Why Ecigs are losing the Battle

The subject of this article is one that is very close to my heart as the founder of blu eCigs. I started blu in 2008, in what was then a small industry, I have watched it blossom and stumble and I can attribute part of that demise to a very simple problem, which oddly enough has a very simple fix. The other frustrating part about the problem is that I feel a large percentage of the people in control already know the issue but for several reasons, possibly ego, will not take the steps needed to aid in the fight and even win the war!

Firstly I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that ecigs are life saving devices helping millions of people move away from tobacco cigarettes to an overwhelmingly safer option. Now no one can say something is 100% safe, since the invention of lawyers, but over the past 9 years I have seen the evidence both from a science point of view and individually as a pack a day smoker that switched to ecigs. I also must say I still have a dog in the fight as I am involved as a Non-Exective Director to Fontem, the owners of blu. Having said that this article is completely my opinion and that is obvious because blu isn’t taking the steps I suggest to correct the issue either.

So let’s cut to the chase and reveal the amazing diabolical and simple reason ecigs are losing the battle when it comes to mass adoption and conversion from tobacco cigarettes - HEADLINES!! There, it’s out, I said it, boom! So yes, not ground breaking science, not ingenious studies, not a thought from the mind of Stephen Hawking. This time its from the dumbest guy in the room! I have watched from both inside and out as my beloved industry has been reported in the media as a toxic hipster indulgence by the powers who want to see it fail (their name rhymes with fig farmer). Before it sounds like I’m getting all conspiracy theory on you, understand this is just business, it’s happening in just about every industry around the world.

It today’s world of short attention spans, armchair media and social media the vast majority of people simply read the headline or if they read the article they are most affected by the headline. They form their opinion almost immediately from the headline and in most cases forward the article or recite the headline to others without fulling reading and venting the article. The second element after the headline is that the other side is much more willing to bend the rules and use half-baked science to suit their means. Now you might be saying it’s more a question of ethics than ego but let me ask you this simple question. If you can save lives would you bend the facts to suit your ultimate goal of saving those lives? If the other side doesn’t care about lives and is 100% focused on profits then you can stand on the high ground all you want but all you are is a pawn on the chess board. In fact you are actually playing checkers while they play chess. You have sacrificed the greater good for your own ego or misguided ethics.  

I have watched the anti-side release article after article that consists of a damning headline and an article based on poor science, and they are winning because they understand the rules of the game. Then the ecig industry responds to these articles and studies (which is what the other side wants) which increases the distribution and credibility of the headline and further serves the anti’s purpose. I have even watched the ecig industry itself play along and release articles like ‘Electronic cigarettes & formaldehyde’. Even though the article was very positive for the industry as it addressed a common thread, the headline insured a loss before it was read. Which in most cases just the headline was read.  

Just recently I saw a classic example of this type of strategy by a journalist who set out to prove a similar point and what he did was not only prove his point overwhelmingly but he essentially created an urban myth even after he revealed his experiment as a fake. Don’t believe me? Ever heard that chocolate helps with weight loss’? You can read the whole story here from the journalist himself https://io9.gizmodo.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800.

When it comes to ecigs I believe this happens because the people in charge of science and PR within the organizations care more about the science and/or their perceived credibility within the science community than the result. Which is a noble cause but you have to ask yourself who is paying you to be so ‘noble’. By the same token I’m not saying you have lie and be dishonest like the other side, which they are, but you have to be smarter with your headlines, when to battle and that if you address the other side’s argument/article directly you are giving them power and helping to spread their story not yours. You're the retraction, which no one reads. You must get out in front and create the narrative. The great news is that within the science of ecigs there is great news to be told and used. I know of several studies in my time that showed amazing results for ecigs but weren’t used because science based people where worried it would be picked apart by others in the science community (ego). I would say to those people remember who is paying you and like most arguments in life there is always another side and there is no avoiding conflict when it comes to life and business. You will never get resounding support from an article, particularly in the science world. The good news is that ecigs are on the right side of the argument which is high enough ground for me. We must also understand that studies now days are just as much about marketing as science and so the direction and path chosen should be heavily vented and even dictated by the marketing department not a lab.

In closing I’m sure people have noticed the irony in my article’s title but my hope is that it serves as a rallying point for an industry and people I care about.

One last thing…. before you get upset with me go to google and search ‘electronic cigarettes’ and look at the news headlines that pop up…..