Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Shops to be banned from displaying tobacco products
116 Answers
For smokers, non-smokers or shopkeeper, I can't see how this useless piece of legislation can benifit anyone. Is this just another example of barking mad big brother propaganda?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Myriad2112. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Andy-hughes - “... Look at Paracetamol. No-one advertises it, they occasionally alter what is a very basic packaging concept - because it is a ubiquitous product which does not require adversing and packaging to sell it to consumers. Therefore there is a considerable argument for removing cigarettes from display as a means to deter people from smoking - it is a potentially life-saving concept.”
I'm sorry, but what utter rubbish!
Your argument would hold some water if the sales of Paracetamol had steadily declined due to a lack of advertising but this isn't the case. In fact, sales of all painkillers are increasing year on year.
There is a very good reason why sales of Paracetamol are not in decline – they're not an impulse buy. Similarly, cigarettes are not an impulse buy. No one walks into their local shop to buy some bread and some hob-nobs and thinks, “Hmmm, I haven't had a packet of Lambert and Butler in years. I think I'll treat myself and purchase a pack.”.
Removing them from public display will not save one single human life from a smoking related illness – in fact, it is more likely to achieve the opposite. By literally making them an 'under-the counter' purchase, it suggests to impressionable kids that it's now even more subversive to smoke than before. This ban is a exercise in utter futility and it shows a profound lack of understanding about basic human psychology.
I'm sorry, but what utter rubbish!
Your argument would hold some water if the sales of Paracetamol had steadily declined due to a lack of advertising but this isn't the case. In fact, sales of all painkillers are increasing year on year.
There is a very good reason why sales of Paracetamol are not in decline – they're not an impulse buy. Similarly, cigarettes are not an impulse buy. No one walks into their local shop to buy some bread and some hob-nobs and thinks, “Hmmm, I haven't had a packet of Lambert and Butler in years. I think I'll treat myself and purchase a pack.”.
Removing them from public display will not save one single human life from a smoking related illness – in fact, it is more likely to achieve the opposite. By literally making them an 'under-the counter' purchase, it suggests to impressionable kids that it's now even more subversive to smoke than before. This ban is a exercise in utter futility and it shows a profound lack of understanding about basic human psychology.
Perhaps Birdie can explain why very savvy marketers spend billions a year on brand awareness, packaging design and point-of-sale advertising?
Some understanding of 'Anchoring' and Pavlov's Dog might be useful.
Personally, as an ex-smoker, I still experience a slight frisson whenever I see the Red Marlboro logo and packaging. I will be happy to see those prompts disappear for everyone; potential smokers, current smokers and ex-smokers.
.
Some understanding of 'Anchoring' and Pavlov's Dog might be useful.
Personally, as an ex-smoker, I still experience a slight frisson whenever I see the Red Marlboro logo and packaging. I will be happy to see those prompts disappear for everyone; potential smokers, current smokers and ex-smokers.
.
I live in Ireland and it would be easier for a 17 year old to get cocaine than cigarettes they've already banned the display and advertising here,it makes no difference to me I dont smoke but you would have to wonder why they dont put the same effort in to closing down head shops and cracking down harder on illegal drugs.
<<How about the opposite - Absence makes the heart grow fonder! >>
Yes - that's a massive aspect in retailing - the people who arrive at the checkout with a list of things they haven't seen and just realised they really want. Good grief!
Somehow I think that's greatly outweighed by all the things people buy that they didn't know they wanted until they saw it.
The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those propmpts should reduce consumption for a start.
.
Yes - that's a massive aspect in retailing - the people who arrive at the checkout with a list of things they haven't seen and just realised they really want. Good grief!
Somehow I think that's greatly outweighed by all the things people buy that they didn't know they wanted until they saw it.
The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those propmpts should reduce consumption for a start.
.
I agree that marketing and advertising plays a major part in selling a brand but surely that is just marking one above another. If ALL the brands are plain you will just have to ask for the one you want, then when the cashier is bending over looking for said packet, the kids can take the oppertunity to steal all the chocolate.
I cant see how this is gonna make any effect at all on smokers or smoking, seems a bit pointless to me. Im a smoker and i will just carry on getting my 50g of Cutters Choice each week as ive done for years. I doubt it will deter the kids either and it may actually have the reverse effect? As someone else pointed out drugs arent advertised or sold legally but they arent half popular especially with the young so this may make more rebellious teenagers decide to smoke?
I think the Government should be spending their time and money on more important issues rather than hiding away tobbaco products which in my opinion will do little.
I wonder what the next
I think the Government should be spending their time and money on more important issues rather than hiding away tobbaco products which in my opinion will do little.
I wonder what the next
-- answer removed --
<<what percentage of heroin or crack cocaine users are use to society...apart from a drain on all our taxes and resources? >>
a small percentage of a very small number.
I don't see what bearing that has on the wisdom of this excellent legislation.
Unless you're proposing the legalisation of crack and heroin?
.
a small percentage of a very small number.
I don't see what bearing that has on the wisdom of this excellent legislation.
Unless you're proposing the legalisation of crack and heroin?
.
Zeuhl – Thanks for the response suggesting that I know nothing of advertisers' techniques nor of human psychology.
As an ex-smoker myself, let me ask you this: why did you start smoking? Was it because you saw a packet of cigarettes and liked the design of the packet? When you started habitually smoking, what made you chose the brand of your choice? Was it the packaging? I suspect that the packaging was the last thing to influence your purchase. It certainly was with me and I personally know of no one who buys cigarettes based on the perceived 'image' of one brand or another.
When you start to smoke, you do so because of peer pressure, curiosity or a mixture of both. Once you get used to the sensation of smoking, the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another. I don't believe that packaging is the reason people select a brand – I certainly didn't. Once the cigarette is out of the packet, it's impossible (without very, very close inspection) to tell what brand of cigarette it is so it fails to become a 'brand statement' by the user as one cigarette looks identical to another.
As an ex-smoker myself, let me ask you this: why did you start smoking? Was it because you saw a packet of cigarettes and liked the design of the packet? When you started habitually smoking, what made you chose the brand of your choice? Was it the packaging? I suspect that the packaging was the last thing to influence your purchase. It certainly was with me and I personally know of no one who buys cigarettes based on the perceived 'image' of one brand or another.
When you start to smoke, you do so because of peer pressure, curiosity or a mixture of both. Once you get used to the sensation of smoking, the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another. I don't believe that packaging is the reason people select a brand – I certainly didn't. Once the cigarette is out of the packet, it's impossible (without very, very close inspection) to tell what brand of cigarette it is so it fails to become a 'brand statement' by the user as one cigarette looks identical to another.
Continued....
“The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those prompts should reduce consumption for a start.”
I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view will somehow make him 'forget' he smokes and therefore reduce consumption is laughable.
As I stated earlier, cigarettes are not an impulse buy. Smokers don't forget to buy their fags just as alcoholics don't forget to buy their booze and as heroin addicts don't forget to buy their gear. Hiding commodities, particularly chemically addictive commodities, will not reduce the consumption levels.
“The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those prompts should reduce consumption for a start.”
I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view will somehow make him 'forget' he smokes and therefore reduce consumption is laughable.
As I stated earlier, cigarettes are not an impulse buy. Smokers don't forget to buy their fags just as alcoholics don't forget to buy their booze and as heroin addicts don't forget to buy their gear. Hiding commodities, particularly chemically addictive commodities, will not reduce the consumption levels.
Birdy thanks for your response
<<Birdy -Thanks for the response suggesting that I know nothing of advertisers' techniques nor of human psychology. >>
Well your response has gone some way to confirm that suggestion.
<<the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another>>
Ill informed generalisation
<<I personally know of no one who buys cigarettes based on the perceived 'image' of one brand or another. >>
You've measured that scientifically have you? Because the Brand marketers have and they have come to differfent conclusions
<<When you start to smoke, you do so because of peer pressure>>
Yes. And the most powerful form is to match the peer group's brand of choice - and the Anchor for the Brand is the logo and packaging
<<Once you get used to the sensation of smoking, the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another.>>
Maybe for you. Research suggests otherwise for others.
<<Once the cigarette is out of the packet, it's impossible (without very, very close inspection) to tell what brand of cigarette it is so it fails to become a 'brand statement' by the user as one cigarette looks identical to another. >>
When did you last see a smoker without their Branded packet close to hand? Smokers are seldom separated from their defining cigarette Brand.
The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those prompts should reduce consumption for a start.”
<<I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view
<<Birdy -Thanks for the response suggesting that I know nothing of advertisers' techniques nor of human psychology. >>
Well your response has gone some way to confirm that suggestion.
<<the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another>>
Ill informed generalisation
<<I personally know of no one who buys cigarettes based on the perceived 'image' of one brand or another. >>
You've measured that scientifically have you? Because the Brand marketers have and they have come to differfent conclusions
<<When you start to smoke, you do so because of peer pressure>>
Yes. And the most powerful form is to match the peer group's brand of choice - and the Anchor for the Brand is the logo and packaging
<<Once you get used to the sensation of smoking, the taste and the overall sensation that a particular brand gives you is the reason you chose one brand over another.>>
Maybe for you. Research suggests otherwise for others.
<<Once the cigarette is out of the packet, it's impossible (without very, very close inspection) to tell what brand of cigarette it is so it fails to become a 'brand statement' by the user as one cigarette looks identical to another. >>
When did you last see a smoker without their Branded packet close to hand? Smokers are seldom separated from their defining cigarette Brand.
The key state for a smoker is the dread of 'running out' and therefore the behaviour of considering stocking up at any opportunity. Reducing those prompts should reduce consumption for a start.”
<<I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view
I have never smoked just could not see the point as i watched my father cough his head off and welcomed the ban on smoking in public places.I have never complained to or about smoking or smokers, after all its a free country,but how are going to replace the revenue raised by smokers if they decide its not worth the hassle
cont/
<<I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view will somehow make him 'forget' he smokes and therefore reduce consumption is laughable.>>
No. What is laughable is your confusion between removing prompts and triggers and having smokers 'forget'.
<<Hiding commodities, particularly chemically addictive commodities, will not reduce the consumption levels. >>
Yes they will, because removing those powerful Brand prompts will reduce consumption by young people starting up, will reduce consumption by reducing 'jacket pocket stockpiling' by current smokers and reduce consumption by those cutting down or stopping.
Next you'll be trying to tell us that people only prefer branded goods over stores' own label because they have quantified evidence they are better.
I think not.
The sales statistics and consumer research studies established over the past 100 years that our expenditure on branding and advertising is based upon disagree with you.
And the principles of behavioural psychology disagree with you.
.
<<I disagree. You're right in stating that no smoker wants to find himself without cigarettes but the idea that hiding the packets from view will somehow make him 'forget' he smokes and therefore reduce consumption is laughable.>>
No. What is laughable is your confusion between removing prompts and triggers and having smokers 'forget'.
<<Hiding commodities, particularly chemically addictive commodities, will not reduce the consumption levels. >>
Yes they will, because removing those powerful Brand prompts will reduce consumption by young people starting up, will reduce consumption by reducing 'jacket pocket stockpiling' by current smokers and reduce consumption by those cutting down or stopping.
Next you'll be trying to tell us that people only prefer branded goods over stores' own label because they have quantified evidence they are better.
I think not.
The sales statistics and consumer research studies established over the past 100 years that our expenditure on branding and advertising is based upon disagree with you.
And the principles of behavioural psychology disagree with you.
.
Latest Posts
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News27 mins ago
News30 mins ago
Man Told He Is Not British After 42...
News34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.