E-cig bigwigs reveal plan to SILENCE health critics after raising $110,000 fightback fund in 3 HOURS

[5150sick]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/science/e-cig-bigwigs-reveal-plan-silence-5137978

 

[UncleRJ]

Good Find!

I also just took the pole.

The question was..Should E-Cigs be banned?

66% No. 34% Yes.

 

[Giraut]

I'm all for openness and intelligent information, but... the tobacco and pharma industries have been hitting below the belt for a very long time. I can understand if the e-cig industry starts using the same methods. Fight fire with fire, as they say, Sad but unavoidable I guess...

 

[vaperature]

Media should be held accountable for what they report. If they report lies, they should be subject to lawsuit.

 

[5150sick]

Media should be held accountable for what they report. If they report lies, they should be subject to lawsuit.

These alphabet soup associations should be held accountable for all of the lies, half truths, and misinformation they spread.

 

[zaroba]

That is a lot of money raised in one night.

But, it's a shame they didn't do a nationwide fundraiser via kickstarter or something similar instead.
110k from one state? Might be possible to raise ten times that amount from the whole nation.

 

[StefanD]

That is a lot of money raised in one night.

But, it's a shame they didn't do a nationwide fundraiser via kickstarter or something similar instead.
110k from one state? Might be possible to raise ten times that amount from the whole nation.

I believe the total is around $165K after including the 2nd fundraiser. And we're not done yet.

The article in The Mirror took several of my comments out of context and does not properly reflect the reality or details. One being that the fundraisers were specific to California and the action plan created by both the NorCal and SoCal chapters. So doing this at the national level would be a little strange since, while the two chapters will help out chapters in other states, are really mostly focused on the state itself. Also, a kickstarter would not the be best approach for this kind of fundraising which requires a more physical kind of meeting where details can be discussed outside of public view (after all, our opponents are keeping a close eye on everything we do). Plus, we set out to consider this an industry effort where one of the primary goals was not to raise any funds directly from consumers. Political lobbying, PR/media, and legal, should really be considered regular business expenses in what is known as a "high risk" industry. Letting consumers foot that bill would be similar to McDonalds asking its BigMac fans to pony up because their business license renewal and liability insurance is seeing an increase in cost for the coming year.

 

[zaroba]

Makes sense. Good explanation

Letting consumers foot that bill would be similar to McDonalds asking its BigMac fans to pony up because their business license renewal and liability insurance is seeing an increase in cost for the coming year.

Businesses kinda do that already
Prices don't go up just for the sake of it.

 

[5150sick]

I believe the total is around $165K after including the 2nd fundraiser. And we're not done yet.

The article in The Mirror took several of my comments out of context and does not properly reflect the reality or details. One being that the fundraisers were specific to California and the action plan created by both the NorCal and SoCal chapters. So doing this at the national level would be a little strange since, while the two chapters will help out chapters in other states, are really mostly focused on the state itself. Also, a kickstarter would not the be best approach for this kind of fundraising which requires a more physical kind of meeting where details can be discussed outside of public view (after all, our opponents are keeping a close eye on everything we do). Plus, we set out to consider this an industry effort where one of the primary goals was not to raise any funds directly from consumers. Political lobbying, PR/media, and legal, should really be considered regular business expenses in what is known as a "high risk" industry. Letting consumers foot that bill would be similar to McDonalds asking its BigMac fans to pony up because their business license renewal and liability insurance is seeing an increase in cost for the coming year.

Stefan, Hi my name is Tom.
I follow you on twitter and a few other spots as well.
I heard you a few days back on click bang also.
You have proved to ANTZ that we can come together and fight.
We will not be silenced and they will not be pulling another "Snus" (99% safer than smoking but 99% of smokers are unaware because of ANTZ scaremongering & propaganda) on vaping.
I am glad to see you on the forum.

 

[Whiskey]

Honored to meet you StefanD, Kudo's for all that you do and proud to have you here on VU

 

[StefanD]

Businesses kinda do that already
Prices don't go up just for the sake of it.

Yes, and that's the way it should be. You incorporate it into your pricing so you can offset that to your costs. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses seem to think that having consumers fund the fight for them is the way to go and I believe it only creates businesses who start relying too much on the good will of the consumers rather than their own responsibilities. Not that I am against consumer fundraising, but it is something we decided as chapters of a national organization to avoid doing directly.

 

[StefanD]

Honored to meet you StefanD, Kudo's for all that you do and proud to have you here on VU

Thanks. I would have dropped in sooner but things have been crazy. I was only just clearing out a ton of backlog e-mail and someone pointed at the thread here.

 

[StefanD]

Stefan, Hi my name is Tom.
I follow you on twitter and a few other spots as well.
I heard you a few days back on click bang also.
You have proved to ANTZ that we can come together and fight.
We will not be silenced and they will not be pulling another "Snus" (99% safer than smoking but 99% of smokers are unaware because of ANTZ scaremongering & propaganda) on vaping.
I am glad to see you on the forum.

Hi Tom! I must admit we were skeptical going into this during the few weeks of planning these meetings, getting guests lined up, talking points, lobbyists, PR folks, etc. because we honestly felt that we might not raise enough to get started. I am really very happy that a part of the industry in CA decided that our plan had merit and was worthy of being funded. Of course, that was just 130 people in SoCal and 70+ in NorCal. We have yet to reach out wider and beyond the membership base in the state.

 

[5150sick]

I'm glad you pulled it off!

I know NorCal and SoCal may be wealthier when it comes to funds and Businesses/Mod Makers/Importers but there is no reason why another State or County can't use the same template as your group in order to get funding to fight for their rights to not smoke.

This is like the 1st step in a very long battle.
But just by proving what can be done in such a small period of time others will hopefully follow in your footsteps.

We are all tired of morons like Glantz either cherry picking or totally making up 'scientific evidence' and the fact that now something is being done about it leads me to believe ANTZ will at least think before they speak.

Glantz's days of 'ultrafine particles' and gateways to smoking are hopefully numbered.

I mean the guy is a dinosaur and he would be irrelevant if some BT whistle blower didn't dump a truckload of documents into his hands back in the mid 90's

Now he pumps out study after study of total bullshit and receives the most funding out of anybody in his field for doing so.

Sorry, I just despise him.
You do not have to be very intelligent to see that he is lying but you do have to be rather resourceful to prove it in court and you would have to be extremely intelligent to get him charged criminally for it.

I would love to see it happen though!

 

[Midniteoyl]

Gonna take a lot... lot... more money. You need to add a zero or two... Hate to say.

 

[StefanD]

Gonna take a lot... lot... more money. You need to add a zero or two... Hate to say.

We're not done fundraising yet.

The idea that we (vapers, industry, etc.) would need to try and match lobbying and PR dollar for dollar with our opponents is sometime I hear from time to time but in reality, we can get away with much smaller funds to accomplish things. This is because 1) none of us are taking a dime for anything and all the money goes into what it's meant for. Unlike our opponents who are in it specifically to line their pockets every way they can. 2) We don't have the kind of organization or corporate overhead that our opponents do in which a lot of money gets sucked down and doesn't actually go towards actual effort.

For example, the #curbit and California dept. of Public Health campaigns are part of a $75 million campaign for a 5 year period (2014-2019) that they put RFP's out for early last year and allocated during the summer of 2014. Our PR plan to combat it directly in a similar way would only cost $250,000 for one year and would cover the whole of California. Doing the first pilot projects in cities costs much less than that and should help measure effectiveness, etc. With lots of money going to pay for all these people doing nothing but having their jobs funded through that $75 million the actual numbers in their budget don't represent an effective "bang for the buck" that we can attain.

 

[StefanD]

I'm glad you pulled it off!

I know NorCal and SoCal may be wealthier when it comes to funds and Businesses/Mod Makers/Importers but there is no reason why another State or County can't use the same template as your group in order to get funding to fight for their rights to not smoke.

This is like the 1st step in a very long battle.
But just by proving what can be done in such a small period of time others will hopefully follow in your footsteps.

It will be a very long battle and one that will need continued funding. Not just in California, of course. I'd love to see Glantz on trial but I doubt that will ever happen given how he's shielded from a lot of that given his "academic" shielding. Plus, he always hides behind others that he's more than happy to throw under the bus to save his own ass.

As for template, yes, exactly! The CA chapters have been helping other chapters get going and starting up, which in itself is also a process that takes a bit of time and effort, but being able to show that, yes, we *can* be effective is possibly the most important thing to show at the moment. Especially since both fear and apathy are strong in the world of vapor. The PR campaign I've started working on early this year was also designed to be a template for other states and cities to adopt. Simply put, the content will allow for parts to be localized. So if there's a specific bill or politician that needs some attention it can be swapped out. If a certain vendor and their accomplishments in the community need to be highlighted, that can be swapped out, etc. The cost of doing these changes is going to be affordable and cost of deployment will of course depend on size and location and demographic but should also be do-able in other areas.

 

[Midniteoyl]

We're not done fundraising yet.

The idea that we (vapers, industry, etc.) would need to try and match lobbying and PR dollar for dollar with our opponents is sometime I hear from time to time but in reality, we can get away with much smaller funds to accomplish things. This is because 1) none of us are taking a dime for anything and all the money goes into what it's meant for. Unlike our opponents who are in it specifically to line their pockets every way they can. 2) We don't have the kind of organization or corporate overhead that our opponents do in which a lot of money gets sucked down and doesn't actually go towards actual effort.

For example, the #curbit and California dept. of Public Health campaigns are part of a $75 million campaign for a 5 year period (2014-2019) that they put RFP's out for early last year and allocated during the summer of 2014. Our PR plan to combat it directly in a similar way would only cost $250,000 for one year and would cover the whole of California. Doing the first pilot projects in cities costs much less than that and should help measure effectiveness, etc. With lots of money going to pay for all these people doing nothing but having their jobs funded through that $75 million the actual numbers in their budget don't represent an effective "bang for the buck" that we can attain.

Glad to hear you're on top of it..

If you go to court, do you have a pro-Bono lawyer? Are you gonna do ads in the paper? Maybe radio/tv?

 

[StefanD]

If you go to court, do you have a pro-Bono lawyer? Are you gonna do ads in the paper? Maybe radio/tv?

That's the part where the Mirror article took my comments out of context. There was never a plan to go into full blown litigation against the state. The law firm is part of the action plan to cover our asses in the media because we still have to be careful what we say and do as to not open ourselves up to any problems. Of course we would always reserve the option to litigate against the worst offenders that would put out malicious lies that may lead to harm on individuals. If said harm occurs and can be proven the ballgame would, of course, be extended.

We're looking at a print campaign to start things off, in San Francisco, to really hit straight into Glantz' back yard. It'll be demographic targeted through some 80,000 inserts into papers and magazines (4-8 pages). Radio, TV, etc. ads are not really part of the plan because those require a lot of repetition and may not be as (cost) effective. The PR agency will do media lobbying to get our side better represented in interviews, articles, etc. of course. But that's a little different from taking out ads. It's more like "spoonfeeding"

 

[Midniteoyl]

That's the part where the Mirror article took my comments out of context. There was never a plan to go into full blown litigation against the state. The law firm is part of the action plan to cover our asses in the media because we still have to be careful what we say and do as to not open ourselves up to any problems. Of course we would always reserve the option to litigate against the worst offenders that would put out malicious lies that may lead to harm on individuals. If said harm occurs and can be proven the ballgame would, of course, be extended.

We're looking at a print campaign to start things off, in San Francisco, to really hit straight into Glantz' back yard. It'll be demographic targeted through some 80,000 inserts into papers and magazines (4-8 pages). Radio, TV, etc. ads are not really part of the plan because those require a lot of repetition and may not be as (cost) effective. The PR agency will do media lobbying to get our side better represented in interviews, articles, etc. of course. But that's a little different from taking out ads. It's more like "spoonfeeding"

AHHhh! Ok, Now I get it