In
the business of advertising and communications, where perception is far more relevant
than reality, the tobacco and alcohol barons create brands that support the brand
name, but have no connection whatsoever with the brand they are selling. The connection
is merely superficial. It is clearly evident from the instances quoted above that
the companies have come up with innovative marketing plans to counter the ban
on alcohol and tobacco advertising. Launch a non-tobacco (or alcohol for that
matter) variant with the same brand name and continue advertising. Sounds great!
Incidentally,
the same practice is carried on in other countries as well, wherein the government
has regulated the advertising and publicity for alcohol and tobacco. Which means
that companies have to stay away from the mainstream media and adopt methods by
which they can keep their brands fresh in the minds of customers and also maintain
their market share.
It
was acknowledged by the tobacco industry in Greece recently that tobacco advertising
boosts consumption. In Malaysia also where cigarette advertising is banned (as
in India), surrogate advertising for cigarette brands is quite common. Philip
Morris, one of the leading cigarette manufacturers in the US, paid US$3,50,000
in 1988 so that their brand of cigarettes would be shown in a James Bond movie
Licensed to Kill. In 1979, Philip Morris paid US$42,500 to have its Marlboro
brand of cigarette appear in the movie Superman II. |
