters in films attractive.14 Many
current movie stars are frequently pictured smoking both on and off the screen.
There is limited research on the effects or amount of smoking imagery on television. A New Zealand study of
prime time television content found that one in four programs contained tobacco imagery, most of which might
be regarded as ‘neutral or positive’. This equalled to two smoking scenes for every hour of programming.15 A US
study examined the level of youth exposure to televised movie trailers that contained smoking imagery between
August 2001 and July 2002. The researchers found that 14.4% of televised trailers included images of tobacco use.16
Tobacco use was shown in 24% of the trailers for R-ratedi (restricted) movies and 7.5% of the trailers for PG-13 and
PG-rated (parental guidance) movies. Ninety-five per cent of all youth aged 12 to 17 years in the US saw at least
one movie trailer depicting tobacco use on television during the study period. Youth are also exposed to smoking
images through video and DVD rentals of both current and historical movie releases.17
i
The Australian MA rating is similar to the US R rating. Children over 15 are permitted to view MA-rated movies provided they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.
Section: 11.11
Chapter 11: Tobacco
85
11.11.1
Counter-advertising
There is some evidence to suggest that showing an anti-smoking, counter-advertisement before films that
glamorise smoking negates positive associations. An Australian study with adolescent females showed that viewing
a counter-advertisement increased the number of non-smokers who disapproved of the smoking scenes in the
movie and increased the number of smokers who believed they would not be smoking within the next year.18
A similarly designed study with American adolescents found that those who viewed the counter-advertising
prior to a film showing characters smoking held more negative opinions about the smoking actors.19 A second
Australian study with youth cinema patrons found that while placing an anti-smoking advertisement before
movies containing smoking scenes can help to immunise non-smokers against the influences of film stars’
smoking, caution must be exercised in the type of advertisement screened.20 Some types of advertising were found
to reinforce smokers’ intentions to smoke. Another concern is whether Quit campaigns could provide sufficiently
attractive and fresh advertising material on a long-term basis.
11.11.2
The tobacco industry and movies
Despite publicly denying that it has not and does not pay for product placement (paying a fee for a product to
appear on screen) in movies, study of internal tobacco industry documents reveals a history of paid promotion.21,22
Examples include:
<< $350 000 to have Lark cigarettes appear in the James Bond movie License to Kill
<< $42 000 to place Marlboro cigarettes in Superman II
<< $30 000 to place Eve cigarettes in Supergirl
<< $5000 to have Lucky Strike appear in Beverly Hills Cop
<< an agreement to pay a $500 000 fee to actor Sylvester Stallone to use Brown and Williamson products in five
feature films.23
In November 2006, Philip Morris USA issued a press release announcing that the company was asking that its
brands no longer be displayed on screen and urged the movie industry to no longer use any tobacco products in
films aimed at a youth audience.24 This campaign has been criticised as being an industry ‘PR campaign’ that hopes
to skirt meaningful regulation.25
11.11.3
Bollywood and smoking
Smoking imagery in movies is not limited to the Hollywood film industry. In May 2005, India’s health minister
announced a total ban on smoking and tobacco product imagery in all Indian films.26 The Indian film industry
volunteered to control the amount of smoking in Bollywood films instead of accepting an outright ban. According
to research conducted by the Indian agency, the Burning Brain Society, and supported by the World Health
Organization, despite film industry promises to self-regulate tobacco promotion on screen, tobacco brands have
appeared in more than 40% of Indian films released since 2004.27 In January 2009 the Delhi High Court overturned
the ban, citing that such a ban restricted the right to freedom of speech and creative expression.28
11.11.4
Proposed policy options
The Smoke Free Movies group based at the University of California, San Francisco, has outlined four policy actions
to reduce smoking depictions in films:29
Section: 11.11.4
86
Facts and Issues
<< Rate new smoking movies R. Any film that shows or implies tobacco use should be rated R. The only exceptions
should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences
of tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real historical figure.
<< Certify no pay-offs. The producers should post a certificate in the closing credits declaring that nobody on the
production received anything of value (cash money, free cigarettes or other gifts, free publicity, interest-free
loans or anything else) from anyone in exchange for using or displaying tobacco.
<< Require strong anti-smoking ads. Studios and theatres should require a genuinely strong anti-smoking ad (not
one produced by a tobacco company) to run before any film with any tobacco presence, in any distribution
channel, regardless of its Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) rating.
<< Stop identifying tobacco brands. There should be no tobacco brand identification or tobacco brand imagery
(such as billboards) in the background of any movie scene.
In 2007, Disney agreed to include anti-smoking advertisements on DVDs of its films that have cigarette smoking.30
In May 2007, the MPAA announced it would consider smoking—alongside sex, violence and ‘adult’ language—
when it was deciding what rating to assign films. Films that glamorised smoking could receive a higher rating. The
MPAA ruled out giving all films containing scenes with smoking an R or restricted rating.31 In a study with US
parents about whether cigarette use should be included as a movie ratings criteria and if movies with tobacco use
should be rated R, only 52% of parents believed that cigarettes should be used as movie ratings criteria and only
28.9% supported an R rating for movies that featured smoking.32 The authors commented that ‘if parents disagree
with an R rating exclusively for smoking, applying R ratings to movies with smoking potentially could lead parents
to become more lenient in their restrictions’(p223).32
Thailand has banned smoking scenes on all local television channels since 2000. Any image of an actor smoking
or a tobacco product is ‘pixilated’ or blurred out. There is no published data available on the effectiveness of this
policy in preventing youth uptake.
In Australia, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has called for action to amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition
Act 1992 (TAP Act) to ensure that inducements to promote tobacco products and smoking in films and other media
are clearly illegal, with substantial penalties for breaches, and to increase funding for counter-advertising.33 ASH
has also called for the end of government assistance for films that show smoking.34
Finally, it should be pointed out that there is not universal agreement on controlling the promotion of smoking in
the movies.35,36 Important questions of limiting freedom of speech and censoring artistic licence arise when there
is no evidence that smoking imagery has been sponsored by the industry. Additionally, portrayals of smoking in
movies can vary from overtly glamorous to neutral to remarkably negative; removal of all tobacco imagery could
be a disadvantage to tobacco control. An Australian study of viewer reactions to the movie, The Insider, a movie
containing varied smoking images, found participants held more negative views of the business conduct of the
tobacco industry than those who saw an equivalent control film.37
Taking into account all these options and considerations, the National Preventative Health Taskforce
recommended making smoking a ‘classifiable element’ in movies and video games.38 The Australian Government’s
response to the taskforce indicated that it was not in favour of such a move and instead recommended that the
Australian National Preventive Health Agency (to be established as part of national prevention strategy) be
tasked to review the evidence for such reforms and to discuss them with other key departments, including the
Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy; the Department of the Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts; the Office of Film and Literature Classification; and Screen Australia. In an August
2010 newspaper article, the director of the Australian Classification Board was quoted as stating that the board
already considered community standards on harm caused by ‘inappropriate’ smoking or substance misuse when
classifying films.34
Section: 11.11.4
Chapter 11: Tobacco
87
References
1. Charlesworth A and Glantz S. Smoking in the movies increases adolescent smoking: a review. Pediatrics 2005;116(6):1516–28. Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/
content/full/116/6/1516
2. Worth KA, Cin SD and Sargent JD. Prevalence of smoking among major movie characters: 1996-2004. Tobacco Control 2006;15(6):442–6. Available from: http://tc.bmj.com/cgi/content/
abstract/15/6/442
3. Jamieson PE and Romer D. News analysis. Trends in US movie tobacco portrayal since 1950: a historical analysis. Tobacco Control 2010;19(3):175-8. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.
bmj.com/content/19/3/175.short
4. Lyons A, McNeill A, Chen Y and Britton J. Tobacco and tobacco branding in films most popular in the UK from 1989 to 2008 Thorax 2010;65:417–22. Available from: http://thorax.bmj.
com/content/65/5/417.full
5. Charlesworth A and Glantz S. Tobacco and the movie industry. Clinics in Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2006;5(1):73-84.
6. Sargent J. Smoking in movies: impact on adolescent smoking. Adolescent Medicine Clinics 2005;16(2):345-70.
7. Wellman R, Sugarman D, DiFranza J and JP. W. The extent to which tobacco marketing and tobacco use in films contribute to children's use of tobacco: a meta-analysis. Archives of
Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2006;160(12):1285-96. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/12/1285
8. Sargent J. Smoking in film and impact on adolescent smoking: with special reference to European adolescents. Minerva Pediatrica 2006;58(1):27-45.
9. Anderson SJ, Millett C, Polansky JR and Glantz SA. Exposure to smoking in movies among British adolescents 2001-2006. Tobacco Control 2010;19(3):197-200. Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/3/197.abstract
10. Dalton M, Sargent J, Beach M, Titus-Ernstoff L, Gibson J, Ahrens B, et al. Effect of viewing smoking in movies on adolescent smoking initiation: a cohort study comment. The Lancet
2003;362(9380):281–5. Available from: http://image.thelancet.com/extras/03art1353web.pdf
11. Dalton MA, Beach ML, Adachi-Mejia AM, Longacre MR, Matzkin AL, Sargent JD, et al. Early exposure to movie smoking predicts established smoking by older teens and young adults.
Pediatrics 2009;123(4):e551–8. Available from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/123/4/e551
12. Chapman S. Vector control: controlling the tobacco industry and its promotions In: Public Health Advocacy and Tobacco Control: Making Smoking History. Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
Available from: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/contents.asp?ref=9781405161633&site=1
13. Tickle JJ, Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML and Heatherton TF. Favourite movie stars, their tobacco use in contemporary movies, and its association with adolescent smoking. Tobacco
14. Hanewinkel R. Cigarette smoking and perception of a movie character in a film trailer Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2009;163(1):15–18. Available from: http://archpedi.
ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/15
15. McGee R and Ketchel J. Tobacco imagery on New Zealand television 2002-2004. Tobacco Control 2006;15(5):412–4. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/
abstract/15/5/412
16. Healton C, Watson-Stryker E, Allen J, Vallone D, Messeri P and Graham P. Televised movie trailers: undermining restrictions on advertising tobacco to youth. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine 2006;160(9):885-8. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/9/885
17. Sargent J, Dalton M, Heatherton T and Beach M. Modifying exposure to smoking depicted in movies: a novel approach to preventing adolescent smoking. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine 2003;157(7):643-8. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/157/7/643
18. Edwards CA, Harris WC, Cook DR, Bedford KF and Zuo Y. Out of the Smokescreen: does an anti-smoking advertisement affect young women’s perception of smoking in movies and their
intention to smoke? Tobacco Control 2004;13(3):277–82. Available from: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/277
19. Pechmann C and Shih C. Smoking scenes in movies and anti-smoking advertisements before movies: effects on youth. Journal of Marketing 1999;63:1-13.
20. Edwards CA, Oakes W and Bull D. Out of the smokescreen II: will an advertisement targeting the tobacco industry affect young people's perception of smoking in movies and their
intention to smoke? Tobacco Control 2007;16(3):177-81.
21. Mekemson C, Glik D, Titus K, Myerson A, Shaivitz A, Ang A, et al. Tobacco use in popular movies during the past decade. Tobacco Control 2004;13(4):400–2. Available from: http://
tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/4/400
22. Popular documents: Smoking in movies. Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, 2007, viewed 28 April 2007. Available from: http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/popular_documents_movies.
html
23. Cancer Council NSW. Action on smoking in movies. Sydney: Cancer Council NSW 2005, viewed 25 April 2007. Available from: http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/editorial.
asp?pageid=1070
24. Philip Morris USA. Philip Morris USA supports eliminating its brand imagery in movies. Philip Morris USA 2006, Last modified November 2006 viewed 6 May 2007. Available from: http://
www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/about_us/news_media/pressroom/press_releases/articles/pr_11_14_2006_philip_morris_usa_asks_please_dont_give_our_cigare.asp
25. Smoke Free Movies. It’s what Philip Morris doesn’t say about movies that counts. Smokefree Movies 2007, viewed 27 April 2007. Available from: http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/
problem/PM_doesnt_say.html
26. Peace J, Wilson N, Hoek J, Edwards R and Thomson G. Survey of descriptors on cigarette packs: still misleading consumers? The New Zealand Medical Journal 2009;122(1303):90–6.
Available from: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/122-1303/3801
27. Goswami H and Kashyap R. Tobacco in movies: a report. Burning Brain Society, 2006. Available from: http://www.burningbrain.org/tobaccoinmovies/
28. Reuters. Indian court stubs out ban on smoking in Bollywood Media release. Dalje, 23 Jan 2009 viewed 24 January 2009. Available from: http://dalje.com/en-world/indian-court-stubsout-ban-on-smoking-in-bollywood/227481
29. Smoke Free Movies. The Solution. San Francisco: University of California 2007, viewed 27 April 2007. Available from: http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/solution/index.html
Section: 11.11.4
88
Facts and Issues
30. Fixmer A. Disney to eliminate cigarette smoking in family films. Bloomberg, 2007:25 Jul. Available from: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aOUU70SNKg
dM
31. AFP. Sex, violence ... smoking: US film chiefs in censorship crackdown. ABC News Online, Sydney 2007:11 May. Available from: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/
s1920252.htm
32. Longacre M, Adachi-Mejia A, Titus-Ernstoff L, Gibson J, Beach M and Dalton M. Parental attitudes about cigarette smoking and alcohol use in the Motion Picture Association of America
rating system. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2009;163(3):218–24. Available from: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/163/3/218
33. Action on Smoking and Health Australia. More Oscars for big tobacco. ASH Australia 2004, viewed 28 April 2007. Available from: http://www.ashaust.org.au/mediareleases/
mr_20040228.htm
34. Corderoy A. Smoking in children’s movies angers critics. Sydney Morning Herald, Sydney 2010:22 Aug. Available from: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/smoking-inchildrens-movies-angers-critics-20100822-13at5.html
35. Chapman S and Davis R. Smoking in movies: is it a problem? Tobacco Control 1997;6(4):269–71. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.
fcgi?artid=1759590&blobtype=pdf
36. Chapman S. What should be done about smoking in movies? Tobacco Control 2008;17:363-7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/6/363
37. Dixon H, Hill D, Borland R and Paxton S. Public reaction to the portrayal of the tobacco industry in the film The Insider. Tobacco Control 2001;10(285-91) Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/10/3/285
Section: 11.11.4
89
Chapter 11: Tobacco
11.12
Internet promotion
Just as tobacco company marketers have infiltrated youth-friendly venues, it is conceivable that they have a
presence on youth-friendly websites. While the Internet is being used to sell cigarettes,1 its largely unregulated
status holds much potential as a vehicle for both promoting smoking and advertising tobacco products. The 2008
US National Cancer Institute monograph on the role of the media in promoting and preventing tobacco use
highlights the lack of research in the area of internet-based tobacco advertising and promotion.2 The Internet is
an ideal platform for tobacco companies to pursue their promotional ambitions and to exploit the unprecedented
opportunities that interactive cyberspace provides to marketers.3 The Internet provides a continually evolving
range of technologically innovative means for tobacco companies to keep favourable associations with smoking
and particular brands in consumers’ minds.
The near ubiquitous use of the Internet also makes it a highly desirable medium for reaching large numbers
of consumers. In August 2009, there were 17 033 826 Australian internet users, which is approximately 80% of
the population4 and 72% of households had home internet access.5 Internet use by young people is part of their
everyday life.6 The 2009 Children’s Participation in Cultural and Leisure Activities survey reported that of the 2.7
million children aged 5 to 14 years, 79% used the internet. In 2008, the average Australian spent an hour-and-ahalf (29%) of their leisure time online each day.7 There are more than 9.5 million Australian Facebook users who
spend 3.26 times longer online than non-Facebook users.8 Even excluding time spent on Facebook, Facebook users
still spend 2.5 times more time online than those who are not on Facebook.
The tobacco industry has shown great interest in Web 2.0 interactivity and tools. Thousands of US smokers helped
to design a new pack for Camel cigarettes through an interactive website.9 British American Tobacco (BAT)
employees internationally were found to be enthusiastically promoting BAT cigarette brands on Facebook.10 The
cigarette rolling paper company Rizla hosts interactive and shareable games on its corporate website.11 The games
are meant to reflect ‘the brand’s image as fun, interactive, individual, colourful and creative.’12 Adolescents are
consistently exposed to tobacco content on the Internet through their normal webpage viewing.13
While the majority of content on social media sites such as Facebook does not have a commercial purpose,
promotion of tobacco brands on the site can occur in exactly the same way as users can be invited to join a group
for dog lovers or respond to an invitation to a 21st birthday party. Though the tobacco industry’s reputation in
mainstream media is generally negative,14 15 social networking sites provide it with an outlet to reinvent itself as
a modern, friendly industry and dissociate itself from the harm caused by its products. New media thus offer
tobacco companies a powerful and efficient channel
for rapidly countering the denormalising strategies and
policies of tobacco control. Adding to this potential is
the increased use of social media as a way of engaging
with brands and organisations.8
As mentioned above, some BAT employees are
promoting BAT and BAT brands on Facebook by
joining and administrating groups, joining pages
as fans, and posting photographs of BAT events,
products and promotional items10 (Figure 11.12.1) BAT
employees undertaking these actions are from countries
that have ratified the World Health Organization’s
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control,
which requires parties to ban all forms of tobacco
advertisements and promotions, including online and
any cross-border exposure from countries which are
not enforcing advertising restrictions.16 BAT Scientific
Communications Manager, Marina Murphy, responded
to the Facebook study on the Tobacco Control Journal
website, stating that:
Figure 11.12.1
A fan page for the BAT brand Lucky Strike
Source: Becky Freeman private collection
Section: 11.12
90
Facts and Issues
‘Social media and other types of user-generated content sites are growing at a phenomenal rate.
Because of this, earlier this year we reminded our employees, agencies and service providers of
our long-standing rules, to ensure that they were in no doubt about their existing obligations
and responsibilities as they apply to this relatively new and growing medium.
Our rules mean that employees, agents and service providers cannot freely and on their own
initiative post advertising material, in whole or part, on social networking sites, blog sites,
chat forums or other user-generated content sites such as YouTube, whatever the intention in
posting the material may be. The web is vast and constantly changing, and no company can
continuously police it. Things can happen there that we simply don’t know about. However, we
can work hard to ensure that our rules on internet use are understood and applied by our own
people and contractors, and we are doing so ...
Nonetheless, the report has drawn to our attention some specific instances which ‘if they have
involved any of our employees or service providers’ would certainly be wrong and should not
have happened. We are investigating these and if we find that Group employees or service
providers have posted material that they shouldn’t, perhaps out of naivety, we will be telling
them to remove it.’17
YouTube is the most popular forum for watching online video and has more than a 55% share of the viewing
market in Australia. In July 2010, 81% of Australia’s internet population viewed video online, with an average
viewer watching more than seven hours of video during the month. As advertisers look for ways to engage with
consumers in an increasingly fragmented digital environment, online video offers the ability to reach large
audiences in an engaging environment where ads tend to perform well.18
A handful of studies have examined tobacco-related content on YouTube. Tobacco imagery is ‘prolific and
accessible’ on the site (p210)19 and the dominance of pro-smoking content has persisted over time.19 Videos are
diverse and can be posted from virtually any country in the world. Videos with pro-smoking content ranged
from images of young men and women smoking, to smoking fetish scenarios, to magic tricks featuring cigarettes.
Additionally, vintage cigarette advertisements appear on the site. While the research was unable to determine if
the tobacco industry had posted any of this material, there was evidence that distributors of the Swedish smokeless
tobacco, snus, had posted promotional videos on the site. Another study specifically assessed the prevalence,
accessibility, and characteristics of smoking fetish clips on YouTube.20 Smoking fetish videos are highly prevalent
and accessible to adolescents on the website and feature sexually explicit smoking behaviour by sexy, young and
healthy females. The authors call for tighter restrictions to ensure children cannot readily access this content. A
2009 study analysed the YouTube video search results for five leading non-Chinese cigarette brands worldwide.21
More than 70% of the tobacco brand-related videos analysed in the study featured pro-tobacco content. BAT and
Philip Morris USA both deny promoting their products on YouTube.22
A content analysis study of pro-tobacco websites revealed that tobacco has a pervasive presence on the Internet,
especially on e-commerce sites and sites featuring hobbies, recreation, and ‘fetishes’(p281).23 Only 11% of the
sites examined contained health warnings. The pro-tobacco sites frequently associated smoking with ‘glamorous’
and ‘alternative’ lifestyles, and with images of attractive young males and females. Many of the websites offered
interactive site features that are potentially appealing to young people.
Several Australian websites also sell cigarettes. Some sites do not post health warnings, nor do they comply with
state and territory-based legislation surrounding point-of-sale advertising.
In May 2007, the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy (MCDS) supported a move by the Australian Government
to seek to amend the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 (TAP Act) to more explicitly prohibit advertising on the
Internet.24 Possible changes investigated by the Australian Government included broadening the current definition
of ‘to publish an advertisement’ to include ‘transmitting’ the advertisement in electronic form.24 The Australian
Government also sought to investigate the inclusion of elements such as:
<< display listings of tobacco products for sale in a text-only format
<< display prescribed graphic health warnings on the site
<< require an age-restricted access system so that minors are discouraged from visiting the site and viewing the
advertisements within
Section: 11.12
91
Chapter 11: Tobacco
<< quantify any and all taxes and other charges that may be payable over and above the advertised price on the
product.
In November 2010, the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010 was introduced into Parliament. The
Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, stated that the legislation would bring restrictions on tobacco
advertising on the Internet into line with restrictions in other media and those at physical points of sale. Online
sales, advertising and promotion of tobacco will be subject to the same kind of restrictions that are placed on
over the counter sales. The main impact of the Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Amendment Bill 2010 will be on retailers
who advertise their products without the required health warnings and as being ‘tax free’.25 The legislation will
strengthen the TAP Act by making it a specific offence to advertise or promote tobacco products on the internet
and all other electronic medium, unless compliant with State and Territory, or Commonwealth legislation.
Section: 11.12
92
Facts and Issues
References
1. Knowles JHJ, Wanke K and Kawachi I. Internet sales of tobacco: heading off the new E-pidemic. Journal of Public Health Policy 2004;25(2):162−72. Available from: http://www.jphp.
umb.edu/documents/204-020_Health_25_2_knowles.pdf
2. National Cancer Institute. Chapter 3: Key principles of tobacco promotion and rationales for regulation. In: Tobacco Control Monograph 19: The role of the media in promoting and reducing
tobacco use. Bethesda MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, 2008. Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/
tcrb/monographs/19/m19_3.pdf
3. Anderson SJ and Ling PM. ‘And they told two friends...and so on’: RJ Reynolds’ viral marketing of Eclipse and its potential to mislead the public. Tobacco Control 2008;17(4):222−9.
Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/4/222
4. Australia internet usage stats and telecommunications market report. Internet World Stats 2010, viewed 11 September 2010. Available from: http://www.internetworldstats.com/sp/
au.htm
5. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 8146.0 Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2008−09. Canberra: ABS, 2009. Available from: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/
mf/8146.0
6. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Nearly two-thirds of Australian households now have broadband Media release. Canberra: ABS, 2009 viewed 11 September 2010. Available from: http://
www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/8146.0Media%20Release12008-09?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8146.0&issue=2008-09&num=&view=
7. Smart Company. Australians spent one-third of leisure time online. 2009:3 Mar. Available from: http://www.simplenet.com.au/about-us/website-design-melbourne-news.
aspx?NewsId=66
8. Sultana D. Nielsen uncovers the new digital divide Facebook users vs non-Facebook users Media release. Sydney: Nielsen, 12 April 2010 viewed 20 June 2010. Available from: http://
www.nielsen-online.com/pr/digital_divide-apr10.pdf
9. Freeman B and Chapman S. Open source marketing: Camel cigarette brand marketing in the Web 2.0 world. Tobacco Control 2009;18(3):212−7. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.
bmj.com/content/18/3/212.full
10. Freeman B and Chapman S. British American Tobacco on Facebook: undermining Article 13 of the global World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco
Control 2010;19(3):e1−9. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/19/3/e1.abstract
11. Freeman B and Chapman S. Gone viral? Heard the buzz? A guide for public health practitioners and researchers on how Web 2.0 can subvert advertising restrictions and spread health
information. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2008;62(9): 778–82. Available from: http://jech.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/62/9/778
12. Long D. Rizla encourages a little bit of passing... the parcel. 2006:3 Apr. Available from: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/551112/Rizla+encourages+little+bit+passing+parcel/
13. Jenssen B, Klein J, Salazar L, Daluga N and Diclemente R. Exposure to tobacco on the internet: content analysis of adolescents’ internet use. Pediatrics 2009;124(2):e180−6. Available
from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2818533/
14. Chapman S and Freeman B. Markers of the denormalisation of smoking and the tobacco industry. Tobacco Control 2008;17(1):25–31. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/
content/abstract/17/1/25
15. Palazzo G and Richter U. CSR business as usual? The case of the tobacco industry. Journal of Business Ethics 2005;31(4):387−401.
16. Conference of the Parties to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Guidelines for implementation of Article 13 of the Convention. Geneva: World
Health Organization, 2008. Available from: http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf
17. Murphy M. Reply to British American Tobacco on Facebook: undermining Article 13 of the global World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Tobacco Control
2010, viewed 11 September 2010. Available from: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com.ezproxy2.library.usyd.edu.au/content/early/2010/04/14/tc.2009.032847/reply#tobaccocontrol_
el_3423
18. Radwanick. 4 out of 5 internet users in Australia viewed online video in July 2010 Media release. comScore, 9 September 2010 viewed August 2010. Available from: http://comscore.
com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/9/4_Out_of_5_Internet_Users_in_Australia_Viewed_Online_Video_in_July
19. Freeman B and Chapman S. Is ‘YouTube’ telling or selling you something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tobacco Control 2007;16(3):207−10.
20. Kim K, Paek H and Lynn J. A content analysis of smoking fetish videos on YouTube: regulatory implications for tobacco control. Health Communication 2010;25(2):97–106. Available from:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~content=a919822726~fulltext=713240928
21. Elkin L, Thomson G and Wilson N. Connecting world youth with tobacco brands: YouTube and the internet policy vacuum on Web 2.0. Tobacco Control 2010(online) Available from: http://
tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2010/08/12/tc.2010.035949.abstract
22. Sinclair L. Tobacco firms deny YouTube adverts link. Sky News Online.2010. August 26 Available from: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Tobacco-Companies-LikeMarlboro-And-LM-Deny-Getting-Round-Advertising-Bans-Through-YouTube/Article/201008415706397?lid=ARTICLE_15706397_TobaccoCompaniesLikeMarlboroAndLMDenyGetting
RoundAdvertisingBansThroughYouTube&lpos=searchresults
23. Hong T and Cody M. Presence of pro-tobacco messages on the web. Journal of Health Communication 2002;7(4):273−307. Available from: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/10810730290088148
24. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy. Joint Communique Media release. Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, 16 May 2007 viewed 22 May 2007. Available from: http://www.
nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/B9DFFBBC52656DF1CA2572DD001FBDCA/$File/16may07.pdf
25. The Hon Nicola Roxon MP. Internet Tobacco Advertising to Face New Tough Restrictions Media release. Canberra: Minister for Health and Ageing, 17 November 2010 viewed 6 January
2011. Available from: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/1D2B68296395A232CA2577DE00004878/$File/nr174.pdf
Section: 11.12
Chapter 11: Tobacco
93
Attachment 11.1
Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act report to
parliament
Section: Attachment 11.1