[Commentary] POWERWALLS PREY ON THE SUSCEPTIBLE
2
Commentary POWERWALLS PREY ON THE SUSCEPTIBLE The paper ‘The effect of retail cigarette pack displays on impulse purchase’, by Wakefield, Germain and Henriksen, reveals fascinating insights into the immensely difficult task of quitting smoking and also into the sophistication of tobacco marketers who target the smoker [1]. It should be noted that in Australia, where this study was conducted, retail displays consist only of an array of packets of cigarettes with brand-name trademarks and garishly illustrated health warnings carefully calculated to diminish the attractiveness of the packet. They are also limited in size, but can nevertheless constitute what Dewhirst [2] has categorized rather accurately as a ‘powerwall’. Nothing underlines the position of the smoker as a victim better than this exposé of their vulnerability to such simple cues as the sight of a display of cigarette packets. This affects would-be quitters to the extent that 19.4% avoid subjecting themselves to such displays and 37.7% declare that the mere sight of the displays produces an urge to smoke. The paper also demonstrates the power of tobacco addiction and the difficulties that society and individuals have in dealing with it. Thirty years ago the political cam- paign to remove tobacco advertising and sporting spon- sorship was scoffed at, as the causal link with smoking initiation was doubted. Our early gut instincts that adver- tising and sponsorship led to smoking were right, but it took a long time for researchers to prove it. Other work by Pierce [3] has shown that smoking ini- tiation was more likely in adolescents who possessed or were willing to possess a tobacco promotional item— seemingly a small issue, but given the power of tobacco addiction, even such simple items as brand-labelled T shirts have become weapons of war between public health and the tobacco merchants whose product kills half its long-term users [4]. Fortunately, early campaigns based partly on gut instincts had another basis—the view that promotion of something deadly was unethical and should not be given the benefit of the doubt. This view did resonate with our supporters and tobacco promotion has diminished gradually in the developed world. However, even in Australia, a 40-year campaign has not eradicated tobacco promotion completely, as evidenced by the work of Wakefield et al. [1]. The need to remove unnecessary cues to smoke is a clear message from Wakefield’s research. The conclusion from the work is that international policy that proposes outlawing all forms of tobacco promotion, as laid out in the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), should be taken to what might once have been catego- rized as extremes. Tobacco sales should be allowed, but supplies should be under the counter, outlets minimized and plain generic packaging should replace trademarks. This should be in addition to controlling orthodox adver- tising. Removing the facility of routine ability to smoke in pleasant sociable environments is a similarly clear message from the experience of Ireland and other coun- tries with smoke-free legislation [5]. Legislation that was once seen as socially draconian is actually too permissive, as the sophistication of the industry has kept ahead of the law. These measures will be labelled as ‘social engineering’, and correctly, because that is what they are. However, the tobacco industry has been infinitely better at this than has public health. We need an environment free of smoke and smoking cues, and this means that our political battles are far from over. Another interesting issue arises from the paper. Of 2996 people sampled, only 17.6% (526 people) were smokers (of manufactured cigarettes). Of these, 53.2% smoked less than 10 cigarettes daily; 40.7% had tried to quit within the last 6 months and 59% were considering quitting within the next 6 months. This is a vastly differ- ent social portrait compared to that of a decade or two ago. Smokers are showing strong signs of dissonance with their addiction and the pool of smokers is in a con- stant state of dynamic change. This is due presumably to the public health pressures we have been able to apply, and represents a considerable degree of success. However, the analogy of the smoker as a ping-pong ball bouncing between the bats of public health and the tobacco indus- try is a fair one. Obviously it is essential to keep up the public health pressure as the battle is going our way, but is far from won. Keeping up the pressure means continuing carefully tailored legislative restrictions and covering all the fields of promotion; removing exposure to second-hand smoke; and restricting sales outlets. However, this is not enough. We need to use the weapons against the industry they once used so freely on the public. This means money— Coca Cola- or Macdonald’s-style money—spent on well- researched programmes. This funding should be sourced from tobacco levies, earmarked legislatively for tobacco control. Given the price elasticity of tobacco, there is plenty of funding there for the taking. All that is lacking is political will. © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 103, 329–330
-
Upload
nigel-gray -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of [Commentary] POWERWALLS PREY ON THE SUSCEPTIBLE
![Page 1: [Commentary] POWERWALLS PREY ON THE SUSCEPTIBLE](https://reader043.fdocuments.us/reader043/viewer/2022020519/575063ea1a28ab0f079b351a/html5/page/1.jpg)
Commentary
POWERWALLS PREY ON THESUSCEPTIBLE
The paper ‘The effect of retail cigarette pack displays onimpulse purchase’, by Wakefield, Germain and Henriksen,reveals fascinating insights into the immensely difficulttask of quitting smoking and also into the sophisticationof tobacco marketers who target the smoker [1].
It should be noted that in Australia, where this studywas conducted, retail displays consist only of an array ofpackets of cigarettes with brand-name trademarks andgarishly illustrated health warnings carefully calculatedto diminish the attractiveness of the packet. They are alsolimited in size, but can nevertheless constitute whatDewhirst [2] has categorized rather accurately as a‘powerwall’.
Nothing underlines the position of the smoker as avictim better than this exposé of their vulnerability tosuch simple cues as the sight of a display of cigarettepackets. This affects would-be quitters to the extent that19.4% avoid subjecting themselves to such displays and37.7% declare that the mere sight of the displaysproduces an urge to smoke.
The paper also demonstrates the power of tobaccoaddiction and the difficulties that society and individualshave in dealing with it. Thirty years ago the political cam-paign to remove tobacco advertising and sporting spon-sorship was scoffed at, as the causal link with smokinginitiation was doubted. Our early gut instincts that adver-tising and sponsorship led to smoking were right, but ittook a long time for researchers to prove it.
Other work by Pierce [3] has shown that smoking ini-tiation was more likely in adolescents who possessed orwere willing to possess a tobacco promotional item—seemingly a small issue, but given the power of tobaccoaddiction, even such simple items as brand-labelled Tshirts have become weapons of war between publichealth and the tobacco merchants whose product killshalf its long-term users [4].
Fortunately, early campaigns based partly on gutinstincts had another basis—the view that promotion ofsomething deadly was unethical and should not be giventhe benefit of the doubt. This view did resonate withour supporters and tobacco promotion has diminishedgradually in the developed world. However, even inAustralia, a 40-year campaign has not eradicatedtobacco promotion completely, as evidenced by the workof Wakefield et al. [1].
The need to remove unnecessary cues to smoke is aclear message from Wakefield’s research. The conclusion
from the work is that international policy that proposesoutlawing all forms of tobacco promotion, as laid out inthe Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC),should be taken to what might once have been catego-rized as extremes. Tobacco sales should be allowed, butsupplies should be under the counter, outlets minimizedand plain generic packaging should replace trademarks.This should be in addition to controlling orthodox adver-tising. Removing the facility of routine ability to smokein pleasant sociable environments is a similarly clearmessage from the experience of Ireland and other coun-tries with smoke-free legislation [5]. Legislation that wasonce seen as socially draconian is actually too permissive,as the sophistication of the industry has kept ahead of thelaw.
These measures will be labelled as ‘social engineering’,and correctly, because that is what they are. However, thetobacco industry has been infinitely better at this thanhas public health. We need an environment free of smokeand smoking cues, and this means that our politicalbattles are far from over.
Another interesting issue arises from the paper. Of2996 people sampled, only 17.6% (526 people) weresmokers (of manufactured cigarettes). Of these, 53.2%smoked less than 10 cigarettes daily; 40.7% had tried toquit within the last 6 months and 59% were consideringquitting within the next 6 months. This is a vastly differ-ent social portrait compared to that of a decade or twoago. Smokers are showing strong signs of dissonancewith their addiction and the pool of smokers is in a con-stant state of dynamic change. This is due presumably tothe public health pressures we have been able to apply,and represents a considerable degree of success. However,the analogy of the smoker as a ping-pong ball bouncingbetween the bats of public health and the tobacco indus-try is a fair one. Obviously it is essential to keep up thepublic health pressure as the battle is going our way, butis far from won.
Keeping up the pressure means continuing carefullytailored legislative restrictions and covering all the fieldsof promotion; removing exposure to second-hand smoke;and restricting sales outlets. However, this is not enough.We need to use the weapons against the industry theyonce used so freely on the public. This means money—Coca Cola- or Macdonald’s-style money—spent on well-researched programmes. This funding should be sourcedfrom tobacco levies, earmarked legislatively for tobaccocontrol. Given the price elasticity of tobacco, there isplenty of funding there for the taking. All that is lacking ispolitical will.
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 103, 329–330
![Page 2: [Commentary] POWERWALLS PREY ON THE SUSCEPTIBLE](https://reader043.fdocuments.us/reader043/viewer/2022020519/575063ea1a28ab0f079b351a/html5/page/2.jpg)
Keywords Dissonance, legislation, point-of-sale,powerwalls, promotion, tobacco.
NIGEL GRAY
Voluntary Senior Associate with the Cancer Council,Victoria, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
References
1. Wakefield M., Germain D., Henriksen L. The effect of retailcigarette pack displays on impulse purchase. Addiction 2008;103: 322–28.
2. Dewhirst T. POP goes the power wall? Taking aim at tobaccopromotional strategies utilised at retail. Tob Control 2004; 13:209–10.
3. Pierce J. P., Choi W. S., Gilpin E. A., Farkas A. J., Berry C. C.Tobacco industry promotion of cigarettes and adolescentsmoking. JAMA 1998; 279: 511–5.
4. Peto R., Lopez A. D., Boreham J., Thun M., Heath C. Mortalityfrom Smoking in Developed Countries 1950–2000. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 1994
5. Fong G. T., Hyland A., Borland R., Hammond D., Hastings G.,Mcneill A. et al. Reductions in tobacco smoke pollution andincreases in support for smoke-free public places followingthe implementation of comprehensive smoke-free workplacelegislation in the Republic of Ireland: findings from the ITCIreland/UK Survey. Tob Control 2006; 15: iii51–8.
330 Commentary
© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 Society for the Study of Addiction Addiction, 103, 329–330
