Ministers introduced plain packaging for cigarettes along the Australian model with legislation, after becoming convinced that the branding is a key factor in why young people start to smoke. In considering the Australian law on mandatory packaging for cigarettes, which states brand colours and logos, must be removed from the packaging boxes of cigarettes. As the research and development team for Phillip Morris International research will be conducted entailing the positive as well as negative impacts of this plain packaging legislation, passed on the 1st of December 2012. Analysis and interpretation will be presented based on the impacts on consumers, manufacturers, retailers, as well the community and society as a result of this new law. Psychological factors, including motivation, perception, learning, personality as well as attitudes, will be discussed including the marketing mix concept showing the individual impacts as well as the whole supply chain cycle. Body
Plain packaging is the simple concept of replacing brand logos and colours with a generic olive green covering with vivid pictures of diseased body parts and images of children and babies made ill by their parents' smoking. [smokefreepartnership] Besides the different health warnings and images the only difference between the packs, are their brand names, and these names are printed in identical small font. It is the world's most strict regime for the packaging of tobacco. This type of packaging brings about no marketing advantages but rather disadvantages to The law has however been passed in accordance with the views seen via the World Health Organisation’s Framework for Tobacco control and is the 1st country that has passed the law on plain packaging. These views speak of the measures countries are taking in order to limit and reduce tobacco usage. These impacts can be seen through consumer behavioural aspects as well as through their purchasing behaviours as marketing concepts affect an individual’s decision making process. Such a law would benefit the common well-being of society and the people of Australia in that it would deter people from smoking, but would also restrict the ways in which we promote our product. From a marketing perspective, it could affect a business both in good and bad ways. We can change our marketing strategies and concepts and always look for ways to make the act benefit us.
Such bans on branding activities would reduce the level of customer retention and brand recognition that the bigger companies have but this would stimulate the market and enable companies who are up and coming and smaller companies to compete with them, thus it benefits us if we are a smaller company. Customer trust will be lessened and by having a good product would be the only way we can gain their trust. Companies like British American Tobacco Australia used to dominate the market due to their reach and advertising, but the market would even out and allow smaller companies to get a fair share of the market. When taking into account how marketing can benefit a company in times like this where there are restrictions on our marketers we look at how we can improve in “legal” ways and more so we look at our marketing mix. The product will all be seen as the same as other brands (due to the bland similar packaging) amongst consumers and manufacturers would have to market it by having a better quality cigarette to gain an advantage for their product. Price would be a major factor as with all cigarettes looking similar, companies would be able to gain a major competitive advantage if they reduced selling price by maybe reducing cost prices e.g. Get cheaper suppliers for our tobacco or risking reducing profits . The place of distribution of our product would be important as companies would need to advertise by volume in that they would possibly put more stock on the shelf to get more attention. Promotion of the product is very much affected as...
References: Aljazeera (2012) Australia court backs new tobacco laws [online], available: http://m.aljazeera.com/index/news [9 April 2013]
Ashaust (2012) [online], available; http://www.ashaust .org.au/lv3/lv3resources_tobacco_legislation.htm.
Donovan, R.J., Jancey, J & Jones, S. (2002) Tobacco point of sale advertising increases positive brand user imagery, [online], available: http://m.tobaccocontrol.bmj.content/11/3/191.full
Fischer, E. (2012) Plain cigarette packaging laws- how is the industry preparing? [online], available: http://packaging –gateway.com/features/features111252. [15 August 2012]
Schiffman, L.G., Kanuk, L.L. &Wisenblit, J. (2010) Consumer Behavior, Global Edition, Tenth Edition
Smokefreepartnership (2012) Should cigarettes be sold in plain packaging [online], available: http://www.smokefreepartnership.eu/IMG/pdf/ECL_andSFP_The _case_for_stamdardised_packaging.pdf.
Wakefield, M.A., Germain, D. & Durkin, S.J. (2008) How does increasingly plainer cigarette packaging influence adult smokers’ perception about brand imagery? An experimental study. [online], available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nhi.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590906. [30 September 2008]
Wardell, J. (2012) Australia 's tobacco marketing laws give retailers a headache [online] available: http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AT08N20121130?irpc=932 [9 April 2013]
Yukhananov, A (2011) Cigarette Makers, FDA Clash Over New Graphic Ads[online], available: http://m.mnn.com/health/fitness-well-being/stories/cigarette-makers-fda-clash-over-new-graphic-ads [9 April 2013]
Poll finds majority back plain cigarette packaging [online] available: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-29/poll-finds-majority-back-plain-cigarette-packaging/2735530 [29 May 2011]
Please join StudyMode to read the full document