Are demarketing tools used in reducing smoking applicable to the global obesity challenge?

• Author: Kavas, Alican
• Position: Report

1. INTRODUCTION

   It is evident that the aggregate marketing system has brought many improvements and contributions to the societal welfare in terms of standard of living and freedom of choice in consumption in many developed countries (Willkie and Moore, 1999; Maynes, 2003). At the same time, marketing has fostered the consumption of harmful or dangerous products (e.g., cigarettes, alcohol) and the exploitation of vulnerable groups (e.g., children, adolescents). In a free market, it is much easy to make choices that endanger our health and wealth. In today's world, smoking and obesity are two of the most important global health risk factors that have major socioeconomic implications for the societies. The reasons for these epidemics might be attributable, among many other factors, to "market failure" (i.e., the environment created by many factors including excessive marketing and advertising, targeting vulnerable groups, misleading or deceptive practices, lack of social responsibility) and "consumer misbehavior" (i.e., lack of personal responsibility and discipline, lack of information).

   It is estimated that during the 21st century smoking could kill one billion people; 80% of these deaths occurring in developing countries. In the last 40 years, many governments and consumer interest groups around the globe designed polices to reduce smoking. In countries like USA, Canada, Australia and UK there is success stories in combating with smoking. On the other hand, obesity rates showed the opposite trend (Mercer, et al, 2003). In the US, for example, 365,000 deaths per year are attributable to obesity (Baum, 2009) and more than 115 million people in developing countries suffer from obesity-related problems (Floyd, et al, 2008). Even though the reasons and motives of food consumption are very different from that of tobacco, we would like to examine the similarities and differences between smoking and obesity as a behavior and explore if demarketing tools used in reducing tobacco consumption in the USA and other countries can be used to combat with the global obesity epidemic. If some parallels can be drawn, these tools may be used to deal with this problem both in developed and developing countries.

2. COMPARISON OF SMOKING AND OBESITY

   Smoking and obesity are global epidemics and they both stand pre-eminent as causes of avoidable mortality, morbidity and social problems in many countries. First of all, both tobacco and food products are heavily advertised and promoted in many countries and their industries are subject to concerns by governments and consumer interest groups. Environmental constraints and circumstances confront overweight people as well as smokers. For example, there are 170,000 fast food restaurants and 3 million vending machines in the US (Chopra and Darnton-Hill, 2004). Food industry spends over $30 million on direct advertising and promotion in the US. Promotion and advertising of tobacco increase consumption among adults and initiation among youth (Mercer, et al, 2003). Similarly, televised food advertisements have a major influence on food consumption in children and adolescents. Tobacco industry used the tactics of supplying misinformation, using supposedly conflicting evidence, and hiding negative data. Experts argue that the food industry is also using similar tactics in some cases such as reporting conflicting evidence about use of sugar and different types of fats (Chopra and Darnton-Hill, 2004). Second, the current disease and societal cost burdens of smoking and obesity are comparable. For example, in the US, 435,000 deaths per year are attributable to cigarette smoking and 365,000 deaths per year are attributable to obesity (Baum, 2009). The societal cost of obesity is approaching those of cigarette smoking. In the US, in 2008, estimated medical and indirect cost of obesity was about $147 billion compared to $ 155 billion for the costs of smoking (Floyd, et al, 2008; Schiff, 2011). Third, there is an inverse relationship between smoking and obesity (Table 1). In other words, smoking prevalence has declined in many Western countries while it has increased in other parts of the world; however, obesity rates have risen globally during the same period. Recent studies suggest that contribution of obesity to the burden of disease and shortening of life has increased while the role of smoking has decreased (Warner, 2010).

   There are several similarities and differences between smoking and overeating behaviors (Table 2).

   While keeping these differences and similarities in mind, in the following section, we will explore the applicability of the various tools used in tobacco control to obesity fight.

3. APPLICABILITY OF DEMARKETING STRATEGIES USED AGAINST SMOKING TO OBESITY

   The need to change consumer behavior leads public policy makers to employ a range of economic, legal and demarketing practices (Grinstein and Nisan, 2009). "Demarketing is the aspect of marketing that deals with discouraging customers in general or a certain class of customers in particular on either a temporary or a permanent basis" (Kotler and Levy, 1971). The concept of demarketing or counter marketing can be traced back to 1970s and has been used in smoking, drug use, and energy conservation (Grinston and Nisan, 2009). After 40 years, there is some recognition that cigarette demarketing is one of the great public health success stories of the past century. In the next section, we will look at the tools used in tobacco control and their implications for obesity control, and lay out principles for more responsible marketing and consumption practices.

   3.1. Usage and distribution restrictions

   The restrictions on product usage, selling, and distribution are aimed to limit access and...