They should NOT say that. They "can"...but they'll pay for it!!
Anyone see blu's statement this morning?
- Thread starter Shipmister
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- evic
- Status
They should NOT say that. They "can"...but they'll pay for it!!
throk" data-source="post: 8655347" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">
Sorry, but they can place disclaimers without squashing the opinions of individuals. So in My opinion their demand of silents simply gives them total control over current advertisement and future promotion with total disregard to the end users opinion.
Back to my eVic
Where I come from, we call that a "Lawsuit Waiting to Happen" ..
Sorry, but they can place disclaimers without squashing the opinions of individuals. So in My opinion their demand of silents simply gives them total control over current advertisement and future promotion with total disregard to the end users opinion.
Back to my eVic
I disagree.
Their FB page is their house. They can ask you not to say certain things in their house, and ask you to leave if you don't abide by their house rules. Same thing goes for my house, or yours.
You have the freedom of speech, but no guarantee of a venue in which to speak.
So my question differs slightly. Since we are talking about a facebook page here, My questions is Does the content of my post on facebook still belong to me? If so then any claims made in one of my posts are my opinion the same as any product review therefore the company would not be liable to any claims and instead I would be considering I am not an affiliate or officer of said company, is this correct?
I does not belong to you unless it is copywrited by you and notice given .. and that pretty much holds true with anything ..
As well, the Web is chock full of bogus reviews seeded by vested interest individuals ..
Technically you are correct. Did Blu delete your post? That would be rather harsh..but they have the right. Just as I have the right to delete a rude judgmental comment by my step daughter when she's been drinking too much and she's running her mouth. After all...I have other people who "like" my page who are friends who don't need to be exposed to foul language and such. If they didn't delete your comment, but inserted the "disclaimer" that's fair enough, and protects them in the event someone tries to make a case they agree with you on your point. It's not censorship...it's just a case of "cover thine own behind"
"healthier alternative" a no no as well? meaning just "an alternative" can be used?
I'm not a doctor, not a lawyer, and haven't stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in months. With that said: I would imagine healthier is a no-go word altogether.
Are you looking for verbiage you personally can use on the Blu FB page? If so, why not try things like "cheaper" and "tastier". Ecigs have a lot of draws above and beyond any potential health benefits. Heck, going that route might just convince some of the "I smoke because I like to live on the edge of DANGER" kind of people.
Forget health. Point out the fact that neither sleet nor snow nor driving rain will ever impact your nic intake again. Or the fact that small children don't wrinkle their nose up when you walk by. Perhaps even the fact that your clothes now smell like detergent rather than an ashtray.
I kind of agree and disagree. Where is the line drawn between advertising through Facebook and advertising through other privately owned media or other types of publicly accessible media? I think that's where the grey area lies - in what's publicly accessible.
Either way, I think since the FDA seems impossible to convince that e-cigs can be used as a smoking cessation device, it's better for Blu to cover their butts that to risk a lawsuit. It's ridiculous that gum and patches and other drugs can be advertised that way when they are all far from 100% effective, while e-cigs cannot and are probably much more successful in helping people quit than any other method.
I also think Blu is owned by a tobacco company so perhaps they're posting not only to cover their butts legally, but also to keep from losing some of their tobacco sales.
Do you really want the FDA to consider the PV a smoking cessation device .. ??
Some vape and quit and others vape and still smoke. I think most actually quit cigarettes after a period of time. It took me two years to lay them down while vaping. I could have done that any time, but hated to undergo the cravings. I found that that once I made my mind up, there were no cravings after quitting as long as I vaped.
No company can advertise that all people will achieve a given end by using their product. As was said, it's all about CYA and damage control in case someone challenges their claims. The disclaimer clause has saved corporate America bug bucks over time.
No company can advertise that all people will achieve a given end by using their product. As was said, it's all about CYA and damage control in case someone challenges their claims. The disclaimer clause has saved corporate America bug bucks over time.
Perhaps some enlightenment is in order?Jman8 said:
Last edited:
the issue with people posting on FB page falls under the "public domain" sort of thing. the company can say they dont make any official claims but if users want to make the claim for them then its basically legal and cant be used against said company in courts. now the court of public opinion is completely different... anyone who says anything can and will be used against you.
the advertisement i would go with is mostly what they use... "no ash, no tar, no harmful secondhand smoke, no stench."
the advertisement i would go with is mostly what they use... "no ash, no tar, no harmful secondhand smoke, no stench."
Its both logical, and simple -- both for the company, and for the vaping community as well. No one can say that its a 'healther' or 'safer' alternative, as was alluded to earlier in this thread. Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine, and is what what we practice here on ECF, however, it is just that -- anecdotal. None of us actually know what the health benefits are; this is the one point I agree with the FDA on. Any evidence of being able to quit smoking via e-cigs is largely scientifically unfounded -- and misguided. Lets be real here; we're not quitting smoking, we're taking up an alternative that we perceive to be easier on us, our wallets, and those around us. Its nothing more than that. Trying to imply its more than that, is where liabilities start to come into play.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I consider myself a success story, and an ex smoker due to vaping as well -- however, from a scientific perspective there is precious little in the way of direct longterm studies related to vaping, and denying this reality is a bit of wearing blinders. We *ARE* the guinea pigs for this experiment, but it was a willful choice... just remember that fact and you'll understand why medical claims are not a good idea at this juncture.
Now, don't get me wrong -- I consider myself a success story, and an ex smoker due to vaping as well -- however, from a scientific perspective there is precious little in the way of direct longterm studies related to vaping, and denying this reality is a bit of wearing blinders. We *ARE* the guinea pigs for this experiment, but it was a willful choice... just remember that fact and you'll understand why medical claims are not a good idea at this juncture.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
