TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 2 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Column: Women aren’t being ‘tricked’ into smoking by pretty packaging

Women smoke because they want a nicotine hit – not because they’re taken in by cute packaging or promises of weight loss, writes Nuala Walsh.

Image: elena agibalova via Shutterstock

WATCH OUT, female smokers. You might not know it (you almost certainly don’t, what with you being so easily manipulated and all), but you are being tricked into smoking that cigarette in your hand by evil branding experts luring you in with pretty packaging.

It’s got less to do with the fact that you actually like smoking; you enjoy the hit and you might find things like the taste and nicotine content important. No, you mostly just like the pretty box and you’re afraid that if you quit, you might put on weight and be less of a catch.

Two weeks ago, a report was published calling for action to tackle the numbers of Irish women who smoke, as a result of the news that more Irish women are dying from lung cancer than breast cancer. The report seeks to investigate why such high numbers of women are smoking and what can be done to tackle the problem.

Worrying stereotypes

All very laudable and worthwhile, you might say. However, when one reads the report, some worrying stereotypes start to spring off the pages. According to the report, tobacco companies are working with marketers and branders to develop packaging that specifically targets women and women are unable to resist. Which is fine; men are equally targeted as consumers in all areas of the market place. The problem starts when we are told that women believe that pretty packaging negates the heath risks associated with smoking. According to the report, ‘Women think lighter coloured packs are more elegant and feminine and less harmful’.

Now, as an ex-smoker, I find this statement nothing short of offensive because being patronised by the anti-smoking lobby is just as irritating as being patronised by the smoking lobby. This kind of assertion paints women as shallow magpies, lacking in the ability to choose to smoke for any other reason than that the boxes are cute. Had all cigarettes come wrapped in a big, red bow, it would not have made any difference to me in my decision to begin smoking. Equally, had all cigarettes been sold as twenty loose cigarettes in a brown paper bag, it still would not have made me any more inclined to quit.

I like attractive things as much as the next person but I am not stupid. I might be a woman but I know that cigarettes pose a health risk. A pastel-coloured box does not change either my knowledge of science or my awareness of my own body and the fact that, yes, wow, perhaps these cigarettes are making me breathless. You don’t have to wave an ‘elegant’ looking box in front of my eyes like a magic wand for me to say, ‘Oh wait, no, they’re pink? That’s fine then, they can’t be bad for me’.

Hit smokers in their pockets

Women are judged on appearance in a way that most men would find incomprehensible, but the worst part is that women often turn on each other and succumb to this kind of patronising nonsense that appearance is so vital to women. We cannot afford to be apathetic and casual about hypotheses like this being postulated. The smoking ban, the abolition of packs of tens and the yearly rise in price are all effective in the drive to reduce smoking levels. These measures work because they target all smokers right where it hurts: their pocket and the convenience factor.

Paying almost ten euros per pack to leave a warm pub and stand in the freezing cold in order to get your fix is a large part of the reasons people have for quitting. Smokers are smokers, male or female. Perhaps packaging would be relevant to teenage girls who have never smoked. But that would apply equally to boys! Because the male of the species also enjoy packaging and attractive goods. Or so I’m told. Believe it or not, women often reject advertising. We are actually capable of doing that.

The report states that although Irish women are more likely than Irish men to have a third level qualification, ‘Women are also more likely to have part-time, or insecure jobs, and more likely to suffer from stress, and have less power at work and take on large amounts of unpaid work associated with low-status and low self-esteem, exhaustion and depression. The (sic) leads us right back to emotional work and mental health issues women have and back to smoking’. That’s right, ladies. Not only are you unable to resist the lure of marketing, but you are also trying in vain to deal with what life throws at your feeble female selves. Thank god you have those pretty boxes of cigarettes to cheer you up!

The notion of ‘female hysteria’

Absolutely, all of the things listed in the above statement affect women (and men, I might add), but the way it proceeds from part-time work to depression in one sentence is staggering. Going by this analysis, a woman is thinking, ‘I have low self-esteem because I spend my days sacrificing my needs in order to help others – this makes me want to slowly kill myself by smoking pretty, packaged cigarettes’. Altruism or self-sacrifice is widely regarded as noble and instinctive for women.

Equally, even in a world where women are rising to positions of power and influence, the notion of female hysteria is still insidiously perpetuated across all areas of our culture and society, often by women themselves. Second-wave feminists like Betty Friendan and Germaine Greer rebelled against the mainstream image of women as selfless, weeping, frivolous caricatures, decrying it as both degrading and patronising.

If there are measures that reduce the numbers of men and women dying from lung cancer then great, and research is always important and usually valuable. But, please, let’s stop reducing women to easily-manipulated airheads. We are not cowardly shrinking violets. We are not made to smoke by evil men or even more evil corporations. We smoke because we like it and we give up because we want to.

Irish women across all social groups are an intelligent, discerning and diverse bunch. They cannot and should not be reduced to damaging stereotypes, no more than men should.  Personally, I love artifice, consumerism and escapism as much as the next person, and I support the valuable work done by health care analysts, but I utterly reject the implication that my gender is a limiting factor in my ability to say no. To anything.

Nuala Walsh is a political researcher and PhD candidate, specialising in political philosophy, in University College Dublin.

Read next:

Comments (58 Comments)

  • Speaking as an ex-smoker, when I smoked I didn’t give a damn about the packaging, I wanted the nicotine. But, that was only true once I was addicted. You can’t dismiss that attractive packaging will make cigarettes more appealing to the target market; potential smokers, and that means teenagers and young adults. The packaging is not the sole reason they might buy a certain band, or choose to buy at all, but it does add a little persuasion. If packaging didn’t work, cigarette companies wouldn’t invest so much money in developing packaging and branding; they might be unethical, but they’re by no means stupid.

    Reply
  • Wow. Women are so clever they are immune to marketing.

    Can we let advertisers know so they can cancel 75% of the ads on TV?

    Reply
  • I think the need to differentiate from the competition is the main purpose of tobacco packaging. Speaking from personal experience, young smokers tend to be drawn in by social factors, not packaging, and smokers keep smoking because of nicotine addiction, not packaging. Creating brands and packaging aimed at women is a strategy to draw in women who already smoke an existing brand – not to get non-smoking women to smoke. And if the colour and design is appealing to women on an unconscious level, this doesn’t make them airheads for preferring one over another. The same way the layout of a clothes shop or supermarket makes us buy more stuff. As Nikolas said above, it doesn’t make us stupid, just human. The same way being addicted to nicotine doesn’t make someone stupid, just human.

    Reply
  • Jenni 24/01/13 #

    They say its the packaging making us all buy cigarettes. Has everyone forgotten that all shops do not display cigarettes anymore?

    Reply
  • Interesting article Nuala. But isn’t everyone susceptible to marketing, packaging and product image?

    Marketers and advertisers are the problem, as they are reductive in the extreme when it comes to their ‘market’ (i.e. people). People happily go along with this! That’s how stuff gets sold, and if they patronise half of the population in doing so then it doesn’t matter at all to them once they’re shifting their products. It is our behaviour as consumers which drives this, not inherent sexism. The link provided to the original journal article doesn’t seem to speculate too much, rather it said its findings suggested that marketing does have an impact on people’s perception of a product. Being offended by the findings of a report (where one assumes they actually asked female smokers their opinion) seems a little knee-jerk to me.

    Reply
  • There’s a wider topic to be delved into here; why is it when you look at the magazine shelves in supermarkets that the vast majority are aimed at women and deliberately (and successfully) play on their fears? Why is it also, that a vast majority of reality television is aimed at women (and successfully) gets them hooked. In addition, there are no socio-economic boundaries in the advertising world, to be horribly blunt, the lower-classes look up to (and try to emulate) the women portrayed in these magazines and television programmes, and the supposedly more well-to-do are just as addicted, and try to laugh it off as ‘Oh, I just think it’s funny’. As for cigarettes aimed at females, I agree with the author, in reality, I would say it is only teen smokers who purchase them, I don’t imagine adult females being taken in.

    Reply
  • As an ex-smoker, I can say that the packaging did make a difference to me. I didn’t like cigarettes that were too strong and so stuck to the brands in the mainly white boxes. The only health concern I had at the time was how my throat would feel in the morning and the stronger cigarettes made it feel worse.

    Reply
    • I agree, I’m an x smoker now, looking back now I realise I bought the lighter coloured packet thinking they were lighter cigarettes and didn’t do as much harm as the stronger cigarettes, so glad I’m off them now. …nasty addiction!

      Reply
  • Nydon 24/01/13 #

    It’s so long since I’ve actually seen a cigarette pack, I can’t really comment on this. (but I did anyway.)

    Reply
  • Pedro 24/01/13 #

    If you’re going to write an article at least make it worthwhile, this is rubbish. Some cigarettes are marketed at women – Vogue cigarettes are a perfect example. This is just another example of someone trying to make something sexist out of something that is clearly not.

    Reply
    • Some lads also like vogues…theyre like the alcopops of smokes, easy to start on!

      Reply
    • Spot on Pedro.. simply seeking to create discord and divisiveness where there is none..
      Did the Irish Cancer Society make these findings up just to irritate feminists. The statistics speak for themselves.
      Also, how does Nuala know, any more than those who published the study, what the driving forces anyone elses smoking habits are?

      Reply
  • M J W 24/01/13 #

    Yeah Yeah,and men only smoke when a naked woman walks past them with a ciggy hanging from their gob.

    Reply
  • The marketing is not aimed at women who want a nicotine hit! It’s marketed at the young impressionable kids who the want to get smoking through psychological pressures etc. Use your head ffs.

    Reply
  • I agree Dolly. It came across to me as one big long whinge which is a shame because some decent points could have been made.

    People don’t smoke because of the ‘taste’ OR the packaging. They smoke because they are addicted to nicotine.

    However people may START smoking a particular brand because of the packaging. Some packaging is aimed at women. …Hold the front page…!

    Reply
  • Phil 25/01/13 #

    The best marketing for smoking is not the packaging at all. It’s the look on someone’s face after they take a big drag out of a smoke that they haven’t had in over an hour. This look is priceless, it would make the Dali lama feel like sparking one up.

    Reply
  • Smoking is a filthy habit

    Reply
  • “Tricked” into smoking?!!? Hmm, I’d like to think that my willpower is a little stronger than “cute packaging”

    Reply
  • Don’t believe the “smoking helps you stay thin” myth. There’s loads of fat wans waddling around puffing on a fag,

    Reply
    • V Hale 26/01/13 #

      Yeah and there are thin people who eat burgers all day long, what’s your point? Exceptions prove the rule, and every study ever done on the subject says that smokers are, in general, thinner, as nicotine suppresses your appetite, cigs give your mouth something to do rather than snacking and speed up your metabolism. Don’t be so stupid.

      Reply
  • What?! Impossible! Women only buy things with pretty packages and nice smells or that promise weight loss. That’s why aerial is so popular.

    Reply
  • Nuala, it may relieve you a bit if you realize that this isn’t an isolated targeting. Antismokers deliberately look for ways to target ALL vulnerable populations in ways designed specifically to trigger their hot spots. When they want plain packs, they’ll try to ire up women by saying the tobacco companies are preying on them with “glitzy” packs. When they want taxes to go up they’ll wave The Children in the air and claim fewer of them will buy cigarettes if the prices are higher. If they’re on about secondhand smoke, it’s The Workers who are held up as the victims (even if those workers smoke themselves, and even if we’re talking about job market slots of less than 5% of the total available). They’ll tell teen girls that smoking will give them “catcher’s mitt leather faces at the prom” and tell teen boys that smoking will make them impotent and give them acne. They’ll tell little old ladies that they’re giving their cats cancer, and tell parents not to let their children be poisoned by the “third hand smoke” from grandma and grandpa’s hugs. They have one overarching goal, and they don’t care who gets hurt in the process of reaching it.

    Antismokers lie, and twist, and deceive, and manipulate. Read “The Lies Behind The Smoking Bans” at http://TinyUrl.com/SmokingBanLies for more about how the science and propaganda are manipulated.

    - MJM

    Reply
    • @ kin free do please by all means keep smoking. philip morris and british american tobacco is not rich enough already. they really really really need more of your money to sustain his multi million dollar empire. maybe if you smoke enough we can put all the taxes into paying off the bankers debt

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 30/01/13 #

      Seamus; Are you employed by the tobacco CONTROL industry? My research has led me to believe that those who vocally support anti-smoker misinformation (often ex-smokers) and refuse to consider any alternative are invariably being paid to do so rather than being gullible per se. You appear to be one of these. Please do make an unequivocal denial if you can, or otherwise ignore/ side step and I will understand.

      Reply
  • Dr.fury 25/01/13 #

    So people smoke crack because it comes from there dealer in a nice package?stupid,anyone who’s a smoker doesn’t give a crap bout the packaging but if your buying cigarettes for the first time then it can make a big difference in how you choose

    Reply
  • Doo all they want people will still smoke..
    Why not labels on beer next as that will stop underage drinking… pfffft..just a wastes of taxpayers money

    Reply
    • Just you wait, its the next cab of the rank… Australia have gone plain packaging … Too early to say if there are less new smokers or if current smokers have been swayed … I smoke on a night out and i’ve been dissuaded from buying … But that said i’m not strongly addicted and am easily swayed by image… Big tobacco foughtvhard not to have it introduced so there must be something in the image, packaging that they think is worthbkeeping…

      Reply
    • Phil 25/01/13 #

      They could at least even put the exact ingredients of smokes and drink on the labels.
      The law states everything like food and drink must have a nutritional label and clearly state ingredients. Except for the drink industry, nope we ain’t allowed know what’s in that.

      Reply
  • Kin_Free 27/01/13 #

    Those who lack the courage will always find a philosophy to justify it.” ~ Albert Camus.

    There always seems to be a plethora of recent ex-smokers who come out of the woodwork to declare their enlightenment and conversion from filthy smoker to courageous, clean living drone on any story about smoking. We have known for decades that smoking is the biggest threat to the human race since the black death,(or so we are fallaciously told!) and smokers have always been used as cash cows by extortionate taxation etc.

    If we are to believe these enlightened ones were smokers at one time and who once enjoyed smoking, why do they now quit and declare it as a ‘disgusting habit’ etc? The only thing that has changed is the increase in anti-smoker intimidation by a small minority of paid activists and propagandists, so one can only conclude they are too weak to stand against bullying and are susceptible to anti-smoker ‘marketing’. ie They lack courage and moral fibre on the one hand and intellect to realise when they being indoctrinated on the other. It is ironic that they think people are so easily led to start smoking because of ‘bonny’ packs when they are unable to differentiate between pack design to maintain brand loyalty/ease of recognition and advertising to promote smoking. Does it never cross the minds of these ex-smoking gullibles that THEY have been manipulated by slick anti-smoker campaigns and had their lack of courage exploited? I think it does, and Albert Camus is correct.

    In fact, since the campaign was ramped up to stigmatize, intimidate and bully smokers, very few have quit, suggesting that there are very few who have crumbled in the face of attacks by bigots and bullies.

    Reply
    • where is the money in anti smoking campaigns. are you not mistaking anti smoking campaigns for anti smoker campaign. i am an ex smoker i have nothing to gain from you not smoking. i have however something to gain by not smoking. an additional 3000 euros a year extra in my pocket. reducing my risk of contacting cancer heart disease impedance to name but a few. this is not some myth or fiction designed to rob you of the pleasure pf smoking. the god dam cigarettes companies spent millions getting you hooked for their benefit. they have messed with your mind. this is not bigotry against smokers this is bigotry against allowing people to be exploited by these evil companies. if you think that smoking has no effect on you then please my all means continue to smoke. when you are unable to breathe are paying for your oxygen by the bottle i am sure the same cigarettes companies will be glad to take your money in exchange for treating the same disease the caused in the first place

      Reply
    • Kin_Free 30/01/13 #

      Seamus ; Tobacco companies are the same as any other company in wanting to sell their produce, it is only anti-smoker propaganda that has turned them into the modern day equivalent of the devil. The difference is you chose to smoke their produce, regardless as to their powers of persuasion, but people now are being forced to quit by the fanatics in the anti-smoker movement using tactics first utilised effectively in 1930’s Germany.

      Why did you smoke and when did you quit? The ‘dangers’ of smoking have been ‘known’ for decades but it is only the last decade or so when ‘education’ was replaced by the rise of the anti-smoker bigot and bully – the ‘dangers’ have not changed. If you quit more than 10 years ago, as many have done, fine, but you need to re-visit and re-assess the information you were given and believed then, it is only recently that anti-smoker ‘facts’ have been examined and found to be wanting

      The anti-smoker movement has evolved into a blinkered multimillion pound industry but all it has achieved is to stigmatise smokers and make the public falsely believe that lung cancer and some other cancers are ‘self-inflicted’ diseases that are easily prevented – all they have to do is quit smoking or avoid tobacco use. Research funding into lung cancer has suffered as a result, despite it being globally the most prevalent cancer. eg. In US 2010, Federal funding for lung cancer is a meager $1,200 for every death compared to $27,000 breast cancer or $14,000 prostate cancer.

      Lung cancer has NOT reduced as a result of the reduction in smokers, in fact the opposite has occurred. Between 2000 and 2008 in the US, new lung and bronchus cancers increased by over 30% – in only eight years. It is admitted by US lung cancer specialists that 80% of new lung cancers are now diagnosed in NON smokers and smoking has been reducing there at a similar rate and to similar levels as the UK.

      It is non smokers who are losing their lives because of anti-smoker misinformation.

      Reply
  • “But, please, let’s stop reducing women to easily-manipulated airheads. We are not cowardly shrinking violets. We are not made to smoke by evil men or even more evil corporations. We smoke because we like it and we give up because we want to.”
    This is so well written!

    Reply
  • All you need is WILL POWER

    Reply
  • Plain packaging is just another step by the anti-smoking industry to ‘denormalise’ smoking. It’s got nothing whatsoever to do with health, regardless of what the tobacco control zealots say.
    Quite frankly, I’m sick to death of all this anti-smoking BS.
    They now treat us smokers like African-Americans were treated back in the 40′s and 50′s, banned from many areas, segregated, discriminated against in hiring, insulted to our faces. When are they going to start calling us nicotine lovers ‘nicca’s?’

    Reply
    • in fairness man smokers are not an ethnic group. had you any idea of the real damage you are doing to yourself you would stop you are been brainwashed by multinationals. you are paying them 3000 euros a year to smell like s..ite. try getting around when you only have half your lung capacity. visit the cancer wards and talk to some people in the end stage of terminal cancer. then come back and say the smokers are an ethnic group. do you like walking, i know a guy whose legs were removed because his heart was unable to pump enough blood into them to keep them going. his smoking had clogged up his artiers so bad his legs were necrotising. oh btw he did not die he is still going arounf today minus his legs. i was the same as you a few years ago until i woke up to the manipulation that is being used against you to steal your money. the problem is usually a lot of people only wake up after it is too late

      Reply
  • The author finds the fact that targeted marketing works on women patronising, that is too bad, it is a fact that it does.

    Most TV advertising targets women, all womens magazines are ridiculously stuffed with crappy ads, soap operas target women, reality TV targets women, clothing, cosmetics, shoes, jewellery etc etc……..

    Getting women to spend their money / partners money is proven to far easy than convincing men.
    Sorry you don’t like it, but all the facts and evidence support that as the case.

    Reply
  • Its just condescending drivel from the anti smoking people as a way to target the smoking companies. it’s not targeted at women. they’re just being used as an excuse.

    Reply
  • Only a smoker would agree with this. Look at the packaging and look at who is smoking them and low and behold you have no argument. The design them specifically to target a particular market just as Marlboro have done for years with the Marlboro man. Don’t be so naive we are all guilty of buying in to marketing. The stats speak for themselves.

    Reply
  • I think this argument is being massively oversimplified. I have taken part in a number of focus groups for cigarette packaging and it definitely impacts both men and women. Like those Lucky Strike packs that fold out, they’re amazing. Who WOULDN’T want cigarettes that are basically a magic trick too? Also at what point to do we differentiate between packaging and product? I think the biggest factor as to what most people smoke isn’t taste or packaging but brand association. I mean Daddy would disown me is he caught me a pack of John Player down the yacht club and Fintan would Instagram the shame out of me if he saw me rolling Drum. We all know the reason people really smoke anyway and that’s because smoking is cool. No one wants to admit it but it’s true. Smoking has always been cool and the health problems have been widely associated with it since at least the 50s. Since we’re talking about women smokers in particular though we need to point the finger at Edward Bernays. He’s the reason you keep choking down those pseudo phalluses ladies. http://www.themarysue.com/smoking-suffragettes/

    Reply
  • Seamus, you wrote, ” One night i counted seven different instances of cigarette smoking on tv. As far i am concerned this is acting as a reinforcement to smoke.”

    Did you try counting how many instance of alcoholic beverage drinking there were? Seriously, give it a try. Meanwhile, I can offer you a bit better than “one night” of counting. I set up my TiVo for 24 hours one day to record MTV. The Antismokers had been making a HUGE stink about how it was “filled with smoking” and was thereby killing millions of children.

    Guess what I found when I reviewed (at high speed naturally) the 24 hours of MTV? Out of 1440 minutes of programming there were just three and a half minutes showing anything to do with smoking tobacco, and another two minutes or so showing marijuana smoking. Meanwhile there were ten full minutes of antismoking advertising showing teenagers in thousands of body bags as “deaths due to smoking.” See Lie #2 at http://TheTruthIsALie.com for the full details on that particular experiment. Let me know what you think.

    Also, you talk about the shows being paid to show smoking. That might have been true 30 years ago, but I believe it’s totally illegal at this point (I *know* it’s illegal in the US, not so sure about UK/Ireland) Same deal goes for product placement. At least product placement of tobacco. The beer companies are welcome to do all sorts of product placement on kid-friendly shows though as far as I know.

    Read that Lie #2 and comment on it. I’ll be interested in hearing what you have to say.

    - MJM

    Reply
  • hey man if you don’t want to believe the facts that is your choice. where is the industry in not smoking. i provided the evidence you can look it up all yourself in your own time. i am aware that product placement for tobacco is supposed to be illegal ie it is not shown in snooker or f1 any longer, yet it seems to continue via a ve movies and soap operas. i am not writing a thesis on the issue am i supposed yo go trawling though u tube like a madman just to prove a point?. if you want to continue to destroy yourself go for it

    Reply
  • @Kin_Free what exactly is the tobacco CONTROL industry. if i employed i anything i would not have time to come online arguing with luddite do you feel someone is impeding your right to smoke. you are been used and you dont even know it.

    Reply
  • The days of nice packaging went in the 50′s. At around the same time it was discovered that smoking kills you. For the last 70 years the equation has been simple for those who still smoke:

    The need for nicotine now > the fear and relative risk of death in x years time

    Reply
  • Hi nuala

    I can understand your frustration at being pigeonholed and stereotyped based on gender. However i think the report does bring up some interesting points. Packaging plays a part in cigarette sales regardless of gender. More to the point the amount of times a cigarette is shown on tv in any one night is a sight to behold. One night i counted seven different instances of cigarette smoking on tv. As far i am concerned this is acting as a reinforcement to smoke. For example coronation street every time the character Becky has an argument or a bust up or is simply getting ready to have a fight she is either cooling off or getting riled up using a cigarette. No doubt the cigarette companies pay for the privilege of having actors on a show that is shown throughout Ireland and England to have that character smoking. On the stereotypically male side of course the action movies are replete with characters smoking after they have done a “good” job. For example die hard with a vengeance. Every time the main guy kills a bad guy he lights up a cigarette. That movie is of course an older example but even in modern movies, product placement as the advertising world calls it is rife right across pop culture. In any event I was a smoker and got rid of the tv at the same time i got rid of the cigarette, now two years later i am still off them. Do yourself a favor next time. make a mental or actual note of the next time there is a mention or a display of a cigarette in a tv show or movie you are watching. The studio is not putting that in for the fun of it. They are being paid to put it in by the cigarette companies. They are being paid because it works regardless of gender

    Reply
  • Phil 25/01/13 #

    But what about if the box was a bright pink and had a bow on it?

    Reply

Add New Comment