One of the most complex questions is whether branding for tobacco and alcoholic products is ethical or unethical, and this question is covered with public health issues, individual freedoms, and corporate responsibility. Although these sectors contribute enormously to the economic growth, their products are just too dangerous to the welfare of individuals and the society at large. It is therefore important to examine both sides of the argument before forming an informed opinion.
For years, drugs and alcohol advertising has been the source of great controversy. There is no doubt that both drugs and alcohol can have negative effects on people and teens in particular. However, whether advertising is contributing to the use of alcohol and tobacco in a harmful matter is perhaps the most controversial part of the discussion. San Diego package design company and branding consultant, Lien Design, is well aware of the possible consequences of alcohol and tobacco design and marketing and can share some findings with you.
Ethical arguments supporting branding
Those supporting branding argue that it promotes responsible drinking habits hence reducing harm. They claim that brand identities provide customers with enough information to make informed choices regarding their own preferences and risk tolerance. Moreover, they consider branding as a useful means for promoting responsible consumption campaigns aimed at educating consumers about risks involved in using their products as well as encouraging responsible behavior in relation to drinking and smoking too much. Furthermore, some proponents claim that banning a brand name infringes on individual liberties and free choice. They assert that people can make decisions based on facts without government intervention.
Moreover, there is no doubt about the economic contributions made by tobacco and alcohol industries. These two sectors have been able to generate billions of revenues annually and employ thousands of people. Therefore, branding has remained vital in upholding these monetary gains while ensuring that such industries remain sustainable all through time. Conversely, those against curtailment of these brands argue that job loses would be inevitable leading to other negative impacts on the economy.
It seems that in both alcohol and cigarette branding, for every negative argument against the advertising, there is one that counters it. For instance, as far as alcohol goes, The International Center for Alcohol Policy reported to a World Health Organization in 2003 that there is no compelling evidence linking the advertising of alcohol between drinking patterns and rates of abuse among young people. However, another study from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development reported that advertising bans could result in reductions in consumption.
Unethical contentions against branding.
The opponents argue it is unethical per se since tobacco and alcohol are highly addictive substances. Branding tactics using appealing images or marketing targeted at certain groups like young people make them associate positively with these harmful goods according to them. Moreover, they support this idea by noting how normalizing use of these drugs glamorizes tobacco smoking thereby increasing substance use together with its health impacts.
Further critics point out that advertising tobacco and alcohol has a disproportionate effect on marginalized communities due to limited access to quality healthcare and education systems. Consequently, these are the societies that are most prone to the harmful effects of such products. In this context, critics maintain that the tobacco and alcohol industries are exploiting these vulnerabilities for their own financial gains.
Lastly, detractors claim that the social and economic costs associated with tobacco and alcohol use outweighs any economic benefits derived from these industries. Consequently, these include decrease in productivity, healthcare costs and increased crimes rate. In order to protect the public health and promote social wellbeing, they contend that branding should be restricted.
Alcohol branding:
Smirnoff Ice is a very popular bottle design that is now the number one brand of vodka in the world. The company came under heat by running print ads that advertised alcopops which many thought defined the product as a ‘gateway beverage’ promoting their drinks as fun, sexy, cool and less risky to consume. Studies were conducted as to the advertising of this brand, but these were largely inconclusive as well. While one side shows the product as unethical, the flipside shows logical reasons why the report has no solid results.
Tobacco branding:
Cigarettes are perhaps even more controversial than alcohol as many believe there are more harmful effects in smoking. A four year battle ensued between the public and tobacco companies in the late 90’s which culminated in the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement. The Agreement mandated that tobacco companies pay the government $206 billion over a 25 year period and perform all other actions enacted by the Agreement. Many of the provisions caused companies to take a more ethical approach towards marketing, especially in consideration of the youth.
One company that was exemplary in its adherence to the Master Tobacco Settlement agreement was the Philip Morris company. This company had previously launched the famed Marlboro man print ad. After the Agreement was passed, Philip Morris not only went on to make on-time payments to the government, they also set a precedent to become a more responsible company, devoting money to youth prevention campaigns, products that would reduce the risks of smoking and a Quit Assist program for adults looking to quit.
So it seems that the argument of whether cigarette and alcohol branding and advertising is ethical or not is one that goes back and forth. However, the key is finding an amazing package design company that knows what they are doing so that marketing presents the brands as being aware of possible risks and promoting safe use that does not blatantly appeal to youth. A good branding company like Lien Design is aware of some of the pitfalls cigarette and alcohol advertising might fall into. This helpful knowledge is all part of why they are the leaders in the packaging design and branding industry and California’s go-to when it comes to promoting your brand.
Conclusion
Therefore, the question about whether it is ethical or not to brand cigarettes and alcoholic beverages is highly intricate. Both sides of the debate have good arguments hence at last it turns into a question of one’s personal values and priorities. However, it is important not to forget about significant damages caused by smoking cigarettes as well as drinking alcoholic beverages since they can lead to negative outcomes of branding efforts especially for socially disadvantaged groups.
These industries have played a big role in the economy, but this should be balanced against social or economic costs arising from their products. In order to move forward, it is necessary to strike a balance that supports individual freedom while also giving priority to public health and community welfare. It can include enhanced limitations on branding especially directed advertising and increased funding of public education and awareness campaigns. By putting an emphasis on the lives of people and the general well-being of a society, we can navigate through the ethical minefields of tobacco and alcohol branding for a better future for many.