In 2016, PMI pledged to transition the company away from cigarette sales - and almost ten years later, they've made progress towards their promise. But instead of celebrating as 40% of PMI's business goes smoke-free, many in tobacco control would rather stand in the way. Why is that? And can anything be done to change their minds?
Featuring:
TOMMASO DI GIOVANNI
Vice President Communications & Engagement
Philip Morris International
@dgtomma
pmiscience.com
Transcription:
00:10 - 01:35
[Brent Stafford]
Hi, I'm Brent Stafford, and welcome to another edition of RegWatch on GFN.TV. In the debate over tobacco harm reduction, one target remains at the center of controversy, big tobacco. Time and again, guests on this show highlight how tobacco control and public health refuse to look beyond the alleged misdeeds of tobacco companies from decades past. This entrenched bias is a major reason why they reject safer nicotine products as a legitimate tool for helping smokers quit. And in many cases, it seems to justify the spread of misleading claims about the potential harms of these products in the media. Joining us today to unpack these issues is Tommaso di Giovanni, Vice President of Communications and Engagement at Philip Morris International. PMI is one of the largest multinational tobacco companies in the world. In 2016, the company made a bold commitment to stop selling cigarettes and transition entirely to smoke-free products. Nearly a decade later, PMI has invested $14 billion in science-based innovation to develop these alternatives, which by 2024 accounted for approximately 40% of its total net revenue. Tommaso, thanks for joining us today on RegWatch.
01:36 - 01:38
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Thank you for having me. Thank you all.
01:39 - 01:47
[Brent Stafford]
Now, you've been with PMI for nearly 25 years. What was your first reaction when you heard about the company's commitment to stop selling cigarettes?
01:48 - 03:16
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
My first reaction was, finally. And I really think we had two moments when I thought that. The first one was in 2014, 13 actually, when I was called to pioneer the communications around the launches, the test launches in Nagoya and Milan over heated tobacco product Icos. And the second is when our CEO at the time, it was Andre Kalantzoukoulos, went on BBC4 and actually announced that we had the ambition to replace all cigarettes with better alternatives as soon as possible. And the reason why I said finally is because, I mean, we know it since the 70s, the 80s in the US, there's been a debate around giving people better alternatives to cigarettes. There's been several attempts that failed to do that, especially in the US. And ourselves at PMI, we have made attempts to come up with products that are better alternatives, but we didn't succeed, mostly because we couldn't get right the acceptance of consumers we couldn't give them a product that would be enjoyable enough to replace cigarettes i mean reducing the harmful compounds was feasible but getting the other aspect right making sure they appreciated it was more complicated and that's why when finally we managed to to do it i thought finally because it's been a long journey
03:17 - 03:26
[Brent Stafford]
So around that 2012, 2013 time, is it a coincidence that that's also in the moment that vaping started to really take off in popularity?
03:27 - 04:30
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Look, I think it helped. I think it helped for a number of reasons. One of the reasons why we failed before, I think, was certainly the fact that the product wasn't right. While most likely we had risk reduction, the product wasn't as palatable as it should have been. But there was another element of the failure. I think society wasn't ready. And if society isn't ready, your product is not gonna be accepted. And I think the big contribution to tobacco harm reduction of e-cigarettes has been exactly that. Probably because it was coming from small manufacturers, unknown companies to the public versus the companies that have been demonized for ages. This guy has managed to put it on the agenda of everyone. I could hear people on the street talking finally about nicotine, about how e-cigarettes work, and it created really a momentum, a debate that then I think also helped us when we arrived with ICOS somehow.
04:31 - 04:44
[Brent Stafford]
Now I've noticed that you and others at PMI described this transformation as a journey to unsmoke the world. There must've been a lot of skepticism, both internally and externally when that first came out.
04:45 - 06:09
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Yes, absolutely. And, uh, the skepticism is exactly the reason why we did it, why we came up with unsmoke. The idea was the following. We know because we have research, because we try to listen to people out there. We knew that the vast majority of people are confused. They are confused about key concepts. They don't understand necessarily nicotine. They don't necessarily understand the role of combustion in generating diseases. How can they eventually understand e-cigarettes or heated tobacco if we start from that basis of misconceptions, right? And we wanted a campaign that would explain those key concepts and the benefits of those products in very, very simple terms. while mobilizing people, while making sure that they actually understand they need to take an active part in a movement. And that was UnSmoke. UnSmoke calls for action. It's rallying, crying to get people off smoke. And then underneath the campaign, we actually tried to explain Nicotine, combustion, what are those alternatives and why it makes sense for us to advocate for them, make sure that the people we like, our family members, our husbands, our wives, actually stop smoking. And if they don't stop, they switch to better alternatives because today those alternatives exist. That was Unsmoke.
06:10 - 06:31
[Brent Stafford]
There's a lot of regulations out there amongst many countries that prevent or limit the amount of advertising and the messaging that tobacco companies can do. Have you felt constrained in your ability to use mass market media and so forth to reach consumers with that message about making the switch?
06:32 - 08:09
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Absolutely, absolutely. And I think, look, on one hand, we may see the glass as half full. There are countries that have taken positive steps in the direction of encouraging people who don't quit to switch to better alternatives. I mean, think about some of the initiatives taken by New Zealand, by the UK, a bit more passive, but still successful, countries like Sweden or Japan. I mean, those at least haven't created obstacles to informing consumers. Others have taken positive stance. Again, I mentioned New Zealand. The Minister of Health in New Zealand has a landing page that very clearly suggest those who don't quit switch to e-cigarettes or heated tobacco. On the other hand, you're right. There's a number of countries that either don't allow communications and basically treat e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, and other products same as cigarettes, or even prohibit them. There's a big chunk of the population out there that doesn't have access to those products. Countries like India, countries like Thailand, big countries, China to name another one, Mexico, Brazil. Those are countries where e-cigarettes, heated tobacco are not even allowed to the market. So it's even beyond the communications. It's an inability for consumers to get a hold of an alternative that is much better for their health. And the consequence of that, unfortunately, is quite dramatic because it means those companies are condemning, and I use deliberately this strong word, the people who smoke in their countries to have only one alternative, that's cigarettes, and it's the worst they can get.
08:10 - 08:16
[Brent Stafford]
So let me ask you, how crucial is the science behind the transformation PMI is under?
08:18 - 09:56
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
I think it's very important. It was probably crucial at the beginning, especially because we were coming from decades of information that was confusing because there was significant skepticism around those alternatives. There was sometimes, in good faith, a lack of understanding. And I think science is what allowed us to break through. all that, especially at the very beginning. And you may remember at the very beginning of the journey, I'm talking about 2010, 12, 14, there were even questions on whether those products will be even better than cigarettes. And I think science managed to clear at least that. I don't think anyone today would question based on the huge amount of evidence that's out there, whether heated tobacco, e-cigarettes, snus, pouches are better than a cigarette. I mean questioning that today would really be like questioning if the earth is flat or not. And now questions are of a different nature and we dwell more in questions around the actual use of the products, unintended consequences like the use among youth. I think the debate has switched to new questions, but I do have a feeling that science is pretty definite about the fact that those products are better. Yes, we can continue to research. Yes, we can continue to try to understand how much better are those products. Once you have data on the population, you can even respond that, like it happened in Sweden, for instance. But these products are better. I think it's just a no-brainer today. Science is pretty conclusive about that.
09:56 - 10:26
[Brent Stafford]
And yet though, my dentist who does like, you know, dental reconstruction surgery has said that, whoa, vaping is now worse for your mouth than smoking. And then my GP and said that her cardiologist colleagues are now saying that if you vape, your heart attack risk is the same as if you smoke. And that's just two examples of I've had in the last 10 days and where my medical professionals that are taking care of my health are treating me like a smoker.
10:26 - 11:51
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Look, I think the fact that the evidence exists doesn't mean we have still finished our work in terms of making sure that everyone knows about it and understands it. And I think misinformation, unfortunately, is still very much out there. I mean, you mentioned some of the misinformation, even among physicians, dentists, which still lingers out there. I mean, it's there and I see it. And you may remember in the past, we've had deliberate efforts to misinform the public. At the very beginning, there was this fantastic study on e-cigarettes that basically put, I think, 10 e-cigarettes on a very high voltage. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. And then, of course, they found out that it generated a bit more formaldehyde than you would have in normal conditions. But the headline in Reuters was scary. It was easy grass generate formaldehyde. And that scares people. And unless you really understand what's happening, it's very difficult for people, including physicians, including dentists, people who should have that education, to cut through the misinformation. And actually, when I was preparing for this interview, I googled that story. And I noticed that in the end, they had changed the headline, which at least shows good faith from the media and professionalism.
11:51 - 12:11
[Brent Stafford]
You know, there was this one here that I'm just showing you. This came out February 24th. Here it is in the Daily Mail. Vaping more dangerous than smoking. Bombshell. First of its kind study reveals it raises risk of three deadly diseases. I bring this up only because it's continuing.
12:11 - 13:40
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Yes. Yes, it is. I agree. It's continuing. But look, there's been progress. I mean, I also wouldn't deny the progress that I think we all have achieved in ensuring that people actually do understand the value of smoke-free products and buy into it. There's a reason if millions of, dozens of millions of consumers around the world are switching and they're abandoning cigarettes. It's because in the end, a growing portion of the population is understanding the category. Yes, I agree with you. Half of the glass is still empty, but I think it's up to us to continue to work to fill it. And to your point on this headline from the Daily Mail, there was actually, I think it's 2003, there was a very interesting study in Nature where they assessed the impact on social media of negative headlines versus positive headlines. Unfortunately, they found that negative headlines drive a lot more attention. And I think that's also probably what drives those headlines. The problem with those headlines is they scare people. And by scaring people, they slow down the adoption of smoke-free products and the pace of positive change. Once the story is out in today's world, it's a matter of hours before a lot of people have seen it. And it's very difficult to get back the accuracy of the news. People are misled. They are confused. And getting back on that is very, very challenging. Think about EVALI. It was exactly the same situation.
13:40 - 14:04
[Brent Stafford]
I think one more on this is that today, more people believe vaping is as harmful or even more harmful than smoking. And that turn really did happen around 2018, 2019. I don't think it was Justy Valley, but it's just been the preponderance of negative information that's happened. And I think some of that communication is purposeful.
14:06 - 15:05
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Look, I also have a sense that a portion of that communication was deliberate, honestly. And again, if we talk about the EVALI, there was a clear confusion between e-cigarettes as such, And the use of oils in open tank e-cigarettes, which is a completely different thing. And I think that is what confused people. The e-cigarette per se isn't what caused Diwali. It's the fact that some consumers put the wrong content into the tank that really created the disease. But I think it was easy for those who are against the category to present the news in a way that is misleading the public. And I honestly think it was to a certain extent deliberate. But what DAS is doing, though, is that it's confusing people. By confusing people, they rather go to cigarettes than use the cigarettes. And I think we see the same with nicotine in those days.
15:06 - 15:38
[Brent Stafford]
So, Tomaso, let's turn back towards PMI and the transition because it's extraordinary what you've been able to do. We first heard the promise in 2016, and here we are nearing 10 years later, and PMI's business is 40% now smoke-free. Put some numbers around that for us. How big of a number is that in terms of smoke-free? And if you could talk a little bit more in detail about the three products, the iCoast, the Veve, and Zinn.
15:39 - 17:14
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
So how big is that number? I think to understand that really, we need to go back a bit in history. 40% of net revenues is something we've achieved really in six years. Because between 2008 and 2018, we have just invested. We have invested over $14 billion in those products in this decade. And it's only in 2018 where we actually broke even, i.e. we started being profitable. What's interesting is that today our products are present in 95 markets. There's 38 million consumers who've adopted them and In something like 23 markets, over half of our revenues are generated by smoke-free products. In six markets, even three quarters of revenues are generated by those products. So put that in perspective, only six years. I mean, I'll give you the last data and then I'll stop the dump. But in 2024, Marlboro actually overcame, sorry, ICOS overcame Marlboro in terms of net revenues. So ICOS... gave us more profitability than Marlboro. And it took us 60, 70 years to get there with Marlboro. With ICOS, we did it only in six years. To me, this is certainly a testament to all my colleagues who have worked at this, but it also shows that there is potential for change out there in society. Yes, the glass is still a portion that's not filled, but I think we can fill it.
17:15 - 17:23
[Brent Stafford]
Now, Japan obviously was the area, the market where the first success happened, but is that success happening now elsewhere with ICOS?
17:25 - 18:36
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Yes, yes. We have a few markets, for instance, where we have passed the 40% share in the capitals. Think about Vilnius in Lithuania or Budapest. In those places, Icos represents more than 40% of market share. And actually, I've been in those two cities very recently. One of the things that I was amazed by is walking in the streets of the old town at night. That's something I do every time I go somewhere, you barely see cigarettes. And my colleagues, every time I saw a cigarette, told me it's probably a foreigner. And I think that's very encouraging. But then you have other cities where ICOS is doing extremely well, clearly Tokyo. And there's at least 10, 12 cities in Japan where the proportion of heated tobacco is more than half. But then Athens, Rome are the places where we're already at 30% approximately. So actually there's much more than just Japan. And that's encouraging because it means that sometime soon, perhaps in a matter of a decade, there may be a county where cigarettes become a museum piece.
18:38 - 19:07
[Brent Stafford]
So let's talk a little bit about Veve because, of course, in North America here, it really is all about nicotine vaping. And to be quite frank, the consumer here feels under assault. And same with the industry that seems to be more independent than elsewhere in the world. So Veve, is it leading the way anywhere? And is there room for both independent and larger companies like yourself producing products in the same market?
19:08 - 20:24
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
I think totally there is room. And actually, once again, I think it's a movement and the movement can't be made by just one individual, one player, one company. If we really want the world to become smoke-free, it can't be just us. And when I say it can't be just us, of course, I mean governments, NGOs, public health, the media, consumers, but that also includes competitors of all sorts. I mean, the big other tobacco companies as well as smaller player have a very important role. If we go back to the beginning of our conversation, I think a Trojan horse for change was really e-cigarettes at the very beginning. I'm talking between 2008 and 2012. They really spearheaded change. So I do believe there's a place for everyone. And actually, if I look at the e-cigarette market, We're certainly not the biggest player in that market. I mean, Viv is doing extremely well. It's number one in the pod market in places like Italy, Romania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, but we're not the biggest player in e-cigarettes, especially in the pod system. Others play that role. So a lot of responsibility is on them.
20:24 - 20:31
[Brent Stafford]
And then there is Zinn. This brand has exploded in the United States. What's driving that success?
20:33 - 22:00
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Look, I think Zinn is a very interesting phenomenon. We're talking about, I mean, the US market, you're talking about 45, 46 million nicotine consumers, 30, 33 million use cigarettes, and then there's an 8 million who use oral in different shapes and forms, 4 million of those use pouches. But it's a growing market. So it's approximately 10% of the nicotine market in the US, but it's a growing market. And Zene is really driving it. Zene represents almost three quarter of the total market, we're approximately at 65%. And I think what is really driving Zene, I think it's the simplicity of the approach of the product. It's an easy to use alternative. It's clearly cleaner than all other alternatives. It's evident that it is probably the cleanest, right, pouches. I think the brand that Swedish Match had built has a lot to do with that, from the use of simple colors, simple messaging. And then there's been a word of mouth. among consumers, including through social media, that is really making the success of Zin. And I hope that success will continue because I think there's a lot to gain from having more pouches adopted by those who would otherwise use cigarettes.
22:00 - 22:19
[Brent Stafford]
And the FDA just granted marketing approval for 20 flavored Zin products. How big of a deal is that? And let me, you know, attach to that, that regulation in the US is notoriously tough for safer nicotine products. So for PMI to get those authorizations, it's a big deal.
22:20 - 23:47
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Yes, the bar is high. I agree with you with the FDA, but together with Swedish Match, actually hundreds of thousands of pages were presented of evidence. And one of the advantages of product like Zine is that they can also leverage all the history of snus in Sweden and the Nordics. alongside all the evidence that comes from usage in the US. So there's a lot of history and evidence behind it. And if you read the decision of the FDA, it's very interesting because they're very bold, actually, with regards to the potential harm reduction of the product in their decision. We're talking about a PMTA, so they haven't allowed claims yet. But I think it's very encouraging what they say in the decision. And what also I found very encouraging is the recognition that there's limited use of vouchers among minors in the US, particularly they cite a study by the CDC, according to whom usage in high schools would be lower than 1.8%. To me, that's very encouraging. And I think the whole industry should pay a lot of attention to youth because the product is better. I think it's a no brainer. And I really think we need to pay a lot of attention to that potential risk. But if we manage it, it's very addressable.
23:47 - 24:05
[Brent Stafford]
Now with Zinn, that's correct. You can't make claims, health claims, for instance. But with ICOS, you did receive a modified risk tobacco product order. What does that mean in practice? What are you able to say about ICOS in claims in the U.S.? ?
24:05 - 25:21
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
That was a milestone decision. We're talking about 2020 when the Food and Drug Administration granted us the Modified Risk Tobacco Product Authorization. And basically, I think there were three key points in their decision. The first one is that ICOS doesn't burn. It was still debated at the time, especially those who don't like us were questioning that point. But the FDA was very clear that ICOS does not generate combustion. The second point is that the FDA recognized the significant reduction in the levels of harmful compounds compared to cigarette. Some were still questioning that point as well. And then the third is that they've allowed us to make claim with regards to the reduction in exposure to harmful compounds compared to cigarettes, which they named as significant. So those are really the three points that the FDA made. And it was a milestone decision because it was the first heated tobacco product allowed and authorized actually with that pathway by the organization. So totally a milestone decision for us. We were very happy. It took a lot of time, a lot of engagement, a lot of research, but we made it.
25:22 - 25:48
[Brent Stafford]
There's been longstanding controversy around safer nicotine products. And in our 10 years of coverage, it always seems to come back to big tobacco. So critics say the industry fooled tobacco control with light and low tar cigarettes that they manipulated science and now seeks to addict a new generation to nicotine. I'm sure you've heard these accusations before. Are they fair?
25:50 - 27:41
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Look, I would say that using the past to modify the future is a typical rhetorical figure, but it's not one that's conducive to a constructive debate. Labeling or demonizing us without entering into a debate on the past, which would take hours and we'll probably never find an agreement, but that's not the point. I think we better focus now on what we can do together for people who smoke today for public health. and put aside all those controversies that honestly bring nothing to anyone. So today we have a real opportunity. It's represented by all those products that don't burn, that are clearly much better than cigarettes. And we should not focus on how we make them available to people who smoke, how we inform them so that they make a switch if they don't quit, which remains the best thing they can do for their health, and improve public health by doing that. I think a positive agenda would go much beyond what we have achieved so far. And I think the cases of countries that are going into extreme measures prove it. Places like France, where we simply continue to rely on antique measures that are simply restrictive of any sort of information to consumers, where we continue to just raise taxes, they prove that it doesn't work. I mean, in France, people continue smoking. Actually, they smoke more than before. There's 40% illicit trade. Countries like New Zealand, countries like the UK, Japan have done much better in curbing smoking rates. Let's learn. And I'm not saying we need to stop the information campaigns, the campaigns for people not to start or to quit smoking. But let's add something new to it. Let's leverage science technology exactly like we do in other sectors, in other industries.
27:43 - 28:49
[Jacek Olczak]
Our mission at Philip Morris International is to reduce smoking by replacing cigarettes with the better alternatives that innovation, science and a lot of investment have made available. Remarkably, however, the faster I move out of cigarettes, the more pushback I get. To give an example of what I mean by this. The reason why I am presenting to you on this platform is because my company has been cancelled this week from a long-standing planned speech on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. It seems that certain interest groups cannot accept us working to accelerate the end of cigarettes. Even worse. They do everything in their power to silence any debate about how to get to this future faster. But by excluding us and bullying others from engaging with us, they are effectively delaying progress for the men and women who smoke today.
28:51 - 29:15
[Brent Stafford]
Do you see particular groups presenting a problem? And I bring up The fact that Bloomberg Philanthropies campaigned for tobacco-free kids, the STOP initiative out of Bath. I mean, we're talking some pretty powerhouse groups that seem to be unfettered in their ability to spread misinformation and certainly spend dollars on their side of the fight.
29:16 - 30:18
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Unfortunately, yes. And I think it's a pity because if those resources were put instead at the service of a positive and constructive cause, perhaps we could accelerate the pace of change. But my feeling is that some of those organizations remain entrenched into what they have been doing for decades. And perhaps some of those activities, when we only had cigarettes, made sense. But in the world of today, I think we're missing an opportunity by not embracing what science and technology can offer us and can offer people who smoke and public health. So I think, again, we need to get out of the frame of the past and rather look at what we can do together. Probably for some of those organizations, it's difficult because you need an enemy, right? Especially when you are in those organizations and it's easy to find an enemy in the companies. The problem with that is that they forget about people who smoke. They forget about public health. And in the end, they end up damaging them by confusing them.
30:19 - 30:26
[Brent Stafford]
Do you think that tobacco control's focus has shifted from a war on tobacco to a war on nicotine?
30:28 - 32:16
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
Totally, yes. That's exactly where we're heading. There's two things. I think it's companies like us. And then the second point of this war is indeed nicotine. But on nicotine, I think we're still fighting a lot of confusion. I mean, we all see surveys out there very often, and the surveys are clear. More than half of people in many counties simply don't understand the relative risks of nicotine. They don't understand it and they're confused. There was one of my first meetings I had when I actually took this role in 2014 was with reporters from the former Soviet Union countries. And one of them told me immediately, in our countries, you say that a drop of nicotine kills the horse. now i'm passionate of rhetoric and that's a fantastic rhetorical figure because you visualize a drop very small and a horse that's very big the problem with that is that it scares people on nicotine and instead we should explain people that nicotine is not harmless is addictive but it's not the primary cause of smoking related diseases it actually may have some benefits that's why people use it And we need to put all in balance. Yes, in an ideal world, people wouldn't have any addiction. They wouldn't use anything. But in real life, they do. So let's not focus on nicotine, but let's focus on what comes with nicotine and really causes disease. That's burning. That's what comes with cigarettes. That's all the substances you find in smoke. So if we can get them off cigarettes, it doesn't really matter at that stage if there's nicotine or not. Get them off cigarettes, and then you'll think about... also the rest. But right now we have a billion smokers out there. Let's think about how we get them off cigarettes. And they do want also nicotine. So we need to give them nicotine.
32:17 - 32:43
[Brent Stafford]
From my perspective, it seems like the tobacco control movement is now guilty of the very tactics they accuse big tobacco of in the past, right? So do you think that that's true? And do you at all believe that maybe tobacco control does not have the ability for redemption when it comes to the tobacco industry?
32:45 - 33:55
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
It's interesting you raised that, because I do see that trend exactly. Now, regardless of whether those accusations about the past are correct or not, I believe they're not. But again, the past is the past. Let's not even enter into that. Some of those allegations, though, are things I see today. When we talk, for instance, about creating confusion in the public. I do see that happening a lot, unfortunately. Again, some of the misleading headlines that we have seen, some of the letters that accompanied some studies, the way those products are presented are, in my view, misleading the public. And I think there's probably a call to be made for caution about that. Because what happens if we mislead the public, it's that the public will continue to use cigarettes. If they're confused about those alternatives, they will continue smoking. And cigarettes are the most dangerous tobacco and nicotine product out there. So what are we doing? We're actually going against the very same public health that we claim to defend.
33:56 - 34:27
[Brent Stafford]
Tomaso, I know that you will be attending the 12th edition of the Global Forum on Nicotine, the annual conference on safer nicotine products. It takes place again this year in Warsaw, Poland, from June 19 to 21, 2025. The conference theme is Challenging Perceptions. In your mind, what are some of the solutions to address the misunderstandings, misconceptions and mischaracterizations that are holding back progress for safer nicotine products?
34:29 - 35:29
[Tommaso di Giovanni]
It's always a pleasure to be at the Global Forum on Nicotine and I look forward to this year as well. Now, when we talk about this confusion and how we address it, I think The key is for all of us to continue to be out there, engage in dialogue, do it based on facts, leave to the extent possible emotions aside. When we see misinformation, I think it's important for us to correct it, or at least to engage in dialogue. And probably we need to scale up. level of our voices we need to be more and more present out there in the media at conferences in engagements in consumer communications where we can as you mentioned not everywhere it's possible because i think the more we inform people the faster we're going to achieve a world where cigarettes are left behind to the benefit of public health and people who smoke in particular