5 ms·

The public should probably feel a bit better about having a tobacco veteran who knows better than to get the bosses in trouble by deliberately market to kids. J

The public should probably feel a bit better about having a tobacco veteran who knows better than to get the bosses in trouble by deliberately market to kids. Juul's former CEO took the startup strategy: disruptfluence the vape market by winnovating a "let's just sell them in high schools directly" strategy.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
Falsely claiming that Juul was selling their products directly to high schoolers inside high schools isn't a very strong argument. Edit: I agree examples cited below arguably constitute selling. That said, if this is what parent was referring to, would likely have been better to say so since this isn't what selling implies when stated without any qualifier.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.... > In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.” > Other schools across the country were offered $10,000 from the e-cigarette company for the right to talk to students in classrooms or after school. > In Richmond, Calif. last year, Juul gave the Police Activities League $90,000 to offer the company’s vaping education program “Moving Beyond” to middle school and high school students who faced suspension for using cigarettes.
  - mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
    Oh, interesting, fair enough thanks. I agree that could be considered selling.
  - lowboy 7y ago
    “Selling” can mean a general sales pitch (what is quoted) or actual transactions of goods (not what is quoted). Those two meanings have very different implications. Not defending either of those, but making a distinction in meaning.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      Yeah... "selling their products directly" is not appropriate phrasing for referring to a sales pitch to a group of individuals. Even if it's still a very bad thing.
  - DataWorker 7y ago
    The New York Times isn’t a very credible source at this point.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
    Given the way teenagers don’t really fawn over authority figures, this seems like the most counterproductive thing they could have done. Stupid.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      It can be selective. I suspect some teens will happily accept an authority figure who says "ignore your parents and health teachers, who say vaping is bad". Juul certainly seemed to think it was worth the money.
      - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        I disagree, they could care less. This has very little to do with what drive teen vice use, the danger/badness is part of the equation. If you take away cigarettes and vaping, they’ll just move on to marijuana or heroin, or maybe glue. Nothing about “what’s healthy” is driving their choice here.
        chimeracoder 7y ago
        > If you take away cigarettes and vaping, they’ll just move on to marijuana or heroin, or maybe glue. Nothing about “what’s healthy” is driving their choice here. This claim is pretty strongly refuted by all available evidence, given that (before vaping), tobacco use among teenagers had been in a consistent decline for decades, without a corresponding consistent increase in marijuana or heroin use among teenagers.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Even if tobacco use was decreasing, that doesn’t mean something else wasn’t increasing in its stead. It could have been ridlin, opioids, meth, etc...I’m not sure what the popular bad stuff between 2000-2010 was, perhaps some younger HN readers could fill us in.
        7y ago
  - Crespyl 7y ago
    That last point is maybe a little more legitimate, at least from this random commenters position. On the one hand, you have what sounds like straight up abusive targeted marketing of a drug at a vulnerable population: direct meeting with children, no teachers present (!?), "totally safe", etc. This seems reprehensible. On the other hand, if it's an "education program" specifically targeted (and limited) to students who have already demonstrated that they have a cigarette problem, it seems like it could be a genuinely well intended part of a program to provide harm mitigation and a (apparently fairly successful) tool to help quit. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that version, even if it's still financially motivated. On the gripping hand, vaping has unclear risks of its own that we don't fully understand yet, and even setting aside the improvement going from smoke to vapor, any nicotine product is still going to be an addiction risk.
  - tinus_hn 7y ago
    How is it acceptable for a school accepting money to subject their students to sales pitches for any company, let alone e-cigarettes? Unbelievable.
fragmede 7y ago
Philip Morris' did $29.6 billion in sales last year. I'm not convinced a tobacco company veteran actually believes advertising to kids is immoral, given how much money is at stake. A tobacco veteran would have insider knowledge of how the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement[0] came to be, and how better to skirt those regulations. [0] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...
minwcnt5 7y ago
Kevin Burns was only CEO for about 1.5 years, so I would put the blame on marketing to kids on his predecessor.

mandelbrotwurst 7y ago

Falsely claiming that Juul was selling their products directly to high schoolers inside high schools isn't a very strong argument. Edit: I agree examples cited below arguably constitute selling. That said, if this is what parent was referring to, would likely have been better to say so since this isn't what selling implies when stated without any qualifier.

ceejayoz 7y ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/25/health/juul-teens-vaping.... > In April 2017, a Juul representative visited the Dwight School in New York City to meet with students — with no teachers present — and told them the company’s e-cigarettes were “totally safe.” > Other schools across the country were offered $10,000 from the e-cigarette company for the right to talk to students in classrooms or after school. > In Richmond, Calif. last year, Juul gave the Police Activities League $90,000 to offer the company’s vaping education program “Moving Beyond” to middle school and high school students who faced suspension for using cigarettes.
- mandelbrotwurst 7y ago
  Oh, interesting, fair enough thanks. I agree that could be considered selling.
- lowboy 7y ago
  “Selling” can mean a general sales pitch (what is quoted) or actual transactions of goods (not what is quoted). Those two meanings have very different implications. Not defending either of those, but making a distinction in meaning.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    Yeah... "selling their products directly" is not appropriate phrasing for referring to a sales pitch to a group of individuals. Even if it's still a very bad thing.
- DataWorker 7y ago
  The New York Times isn’t a very credible source at this point.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  Given the way teenagers don’t really fawn over authority figures, this seems like the most counterproductive thing they could have done. Stupid.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    It can be selective. I suspect some teens will happily accept an authority figure who says "ignore your parents and health teachers, who say vaping is bad". Juul certainly seemed to think it was worth the money.
    - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
      I disagree, they could care less. This has very little to do with what drive teen vice use, the danger/badness is part of the equation. If you take away cigarettes and vaping, they’ll just move on to marijuana or heroin, or maybe glue. Nothing about “what’s healthy” is driving their choice here.
      - chimeracoder 7y ago
        > If you take away cigarettes and vaping, they’ll just move on to marijuana or heroin, or maybe glue. Nothing about “what’s healthy” is driving their choice here. This claim is pretty strongly refuted by all available evidence, given that (before vaping), tobacco use among teenagers had been in a consistent decline for decades, without a corresponding consistent increase in marijuana or heroin use among teenagers.
        seanmcdirmid 7y ago
        Even if tobacco use was decreasing, that doesn’t mean something else wasn’t increasing in its stead. It could have been ridlin, opioids, meth, etc...I’m not sure what the popular bad stuff between 2000-2010 was, perhaps some younger HN readers could fill us in.
        7y ago
- Crespyl 7y ago
  That last point is maybe a little more legitimate, at least from this random commenters position. On the one hand, you have what sounds like straight up abusive targeted marketing of a drug at a vulnerable population: direct meeting with children, no teachers present (!?), "totally safe", etc. This seems reprehensible. On the other hand, if it's an "education program" specifically targeted (and limited) to students who have already demonstrated that they have a cigarette problem, it seems like it could be a genuinely well intended part of a program to provide harm mitigation and a (apparently fairly successful) tool to help quit. I'm a bit more sympathetic to that version, even if it's still financially motivated. On the gripping hand, vaping has unclear risks of its own that we don't fully understand yet, and even setting aside the improvement going from smoke to vapor, any nicotine product is still going to be an addiction risk.
- tinus_hn 7y ago
  How is it acceptable for a school accepting money to subject their students to sales pitches for any company, let alone e-cigarettes? Unbelievable.

fragmede 7y ago

Philip Morris' did $29.6 billion in sales last year. I'm not convinced a tobacco company veteran actually believes advertising to kids is immoral, given how much money is at stake. A tobacco veteran would have insider knowledge of how the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement[0] came to be, and how better to skirt those regulations. [0] https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco-control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-toba...

minwcnt5 7y ago

Kevin Burns was only CEO for about 1.5 years, so I would put the blame on marketing to kids on his predecessor.