Feed­back

Finweek English Edition - - FEEDBACK - Jian

Hope this helps to clear ar up any con­fu­sion. over-reac over-reach­ing. While there’s tremen tremen­dous value in a brand brand’s trade­mark mark, to­bacco com com­pa­nies are go­ing to have to a adapt to

the new legis leg­is­la­tion or die. I doubt that our con­sti­tu­tion will cur­tail the pro­posed leg­is­la­tion.

I’m nor­mally ve­he­mently free-mar­ket, but in this case, Govern­ment in­ter­ven­tion to ed­u­cate on the dangers of smok­ing and down­plays the glam­our an­gle (which the to­bacco com­pa­nies have ex­ploited very prof­itably for decades) is def­i­nitely re­quired. It’s un­for­tu­nate that brand trade­marks have to suf­fer as a re­sult, but I don’t agree that they’re “ir­rel­e­vant pawns in the game” – by your own ad­mis­sion, brand trade­marks are highly pow­er­ful and emo­tive, and are absolutely fair game.

For what it’s worth, I’m not anti-smok­ing, but I do be­lieve that the to­bacco in­dus­try is enor­mously ex­ploita­tive and crafty and has for decades tar­geted the youth with highly per­sua­sive, emo­tion­ally charged ad­ver­tis­ing. I don’t think that’s okay.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.