The cigarette packet.
Text from the article, courtesy of ICON magazine.
-
The government proposes selling cigarettes in plain packaging to limit their appeal – could they still look good while warning smokers? We asked graphic design studio Build to light us up.
-
When we got the brief we already knew about the government’s proposal for unbranded or plain packaging. We chose to approach the design almost from a non-design perspective. Stripping out any superfluous design elements and taking it down to an ultra-“generic” feel was quite liberating.
-
● 1-Marlboro Lights.
A lesson in reductionism. OCR-B, a monospace typeface, was chosen for its clarity and genericism. The QR code [beneath the barcode] links to a government website on the effects of smoking and how to quit. We introduced a very small strip of colour to help indicate from a small distance the cigarettes’ brand. This is for two reasons: to aid people selling the cigarettes and to add a small level of anti-piracy measures (the colour would be foiled). We feel this is the most successful version of the three.
-
● 2-Marlboro Lights.
Information. What is actually in a cigarette? There is no hierarchy, with the brand taken down to the same level as the information. Food packaging now has to list its contents by law – why should cigarettes be any different? This is what is contained in the cigarettes you are about to smoke. This design brings that information to the foreground, and the branding takes a back seat.
-
● 3-Marlboro Reds.
The warning message. What are the possible consequences of smoking this packet of cigarettes? Real-time messaging, real consequences. Branding is taken down to a strip of recognisable colour – brand allegiance reduced to a colour strip only. As a designer, this approach is really refreshing: no gloss, just information.
-
● 4-Marlboro Menthols.
-
How the article appeared in the magazine.
-
We went through quite a few routes, from grotesque pictures of the perils of smoking, to really disgusting typefaces, but felt the best approach was one of reduction and genericism. Take anything off the packet that wasn’t necessary, and focus on the information.
-
Big thanks to Shazia and the team at ICON.
—
I don’t know what it is, but cigarette packaging seems to look good no matter what you do to it. I’m a non smoker, but I’ve always been drawn to the packaging, even when it was plastered with anti-smoking images.
I like your first option the best as well, but feel it still looks too good and is not going to reduce the appeal. I would say that the third option probably works the best in that it’s the one I like the least.
—POSTED BY: Aaron Moodie, January 11th, 2011 at 8:37 am
I feel like smoke now
—POSTED BY: Ivana, January 11th, 2011 at 8:46 am
“The government proposes selling cigarettes in plain packaging to limit their appeal“
—I tink you failed. This one is so simple and sexy that it’s even more beautiful than the actual packaging ! (kidding)
POSTED BY: Kiluka, January 11th, 2011 at 9:02 am
I think you have done a great job aesthetically, they really do look great, especially if they were all in a cabinet at the newsagents with differnet colours, but unfortunately that’s not what Its aiming for. Hopefully this is just an attraction from a design eye point of view, have you tried them on the normal consumer to see how they feel about them? That would be interesting to know.
A designer called DJ Stout did a similar thing a bit about based on old medical drawings (link below) which looked great but Made it more appealing to start smoking than stop.
Im not a smoker myself but I feel the branding of smoking isn’t what sells cigarettes, maybe not even the smoking itself, its the lifestyle. until it becomes uncool to smoke people will always want to start smoking.
(Not aimed at you Build as that wasn’t your brief, but just a view from a wider context on smoking)
http://pentagram.com/en/new/2009/06/cigarette-marketing.php
—POSTED BY: Phil, January 11th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Both Marlboro Light options are great.
——
*Do they include a free download of Ramadanman then?
POSTED BY: Thom, January 11th, 2011 at 11:29 am
shame on you. you should have told them to f-off rather then spending your valuable time entertaining anything remotely connected with this evil subject.
—POSTED BY: Critic, January 11th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Can Design Make A Difference? Yes. Beautiful Simplistic Design by the Magestic Build Again. Lovely Work.
—Peace
—And Love.
POSTED BY: Mark McCreedy, January 11th, 2011 at 11:51 pm
I’m going to start smoking now.
—POSTED BY: Gabriel, January 12th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
It’s is great. I don’t know if i would smoke more than now, but it doesn’t matter, great design!!!
Fessols&naps
—POSTED BY: Fessols&naps, January 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
These are really beautiful, great work. Sometimes a super tight brief is a good thing.
If they really wanted to put people off they should get someone’s mum who ‘has an eye for colour’ to design it in word. And print the same graphics on the cigarette papers so there’s no hiding from it!
—POSTED BY: Michelle, January 13th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Great job. We’ve reposted it.
—POSTED BY: Fessols&naps, January 14th, 2011 at 7:54 am
These are fantastic, but for some reason they look almost wholesome to me now :)
You are so close to the classic/old school medical business packaging/typeface design, that actually made them look medication-like.
I will of course start smoking again.
And totally agree with Michelle.
—POSTED BY: Nanna Engberg, January 14th, 2011 at 9:40 am
@Aaron Moodie : Even with redesigned graphics, the basic shape still conjures up decades of conditioning. An all white cigarette pack without a mark on it would still be recognizable as a cigarette pack. Not to mention that these redesigns have an undeniably well executed minimalist appeal to them. Addressing this becomes an industrial design problem more than a graphic one.
Here’s a theoretical look at redesigning cigarette packaging to annoy users & reduce the effectiveness of branding :
—http://www.erikaskin.com/index.php?/design/design-to-annoy/
POSTED BY: Ryan, January 15th, 2011 at 1:36 am
As graphic designer with a taste for minimalism (style in which you excel), I like very much these packagings.
I’m not a smoker, so I cannot say if it is discouraging for people who smoke.
But in term of design, it is perfect and pleasantly surprising, as usual.
—POSTED BY: A.Stein, January 16th, 2011 at 11:01 am
From my opinion reducing the identity to typography doesn’t give it all to me. What matters most is that it has a strong symbol/icon to indicate that this has to do with smoking. At all ages looking at a package you instantly should know what it is about. In The Netherlands (and other EU countries) cigarettes are only sold over the age of 18. Something I’m completely missing in this design.
Example: Add this symbol to each cigarette brand (not only Malboro), to know the package is about cigarettes and the buying age.
—POSTED BY: Sander, January 17th, 2011 at 10:35 am
Blow a smoke ring these are sweet.
—POSTED BY: ben ferrier, January 25th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Yep, it’s tricky to stop non-design from becoming minimal-design (ie. still aesthetically pleasing). We had a bash a few years back, looking more at removing branding from the packs, making them all look the same: http://www.wemadethis.co.uk/blog/2008/09/de-branding-cigarettes/ — again, I think we veered too close to minimalism, and not close enough to ugly.
Perhaps this is an area where designers just shouldn’t be involved…
—POSTED BY: Alistair Hall, January 25th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
I agree with a lot of posters here. These designs make me want to smoke more. In my experience, you can’t appeal to the intellect to prevent smoking. You can’t even scare people away, viz Death Brand cigarettes. In a sort of catch 22, I have it from an inside source that, at least in Canada, the anti smoking messages on our cigarette packs actually increased sales in the teen market for the first time in 30 years. It certainly worked on me. The first time I saw “Smoking Harms Babies”, I thought “well good thing I’m not a baby”, and cheerfully lit up.
Perhaps a return to saccharine, goofy or outright sexist/offensively insensitive graphics might be a better deterrent.
—POSTED BY: caseywong, January 27th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
A noble step in the right direction, I do however feel that there are oversights in the proposed legislation. Maybe I have put to much thought in to this, yet as an ex-smoker, I have realised that the need for cigarettes is purely habitual and commercial. The cost however is much more than the cigarettes themselves. Huge health service costs and personal wellbeing. The habit can be decreased over time — personally, socially and commercially.
What about including these mandates:
1. No packaging must be on display. Cigarettes can only be purchased on request.
2. No packet can contain more than 10 cigarettes.
3. No crush-proof packaging, or hinged openings.
4. Length and thickness of cigarettes are reduced in size annually.
5. Packaging to contain advice on steps to quit smoking.
6. Price of cigarettes to be fixed regardless of brand, strength or other distinguishing attributes.
7. Cigarette tips and papers may not use any decorative print or finishes.
8. Cigarettes can only be purchased with the presentation of ID, to adults 18 or over.
9. Only 1 packet of 10 or less cigarettes can be purchased from a store at any one time.
10. Retailers of cigarettes must provide free information and be trained in providing advice on how to quit smoking.
11. Loose tobacco may only be sold in quantities equal to 10 cigarettes at the size and length mandated.
12. The same restrictions in branding and packaging apply to loose tobacco, papers and filters. Including the length and roll circumference of papers.
13. Smoking anywhere in public to be prohibited. Smoking restricted to private residence or vehicles.
14. Smoking in vehicles with a child and/or non-consenting adult is prohibited.
15. The sale of cigarettes and tobaccos to be phased out within 10 years.
I’m not advocating that the possession of tobacco is ever to be made illegal, only that the choice to have or consume it privately is not a commercial one; nor one endorced by social acceptance.
—POSTED BY: Matt, January 29th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
I built one IRL. Check it out:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/48985059@N06/5403967108/
—POSTED BY: Scott Smith, January 31st, 2011 at 6:53 am
So what about gas burning cars, coal burning and nuclear power plants. I guess no one is concerned with those things. Look into it. It’s way worse. And what about alcohol? Ruins people. No warnings there. I don’t get this fixation with anti-smoking. It’s not good for you, but many things are worse, way worse. But yeah, no one cares about the other stuff.
—POSTED BY: Robo, January 31st, 2011 at 5:38 pm
In some ways I’m not sure whether the packet design really has that much impact when someone is seriously addicted to smoking. What smokers who want to quit need is a programme which shows them how to stop smoking
—in ways which help them manage their stress, and improves their well-being in far more effective ways than smoking may have appeared to do.
POSTED BY: Di, February 6th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I like the built packet of Scott Smith.
Sorry, I forgot to paste the link of the post we done. If you like to check it, here it is:
—http://fessolsnaps.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/the-cigarette-packet-de-build-studio-london/
POSTED BY: Fessols&naps, February 8th, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I will immediately start smoking. Because of these packages. :D
—The goal of making them less appealing has been missed, I think, because they just look even more awesome than the original ones. So I really don’t know whether to praise or hate this. :D
POSTED BY: intherealm, March 10th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
This is brilliant, Michael. Love it.
—POSTED BY: Xander Davis, March 15th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
This is ridiculous. People won’t stop smoking cause the package is not appealing. I’m a smoker and i’m trying to quit, and in my opinion, they just have to STOP selling that shit legally to help us.
And by the way, people take drugs even if they don’t have a packaging so stop thinking that design will change everything. This thing is addictive so even if the pack looks like crushed brain, smokers will buy it anyway.
The problem is the hypocrisis of governments, cause they needs that money.
Nice design, but really useless.
—POSTED BY: Mark, March 15th, 2011 at 6:41 pm