Imagine having the brand on your company product or service forcibly removed

27/05/11: Imagine having the brand on your company product or service forcibly removed.

Coming from a branding background, with a few brands of my own under my belt and running a "branded" business, the tobacco plain packaging fiasco has been extraordinary to watch unfold. The federal government is about to ban all labelling on cigarette packaging, removing the brand identity entirely from tobacco products across the nation. Are we really allowing this to happen in this country? Be dictated to by our government, that a company, no an entire industry should restrict the branding of a legal product in such an extreme way.

So what does this mean for me and my professional colleagues in terms of our own campaign planning? Will the government continue to storm through brand after brand, destroying anything it finds that promotes products with a negative image? Or can cause harm? Where do we stop? Are we going to have white label campaigns from alcohol through to cars?

So what's the story? Since last year, the government has indicated its plans to become the world's first country to ban logos and branding on cigarette packets. As a marketeer, the thought of all my colleagues' hard work being potentially thrown away by the government is a bit sad! Does it all boil down to the fact that smoking kills?

The NSW Cancer Council says smoking causes one-fifth of all cancer deaths in Australia, as well as a range of other diseases.

Back to marketing and the cigarette companies don't need to convince long-term smokers to continue smoking, they have the effects of nicotine to do that. But how can these companies target new prospects — the nonsmokers — if they have no brand?

So should the government be able to ban the brand identity of a company? I think no. If the product is legal they have the right, as a product, to own their brand. As long as that product is legal, should it be the government's place to take away the product's essence? The branding of a product or service is a huge aspect of a company's ability to generate wealth.

The Alliance of Australian Retailers says that plain packaging will reduce the price of cigarettes by between 4.8 percent and 19.2 percent. But do people fall for individual brands or for cigarettes as a whole?

On the flip side, as the government turns up the dial on regulation, and people continue to get sick from smoking, should tobacco smoking be legal? Does the tax collected on cigarettes balance out the cost of caring for the sick? It is impossible to calculate. Would it be okay to outlaw a product that is deemed a killer but employs millions of people?

It's a complex debate that sparked an emotional reaction in my office from a range of people of different ages. But most acknowledged smoking kills, it harms unborn babies, it harms passive smokers and it costs billions in taxpayers' money.

So with this issue of branding in mind, have you ever done the cola test? I have. You are given two unlabelled plastic cups, with one filled with Coca-Cola and the other with Pepsi. You take a sip of each and determine the brands. Many swear they can taste the difference, but to me — a rare cola drinker — I couldn't tell you which was which.

My evaluation is that without branding, there is not much differentiating one liquid from another. No wonder the cigarette companies are worried. Cigarette advertising was once iconic and now it's going to be very difficult to differentiate between the different brands.

The issue is inherently complex, including the moral debate on the dangers of smoking, freedom of personal choice, extreme government intervention and the blanking out of a brand. It's involves employment, taxes, levies and even political donations. It involves pressure to diminish an already stifled brand, hidden behind shutters. The next steps will certainly set precedent for future brands and marketing campaigns.

What do you think?

To read Sharon's Ninemsn blog, click here.

‍