fbpx

Month: June 2020

[Marketing Medium] Consumers Deserve Refunds For Their Flights

“If the terms of service on the ticket state that the consumer is entitled to a refund when a service is not provided, then that shouldn’t change because of Covid-19. Yes, airlines are struggling, but so are ordinary consumers. Vouchers for a future flight offer no help for consumers struggling to pay their mortgages. It is problematic that the government is essentially prioritizing airline companies over consumers,” said Clement

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5eebbc8d5459b60004ccaf52/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Consumers Deserve Refunds For Their Flights

“If the terms of service on the ticket state that the consumer is entitled to a refund when a service is not provided, then that shouldn’t change because of Covid-19. Yes, airlines are struggling, but so are ordinary consumers. Vouchers for a future flight offer no help for consumers struggling to pay their mortgages. It is problematic that the government is essentially prioritizing airline companies over consumers,” said Clement

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/3fziGlt

La faillite intellectuelle du “gastro-nationalisme”

A travers l’Europe, les protectionnistes du secteur alimentaire sont de retour. Avec l’excuse du COVID-19, ils prétendent que la concurrence commerciale internationale est un problème pour les producteurs nationaux. Dans plusieurs législations européennes, on propose d’imposer des quotas de produits locaux aux commerçants, dans d’autres ce sont des ministres qui font des appels au “patriotisme alimentaire”. C’est dans ces moments qu’il convient de rappeler à quel degré ce gastro-nationalisme est problématique.

Dans un article pour l’AGEFI Luxembourg, j’avais analysé les origines du mercantilisme, connu de nos jours sous le nom de protectionnisme. Par cet article, on aurait pu croire que cette pensée politique est d’origine française, i et qu’elle a ensuit été exporté à l’Union européenne à travers des mesures des subventions et standardisation des produits. Cependant, il s’avère que les exemples de protectionnisme sont présents dans tous les pays, y compris dans le monde anglo-saxon.

Les lois sur le maïs (Corn Laws) étaient un parfait exemple de protectionnisme au 19e siècle : les grands propriétaires fonciers conservateurs de Westminster ont décidé que le Royaume-Uni devait taxer fortement les céréales provenant de l’étranger, dans le but d’avantager les producteurs locaux. 

Le résultat de cette politique commerciale semble aller de soi : alors que les producteurs britanniques en profitaient, le prix des céréales a explosé dans les années 1830. Dès que la concurrence a été neutralisée, les grands propriétaires terriens ont pu augmenter les prix, ce qui a surtout nui aux classes ouvrières. Le 31 janvier 1849, par une loi votée en 1846, les résultats catastrophiques des Corn Laws sont enfin reconnus. Ils seront abrogés et les taxes à l’importation disparurent.

Remplacer le mot “maïs” ou “Royaume-Uni” par tout autre produit ou pays ne fera pas de différence sur la réalité des principes économiques : le protectionnisme ne fonctionne pas, il appauvrit les consommateurs et en particulier les plus pauvres.

Dans un reportage pour RTL Radio Luxembourg, l’eurodéputé Charles Goerens expliquait que si nos voisins décidaient d’appliquer les solutions des gastro-nationalistes, notre industrie laitière devrait réduire sa production de trois-quarts, ce qui reviendraient à la fin de l’agriculture dans le Grand-Duché. Malheureusement, ce message ne semble pas impressionner nos voisins français. Le ministre de l’Agriculture Didier Guillaume a appelé les Français “au patriotisme alimentaire” même si “la tomate française coûte plus cher”, titre RTL Radio France. Le ministre ne mâche pas ses mots dans le reste de ses déclarations sur la chaîne radio :

“Il faut que nos concitoyens achètent français. Il faut développer notre agriculture si on veut de la souveraineté alimentaire, de la souveraineté agricole. Mais comme c’est un peu plus cher, nous devons travailler afin d’être plus concurrentiels. L’agriculture française doit être compétitive. Les prix payés aux producteurs doivent être plus forts que ce qu’ils ne sont aujourd’hui.”

Depuis mars, le gouvernement français est en pourparlers avec les supermarchés du pays pour l’achat de produits frais locaux. En conséquence, les plus grandes chaînes de distribution françaises, comme Carrefour et E.Leclerc, ont transféré la quasi-totalité de leurs approvisionnements vers les exploitations agricoles locales.

D’autres pays sont allés plus loin que la France.

Le gouvernement polonais a dénoncé 15 transformateurs nationaux pour avoir importé du lait d’autres pays de l’UE au lieu de l’acheter à des agriculteurs polonais.

“Le patriotisme économique de ces entreprises suscite des inquiétudes”, a déclaré le gouvernement dans une circulaire qui est restée en ligne, même après la suppression de la liste des usines laitières ayant utilisé du lait étranger au premier trimestre 2020.

L’opposition vient de Berlin. Avant la vidéoconférence des ministres de l’agriculture d’il y quelques semaines, Julia Klöckner, ministre de l’agriculture allemande, a déclaré que la crise du Coronavirus soulignait l’importance du marché unique, et que les pays de l’UE devaient s’abstenir de mettre en œuvre des politiques protectionnistes pour aider leurs économies à se redresser.

“Les chaînes d’approvisionnement transfrontalières et la libre circulation des marchandises sont essentielles pour garantir la sécurité de l’approvisionnement aux citoyens. Et c’est pourquoi je mets en garde contre le “nationalisme de consommation”. Ce n’est qu’une force supposée qui s’efface rapidement. Nous ne devons pas mettre en péril les réalisations du marché intérieur”, dit la déclaration.

Du côté de l’Union européenne, il est intéressant de constater  que le commissaire du marché intérieur, Monsieur Thierry Breton, semble déterminé à s’opposer à tout mouvement protectionniste (du moins en dehors du cadre protectionniste déjà établi par l’Union elle-même). 

Bruxelles a lancé une procédure judiciaire contre la Bulgarie, après que son gouvernement ait imposé de nouvelles mesures aux commerçants, les obligeant à favoriser et à promouvoir les produits alimentaires nationaux, tels que le lait, le poisson, la viande et les œufs frais, le miel, les fruits et les légumes. Les détaillants sont également censés acheter 90% de leur lait et de leurs produits laitiers aux producteurs nationaux.

En dehors des considérations économiques, ces décisions produisent des  injustices sociales évidentes vis-à-vis des commerçants spécialisés. Si par exemple la Belgique obligeait les commerces de détails  de respecter des quotas, comment les magasins de spécialité polonaise pourraient perdurer? 

Héritier du mercantilisme, ce nouveau “gastro-nationalisme” est une fiction nationaliste qui démontre l’illettrisme économique de ses défenseurs . Il est essentiel que les personnes souhaitant défendre le bien-être de la population et des travailleurs se mettent en avant et défendent  le libre-échange et fassent valoir leurs points de vue.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Prohibition and paternalism are always wrong, especially in a pandemic

Canada, in contrast to South Africa, responded to Covid-19 by ensuring that Canadians would continue to have access to alcohol, nicotine, and even cannabis during the lockdown. Ontario also allowed cannabis retailers to offer kerbside pick-up and delivery options.

David Clement and Martin van Staden – The recent full-scale lockdown is something that most people experienced for the first time in their lives. Countries like Canada and the United Kingdom, hit harder by Covid-19, enacted public policy that attempted to keep life as normal as possible by expanding consumer choice to compensate for the disruption. South Africa, in contrast, made the reality of the lockdown leaps and bounds worse by preventing consumer access to alcohol and nicotine, which drove consumers to the black market and forced addicts into withdrawal amidst a pandemic.

The continued prohibition on cigarette (and even e-cigarette) sales – alcohol is being sold freely again – is now being heard in court. South Africa is one of only three countries, the others being India and Botswana, to ban cigarettes during its lockdown. Government has asked, should the court find Minister Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma’s regulations to be unlawful, that the matter be referred back to her for reconsideration rather than declaring them void.

Canada, in comparison to South Africa, responded to the pandemic by expanding consumer choice, and ensuring that Canadians would continue to have access to alcohol, nicotine, and even cannabis during the lockdown. Ontario, which is Canada’s largest province, declared convenience stores essential businesses, allowing them to operate from the start of the lockdown onward. This ensured that residents could still have access to nicotine products.

For alcohol, Ontario declared their state-owned liquor stores were essential, mandated that they remain open throughout the lockdown, and even went so far as to liberalise the hours of sale to offer consumers more choice and to avoid overcrowding. In addition, the Ontario government allowed for restaurants to offer alcohol with their food order deliveries, something that was previously prohibited. The province even did the same for cannabis retailers, allowing them to remain open by offering consumers kerbside pick-up and delivery options.

South Africa enacted its alcohol and tobacco/nicotine ban under the mantra of public health and protecting the healthcare system. This is a problematic approach for a few reasons. The first is that a full ban on these products recreates prohibition, which puts consumer safety at risk when consumers seek these products in the illegal market. Consumers accessing dangerous black-market products run the risk of increasing hospitalisations.

It will no doubt be argued that South Africa is unlike Canada. There is an underdeveloped healthcare system which has come under unbearable strain during the Covid-19 pandemic, and our population suffers from a host of ailments not easily found in the West, particularly tuberculosis. This, to some, means the drastic limitations imposed on personal freedoms here are justified.

The horrific stories of a man from Brakpan and a couple from Port Nolloth dying after consuming unsafe, homemade alcohol are illustrative of the consequences of prohibition. The proximate cause of their deaths might have been the dangerous substances they consumed, but the source of the problem was the government’s insistence that it knew best. The social contract never included an agreement that it was acceptable for the government to use a pandemic to paternalistically ban otherwise legal products. As a result, citizens have continued to, and will continue to, buy those products whether they are prohibited or not.

To make matters worse, South Africa’s approach flew in the face of harm reduction by also banning the sale of vaping products, which are 95% less harmful than traditional tobacco products. Not only has the government of South Africa pushed consumers into the hands of the black market, it has also banned one of the most successful smoking cessation tools available to consumers. If the goal of banning products is to protect public health, the last thing that should be banned is reduced risk cessation tools like vaping.

But the ban on vaping does not depart from the South African government’s already well-known paternalistic opposition to this alternative to smoking. The facts will not be allowed to stand in the way of political ideology and alliances.

It will no doubt be argued that South Africa is unlike Canada. There is an underdeveloped healthcare system which has come under unbearable strain during the Covid-19 pandemic, and our population suffers from a host of ailments not easily found in the West, particularly tuberculosis. This, to some, means the drastic limitations imposed on personal freedoms here are justified.

But a study in 28 countries found that there are fewer smokers, who presumably have weaker lungs, among Covid-19 hospitalisations than non-smokers. Research indicating that nicotine might in some way be inhibiting the spread of Covid-19 has hardly been limited to a single, vested interest source, but has come from all over. Nicotine, in other words, may help ensure that one does not contract the virus. If a smoker does end up being hospitalised for Covid-19, however, then there is certainly a greater risk.

Moreover, the overstretched and hopelessly inadequate public healthcare system is the government’s own making. Not only has the government historically done everything in its power to waste the money taxpayers have paid over to it through inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence, but the government has also let the lockdown, which was intended to allow for capacity-building, go to waste.

Rumours of another billion-rand bailout for South African Airways, or the establishment of another doomed national airline, should leave no room for doubt in the minds of our critics that the government has had, and currently has, the resources to run a tight ship in its healthcare system. It is by corrupt choice, and the lack of market-driven incentives, that this does not materialise. The constitutional freedoms South Africans are endowed with should not fall victim to the desire to give a malicious government “another chance”.

In 2017, Canada ranked 8th highest in the world for respecting the economic freedom of citizens. It is this deference to adults who can make their own decisions that, over the years enabled Canada and other countries in the top quintile of economic freedom to have economies and societies capacitated enough to deal with Covid-19. 

South Africa, ranked a poor 101st in the same index, has through its policy choices dug its own grave. It’s never too late to course-correct, but this requires paternalistic attitudes to be abandoned. 

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Enfermedades respiratorias detonará el decreto de prohibir vaporizadores

Los vaporizadores constituyen la alternativa para dejar el consumo de cigarros, pues son 95% menos dañinos que fumar

Activistas afirman que los vaporizadores constituyen la alternativa para dejar el consumo de cigarros, pues son 95% menos dañinos que fumar.

Se realizó la 7ª edición del Global Forum on Nicotine, que en esta ocasión se llevó a cabo online y en donde participaron más de 30 especialistas de 15 países.

Contrario a su objetivo, el decreto presidencial para prohibir la importación y exportación de vaporizadores detonará en México la presencia de enfermedades pulmonares, alertaron especialistas en el marco del Séptimo Foro Global de Nicotina (GFN), en donde participaron más de 30 especialistas de 15 países.

En el marco del evento, que tuvo lugar lo días 11 y 12 de junio y que por esta ocasión se desarrolló por internet por la emergencia sanitaria, el Centro para la Elección de los Consumidores (CONSUMER CHOICE CENTER), afirmó que el decreto que emitió el gobierno de México el pasado 19 de febrero para prohibir la importación y exportación de cigarros electrónicos y/o productos de tabaco calentado tendrá graves consecuencias negativas para la salud, al presionar a los usuarios de vapeadores mexicanos a comprar productos en el mercado negro.

“México -explicó la organización-, tiene un mercado bien desarrollado para sustancias ilícitas, liderado por los carteles y, sirve como un centro de tránsito masivo para el tráfico mundial de drogas. No le costará mucho al crimen organizado contrabandear productos de vapeo de países vecinos a México y venderlos en el mercado negro o (aún más preocupante) vender líquidos de vapeo falsificados a vapeadores mexicanos”.

“La crisis de vapeo en Estados Unidos que refiere el propio decreto presidencial mexicano -agregó la institución-, fue causada por líquidos ilícitos de vapeo con THC y acetato de vitamina E del mercado negro. Empujar a los vapeadores mexicanos al mercado negro causará exactamente lo que el Decreto intenta evitar: Más enfermedades pulmonares”.

En el marco del evento que reunió a especialistas de países como el Reino Unido, Canadá, Estados Unidos, México, India, Italia, Grecia, Nueva Zelanda y Suiza, el Centro para la Elección de los Consumidores dijo que irónicamente la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), reconoció la prohibición de vapear de México como un logro de salud pública, aunque la postura antivapeo de México mantendrá a los fumadores y consumidores de nicotina limitados al consumo único de cigarrillos tradicionales.

Al respecto, John Oyston, Jefe de Anestesiología del Hospital Scarborough de Canadá, y quien también participó en el foro, destacó los beneficios que han demostrado los vaporizadores en el proceso para abandonar el consumo de cigarros convencionales, tal como lo sostiene el principal organismo de salud del Reino Unido, el Public Health England, el cual afirma que el vapeo es 95 por ciento menos dañino que fumar.

Por ello, al igual que el resto de los participantes, reprochó la intención en algunos países, como Estados Unidos, de prohibir el uso de vaporizadores.

Cabe destacar que la principal diferencia entre los vaporizadores y los cigarros convencionales es la combustión, pues mientras que en los primeros se genera vapor (vaporización de sustancias), en el segundo es humo, derivado de la quema de tabaco y químicos, lo que daña directamente la salud de quien lo consume y de terceros que inhalan el humo.

En el evento también participó el mexicano Roberto Sussman, director de Provapeo México, quien alertó que existe una avalancha de desinformación sobre el uso y ventajas del vapeo respecto al consumo de cigarros convencionales. 

Por lo general, el GFN se financia únicamente con tarifas de registro. Este año, se ofreció de forma gratuita con los organizadores a cargo del costo. El evento tiene una política de puertas abiertas. Los consumidores, los encargados de formular políticas, los académicos, los científicos y los expertos en salud pública participan junto con representantes de fabricantes y distribuidores de productos de nicotina más seguros.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Why Brands Matter Now More Than Ever

It’s been almost three months since most of the world went on complete or partial lockdown. The economic consequences of the pandemic have been devastating, with millions of people losing jobs, individuals losing livelihoods, and businesses going bankrupt.

The good news is that the digitalisation of our societies, and in particular e-commerce has mitigated the damage. We might be going through a plague of epic proportions, but at least we have virtual brands.

At a time when better, less expensive products and services are just a click or two away, the conventional wisdom might be that brands are less important than they once were. But that misses the point. Virtual brands now play a key role in our COVID-19 world, and we should embrace brand freedom more as we slowly get back on track.

Unfortunately, branding and marketing often come under fire as policymakers intervene to limit their impact on the consumer decision-making process. In other words, they are blamed for nudging consumers and tricking them into buying something they wouldn’t want otherwise.

Such an approach begs the question: can we claim that consumers who have access to information about products through branding and marketing — as long as companies are honest — are making irresponsible buying choices? No, and claiming otherwise is mere paternalism.

Governments that trample on brand freedom put not only industries at risk but also consumers. In the past months in which all retail shops have been closed almost everywhere in Europe, consumers have greatly enjoyed the variety of virtual brands. Trust is a crucial part of that relationship.

In the midst of quarantines, European consumers have been using e-commerce channels and other platforms to buy goods and products without needing to interact or inspect with them in real life. The decisions are then solely based on trust for the platform and the brand.

The trust component is paramount, and every time governments intervene, they undermine it. Companies’ reputation is also at risk: it is in their best interest to provide consumers with complete information about their products to avoid customer dissatisfaction, bad reputations, and potential lawsuits.

Digitalisation has reinforced this notion thanks to fast access to peer reviews and social media. It has become fairly easy to compromise the reputation of some brands and expand that of others. Brands are therefore incentivised to be transparent.

Brands and marketing also help distribute information about the products, and more of it is always better. Among other things, more information helps reduce search costs.

Rather than spending more time and effort research and looking for products and all the details, brands help convey the information consumers needs. If there were no brands, we would be spending hours trying to figure out what we are offered, and what the best choices are. In our fast developing world, this opportunity cost is very high.

Our road to economic recovery in the EU will be painful and long. The stakes are high, and we should get it right if we want to restore the prosperity of every individual in Europe. While it might be tempting to impose more market regulations to help the economy get back on its feet, this isn’t always the best solution for consumers.

Especially now, we need more brand freedom and we need to promote this idea at every level of our European institutions. If not, we will have less information and fewer choices. That’s no place to be in modern Europe.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

[Marketing Medium] Alberta Is Right To Repeal The Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Edmonton, AB –  Today, Alberta’s NDP sent out a press release stating that the UCP is planning to table a bill that would repeal the Voluntary Blood Donations Act. The act banned blood plasma donors from being financially compensated for their donation. The NDP has stated that MLA Tany Yao is slated to bring the legislation forward.

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/30LWH6E

[Marketing Medium] Alberta Is Right To Repeal The Voluntary Blood Donations Act

Edmonton, AB –  Today, Alberta’s NDP sent out a press release stating that the UCP is planning to table a bill that would repeal the Voluntary Blood Donations Act. The act banned blood plasma donors from being financially compensated for their donation. The NDP has stated that MLA Tany Yao is slated to bring the legislation forward.

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5ee9305aa114e80004c432f5/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Consumer Freedom in the Post-COVID Era: Live Event with Daniel Lacalle

“Thanks to capitalism, we are going to get out of this crisis of poor prevention and worse management in a record period, if there are no more obstacles for economic recovery. In socialism, we would be forced to choose between misery and more misery, added with repression once the citizens began to show their discontent with the Government,” said Daniel Lacalle. 

source http://meltwater.pressify.io/publication/5ee87f764155c30004e949e3/5aa837df2542970e001981f6

[Marketing Medium] Consumer Freedom in the Post-COVID Era: Live Event with Daniel Lacalle

“Thanks to capitalism, we are going to get out of this crisis of poor prevention and worse management in a record period, if there are no more obstacles for economic recovery. In socialism, we would be forced to choose between misery and more misery, added with repression once the citizens began to show their discontent with the Government,” said Daniel Lacalle. 

from Consumer Choice Center https://ift.tt/2YFtJCB

Scroll to top
en_USEN