Encouraging interview with Lorillard CEO on future of e-cigarettes

[badkolo]

""There's no upside. Lorillard has nothing to contribute to this industry""

well in a way i agree as he kept saying jason has been telling him new stuff is being worked on, and while im sure he knows what that stuff might be it seemed as if he was less informed about advancing it and that bluecig would handle it, but i dont agree that lorima ha nothing to contribute, they have lots of money and the ability to get the right people together to work on advancing the carto and battery which most companies would do, unless they are just willing to let bluecig do all the advancements
while i think the same as you sailorman on certain things i personally think this the guy on the video was being honest with much he said, he even said cigarettes are dangerous and he mentioned how the sales of the bluecig was outpacing some tobacco sales, I think thats what is going on, cigarettes are being blacklisted all over the world with nasty packaging depicting dead fetuses and people with tube sin their through or like in Europe where in big letters on all packs it says this product will kill you.


While cigarettes are still selling alot, im sure the rules and regulations and the huge taxes which have made a pack close to 13.50 in some states mo and prices have gone up all over. Maybe they feel this is the next viable solution, and since its a nicotine product and can be safer over all and since its becoming mainstream slowly that this was the time for a company to move forward into the ecig market to cover their bases, what if the government ban cigs one day, well now they have a way to keep the company alive, get involved with a new product that simulates smoking and they can see themselves that many stores are selling many types of ecigs and it cuts into their sales.

He seemed excited, he seemed truthful, he even discussed how many people thought they would buy and destroy and he made it clear that isnt the case. I totally get where your coming form, i dont even know how the regulations affect the smaller companies and as long as china is producing products they will still sell ecig products , And for many people here on ecf and throughout the world are past the stage of using small stick styles or disposable and have graduated to tanks and rebuildables and are looking for more advanced products. They will however to take a large chunk of the masses at start as people mostly start with the ecig that resembles a cig experience first, then if that doesn't do it for them they go to other vendors to get something better or more advanced

 

[Briar]

@Sailorman:

You obviously have a strong opinion about this... While I don't entirely agree, and I think there are several points I could make to support my opinion, I don't really feel up to getting seriously involved in this discussion right now, and nothing less will do. Though, honestly, I regret that - it could have been an interesting debate.

Frankly, I'm not a fan of big corporate economy, or big corporate politics. I think large corporations corrupt our politics, and are allowed to have influence out of all proportion. I despise the health care industry particularly, and frankly think it should be nationalized. In fact, my politics are well to the left, usually - though I suspect that on the issue of small business, at least, I am inclined to agree with the likes of the Tea Party... LOL

I'm just not given to opinions that are one-sided, and I do believe there are up sides here.

Returning to the food industry example: small organic farmers are growing, I believe, and non-chain restaurants thrive often enough if they have good food. And, small business is the area where employment is growing much faster than big business currently. I think there will always be a niche market for small enterprises in e-cig industry, and, more, I think that large corps will not try to extinguish it because they can make use of thriving small industry here, which, while not taking away the majority of their business, can nevertheless provide creativity that they won't have to pay for. Nor do I think it is possible to drive small business out of it at this point - no more so than Red Lobster can drive out shore-side lobster stands in Vermont.

These are just a couple of points, but, like I said, I'm not up to a detailed debate.

All of this is speculation though. Time alone will tell. I choose to be cautiously optimistic - and it is a choice. Truth is that I have lived in so many places and so many radically different circumstances, and have seen so much take place that most respectable folks would have considered extremely unlikely, or would not have considered at all, that nothing - nothing at all - surprises me anymore. Anything is possible, even the seemingly impossible. We can try and predict until we are blue in the face, but we see things through the lens of our own worldview, and that in a limited fashion. There are too many variables to be reasonably sure of anything. All we can do is work towards the ends we prefer to the best of our ability, and hope that it will be enough. After that - what will be, will be.

In that vein, however, I will repeat that I consider it imperative that current players form a trade association that presents a united block in this dynamic situation. I wonder if there is anything in the works...

Danno - do you know? Is there any movement towards organizing this industry?

 

[dannoman]

Briar - not that I know of (if you are speaking of the micro-sized small businesses such as you see on ECF). If there was some such movement we haven't been contacted. But immediately thought of this after watching this video. We do have CASAA but I think that is for the rights of e-smokers in general and not for the industry.

In that vein, however, I will repeat that I consider it imperative that current players form a trade association that presents a united block in this dynamic situation. I wonder if there is anything in the works...

Danno - do you know? Is there any movement towards organizing this industry?

 

[Briar]

I think you guys need to *seriously* consider this - now, before you lose the momentum. You need to represent yourselves as a block in the political/economic context. Political climate is favorable, I think, towards small business right now, and you have a lot going for you: rapid growth, beneficial technology (if advertised right), creativity and healthy competition (verrrry politically correct), etc. But you need to be heard as a group. Large companies which are sure to become involved will not necessarily reflect your interests, in that detractors of the Lorillard situation are right. And then there is the question of self-regulation for safety and quality - a crucial issue to take charge of before someone else does.

You need to take the bit and run with it, before someone who may not have your best interest at heart takes the reigns.

Briar - not that I know of (if you are speaking of the micro-sized small businesses such as you see on ECF). If there was some such movement we haven't been contacted. But immediately thought of this after watching this video. We do have CASAA but I think that is for the rights of e-smokers in general and not for the industry.

 

[sailorman]

@Sailorman:....
Frankly, I'm not a fan of big corporate economy, or big corporate politics. I think large corporations corrupt our politics, and are allowed to have influence out of all proportion. I despise the health care industry particularly, and frankly think it should be nationalized. In fact, my politics are well to the left, usually - though I suspect that on the issue of small business, at least, I am inclined to agree with the likes of the Tea Party... LOL

We're on the same page here. I worked in the health insurance industry for decades, so my hate for them is no unfounded. On the issue of small business, I'm left and I'm all for them. That's precisely why I despise the T.P. for being created and funded by big business to do the bidding of big business under the guise of advocating for small business. It's all astroturf.

I'm just not given to opinions that are one-sided, and I do believe there are up sides here.

Returning to the food industry example: small organic farmers are growing, I believe, and non-chain restaurants thrive often enough if they have good food. And, small business is the area where employment is growing much faster than big business currently. I think there will always be a niche market for small enterprises in e-cig industry, and, more, I think that large corps will not try to extinguish it because they can make use of thriving small industry here, which, while not taking away the majority of their business, can nevertheless provide creativity that they won't have to pay for. Nor do I think it is possible to drive small business out of it at this point - no more so than Red Lobster can drive out shore-side lobster stands in Vermont.

Red Lobster drove out hundreds, if not thousands of shore-side lobster stands and mom & pop seafood restaurants. The ones that remain are the survivors, not the beneficiaries. But again, it's not a valid analogy. No food conglomerate is in the position of advocating the kind of regulations that benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. Unless Lorillard gets into the high end mod market, there is little in the way of creativity that will benefit them enough to compensate for the lost business they will experience if people have easy and accessible ways to upgrade from Blu or similar e-cigs. Advances in battery technology that allow for a 1000mah Blu are unlikely to come from some modder.

These are just a couple of points, but, like I said, I'm not up to a detailed debate.

All of this is speculation though. Time alone will tell. I choose to be cautiously optimistic - and it is a choice. Truth is that I have lived in so many places and so many radically different circumstances, and have seen so much take place that most respectable folks would have considered extremely unlikely, or would not have considered at all, that nothing - nothing at all - surprises me anymore. Anything is possible, even the seemingly impossible. We can try and predict until we are blue in the face, but we see things through the lens of our own worldview, and that in a limited fashion. There are too many variables to be reasonably sure of anything. All we can do is work towards the ends we prefer to the best of our ability, and hope that it will be enough. After that - what will be, will be.

The only thing you can be reasonably sure of is that Lorillard is not going to be expending any resources to advocate for anything that benefits any segment of the industry but their own. Any benefit that trickles down on the industry outside of Blu will be purely accidental. With the specter of an outright ban having been eliminated, there is nothing they can do for the industry outside of some technological advances that, if they occur, will be protected and immediately patented.

In that vein, however, I will repeat that I consider it imperative that current players form a trade association that presents a united block in this dynamic situation. I wonder if there is anything in the works...

Danno - do you know? Is there any movement towards organizing this industry?

I agree that there is a need for a trade association, but players like Blu need to be excluded. It will take multiple interests to come together to counter the influence wielded by Lorillard when they begin advocating for restrictions and regulations that protect their market position to the detriment of everyone else's.

Consider what Lorillard's position is likely to be if a few more people blow their faces off with mods and regulations are promulgated to ban the sale of e-cigs containing batteries of over 450mah, or multiple batteries. Do you seriously think Lorillard would oppose such laws?

When regulations are proposed to restrict the sale of e-juice to sealed, tamper-proof cartridges, do you expect to hear a peep out of Lorillard?

When regulatory proposals ensue that involve a tradeoff is between two provisions, one of which will be good or neutral for Lorillard and the other will destroy another segment of the e-cig market, where do you think this 500 lb. gorilla will put it's weight?

I observed how the tobacco companies have used their influence to kill competition in the past. This isn't speculation. These are conclusions drawn from past behavior. The best predictor of how an industry will behave in the future is how they behaved in the past.

 

[timothy]

Sailor is correct one company will set the rules if possible . If you haven't seen this in everyday life you need to take the blinders off . The medical field has done this you think if some one finds a cure for cancer the medical community won't try to keep it off the market and loose all that money this is what our gov has become a big rip off

 

[YoMa!]

As someone who has taken care of cancer patients, my colleagues and I would be breaking out the woopass. Maybe some of the drug companies would think about it, but living patients spend more dollars. That kind of medicine people would pay anything for.

 

[sailorman]

As someone who has taken care of cancer patients, my colleagues and I would be breaking out the woopass. Maybe some of the drug companies would think about it, but living patients spend more dollars. That kind of medicine people would pay anything for.

That's the trick. You want to maintain them in an ill state as long as possible, not cure them. People would pay anything for a cure, but most of them don't have the pricetag all at once. The real money lies in keeping them somewhere between wellness and death for as long as possible. Milk them for whatever they have now and whatever they'll have in the future. Drug companies don't do mortgages. It's pay as you go, baby.

It's just like the pharmaceutical nicotine cessation products. If they found an instant cure to nicotine addiction, people would pay a lot of money for it. But the real money is keeping them in the quit, lapse, quit, lapse cycle. You might not be willing to pay thousands up front, but you'll gladly pay it over a period of years. So, BP is happy to stretch out the elusive cure and milk you for as long as they can.

 

[YoMa!]

I understand what you are saying. I agree with your point about nicotine addiction for the most part. It is frustrating that something that works for me might become difficult to obtain at some point. I do not think that the medical community at large is trying to keep everyone sick.

 

[timothy]

I was told by my ex doctor he would not take out my tonsils out because than I would no longer need his services . Not all are like that but for the most part they are. Do you really think it costs 280.00 for a 30 day prescription of crestor 105.00 with insurance. Their cost is .05 to make per pill and another 20.00 to market it the rest is all profit .and they won't even give seniors a break. Heck look at what they charge for ...... per pill that's nothing but greed. Getting off my soap box now

 

[sailorman]

I understand what you are saying. I agree with your point about nicotine addiction for the most part. It is frustrating that something that works for me might become difficult to obtain at some point. I do not think that the medical community at large is trying to keep everyone sick.

Theres's a huge difference between the medical community and the pharmaceutical industry. BP is not interested in cures. They make their money from treatment. They don't research cures. They research treatment. Mostly though, they research how to tweak this molecule or that molecule so they can renew their patent when it expires. That's what the vast majority of their R&D is devoted to. They spend infinitely more researching treatments for the afflictions of affluent suburbia, like restless leg syndrome or impotence, than they do on actual diseases that kill millions worldwide. If they spent 1/2 the money on a malaria cure as they do on treating baldness, malaria would be a curable disease by now. There hasn't been a new breakthrough class of drugs in decades, since tetracycline.

 

[sailorman]

I was told by my ex doctor he would not take out my tonsils out because than I would no longer need his services . Not all are like that but for the most part they are. Do you really think it costs 280.00 for a 30 day prescription of crestor 105.00 with insurance. Their cost is .05 to make per pill and another 20.00 to market it the rest is all profit .and they won't even give seniors a break. Heck look at what they charge for ...... per pill that's nothing but greed. Getting off my soap box now

Take a vacation to Canada. Get your prescriptions for 50-90% off. For the same exact drugs. Why? Because the Canadian government doesn't have BP writing their laws. Canada didn't have Billy Taubin writing a provision into the law to prohibit their version of Medicare from negotiating drug prices the way the VA in the U.S. does. Canada doesn't put up with BP exploiting and profiteering off the illnesses of its citizens.

The only time BP is willing to put R&D money into something is after the government, through the NIH or CDC or gov't funded university research, has done all the expensive groundwork. Then they come in with their hands out and pay a pittance for the patent rights. The real money goes to marketing and those ads that make you believe they're working day and night to find cures. The truth is, BP spends 8X more on marketing than it does on R&D, and most of it's R&D isn't aimed at curing anything at all, but in protecting it's existing patents.

 

[zoiDman]

... Do you really think it costs 280.00 for a 30 day prescription of crestor 105.00 with insurance. Their cost is .05 to make per pill and another 20.00 to market it the rest is all profit .and they won't even give seniors a break. Heck look at what they charge for ...... per pill that's nothing but greed. Getting off my soap box now

Not defending the Pharmaceutical Industry. But what about the Other costs that go into making and selling a New Drug?

It might cost 5 cents of Chemicals to make One Pill, but what if it cost 30 Million to Develop it? Also, in our Law Suit Driven world, how much Liability Insurance should you carry when you sell a New Drug? 100 Million Dollars? A Billion Dollars? 100 Billion Dollars?

Like I said, not defending the Pharm Industry. Just trying to point out that there are many other Monies that go into a Drug than Chemicals and Marketing.

 

[Briar]

It is easy to be cynical and take extreme positions. But, as I keep saying (because I strongly believe it), it's not that simple.

Medical establishment, as a whole, is not a person - but it consists of people. I don't know about large corp executives - maybe some of them are as Machiavellian as the worst cynics suspect - but there is no way I am going to believe that doctors on the "front lines" are like that. They *are not*.

But even with regards to drug companies, and developing new meds... I had a friend in grad school who studied pharmacokinetics (she stopped being my friend as soon as she became rich and I remained poor - an occupational hazard all too often). There were, in the entire USA, only six or so pharmacokinetics Ph.Ds graduating every year - and sometimes none. It's a complicated science. There are more astrophysicists than pharmocokineticists.

Pharmacokinetics studies the absorption and distribution or administered drugs - you can't develop a new drug without it. Dee, my friend, got a three figure salary right out of grad school. You don't want to know how much she is making now. And that's just a small cost of developing new drugs. Scientists cost a lot, but so do trials, and equipment, and insurance, and politicians, and lawyers, etc, etc. The amount of money spent is astronomical. Yes, pharm. corporations aim for the biggest profit - that's the nature of capitalism; unless you want to nationalize the whole industry, that's what's going to happen. But they don't make as much as you think.

As a side note, this is precisely why I *do* believe that health industry ought to be nationalized, or, at least, made none-profit. There is an innate conflict of interest otherwise - making money conflicts with helping people, because the less you spend, the greater your profit. Nuff said.

 

[timothy]

Not defending the Pharmaceutical Industry. But what about the Other costs that go into making and selling a New Drug?

Like putting drugs on the market that have so many side effects up to and including death.

It might cost 5 cents of Chemicals to make One Pill, but what if it cost 30 Million to Develop it? Also, in our Law Suit Driven world, how much L iability Insurance should you carry when you sell a New Drug? 100 Million Dollars? A Billion Dollars? 100 Billion Dollars?

If testing was done on the up and up how much of that 100 million? A billion or 100 billion would they keep in there pockets because the drugs would be more safe and prescribed for what it was meant to treat.

Like I said, not defending the Pharm Industry. Just trying to point out that there are many other Monies that go into a Drug than Chemicals and Marketing.

The bulk of the money goes to impacent investors so they sell drugs that they shortcutted threw the system to please them I'm not condeming them but when you see so many commercials with all the BS they put in them you don't think they know what they are doing?

 

[zoiDman]

...

If testing was done on the up and up how much of that 100 million? A billion or 100 billion would they keep in there pockets because the drugs would be more safe and prescribed for what it was meant to treat

...

It doesn't matter if something is "Safe" or not.

It's more if a Lawyer can convince a Jury that His/Her Client incurred Damages from a Drug. And the Remedy for these Damages is Millions and Millions of Dollars.

The cost of Liability Insurance for a New Drug is Astronomical. But without it, a Plaintiff could Easily Bankrupt a Company.

Just say'n that there are other cost to doing Business than Raw Materials and Marketing.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW – What if you spend 30 Million or so Developing a New Drug and it Doesn’t Work? How does a company recoup the 30 Million?

Perhaps by Jacking up the Cost of a Drug that Does Work?

 

[timothy]

That's all well and good how you justify it and i hope it makes you sleep better at night. I just hope you never have to deal with getting seriously Ill and go threw what my family has ......peace out

 

[zoiDman]

That's all well and good how you justify it and i hope it makes you sleep better at night. I just hope you never have to deal with getting seriously Ill and go threw what my family has ......peace out

Trust me, if you knew Me or my Family, you would know that I don’t wish a serious Illness on Anyone.

 

[Briar]

That's all well and good how you justify it and i hope it makes you sleep better at night. I just hope you never have to deal with getting seriously Ill and go threw what my family has ......peace out

No offense, Timothy - and I don't know which one of us you were replying to, but...

Actually, I probably have some idea where you are coming from. I have a chronic illness, and am, in fact, on SSI because of it. I went through a long period where I didn't have any insurance, couldn't afford to go to a doctor, and, most especially, couldn't afford hundreds of dollars in medications. Because of this, a condition that could have been, perhaps, managed to the point where I could function well, became a condition that prevents me from working, that cost me my husband, my career, any possibility of having children, and left me with no-one and nothing, with a prospect of dying alone and sick and no-one to care or remember. I am 51, and any kind of "normal" life is over for me. The best I can do is create some meaning and joy out of nothing. Like a monk on top of a mountain, I look for everything in nothing, because that's all that remains to me - and perhaps that's the point, anyway.

Oh, and, once, I almost died from peritonitis because I was afraid to go to the hospital when my appendix exploded.

So, believe me, I understand.

I hate American health care system with a passion that only someone in my position - someone whose life was utterly ruined by it - can understand.

But, still, I do not believe that treating physicians are all out for a fast buck, and while I do think that for-profit corporations should not be the sole providers of health care, I am not willing to assume that everyone involved wants people to remain sick because it's the most profitable thing to do. I don't think that they look at it in those terms, though perhaps they should. Instead they justify the situation in the generally acceptable terms such as "free enterprise", "free choice", etc - it's just too bad that the electorate does not - *yet* - realize that all this demagoguery amounts to "freedom to die", ultimately.

Cynicism about people is self-defeating, and, forgive me, not ethically reasonable. There is much evidence to the contrary - I have seen plenty of doctors who go against their own best interests to help a patient, and there are many who volunteer their time, and work very, very hard for the sake of the afflicted. I have worked in health insurance industry, and even though I was so disgusted with them that I had to quit, I have also seen people there who genuinely cared and helped people in a very real way. Not the majority, no, but some. People, generally, do not set out with evil intent. They just roll with the system and don't think overly much.

And that's the real tragedy: it's pointless to rail at corporations et al, and not do something about the system that makes it all possible. For as long as Americans are married to the ridiculous idea that their health care system is "the best in the world", and that the "free and unregulated private enterprise" - which ultimately amounts to the "law of the jungle" - is the only appropriate system for all aspects of human enterprise, this system will not change.

Unfettered private enterprise is great for the e-cig industry, but it is tragic for the health-care industry. Or for the energy industry, or for the military, or for the retirement services, or for the education system - for any field that is necessary for the survival of the state and the individual, and where cooperation is more productive than competition.

Even in nature, even in the process of evolution, we know that competition has to go hand-in-hand with cooperation. Individualism and communitarianism, strife and compassion, a hero and a brick in the wall - all these things must be in balance, or, else, society will ultimately destroy itself. A society obsessed with individualism will destroy itself as surely as a society obsessed with communitarianism. And I find it ineffably sad that the body politic in this, the county that has so often been the beacon of progress, cannot, apparently, learn what history so blatantly teaches. When ideology tramples on history and reason, the results are always tragic.

OK, I am off my soap-box. I shouldn't get into this. I really shouldn't.