6 ms·

I see a couple different aspects here: 1. Targeting Kids. I don't see the targeting. Marketing a product as "cool"[1] is a valid tactic for the, say, 18–35 age

by basseq 7y ago

I see a couple different aspects here: 1. Targeting Kids. I don't see the targeting. Marketing a product as "cool"[1] is a valid tactic for the, say, 18–35 age demographic, too. Is there a way to market to 18-year-olds while actively dis-marketing to 17-year-olds? Serious question. Anecdotally, the radio ads I hear for Juul are all testimonials from middle-aged smokers who switched. Which is not to say that they don't have other tactics, but this particular one can't be particularly attractive to teens. 2. Deceptive Marketing. Probably more legit, but not limited to tobacco. No marketing is going to tell you why not to use their product. Now, alcohol, nicotine, gambling, high fat/sugar foods, credit card debt, etc. should be held to a higher standard than, say, Forever 21. [1] I.e., "social media posts glamorizing vaping", "flavors including mango, mint and creme brulee", "depicting the devices and those who use them as cool and sexy". Or from a sub-linked article, "mak[ing] it look cool and sleek".

apexalpha 7y ago
They target a young audience on social media. Also, the fact that you hear the ads on the radio makes teens not the target demographic. But here is a more in depth article: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette-marketing https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette...
- ch4s3 7y ago
  I’m not defending juul, but they shit down those accounts over a year ago and they don’t even portray young people in there ads anymore. Moreover that Vox article completely makes up the 75% increase stat it cites. If you follow the citation and do the math, the survey which they don’t like to show a roughly 30% increase in the number of teens who had used any vaping product in the prior 30 days. I don’t think anyone should use these products, but they’re clearly less bad than cigarettes. Also, this whole thing has the smell of a moral panic without a lot of actual substance.
- basseq 7y ago
  That's my point: of course they do (well, used to). A key demographic is 18–35. Ads portraying "happy, playful 20-something models" seems legit for that demographic, including using social media as a channel, where that demographic tends to be. That young models, a sleek device, and social media is also attractive to the 13–17 demographic that Juul is being accused of illegally marketing to is impactful, but not damning in of itself. So that goes back to my question: is there a way to market to 18–35 and actively not market to 13–18? Let's be clear: "teens" 18–19 and people in their early 20s are adults. Otherwise, the proposed solution is not to market <35 at all... which seems to be exactly what Juul is doing.[1] So then the argument is that they used to, and that's good enough to cry foul. All this comes back to "targeting". In my mind, it's very hard to draw a distinction between targeting 18–35 that happens to be attractive to 13–18 (because of course it does), and targeting 13–18. Then, you can argue whether incidental attraction is a "feature or a bug", and whether or not it was part of an insidious strategy all along. [1] "[In 2018], Juul’s ads began to look more adult and conservative... with the slogan 'Make the switch,' the ads now feature testimonials from [people over 35]."
burkaman 7y ago
> I don't see the targeting. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette-marketing https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette... http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_Marketing_Stanford.pdf http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_M... "Juul hired social media influencers — people with large followings on Instagram — to promote its products. It created hashtags — #juul, #juulvapor, #switchtojuul, #vaporized — that the influencers blasted out to their followings, often featuring images of young people Juuling, or doing tricks or jokes with their device." Impossible to design a campaign like this without understanding how many millions of teenagers follow Instagram influencers. > Is there a way to market to 18-year-olds while actively dis-marketing to 17-year-olds? If there is not, then don't market to 18 year olds. Very easy decision.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >If there is not, then don't market to 18 year olds. Very easy decision. Can we extend that logic? For example, do we ban all marketing of any adult entertainment because it would also apply to most kids 13+? Do we ban marketing of games rated T or higher since they would appeal to people 12 and under? Both of these are existing issues where people far younger than the intended demographic are using products not meant for them, and in some cases illegal to provide to them.
  - burkaman 7y ago
    Porn producers seem to only advertise on actual porn sites, which means if an underage person is seeing them, the damage is already done. The problem there would be ineffective age gating by the websites, not the marketing itself. I have seen ads outside porn sites for other adult services like sex toy stores, phone sex hotlines, adult "dating" sites, etc. Some of those ads might appeal to underage people, but I don't think underage use of those services is widespread. If it is, and we as a society consider it a problem, then yes my logic would apply. I don't think there is any legal basis for video game ratings. In fact, any such law would probably be unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... Long way to say that yes, we can extend my logic. If your marketing, or any activity you're doing, is encouraging kids to do something harmful, stop. It doesn't matter if you're breaking the law, just be a good person and try to do the right thing.

by basseq 7y ago

apexalpha 7y ago

They target a young audience on social media. Also, the fact that you hear the ads on the radio makes teens not the target demographic. But here is a more in depth article: https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette-marketing https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette...

ch4s3 7y ago
I’m not defending juul, but they shit down those accounts over a year ago and they don’t even portray young people in there ads anymore. Moreover that Vox article completely makes up the 75% increase stat it cites. If you follow the citation and do the math, the survey which they don’t like to show a roughly 30% increase in the number of teens who had used any vaping product in the prior 30 days. I don’t think anyone should use these products, but they’re clearly less bad than cigarettes. Also, this whole thing has the smell of a moral panic without a lot of actual substance.
basseq 7y ago
That's my point: of course they do (well, used to). A key demographic is 18–35. Ads portraying "happy, playful 20-something models" seems legit for that demographic, including using social media as a channel, where that demographic tends to be. That young models, a sleek device, and social media is also attractive to the 13–17 demographic that Juul is being accused of illegally marketing to is impactful, but not damning in of itself. So that goes back to my question: is there a way to market to 18–35 and actively not market to 13–18? Let's be clear: "teens" 18–19 and people in their early 20s are adults. Otherwise, the proposed solution is not to market <35 at all... which seems to be exactly what Juul is doing.[1] So then the argument is that they used to, and that's good enough to cry foul. All this comes back to "targeting". In my mind, it's very hard to draw a distinction between targeting 18–35 that happens to be attractive to 13–18 (because of course it does), and targeting 13–18. Then, you can argue whether incidental attraction is a "feature or a bug", and whether or not it was part of an insidious strategy all along. [1] "[In 2018], Juul’s ads began to look more adult and conservative... with the slogan 'Make the switch,' the ads now feature testimonials from [people over 35]."

burkaman 7y ago

> I don't see the targeting. https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette-marketing https://www.vox.com/2019/1/25/18194953/vape-juul-e-cigarette... http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_Marketing_Stanford.pdf http://tobacco.stanford.edu/tobacco_main/publications/JUUL_M... "Juul hired social media influencers — people with large followings on Instagram — to promote its products. It created hashtags — #juul, #juulvapor, #switchtojuul, #vaporized — that the influencers blasted out to their followings, often featuring images of young people Juuling, or doing tricks or jokes with their device." Impossible to design a campaign like this without understanding how many millions of teenagers follow Instagram influencers. > Is there a way to market to 18-year-olds while actively dis-marketing to 17-year-olds? If there is not, then don't market to 18 year olds. Very easy decision.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>If there is not, then don't market to 18 year olds. Very easy decision. Can we extend that logic? For example, do we ban all marketing of any adult entertainment because it would also apply to most kids 13+? Do we ban marketing of games rated T or higher since they would appeal to people 12 and under? Both of these are existing issues where people far younger than the intended demographic are using products not meant for them, and in some cases illegal to provide to them.
- burkaman 7y ago
  Porn producers seem to only advertise on actual porn sites, which means if an underage person is seeing them, the damage is already done. The problem there would be ineffective age gating by the websites, not the marketing itself. I have seen ads outside porn sites for other adult services like sex toy stores, phone sex hotlines, adult "dating" sites, etc. Some of those ads might appeal to underage people, but I don't think underage use of those services is widespread. If it is, and we as a society consider it a problem, then yes my logic would apply. I don't think there is any legal basis for video game ratings. In fact, any such law would probably be unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchan... Long way to say that yes, we can extend my logic. If your marketing, or any activity you're doing, is encouraging kids to do something harmful, stop. It doesn't matter if you're breaking the law, just be a good person and try to do the right thing.