Branding and Slogans, not just facts

[dave8944]

Any real organization effort involves marketing your position, so if we could coalesce around a common theme our efforts would have more impact. Facts are great, but as you can probably tell persuasion often involves other features.

It's just my observation, but e-cig.'s might be marketed like condoms were for HIV infection. There is no such thing as safe sex, only "safer" sex. So to with e-cigarettes, there is no such thing as a safe cigarette, only a "safer" cigarette. Sure these things seem obvious, but until there is an underlying theme to a central campaign effort our message will be as fractured as our efforts. Again, it's not just about disseminating facts. There is no corporate effort, so it will be difficult to unite interested parties, but a central slogan or theme is essential.

Another route to take is the one the pro-lifers used to such great effect. Why should a bunch male lawmakers have control over a women's body by outlawing abortion? A woman has a right over her own body. So to with e-cigarettes, why should a bunch of non-smoking zealots have control over my body? Smokers should have a right to choose. If we have the right to smoke carcinogen cigarettes we should have the right to choose alternate delivery systems. I think one of their big slogans was "my body, my choice."

I'm sure there are better product campaigns to mimic, but we should adopt a unified marketing effort with slogans since the foreign coroporations can't/won't.

 

[el lobo furtivo]

The difference here is that there was no multi-billion dollar industry against condoms or right to life. Besides, we can't really take any of those stances until we can gather enough evidence that e-cigs are not the devil the FDA is making them out to be. We need some suppliers/manufacturers to step up, band together and get some real, reliable tests done that we can use in this fight. Someone mentioned in another thread consulting with some former BT lobbyists. That wouldn't be a bad idea.

Anyway my point is, right now our problem is that (like it or not) we are using a product that most of us (admittedly) have no idea what is in it or how safe it actually is. And BT/FDA knows this. We need to take that ammunition away from them. Prove beyond a doubt our e-cigs are FAR safer than their cancer sticks and we're halfway through this war.

 

[dave8944]

I totally agree with you el lobo, except that the other side is not waiting for the truth to come out before proceeding with their propaganda campaign! Whenever there are people in groups there is politics. Whenver politics is involved the truth is the first thing sacrificed. Do you really thing the TRUTH group is honest? No, they twist statistics to favor their side. For them, the ends justify the means. Sure the cigarette executives were lying to congress when they said they didn't believe nicotine was addictive, but so did the journals that published the sloppy initial second-hand smoke studies. These were all done with an unacceptably high probability that their results were in error (alpha level), and would never have been published if they didn't fit with the anti-smoking politics of our time. Look at the cash for clunkers program going on right now. Don't these people realize it takes far more energy to produce a new car than the energy wasted to drive an old one that gets, what, four miles to the gallon less? You don't have to look very far to see what I mean about truth.

We can't wait for the truth and shouldn't let it get in our way anyway. The other side won't. I'm no politician and actually abhor politics and political discussions of any kind simply because truth takes a back seat. However, from my observations we need a flag to rally around and some professional "sound bites" which make up most of the discourse one sees in the media.

As a correction to my earlier post, it was of course the pro-choice people that had the "my body, my choice" slogan.