Why Have So Few Smokers Transitioned to Reduced Risk Products?

The Paradox of Progress

It’s been over a decade since the new generation of tobacco and nicotine Reduced Risk Products (RRPs) hit the market as part of a rethought ‘harm reduction’ approach. These include everything from sleek tobacco heating products (THPs) like IQOS and Glo, to the myriad of e-vapour devices (vapes) offered by the likes of Vuse and Juul, and the modern oral nicotine formats (pouches) from brands that include Zyn and Nordic Spirit. And yet, despite being billed as the answer to the ‘smoking problem’, global adoption is disappointingly low.

PMI proudly states they’ve converted over 30 million smokers to IQOS, and that is a very significant achievement, but in the grand scheme, that’s approximately 0.25% of the global smoking population of 1.2 billion. Even if you look at key developed markets like Italy and Japan, where IQOS is dominant, it’s still less than 15%* of smokers, on average. And it’s a similar story for vaping and nicotine pouches. 

*It’s difficult to provide accurate figures because manufacturers’ estimates and those provided by independent research differ significantly. Moreover, it’s clear from both sources that the majority of IQOS users still smoke (‘dual use’). Consequently, we are using an average from both for smokers who only use IQOS (‘solus use’).

Why This Question Matters Right Now

Whilst Big Tobacco companies say they are happy with the progress they have made so far towards a future beyond combustible tobacco products, other stakeholders aren’t so convinced.  Regulation is tightening in every RRP category and there are increasing moves towards new forms of prohibition. Disposable vapes are getting banned in the UK and some European countries appear likely to follow. Public health watchdogs and regulators are taking aim at youth access, ‘child-friendly’ flavours, and even the sustainability of devices around batteries and recyclability of consumables. Investors are beginning to ask harder questions about long-term profitability in a world that’s slowly but surely closing down more and more RRP options on the basis that they’re just too risky.

This isn’t just a theoretical challenge – it’s a business imperative.

The Elephant in the Smoking Room

So, what’s really stopping most smokers from making the switch?

It comes down to a simple truth: these RRP products are not what smokers really want. Smokers have been clear for a long time that they want a safe (or at least much safer) cigarette. That hasn’t changed much in the past 3 decades, (except for the more recent request that it’d also be good if the secondhand smoke didn’t bother other people).

But why don’t THPs and vapes provide the desired ‘safer cigarette’ experience? Let’s start with the ‘taste’. Not satisfying – especially when benchmarked against that first cigarette of the day with a cup of coffee. And smokers aren’t just looking for a nicotine fix. They’re after a much more holistic experience, but one that is also convenient and flexible enough to fit the needs and the environments in which each smoking ‘moment’ takes place. This is where device-centric THPs and vapes fall flat for anyone except a minority of smokers.

Devices need to be turned-on, programmed and activated with screens and buttons. And they also need to be charged, maintained and cleaned. It’s tech, not tobacco. And devices don’t easily lend themselves to the creation of satisfying rituals. Think about all the behaviours around unwrapping a fresh pack of cigarettes, peeling back the foil, lighting-up, the satisfaction that comes from the familiar taste, the throat hit, the sensation as the nicotine is absorbed into the body, the slow, measured burning-down of the stick, the final, decisive stubbing-out. These interactions and cues are what define each moment. And the moments matter – they define the rhythm of the smoker’s day.

One of the other important (though largely underappreciated) differences between THP or vape products and cigarettes is the commitment. Smokers might be loyal to brands, but they could always say that they were no more invested in the category than their last purchase of a pack of 20. This is arguably one of the defining characteristics of a FMCG product. THP and vape products, on the other hand, typically require consumers to invest in a system that locks them into a limited range of product options and reinforces the idea that the RRP user is now committed.  It’s one of the key reasons disposable vapes and nicotine pouches are so appealing.

Socially, smoking may be stigmatised, but RRPs haven’t managed to win over the court of public opinion either. If anything, vapes have generated their own controversies concerning youth uptake or the misinformation around the health risks of e-liquids (and nicotine pouches are increasingly being singled out for similar reasons). Regulators are lumping everything together under one dark cloud. Even well-intentioned alternatives that aren’t appealing to underage consumers or irresponsibly marketed are being treated as the same.

Basically, each type of RRP offers a different trade-off in terms of satisfaction, usability, and social acceptability. But most smokers don’t want a new experience. They want the old one, just safer (and ideally more considerate).

The China Question

So how did an industry with huge resources, world-class capabilities and decades of insight into what consumers wanted get caught out?

Perhaps Big Tobacco got distracted. Combustible innovation had long been incremental. Product development cycles grew longer and more risk averse. Meanwhile, disruptive innovation came without much warning from outside the industry and tobacco firms, more accustomed to the slow grind of regulatory sparring, found themselves scrambling to catch up with more agile Chinese competitors who didn’t play by the rules.

And when they did react, Big Tobacco focused on reinventing the product but also quickly moved away from trying to better replicate the smoking experience in favour of matching what the upstart vape manufacturers were doing. More recently, it has focused on volume over value – switching to buying off-the-shelf solutions versus the unpredictability of trying to create new products from scratch. Instead of reimagining how to replicate or improve on the smoker’s experience, it opted for me-too and copy-paste.

Focus on the Experience.

So what can be done?

Start by remembering what smokers want: a simple, convenient, low-commitment product (remember the FMCG point) that feels familiar but doesn’t harm them or others. That means designing for ritual. For anticipation. For satisfaction (oh, and it probably shouldn’t involve an electronic device…). The first use should be intuitive, not intimidating. And whilst many RRP users like the new world of non-tobacco flavours, the remaining majority of smokers still crave something that better replicates the overall sensorial experience of the thing they want to stop using. Look to the alcohol and coffee industries. People don’t just drink – they seek-out meaningful, real experiences. These categories build consumption around peak moments. Big Tobacco can do the same, if it stops chasing gadgets and starts seeking human connection built around much simpler products.

Break Free from the Tech Trap

The race to create device-centric THP and vape systems has had the unintended consequence of handing the advantage to Chinese contract manufacturers. When your key suppliers control what you offer your consumers, innovation is going to suffer. The focus on hardware has also created an IP arms race. One reason PMI dominates THP (apart from the billions it invested in building its IQOS brand), was its successful ring-fencing of key IP around more efficient THP heating technology. That leaves its competitors boxed out.

But that doesn’t mean they should throw in the towel. We believe new technologies and innovation can still unlock new, potentially more competitive market positions – if it’s aimed in the right direction.

Rather than chasing better hardware, focus on better, more convenient experiences. More engaging rituals. Products that resonate emotionally, not just functionally. Understand the nuance, the feel, the moment.

The Clock Is Ticking

Time is running out. Regulation is clamping down. Consumers are having doubts. And investors are asking for more than good intentions.

There’s still a window to make RRPs what they were always supposed to be: viable, scalable, appealing alternatives to smoking. But only if the industry rethinks and shifts gears.

The question isn’t whether RRPs can work. It’s whether Big Tobacco companies will come round to an approach that should be less about ‘safer tech’ and more about FMCG fundamentals.