Marketing Advice to Suppliers

[Boston George]

I have talked with safe cig owner in person. He seems very convinced that calling it 'the safe cig' is fine... *sigh*

 

[Kate]

He posted this recently - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...gs-much-healthier-alternative-cigarettes.html

No amount of reasoning works with him unfortunately.

Here's a thread about making vaping health claims for anyone interested - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-valid-vaping-health-claims-7.html#post192265

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Kate - It's been 10 days since that was posted and he said it would be 10 days for the study... oooh... a study done here in the US might be upon us?

I eagerly await with anticipation. He didn't say if it was his or not... but all studies are interesting reading

 

[Kate]

So I know that this has been stated quite a few times, but the advertising that some of these sites use (in my opinion) is definitely a part of what is causing our legal issues. Allow me to quote:

"Smoke Anywhere You Want"

"Not Addictive, Helps Quit Smoking"

And so on and so forth (I could put a few pages, but wont waste the space)

I sell pv's locally, not on the internet yet, but the market where I live doesnt demand that. With every kit I sell, I include a little sheet that I ask the customer to sign and date, and then keep on file (ok, I'm killing trees because I'm AR about this) so that should it ever be questioned, I am not selling NRT's or 100% safe cigarettes. I think this would be a good idea to put on most vendor sites even in an electronic 'check the box to agree' format. My doc reads as follows:

This document is a full disclosure of health and safety concerns presented by the e-cigarette, otherwise known as a personal vaporizer.
The following points are the only statements of fact provided by xxxxxxxxx, hereafter represented collectively as xxxxxxxx.
·The e-cigarette or personal vaporizer is a device which vaporizes liquids for direct inhalation
·The e-cigarette liquid provided may contain nicotine, propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, water, and flavoring
·The e-cigarette liquid containing nicotine should be restricted from the consumption of persons under the age of 18, as nicotine is a regulated and addictive substance
·The e-cigarette is not approved, tested, or regulated by any governing body for any purpose
·The e-cigarette is not a recognized Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) and should not be classified with other NRT devices such as patches, gums, or inhalers
The purchaser of the e-cigarette, by signature below, agrees that these are the only statements of fact presented to the purchaser by xxxxxxxxxxxx, and that no other representations or claims have been made during the purchasing process.
The purchaser further verifies that he/she is above the legal age to purchase and own tobacco products in their respective local jurisdiction, and is above the age of 18, which is the legal age to purchase tobacco products in the State of North Dakota, whose regulations govern xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

And then signature, date, printed name, and date of birth lines for the buyer to fill out.

Of course my and my wife's names xxx'd out so she doesn't flip about our real stuff on the internet.

I think this also helps (in combination with the way I market as simply an alternative to smoking) to bring the attitudes of my customers and potential customers to more of a 'replacement' rather than 'cessation' mentality.

Thoughts? Comments? Flaming Criticisms?

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...5978-truth-advertising-concerning-e-cigs.html

 

[newsunshine]

Thank you !

 

[DCrist721]

2. You can't say that testing has been done on your product and use Ruyan or another companies test results. Each manufacturer is different, and to say your product has been tested it needs to be from your specific manufacturer.

Even if a supplier is selling Ruyan products, they still shouldn't cite this study as evidence that e-cigs are safe, because 1. if you actually read the entire report it really doesn't indicate that e-cigs are safe to use, in fact it's quite the opposite; half of it seems to indicate that e-cigs are actually bad for you, and the other half seems to say that there is not enough data to come to an accurate conclusion, and 2. no study of a product funded by the company that makes the product should ever be considered scientific or legitamite. I could show you half a dozen studies that show that analog cigarettes are safe and do not cause cancer, but guess what? These studies were all funded by cigarette companies.


And I don't mean to insult you, but this thread is rather pointless. The suppliers that go against the reccomendations that you've made are conciously doing so in order to make money. These companies know that one cartridge does not equal a pack of cigarettes just like they know that there's no real evidence that e-cigs are safe, but they make these claims because they want to make money and they don't care if they have to stretch the truth. It's not that they don't know these things, they're just out there to make money is all, so this thread isn't going to convince them to suddenly start being honest. I think that this thread was a good idea in principle, but in actuality it's not going to make a difference, unfortunately.

And you know what, when companies make these false claims their customers actually defend them. In this thread - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/electronic-cigarette-reviews/10270-vapor-1000-review.html under the Reviews sub-forum, I criticized a company for saying that e-cigs are "safe and healthy", and that "nicotine isn't bad for you", and I got eaten alive by customers who refused to find fault with the company. Although I'm still not convinced that some of those people don't have ties to that company; I just can't comprehend why an actual customer would defend a company for lying to them.

 

[celia]

may be different people have different comments

 

[LaceyUnderall]

no study of a product funded by the company that makes the product should ever be considered scientific or legitamite.

just something to think about: This philosophy would eliminate 99% of the pharmaceuticals that are FDA approved as the testing done for them was funded by the pharm co. wanting to get the product approved.

 

[Cellmeister]

just something to think about: This philosophy would eliminate 99% of the pharmaceuticals that are FDA approved as the testing done for them was funded by the pharm co. wanting to get the product approved.

I Wonder How Much Testing / Reporting The The Tobacco Companies Do!!

Keep Up The Great Work Lacey! Lets Keep Them On Their Toes!

Keep Vapin!

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I Wonder How Much Testing / Reporting The The Tobacco Companies Do!!

Keep Up The Great Work Lacey! Lets Keep Them On Their Toes!

Keep Vapin!

thanks

Or... the anti-smoking lobby who paid for the testing to prove the death statistics of tobacco... do we really have unbiased science when it comes to products on the open market anymore? considering health is no longer a concern, but profits.

 

[Tallgirl1974]

thanks

Or... the anti-smoking lobby who paid for the testing to prove the death statistics of tobacco... do we really have unbiased science when it comes to products on the open market anymore? considering health is no longer a concern, but profits.

Amen. Everything is slanted, I cant find unbiased in anything I research anymore. Its a big convoluted mess.
Thing is, you can read the MSDS for water and poop your pants in fear- nothing is compleatly safe. Doesnt stop people from taking life threatneing pills for their jumpy leg syndrom but telling me I shouldnt smoke.

 

[DCrist721]

just something to think about: This philosophy would eliminate 99% of the pharmaceuticals that are FDA approved as the testing done for them was funded by the pharm co. wanting to get the product approved.

That's completely different, that's the FDA approval process, not independent research by some random research company.

But you're right about what you said in your other post, there really is very little unbiased research out there when profits are involved.

Just go read the Ruyan study. I mean, they don't even lie in the actual study, they flat out tell you that some of this stuff has been proven to be bad, and a lot of the stuff there isn't enough data to come to a conclusion, and some of the stuff they just mention that the e-cig produces, but they don't tell you anything about these substance. Yet for some reason, despite all this, in the synopsis they say that the ruyan e-cig is safe to use, because they figure that 99.9% of the public is not actually going to spend a couple of hours going over all the details of the report and looking up each individual chemical that's mentioned.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Just go read the Ruyan study. I mean, they don't even lie in the actual study, they flat out tell you that some of this stuff has been proven to be bad, and a lot of the stuff there isn't enough data to come to a conclusion, and some of the stuff they just mention that the e-cig produces, but they don't tell you anything about these substance. Yet for some reason, despite all this, in the synopsis they say that the ruyan e-cig is safe to use, because they figure that 99.9% of the public is not actually going to spend a couple of hours going over all the details of the report and looking up each individual chemical that's mentioned.

There are certainly things... but are they in amounts that are known to be harmful? If I remember correctly, they aren't. Now sure, over time could these be harmful? Certainly. But in comparison to what is out there, this seems to be a far better delivery.

But also, don't forget the context of Dr. Laugesen. He is an avid non-smoker, we all shouldn't be smoking, you should just quit kind of guy. I took those things into consideration when reading his report.

It is sad... I see your frustration... I have it too... nothing is unbiased anymore.