Well, I was being less esoteric and more legal. That phrasing is very similar to a certain trademark of a certain group...
PSA Offer!
- Thread starter RyGuy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Yes. Point taken. There are many reasons to stay away from that verbage.
Ok. Hi.
Stop the FDA bashing...it is so far away from "best interest" it isn't funny. I went over why it is counterproductive (tho I admit it is therapeutic) in another post so I won't get into it here
As for a PSA, the best one I've ever seen was the brain/brain on drugs one. Very impactful and a work of art.
One one the best images I've seen is one with a napkin/paper towel showing the stain of smoking vs the wet spot of vapor. I'd expand on this concept...I don't know, like, a bunch of smokers in a "Glass Box" smoking and someone in there wearing a gas mask...and a "Glass Box" with a bunch of vapers and someone with a with a towel, like they are in a sauna. Might be too "glamourous" for some types, so scale back to someone in a wetsuit maybe? Rain slicker?
You get the idea. It has been many moons before I *had* to do this sort of thing
-K
Edit: Ugh...why did I start this...now I am storyboarding the shot in my head. Ok, check this out:
Music playing...instrumental of "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong..."or hell, someone can be singing or humming it in the distance...
Tight shot of a side-by-side, side A is water on glass, Side B is smoky. Pull back, the viewer sees what is going on, reference above post. One liner- "One of these things is not like the other. Find out more @ website.com"
Stop the FDA bashing...it is so far away from "best interest" it isn't funny. I went over why it is counterproductive (tho I admit it is therapeutic) in another post so I won't get into it here
As for a PSA, the best one I've ever seen was the brain/brain on drugs one. Very impactful and a work of art.
One one the best images I've seen is one with a napkin/paper towel showing the stain of smoking vs the wet spot of vapor. I'd expand on this concept...I don't know, like, a bunch of smokers in a "Glass Box" smoking and someone in there wearing a gas mask...and a "Glass Box" with a bunch of vapers and someone with a with a towel, like they are in a sauna. Might be too "glamourous" for some types, so scale back to someone in a wetsuit maybe? Rain slicker?
You get the idea. It has been many moons before I *had* to do this sort of thing
-K
Edit: Ugh...why did I start this...now I am storyboarding the shot in my head. Ok, check this out:
Music playing...instrumental of "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things does not belong..."or hell, someone can be singing or humming it in the distance...
Tight shot of a side-by-side, side A is water on glass, Side B is smoky. Pull back, the viewer sees what is going on, reference above post. One liner- "One of these things is not like the other. Find out more @ website.com"
Last edited:
Didn't think that was FDA bashing. Just giving them credit for their facts. I like the idea of the comparison between the brown stain and the clear vapor on the tissue. I've used that one for friends. Good idea.
Stop the FDA bashing...it is so far away from "best interest" it isn't funny. I went over why it is counterproductive (tho I admit it is therapeutic) in another post so I won't get into it here
As for a PSA, the best one I've ever seen was the brain/brain on drugs one. Very impactful and a work of art.
One one the best images I've seen is one with a napkin/paper towel showing the stain of smoking vs the wet spot of vapor. I'd expand on this concept...I don't know, like, a bunch of smokers in a "Glass Box" smoking and someone in there wearing a gas mask...and a "Glass Box" with a bunch of vapers and someone with a with a towel, like they are in a sauna. Might be too "glamourous" for some types, so scale back to someone in a wetsuit maybe? Rain slicker?
You get the idea. It has been many moons before I *had* to do this sort of thing
-K
There certainly shouldn't be any bashing... I completely agree. Pointing out discrepancies in a fashionable and reasonable manner is the only way to go... again, let the viewer make an informed decision for themselves...
Loved the egg cracking PSA. Still sticks with me to this day.
YouTube - Brain On Drugs
The next round:
YouTube - 80's This Is Your Brain On Drugs PSA
Actually, I like the idea about FIRE vs WATER, SMOKE vs VAPOR. That is so elemental that everybody understands. You give people too many "facts" and they will just gloss over. But these simple elements could work almost the same way as the egg in your brain on drugs ads.
From a visual perspective, I would show white/gray "smoke" on side A and B that looks almost identical. The camera is following the "smoke" down to its source, where the "smoke" on side A becomes heavier and darker, but side B remains the same consistency and color. Going further down, you reach the source of the "smoke": burning bonfire that is generating the smoke on side A, and electrical humidifier that is generating the vapor that looks like smoke on side B. Very much like cigarette and PV.
Everyone's got such great ideas here 
i really believe this could make an impact!
We all need to remember that the people who will be viewing this have a long history of putting their faith in organizations designated to "protect" them, and so we must be careful about how we counter the negative attacks and promote a positive image of the e-cig. IMO, to put on a successful campaign that will win the public's favor, we need to:
1) Adhere to the truth with a death grip; i.e. we need to examine everything we put out there and make sure it is 100% verifiable. Credibility is everything. If, for example, we state "all that is exhaled is harmless water vapor," and someone else comes along saying no, it's actually PG vapor, then our credibility has been crushed. And if we lose credibility, no one will listen to us anymore!
2) Be careful how we word things; for example, if we say e-cigs are "safer" than smoking (however true that is), we could be attacked on all sides for claiming they are "safe." We must not assume the public and our naysayers will not twist our words. So instead of saying "e-cigs are safer," we need to use words that are harder to twist, such as "e-cigs have far fewer toxic ingredients," or "e-cigs contain nicotine, PG, flavorings and water*, while tobacco cigs have over 4000 ingredients." Much harder to argue with that, isn't it?
*note that i did not say "e-cigs ONLY contain..."; to maintain credibility, we need to adhere to fact
3) Avoid ALL major health claims; i.e. no explicit claims regarding quit rate or reduction of health problems. I think we need to avoid this because it puts our product into the "medicine" category, which, by legal definition, requires stringent testing to prove the claims are true and a ban on sales of the product until such claims have been proven! Avoid, avoid, avoid!
However, i'm not saying that we can't skirt around the issue, just that our claims cannot be explicit. For example, instead of saying "e-cigs have been known to help people quit smoking," we can say "e-cigs have been known to help people cut back on the number of cigarettes they smoke, and to help people go longer periods of time without smoking."
4) Avoid naming names; this coincides with MrKai's point on FDA-bashing. Here at this forum, we are exposed to many truths that the general public is not. We know, for example, that the FDA is trying to block a relatively harmless product from the market, condemning people to smoking, etc. The public, however, trusts the FDA, and if we want to gain their trust, we need to avoid any negative comments about an organization that they've known far longer than us! Same goes for Pfizer, ASH, etc.
Also, comparing ourselves to NRT's or any quit-smoking drug on the market can exacerbate legal problems; see point #3.
I believe that following these points will help the electronic cigarette stand alone on its own merit, rather than just continuously defending ourselves against those who speak and legislate against us. If we can focus our energy on the positive and show the world that these are not evil, but simply neat little devices that help us cope with our smoking addiction, many more people will side with us!
I am willing to volunteer myself as a script/screen editor of sorts, i have a heavy background with psychology and can help with the human perception aspect if need be.
All in all.......happy vaping!!!!
i really believe this could make an impact!We all need to remember that the people who will be viewing this have a long history of putting their faith in organizations designated to "protect" them, and so we must be careful about how we counter the negative attacks and promote a positive image of the e-cig. IMO, to put on a successful campaign that will win the public's favor, we need to:
1) Adhere to the truth with a death grip; i.e. we need to examine everything we put out there and make sure it is 100% verifiable. Credibility is everything. If, for example, we state "all that is exhaled is harmless water vapor," and someone else comes along saying no, it's actually PG vapor, then our credibility has been crushed. And if we lose credibility, no one will listen to us anymore!
2) Be careful how we word things; for example, if we say e-cigs are "safer" than smoking (however true that is), we could be attacked on all sides for claiming they are "safe." We must not assume the public and our naysayers will not twist our words. So instead of saying "e-cigs are safer," we need to use words that are harder to twist, such as "e-cigs have far fewer toxic ingredients," or "e-cigs contain nicotine, PG, flavorings and water*, while tobacco cigs have over 4000 ingredients." Much harder to argue with that, isn't it?
*note that i did not say "e-cigs ONLY contain..."; to maintain credibility, we need to adhere to fact
3) Avoid ALL major health claims; i.e. no explicit claims regarding quit rate or reduction of health problems. I think we need to avoid this because it puts our product into the "medicine" category, which, by legal definition, requires stringent testing to prove the claims are true and a ban on sales of the product until such claims have been proven! Avoid, avoid, avoid!
However, i'm not saying that we can't skirt around the issue, just that our claims cannot be explicit. For example, instead of saying "e-cigs have been known to help people quit smoking," we can say "e-cigs have been known to help people cut back on the number of cigarettes they smoke, and to help people go longer periods of time without smoking."
4) Avoid naming names; this coincides with MrKai's point on FDA-bashing. Here at this forum, we are exposed to many truths that the general public is not. We know, for example, that the FDA is trying to block a relatively harmless product from the market, condemning people to smoking, etc. The public, however, trusts the FDA, and if we want to gain their trust, we need to avoid any negative comments about an organization that they've known far longer than us! Same goes for Pfizer, ASH, etc.
Also, comparing ourselves to NRT's or any quit-smoking drug on the market can exacerbate legal problems; see point #3.
I believe that following these points will help the electronic cigarette stand alone on its own merit, rather than just continuously defending ourselves against those who speak and legislate against us. If we can focus our energy on the positive and show the world that these are not evil, but simply neat little devices that help us cope with our smoking addiction, many more people will side with us!
I am willing to volunteer myself as a script/screen editor of sorts, i have a heavy background with psychology and can help with the human perception aspect if need be.
All in all.......happy vaping!!!!
See dragonpuff's post about the problem with this set of imagery. Unlike brains n' eggs, which is a very stark contrast, a fire and humidifier is a bit more disingenuous an example because eCig vapor isn't just heated water and we don't want to "lie"...or even lie
We do know that if you keep blowing smoke into a bottle and sealing it, you get smoke
With eCig vapor, not so much
So we show this as relative and tell people to check it out.By keeping the verbiage to the absolute minimum and the images clear and simple, you avoid pretty much everything dragonpuff pointed out.
-K
I think we should thank the FDA for proving that PVs have about the same amount of nitrosamines as beer and salami. And less than is legal to have in municipal water. It's good information to have and I'm grateful that they proved it. Maybe a visual where we show how much is in a number of different products by using a stack of something, the final stack representing conventional cigarettes, which would be a huge stack.
Moonflame: what the FDA "proved" is that they can't really determine *what* an eCig is...simply because the sample group they had was widely mislabeled. This is really the root of the problem and what THEY are debating...what people want them to debate is a whole other matter, and quite frankly, based on what they found, they have more than enough ammo to make it much, much, MUCH worse...whether any of us like it or not.
I'm warning you guys: this is NOT the path to walk down. As I pointed out in the other thread that seems to have upset some people, egging on the FDA at this point is essentially suicide. I'm pretty sure if they did the same tests again with a 10x bigger group, they'd find more disparity and this would be a total nightmare.
Just make something to grow the numbers and interest for more crowd noise on our side in the public opinion shouting match, because believe me, in the lab, we haven't got a chance.
-K
I'm warning you guys: this is NOT the path to walk down. As I pointed out in the other thread that seems to have upset some people, egging on the FDA at this point is essentially suicide. I'm pretty sure if they did the same tests again with a 10x bigger group, they'd find more disparity and this would be a total nightmare.
Just make something to grow the numbers and interest for more crowd noise on our side in the public opinion shouting match, because believe me, in the lab, we haven't got a chance.
-K
Rather than a humidifier, I think that a fog machine would be the closest thing to a vaporizer no? I think Fog machines actually use PG for the "fog juice" also.
This would be kind of hilarious, a horror movie set and the director yells cut. Then we see a guy sitting in the corner puffing on a PV to create the "fog" says some stupid line like "glad I've finally cut down to 0 nic".
OK that's pretty stupid, and we need something stronger than that but I still think a fog machine is almost identical to a PV?
This would be kind of hilarious, a horror movie set and the director yells cut. Then we see a guy sitting in the corner puffing on a PV to create the "fog" says some stupid line like "glad I've finally cut down to 0 nic".
OK that's pretty stupid, and we need something stronger than that but I still think a fog machine is almost identical to a PV?
imagery goes a long way on getting a message across without making any claims, especially in a short ad slot...
example: smokey/industrial background > crossfade to ashtray (text over with facts) beautiful cloudy sky > crossfade to ?????? (text over with our positive message)
all of this can be done effectively with Flash(adobe) like production (seems to be the trend)
narration is crucial, IMO
+ actually even microsoft movie maker, or the MAC equivalent can create broadcast worthy video. I would encourage everyone to try their hand at this, as pictures are worth a thousand words. Could only help to draw a consensus of what the community would like to see RyGuy apply his skill and resources to.
example: smokey/industrial background > crossfade to ashtray (text over with facts) beautiful cloudy sky > crossfade to ?????? (text over with our positive message)
all of this can be done effectively with Flash(adobe) like production (seems to be the trend)
narration is crucial, IMO
+ actually even microsoft movie maker, or the MAC equivalent can create broadcast worthy video. I would encourage everyone to try their hand at this, as pictures are worth a thousand words. Could only help to draw a consensus of what the community would like to see RyGuy apply his skill and resources to.
Last edited:
I like the general concept, but I'd throw in a bit of the "how many bowls of cereal do you need to get the nutrition in one bowl of Total" concept. I think we need to include numbers culled from the FDA report but magnified to a visible level.
According to the FDA report there are a total of less than 50 parts per BILLION. That is less than one drop per 571 gallons. Cigarette smoke, the other hand, has about 1000 times as many toxins at about 1000 times the concentration. That's a million drops of water...or about 28 gallons. Granted, thats a very rough estimate and I'll try to get more accurate numbers (hopefully all from FDA reports)...but comparing one drop in a 571 gallon container to 28 gallons...If our PSA has that visible of a comparison, we won't have to make any claims but can let the public decide for themselves.
EDIT: As I look for more accurate numbers, I did notice that only 10% of the 4000 chemicals in smoke are known to be toxic....so its probably more like comparing the one drop of toxins found in 600 gallons of e-juice to about 3 gallons of toxins found in cigarettes.
So if somebody takes Chantix and wants to kill themself, they'd have to smoke the equivalent of 500 cartons "worth" of e-cigarettes to get as much poison as they would get from just one analog cigarette. ....Any questions?
Last edited:
Not even counting the other toxins in smoke, just looking at the nitrosaimines in cigarettes compared to e-cigarettes:
Note that the concentration of Nitrosaimines the FDA found in their study was in the range of 5-10ppb--safe enough for baby bottles, per the FDA! The FDA's concern was that inconsistencies MIGHT cause e-cigs to exceed the recommended safe levels.
Important things to note:
-There are 400 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke that are not found in e-cig vapor.
-The cancer causing effects of additional carcinogens is not just additive--it is multiplicative!
-Vapers use about 2ml of e-liquid to replace about a pack of cigarettes--basically about a drop of e-liquid replaces one cigarette. If e-juice has about 50ppb TRNA (estimate based on FDA findings), you'd need to consume 20ml of e-liquid to reach a microgram.
Therefore it looks like you could use enough e-juice to replace a carton of cigarettes before you would exceed the amount of toxins consumed by a non-smoker in one day...which is 1/17th the amount consumed by a pack-a-day smoker.
...maybe we could steal the 64 calorie beer commercial idea: A vaper comes to a party and starts to puff. A smoker asks what he's doing and he gives a quick explanation of vaping. The smoker says "Waiter, I'd like 64 e-cigarettes worth of toxins!" (wait for it...) The vaper wafts a bit of secondhand smoke away from himself and toward the smoker.
Note that the concentration of Nitrosaimines the FDA found in their study was in the range of 5-10ppb--safe enough for baby bottles, per the FDA! The FDA's concern was that inconsistencies MIGHT cause e-cigs to exceed the recommended safe levels.
Important things to note:
-There are 400 known carcinogens in cigarette smoke that are not found in e-cig vapor.
-The cancer causing effects of additional carcinogens is not just additive--it is multiplicative!
-Vapers use about 2ml of e-liquid to replace about a pack of cigarettes--basically about a drop of e-liquid replaces one cigarette. If e-juice has about 50ppb TRNA (estimate based on FDA findings), you'd need to consume 20ml of e-liquid to reach a microgram.
Therefore it looks like you could use enough e-juice to replace a carton of cigarettes before you would exceed the amount of toxins consumed by a non-smoker in one day...which is 1/17th the amount consumed by a pack-a-day smoker.
...maybe we could steal the 64 calorie beer commercial idea: A vaper comes to a party and starts to puff. A smoker asks what he's doing and he gives a quick explanation of vaping. The smoker says "Waiter, I'd like 64 e-cigarettes worth of toxins!" (wait for it...) The vaper wafts a bit of secondhand smoke away from himself and toward the smoker.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/organizations-ability-listen/37640-colorado.html#post573135
Drunkwaco is interested in helping you. He is in the Denver area.
Drunkwaco is interested in helping you. He is in the Denver area.
I think you should stay a mile away from health topic,FDA or aid to quitting. Maybe topic on our right to choose how we consume a legal drug that's already consumed in many forms. We are being promoted through marketing to use tobacco combustion and this just wrong. I would also possibly discuss it is more cost effective and less enviromental impact, no fire hazard also. I think the health topic leads to medical restrictions verses just plain recreational use. It's obvious the health benefits, I would not make any mention of health benefits it gives them an arguement. Recreational use is the fine line tobacco companies have walking for years. Keep this in the recreational dimension is my two cents.
I do not believe this particular project is the medium for that particular kind of activism. The less said in a *broadcast ad* the better...because then you don't have to worry about running afoul of at least *two* agencies.
Keep the message simple and point them to the facts as we know and believe them to be.
-K
Don't confuse my previous question about the FDA with my suggestion of using the FDA's study against them. Any "facts" that we present need to be consistent with the FDA's study, but the commercial should be presented in such a way that a reasonable person would come to a more reasonable conclusion than the FDA...Most of this information can be quickly stated within an explanation of an e-cigarette. For example:
"This? Oh, I use this instead of smoking a cigarette. This one is designed to even look like a cigarette, but it makes a vapor that looks like smoke, it has flavor to make it taste like smoke, and you can use nicotine if you want to make it feel like smoke... but there is no actual smoke so I'm not breathing any of the unhealthy chemicals and gases I used to get from cigarettes. I can breath easier, food tastes better, my clothes don't smell like an ashtray, and my family isn't forced to breathe second-hand smoke. After I tried everything else to quit smoking, I felt like such a failure...but since I switched to this, I'm subjecting myself and my family to less than 1 percent of the toxins* I was getting from smoking and I feel good enough to face the challenge.
*Based on http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf detecting trace levels of certain Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines in 'e-cigarettes' vs Assessment of Tobacco Specific N-Nitrosamines in Tobacco Products showing TSNA levels as high as 7000ppb"
For the record, this is my current favorite quote from the FDA report:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
