Graphic Arts Magazine July / August 2019 | Page 39

Column
packaging truly unique. There are
graphic and structural design regula-
tions to ensure that nothing takes away
sold cigarettes in ‘slide-and-shell’ pack-
ages, which allows for increased health
warning size. ‘Purse packs’ (a slimmer
design intended to
appeal to women)
will also be banned.
Critics of Plain
Packaging
from the intense health warning imagery.
To ensure that plain packaging is as ugly
as it needs to be, market research firm,
GfK Bluemoon, was hired to determine
how to design an unappealing package,
in which the use of colour plays a sig-
nificant role. Colour is used to influence
human psychology in many aspects of
daily life, including a particularly inter-
esting case study about a company who
wanted to reduce the amount of time
employees were spending on breaks in
the washrooms. Their solution? Paint
the walls an unappealing green-brown
colour (not unlike Pantone 448C), which
solved the problem. Although many
people don’t like Pantone 448C’s shade
because of ‘associations with human
waste’, others quite like the colour,
including psychologist, Dr. Carolyn Mair
of the London College of Fashion, who
said that it’s “an earthy, muted, rich
color, very much of nature”. Colour pref-
erences are in the eye of the beholder,
which makes relying on colour alone an
unwise decision.
Furthermore, tobacco companies’
attempts to influence consumers
through structural packaging design
(such as beveled edges or any other
attempt to make the physical package
stand out), are also prohibited. The
Globe and Mail reported that the struc-
tural design regulations of Canadian
cigarette packaging makes our plain
packaging rules the toughest in the
world. While Australians have been sold
plain packaged cigarettes since 2012 in
‘flip-top’ packages, Canadians will be
@graphicarts
Plain tobacco
packaging was
introduced into the
Australian market
in 2012 and for all
intents and purposes,
the legislation has failed. Five years
after having passed the initial legisla-
tion, the decline in smoking rates has
stalled, with the numbers suggesting
that smoking rates have risen after
accounting for the growth in population.
Critics argue that branding helps con-
sumers make informed choices and
plain packaging does little to change
consumer behaviour anyway. They
believe that this legislation infringes on
companies’ intellectual property (IP)
rights, eliminating their ability to build
trust and rapport with consumers, which
has a ripple effect into other important
allied industries to printing and pack-
aging. In 2017, Forbes reported that
IP-intensive products in the EU and US
account for a massive 18.5% of the
world’s total GDP. Approximately 88
million people are employed in trade-
mark-intensive sectors and plain
packaging jeopardizes IP rights. Further-
more, one outcome of plain packaging
is the rise of the illegal tobacco market.
When all products look the same and
packaging doesn’t contain enough infor-
mation to differentiate one from another,
consumers rely on price alone, meaning
some consumers turn to the cheaper,
illicit market. This has proven true in
Australia and independent reports
found that illicit tobacco consumption
increased by 14 percent five years after
the introduction of plain packaging.
Critics also argue that the government
has not placed the same packaging
stipulations on vaping or marijuana
products as it has on cigarettes; in
essence, communicating that it’s okay
to smoke some products but not ciga-
rettes, when all can be a detriment to
public health. Furthermore, others argue
that while smoking is bad for you, so is
drinking in excess, eating fast food, and
consuming a myriad of other products.
One comment in a CBC news feature
reads: “Why are alcoholic drinks not
plastered with warnings of addiction,
images of diseased livers, cancer, and
other alcohol related diseases? Why
doesn't garbage food such as fast food,
chips, pops, pastries have warnings of
obesity and diabetes, with images of
clogged arteries or heart disease?
There are a great many things we can
purchase legally that will harm us
substantially over time. I just don't
understand the strict focus on smoking.
Either warn/scare us about all the risks
from all things, or nothing.”
Incredibly, it seems as though the majority
of Canadians are critical of the plain
packaging legislation. A study by Toronto-
based Forum Research shows that 81
percent of consumers believe that
branding is important because it enables
consumers to distinguish important
information from one company to
another. Furthermore 74 percent of
study respondents believed that
tobacco companies should be allowed
to brand their products and almost
two-thirds of respondents (64 percent)
said that plain packaging was a waste
of government resources.
Whether you’re for or against plain pack-
aging legislation, packs of cigarettes will
soon look a lot more boring and sickly.
Only time will tell if this legislation will
help Canadians become healthier, as
well as whether or not plain packaging
will expand to a greater number of
consumer products.
Diana Varma is an Instructor at the
School of Graphic Communications
Management at Ryerson University and
the Owner of ON-SITE First Aid & CPR
Training Group, a health & safety
company that provides training to the
Graphic Arts Industry.
GRAPHIC ARTS MAGAZINE | July / August 2019 | 39