Why so few smokers have transitioned to Reduced Risk Products (and what the industry can do about it)

January 20th 2026

Ben Illidge

Head of THR

Simon Rucker

This article summarises our recent analysis of why so few smokers have transitioned to reduced-risk products (RRPs). More importantly, it moves beyond diagnosis to set out a clear strategic roadmap for what must now change if RRPs are to become a credible alternative rather than a solution that has yet to live up to expectations.

Where Are We Today?

Market Reality

Despite over a decade of innovation and major investment, global RRP (heated tobacco, vapes, and nicotine pouches) adoption remains low (c. 2.5% of 1.3B smokers). Most smokers continue to favor cigarettes.
Even in mature markets (e.g., Japan, Italy), sole use of RRPs rarely exceeds 15% – well below expectations. Dual-use (RRP + combustible) dominates, further diluting harm-reduction objectives.
Governments are increasingly sceptical of RRPs due to youth uptake concerns. Disposable vapes face bans; nicotine pouches and e-liquids are under intense scrutiny.
Despite resilient industry share prices, investors are increasingly demanding proof of value and scalability for RRPs, not just good intentions.
Cigarettes offer clear barriers to entry (brands, supply chains, regulation). RRPs lack comparable moats, leaving Big Tobacco exposed to nimble competitors and margin erosion.

Root Problem

There remains a fundamental misunderstanding of smoker psychology: RRPs aim to reduce harm, but fail to replicate the emotional, sensory, and ritualistic satisfaction of smoking and its convenience.
Most smokers don’t want a new product – they want their existing experience made safer (and more socially acceptable).
Device-centric solutions miss the emotional core of smoking, disrupt familiar rituals, and add friction via charging, cleaning, and unintuitive tech interfaces.
More recently, innovation has focused on fixing RRP friction rather than delivering a superior smoking alternative.

Systemic Missteps

Device-centric innovation ceded control to Chinese OEMs and fractured the consumer understanding of inhalable categories (heated tobacco, vapes).
An IP arms race between Big Tobacco players limited consumer choice and reduced overall appeal of RRPs.
Industry underestimated the impact illicit products and poorly enforced trading standards would have on regulatory sentiment.

So, What Can The Industry Do About It?

The first order of business is to develop a new ‘Strategic Roadmap’.

Big Tobacco needs to reclaim RRP product leadership by returning to what the industry knows best: FMCG agility, consumer insight, and emotionally resonant brands.

Firstly this means thinking less like Samsung and more like Starbucks: going back to focusing on creating emotionally satisfying alternatives in key smoking ‘moments’, not one-size-fits-all functionally safer gadgets.

Secondly this means remembering that smokers crave familiarity in terms of ‘taste’, satisfying nicotine delivery, hand-to-mouth gestures, and ritual. Big Tobacco should concentrate on replicating ‘the cigarette experience’, not reinventing it.

Thirdly, Big Tobacco needs to grasp the nettle and decide whether it’s going to leverage the trust and value of established tobacco brands to make RRPs more relevant or try and create new brands from scratch that are unlikely to have any meaning to smokers.

The next thing Big Tobacco should do is get very clear on the key technical & development JTBDs.

The first is that to innovate a superior inhalable product that delivers FMC-like nicotine, ‘taste’, and delivery profile, new technologies are required that overcome the fundamental issues of heated product physics (thermodynamics / thermokinetics) and heater control. This can be done.

The second is how to make suitable consumables at the scale, speed, and cost required – ideally with enhanced ESG. Again, this is not rocket science.

The third is to work out how to deliver the whole experience in a product that is familiar and reassuring to smokers. This means designing intuitive, non-device-centric RRPs that fit seamlessly into a smoker’s life, mimic the rituals they value, and offer meaningful, low-friction, FMCG-like accessibility.

This is not just about traditional ‘look and feel’ considerations but also, crucially, which additional design elements (product semiotics and brand cues) are required to deliver a truly appealing consumer offer that can serve as a genuine alternative to cigarettes.

To achieve a step change in the rate and overall number of smokers transitioning to RRPs requires truly disruptive ideas that are also brilliantly executed and presented.

And Finally

Big Tobacco needs to get on with it! The window to regain RRP leadership is closing. Big Tobacco is losing the RRP argument with regulators. Additionally, Chinese OEMs are poised to take over. For industry examples outside tobacco, look at Green Technology, BEVs, Rare Earths, and AI.

In the increasingly fast-moving RRP categories sector, hesitation is a liability. If you are a senior leader serious about maintaining or regaining your competitive edge and avoiding costly regulatory missteps, you must act quickly.

Let’s schedule a high-priority discussion to ensure your next move is your best move.

Receive further news from our THR team at CDP

Connect with CDP

For more on how to accelerate meaningful innovation in tobacco harm reduction, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

Get In Touch

Heated Tobacco: A Lukewarm Success Story

September 22nd 2025

Ben Illidge

Head of THR

Simon Rucker

The Wrong Brief

After more than a decade of heated tobacco product (HTP) innovation, a hard truth remains: the industry still hasn’t created a product that most smokers want to switch to. While the latest systems are technically impressive, they fail to address the most fundamental need of adult smokers: a safer product that replicates the experience of the one they’re used to.

Despite billions in investment and notable successes such as IQOS, adoption remains limited. Why? Because the tobacco industry is solving for compliance, not experience. It’s focused on technology and regulation, while largely ignoring the sensorial, emotional, and habitual drivers behind smoking. The result: over-engineered products that don’t deliver the simplicity, satisfaction, or ritual that smokers still crave.

A History of Missed Opportunities

Heated tobacco products have evolved significantly from early products like RJ Reynolds’ Premier and Eclipse in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which failed due to a number of issues, including poor sensorial delivery. PMI’s later device-based products, Accord and Heatbar, were technological advances but still fell short on user experience.

The real commercial breakthrough came with IQOS around 2015. PMI reports approximately 34 million global users¹ as of mid-2025, with around 10 million in Japan, where HTPs are now used by nearly 48% of smokers. South Korea has also seen substantial uptake, growing from 2.2% in 2017 to 18.4% in 2024². Meanwhile, the UK market remains smaller and less transparent, and in the US, IQOS only recently resumed rollout, targeting a 10% market share by 2030. But let’s not forget, in the grand scheme, that 34 million is only approximately 2.5% of the global smoking population of 1.2 billion.

Moreover, most IQOS users remain dual users. A 2025 feature by BBC Future highlighted the challenge³. even among those who adopt HTPs, many continue to smoke. So, although HTPs are indeed commercially successful in some regions, the category is still far from delivering on its full public health promise.

Designing for Smokers, Not Regulation

Ask smokers what they want, and they’ll say the same thing they’ve said for 40 years: ‘a safe cigarette’. Not a vape. Not a gadget. Not a complicated ecosystem. They want familiarity, not friction.

Every deviation from that, every step that adds complexity or reduces satisfaction, creates a barrier to switching. And while regulators may reward harm reduction, smokers care only about the experience. Until the industry designs for that, it will continue to miss the mark.

“Smokers don’t want devices. They want a safer cigarette.”

Simon Rucker | Deputy Head of THR at Cambridge Design Partnership

The Real Challenge is Physics

In a nutshell, the issue is simply that all current HTP systems heat too much tobacco at once. Solving this requires a rethink of thermodynamics: how we heat small portions of tobacco sequentially, to mirror the way a cigarette behaves.

However, this isn’t just an engineering challenge around miniaturization and precision. It’s also a product design challenge that demands a radically simpler user experience.

Innovation Alone Won’t Fix It

We’re often asked why newer technologies like induction, infrared, or nanomaterials aren’t the answer. They do offer advantages – cleaner heating, faster startup times, and reduced maintenance – but they fail to address the core issue: these systems still heat all the tobacco at once⁴ and, as a result, the user experience still suffers from the same inconsistent delivery⁵ that ultimately disappoints smokers.

Without a shift in how the product works at its core, we’re just making sleeker versions of the same flawed idea. True innovation means rethinking the entire experience – not just refining the tech.

Manufacturing at Scale Without Sacrifice

A redesign can’t be just technically elegant. It needs to be manufacturable at cigarette scale of 20,000+ sticks per minute and cost-competitive with existing products. It must avoid materials that create ESG risk (like metal strips or embedded electronics) and minimize complexity across the supply chain.

Right now, many device-dependent systems rely on Chinese OEMs for production. That introduces cost, IP dependency, and geopolitical fragility. A next-gen solution should be simple, scalable, and ideally, device-free.

Sustainability That Doesn’t Compromise Experience

Most smokers don’t care deeply about sustainability. But regulators, governments, and public sentiment do. So, the next generation of HTP needs to build ESG principles into the core of the product without asking users to compromise.

That means no hard-to-recycle materials, minimal electronics, and biodegradability wherever possible. It’s possible to design a satisfying, cigarette-like experience that doesn’t create new environmental liabilities. But it requires going back to the fundamentals.

Conclusion: It’s Time to Start Again

The truth is simple. Smokers don’t want devices. They want a safer cigarette. Heated tobacco products, as they exist today, don’t deliver that. But they could.

With the right brief, the right team, and a fresh look at the physics, we can build something that finally makes switching make sense.

But Can One Company Solve it Alone?

Here’s the hard truth: this isn’t a challenge that one organization can fix in isolation. Developing a next-generation HTP product that delivers a consistent, satisfying, and cigarette-like experience while also being scalable, sustainable, and compliant demands a level of investment, cooperation, and shared standards that the industry isn’t used to. The future of heated tobacco won’t be built by one player. It will be shaped by shared platforms, harmonized standards, and industry-wide collaboration, much like the models already proven in the EV and pharma markets. It will be shaped by those who are bold enough to work together.

“Without a shift in how the product works at its core, we’re iterating, not innovating. Competitive advantage can be found in fundamentally new HTP propositions.”

Ben Illidge | Head of THR at Cambridge Design Partnership

Receive further news from our THR team at CDP

References

Marking the 10-year anniversary of PMI’s HTP development efforts): “Philip Morris International (PMI), 2024. Celebrating 10 years of smoke-free progress. [online] Available at: https://www.pmi.com/our-progress/celebrating-10-years-of-smoke-free-progress [Accessed 3 Sept. 2025].
IMARC Group, 2025. Heated Tobacco Products Market Report by Product (Stick, Leaf), Category (Regular, Flavored), Distribution Channel (Online, Offline), and Region 2025-2033. [online] Available at: https://www.imarcgroup.com/heated-tobacco-products-market [Accessed 21 Aug. 2025].
BBC Future, 2025. Are heated tobacco products a new health risk? [online] Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20250501-the-truth-about-heated-tobacco [Accessed 3 Sept. 2025].
Farsalinos, K.E., Yannovits, N., Sarri, T. and Voudris, V., 2018. Nicotine Delivery to the Aerosol of a Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Product: Comparison with a Tobacco Cigarette and E-Cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 20(8), pp.1004–1009. [online] Available at: https://academic.oup.com/ntr/article-abstract/20/8/1004/3868870 [Accessed 3 Sept. 2025].
Truth Initiative, 2024. Quitting Tobacco: Facts and Stats. [online] Available at: https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/quitting-smoking-vaping/quitting-tobacco-facts-and-stats [Accessed 3 Sept. 2025].

Connect with CDP

For more on how to accelerate meaningful innovation in next-generation heated tobacco products, from user experience to scalable design, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH

The Disposable Vapes Ban: Harming Harm Reduction

July 17th 2025

Ben Illidge

Head of THR

Simon Rucker

In a move that signals a profound misunderstanding of harm reduction, the UK government’s ban on disposable vapes is not just a regulatory misstep, it’s a counterproductive strategic error. While positioned as a public health initiative, the legislation instead threatens to dismantle one of the most effective transitional tools away from smoking. Rather than advancing tobacco harm reduction, governments are ceding ground to prohibitionist ideologies at the cost of public health innovation and consumer choice.

Receive further news from our THR team

A Brief History: The Rise of Vaping

The modern vaping industry traces its roots to the early 2000s, when Chinese chemist Hon Lik developed an electronic nicotine delivery system to help people quit smoking, a mission motivated by the loss of his father to smoking-related illness. Though primitive by today’s standards, his device marked the beginning of a new wave of innovation in reduced-risk products (RRPs).

Adoption was initially driven by smokers seeking refuge from rising taxes, public smoking bans, social stigmatization, and of course the desire to find a healthier alternative – or simply quit for good. Ironically, the first truly popular e-cigarettes, as they were known back then, were disposables: ersatz plastic ‘cigarettes’ that activated when the user puffed on it and required no maintenance, refilling, or charging. This convenience echoed the experience of smoking and fueled the initial uptake among smokers. They were, however, limited by the basic ‘e-liquid’ formulations and battery technology available at the time, so struggled to deliver the desired levels of nicotine or an authentic tobacco flavor for most smokers. As a result, they were superseded by larger devices with bigger, more powerful batteries, which were too expensive to dispose of once the e-liquid was exhausted and so quickly became the refillable and rechargeable ‘pens’ and ‘box-mods’ that are still a familiar sight today.

The Appeal and Audience for Disposables

The modern incarnations of disposable vapes, like Lost Mary and Elf Bar, were not born out of marketing strategy but rather a confluence of regulatory gaps, manufacturing overcapacity, and evolving consumer behaviors. Their rapid proliferation was enabled by Chinese suppliers facing bans in their domestic market and exporting surplus inventory westward.

Crucially, modern disposables hit a consumer sweet spot: convenience, satisfaction, and affordability. These traits offered a delivery model closer to cigarettes than refillable / rechargeable vape kits, making them particularly compelling for smokers who found previous vaping products too cumbersome or confusing. Those same traits were also appealing to younger consumers, many of whom had never smoked, but who were nevertheless looking for a product that largely did what cigarettes had done for earlier generations: provide a tool for better navigating and enjoying social situations and interactions. So, while modern disposables’ popularity among youth generated valid concerns, these devices also provided adult smokers with the most viable alternative to combustible cigarettes seen so far. According to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), 2.7 million adults in the UK were using vapes as of 2023, with disposable usage among adult smokers seeing the most significant rise.

INSIGHTS

Why Have So Few Smokers Transitioned to Reduced Risk Products?

LEARN MORE

The Evolution of Regulation

Initially, vaping occupied a grey zone, neither classified as a medical product nor strictly a tobacco one. Over time, the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) introduced structure, capping nicotine concentration, e-liquid volumes and mandating consistent puff delivery and safety standards. These regulations guided the development of pod-based systems favored by large tobacco companies. And more recently EU battery regulations discouraged the idea of non-recyclable / non-rechargeable vape devices.

Modern disposables, however, ignored many of these rules and proliferated largely under the radar. While technically illegal, lax enforcement meant they were widely available and embraced by consumers.

This regulatory blind spot should have been a call to refine oversight, not to eliminate an entire product category.

How Disposable Vapes Got on the Ban Agenda

The campaign to ban disposables wasn’t driven solely by health concerns. It was a perfect storm of environmental lobbying, youth protection campaigns, and political opportunism. An eclectic coalition, ranging from the RSPCA to paediatric health societies, framed disposables as a public menace, citing underage usage and environmental damage from lithium batteries.

The government seized the opportunity to act decisively in a politically charged environment. The consultation process that followed, however, was widely criticized as biased and leading as there was little space to argue for harm reduction or nuanced policy. The narrative was clear: ban first, justify later.

As Simon Rucker of CDP notes, this was a classic case of “policy-based evidence” not evidence-based policy.

“The government seized the opportunity to act decisively in a politically charged environment. The consultation process that followed, however, was widely criticized as biased and leading.”

Simon Rucker | Deputy Head of THR at Cambridge Design Partnership

Consequences of the Ban

The most immediate consequence is paradoxical: while disposable vapes are banned, cigarettes remain legal. This sends a contradictory message to smokers, that a more harmful product is preferable by virtue of being regulated longer.

Worse still, by banning disposables instead of enforcing existing laws (e.g., age-verified purchase, customs controls, and trading standards), governments are:

Undermining efforts to reduce smoking rates, especially among low-income groups where disposables are most accessible.
Strengthening black markets – as seen in Australia, where prohibition has fueled organized crime and illicit sales.
Reinforcing the widespread belief that vaping is as “just as bad” or worse than smoking, (despite Public Health England’s statement that vaping is likely to be 95% less harmful than smoking).

Indeed, only 24% of UK adults now believe vaping is safer than smoking (ASH, 2024).

A Strategic Miscalculation by Governments and Industry

The disposable vape saga also holds lessons for industry. Innovation without transparency or responsibility invites backlash. By flooding the market with brightly colored, sweet-flavored devices, manufacturers, particularly those operating outside traditional tobacco channels, fueled a moral panic.

Yet rather than respond with better oversight, governments reached for the bluntest instrument in their regulatory toolkit: the ban.

Simon Rucker argues the industry could have “bifurcated the market” and taken a more proactive stance, focusing on smokers and adult consumers, reducing youth appeal, and building trust through evidence and accountability. Instead, the response was a reactive ‘copy-paste’ of what the Chinese manufacturers were doing, and the cost is now clear.

A Dangerous Win for the Prohibition Lobby

Ultimately, this is more than a debate about disposable vapes. It reflects a broader cultural and political point, where reduced-risk innovation is stifled by absolutism. Harm reduction, once celebrated in public health circles for its pragmatic approach, is now losing ground to moralistic ideology.

The largely government-financed anti-vape lobby, buoyed by this win, will almost certainly push further: against refillable / rechargeable vapes, oral nicotine products, and eventually nicotine itself. Meanwhile, adult smokers are left with fewer tools to quit, and an emboldened black market waits in the wings.

Conclusion: Time for a Rethink

Banning disposable vapes is not progress; it’s a retreat. A better path would focus on:

Enforcing existing regulations around customs controls, trading standards, and underage sales.
Promoting adult-only access and responsible marketing, to preserve disposables as a harm reduction tool.
Investing in recycling and circular economy solutions for single-use devices, tackling legitimate environmental concerns.

Vaping isn’t a panacea, but it is a vital part of the harm reduction ecosystem. Governments should fix what’s broken, not destroy what works.

REFERENCES:
[1] Public Health England (2015) / [2] ASH UK (2024) / [3] Tobacco Tactics (University of Bath, 2024) / [4] CDP Interview Transcript (2025)

Receive further news from our THR team

Connect with CDP

For more on how to navigate the evolving reduced-risk product landscape and design vaping innovations that balance harm reduction, regulation, and user experience, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH

Why Have So Few Smokers Transitioned to Reduced Risk Products?

May 29th 2025

Ben Illidge

Head of THR

Simon Rucker

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.

“Start by remembering what smokers want: a simple, convenient, low-commitment product… that feels familiar but doesn’t harm them or others.”

Simon Rucker | Deputy Head of THR at Cambridge Design Partnership

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.

“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.”

Ben Illidge | Head of THR at Cambridge Design Partnership

Receive further news from our THR team at CDP

REFERENCES:

[1] PMI IQOS user data: https://www.pmi.com/investor-relations/reports-filings
[2] Disposable vape bans: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd7n3zyp114o
[3] Vaping youth uptake: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about-data/surveys/national-youth-tobacco-survey.html

Connect with CDP

For more on how to accelerate meaningful innovation in tobacco harm reduction, contact Cambridge Design Partnership.

GET IN TOUCH

WHITEPAPER

Assessing the Efficacy of THR Interventions in Brazil, China, Egypt, Indonesia, South Africa and Turkey

BY BEN KELSEY, NATALIE SEARLE, ANA CARBALLO and DAVID LAWSON

Funded by the Global Action to End Smoking and in collaboration with Inter Scientific Limited

DOWNLOAD NOW

“Designing and implementing strategies for eliminating or reducing the consumption of tobacco products presents a significant challenge due to regional discrepancies in availability, awareness, efficacy, and legal status of THR interventions.”

Ben Illidge, Head of Tobacco Harm Reduction at CDP

Tobacco smoking poses a significant public health risk, causing approximately eight million deaths annually. Global Action to End Smoking is actively working to reduce tobacco harm, particularly focusing on marginalized communities and low- and middle-income countries.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization (WHO) has published the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), including strategies for eliminating or reducing the consumption of tobacco products to accelerate the reduction of tobacco harm.

Cambridge Design Partnership and Inter Scientific Limited conducted a systematic review and quantitative assessment of the availability, awareness, efficacy and legal status of tobacco harm reduction (THR) interventions in six countries – Brazil, China, Egypt, Indonesia, South Africa, and Turkey – each representing a separate WHO region.

This white paper presents the findings of the review to navigate the complexity of tobacco harm reduction and evaluate which interventions are proving most efficacious. This includes the use of pharmacotherapy in combination with human-factor interventions, as well as the potential for increased adoption of novel smoking cessation aids including heated tobacco, snus, and oral NPs in the future.

DOWNLOAD NOW

Need help with an opportunity? Let’s talk.

We specialize in solving complex problems. Wherever you are in your journey we can seamlessly integrate into your innovation cycle, accelerate time to market and deliver competitive advantage.

Mastering fluid flow to enhance user experience

March 22nd 2022

Ice cream and blood are two things you probably don’t want to think about simultaneously. But both are full of organic proteins and fats and behave differently from a fluid like water when they’re pumped through tubes. Innovators sometimes think about these similarities when creating, for example, a novel ice cream dispenser or device that filters out platelets from donor blood .

How a substance flows is a vitally important consideration for many products, from foods to skincare to medical devices to household paints. Development teams need to keep in mind a wide range of flow behaviors (for example, flow through nozzles, non-Newtonian flow, and foaming) to hit the sweet spot: a positive user experience that makes a product stand out in a crowded market. This means thinking about the science of how liquids and gases behave (fluid dynamics), as well as how the product responds to user interaction.

Look at how the squeezable plastic ketchup bottle differs from the glass bottles that were standard before 1983. The new design completely changed the user experience – no more digging down into the bottle with a knife to get the ketchup flowing again. Things became even easier for ketchup lovers with the debut of the upside-down squeezable bottle – no more awkwardly storing ‘regular’ bottles upside down in the fridge.

Or think about how the experience of washing your hands changed after the arrival of the liquid soap dispenser. Instead of having to share the same bar of soap with others, people can now wash “without the soapy mess”, as Robert R Taylor, who introduced SoftSoap liquid soap, put it, and can take only as much soap as they need.

While the flow of some liquids is analogous to water, whose behavior is well understood, other substances behave in much more complicated ways, requiring in-depth analysis work to understand when designing new products. For example, the air bubbles in ice cream make it behave as a liquid foam. Ice cream’s flow will change depending on how you’re dispensing it: Push it at high pressure through a narrow channel or nozzle, and the air bubbles will be compressed, allowing more ice cream to flow through the nozzle at once. When the ice cream is returned to normal pressure, the air bubbles re-expand, and the ice cream returns to its original size. Because of this complex and variable behavior, designing a product to dispense ice cream relies on hands-on experiments… which can mean going through gallons of ice cream before you can create a design that works as intended. Only by conducting these experiments to understand ice cream’s behavior can you build the mathematical model required to effectively develop a high-performance machine.

While it’s a shame to use gallons of ice cream in the quest for a better product, it’s not an environmental disaster. But shipping water-based products around the world does contribute to fossil fuel consumption and climate change. Removing water from laundry detergent helps cut shipping emissions by reducing bulk and making shipping more efficient. But it also dramatically changes how detergent flows and gets used by consumers. For example, measuring out 10 ml more detergent than recommended likely wouldn’t have an impact if you’re using a product that’s mostly water. But being off by 10 ml when detergent is concentrated could make a big difference for your laundry. So, it’s vital to ensure that dispensing is accurate, which requires an understanding of flow.

There are so many flow behaviors that can affect a product’s design. For example, should a container for insecticide include a mechanism to avoid skin contact and spillage? How could a medical device for freezing tumors be redesigned to eliminate vapor locks without the use of heavy and bulky high-pressure gas cylinders? Is there a way to dispense foaming hand soap in a decorative pattern for a premium experience?

Getting the design right for a flowing substance can differentiate between a product that fails and one that creates an experience that shifts category norms and delivers breakthrough consumer delight.

References

100-Year-Old Industry Changing With Market: Ketchup Makers More Innovative [Internet]. Los Angeles Times. 1985 [cited 5 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1985-08-09-fi-2554-story.html
Greve F. Ketchup is better with upside-down, bigger bottle [Internet]. mcclatchydc. 2007 [cited 5 January 2022]. Available from: http://web.archive.org/web/20180118101454/https:/www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article24465613.html
Langer E. Robert R. Taylor dies at 77; entrepreneur of hygiene who introduced Softsoap liquid soap [Internet]. The Washington Post. 2013 [cited 5 January 2022]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/robert-r-taylor-dies-at-77-entrepreneur-of-hygiene-who-introduced-softsoap-liquid-soap/2013/09/14/415d509e-1bbd-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

WHITE PAPER

Impediments to tobacco harm reduction in LMICs:

The ENDS adoption journey

BY NICKI SUTTON, BEN KELSEY & GEORGE BOSTOCK

Whitepaper_Impediments-to-tobacco-harm-reduction-in-LMICs_cover

“We were able to define an ENDS Adoption Journey which outlines seven steps a smoker must take to substitute combustible tobacco products with ENDS.”

Tobacco consumption has, for decades, represented a global pandemic. Over 1.3 billion people, or 16% of the world’s population, use tobacco in one of its many forms, grouped into combustible or smokeless types. 80% of these users reside in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where tobacco use contributes to increased morbidity and mortality directly and indirectly, via poverty.

The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW) has a goal to advance progress in smoking cessation and tobacco harm reduction (THR) with a particular focus on LMICs. To better understand some of the challenges faced in these markets, FSFW commissioned us to identify the barriers or impediments to adoption of electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) in LMIC countries.

Download our whitepaper to discover the seven steps a smoker must take to substitute combustible tobacco products with ENDS.

Whitepaper_Impediments-to-tobacco-harm-reduction-in-LMICs_page-spread

DOWNLOAD PDF

The chance to create the world’s first prescription electronic cigarette

November 26th 2021

David Lewis

What should we make of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) updating its guidance for licensing e-cigarettes as medicinal products?

The updated ‘Guidance for licensing electronic cigarettes and other inhaled nicotine-containing products as medicines’ (published on October 29, 2021) sets out with extra detail the steps needed to license e-cigarettes as medicinal products, meeting the quality, safety, and efficacy criteria demanded of other medicinal products.

Any medicinally licensed e-cigarette could potentially be prescribed to people who want to quit or cut down on smoking, meaning England would be the first country in the world to prescribe medicinally licensed e-cigarettes to help reduce smoking rates.

But hang on, it was already possible for e-cigarette manufacturers to submit their products for this regulatory approval process, so what’s going on?

Call to action

Dr June Raine, Chief Executive of the MHRA, said in a press release, “The MHRA will continue to support companies in the development of safe and effective e-cigarette products, to encourage the licensing of e-cigarette products as medicines in order to support patient-centred care and access.”

The MHRA’s announcement is a re-emphasis of its support of this product category’s role in smoking cessation and a call to action for the e-cigarette market. The update gives us cause to reflect that a commercially viable product hasn’t yet taken up this opportunity. Why?

The large companies in the tobacco space aren’t familiar with designing under the constraints of a medicinal product or going through regulatory approval for medicines. Smaller players are concerned about the funding required to go down the medicinal route.

There’s a perception that the medicinal pathway is complicated and costly. There’s no denying that the bar for regulatory approval as a medicinal product is set imposingly high as it seeks to ensure safety, quality, and efficacy for users.

A CE mark is required to sell a medicinal product in the European Union, indicating compliance with ISO 13485. This standard defines the quality management systems used to control the product’s design, manufacture, and post-market surveillance. Compared to consumer products, this places much greater emphasis on risk assessment and mitigation throughout the product lifecycle, along with robust documentation to demonstrate regulatory compliance.

If the MHRA’s announcement reflects its frustration at the lack of progress to meet the perceived demand for a prescription-based device, can manufacturers expect an easier route to a license as a result?

The requirements of ISO 13485 will still need to be met in full, but perhaps the MHRA will expedite engagement with the applicants, which could certainly help the process. The announcement is significant in reinforcing the prevailing UK public health policy that e-cigarettes can play a key role in smoking cessation, providing an ‘open door’ for a forward-thinking player to advance and elevate the product category.

Continuum of product stewardship

The tobacco harm reduction market has been on a journey of increasing commitment to product stewardship, partly driven by increasing regulation, for example, Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and Premarket Tobacco Product Application (PMTA), and the increasing sophistication of the major players.

CDP serves clients in consumer and regulated healthcare markets, so we’re familiar with the challenges of operating in these different regulatory frameworks. For those already invested in product stewardship, perhaps the leap to a medicinal product won’t be as challenging as they think.

While the MHRA’s announcement may not be ‘news’, it does perhaps signal a reappraisal of the opportunity to create the world’s first prescription e-cigarette.

To find out more, explore Tobacco Harm Reduction.

References

Guidance for licensing electronic cigarettes and other inhaled nicotine-containing products as medicines [Internet]. GOV.UK. 2021 [cited 4 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/licensing-procedure-for-electronic-cigarettes-as-medicines
MHRA publishes clear guidance to support bringing e-cigarettes to market as licensed therapies [Internet]. GOV.UK. 2021 [cited 4 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mhra-publishes-clear-guidance-to-support-bringing-e-cigarettes-to-market-as-licensed-therapies
E-cigarettes could be prescribed on the NHS in world first [Internet]. GOV.UK. 2021 [cited 4 November 2021]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-could-be-prescribed-on-the-nhs-in-world-first

WHITE PAPER

Routes to success in the therapeutic cannabinoid market:

Insights from the e-cigarette experience

BY DAVID LEWIS

“It can be extremely challenging to identify an optimum business and product strategy in the current cannabinoid market.”

David Lewis is a Chartered Engineer with international experience working with large corporations and technology start-ups. He has a deep understanding of reduced-risk nicotine and cannabinoid product development and the associated technological, commercial and regulatory issues.

In this whitepaper, David draws upon his and his team’s long experience of the smoking cessation, e-cigarette and vaping markets to explore opportunities for therapeutic cannabis.

DOWNLOAD PDF

What next for events in the world of COVID-19?

February 11th 2021

Ana Romero

The impact of the pandemic has dramatically shaken up the world of conferences and events. Ana Romero, Digital Marketer and Events Coordinator at Cambridge Design Partnership, looks back over a tumultuous year and asks, “what next”?

Here we are, almost exactly a year ago. This is Pharmapack, in Paris. The two-day event was attended by 5,500 delegates and more than 400 exhibitors, and just look at the optimism on our faces! We don’t know it yet, but this is the last physical event we’ll attend before the pandemic descends, forcing us into our spare rooms and at the mercy of Teams, Zoom, and an emerging world of digital-only events.

website_body-2_Pharmapack-2020-team-photo

CDP team at Pharmapack in Paris, February 2020. Left to right; Jon Powell, Senior Consultant, Ana Romero, Digital Marketer and Events Coordinator, Martha Hodgson, Market and Design Insights Research Consultant, and Uri Baruch, Partner and Head of Drug Delivery

Welcome to chaos

A month later, in March 2020, the events world was in chaos and turmoil. I was busy contacting the organizers of each event we were planning to attend, checking their websites for updates, following the news and, arranging refunds for cancelled conferences.

Many conference organizers simply announced that they would be cancelling their 2020 offering and would be back in 2021. But others tried to offer a virtual experience. The idea of going online came as a relief to us here at CDP – as we were just as keen as before to share our expertise, to network with our peers, and meet tomorrow’s clients.

However, the transition to digital has been challenging, especially for event organizers dramatically adapting their business model and event delivery in a matter of weeks.

Forget the plan; it’s time to adapt.

So what have we learned? The most immediate learning for us at CDP has been that a good virtual conference is made by enabling the sort of interactions which make a physical conference so valuable. Can you get talking with someone who is visiting the event, develop them into a contact and then, hopefully, a client?

The first virtual conference we attended didn’t work at all. We couldn’t network with other companies, to reach the people we wanted or to strike up any sort of rapport with other attendees. A low bar had been set.

However, in only a few months, I’ve seen many improvements in the different platforms used and some real successes so far. Several virtual conferences we’ve attended during the pandemic have offered far better ways to connect and market to delegates. For example, some platforms allowed us to see and filter the delegate list (by name, role, and company name) and to request a one-to-one meeting with that person. In addition, the ability to watch presentations on demand made it easier to book a video conference during a session slot and later go and watch what we missed, something that wouldn’t have been possible in a real-life event.

Virtual conferences have crystallized how important it is to have your material in a digital and interactive format. We’ve learned to have just enough collateral in the digital booth to initiate a conversation. In a virtual exhibition, it’s easier to visit a virtual booth and fill your virtual goodie bag with all of the marketing collateral with just a click. This also has the risk of someone (including competitors) downloading your collateral and leaving the booth without saying a word. While this wouldn’t normally happen in a physical event it’s not hugely problematic: our materials can be seen by anyone.

One downside is that international events may not be particularly international: if an event is taking place on UK time and you want people from around the globe to virtually attend, you’ll find it’s tricky to enable conversations between members that are located in the US or Asia, due to the time differences. We’ve noticed this effect in the events we’ve taken part in.

We don’t expect face-to-face events to return properly in 2021. While many events companies are talking a confident game that plans for face-to-face before the year is out, most are adding other options to their virtual offerings. Think here of webinars, roundtables, and other additions that tend to suggest the new world is becoming “baked in”.

The post-COVID future

With all this virtual activity and conferencing ability we might ask, will the world ever go back to face-to-face conferences?

My feeling is that the leap to digital is a permanent one, but that physical conferences are far from finished. There are some significant downsides to virtual interaction that cannot easily be overcome. The first is the nature of the experience itself. If you travel to a conference and attend for two or three days, you are committed. You have spent time and money to get there, and as a result, you give it all your attention and energy, which makes the whole process more immersive. By contrast, a digital conference that you attend from your office or your home will struggle to capture your focus in the same way. You are so much more likely to be reading emails, on the phone, or being interrupted by your kids.

The very fact that it is so effortless to attend a digital conference can make it a less valued experience. If you “bump into” a delegate virtually, by messaging them through the conference’s contact system, it is far easier for them to ignore you. However, if you meet them at a real-life event, your chances of striking up a fruitful conversation are far stronger. Perhaps this is a good thing, forcing us to be on top of our game, offering nothing but compelling content and conversations. Although the process of tracking down attendees at a virtual conference is now quite slick, there’s nothing quite like meeting someone face-to-face and all of the non-verbal communication that goes into those meetings. It’s much harder to entertain clients and to build up goodwill online.

website_body-2_Ben-Strutt-presents-at-GIF-Virtual

Ben Strutt, Partner and Head of Design and Front-end Innovation, speaking with Max Angelov from the CDP offices in Cambridge ahead of presenting at last year’s virtual Global Innovation Forum, November 2020.

A crucial part of why we here at CDP value the opportunities offered by real-life conferences is that they give us the chance to develop and share our thought leadership. The events themselves are part of our learning, and giving presentations or taking part in discussions help to raise our profile in our key markets. The fact that a virtual conference presentation will often remain online for several months extends our reach significantly. We can also access information which shows who has been watching and, where it’s relevant and data protection allows, we can reach out to them afterwards to continue the conversation. This is a definite advantage of virtual events.

But when it comes to displaying our physical work, we want to show off what we create and allow booth visitors to interact with a connected inhaler, an innovative food packaging concept or any other product development. It’s hard to replicate the tactile experience of a real-life display of products that can be picked up and examined and where a visitor can ask questions of the development team.

All of this suggests that we’re headed for a future of hybrid physical and digital events. There will be real-life events, but some digital tools, such as one-to-one video meetings, digital roundtables, and others currently being explored will stay. Physical and remote attendees will be offered far more connectivity and interaction with other attendees than ever before.

In the meantime, as we press through the pandemic and emerge on the other side, it’s crucial to be creative and make use of the technology that allows us to connect virtually. It’s fair to say that virtual events are not yet providing the full benefits of a real-life gathering. But we are where we are and it’s in all our interests to work with digital alternatives so that we can keep doing business, one way or another. Whether it’s physical or digital, I’ll see you there.