Public health
Since we have defined the problem of tobacco advertising as a problem of the basic deterioration of population health, the criterion of public health becomes essential. The research that has been conducted in countries that have used approaches similar to the four alternatives offered above have revealed that first three options do not encourage a reduction in tobacco consumption and that only the ban can give the desired result. The toughening of restrictions can be considered positively only if it is used as a step to a complete ban and is perceived as concern on the part of the authorities about people's health. This kind of toughening can affect some smokers, and they might decrease their tobacco consumption. Nevertheless, in comparison with the ban, the effectiveness of toughening would be minimal. To decrease the consumption of tobacco products, this ban should not just consist of a vague declaration; it should cover direct and indirect advertising, as well as advertising through sponsorship.
In Ukraine, for obvious reasons, public research on the effects of advertising on tobacco consumption was not conducted. However, available data on tobacco consumption reveal adverse trends. In the 1990s, experts estimated the total cigarette consumption (including smuggling) to be from 65 to 75 billion cigarettes annually. In 2002, the legal consumption of cigarettes (production - export + import) has reached 80 billion cigarettes.
It is difficult to predict what kind of reduction in cigarettes consumption could be expected in Ukraine as a result of a ban on tobacco advertising. In the UK, the government has estimated that its advertising ban will decrease tobacco consumption by 2.5 % and will save 3,000 lives annually. According to the World Bank [1], if comprehensive bans were in place, tobacco consumption would fall by more than 6 %.
If the tobacco-advertising ban will reduce the total tobacco consumption in Ukraine by 1% only, it will mean that more than 1,000 human lives will be saved annually. From the public health view, it is an extremely effective measure. It is hardly possible to find other legislative measures that would have a similar result while not requiring any governmental expenses.
The advertising business
The main argument against a ban on tobacco advertising is a possible income reduction in the advertising business. This argument is based on the share of tobacco advertising within the total amount of advertising services, in which, for example, for billboards can account for up to 30%.
This argument ignores the fact that the advertising market is dynamic, and that other advertisements will appear and take the place of tobacco advertisements. The experience of the countries that have introduced advertising bans reveals that the advertising business as a whole does not suffer. Research that has been conducted in countries such as Norway, Portugal, Canada, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Africa and Poland demonstrate that, following a ban on tobacco advertisements, the total volume of the advertising market has even shown grown. For example, in 1995 the president of the Outdoor Advertising Association of Canada, Bob Reaume, stated: "the Tobacco Products Control Act was arguably one of the best things to ever happen to our industry. It so drove our members to develop other advertising categories that, today, packaged goods clients, not tobacco, are our largest spending group, and the loss of tobacco revenues has been completely recouped and then some" (Marketing, 6.11.1995). It is even more important that there is no research that convincingly proves that these ban had a negative effect on the advertising business as a whole; otherwise the tobacco industry would have presented this research a thousand times over.
Any change of legislation on tobacco advertising will result in the redistribution of resources inside the advertising business. For example, the easing of restrictions can result in an outflow of resources to firms engaged in television advertising at the expense of firms dealing with billboards. The tobacco-advertising ban can be favourable to firms that are not engaged in tobacco advertising, as the demand for their services will increase. Thus, a small number of advertising agencies that specialize in tobacco advertising can go bankrupt. Now these firms dictate a line of behaviour for the entire advertising community, caring not about the prosperity of this community as a whole, but only about their own vested interests. They describe dark perspectives, for instance that the tobacco advertising ban will followed by other kinds of advertising bans, but, except for alcohol advertising, there are no examples of such developments in any country. The negative attitude of the population to any advertising activity is to some extent caused by aggressive tobacco and alcohol advertising.
It is therefore possible to conclude that any of the four offered options would result in the redistribution of resources between advertising companies, but would not affect the actual total amount of these resources. The tobacco advertising ban can cause some losses for advertising business at first, especially if there is an insufficient period of adjustment between the acceptance of the law and its implementation. Therefore, as the experience of other countries shows, it is reasonable to leave a temporary interval (for example, a year) between the acceptance of the law and its implementation. It is also possible to have different terms for different kinds of advertising. These kinds of terms provide opportunities for advertising businesses to adapt to new rules with minimal losses.
| Who we are? |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
