Cannabis going mainstream: are we marketing to kids?

Smoker's Lounge
1

Hey everyone,

I’m just gonna survey the group here to find out where the overall thinking is on this issue.

I’m a marketing guy. Spent 30 years doing it for technology. I’m good at helping small, unknown, or unproven good ideas get attention from the media, and good at helping them grow. It’s the only thing I’m good at, professionally, and it was how I paid the bills when I was raising my girl in Silicon Valley. It’s not a skill I’m proud of, as if it contributed actual value to the world. But I really effing good at it. :wink:

I’d rather market cannabis. :slight_smile: Cannabis contributes to the world, it makes people feel better in a variety of ways, and it fosters the kind of world I want to live in.

Tech doesn’t do any of those things. Doing that, I was only making wealthy people wealthier.

Here’s my question:

How do you feel about strain names that sound like candy or cookies?

On one hand, many pot smokers say that tradition should rule, and that these names should stay exactly as they are.

On the other hand, others say that it’s a bit like marketing to kids.

There is a long, dynamically-grown set of history and culture and tradition around the consumption of weed.

If cannabis use is going to be legalized fully and propagated, the “non-stoner” world is going to start to have opinions about some of this stuff.

Are names like Zkittles and Runtz and Cookies doomed? Should they be? Copyright and trademark issues are separate things – I’m thinking culturally.

I think about this issue a lot. How would you all react to a brand that stood up for this “protect children” idea and lobbied the industry to change some strain names?

Full disclosure: as a parent, I’m kinda uncomfortable with a lot of the candy/sweet marketing thing, but I would not say I am totally hell-bent on it.

As a marketer, I MIGHT suggest that to a cannabis brand, because I think a) it would get a lot of attention for the brand and might b) win the brand some fans, but it could also c) backfire incredibly.

I’d be happy to help run a campaign intended to make this industry change, and I’d be happy to suggest it to a client willing to do it.

But of course, I cannot have my clients getting run over and lambasted just because I have some idea I think is good. :slight_smile:

Thoughts?

(I’m adding this as a footnote. I personally think about 12% of adult Americans use cannabis. I think that number can grow, probably up to about 20 - 25%. But MUCH of that growth will come from creating new smokers – which means marketing cannabis is gonna change.

For example, it is only a matter of time before vendors STOP selling weed like sativa/indica, and START selling weed like Microsoft’s old slogan:

“Where do you want to go today?”

Or, “what do you want to improve about yourself.”

If I owned a dispensary, it would look like a food court, with different vibes are every physical area of the store.

Spiritual, self-help, physical help.

14 Likes
3

I agree with you 100 percent, but that doesn’t address my question. Thanks, man.

3 Likes
5

I started smoking at 14 and haven’t looked back. I’m not convinced it’s bad for kids to smoke. To each their own I guess

3 Likes
6

Personally, I find the candy/kiddy names a bit off putting. I think it postures the market in a way that appears to be marketing to children, regardless of if they are or not. I would much rather names that describe something about the strain, a back story, its area of origination, etc.

5 Likes
7

If a well known cannabis brand launched a public campaign suggesting that everybody get together and agree to name-changes. . .

. . .would that piss you off? Would you think the company is meddling?

. . .or would be be proud of that company?

. . .or neither?

1 Like
8

I think so. Not nessessarily because the industry wants children to buy weed, but there’s no denying naming weed after sweet like zkittles, donutz, and girl scout cookies is going to attract a younger crowd. Just like cake and cinnamon vodka.

3 Likes
9

Yes, a lot of this is about “image.” That’s marketing. Do I agree it should be about image and ONLY image? Nope, not at all. This is one of the things I detest about marketing.

But this is absolutely about image, too. Anyone who says that doesn’t matter is lying, btw. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
10

I don’t think the name has anything to do with it. I was smoking skunk weed as a kid. Nobody would say a kid likes skunks but we did and probably more than something called cookies

2 Likes
11

You’re saying you think you’d support it?

Keep in mind – and this is for everyone, not just you – this IS about appearance, in many ways.

Most cannabis brands will NOT want to be publicaly labeled as marketing to children.

Camel cigarettes went through it with Joe Camel, and they especially hurt because they were the only brand that seemed to be doing the marketing.

With cannabis, candy-related names will eventually be seen as “the (bad guys) in the cannabis industry fucking with our kids.”

Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s gonna happen, I think. :slight_smile:

So this issue will come up, eventually.

4 Likes
12

I always put it this way in my restaurants - Perception is king, it doesn’t matter what your intentions are.
There are decisions I make based on how the guests/public will take something, and in marketing I’m sure that is one of the biggest deciding factors driving business decisions.

Regardless, good thread @navy66 :sunglasses:

5 Likes
13

I’m with you, @navy66. As a grandparent, I’m uncomfortable with any drug being marketed with “children friendly” names/logos/etc. Honestly, ditto food generally. Don’t get me started on kids breakfast cereals! HA!

So totally and completely!

For me, all corporate/commercial marketing is about the lowest common denominator. It may be to a targeted audience rather than the public at large, but it’s only about maximizing sales (read profits), not looking out for the best interest of anyone other than shareholders. And at that, it’s only about their fiscal well-being, not their personal well-being. In my view, corporations don’t voluntarily do anything for the public interest.

7 Likes
14

I agree that it does look bad from the outside and it probably will be a bigger issue like tobacco marketing. Most of those strains were named before decriminalization and nobody was even thinking about the future consequences

2 Likes
15

I’m gonna give you all a sense of my job.

This sounds political, but politics isn’t my point here.

One thing I do is I help executives NOT fuck up their interviews with the media. I do this by making sure they are prepared, have good examples, know where the traps are, etc.

Maybe 12 - 18 months ago, some bureaucrat in D.C. was giving an interview to some little news outlet. The official was in some energy-related role in the government.

In response to some little question he was asked, he off-handedly mentioned that, over the long-term, even household appliances like gas ovens and heaters will be phased out in favor of better options, because it’s been proven that there are health concerns, yada yada.

A pretty benign statement.

It got picked up and published in a little publication.

Which attracted the attention of a BIGGER publication. . .

And THEN the answer made it’s way to the GOP marketing person. :slight_smile:

Into the hands of a competitor who wants to fuck with things by. . .

. . .saying, “Look at this scary dude! He wants to ban gas ovens against your will!”

My advice to that interviewed official?

Don’t give bad examples that will get distorted and drag your ass through the mud.

In the “tit-for-tat” back-and-forth arguing that is Washington DC these days, this was a GIMME that was provided by the Biden Administration to the GOP.

Again – no. Nothing political. We can all agree to that.

6 Likes
16

If we are going to fully legalized it, we need to treat it like alcohol. If anything that falls under that title is tolerated, it should be the same for cannabis. However, it goes both ways. To find a balance between the rights of the smokers verses non smokers. Just like alcohol, you can’t sell to minors without repercussions. Just like most places have open container laws, it would be the same, you cant just smoke anywhere. So on and so forth, just treat it just like alcohol. Like alcohol though, they do allow strawberry daquires, cotton candy and chocolate martinis…if you think a strain named cookies is bad, it pales in comparison to what is out there already for alcohol related products…

5 Likes
17

They’ve been assigning such names to Cannabis as long as there’s been Breeders. Most names currently relate to certain attributes, taste, smell, etc. It just happens that most Youth like Sweets. I personally think we can read too much into NON-correlating facts. SS/BW…mister :honeybee: :100: :pray: :smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

5 Likes
18

You’re right, not SOLELY for public interest. There has to be money, or the promise of it. :slight_smile:

3 Likes
19

This is a great point. BUT, as a man who has stood on the podium and had to say shit like, “If you think WE’RE bad, go have a look at X and Y. . .” I will tell you that that logic doesn’t wash in public. Wish it did. :slight_smile:

2 Likes
20

We absolutely can. :slight_smile: I do NOT disagree with you.

There will be a vast segment of the population that says to you: “Fine, great, I get it, but why are you so resistant? What’s the problem with protecting our kids, Mister?”

I don’t mean to be a dick. :slight_smile: This is the stuff I LITERALLY have to think ALL the way through if I’m going to do my job well.

2 Likes
21

As a dry alcoholic who once consumed 750ml of hard stuff per day, I very much align alcohol marketing and cannabis marketing. Good call.

3 Likes
22

i agree with you 100%, but think of the non-smokers, the ignorant, and those individuals that are “perpetually offended by something” just stepping into legalized ganja…
despite the fact WE know what the names are for and about, they do not, and most likely will have a screeching “think of the children” meltdown complete with 6 o clock news cameras and iphone journalists blogging about it on twatter and dicktok.

i don’t think many if not any of them will take the time to figure out why strains are named the way they are… they’re just going to screech and try to ban stuff they know nothing about.
i think we have all seen this scenario rinse and repeat a few times in our lifetimes.

10 Likes