Films and branded clothes face ban

Adam Sherwin, Media Reporter, The Times, 23 August 2002

Tobacco companies plan to sidestep the advertising ban by selling lifestyle products that will subliminally prompt the purchaser to buy cigarettes.

But government attempts to outlaw this brand-stretching is set to end in court, as manufacturers argue that selling clothes or watches is a separate business to cigarettes.

The tobacco industry earns £100 million from products such as Wild West-style Marlboro Classics clothes and Camel boots, which feature the Camel cigarettes logo. Cigarette brands have also been associated with shops, music, holidays and now food, with the first Benson & Hedges Bistro opening in Kuala Lumpur.

Ministers want to end that practice, especially as tobacco-branded gear is popular with children. The Bill will outlaw all marketing, including selling branded clothes. But it also bans all non-tobacco products “used in connection with a tobacco product, if the purpose is to promote a tobacco product, or has the effect of doing so”. Any item featuring names, colours or images linked with the brand will be banned.

There was confusion at Dunhill, the luxury goods manufacturer, which supplies bespoke suits alongside a range of classic cigarette lighters. Alfred Dunhill, established in 1893, is now part of the Richemont group, which owns 21 per cent of British American Tobacco, the world’s second largest cigarette company. BAT owns the Dunhill cigarette brand.

A Dunhill spokesman said: “We are a leisurewear company but we also sell a range of lighters. Do we have to withdraw those because they might be seen to be cross-promoting Dunhill cigarettes?” The ban means Hollywood can also expect extra lobbying. From 1978 to 1988, 191 films, including 48 which children were old enough to see, were targeted by tobacco firms for product placement. Recent examples include Philip Morris paying for Jim Carrey to pose with a packet of Marlboros in Me, Myself and Irene (2000).