• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle











  • It’s more subtle than that. Obviously no one who already smokes is going to say “Oh, the packet isn’t as pretty as it used to be, guess I’ll quit smoking now.”

    It’s about the big, long-term picture. Companies spend money on branding and advertising because it works. You create the perception that your product is for a certain type of person, which makes them more inclined to buy it. By making cigarettes boring, you make them less appealing, and on average less people will smoke.

    The proof is in the pudding. Social attitudes to smoking in Australia have totally flipped within a generation or two. It used to be something that everyone did. It’s now mostly seen as a gross habit.


  • Great comment. We have the same thing here in Australia with tobacco laws. The most recent change was to ban almost all branding on cigarette packaging. They’re not allowed to use fonts, slogans, logos, or colours, just the brand name in plain text on a standard brown-green box.

    The logic being that branding makes a product more attractive to a consumer. Make it duller and less people will buy it.

    Tobacco companies fought it tooth and nail. Kept arguing it wouldn’t stop people from smoking. Well then why are you lobbying so hard against it? Obviously the only reason they will ever fight anything is because they think it will hurt their revenue. So whatever they oppose, I support.


  • What you said is often true but not always. Some communities prefer person-first language, some prefer identity first language.

    For example, generally speaking, “autistic people” is preferred over “people with autism”. The reasoning being “this is just part of who I am, it’s not an affliction that I have.”

    I’m not autistic but I have lots of friends who are, and they all prefer to say “I’m autistic” rather than “I have autism”.

    Like you said, it’s best to ask, or just copy the language that the person uses for themself.