Xenophon Strategies

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"... or would it?

Jennifer June Lay

This famous Romeo and Juliet quote refers to the importance of what things are, not what things are called.  But in the world of consumer products, brand identity plays a huge role in purchasing decisions.  So what would happen if a rose lost its identity, its brand and looked like every other flower in the garden?  Would it still have its status as the symbol of love? Would Valentine’s Day still be one of biggest sales days of the year?  Would consumers and florists pay top dollar for a “generic” rose?  That’s what’s happening to Philip Morris in Australia, and the company is understandably concerned. 

Beginning in 2012, the Australian Government plans to introduce plain, brand-free cigarette packaging – no logos, branding, colors or promotional text on tobacco products will be shown.  Under this new law, only the name of the manufacturer and the name of the product will be displayed on packaging in a standard size and type of lettering.  Everyone has their own opinion about tobacco usage, but what this is about is the removal of a company’s – any company’s – identity.  Should government have the right to eliminate branding?

Companies work for years, even decades, to establish a look, tone and feel that becomes synonymous with their products.  Colors, symbols and even a sound essentially become the brand.  What would happen to the company’s identity if McDonald’s was suddenly stripped of its Golden Arches or Southwest lost its Ding! What if Nike’s Swoosh was banned? Companies dedicate enormous amounts of resources, and PR and marketing professionals have worked tirelessly to build and protect their brands.  Should the government have the right to change all of that in an instant?  That’s exactly what Philip Morris is battling. 

Philip Morris executives are arguing that removing their brand identity from packaging deprives them of their intellectual property and unfairly reduces prices and therefore profits.  They have a valid point.   Most people associate generic brands with being less expensive perhaps lower quality than the name brand.  In addition, branding allows products to set themselves apart from their competitors.

Branding also has an emotional component, which most people fall prey to, that marketing professionals establish with consumers, but behind every brand is truth….the products and services represented deserve to be on the shelves for one reason or another.  It’s about a healthy competition in the marketplace.  And, if nothing else, it’s about job security – if this law goes into effect, it will open the door for branding restrictions across the board and the communications profession could cease to exist.      

Tweet this link

« return to blog | Jun 30, 2011 | Australia | branding | government affairs | Phillip Morris | regulation