Based on the discussion below I would like my tutors to please suggest, solution and recommendations.. I am not submitting tutors work as my own.. I only want to share and revise amongst my colleagues.

According to the case study, Tobacco Plain Packaging (TPP) goal was to promote public health in Australia by lowering smoking prevalence through reduced start, greater quit, and reduced relapse. TPP attempted to do this by lowering the attraction of tobacco products, improving the efficacy of health warnings, and limiting the capacity of packaging to deceive people about the dangers of smoking. While there has several issues such as TPP violates Australia's international trade obligations by prohibiting the use of all protected trademarks other than the brand name, with the specific trademark provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Therefore, the complainants claimed that packaging is not a type of advertising and promotion, despite the tobacco industry's long-time acceptance of packaging as such. The findings from art and design, and advertising and marketing agree that visual elements such as colour, logo, shape, texture, and typeface are not only perceived in terms of their formal properties, but also in terms of the symbolic or affective connotations they embody, with powerful influences on consumer behaviour, including for food and tobacco consumption. Nevertheless, Australia did claim that the packaging has a greater effective reach than other types of advertising, measured as the proportion of the population reached at a certain frequency.

Besides that, TPP don't have a significant impact on tobacco product main demand. In fact, by requiring all tobacco products to have a standard look, the TPP rules would create a market where producers must compete on price, by decreasing costs and increasing smoking prevalence. The reduction on the attraction of tobacco products by prohibiting the disclosure of inherent product traits and attributes. This was a crucial point, as one of the complainants claimed that consumers cannot tell the difference between different brands based on their experience. Tobacco packaging, for the most part, fails to communicate product features. As a result, Australia claims that packaging helps to artificially differentiate businesses. The restriction on the transmission of objective product traits and attributes, greatly limiting brand differentiation. This will have a trade-restrictive effect on secondary demand such as brand choice by reducing the competitive options accessible to imported items and causing a downward substitution to cheaper brands. Brands may also be used strategically by customers as self-presentation symbols. In improving the businesses' perceived value on making them relevant to consumers' identities is a major branding problem. When utilised in advertisements, images of physically beautiful people naturally grab and keep attention, resulting in more favourable brand assessments. In another way, to achieve salience is to be attractive, therefore the complainants claimed that other people's cigarette smoking is a significantly more powerful cue than the pack.

On the other hands, the complainants argue that TPP decreases brand appeal, it is due to an inability to convey the product attributes rather than manufactured connotations. They also mentioned that, none of the consequences mentioned will lower smoking prevalence, but may instead increase it. These arguments posed a challenge to Australia's causal chain of effects, which it invoked through different ways. There also has the argument on Australian psychologists misinterpreted the psychological Theory of Planned Behavior. Individuals create behavioural intentions depending on a variety of factors, including the value put on the behaviour, the opinions of others, and the ease with which it may be carried out. The theory highlights the difficulties of describing people's behaviour in general, and it means that proximal psychological factors like attitudes, knowledge, stated intentions, or impressions of a cigarette pack do not consistently predict real "distal" smoking behaviours. In summary, the complainants stated that enormous variables outside of the effect of packaging influence people's decisions to smoke when in peer pressure, risk-taking behaviour, stress, nicotine addiction, and so on.

In mature markets, the problem of how advertising influences demand is a contentious one, as cause and effect may be difficult to separate in aggregate statistics. It is hard to ascertain long-term impacts of advertising as compared to price promotions, where cause and effect might be more rapid. Besides that, brand awareness and knowledge do not go away overnight, and continual word-of-mouth as well as the physical presence of branded items and packaging help to re-activate it. In advertising and branding have little effect on primary demand but mainly secondary demand. In Australia, the mass market promotions, such as television commercials, do not raise primary demand, where store display regulations prevent packs from being visible until after they have been purchased. As a result, when advertising is reduced, it will be difficult to spot any impacts that might obscure any link and the sales do not often fall sharply.

However, according to the case the complainants contended that packaging had no bearing on an adolescent's desire to smoke, and that initiation among teenagers, which is influenced by variables other than packaging, branding, or advertising. Smoking initiation is influenced by a number of factors, including low socioeconomic status, a lack of skills to resist peer influences, and low self-efficacy for refusal. They also replied that teenagers are not only aware of any health hazards, but that they either minimise future dangers or that the perceived risk adds to the appeal of smoking. The complainants likewise claimed that there are tremendous dynamics at work that influence customers' decisions to quit smoking or relapse, none of which are connected to packaging. Nicotine dependency, as well as social effects are evident factors in stopping success. Social or economic hardship, divorce, a spouse starting to smoke, unemployment, and associating with smokers are all risk factors for relapse. The complainants said that even if TPP had any impacts, they will not tilt the scales in their favour. Such as any unbranded cues such as ashtrays, lighters, and seeing others smoke are serving as conditioned triggers, and TPP actually exacerbates the problem. Nonetheless, there also has the issues in Australia maintained that the TPP's impact on "proximal" psychosocial factors including knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and intentions is best examined in the short term. While, the complainants claimed that the "proximal" impacts suggest that TPP measures had no overall effect, and they questioned whether proximal outcomes and smoking-related outcomes were causative or even predictive.

In summary, it is not easy to observe in short-term such as the panel, dismissed this notion by citing a remark made by a complainants' marketing expert, the advertising created obstacles to entry for new entrants. In other words, the TPP should decrease rather than raise entry obstacles. While in second trade-distorting there would be down trading, or brand moving from higher-priced to lower-priced brands, as a result of the reduced capacity to differentiate products. Advertising may influence brand choice within a category, and that when major companies stopped investing heavily in national advertising touting their better quality, they seemed less premium and more interchangeable.