And another thing…

Oh the irony

Then there’s chick-lit books – noxious and damaging to the mind. Sparkly covers though, so they get snapped up by the shovel-load *sigh*

Very good point made in your posting. The whole affair has gotten out of hand and arguments being made to the point of sounding too ridiculous to believe, some of the incredible amounts of time, money and effort being put into beating up the smokers, which I am not one by the way, but can feel in sympathy with them having been used as a whipping post beyond what seems necessary – and at great monetary cost to boot. I doubt lives are being saved as much as money being exchanged in the backrooms somewhere for drumming up the anti-smoking brigade or perhaps a tie-in with pharmaceutical trade money or furthering the funding of NHS if they have involvement in the politicking to some degree as I’m certain they must. It’s like a lunatic parade of never-ending anti-smoker bad-mouthing of the n’th degree, certainly do feel bad for them being mistreated so unkindly at this point.

2 reasons not to be too harsh on Sandra Gidley (..and i’m a labour party member):

- She tweeted this recently: “Just worked out who Michael Gove reminds me of – that posh ventriloquist’s dummy. Lord Charles?”

- she won her seat at a by election in 2000 tackling head-on a tory campaign blaming asylum seekers for all the world’s (and Romsey’s) problems.

Drink warnings on bottles, warning on fag packets. warnings on you car sun visor that are impossible to read. Hot water warnings on taps. Warnings on ladders telling you. you will hurt yourself if you fall off. Warnings of dangers of death is you scale an eleltricity pylon and either fall off or touch the wire it does not make that clear.
Bottle tops you cannot get off so you just leave them loose on the top and it defeats the object.

Why are you even debating cig packets. God help us all.

Everyone knows that women are attracted to shiny things, even more so than tasty things and pretty things.

Offer a woman the choice of a diamond (practical value zero), a box of chocs (edible) and flowers (smelly) and they’ll invariably choose the sparkliest option.

Just like magpies really.

And of course we know shiny things do not attract children, roll on the elections.

Nice one, Tom (did you vote against?)

Mind you, wasn’t there a brand many years ago ((“Passing Cloud”?) which was marketed specifically at women? The cigarette was oval with a white tip. The packaging, though, was no doubt backed up by an advertising campaign.

The ban on display at point of sale really can’t be justified. Tobacco is a legal product and the consumer is entitled to see the range stocked (and I think that the manufacturers are entitled to have their products displayed); neither is ciggie buying impulsive and there is no evidence that putting tobacco out of sight reduces take up of smoking.

If this legislation goes through people can look forward to their corner shop closing. This Government’s war on smoking is resulting in real loss of businesses. And you know what? Unless it’s prepared to give up the £10 billion a year that smokers contribute to the Treasury, people will continue to smoke but they’ll loathe those who are demonising them.

What can I say Tom? I can’t say anything, you’ve said it so eloquently.

I can only presume that Sandra Gidley’s election campaign, is going to mostly consist of activists all sat round large tables, with pots of glue and some glitter, merrily upgrading all the LibDem literature addressed to women.

There is no reason to put tobacco and cigars ‘out of sight’, as they are not sold in ‘pretty’ packaging.

I see that “comedienne” Jenny Eclair is busy telling us 30 times a day that 6g of salt per day is “the maximum daily allowance”

How kind of Government to allow me 6g of salt. Just for that, I’m off to spoon feed the stuff to a baby.

@ Richard

“Everyone knows that women are attracted to shiny things, even more so than tasty things and pretty things.
Offer a woman the choice of a diamond (practical value zero), a box of chocs (edible) and flowers (smelly) and they’ll invariably choose the sparkliest option.
Just like magpies really.”

It’s rare, these days, to read such a thoughtful and empathetic analysis of women and their complex personalities. You must be having to fight us off!

Apparently Ms Gidley worked for Tesco before she became an MP, and presumably the received wisdom there is that packaging plays a big part in the way a product is marketed. But it still makes it sounds as if she thinks some women have the discernment of a 7 year old (or indeed magpie) to be mesmerised by shiny and glittery packaging.

She’s also the sturdy-looking redhead who dragged John Bercow to the Speaker’s Chair, watched by the stony faced and furious Nadine Dorries and her cronies (looking not unlike the witches on the blasted heath). And she’s dead right about Michael Gove looking like Ray Allen’s Lord Charles.

I think it’s entirely reasonable to marginalise an addictive and dangerous product. Retailers make practically zero profit on fags, but feature them so prominently so attract addicts who will then buy other products.
Removing this virtual “loss leader” product from display means that shops who choose not to sell cigarettes can compete on a level playing field.

@Jay

Ah. Passing Clouds. Perhaps the most beautiful packaging on any product ever designed. (Still killed you, of course!)

However,the argument I heard recently against banning displays, put out by some representative of corner shops, is completely daft.

They say it’s a waste of legislative time because it won’t have the slightest effect on smoking, which is an addiction and therefore not susceptible to advertising.

Then they say it will put them out of business.

Dougal, these cows are small, those cows are far away…

Perhaps I’ve got it wrong, but isn’t she accepting that the who buy cigarettes are addicted to nicotine or have already decided they want a smoke, but suggesting they are then attracted to a particular brand because of the way it is packaged and presented.

I obviously wasn’t there so I may have this wrong.

There is however, much evidence in marketing data of women or men being attracted to a particular presentation because of the way it is geared to their gender. Some cigarettes used to have a gold band around them which was designed so that women could look sophisticated. Most men wouldn’t be seen dead smoking one.

I can’t speak for cigarette packet designers – but I do recall hearing that the reason so many fast food places use the primary colour red is because of a recognised connection in the human brain between red, hunger and food.

Advertising and marketing companies are incredibly slick, and there’s a reason that they are paid so much. They do a hell of a lot of research and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a reason packets of anything are designed in a certain way to attract certain types of people who otherwise wouldn’t use their product.

I’m a woman, and I don’t find that statement patronising at all. If I walked past a clothes store and saw something sparkly in the window, I’d certainly take a second look and then judge the outfit properly. The point is that the sparkle got me to look again. For me, the shiny wouldn’t be enough to get me to start smoking, but I can’t speak for others.

Okay pop psychology time:

People who are trying to give up are much more likely to succeed if the packaging is dull and unattractive.

Not because women are magpies, but because, as an impulse buy, you are much more likely to purchase the shiny thing at the counter.

While the phrasing may have seemed patronising the actual logic was accurate.

Hmmm… a New Labour MP paying more attention to the phrasing than the content. Ignoring the facts to try and be overly PC.
@anarchyintheuk: agreed, but does Tom see it?

Well put,Tom,for someone in the Nanny’s
cot. I am reminded to easily of my time
in the old East Berlin(DDR)The only
glossy ads on open view were gigantic
pictures of Hoenicker,Marx ,lenin and Marx.
Fortunately the East German workers did
not fall for such decorative promotions.

At least the smugglers will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of more
corner shops,vending machines and pubs
being taken of the market.
As the smugglers sell cheaper I suppose
the bans are a good move for the poor.

What really baffles me ,is the fact that
so many working class idiots still vote
Labour

Jay @ 8:21 Nice one, Tom (did you vote against?)

What vote?

[...] Tom Harris, who has a handy guide for Ms Gidley explaining the difference between a woman and a magpie. [...]

As Cancer Research UK are pointing out the tobacco industry have been putting some effort into their packaging recently.

Here’s the academic paper which has been examining the changes that have been made to cigarette boxes in recent times.

My reading of the abstract is that what appears to have had the most effect has been the ‘value based’ changes rather than the image ones.

I am thinking of selling radioactive polonium 210 in sparking packaging. Do you think that many women would buy and consume some?

Chas, there was an episode of Cagney and Lacey in which a student sniffed plutonium.

It was a bloke, though.

This made me laugh. I don’t laugh that easily.

Gitanes were my ready-made fags of choice. The packets were the coolest thing you could possibly have. When I had a pack of Gitanes, I was Jean Paul Belmondo or Eddie Constantine in “Alphaville”.

I am such an impressionable soul and yes, packaging influences decisions. Why do birds drink anything with an umbrella in it? Why were flakes marketed as a chocolate orgasm?

Perhaps Tom, before you make assumptions about the intelligence of women, you should watch this public information film

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

I like shiny thinks as well, who you calling a girl?

Wrinkled, I recall a newspaper ad a few years ago in which a tubby 30-something man went into a chemist and asked for tampax, as he wanted to do all the skiing and laughing and other activities which the female customers enjoyed.

I don’t remember Flake being marketed as a chocolate orgasm (at least for the one eating it), more like a serotonin-laden blow-job.

I’m willing to bet that 90% of the pink shiny iPods available are sold to women.

@Stephen O’Donnell

Removing this virtual “loss leader” product from display means that shops who choose not to sell cigarettes can compete on a level playing field

Let’s apply the same rule to all goods.

All biscuits will come in brown paper bags, as will everything else.

No advertising allowed, except by those advocating further losses to liberty and the government peddling unfounded claims as truth.

If cigarettes make a profit for the shopkeeper, however small, they are not a loss leader. Virtual mean unreal, so your statement is unreal loss leader.

Lots of shops don’t sell cigarettes, florists for example.

If it is not illegal it is legal in the UK (we don’t yet have french style laws here). If it is legal why cannot shops display any legal goods.

Just another example of labour government funded lobbyists telling untruths to further justify limiting our choice and aiding the governments ongoing odsession with controling and limiting all aspects of our lives.

Alec, are you telling me you missed the most pornographic advert in the history of advertising?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCLggnjbsqQ

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcbhHOZZXnI

Sorry to drag the blog into the gutter, Tom, but poor Alec must know.

@ Rapunzel

I only speak whereof I know. Women are obsessed with things that are sparkly, especially if they come in a blue box.

Jewellery is like crack cocaine to women and there are even stores like ‘Claire’s Accessories’ with rack upon rack of fake shinies for girls who can’t wait for a man to provide them with a fix.

@captainff – this vote:

http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/

@liberanos – the reason that corner shops fear for their business is because of the cost of refitting the shops if point of sale display is banned. ASH ‘estimated’ the cost at some ten to fifteen times less than the real cost (I prefer the term ‘lied’). There are also indirect costs such as an expected increase in shoplifting and loss of business from customers who aren’t prepared to queue the extra time it will take to serve someone who wants tobacco.

Of course tobacco manufacturers try to make their packaging as attractive as possible (why on earth wouldn’t they?) but for the same reasons as any other: so that their brand successfully competes at point of sale with rival brands. People don’t buy a product because of the packaaging but they will select a brand if they can recognise it on the shelves and link it favourably with an ad campaign. Since tobacco companies can’t advertise all that they can do is to monitor their customers and the marketing activity of their competitors in the hope that, if the competitors’ brands happen to be out of stock, the consumer will opt for theirs.

@Paul – Please tell me you’re not suggesting that to help smokers quit/stay off the fags, tobacco should be hidden?? Let’s hide alcohol so that alcoholics are encouraged to give up the booze and recovering alcoholics not tempted to relapse. Let’s close down all the cake shops to discourage the chubbies – after all aren’t we in the midst of an obesity epidemic? But I’m being flippant – the objective of the ban on tobacco display is to discourage the young from taking up smoking. An equally worthy objective would be to hide alcohol and junk foods so that they don’t take those up too. If that sounds absurd then it’s equally absurd to hide tobacco.

Chris. Alcohol is too attractive, so put alcohol out of sight. Chocolate is too attractive, so put chocolate out of sight.
Let’s make all shops like Argos and keep all goods out of sight.

@Richard.

You’re meeting the wrong girls! We’re not all like that. Some of us would much rather have a good giggle with a lovely feller than any number of blue boxes.

Sorry to be blunt, but:

Stupid law
Stupid waste of tax-payers expense Stupid woman
Stupid labour party for whipping it to be passed
Stupid evidence – none as far as JP could see
Stupid battle

I pity those who will lose their businesses as a result. What for? Nothing! Ziltch!

Existing evidence demonstrates that these bans do nothing to reduce the uptake of youth smoking prevalence. The small shops have a right to be concerned.

Only in the last few days, the Scottish Government were forced to confirm that the evidence did not exist, but that they would pass the Tobacco & Primary Services Bill to ‘create’ the evidence.

Mccartney misled the House – I know many substances that are on sale in shops that kill – surely you know of them?

Quango Arnott from ASH (UK) provided false information – alchohol is sold in vending machines – surely you know that?

Nanny days are numbered, and rightly so. The public know exactly what’s going on.

Diamonds,chocolates or flowers. I would take flowers any time. Apart from when I got engaged – but been there and done that one.

@Helen
“I pity those who will lose their businesses as a result. What for? Nothing! Ziltch! ”

If this is non-effective then how would anyone lose their businesses as a result?

Not that I’m in agreement with any new legislation, especially the nanny-state kind, but you must see that your logic is skewed on this.

Off-topic: Tom, what do you make of the ‘protect the children’ group coming to (legal) blows with the ‘protect us from terrorists’ group over the scanners at Manchester airport? Two groups I hate, at least one of them will have to lose, I’m loving it.

Surely there must be countries who’ve already banned cigarette displays?

Did it make any difference?

This is what ASH said in 2003:
‘Official – smoking bans are good for business. ASH accuses hospitality industry of “crying wolf”.
Since the ban over 4,000 pubs and nearly 100 clubs have closed.

@ Paul 9:20am:

“If this is non-effective then how would anyone lose their businesses as a result?”

Do you often compare chalk with cheese?

It will be non-effective because the point in the legislation (or the point that ASH sell it as, the true point is denormalisation of a legal product) is to stop children taking up smoking (for which there are already laws).

Where this has been applied before, there has been no proof that it is remotely effective. In fact, in the Scottish debate on the same subject, a Labour MSP admitted that there was no evidence, but that there should be a ban anyway.

There is, however, ample proof from Canada that convenience stores will close as a result of lost sales of non-tobacco products as adult smokers naturally gravitate towards supermarkets where they know cigarettes will be sold, hidden or not.

So the logic is not flawed. Kids will not be stopped from smoking any more than they are now, but the cost of implementation (c. £1,800 per shop according to the RIA), plus loss of income, will kill many stores.

OK?

From Dickie Davis Eyes, by Half Man Half Biscuit:

#God, I could murder a Cadbury’s Flake!#
#Then I guess you wouldn’t let me#
#Into heaven.#
#Or maybe you would ’cause their adverts#
#Promote oral sex#
#A Romany bint in a field #
#With her paints,#
#Suggesting we faint at her beauty,#
#But she’s got Dickie Davis Eyes!#