Have you seen the E-Lites TV ad yet?

[Mark]

I beat you to it

http://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/6982-Elites-TV-ad-teaser

 

[Vapertron]

That's one talented baby lol

 

[OccultScientist]

I beat you to it

http://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/forums/showthread.php/6982-Elites-TV-ad-teaser

Bah...

 

[WhichWitch]

Do you reckon they weren't allowed to mention ecigs outright, or is it just a clever marketing ploy to make everyone visit their site?

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

Do you reckon they weren't allowed to mention ecigs outright, or is it just a clever marketing ploy to make everyone visit their site?

Maybe a lil bit of both?

 

[AndyM]

It was certainly subtle I think most peeps wouldn't have a clue

 

[Markfletcher007]

Yes maybe a little too subtle, very good though

 

[Mark]

I've merged my thread into this one as there were some interesting comments made

 

[4L4N]

Do you reckon they weren't allowed to mention ecigs outright, or is it just a clever marketing ploy to make everyone visit their site?

Clearcast, the organisation that ensures that TV adverts are compliant, have published their guidelines and critera for Television Adverts for electronic cigarettes.

The recent E-Lites advert, for example, was approved by Clearcast.

The guidelines include :

- ads can’t promote smoking or the use of tobacco products, which of course rules out real cigarettes.

- if a non-tobacco product shares a name, emblem or any other feature with a tobacco product (which would catch electronic cigarettes), then it can only advertise if it makes no reference to smoking, does not promote smoking and does not include a design, colour, imagery, logo style etc that might be associated in the audiences’ mind with a tobacco product.

- only approve ads for electronic cigarettes if there is nothing in the ad that clearly refers to smoking

- it is likely that an advertiser’s website will contain images that would contravene the rules, we are only concerned with the ad you see on television, provided you are not being actively directed to the website. An incidental reference to a website would be acceptable.


More details here:

http://www.clearcast.co.uk/news/show/187

 

[McAldo]

I understand that, but the subtext I picked up is that he could have used it around his child. Now you know and I know (as far as anybody CAN know with research being at the stage it's at) that the risk of passive inhalation is minimal. But my point is, does Joe Bloggs from Skelmersdale know that? And assuming he doesn't, and assuming he sees it the way I did, will he bother to find out for himself or will he just subconciously demonise vaping with his own prejudice? It seems to me that for vaping to become the norm, first it needs to become accepted. Elites have gone some way toward doing that by showing that he could have used it in his living room with his family around him, I'm just asking whether suggesting that he could have used it near his baby is a bit of a step too far at this stage?

Actually, there is some evidence that constant exposure of children to propylene glycol might cause a significantly higher incidence of asthma.
However, this was a swedish study about release of compounds from wall paint in children rooms.
This is the only piece of study I found to date which migh be indicative of the effects of long term exposure in children. So, as random as Joe Bloggs might be, he might have a point in this case.
Personally, I never vape in my kid room, ventilate the house quite often and tend and vape full VG.
Expecially with rebuldable atties the vapour tends and saturate a small room pretty much instantly.