Smokeless Products Are Tough Test for Reynolds

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • MN_Snuser
    Member
    • May 2008
    • 354

    Smokeless Products Are Tough Test for Reynolds

    WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- During board meetings, Reynolds American Inc. Chief Executive Susan Ivey likes to suck on dissolvable smokeless-tobacco strips to get her nicotine fix.

    She's hoping to tempt millions of smokers to follow her lead.

    Confronted with the inexorable decline of cigarette sales, Reynolds is transforming itself into a company that also offers an array of smokeless alternatives—including strips, lozenges and snuff.
    [IveyJmpPic] D.L. Anderson for the Wall Street Journal

    CEO Susan Ivey says such items represent an important part of the company's future..Still, they are apt to face tough marketing parameters under FDA rules.

    Reynolds' push into the products comes amid an intensifying debate among public-health professionals about how oral forms of tobacco should be regulated. Some tobacco-control advocates, including the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have criticized Reynolds' dissolvable products as nicotine candies designed to appeal to children.

    Now the Food and Drug Administration is weighing in. It has asked Reynolds by Thursday to provide its research into how the dissolvable products are used and perceived by people 25 and younger. In a February letter to Reynolds, Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the agency's Center for Tobacco Products, said the FDA is concerned that adolescents may be drawn to the products' "brightly colored packaging" and "easily concealable size."

    The ruling will be one of the first for the FDA, which is in the early stages of structuring the framework under which it will oversee the production and marketing of tobacco products. Last year, President Barack Obama signed legislation giving the FDA sweeping powers to regulate the tobacco industry.

    Reynolds says it is cooperating and that its products are marketed for adults and sealed in child-proof packaging.

    Ms. Ivey, the company's 51 year-old CEO, views the new lineup as a way to prepare Reynolds for a world that is likely to include fewer smokers.

    "I believe these products can drive our sustainability into the future ," she says. "Having a forward vision is important."

    In the process, she's banking on support from scientists and public-health professionals who argue that lives could potentially be saved by encouraging smokers to switch to smokeless tobacco.

    "It's a disservice to public health if we keep products off the shelf that are [safer] than cigarettes," says Scott Ballin, a longtime tobacco-control advocate who is the former legislative counsel for the American Heart Association. "To me, if we can come up with a better mousetrap, we should be considering those options."

    About one in five American adults smokes today, down from one in three in 1980, according to the Centers for Disease Control. At the same time, around 70% of smokers say they want to quit, says the CDC. Reynolds is trying to keep them as customers by offering a variety of smokeless products that deliver nicotine, the main addictive ingredient in tobacco.
    [IVEYch1_clr]

    For a smokeless nicotine buzz, Reynolds offers Camel Snus, pouches of spit-free oral tobacco popularized in Sweden. The company is test-marketing Camel Orbs—tiny oval-shaped lozenges. Ms. Ivey's own preference is for Camel Strips, thin tobacco wafers that melt on the tongue after three minutes. Reynolds also recently acquired Swedish company Niconovum AB for $43 million—the first move by a big tobacco concern to market smoking-cessation aids. And, of course, the 135-year old company plans to keep selling its Camel, Pall Mall and other cigarette brands.

    The company has other reasons to look beyond the traditional drag. Reynolds, with 28% of the U.S. cigarette market, ranks a distant second to Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA, with 50%. Reynolds also has little exposure to cigarette markets abroad, where sales trends are better and restrictions often looser. Altria, too, is betting big on smokeless products. The company this month is rolling out Marlboro Snus nationally, after testing the brand in several cities. Last year it bought the maker of Skoal and Copenhagen moist snuff.

    "There's always two strategies: proactive and reactive," Ms. Ivey says in an interview in her office at Reynolds' headquarters here. "We've chosen a proactive path."

    The hurdles are high. Reynolds and other tobacco companies figure that only about seven million Americans use smokeless tobacco, although sales of those products are rising. Last year, sales volumes for smokeless tobacco products rose about 7%, while cigarette volumes fell about 9%, according to industry estimates.

    A big challenge, as the FDA's inquiry shows, is marketing the products. Although many groups, including the American Council on Science and Health, argue that smokeless tobacco is less harmful, federal rules prohibit companies from marketing the products as a safer alternative to cigarettes.

    Ms. Ivey, a smoker since college, is the first woman to run a major tobacco company. An extrovert, she sends congratulatory emails to employees who land promotions and is known to surprise low-level staffers by greeting them by name in the company cafeteria, say colleagues.

    Her journey through the industry began by accident. In 1981, she was selling office equipment in Louisville when she called Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to complain that she couldn't find its new cigarette—Barclay Menthol—in stores. The company happened to be recruiting salespeople and hired her a week later.

    She scaled the ranks in sales and marketing and spent nearly a decade overseas for Brown & Williamson's parent, London-based British American Tobacco PLC.

    In 2001, Brown & Williamson, the No. 3 player in the U.S., named Ms. Ivey CEO.

    After her years abroad, she says she returned to the embattled U.S. market "with fresh eyes." Among other things, Ms. Ivey developed an interest in dissolvable-tobacco products.

    In 2003, Brown & Williamson launched a test in Kentucky of a product called Interval, a dissolvable, mint-flavored smokeless tobacco lozenge the company had developed with an industry upstart, Star Scientific Inc. A year later, Brown & Williamson was acquired by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc., and Reynolds canceled its pact with Star, saying the tests were unsuccessful. (Star, which sued Reynolds in 2001 in Maryland U.S. District Court over a separate patent issue, says it was surprised that Reynolds discontinued the project.)

    Tapped as CEO of the newly named Reynolds American, Ms. Ivey embarked on a two-pronged strategy she called "total tobacco."

    This called for the company to dramatically reduce costs in its cigarette operations and invest part of the savings in the smokeless tobacco category.

    She has cut Reynolds' stable of cigarette products by nearly 600 items, or 70%, including "soft-pack" varieties of Kool, Winston and Doral. She outsourced payroll-processing and information technology and cut factory and white-collar jobs. Reynolds now employs about 6,400 people, 32% fewer than in 2004.

    As Ms. Ivey was streamlining the cigarette business, she began to consider acquisitions in the smokeless tobacco arena. She made her first big move in 2006, buying Conwood Co., the maker of Grizzly moist snuff, for $3.5 billion.

    That purchase was met with some resistance, as some executives worried the new business might distract management and further erode cigarette sales. "You could see it a lot through body language and conversations like, 'You mean, we are not going to sell cigarettes anymore?"' says Chief Financial Officer Tom Adams.

    "There is always fear in the boardroom: Are you taking the eye off where the money is today?" Ms. Ivey says. But she saw opportunity.

    At the time, industry sales volumes for smokeless tobacco were rising about 6% a year, while cigarette volumes were falling about 4%.

    U.S. retail sales of smokeless tobacco were about $5.2 billion in 2008, up 34% from 2005, and are expected to grow to $6.5 billion in 2010, according to market-research firm Euromonitor International. Smokeless options also offers higher profit margins, owing partly to lower tax rates.

    Soon after buying Conwood, Reynolds said it would test-market Camel Snus, a type of spitless tobacco popular in Sweden.

    Last year, Reynolds went national with the product, priced between $5 and $6 per tin, and began testing three dissolvable tobacco products—Camel Orbs, Strips and Sticks—in several metropolitan areas. Ms. Ivey says the products are more appealing to women than snuff and chewing tobacco because they don't involve spitting.

    Reynolds promotes them as options when lighting up is impractical or illegal.

    Camel Snus, for instance, has advertisements in national magazines such as Maxim, encouraging readers to "Boldly Go Everywhere" with the "mess-free" product.

    Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids in Washington, says most of Reynolds' marketing of smokeless products suggests it is trying "to give smokers a mechanism for maintaining their addiction when they work in smoke-free locations," which actually decreases "the incentive to quit."

    Ms. Ivey says she doesn't think the products "are marketed in any way other than to give [consumers] choice."

    Reynolds says Camel Snus is showing promise, though sales are modest so far.

    The entire U.S. snus market, dominated by the Camel brand, was about 18 million cans last year, less than 2% of the volume of the moist snuff market, according to Morgan Stanley analyst David Adelman.

    Analysts say smokeless sales would get a big boost if Reynolds had FDA permission to promote Camel Snus and its other smokeless products as safer alternatives to cigarettes.

    That isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

    The FDA has just recently set up various advisory committees which have yet to meet and that will make recommendations to the agency on how to decide what to do about various proposals, including reduced-harm applications.

    According to new federal laws, companies must furnish scientific evidence that a product would reduce tobacco-related harm for individuals—and provide a net benefit to the U.S. population's health.

    Reynolds has come under fire for making such claims in the past. Earlier this month, a Vermont state judge ruled that the company had made false and misleading marketing claims— going back a decade—in marketing its Eclipse brand cigarette. During the industry's unregulated era, ads had said the brand "may present less risk of cancer." The company had said that its ads were "supported by credible and reliable information."

    About a year ago, Ms. Ivey and her board, which she chairs, began mulling another course of action. If the company was serious about giving tobacco users a full breadth of options, was it willing to offer them over-the-counter products to actually help them quit?

    Tom Wajnert, Reynolds' lead independent director, says some board members were "a little skeptical." Eventually, he says, they agreed it was a "natural next step." Global industry sales of over-the-counter smoking-cessation products are about $2.1 billion a year, according to Euromonitor International.

    Ms. Ivey set her sights on Niconovum AB, a Swedish maker of nicotine gums, sprays and pouches that was founded by psychologist Karl Olov Fagerstrom, an expert on nicotine dependence.

    Niconovum has sought to distinguish its over-the-counter products from conventional quit-smoking aids by delivering nicotine more rapidly and efficiently, helping users feel more control over their cravings.

    Reynolds bought Niconovum in December for $43 million. Currently, Niconovum's products are sold only in Sweden and Denmark. But Ms. Ivey says Reynolds is strongly considering filing for FDA approval to sell Niconovum's products in the U.S., where they would compete with such products as Nicorette gum and Commit lozenges sold by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Makers of quit-smoking aids must prove in clinical studies that the products are safe and effective.

    Ms. Ivey notes that Reynolds started more than a century ago as a maker of chewing tobacco—not cigarettes. "Who knows what the future holds?"

    Write to David Kesmodel at david.kesmodel@wsj.com

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj
  • spirit72
    Member
    • Apr 2008
    • 1013

    #2
    Re: Smokeless Products Are Tough Test for Reynolds

    Originally posted by MN_Snuser
    WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. -- During board meetings, Reynolds American Inc. Chief Executive Susan Ivey likes to suck on dissolvable smokeless-tobacco strips to get her nicotine fix.
    Well, to each her own I guess.

    Comment

    • f. bandersnatch
      Member
      • Mar 2010
      • 725

      #3
      I love when the FDA gets concerned that "children will be attracted to brightly colored packaging on tobacco products." What a load of shit. They wouldn't want to concern themselves with children being attracted to McDonald's because of unnecessary sugar content (in everything) and toys, or children being attracted to oreo's new surgery preservative monstrosity, aptly dubbed "fun sticks," they would rather worry about a child finding themselves inexplicably drawn to a product that (let's be honest) tastes like shit the first time you use it due to its shiny package. I guess it is conceivable that this may happen with any children that also find themselves attracted to the idea of shoving forks into light sockets (to be fair, I was one of these children), but it just should not be a primary concern. There is plenty of information being disseminated about the harm of tobacco to our children. Time to work on a new problem.

      Sorry, kind of got out of hand there. Interesting article, I enjoyed it very much, thanks for posting.

      Comment

      • snusjus
        Member
        • Jun 2008
        • 2674

        #4
        R.J. Reynolds need to focus on creating total-replacement smokeless tobacco products; this is a product that delivers enough nicotine to satisfy a smoker, thus replacing the consumer's cigarette use with a smokeless tobacco product. Dual use of different tobacco products is very uncommon, and Reynolds needs to realize this.

        Reynolds is headed in the right direction, since they have introduced larger portioned varieties of Camel Snus (Robust & Winterchill). Hopefully the company can come to senses and develop a product that could help smokers quit permanently.

        Comment

        • Whitak3r
          Member
          • Mar 2010
          • 29

          #5
          I don't see why things that deliver us nicotine have to be dangerous for our health, smoking, chew. So far, from what I have read, Snus is a GREAT alternative and 98% safer then smoking. I'm not sure how it compares to chew, but I am pretty sure It is healthier, and IMO, spitting is GROSS.

          Why can't these companies start selling products that deliver us the right amount of nicotine w/out all the harmful side effects, I mean the longer we live the more we will be buying them right? Who cares if it is addicting, right? I mean the main worry most people have is the health issues, I know that is what is making me try to make the transition from smoking to snus, although it is not 100% safe, it is still better.

          A strip that you can suck on that delivers us nicotine sounds great, but what are the side effects? Is it going to cause our gums to bleed and give us mouth cancer is a month? I'm all for other ways to get our nic fix. As long as the price is fair(I mean, 6-9 U$D a pack of smokes ... C'MON!, Yes, I know the tax is hellacious). What these companies need to do is find a VERY safe way to give us our nicotine that is still "the cool thing to do" and doesn't taste like crap. I have used gum in the past to try and quit smoking, its gross I think. The flavor is either ULTRA-Chuck-Norris-spearmintmint or Enraged-Hulk-peppermint. Makes me sick almost swallowing the flavor. I can't wear patches because they make my arm itch like CRAZY(I might be allergic, I'm not sure). Those are the only 2 alternatives I have ever tried, but they are both expensive as all hell too. Its cheaper to keep smoking. Make a safe cigarette even? I mean If I'm addicted thats cool, but why make it addicting and dangerous. Just my 2 cents

          Comment

          • CultLeaderLettuce
            Member
            • Nov 2009
            • 97

            #6
            Originally posted by f. bandersnatch
            I love when the FDA gets concerned that "children will be attracted to brightly colored packaging on tobacco products." What a load of shit. They wouldn't want to concern themselves with children being attracted to McDonald's because of unnecessary sugar content (in everything) and toys, or children being attracted to oreo's new surgery preservative monstrosity, aptly dubbed "fun sticks," they would rather worry about a child finding themselves inexplicably drawn to a product that (let's be honest) tastes like shit the first time you use it due to its shiny package. I guess it is conceivable that this may happen with any children that also find themselves attracted to the idea of shoving forks into light sockets (to be fair, I was one of these children), but it just should not be a primary concern. There is plenty of information being disseminated about the harm of tobacco to our children. Time to work on a new problem.

            Sorry, kind of got out of hand there. Interesting article, I enjoyed it very much, thanks for posting.
            I completely agree with you here. Also take note that sugary fruity wine coolers with bright shiny labels that show pictures of fruit and such aren't under this much fire, and I'd be more worried about a child trying one of these (which could even be confused with juice if you're a child and don't know any better) before they'd try a cigarette (which taste nasty and make you cough if you've never had one before).

            Alcoholism destroys more lives than tobacco use ever could, but it's funny that products that could possibly decrease harm for tobacco users are being looked upon with suspicion in the name of "what about the children," instead of a liver destroying beverage. After all, children like Drew Barrymore got started on a path to drug abuse not by tobacco, but through alcohol abuse.

            Comment

            • tom502
              Member
              • Feb 2009
              • 8985

              #7
              What would be better, a carload of 16 yr olds driving around with a can of snus, or even a pack of cigs, or a bottle of whiskey?

              Comment

              • truthwolf1
                Member
                • Oct 2008
                • 2696

                #8
                Originally posted by tom502
                What would be better, a carload of 16 yr olds driving around with a can of snus, or even a pack of cigs, or a bottle of whiskey?
                It is going to be tough when my daughter gets to that age but I would much rather have her smoke pot then use alcohol or tobacco.

                Comment

                • snusjus
                  Member
                  • Jun 2008
                  • 2674

                  #9
                  Originally posted by tom502
                  What would be better, a carload of 16 yr olds driving around with a can of snus, or even a pack of cigs, or a bottle of whiskey?
                  Or a carload of 16 year olds with a case of Red Bull? Now that stuff is addictive. I guess caffeine is considered a socially acceptable drug.

                  Comment

                  • BadAxe
                    Member
                    • Jan 2010
                    • 631

                    #10
                    I am so sick of the "children" scapegoat. That is all they have to say to be able to do whatever the hell they want, whether it be raise prices, ban products, whatever. Never a thought to the addicted adults that have an absolute right to it, no, all they have to say is "Its for the children" and they get support from the majority and are free to do whatever they want. Its such a crock of shit.

                    Its not the FDA's or the gov't's job to protect our children. When will parents be given back the responsibility of raising their children? Why must everyone think its their job to raise our children?

                    I have a 20 year old son. I smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for over 20 years. I smoke pot every day of my life, and was honest about it with him (No, I did not smoke in front of him, but he knew I smoked it). But I did my job as a parent, and instilled morals and virtues in my son. Had many conversations with him, about drugs, tobacco, and about life.

                    He became an athlete and chose what was important to him. He has never had a cigarette, or a hit off of a joint. He has no interest in it. Not bragging, just using it as an example.

                    Parents need to step up, and be parents, and let the gov't know that it is no one's job but OUR OWN to raise our children and to STOP using them as scapegoats for all of their crooked underhanded scheming.

                    Comment

                    • deebocools
                      Member
                      • Nov 2008
                      • 661

                      #11
                      Since kids are so attracted to bright colors and easy-to-hide sizes, all tobacco products should be sold in one of these:



                      I think 4x4 feet would be pretty hard to conceal, right? We could fill the space around the camel snus with cinderblocks too, so Kids couldn't lift it. Would that appease the anti-tobacco zealots?

                      Also, please don't scapegoat my beloved alcohol, or even unhealthy food, in an attempt to defend tobacco. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book and demonstrably doesn't work. "Well, unhealthy food causes at least as much damage as using tobacco, and probably more". Yeah, you're totally right. Which is why states have enacted recent laws banning trans fat, toys in happy meals, and instituted special taxes on soda. The health care bill will eventually institute nutrition facts at drive-thrus. Does that make you happy? I say we don't Give these anti-freedom people any more ideas!

                      P.S. wasn't addressing anyone in particular, I've just heard these arguments alot(even from my dad, a smoker) in my life.

                      Comment

                      • danielan
                        Member
                        • Apr 2010
                        • 1514

                        #12
                        Originally posted by MN_Snuser View Post
                        FDA is concerned that adolescents may be drawn to the products' ... "easily concealable size."
                        Maybe add little bicycle flags to them to make them easier to see? RFID tags?

                        I totally need to work in product development.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X