Electronic cigarettes: disruptive innovation

[lirruping]

Extremely relevant and interesting article from the International Journal of Drug Policy:
(Posted in General vaping Discussion because, as social commentary, it does not fit in news or activism)

"Electronic cigarettes are a disruptive innovation for nation states.

The contest for ‘ownership’ of the ‘problem’ at international, regional and national level revolves around the issue of how these new products are to be defined and regulated. Are they tobacco products, hence to be included within the international Framework Convention on tobacco Control (FCTC) (WHO, 2003) and subject to tobacco regulations? Are they a consumer product? Is nicotine a drug that can be classed as a medicine[?]"

"Electronic cigarettes are disruptive for public health and tobacco control organisations.

The rapid uptake of electronic cigarettes has been a consumer-led self-help public health movement (Stimson & Costall, 2014) with no expenditure of healthcare resources, and has been met with neglect and sometimes antipathy from many public health experts and tobacco control organisations who clearly do not have ‘ownership’ of the innovation.

"[/B]Disruptive innovations challenge power and established wisdom

Disruptive innovations lead to more than changes in industries and consumer behaviour: they challenge existing power relationships and established wisdom, and are associated with changes in attitudes as different groups vie for ownership of the issue in the public mind, from enthusiasm for new pleasures, to negative fears for the health of the population and social condition (Berridge, 2013). There is interplay to position, and re-position, the new way of using the substance, and whether its use is a ‘problem’."

(Found thanks to fellow ECFer, Andria's, site: Vape Fight - Home)

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Interesting article. Most people won't read it though. I think this is my favorite paragraph:

Electronic cigarettes are disruptive for public health and tobacco control organisations. The rapid uptake of electronic cigarettes has been a consumer-led self-help public health movement (Stimson & Costall, 2014) with no expenditure of healthcare resources, and has been met with neglect and sometimes antipathy from many public health experts and tobacco control organisations who clearly do not have ‘ownership’ of the innovation. The public health response to regain ownership has coalesced around the precautionary principle. Hence the public health discourse has mainly focused on potential use of e-cigarettes by young people, their potential as a gateway to smoking, and fear that they might undermine the ‘de-normalisation’ of smoking by ‘re-normalising it’. Few public health experts have been engaged in supporting and promoting this grass roots movement, despite the fact that it accords with one of the basic principles of public health as outlined in the WHO Ottawa Charter for Health – that ‘Health promotion is the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health…’ (WHO, 1986). As has been noted ‘This seems to be exactly what electronic cigarette consumers are doing – taking control of things that determine their health’ (Stimson, 2014).

http://www.ijdp.org/article/S0955-3959(14)00100-5/fulltext

Looks like the WHO can't agree with themselves.

 

[supertrunker]

Disruptive in what way? I'm constantly being told to not smoke or drink, eat a balanced diet, exercise and so on.

The only disruption i see is one to their income stream and i think health organisations - if indeed the WHO qualifies as one - ought to rejoice in the prospect of a healthier population. No?

T

 

[lamarrk]

Moved to Media and General News.

 

[lirruping]

Disruptive in what way? I'm constantly being told to not smoke or drink, eat a balanced diet, exercise and so on.

The only disruption i see is one to their income stream and i think health organisations - if indeed the WHO qualifies as one - ought to rejoice in the prospect of a healthier population. No?

T

Yes, supertrunker! One ought definitely to rejoice in the prospect of a healthier population. This article is not about rejoicing vs. failing to rejoice over ecigs/vaping--as such. This article talks about some of the ways our society is reacting to vaping as a movement. It's discussing its impact from business and social points of view--on the different levels outlined in the excerpts in the original post.

The article (even just the highlights from the post, above) makes a similar point to the one you are making when you say:

The only disruption i see is one to their income stream and i think health organisations

 

[Anjaffm]

@lirruping:
Excellent find, thank you!
And yeah, e-cigs are "disruptive" alright. They are disrupting the entire smoking gravy train which is very profitable. And in which there are only winner. Except the smokers, of course. They do not count.

 

[TyPie]

Disruptive in what way? I'm constantly being told to not smoke or drink, eat a balanced diet, exercise and so on.

The only disruption i see is one to their income stream and i think health organisations - if indeed the WHO qualifies as one - ought to rejoice in the prospect of a healthier population. No?

T

This is exactly why it is described as a disruptive innovation. It's about money and economics. (We usually hear the term, "disruptive technology" more often.).

This parallels the auto industry in many ways. It's the same idea that non-gasoline powered automobiles are a disruptive technology, as they have the potential to put many thousands, if not millions of people out of work all over the world (in the oil industry for anyone that relies on oil, for one) in a relatively short time should the technology be viable. Ever notice who is putting out electric cars? (Yup....the big car companies, who have the largest ownership interests in the new technologies.)

There are many stories of people developing / inventing new components for autos over the decades, for example. When the inventors took their ideas to the car companies, the ideas were stolen, then slightly revised by the car companies, or simply buried until a later date. (I think electronic, timed windshield wipers were one such invention, if I recall correctly. Does anyone have any serious doubts that the technology for completely gasoline-free cars is not ready and viable right now? I think that innovation in autos will always be introduced slowly to avoid 'disruptive innovation' and the ruination of entire industries that rely on the oil economy, unless oil supplies dwindle and prices rocket to extreme highs.)

Exact same model of ownership and control is being pursued right here, and right now with ecigs, mainly between BT and BP. BT and BP are simply fighting for control, likely with the help of the FDA.

The more things change.....the more they stay the same.

 

[Nate760]

This just tells us what we already knew: "public health" activists are not motivated by any actual concerns over public health. They are motivated by their own desire for power and control (and, of course, money). They would rather watch millions of smokers die prematurely every year than to see them quit using a mechanism over which they exert no influence.

 

[lirruping]

Well said, Nate.
And they (Big Pharm, Big Tobacco, Gov't and even health orgs!) want more than just influence. Ideally, they want "ownership" of the technology, the market--and hegemonic control over how people view it. The use of this term ("ownership") throughout the article surprised me in a good way. It's the first time I've seen an influential, "legitimate" source come close to calling a spade a spade in this context.

 

[lirruping]

This parallels the auto industry in many ways. It's the same idea that non-gasoline powered automobiles are a disruptive technology, as they have the potential to put many thousands, if not millions of people out of work all over the world (in the oil industry for anyone that relies on oil, for one) in a relatively short time should the technology be viable. Ever notice who is putting out electric cars? (Yup....the big car companies, who have the largest ownership interests in the new technologies.)

There are many stories of people developing / inventing new components for autos over the decades, for example. When the inventors took their ideas to the car companies, the ideas were stolen, then slightly revised by the car companies, or simply buried until a later date. (I think electronic, timed windshield wipers were one such invention, if I recall correctly. Does anyone have any serious doubts that the technology for completely gasoline-free cars is not ready and viable right now? I think that innovation in autos will always be introduced slowly to avoid 'disruptive innovation' and the ruination of entire industries that rely on the oil economy, unless oil supplies dwindle and prices rocket to extreme highs.)

Exact same model of ownership and control is being pursued right here, and right now with ecigs, mainly between BT and BP. BT and BP are simply fighting for control, likely with the help of the FDA.

The more things change.....the more they stay the same.

Your comments are depressingly insightful. On the bright side, one thing the e-cig movement has going for it is the addiction-fueled fervor of millions of former smokers. It seems possible that with enough participation, enough forcing of the issue onto a real public discussion platform, that the outcomes for the e-cig could be different.

 

[supertrunker]

This is exactly why it is described as a disruptive innovation. It's about money and economics. (We usually hear the term, "disruptive technology" more often.).

This parallels the auto industry in many ways. It's the same idea that non-gasoline powered automobiles are a disruptive technology, as they have the potential to put many thousands, if not millions of people out of work all over the world (in the oil industry for anyone that relies on oil, for one) in a relatively short time should the technology be viable. Ever notice who is putting out electric cars? (Yup....the big car companies, who have the largest ownership interests in the new technologies.)

There are many stories of people developing / inventing new components for autos over the decades, for example. When the inventors took their ideas to the car companies, the ideas were stolen, then slightly revised by the car companies, or simply buried until a later date. (I think electronic, timed windshield wipers were one such invention, if I recall correctly. Does anyone have any serious doubts that the technology for completely gasoline-free cars is not ready and viable right now? I think that innovation in autos will always be introduced slowly to avoid 'disruptive innovation' and the ruination of entire industries that rely on the oil economy, unless oil supplies dwindle and prices rocket to extreme highs.)

Exact same model of ownership and control is being pursued right here, and right now with ecigs, mainly between BT and BP. BT and BP are simply fighting for control, likely with the help of the FDA.

The more things change.....the more they stay the same.

It depends. Technology has always driven change. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

All these big companies are far too slow - what do they sell? cigalikes. A 7 year old car to use your analogy.

T