Just a few examples. I sure hope you don't think Philip Morris is too ethical to use this kind of advertising science.
Very little is known about how e-cigarette marketing is being perceived by youth...
Very first sentence from the first link lol.
Of course PH wants young addicts. They always have.
I'm asking for advertisements aimed at kids because I have never seen any. None of those links show any ads. All they're saying is that vapes were advertised and people bought vapes.
What even would meet your standards here? Only an ad that started "Hey, kids!"?
Juul was buying ads on Cartoon Network/Seventeen/Nickelodeon and youth education sites. They got sued for it. They then fired the ad firm that developed an adult-oriented campaign for them in favor of the vaporized campaign which I definitely see plainly targets teens -- and the courts agreed, since they paid over $400 mil in fines because of it.
Companies do what they can to maintain plausible deniability. But it's also an absolute fact that the fruit/candy-flavored vapes are vastly more popular among youths. The FDA has entire teams dedicated to "advising" producers on how not to market these things to kids based on expert advice.
Your position here is one where you default to giving the producers of harmful, addictive products the benefit of the doubt. When I see Puff Bar being ranked among the most popular vape brands for teens, my assumption is that there is actual malice leading to that position.
And to be clear, the youth vaping market did not exist until the era of Juul reinvented it through advertising. These were not particularly new products, just new ways of selling them. Smoking was solidly on the decline among teens. It was new sales strategies that reversed that trend.
What even would meet your standards here?
An actual advertisement, for one.
That's all I'm asking for. An advertisement for vapes directed at kids. That's it. Just an example. Preferably two, but one is fine.
I'm not asking for essays about how it's possible kids are attracted to bright colors or how ads cause sales to increase. Especially when those essays admit front and center that no one actually knows the answer.
Just link to an ad. Goddamn lol
... Already happened.
Where? I've yet to be shown an ad.
Bright colors absolutely does count, but so do candy-like flavors. We've actually seen similar issues with cannabis edibles, selling the oil or butter is fine but selling cannacandy or brownies causes a big uptick in teen use and the health effects of heavy cannabis use during puberty aren't well understood yet (mostly because America is a fucking asshole).
So I can't enjoy a candy taste as an adult? Just because children like it?
Yeah, me too. But I think the point was about ads, not usage.
No, you can, but for a dangerous product like this it'd be more responsible for the company to sell the flavoring in a separate package that can be mixed with the actual vape juice and let consumers combine them.
With nicotine in particular, that would be a fatal idea. It doesn't take much nicotine at all to kill a human, and it absorbs through your skin, so.... Yeah. Pure nicotine shouldn't be sold to just anyone.
Banning candy and such flavors was provably effective at reducing youth smoking rates in many studies, even knowing that other flavored tobacco/nicotine products were still available to absorb some of that demand. There's no reason to think vaping would be different.
And banning walking I'm sure would lead to fewer falls
They absolutely are. Even the anti-vape ads seem to be made to promote it. They look super friendly and don't show the actual harm it does like smoking ads used to.
In the same way everything is. It's friendly and bright, and yes those are valid criteria.
Edit: I'm being downvoted, but how else do you advertise towards children? If your vape ad looks like the toy aisle then who is it marketing towards? Toys are marketed towards children by being bright, colorful, and friendly looking. They aren't marketing towards the parents with that, right? If it's valid to say that about toys then it must be valid about other products as well. Disagree? Give a counter argument. Can't come up with one? Why do you disagree then?
Idk but you're probably being disagreed with because by that line of thought adult products can't have any color on them.
Which is exactly what I mean. Just because something has brought colors it doesn't make it for children.
Having bright colors makes it more appealing to everyone but is an especially effective marketing tactic for children. Of course it doesn't only appeal to children, but it's a provably effective way to get children's attention.
Everyone is drawn to bright colors, not just children.
I still haven't been shown any ads at all, much less any aimed at children.
I'm not about to watch some ads to win an argument on the internet. Here's this though, which I added into an edit above but you may have not seen that.
This video is unbearable to watch. It's even worse than the DARE crap in the 80's. If this is your proof that there are ads directed at kids I'm sorry but it ain't it.
Did you even watch it? I don't remember, but I don't think it's anti-vape or anything. It just discusses how they've forgotten why anti-smoking ads worked. It's largely a media analysis channel.
You don't remember? You're the one linking to it lol
They're regulated the same as cigarettes. Kids find ways to get cigarettes, alcohol, and drugs, too, despite how regulated they are.
It's more to do with the fact that they're intentionally marketed towards kids in a way cigarettes and alcohol aren't so much anymore.
People say that but I've never seen a vape ad for kids.
In what way are they marketed towards kids?
Bright colors doesn't count.
https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article/20/8/954/3926044
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460319305891
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/07439156231189181
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X16301598
Just a few examples. I sure hope you don't think Philip Morris is too ethical to use this kind of advertising science.
Very first sentence from the first link lol.
Of course PH wants young addicts. They always have.
I'm asking for advertisements aimed at kids because I have never seen any. None of those links show any ads. All they're saying is that vapes were advertised and people bought vapes.
What even would meet your standards here? Only an ad that started "Hey, kids!"?
Juul was buying ads on Cartoon Network/Seventeen/Nickelodeon and youth education sites. They got sued for it. They then fired the ad firm that developed an adult-oriented campaign for them in favor of the vaporized campaign which I definitely see plainly targets teens -- and the courts agreed, since they paid over $400 mil in fines because of it.
Companies do what they can to maintain plausible deniability. But it's also an absolute fact that the fruit/candy-flavored vapes are vastly more popular among youths. The FDA has entire teams dedicated to "advising" producers on how not to market these things to kids based on expert advice.
Your position here is one where you default to giving the producers of harmful, addictive products the benefit of the doubt. When I see Puff Bar being ranked among the most popular vape brands for teens, my assumption is that there is actual malice leading to that position.
And to be clear, the youth vaping market did not exist until the era of Juul reinvented it through advertising. These were not particularly new products, just new ways of selling them. Smoking was solidly on the decline among teens. It was new sales strategies that reversed that trend.
An actual advertisement, for one.
That's all I'm asking for. An advertisement for vapes directed at kids. That's it. Just an example. Preferably two, but one is fine.
I'm not asking for essays about how it's possible kids are attracted to bright colors or how ads cause sales to increase. Especially when those essays admit front and center that no one actually knows the answer.
Just link to an ad. Goddamn lol
... Already happened.
Where? I've yet to be shown an ad.
Bright colors absolutely does count, but so do candy-like flavors. We've actually seen similar issues with cannabis edibles, selling the oil or butter is fine but selling cannacandy or brownies causes a big uptick in teen use and the health effects of heavy cannabis use during puberty aren't well understood yet (mostly because America is a fucking asshole).
So I can't enjoy a candy taste as an adult? Just because children like it?
Yeah, me too. But I think the point was about ads, not usage.
No, you can, but for a dangerous product like this it'd be more responsible for the company to sell the flavoring in a separate package that can be mixed with the actual vape juice and let consumers combine them.
With nicotine in particular, that would be a fatal idea. It doesn't take much nicotine at all to kill a human, and it absorbs through your skin, so.... Yeah. Pure nicotine shouldn't be sold to just anyone.
Only kids like candy. Got it
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749379716306201
Banning candy and such flavors was provably effective at reducing youth smoking rates in many studies, even knowing that other flavored tobacco/nicotine products were still available to absorb some of that demand. There's no reason to think vaping would be different.
And banning walking I'm sure would lead to fewer falls
They absolutely are. Even the anti-vape ads seem to be made to promote it. They look super friendly and don't show the actual harm it does like smoking ads used to.
Edit: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bbV6I8VRMG8
And in what way are they marketed towards kids?
In the same way everything is. It's friendly and bright, and yes those are valid criteria.
Edit: I'm being downvoted, but how else do you advertise towards children? If your vape ad looks like the toy aisle then who is it marketing towards? Toys are marketed towards children by being bright, colorful, and friendly looking. They aren't marketing towards the parents with that, right? If it's valid to say that about toys then it must be valid about other products as well. Disagree? Give a counter argument. Can't come up with one? Why do you disagree then?
Idk but you're probably being disagreed with because by that line of thought adult products can't have any color on them.
Which is exactly what I mean. Just because something has brought colors it doesn't make it for children.
Having bright colors makes it more appealing to everyone but is an especially effective marketing tactic for children. Of course it doesn't only appeal to children, but it's a provably effective way to get children's attention.
Everyone is drawn to bright colors, not just children.
I still haven't been shown any ads at all, much less any aimed at children.
I'm not about to watch some ads to win an argument on the internet. Here's this though, which I added into an edit above but you may have not seen that.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bbV6I8VRMG8
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/watch?v=bbV6I8VRMG8
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This video is unbearable to watch. It's even worse than the DARE crap in the 80's. If this is your proof that there are ads directed at kids I'm sorry but it ain't it.
Did you even watch it? I don't remember, but I don't think it's anti-vape or anything. It just discusses how they've forgotten why anti-smoking ads worked. It's largely a media analysis channel.
You don't remember? You're the one linking to it lol