Plain ludicrous
Since December 1st 2012, plain packaging of cigarettes has been an ever-present feature of the Australian landscape. Given the wealth of data available from Australia on the impact of the experiment, you would think that Tobacco Control would be focusing all efforts on interpreting the results from there right now. After all, the “problem” identified by UK Public Health in the past 3 or 4 years has been that there is “no real life data” to use. So, they argue, they have had to rely on artificial scenarios and often quite ludicrous experiments to make their case.
Why then, one has to wonder, is University of Exeter wasting cash on “experiments” on plain packaging here in the UK where plain packaging has yet to be introduced? The most likely conclusion is either that they have way too much money to fritter away on building the reputations and stroking the egos of the “academics” down in the South West, or the data coming out from Australia is not as helpful as desired. Cue more UK “research”.
Unfortunately for those concerned, the latest piece of UK research is “one of the funniest studies in favour of plain packaging ever!”.
In the experiment, smokers had to choose between pressing a key that might earn cigarettes or a key that might earn chocolate. Just before participants made each choice, they were presented with either a picture of a branded cigarette pack, a picture of a plain cigarette pack, or nothing.
Hold the front page …
“whereas branded packs increased the probability of participants making the cigarette choice by 10% compared to when nothing was presented, the plain packs did not“. The implication, they say, is that “plain packs are less effective at prompting smokers to purchase cigarettes compared to branded packs“. And so the conclusion… “These findings provide experimental* support for the idea* that introducing plain packaging might* reduce tobacco purchasing or consumption.” (*my emphasis)
Come on Exeter, this is lame even by Tobacco Control poor standards. What exactly did you predict would happen prior to the “experiment”? Surely the implication from this ham-fisted piece of research is that a dodgy looking can of cola consumers have never seen before and know nothing about, is less effective at prompting cola drinkers to purchase cola compared to a branded product with an established reputation such as Coca Cola. I call that commonsense and surprising that more people didn’t reject the dodgy looking packs of (unbranded) cigarettes more often.
Even the authors appear somewhat embarrassed by their latest experiment. Buried beneath the headlines of the “study”, is this telling statement “In the natural environment, smoking may be governed by a whole range of factors…” erm yes … “It is not clear to what extent plain packaging will reduce smoking when these other factors are at play.”
Well, it is an apology of sorts I suppose, although I still wonder if it never occurred to them that when offered up a rather alien-looking pack of cigarettes never seen in these fair aisles, a significant proportion of participants might (correctly) just decline the offer.
You really can’t spend years whinging about the lack of “real data” that is available, then, when you have it in abundance, continue to dream up ever-more ridiculous experiments here in the UK and expect to be taken seriously.
Want to find out more?
For more information on the authors of this desperate piece of “research”, read Dick Puddlecote’s entertaining post here.
You can read the author’s summary of their experiment here.
For a summary of how exactly that plain packaging experiment is going in Australia, read Christoper Snowdon’s post here.