The rise and fall of Juul was swift and still ongoing– what started as a product for long-time tobacco users to utilize to quit smoking has now turned into a national pariah. A recent article from Medpage Today ran the headline “JUUL Takes Beating From House Dems– Question use of social media “influencers” and supposed anti-tobacco programs in schools.” This poses the question of how does something that may be beneficial to some groups– those being long-time tobacco smokers or even casual smokers looking to quit– properly market itself in a way that does not create controversy.
For years, anti-tobacco organizations and the government have worked to minimize and eliminate marketing for tobacco products. In the rise of e-cigarettes and alternative smoking products, these were hailed as an improvement and step in the right direction. However, with Juul, the same praise is not occurring– whether this be because of a shift in the general sentiment towards nicotine-delivery products as a whole or Juul’s overall marketing and product appeal is a bit murky. Juul is facing huge backlash now and even regulations in regards to selling their certain products because of the missteps that they made in their marketing communications. Launching advertisement campaigns that feature individuals that are “influencers” is not a way to catch the eye of smokers looking to kick their habit, rather their “testimonials” were targeting their most popular fan base– young adults and teenagers.
I’m not sure if I have fully formulated a personal opinion on this issue. While I feel that products like Juul do help smokers hoping to kick their habit, I feel that they have truly fumbled their marketing of the product. There is more conversation surrounding the damage that Juul has done in terms of getting more young individuals to start smoking their products than there is about what Juul has done for tobacco-smoking individuals. The biggest question that I have is how does a product, one that is as controversial as Juul, properly marketing their product and develop well-informed, smart marketing communications? How does a company that is meant to appeal to smokers as a better alternative ensure that their marketing campaigns are enticing, but not enticing to the point where non-smokers are drawn in? And lastly, how do they create a product that is safe, functional, and easy to use for smokers, but not too trendy or appealing to broader target audiences? There are a lot of additional problems further outlined in the article, but my current guess in regards to the stem of these issues is their lack of transparency, a consistent quality during both their rise and fall.
References