The New York Times Takes on Camel SNUS (and I was there)
September 21, 2009

The New York Times Takes on Camel SNUS (and I was there)

Andrew Adam NewmanToday, Andrew Adam Newman, an Advertising/Marketing columnist for the New York Times, published an article, A Different Camel is Back in the Glossies .

What is remarkable is that the New York Times, well known for editorializing Big Tobacco to the cleaners on a regular basis,  has painted a fair and balanced look at whether or not cigarette branded snus products in the US are meant as reduced-harm products or complementary products to cigarettes.

 

The New York Times Article on Camel SNUS, cigarettes, and FDAThe Legendary Rupini Bergström of Swedish Match ABWhat is also remarkable is that I was interviewed by Mr. Newman along with some bigger names in the debate, and that I get the last word.  I have to thank my former Gallaher colleague Ms. Rupini Bergstrom, who was a point person on the piece, and is now in Press Relations for Swedish Match in Stockholm, for recommending me as an independent voice.  I did mention SnusCENTRAL numerous times, but, alas, it didn’t make the cut. [Editors Note:  Should never have spilled my drink on Andrew Adam Newman at the last Pulitzer Award dinner.  It was not intentional.  LW]

Newman regularly reports on trends in consumer goods and how they are marketed, and his column is an unusual place in the Times for serious discussion of a contentious issue related to tobacco.  Interesting issues: Are there two different types of addiction from complementary use?  And is snus as a way to promote identically branded smokes and avoid the new black and white cigarette press and point-of-sale ads required next year by the FDA?  In my opinion, the former is worth a look, while the latter is paranoid blather.

One thing Mr. Newman asked me was “am I outraged” that cigarette companies would try to sell snus as a complementary product to cigarettes?  My answer was “No.  I totally understand it.  These guys are in the business of making money, and they produce a legal product called cigarettes.  Cigarettes are bad, and it’s worse for public health if snus is sold alongside cigarettes than as a reduced harm alternative.  But in an environment which is becoming increasingly more restrictive, smokers are smoking less.  Better to keep ’em smoking and replace the lost sticks with snus than with lost revenue  And I understand the mindset.”

 

ANDREW ROMEO
Live from New York on SnusCENTRAL.org

Founding Member SnusCentral.ort

Previous First Review: Lab Series Snus by Swedish Match
Next SC.com Related Sites Code
Tags andrew adam newmanAndrew Romeocamel snusfda cigarettesNew York Timesnytrupini bergstromsmabsnussnus centralsnuscentralswedish matchthe new york timestobacco advertising
Category Andrew Romeo – An Insider’s Perspective

About author

mirgeSnuspower
mirgeSnuspower 54 posts

View all posts by this author →

You might also like

Philip Morris Says Snus will not Help Smokers Quit
Andrew Romeo – An Insider’s Perspective

Philip Morris Says Snus will not Help Smokers Quit

Here is a great example of how Big Tobacco loves the Press.  Though this one was a bit obvious, keen observers should begin watching for more articles like this.  It’s

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS – A Look Inside Taboca AS
Andrew Romeo – An Insider’s Perspective

THE ROAD TO HELL IS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS – A Look Inside Taboca AS

Rumors, articles and independently confirmed facts underline the reality that Taboca AS, based in Oslo, Norway, and with production in Sweden on Gotland, has gone through a management overhaul. I

Is Big Tobacco Selling Harm Reduction?
Andrew Romeo – An Insider’s Perspective

Is Big Tobacco Selling Harm Reduction?

No and Yes. One thing must remain clear.  Big Tobacco wants its legal consumers to smoke as many cigarettes as possible.  The bulk of their marketing, where it is allowed