lordbarby
Postman
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 126
Breaking News on BBC Website BBC News - E-cigarettes can appear in TV adverts, watchdog rules
BREAKING NEWS: E-cigarettes can appear in TV adverts, watchdog rules
- Thread starter lordbarby
- Start date
RagingMammoth
Achiever
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,732
I'm unsure whether I support this or not. Like cigarettes, I don't wish for children to know they exist. I guess it will help normalise vaping to the public, and I might get less funny looks by old people.
RagingMammoth
Achiever
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,732
Good point, I didn't think of that.
The thing that baffles me is, how can something that doesn't contain tobacco be classified as a tobacco product?
Mark
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 13,961
A bit more meat on the bone here New UK advertising rules for e-cigarettes - Committee of Advertising Practice
Not allowed to claim they are 'safer' than smoking a cigarette and not to be marketed at teens. I think ads will have to be pretty restricted in order to comply. Flavourings for example and the old mantra 'See...bubblegum...they're deliberately targeting children!!!!'
see Ten Motives e-cigarette ad banned after claims it appealed to children | The Drum
Not allowed to claim they are 'safer' than smoking a cigarette and not to be marketed at teens. I think ads will have to be pretty restricted in order to comply. Flavourings for example and the old mantra 'See...bubblegum...they're deliberately targeting children!!!!'
see Ten Motives e-cigarette ad banned after claims it appealed to children | The Drum
Mark
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2012
- Messages
- 13,961
...and ECITA's take on it. they seem impressed
CAP and BCAP publish new UK advertising rules for e-cigarettes | ECITA Blog
CAP and BCAP publish new UK advertising rules for e-cigarettes | ECITA Blog
We like this in favour of it not being classed as a tobacco product IE EU rule but we do agree with the poster above regarding children getting to know about them.
I think the ads as they are currently, have been fine... apart from the "sexy one" that did the industry no favours.
Ads mention vape and e liquid and if your into it you will take notice but not sure we need to go down the route of showing somebody cloud chasing with a huge mod on screen.
As you say its a catch 22 situation but good to see a little more positivity again.
I think the ads as they are currently, have been fine... apart from the "sexy one" that did the industry no favours.
Ads mention vape and e liquid and if your into it you will take notice but not sure we need to go down the route of showing somebody cloud chasing with a huge mod on screen.
As you say its a catch 22 situation but good to see a little more positivity again.
steffijade
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,405
I notice that any product that is licensed by the MHRA will be exempt from restrictions on making health claims.
Just adds more weight to my pet theory about a two tier system after 2016 and confirms that big pharma want to use their considerable finances to gain a commercial advantage by paying for licenses that the vast majority of manufacturers/suppliers will never be able to afford.
Of course, it should also be remembered that the MHRA which is supposed to police the pharma industry is actually funded by the pharma industry.
What are the chances that 2 devices that are all but identical being treated differently when it comes to advertising, just because one of them is produced by a corporation that can afford to pay the exorbitant cost of an MHRA license?
Nice to see that adverts will be allowed, but annoying to see that the protectionist policies of big pharma are being employed to give them an unfair advantage.
Also, the concerns about normalising vaping are somewhat unnecessary. Vaping is really starting to take off now and where it was unusual to see folk vaping out in public a few years ago, it's becoming more commonplace now so chances are 'the children' will be seeing vaping to a certain extent regardless of whether it's advertised or not.
Besides which, 'the children' don't stay children for ever.. eventually they grow up and begin to make decisions for themselves. Surely it's better for them to be familiar with vaping so they can make informed choices about it rather than having it being classified as 'forbidden fruit' and thus an attractive target for teenage rebellion?
Just adds more weight to my pet theory about a two tier system after 2016 and confirms that big pharma want to use their considerable finances to gain a commercial advantage by paying for licenses that the vast majority of manufacturers/suppliers will never be able to afford.
Of course, it should also be remembered that the MHRA which is supposed to police the pharma industry is actually funded by the pharma industry.
What are the chances that 2 devices that are all but identical being treated differently when it comes to advertising, just because one of them is produced by a corporation that can afford to pay the exorbitant cost of an MHRA license?
Nice to see that adverts will be allowed, but annoying to see that the protectionist policies of big pharma are being employed to give them an unfair advantage.
Also, the concerns about normalising vaping are somewhat unnecessary. Vaping is really starting to take off now and where it was unusual to see folk vaping out in public a few years ago, it's becoming more commonplace now so chances are 'the children' will be seeing vaping to a certain extent regardless of whether it's advertised or not.
Besides which, 'the children' don't stay children for ever.. eventually they grow up and begin to make decisions for themselves. Surely it's better for them to be familiar with vaping so they can make informed choices about it rather than having it being classified as 'forbidden fruit' and thus an attractive target for teenage rebellion?
Similar threads
