E-cigarettes should be marketed as a tobacco deterrent, not the skinny jeans of the inhalation industry

Lorillard's "Blu" e-cigarettes are being sold as the latest vogue nicotine product, when really they should be presented as an attractive way of cutting down.

Jenny’s love life is in tatters. “You know, I love being single”, confesses the talk-show host, but her smoker-induced “ashtray breath” keeps all the men at bay. After all, it’s hard balancing the roles of busy smoker and eligible woman seeking love. But luckily for Jenny, she’s found “a smarter alternative”, blu e-cigs, cigarettes that make her “feel better” about herself.

It’s an advert strangely reminiscent of Lucky Strike’s “Smoke a LUCKY to feel your LEVEL best!” campaign – except 60 years have elapsed in the process. And why not? It may have been half a century since “Big Tobacco” graced our small screens, but the driving force behind blu is the same that rolls out top US cigarette brands such as Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold.

Playboy model-cum-ABC host, Jenny McCarthy, has been snapped up as the face of blu, an attempt to actively market e-cigarettes as more than just nicotine replacement therapy. But a move towards glamorising vapourisers doesn’t just give Jenny a new job; it implicitly advertises the parent product of the device - tobacco cigarettes. Advertising needs to focus on e-cigarettes as a nicotine surrogate, not as an en vogue product in its own right. Without this, our saviours from tobacco will soon be the tobacco giants themselves, and after decades of lying dormant, Marlboro Man will don his cowboy hat under the new guise of vaping. Only this time, he’ll be waiting in the wings.

Re-watching the blu webisode triggers certain questions about why tobacco companies want to promote the alternative in the first place. Surely to stop smokers, well, smoking is the last thing a tobacco company wants to do? On the surface, Jenny’s outburst of “that’s why I love e-cigs!” refers to the cigarette deterrent as just that, a deterrent. But then it doesn’t. Jenny’s confession that the e-cig is satisfying without any of the nasty side effects of smoking – no more “stink eye” – glorifies blu as a stand-alone product.

This is where Big Tobacco companies tend to differ with their non-flammable counterparts. In January, a British company without tobacco ties – E-Lites – debuted their first TV commercial, affectionately dubbed “Gangnam Style Baby”. There is an important distinction to be made here.

E-lites is targeting an older clientele of seasoned smokers; middle-aged star Mark Benton is not selling an e-cig lifestyle, but a more convenient device for smoking. The same cannot be said of blu, framed as the perfect companion to a glass of white wine and that “special someone”.

Any Big Tobacco company knows the need to hook smokers early on, the firms recruiting more than 2/3 of smokers under 18. Apparently it’s a target not confined to burnables. Lorillard – blu’s tobacco company – is recruiting young people into the vapesphere by using both Jenny, the flirty, youthful face of the brand and by selling a compendium of flavours. E-Lites restricts its consumer base to three flavours – extra strength, light strength and menthol – the choice of e-juice reflecting that of conventional cigarettes. E-cigs like blu, however, boast 14 flavours including the fruity stylings of coconut, cherry and peach. Even if Lorillard insists its target audience is over 18, the sweet flavours certainly make blu a far more attractive option to youngsters than E-Lites.

In a September study conducted by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, figures show the number of US middle and high school students using e-cigs has doubled between 2011 and 2012 to 1.7 million. The trend offers no sign of slowing down. Although these vapourisers don’t contain tobacco, what they do achieve is to foster an item linked to the tobacco smoking culture. The electronic devices mimic the behaviour of burnable cigarettes, tutoring young people how to successfully inhale without choking – one of the major turnoffs for the virgin smoker. Like Lucky Strike’s 1949 advert, replica smoking is made to look sexy. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to apply this appeal to the original product.

Campaigns for the latest nicotine fix don’t come cheap. Lorillard spent $135 million for the blu brand back in April 2012, the firm owning the top share of the US e-cig market with 37.2 per cent. In the UK, £60 million has already been spent on smoking deterrent products such as e-cigarettes, nicotine patches and nicotine gum since 2009. Within the next year, the arrival of firms with deeper pockets like British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International and Imperial Tobacco into the British e-cigarette market could well produce a new Jenny for our primetime TV.

Vaping isn’t the problem. I’m all for smokers finding respite from tobacco-tinged lungs. Advertising isn’t the problem, either. Rather it’s the kind of advertising that needs addressing. The Jennies of the world are the problem. The way in which e-cigarettes can be dressed up in flavours and doted on by the young and beautiful – that’s the problem. Advertising needs to focus on e-cigarettes as a tobacco deterrent, and not as the skinny jeans of the inhalation industry. Did I mention how much Jenny loves blu?

Big Tobacco’s motives for entering the e-cig market are questionable at best. The worst outcome for companies salivating at this new business prospect is for e-cigarettes to replace flammables as the new way to get the nicotine fix. But at best, they become training wheels for the next generation of tobacco smokers.

For blu, it’s win-win.

Gabrielle Ortiz smokes an electronic cigarette at Vape New York. Image: Getty Images.
The Science & Society Picture Library
Show Hide image

This Ada Lovelace Day, let’s celebrate women in tech while confronting its sexist culture

In an industry where men hold most of the jobs and write most of the code, celebrating women's contributions on one day a year isn't enough. 

Ada Lovelace wrote the world’s first computer program. In the 1840s Charles Babbage, now known as the “father of the computer”, designed (though never built) the “Analytical Engine”, a machine which could accurately and reproducibly calculate the answers to maths problems. While translating an article by an Italian mathematician about the machine, Lovelace included a written algorithm for which would allow the engine to calculate a sequence of Bernoulli numbers.

Around 170 years later, Whitney Wolfe, one of the founders of dating app Tinder, was allegedly forced to resign from the company. According to a lawsuit she later filed against the app and its parent company, she had her co-founder title removed because, the male founders argued, it would look “slutty”, and because “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders. It just makes it look like Tinder was some accident". (They settled out of court.)

Today, 13 October, is Ada Lovelace day – an international celebration of inspirational women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). It’s lucky we have this day of remembrance, because, as Wolfe’s story demonstrates, we also spend a lot of time forgetting and sidelining women in tech. In the wash of pale male founders of the tech giants that rule the industry,we don't often think about the women that shaped its foundations: Judith Estrin, one of the designers of TCP/IP, for example, or Radia Perlman, inventor of the spanning-tree protocol. Both inventions sound complicated, and they are – they’re some of the vital building blocks that allow the internet to function. 

And yet David Streitfield, a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, someow felt it accurate to write in 2012: “Men invented the internet. And not just any men. Men with pocket protectors. Men who idolised Mr Spock and cried when Steve Jobs died.”

Perhaps we forget about tech's founding women because the needle has swung so far into the other direction. A huge proportion – perhaps even 90 per cent - of the world’s code is written by men. At Google, women fill 17 per cent of technical roles. At Facebook, 15 per cent. Over 90 per cent of the code respositories on Github, an online service used throughout the industry, are owned by men. Yet it's also hard to believe that this erasure of women's role in tech is completely accidental. As Elissa Shevinsky writes in the introduction to a collection of essays on gender in tech, Lean Out: “This myth of the nerdy male founder has been perpetuated by men who found this story favourable."

Does it matter? It’s hard to believe that it doesn’t. Our society is increasingly defined and delineated by code and the things it builds. Small slip-ups, like the lack of a period tracker on the original Apple Watch, or fitness trackers too big for some women’s wrists, gesture to the fact that these technologies are built by male-dominated teams, for a male audience.

In Lean Out, one essay written by a Twitter-based “start-up dinosaur” (don’t ask) explains how dangerous it is to allow one small segment of society to built the future for the rest of us:

If you let someone else build tomorrow, tomorrow will belong to someone else. They will build a better tomorrow for everyone like them… For tomorrow to be for everyone, everyone needs to be the one [sic] that build it.

So where did all the women go? How did we get from a rash of female inventors to a situation where the major female presence at an Apple iPhone launch is a model’s face projected onto a screen and photoshopped into a smile by a male demonstrator? 

Photo: Apple.

The toxic culture of many tech workplaces could be a cause or an effect of the lack of women in the industry, but it certainly can’t make make it easy to stay. Behaviours range from the ignorant - Martha Lane-Fox, founder of, often asked “what happens if you get pregnant?” at investors' meetings - to the much more sinister. An essay in Lean Out by Katy Levinson details her experiences of sexual harassment while working in tech: 

I have had interviewers attempt to solicit sexual favors from me mid-interview and discuss in significant detail precisely what they would like to do. All of these things have happened either in Silicon Valley working in tech, in an educational institution to get me there, or in a technical internship.

Others featured in the book joined in with the low-level sexism and racism  of their male colleagues in order to "fit in" and deflect negative attention. Erica Joy writes that while working in IT at the University of Alaska as the only woman (and only black person) on her team, she laughed at colleagues' "terribly racist and sexist jokes" and "co-opted their negative attitudes”. 

The casual culture and allegedly meritocratic hierarchies of tech companies may actually be encouraging this discriminatory atmosphere. HR and the strict reporting procedures of large corporates at least give those suffering from discrimination a place to go. A casual office environment can discourage reporting or calling out prejudiced humour or remarks. Brook Shelley, a woman who transitioned while working in tech, notes: "No one wants to be the office mother". So instead, you join in and hope for the best. 

And, of course, there's no reason why people working in tech would have fewer issues with discrimination than those in other industries. A childhood spent as a "nerd" can also spawn its own brand of misogyny - Katherine Cross writes in Lean Out that “to many of these men [working in these fields] is all too easy to subconciously confound women who say ‘this is sexist’ with the young girls who said… ‘You’re gross and a creep and I’ll never date you'". During GamerGate, Anita Sarkeesian was often called a "prom queen" by trolls. 

When I spoke to Alexa Clay, entrepreneur and co-author of the Misfit Economy, she confirmed that there's a strange, low-lurking sexism in the start-up economy: “They have all very open and free, but underneath it there's still something really patriarchal.” Start-ups, after all, are a culture which celebrates risk-taking, something which women are societally discouraged from doing. As Clay says, 

“Men are allowed to fail in tech. You have these young guys who these old guys adopt and mentor. If his app doesn’t work, the mentor just shrugs it off. I would not be able ot get away with that, and I think women and minorities aren't allowed to take the same amount of risks, particularly in these communities. If you fail, no one's saying that's fine.

The conclusion of Lean Out, and of women in tech I have spoken to, isn’t that more women, over time, will enter these industries and seamlessly integrate – it’s that tech culture needs to change, or its lack of diversity will become even more severe. Shevinsky writes:

The reason why we don't have more women in tech is not because of a lack of STEM education. It's because too many high profile and influential individuals and subcultures within the tech industry have ignored or outright mistreated women applicants and employees. To be succinct—the problem isn't women, it's tech culture.

Software engineer Kate Heddleston has a wonderful and chilling metaphor about the way we treat women in STEM. Women are, she writes, the “canary in the coal mine”. If one dies, surely you should take that as a sign that the mine is uninhabitable – that there’s something toxic in the air. “Instead, the industry is looking at the canary, wondering why it can’t breathe, saying ‘Lean in, canary, lean in!’. When one canary dies they get a new one because getting more canaries is how you fix the lack of canaries, right? Except the problem is that there isn't enough oxygen in the coal mine, not that there are too few canaries.” We need more women in STEM, and, I’d argue, in tech in particular, but we need to make sure the air is breatheable first. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.