A comment on Tuesday's piece about the plain packaging hoardings being hoisted all over the South West has got me thinking this weekend. The edited exchange is below.
As such, I've been reading through the ASA guidelines with specific reference to the sentence "Support plain packaging and protect our children at www.plainpacksprotect.co.uk"
Now, let's leave aside, just for a minute, the fact that government agencies using taxpayers' cash to lobby government agencies is wrong. We know that it is. Smokefree South West is making a categorical statement here that plain packaging will definitely protect children. In fact, they are making a claim that just supporting the idea will do so.
Furthermore, they direct viewers to the website which makes no such claim. It merely states this.
There is no evidence that a single child will be 'protected' from starting smoking because of plain packaging, quite simply because it doesn't exist. How can it exist when no studies are possible?
Here are the ASA's guidelines on such assertions.
All the above would seem contraventions in my opinion, but this one looks the strongest.
So, here's the communication I've sent to the ASA.
I'm sure a few more individuals pointing out the disingenuity of Smokefree South West's ads will serve to make the ASA treat the matter seriously. Please feel free to use any of the info above, or just your own personal objections, to do the same.
It's very easy to make your complaint, your identity isn't passed to the advertiser, and you can do it online here. Supporting images of the ads are here and here.
Title, as if you needed telling, inspired by this
Jay: Gotta love how plain packs protect children, all zero of them.I have to say that I don't think that should be the case - though I do understand Jay's cynicism - so it might be time to test it.
DP: Funny you should say that. Isn't it against ASA guidelines to make false or unproven claims? Just a thought.
Jay: Well, yes, but ... evidently the government is exempt.
As such, I've been reading through the ASA guidelines with specific reference to the sentence "Support plain packaging and protect our children at www.plainpacksprotect.co.uk"
Now, let's leave aside, just for a minute, the fact that government agencies using taxpayers' cash to lobby government agencies is wrong. We know that it is. Smokefree South West is making a categorical statement here that plain packaging will definitely protect children. In fact, they are making a claim that just supporting the idea will do so.
Furthermore, they direct viewers to the website which makes no such claim. It merely states this.
Research and large scientific surveys from around the world indicate that plain packs are less appealing; make the health warnings more effective; and stop smokers believing that some cigarette brands are less harmful than others.Nothing there says that children will be in any way 'protected'. It says that the packs will look ugly, which they will; it wrongly says health warnings will be more effective, they will just be more prominent; and it says current smokers will stop believing something which is true.
There is no evidence that a single child will be 'protected' from starting smoking because of plain packaging, quite simply because it doesn't exist. How can it exist when no studies are possible?
Here are the ASA's guidelines on such assertions.
3.1 Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do soWell, the whole plain packaging campaign is designed to mislead, that's its entire point, so there must be something in that.
3.3 Marketing communications must not mislead the consumer by omitting material information.Omitting material information like there being no practical evidence must count, surely?
3.7 Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation.The Smokefree tax-spongers would view their 'evidence' to be enough. I disagree, and I think others would too.
All the above would seem contraventions in my opinion, but this one looks the strongest.
3.13 Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists.It's quite clear that their claim of plain packaging 'protecting' children is not in any way universally accepted. For a start, the very existence of two sides debating the issue prior to the consultation is incontrovertible evidence of that. To starkly say that supporting the campaign is definitely going to protect children is plainly false.
So, here's the communication I've sent to the ASA.
Dear SirsWell, that's my effort. Let's see if Jay is correct and we'll see a whitewash of a reply. Personally, I'm hoping for better.
I am writing to complain about misleading billboard advertisements being promoted by Smokefree South West with regard the upcoming government consultation on plain packaging of tobacco products.
The advertisements encourage viewers to "support plain packaging and protect our children at www.plainpacksprotect.co.uk".
Section 3.13 of your code of conduct states that "Marketing communications must not suggest that their claims are universally accepted if a significant division of informed or scientific opinion exists".
It is clear that the idea of plain packaging being accepted as protecting children is part of a campaigning agenda and is hotly disputed.
The Adam Smith Institute recently released a report1 refuting all such claims, and an advocate of the policy was unable to provide any concrete evidence under examination from Victoria Derbyshire on Radio Five Live on Monday 20th February.
Even the website referenced offers no evidence that children would be protected from taking up smoking by plain packaging, they merely say that the packs would look less attractive to "smokers", which is true but in no way offers proper evidence that children would be less likely to smoke as a result.
In fact, the Department of Health have concluded that "the research evidence into this initiative is speculative", and that "Children may be encouraged to take up smoking if plain packages were introduced, as it could be seen as rebellious.".2
The European Union also recently said, in a consultation which included plain packaging of tobacco3, that "there cannot possibly be empirical evidence of the impact", so the assertion by Smokefree South West is manifestly false.
I'm also disturbed by the fact that taxpayer funds are being spent on this campaign, which should mean a very strict test of factual accuracy being applied, especially since any future policy decisions have wide-ranging implications.
Considering the above, I venture to suggest that the wording of these billboards is deliberately misleading, factually inaccurate, and that they should be withdrawn.
Yours faithfully
Richard Puddlecote
1http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/research/files/plain-packaging.pdf
2http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_085651.pdf
3http://ec.europa.eu/health/tobacco/docs/tobacco_ia_rand_en.pdf
I'm sure a few more individuals pointing out the disingenuity of Smokefree South West's ads will serve to make the ASA treat the matter seriously. Please feel free to use any of the info above, or just your own personal objections, to do the same.
It's very easy to make your complaint, your identity isn't passed to the advertiser, and you can do it online here. Supporting images of the ads are here and here.
Title, as if you needed telling, inspired by this
