politicians of most western nations are implicitly in the biz of these products (and alcohol) given the tax:sales ratio. so that means politicans indirectly want volume, and non-nic isnt going to serve.
would also guess the majority of voters are non-smokers that dont really care, as long as 2nd-hand smoke\vapor continues to stay out of their face in public places.
Anon, thank you for your thoughts. There are many factors that go into the treatment of these products - assuredly the tax proceeds weigh into the calculations, as do societal health implications, etc. The story of XXII imparts a good lesson: Regulation can prohibit and authorize products, but it can't synthetically foster consumer affinity. There is a true lack of product-market fit, as I highlighted in my response to Tian's comment.
As always you’re spot on -- how can one make a profitable business from selling cigarettes that are not addictive?
IIRC some of the “sales” recorded by XXII come with agreements that XXII will take back their VLN products that a wholesaler or retailer has not sold. Therefore their numerous announcements they were adding more retail locations were always less impressive than they sounded.
Is Pinnacle a relaunch or a brand new cigarette brand?
I also agree there’s almost no possibility that the FDA will reduce nicotine levels to very low levels in our lifetimes. (Congress is another matter.) In addition to the lengthy process you describe, tobacco companies would litigate this for decades. They were able to delay retail corrective statements from 1999 (DoJ lawsuit) / 2006 (court ruling) to 2023.
I'm sure I will revisit it, but there are so many seemingly impossible hurdles required to overcome for the maximum allowable nicotine level to be substantially lowered, as I wrote in June 2022.
Pinnacle is a new brand, specifically private label. The rationalization was that it would utilize production capacity, thus helping margins/profitability (or lack thereof), and would also help solidify shelf space to eventually make further expansion of VLN easier.
Truly, a core issue is, as I offered my thesis on XXII, "tackling the market from the wrong side of the equation." Designing a product that retains the most harmful attribute (combustion) while significantly lowering what most adult consumers appear to want (nicotine) is a surefire way to avoid product-market fit. What is correct side of the equation to tackle for novel products? Based on all trends, products that do exactly the opposite: conventional levels of nicotine without combustion.
Thank you for your answer. I (mistakenly) assumed that it was impossible to introduce new cigarette brands, only relaunch existing brands. I guess I misunderstood what “substantial equivalence” means.
politicians of most western nations are implicitly in the biz of these products (and alcohol) given the tax:sales ratio. so that means politicans indirectly want volume, and non-nic isnt going to serve.
would also guess the majority of voters are non-smokers that dont really care, as long as 2nd-hand smoke\vapor continues to stay out of their face in public places.
Anon, thank you for your thoughts. There are many factors that go into the treatment of these products - assuredly the tax proceeds weigh into the calculations, as do societal health implications, etc. The story of XXII imparts a good lesson: Regulation can prohibit and authorize products, but it can't synthetically foster consumer affinity. There is a true lack of product-market fit, as I highlighted in my response to Tian's comment.
As always you’re spot on -- how can one make a profitable business from selling cigarettes that are not addictive?
IIRC some of the “sales” recorded by XXII come with agreements that XXII will take back their VLN products that a wholesaler or retailer has not sold. Therefore their numerous announcements they were adding more retail locations were always less impressive than they sounded.
Is Pinnacle a relaunch or a brand new cigarette brand?
I also agree there’s almost no possibility that the FDA will reduce nicotine levels to very low levels in our lifetimes. (Congress is another matter.) In addition to the lengthy process you describe, tobacco companies would litigate this for decades. They were able to delay retail corrective statements from 1999 (DoJ lawsuit) / 2006 (court ruling) to 2023.
I'm sure I will revisit it, but there are so many seemingly impossible hurdles required to overcome for the maximum allowable nicotine level to be substantially lowered, as I wrote in June 2022.
Pinnacle is a new brand, specifically private label. The rationalization was that it would utilize production capacity, thus helping margins/profitability (or lack thereof), and would also help solidify shelf space to eventually make further expansion of VLN easier.
Truly, a core issue is, as I offered my thesis on XXII, "tackling the market from the wrong side of the equation." Designing a product that retains the most harmful attribute (combustion) while significantly lowering what most adult consumers appear to want (nicotine) is a surefire way to avoid product-market fit. What is correct side of the equation to tackle for novel products? Based on all trends, products that do exactly the opposite: conventional levels of nicotine without combustion.
Thank you for your answer. I (mistakenly) assumed that it was impossible to introduce new cigarette brands, only relaunch existing brands. I guess I misunderstood what “substantial equivalence” means.