I didn't think it could be true but: Tobacco firms to spend millions on e-cig

csi vegas

I'd vaguely, uninterestedly read here or elsewhere that 'The Firms' were going to invest in the e-cig market. Even had a 'roll-eye' want-to-bang-my-head-off-the-nearest-wall phone conversation with a friend about it, who was convinced that they, 'The Firm', would be getting in on it one day soon.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2420693/Smoking-TV-Tobacco-firms-spend-record-amounts-e-cigarette-commercials-nearly-decades-advertising-ban.html *

But now I kind of see.

But why would they not stringently oppose the cross-over? I know there's potentially zillions to be made on it but I can't see (for example) all the teenagers in the world wanting to e-smoke before they even smoke.
Wouldn't the tobacco firms want people to be madly addicted to their weed for years and years first?

Can anyone explain it to me like I'm five?


* Stephen Dorff, ladies...Stephen Dorff...

csi vegas

Also

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/health-pharma/big-tobacco-looks-to-the-future-of-e-cigarettes-1.1502619



http://vaperanks.com/europes-largest-tobacco-cigarette-maker-launches-its-own-e-cigarette/

^^^^^^^^
"Vype" Got it! Grindle mentioned something about it in a post the last day or two, in a notorious rant. Hadn't heard of it before. What's the deal?

grindle

They see their market segment dying. Battery tech is growing slowly, eventually (10 years?) we'll get eGo performance from a cigalike.

Notorious rant?!? Whaddayamean?

Anyway, this ecig company got bought out by BAT for over €100m, applied for a medical license and brought out that ****ty sub-ecig ecig.

Our biggest enemies were always pharma because it's extremely easy for BT to enter our sphere, pharma has to change the laws to their advantage which is what has been happening. Why people have been attributing it to tobacco I'll never know. For tobacco to come down as harshly as the laws are proposed would be looking a gift horse in the mouth for them.

csi vegas

grindle wrote: »

They see their market segment dying. Battery tech is growing slowly, eventually (10 years?) we'll get eGo performance from a cigalike.

Notorious rant?!? Whaddayamean

Wow! That'd be amazing! I should still exist by then as I no longer smoke!

Notorious? For you are the wise old man of the village and you are the infinite wisdom of the boards, you, oh Oracle you! It is to you whom we consult, it is to you whom we listen, it is to you whom...oh you know the rest! Haha! I'm in a very kind mood!
You see the reply I gave Mad Dave?
That's how kind I'm feeling! Haha!

Why would the Vype be so substandard anyway (I saw it, looks crap) given the spending power BAT have? Are they trying to self-sabotage or wth?

Their product (tobacco) is so addictive and expensive that why would they even want part market share of e-cigs, which is nowhere near as damaging or profitable.
What if they lost say 25% of their 'fanbase' to e-cigs (their own for instance)?
Are they hoping to raise the price point to match a packet of fags, say?

grindle

csi vegas wrote: »

you are the wise old man of the village

That's Digby. He's so old... I cry every time I see his face.

csi vegas wrote: »

you are the infinite wisdom of the boards

Dudess (judging from the fawning she used to get, she helped ruin AH in my eyes).

csi vegas wrote: »

oh Oracle you!

...
...
Correct.

csi vegas wrote: »

Why would the Vype be so substandard anyway (I saw it, looks crap) given the spending power BAT have? Are they trying to self-sabotage or wth?

I wish I knew, it was a waste of £100m if that's what they were aiming for, although... £100m is a drop in the ocean to them. If their customers tried it, hated it and kept smoking for another fortnight it'd be worth the small investment.
And they would've neutralised a competitor, 2 for 1! (Put in perspective, why aren't they buying them all? They could make 90% of the ecig industry disappear overnight).

csi vegas wrote: »

Their product (tobacco) is so addictive and expensive that why would they even want part market share of e-cigs, which is nowhere near as damaging or profitable.

They don't particularly care about their product being damaging, it's an unfortunate side-effect of one of the oldest drugs in the world. If the new product they have to push doesn't kill people, they'll take that too.
Profit? They don't have a choice. Their industry is being disrupted, they can choose to become the AOL or the Yahoo of their industry (festering, banking on people's ignorance) or they can choose to become Google (make as much money as possible by making everything logically, as frictionless as possible).

csi vegas wrote: »

What if they lost say 25% of their 'fanbase' to e-cigs (their own for instance)?

Better that they lose that 25% to their ecig than to a competitor's.

csi vegas wrote: »

Are they hoping to raise the price point to match a packet of fags, say?

Fags are cheap, the government makes them expensive. I'd doubt BT want the tax to match the cig-tax but they'd work with it if that's what they were given.

tommy2bad

Oddly the tobacco companies seem to be in two minds about ecigs. In the US they oppose restrictions on sales to minors, support restrictions on internet sales and want tax rates same as fags. In the EU they want lower tax and suport medical regulation. It looks mad but theirs method in their madness.
Ither result will leave the market in their hands. Not as bad as an outright ban but pretty bad as the tobacco business model is disposables with prefilled cartos. Max profit and constant sales. Exactly replicating what they do now.
The problem is it's a doomed model, the future is in e juice not the batterys and cartos. That's basically torch tech and is well taken care of. Branding juice could make them a fortune. Benson and Hedges juice in a gold bottle, sell in the millions.
Marlboro in a red and white livery, same thing.
GVC has had it's day once the big boys start advertising.
The fly in the ointment is the governments dependence on tobacco tax, this will still be needed and juice, no matter how much they tax it will never reproduce the returns from fags. All the people opposing ecigs because they don't like them will have to start contributing to the lost tax with sugar, salt and chocolate tax.
Long term, ecigs will replace cigarettes but it's going to be a rocky road to get there.

dePeatrick

Think you could well be right Tommy, the liquids are where the real fight lies ahead and somehow although not a good idea to underestimate the power of Tobacco companies or governments afraid of losing their tax take. But yes, if they do it will result in a tax on sugar, salt, farting.....:)

Interesting times ahead.....

csi vegas

Thanks Tommy and Grindle for explaining all that.



I see now why they'd want in - it'd benefit all involved:

the tobacco companies (to eradicate all small and mass market e-liquid production for lay-back-and-relax profits),

the pharmaceuticals to obtain their world wide exclusive monopoly-licences to manufacture what'd likely be just liquefied Nicorette,

and the government to set the taxes at an upward-only rate of
'screw-u-x-smoker-yiz-will-not-be-dying-fast-enough-for-us-anymore-%'.


All except for us (as usual), the consumers.

Fratton Fred

csi vegas wrote: »

Thanks Tommy and Grindle for explaining all that.



I see now why they'd want in - it'd benefit all involved:

the tobacco companies (to eradicate all small and mass market e-liquid production for lay-back-and-relax profits),

the pharmaceuticals to obtain their world wide exclusive monopoly-licences to manufacture what'd likely be just liquefied Nicorette,

and the government to set the taxes at an upward-only rate of
'screw-u-x-smoker-yiz-will-not-be-dying-fast-enough-for-us-anymore-%'.


All except for us (as usual), the consumers.

The NHS in the UK spends £4bn per year treating lung cancer. The majority of that is on drugs.

The tobacco companies aren't the only people with a vested interest in the smoking industry.