Joe Camel v. American Apparel
So it all starts when The Observer reported on UK health officials consideration of unbranded cigarette packaging as a means of cutting smoking rates, witness:
Public health officials say it will strip cigarettes of their glamorous image and reduce the numbers of young people taking up the habit.
Not sure that I buy this, but I digress.
We Made This then picked up on the Observer article, posting on September 24:
What’s the betting the tobacco companies are already looking at ways to make their cigarettes look totally unique in some new way - coloured cigarette papers perhaps, or coloured foils inside the packs… desperately trying to something, anything, to retain some semblance of individuality. Maybe they’d launch entirely new brands, where it was all about the name - perhaps using a really short name, or a really really long one…
Hmmm…
Flickr: Uploaded on September 24, 2008 by alistairh
Today, Darryl from Brand Flakes for Breakfast chimes in with an altogether different take:
Maybe we could put them all together in Bad Stores and there would be Bad Super Centers. Maybe there would even be a Bad Mall. Perhaps Target could open up a Bad division.
Not to make light of what is clearly a serious topic to many, but are we ultimately confusing a stripped down identity system with a lack of branding? Are we to seriously consider the idea that impressionable teens will shun cigarettes once the packaging has been reduced to black Helvetica Medium on white ( while they rush to brands like American Apparel whose blank brand identity is entirely mashable )? Certainly, packaging (as the Observer article notes) can influence purchase patterns, but confusing the appeal of smoking with the appeal of cigarette packaging is naiive.
