Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is interesting. I wonder if that is with Altri looking to outright buy Juul or just reverse engineer July and figure out a way into the vape market.
That is interesting. I wonder if that is with Altri looking to outright buy Juul or just reverse engineer July and figure out a way into the vape market.
They already have a vape development company with several products. They recently pulled the ones considered to be youth-focused.
They already have a vape development company with several products. They recently pulled the ones considered to be youth-focused.
And Juul isn't? I mean lady of the reason Juul was criticized was their marketing campaigns and their easy to conceal devices (which look like USB drives.)
That's what much of this thread is about. I was noting that this company had pulled back as well.
If there's anything to add, it's just maybe that an upstart company hadn't learned not to target the youth audience so blatantly, but Marlboro sure as hell should have learned that a long, long time ago.
That's what much of this thread is about. I was noting that this company had pulled back as well.
If there's anything to add, it's just maybe that an upstart company hadn't learned not to target the youth audience so blatantly, but Marlboro sure as hell should have learned that a long, long time ago.
The problem is not that they marketed to kids because several people on this thread claim they didn't, it is that they seemingly did with youthful leaning ads on various social media platforms. The marketing channel is the big problem here.
The problem is not that they marketed to kids because several people on this thread claim they didn't...
What?
Quote:
...it is that they seemingly did with youthful leaning ads on various social media platforms. The marketing channel is the big problem here.
No, it's not. Advertising on social media is a minor excresence on the turd that is tobacco marketing. Never forget that one purpose of advertising is to be the stalking horse of marketing efforts, to draw fire from the more powerful and less obvious tactics. (Note how it's always "ban advertising," not "end marketing"? And that removing a few illicit ads from, say, Saturday morning cartoons makes everyone happy so they go home?) I would be utterly unsurprised if Juul et al. knew they had a limited window of exposure on social media and fully expected to be chased off of it... such a maneuver deflects attention from things like in-store promotion and (witness this thread alone) generates the kind of publicity you can't buy at any price. As well as backhanded moral ground.
The fundamental truth here is that tobacco is not marketed at adults. There's almost no need to, and little purpose in doing so. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on earth; many long-time quitters get a hard jones for it after decades of abstinence. Nearly everyone who smokes starts before 18-19; the vast majority of smokers are lifetime addicts to the brand they settled on in their first year or two. The only strong cause of brand-switching is cost, followed by lack of availability (not all brands and subbrands are sold nationwide). The influence of cigarette advertising on adult (>25) smokers is vanishingly small, and the industry knows it. Cigarette marketing targets the new smoker (who is likely under 18) and the undecided smoker (who is likely well under 25). Everything else is a collateral... win.
It doesn't matter how growed-up and 'adult' tobacco ads are, or that they are limited to 'adult' magazines (because no one under 30 reads, say, car, truck, motorcycle, sports or outdoors magazines, right?), or Juul et al. getting kicked off "youth" channels - because all tobacco advertising, or nearly all of it, is functionally aimed at the underage and young-adult market. Which is why 99% of the models and actors in cigarette ads are clearly under 30, if not apparently much younger. Gramps doesn't switch brands because of yet another beach volleyball ad for Kools.
You know it. They know it. And when challenged, they can whine virtuously about all the channels they've been kicked out of - which is, in the end, meaningless when nearly every food or gas store in the US presents cigarettes and POS marketing in the glossiest, most tempting way.
I am completely lost as to your point - the sole producer of tax stamps has downsized, therefore tobacco sales have, too? (I guess automation, streamlining, and standardizing have nothing to do with the drop in their tedious workload?)
As for per-pack sales dropping, I would have bet, from fuzzy data, that vaping had had a much larger impact on the burning-weed market. 3%, even in an addicted market, is within statistical variation.
I'm saying smoking cessation wasn't happening nearly as fast as anyone was advertising. Here its pariah status to be smoker, so if you ask 100 people if they smoke, I'm sure less than 10 would say yes. If you ask 100 smokers if they smoke, I'm guessing only 30 would say yes. So these numbers put up in speaking with people are bs.
However, if it moves, the government taxes it. If you look at tax stamp volumes being sold, you can see there's been a steady decline of smoking pack volume in the US, but it's been small. Nowhere near the 50% being reported. The believe of that division was that heavy smokers are dying, leading the drop in volume, but there are not that many fewer smokers, they just smoke much less frequently.
As for the jobs created...these processes have been automated a long time ago. The States keep this because it is a huge source of revenue for themselves, not employees of the companies or tobacco farmers.
While my information is now old, a fully costed pack of cigarettes cost about .25 to make. The remainder of the price was marketing, profit and tax. The various government entities make more from each pack of cigarettes than the producers do. Of course, on the back end, the government has Medicare bills to contend with, streets to clean and a weaker workforce. Still, despite knowing the dangers, it's the government that has the hardest time kicking the habit.
I'm saying smoking cessation wasn't happening nearly as fast as anyone was advertising.
That's entirely possible, but it's kind of a tangential issue in this thread. Better context next time.
Quote:
While my information is now old, a fully costed pack of cigarettes cost about .25 to make. The remainder of the price was marketing, profit and tax.
That's probably a cooked figure (too narrowly defined), but many products have a net production cost of less than 10% shelf price. It's not unique to tobacco.
Quote:
The various government entities make more from each pack of cigarettes than the producers do. Of course, on the back end, the government has Medicare bills to contend with, streets to clean and a weaker workforce. Still, despite knowing the dangers, it's the government that has the hardest time kicking the habit.
The industry pays next to nothing for anything but their own production and market costs. If their profits are less than net taxes, it's hardly a burden to them.
I'd wager that the cost of Medicare treatment for smoking-related illnesses alone dwarfs tax revenues; I'm not even sure it covers tobacco farming and industry subsidies. So your comment will get cheers from the yellow-flag crowd but probably doesn't mean much in reality.
I am not denying that smoking tries to advertise for young people but they aren't allowed to be due to the Joe Camel days. What they can do however is make marketing campaigns that are questionable so long as they don't market directly to the kids. Social media especially for Instagram and Snapchat which are largely for kids does blur the line in a similar way to Joe Camel being front and center in the Camel Mud and Monsters Series programs like he was.
I am not denying that smoking tries to advertise for young people but they aren't allowed to be due to the Joe Camel days. What they can do however is make marketing campaigns that are questionable so long as they don't market directly to the kids.
Which is why, other than the original Marlboro man, you never see anyone over the apparent age of about 25 in a cigarette ad. And even most of the MarlMen were arguably under 30.
There are only three markets for tobacco products: New smokers, who statistics show to be almost wholly under 18-19 and skewing much younger; smokers dissatisfied with their brand, which is a miniscule number centered on about age 23-25, and "upscale" pitches for things like Nat Sherman brands and cigars, a niche pitch.
in other words... either the vast majority of cigarette marketing is aimed at a very young market, or it's a complete waste of money and time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean lady of the reason Juul was criticized was their marketing campaigns and their easy to conceal devices (which look like USB drives.)
