iankirk.net

A few months ago Mark Blacklock interviewed me for his forthcoming book on the illegal drugs industry. His idea was to explore the differences between the drugs trade and legitimate business practice. We were talking about the branding and marketing of drugs like ecstasy, heroin, cocaine, speed and cannabis. Aside from youthful experimentation in the milder of these substances, I didn't know much about drugs except what you read in the papers or see in movies and TV. It was therefore fascinating to hear about Mark's research.

A version of this article was printed in the Financial Times. You can see a scan of it here.

Mark wanted to know if branding played a part in the illegal drugs trade as it does in legitimate businesses. My answer is no, and the reasons for that help to make clear some of the differences between marketing and branding.

There can be no doubt that marketing plays a crucial role in the illegal drugs trade. They have complex distribution that mean that, depending on where you are and how much you are willing to pay, you can buy them direct from a dealer's place, on street corners, in pubs and clubs, or have them delivered to your door or place of work. These are methods of distribution and levels of service that conventional legitimate retailers can only dream of. There is certainly price promotion and point-of-sale promotion. Drug dealers want their victims to become hooked on more expensive drugs, so initial tries of a drug are often discounted, and buyers of one drug might be offered the chance to try another (buy one get one free, as it were). There are loyalty programmes, too; I hear that frequent users can often negotiate a discount or buy higher-quality drugs than occasional purchasers. Whilst mainstream advertising is of course impossible, most of the 'stealth' and 'guerialla' marketing tactics that we understand today were pioneered, more or less consciously and deliberately, by the illicit drugs trade. Innovation is key, too, with new formulation variants, new packaging, news ways of taking a drug and occasionally entirely new drugs becoming available from time to time.



Branding however provides a badge of origin is a guarantee of quality. The word has come to mean much more in addition to that, but this definition is what links it etymologically to the 'branding' of sheep and early machinery. Because these drugs are illegal, the suppliers dare not be too explicit about their origin because it would expose them to the risk of arrest. No claims can be made about the source or processing of substances involved in case it gives the game away to the authorities. Equally, the illegality of these drugs means that there is no social mechanism to guarantee the quality of any given drug. Intellectual property laws protect legitimate brands because it allows for a difference between fake or counterfeit goods and the real thing. The illicit drugs industry has no such protection over name, claim, or formulation and so ‘counterfeiting’ by other suppliers can almost immediately undermine any reputation that might be fleetingly established. This is an important lesson for people who work on global brands because it makes explicit the need for a framework of intellectual property law in order for branding to be possible.



The illegal drugs industry is unable to brand its products because the laws that would provide support for this do not apply. This is one of those cases that demonstrates, contrary to the views of extreme economic libertarians, that legislation is necessary to modern commerce because it provides a space where promises can be meaningful and authentic.



The illegal drugs industry is a disgusting business that destroys and often ends the lives of its customers and its 'workers' with alarming frequency. Whilst it doesn’t benefit from intellectual property law, it also isn't constrained by any employment, non-exploitation or health and safety legislation. As a result it practices the worst imaginable excesses of unfettered capitalism. It should be despised by the anti-globalisation movement. I'm willing to bet, however, that there is some correlation between drugs use and support of the anti-globalisationists. I have met one or two in my time, and it strikes me as an extreme irony that they will insist on fair-trade coffee whilst at the same time snorting the world's most murderous and rapacious supply chain up their noses.