I can see clearly now the smoke is gone!

A couple of weeks ago on my way to work I was listening to a live call-in debate on the radio about whether cigarette package branding should be banned or not. In the 30 minutes that I was tuned in, the majority of the people that called were smokers or ex-smokers, all of which claimed that packaging did not influence their decision to smoke. The few non-smokers that called were all of the opinion that unified package branding would help reduce smoking.

Is this an example for clouded judgement amongst smokers? Are smokers deluded in their assumption that branding does not influence their smoking behaviour? Can packaging influence our decisions and consumer behaviour?

Although the smokers insisted that branding had no influence whatsoever, they all were able to describe the exact details of the brand they smoke, often with a proud, reverent voice.  Even I, a non-smoker can recall adverts from my teenage days.  The most distinct memory is the advert of the “Marlboro man”. I can very vividly recall the handsome guy in cowboy attire posing and gazing pensive into the distance while oozing coolness, power and glamour. And although I have never smoked, there are a few cigarette packages that immediately pop to my mind! 

First to mind comes again, “Marlboro”, with its white and gold packaging for the “light and healthy” alternative, and the red and white packaging, with characteristic lettering in western font.  The “Lucky Strike” packaging, again featuring the colours white and red, this time with a red circle, “Gauloises”, a red or blue package with a flying helmet, which to me, somehow always conveyed the impression of being the “bohemian arty cigarette”. Then there is “Camel”, with the camel and the pyramid in soft colours (promising adventure and mystery?). There was also a brand, which name I cannot remember, but these cigarettes were clearly aimed at the female followers, with their long and slim shape, and a delicate flower on the packaging. Some of the brands had special editions, adding collector value, and I, the non-smoker, was collecting these packages! Admittedly, despite clearly having left a visual impression on me, these things never “seduced” me to take up smoking, but this is mainly due to the fact to having lost my smoking father to lung cancer at the age of 10. 

Despite divided opinions amongst smokers and non-smokers, can we really assume that branding and packaging does not influence the consumer behaviour? Advertising and marketing have one goal: to increase profit, and for that they use a powerful tool – the manipulation of our subconscious. The subconscious is more powerful than our conscious and can be strongly influenced by media. In subliminal advertising, hidden messages and stimuli that are below the threshold of conscious perception are embedded in the advert. This is used as a marketing strategy to manipulate the buyer (subconsciously) in order to increase profit.

In fact, research areas such as consumer neuroscience, neuromarketing or neuroeconomics, use modern technology to study brain activity, eye tracking or galvanic skin responses to measure our physiological responses when presented with different pictures, stimuli or adverts. Advertising uses cues that work on all our senses and product packaging is an important way to communicate with the consumer, to create attraction, brand identity and aesthetics [1]. Images, colour and font have a strong effect on the customer and it has been shown that package graphics influence consumer product related attitudes and behaviour [2]. Research has also shown that packaging can evoke emotional responses in the customer [3] and that attractive packages trigger brain activity in areas related to visual attention, memory and reward, while unattractive packaging elicits conflict responses, uncertainty and disgust [4]. 

While Imperial Tobacco claims that “tobacco packaging has never been identified as a reason why children start to smoke or why adult smokers continue to choose to smoke”, studies investigating the effect of cigarette packaging have shown [5] that cigarette packaging can lead to misleading perception of health risks. Words like smooth, light, mild, with charcoal filter or superslim wrongly deliver the impression that these cigarettes are indeed a healthier option. This also goes for colours. Light colours are perceived healthier than dark ones. Moreover, plain packs were shown to significantly reduced smoking in young adult smokers, compared to fully branded ones [6].

It could be argued that our lives and freedom are already too controlled by the state and a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I can only disagree. It seems to me that we are already subconsciously controlled, by hidden stimuli in adverts, music or film. 

Wouldn’t plain cigarette packaging be one step towards freedom?

References

1.         Simms, C. and P. Trott, Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities. Marketing Theory, 2010. 10(4): p. 397-415.

2.         Westerman, S., et al., The Design of Consumer Packaging: Effects of Manipulations of Shape, Orientation, and Alignment of Graphical Forms on Consumers’ Assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 2012.

3.         Liao, L., et al., Can packaging elements elicit consumers’ emotional responses? 2012.

4.         Stoll, M., S. Baecke, and P. Kenning, What they see is what they get? An fMRI-study on neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2008. 7(4-5): p. 342-359.

5.         Hammond, D. and C. Parkinson, The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Journal of Public Health, 2009. 31(3): p. 345-353.

6.         Hoek, J., et al., Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers. Tobacco Control, 2011. 20(3): p. 183-188.

7.         Marlboro man taken from (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1280&bih=756&tbm=isch&tbnid=iXLhku76MHG3aM:&imgrefurl=http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/subliminal/marlboro.html&imgurl=http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/subliminal/marlboro.jpg&w=400&h=549&ei=RWo7UKz9POeQ0AXjxIHoBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=624&sig=104044748211827893061&page=1&tbnh=177&tbnw=126&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:90&tx=75&ty=99). I don not own copy right of this picture.

 

What am I?

While I was pondering how to cram a personal description into 1200 characters, I realised how hard it was to define myself.

I used to be in research for a while, but I discovered during my PhD that there are other (more) options outside academia. I have always loved research, but more for the sake of research, rather than to follow the academic career path. So I decided that finishing my PhD was the ideal moment to take a turn in my path and follow the route of science communication.

One of the “off-putting” things about research was the instability. Unfortunately, it turned out that the world outside academia is not a very stable one either, which is probably influenced by the current economic climate, and fixed-term contracts are often even shorter than in academia. I still remain positive, however, that once you are finding your way and starting to become more established, there is still more potential for development opportunities than in academia.

Why science communication?

To be honest, before I started my PhD I had never heard of that term. Maybe it was less “in fashion” than nowadays or less fashionably in some countries than others. Sure, there were museums and activities for school children, but I think that since the last 10 years, science communication is becoming increasingly popular (which will also increase competition).

But luckily, science communication has many faces and niches. Apart from exhibitions, the area that interests me most is science journalism. Some see science journalism slightly set apart from science communication, purely because the purpose of science communication in general is to solely enthusiast the public, while science journalism should also be critical about the type of research, or the way researchers have conducted and interpreted their research.

It might be a bit of a harsh comparison, but to me, science journalists act as “science inspectors”, or as a “science police” (to ensure that facts are reported accurately). Which in turn will bring more pressure upon science journalists; guess I’m lucky that I do have a PhD after all!

In a way, being a science communicator eased my dilemma in deciding what I should become “when I grow up”. Although I have always loved biology and research, I was always torn between my other interests (music, photography and painting) and could never quite decide on what should become my profession. In the end I decided to become a scientist, who does all the arty stuff as a hobby. But as a science communicator/journalist, I also get the chance to use my creativity, while still being connected with science, which I find very appealing.

So, but what am I now? A scientist or researcher? A science journalist or science communicator? Neither? I think in my heart I will always remain a scientist. I don’t think I will ever be able to get rid of my geeky side, but maybe unlike other scientists, I can see the need and have the desire to communicate science in an accessible and accurate way.

So what’s my blog all about?

Similar to my difficulties in defining myself, I also have troubles defining this blog as strictly as a science blog. There are already quite a lot of science blogs out there, so I’m trying to find my niche, in finding science in sometimes less obvious forms and unusual things. So you may find that most of the articles will be related to science (in one way or another), but don’t be surprised to see other things popping up, such as the occasional historical blog post, photography, or any topic that fascinates me. 

After all, I called this blog “world through my eyes” ;)

My glorious attempts to join the world of blogging have been somewhat destroyed by the fact that I first couldn't remember my blog name, nor my password and more importantly which of the zillions of internet portals I chose in the first place.
But somehow, I managed to get it going again...
although I do wonder how much time we spend these days, searching for things on the internet....