Black Out or Speak Out
Diving off the edge of a luxury yatch into pristine blue waters.
Gracefully navigating powder-white slopes with a troupe of gorgeous friends.
The promise of the world at my fingertips.
You guessed it: Peter Styvesant.
Most over-30’s have at least some recollection of these epic cinema ads. Many smokers will confess to having picked a favourite ciggie brand based on the lifestyles portrayed in ads just like these, identifying with the luxury or the manliness or the (some other desirable) imagery. And, whether or not we like to acknowledge it, some people began their smoking habit because of these adverts, too.*
In the late 90’s, when South Africa moved to ban cigarette advertising, the country was gripped in pockets of celebration or gloom. This was a divisive issue for smokers and non-smokers alike, with the issues of freedom of speech and freedom of choice being debated at length. The ban was a long-time in the making, and brands prepared for it by increasing their investment in marketing tools that were less likely to come under attack, such as packaging, iconography, events and sponsorship. Legislators spotted gaps and moved to close them, all in the name of reducing the harm associated with tobacco use. Today our laws are far-reaching and include, for example, limitations on smoking in public places as well.
Earlier this year, CANSA proudly claimed that cigarette consumption in SA has fallen for 8 consecutive years, and that the percentage of adult smokers has dropped from 32% to 28%. If these stats are a simple proxy for reduced harm, then something must be working. But what? The breadth of our legislation means that it’s difficult to determine how much of the behavior change is attributable to the communication ban versus other laws, such as those which directly limit opportunities for use.
And, dare I say it, what might have been achieved if the tobacco brands weren’t given a gag order, but instead mandated to invest their budgets and larger-than-life ideas in campaigns focused on educating the public about the risks associated with use? Where tobacco is concerned, we’ll never know. But perhaps we shouldn’t waste the opportunity to trial this model in other industries before resorting to another black-out.
Ever since tobacco communication was banned, the alcohol industry turbo-charged its efforts to try avoid suffering the same fate. The major players in the industry have implemented various self-regulatory codes in an effort to stave off what might be inevitable – harsher legislation. While warning labels on packs are legislated, the limits on when and where ads appear is largely self-imposed. Government and industry continue to walk a tight-rope, balancing the benefits of fiscal contribution with the societal costs of abuse. The threat of a black-out lingers, still.
Over in the UK, it’s not just the so-called ‘sin’ industries which are being shushed. Just last week, BJ’s government unveiled plans to introduce a ban on junk food advertising and products high in fat, salt and sugar, as part of a Public Health campaign. Four months into lockdown, fitness levels are a worry, as is the country’s long-standing challenge with obesity, now under the spotlight because of Covid-19. Government is worried about the health of her people.
And that of the planet, too, apparently. Today’s news headlines call for a ban on advertising SUVs. The UK is headed for a proverbial crash, they warn: SUVs pose a threat to the environment, and sales are soaring. The report examines how vehicle manufacturers have shifted their generous budgets towards pushing SUVs and pickups, focusing on the protection they offer the driver – yet failing to communicate how they create a more toxic urban environment through their inefficient fuel consumption and increased carbon dioxide emissions.
While it might give some folks the warm fuzzies to know the government cares enough to take action, it feels like their approach lacks creativity. The first hint of an issue, and out comes the muzzle. Surely they realise that it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution? Each industry has its own underbelly. What works to curb the use of tobacco won’t necessarily stop me from tucking in to some fried chicken. A black-out is the default, but there’s probably merit in allowing brands to speak out, too.
Now, imagine the right to trade allowed brands to advertise to their heart’s content, but also required that they allocate decent budget to campaigns aimed at informing the public about the possible downsides. Imagine consumers being better educated, and being empowered (and trusted) to make their own choices. Imagine government used industry as an ally in their effort to save the public from (gasp) themselves. While government may be the biggest spender, when it comes to quality (measured by engagement, recall, intent, etc.) there’s no doubt the brand owners have the upper hand. Perhaps they should be allowed to use it.
While I’m not a fan of smoking, I am very much a supporter of free choice. I have a drink on occasion, and, having worked in the alcohol industry, have felt the frustration of navigating legislation and self-regulation. Don’t try come between me and my junk food.
*my own mother admits to starting her 60-a-day smoking habit in her youth because of the impressive lifestyles she saw portrayed in adverts (sorry for spilling the beans, mom)
