Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
Like Tree28Likes

Thread: 101 Marketing of Electronic Cigarettes | Research objectives and methodology

  1. #1
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590

    101 Marketing of Electronic Cigarettes | Research objectives and methodology

    You are going to need a slab of beer and plenty popcorn to wade through this. A good pointer to the tobacco and marketing mentality, and why they are not slow to climb on the bandwagon.



    https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sit...s_nov_2013.pdf
    margyb, Old Dog, mavinry4 and 2 others like this.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Marrickville NSW
    Posts
    2,949
    what marketing rules there are (those from the ASA) are being repeatedly breached;
    • hard-won tobacco control policies (smokefree public places, the adban, age restricted sales,
    tobacco industry denormalisation, POS restrictions) are being undermined;
    • there is evidence that young people, who have always been the key to the long-term viability
    of the tobacco industry, may be being pulled in to the market;
    • commercial lobbying opportunities are being created and exploited;
    • nicotine is being boosted but cessation and NRT messages are being overshadowed;
    • the unambiguous ‘say no to smoking ’ message is at risk of disappearing.
    Much tighter regulation of e-cigarette marketing is needed.
    • E-cigarette use should be restricted to reduce the danger of modelling – for example it should not
    be allowed in places where children are present.
    • Regulations should also be used to incentivise cessation rather than recreational use.
    • The terms and spirit of FCTC Article 5.3 should be strictly adhered to and policy formulation
    carefully distanced from tobacco industry influence. The likely licensing later this year of a new
    generation NCP produced by a tobacco industry subsidiary marks up both the difficulty and
    urgency of this task.
    • Measures should be considered urgently to reduce the affordability, accessability and attractiveness
    of conventional tobacco products.
    TL;DR
    A short summary.
    mavinry4, RichoVonBlack and JenJ like this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    While I didn't read very word, I did flick through every page.

    120 pages of conflating 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation ecigs. They didn't even consider that not a single tobacco company sells 2nd and 3rd gen ecigs, which look nothing like the real thing.

    Very concerned about those companies selling pouches that house both ecigs and tobacco cigs, literally designed for dual use. SC will have a field day with that.

    They just automatically assume that because Big Tobacco have all the money, that they'll end up buying the entire market in the end. It's a bullshit theory. Big Tobacco are staying away from 2nd and 3rd gen ecigs. The look of the devices and the click function are major physiological breakers for smokers to cease smoking tobacco which is exactly what Big Tobacco don't want. Even if they try to buy ownership of the eGo battery and take it off the market, someone else will come along and with a different design, and there's nothing that Big Tobacco can do about it. Big Tobacco will always stay away from 2nd and 3rd gen ecigs, and because of that, they'll always hold a small fraction of the market. All the Tobacco companies can do is sneakily attempt to persuade legislators to ban 2nd and 3rd gen ecigs as they have been doing.

    It's only moronic Cancer Foundations like CRUK that are delusional and ignorant that they paint a an unreal picture of what is really going on.
    Last edited by mavinry4; 23-01-14 at 09:25 PM.
    Robray and Mathy like this.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Regulations should also be used to incentivise cessation rather than recreational use.
    God forbid we enjoy nicotine.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    "From a public health perspective this is throwing up some worrying indicators:
    • nicotine is being boosted but cessation and NRT messages are being overshadowed;

    Regulation has a major role to play in reducing these threats.
    There is then an urgent need for swift and comprehensive regulation of the e-cigarette market.

    • Regulations should also be used to incentivise cessation rather than recreational use."


    Do you reckon the mob doing the Regulatory Impact Statement in Australia might just have something to copy from now?
    Good find Robray. Only read the first 13 pages when I realised if I kept copying stuff I'd be here forever.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne's leafy outer East
    Posts
    3,656
    What do electronic cigarettes have to do with cancer research ?

    They're getting their knickers in a knot because they will lose state funding and sling backs from Pharma.
    Noe, margyb and mavinry4 like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    740
    I haven't read all as yet, but the bit that I liked best is this

    This reinforcement also takes the form of modelling. It could be argued that the public use of
    e-cigarettes is not modelling smoking, it is modelling not smoking. Technically this has some
    validity, but it is evident from the dataset that this does not stand up to real-world scrutiny. As
    e-cigarette use looks like conventional smoking, authorities have started to ban it in public places
    to avoid enforcement staff getting confused. If a trained professional is unable to distinguish
    vaping from smoking, a child is unlikely to be able to do so. Given the e-cigarette makers’ desire to
    imitate the ‘real thing’, the line between vaping and smoking is likely to remain unclear. Even when
    the behaviour is unequivocally vaping, it still models the idea of nicotine self-medication by
    inhaling a vapour into the lungs, along with the implication that there is another more dangerous way of doing this.
    First of all, what dataset? Couldn't find a mention.

    Second - 'trained professionals'..............? This part is truly laughable. What you mean there are people trained then paid to detect smoking? Professional smoke detectors?

    This is more an insight into how public health thinks than an insight into marketing of tobacco or e-cigarettes.
    Old Dog, mavinry4, JenJ and 1 others like this.

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    5,952
    What I find offensive is there are a bunch of supposedly intelligent people, on a salary that most of us can only dream about, probably one which we are paying for with our tax money, spending hours, days, weeks, and a huge amount of energy......meddling in other peoples affairs.

    Meddling in the affairs of the very people who pay their wages! Determining strategies that dictate to those payers what they can and can't do in their private lives, and with their own bodies.

    Claiming to implement draconian restrictions to 'protect' the innocent, without ever asking the people they claim to work for if they want protection.

    Fcuk them and the horse they rode in on.
    Last edited by JenJ; 23-01-14 at 10:14 PM.
    Old Dog, mavinry4, banger and 1 others like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Sth East
    Posts
    1,686
    "Positioning
    It is evident that independent e-cigarette companies are distancing their products from tobacco
    products, and highlighting characteristics that differentiate e-cigarettes from traditional cigarettes to help
    establish them as a socially acceptable alternative to smoking"


    Yes, the differences are highlighted, not because of trying to be socially acceptable but because they are different and they are not smoking. derrr!

    It seems like CancerResearchUK is worried their arch enemy - BT, their funders - Government and their best friends - BP might all lose the battle to some young upstart Independents that have it all worked out. Consumer choice about their own nicotine needs/wants, cheaper prices and health benefits. What could possibly be wrong with that?
    mavinry4 and maggie like this.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Donna View Post
    "Positioning
    It is evident that independent e-cigarette companies are distancing their products from tobacco
    products, and highlighting characteristics that differentiate e-cigarettes from traditional cigarettes to help
    establish them as a socially acceptable alternative to smoking"


    Yes, the differences are highlighted, not because of trying to be socially acceptable but because they are different and they are not smoking. derrr!

    It seems like CancerResearchUK is worried their arch enemy - BT, their funders - Government and their best friends - BP might all lose the battle to some young upstart Independents that have it all worked out. Consumer choice about their own nicotine needs/wants, cheaper prices and health benefits. What could possibly be wrong with that?
    Yep, keep that wheel turning!

    Corrupt bastards.

    Donna likes this.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 08:01 AM.