Innovation with Purpose: PMI’s Tommaso Di Giovanni on Trust, Transparency, and Technology

Technovation is about harnessing innovation to solve societal problems. How does PMI define innovation with purpose and how does this connect with your vision for some-free future?

It’s the same thing: our vision is innovation with purpose. The purpose is giving those who do not quit smoking a better alternative to improve pubic health, because we believe it’s the right thing to do for society and for public health. It’s also making business sense, because if a company can actually address societal expectations in today’s world, that company would be much more successful! It’s for once a place where purpose and business go absolutely together and it’s a win-win for us and for society to go in the direction of smoke-free: replacing all cigarettes with better alternatives.

What role do science, technologies and communications play in changing public perceptions about tobacco harm reduction?

 A big role. Especially in a sector like ours where opinions are entrenched, because cigarettes have been around for centuries and people have long been fully aware of the risks of smoking, of the fact that it causes diseases. This generated campaigns from governments that were absolutely appropriate when it comes to dissuade from smoking but may not be as effective in today’s world. I’ll give you one example. In many countries around the world, and I’m sure yours is no different, the majority of people out there believe, that nicotine is what causes the harms related to smoking. That is simply not true. But for decades,  anti-smoking campaigns conflated nicotine and the harm caused by cigarettes. Why? To simplify tobacco control campaigns. The famous phrase that “a drop of nicotine can kill a horse” which is widespread in the region is not accurate but was meant to scare smokers and make sure they didn’t use any nicotine at all when the only nicotine used was basically with cigarettes. In today’s world it’s not appropriate anymore, because the real issue is not nicotine. It’s the chemical factory that is generated by burning when we light up a cigarette. And that’s what we should really address, not nicotine. So we now need to change entrenched opinions based on inaccurate facts, something that requires a lot of effort: right products, the right technology, and of the right communication to convince those who do not quit to switch to better alternatives that exist today

Sometimes it’s really hard to communicate.

Yes, so a lot of communication needs to be done to make sure people understand the category of smoke-free products and that they now have better alternatives to cigarettes if they do not quit.

What strategies do you use to make scientific research understandable for the general public?

So scientific research was and is at the core of what we do. It’s research to develop less harmful alternatives and confirm these alternatives reduce risk compared to cigarettes. Then how do you communicate it? Well, that depends on the audience. Clearly, when we talk to the scientific community, we go into a lot of detail, and we’re actually pretty granular into the research that we share, and we do that a lot: at conferences, publications.  And then there is the general public. To the general public, I think, one needs to simplify as much as possible. This is why we came up with the simplest way to say what we’re trying to say, which is three lines that say: “If you don’t smoke, don’t start”, simply because “because it causes diseases”; “If you smoke, quit” because “it’s the best thing you can do for your health”; but “if you don’t quit, change”, because today you have alternatives that are a better choice. This is the best we can do in simplifying a lot of science in simple terms that everyone would agree with.

Thank you. How do you ensure transparency in your messaging, when you face skepticism often surrounding the tobacco industry?

Look, transparency is key. Transparency is key because I think that a typical American way of saying or English way of saying “Walk the talk” is very important, especially when you came from decades of campaigns against an industry. Even one single sign of lack of transparency can be used against you and then transform into a big issue. So we are very aware of it. And that’s why we are transparent in everything we do and share with the public, also because we want to encourage debate. Debate is a positive thing. It doesn’t mean necessarily that you agree on everything, but that debate makes rationality progress and takes to better choices, we firmly believe in that. And actually, if there is one concern that I think we have as a company is that the debate is not always there. There are still, unfortunately, some organizations in public health that are closed to that debate, that are entrenched on the ideological positions, and I think that’s a shame, because science today actually tells us something different than what they think.

I agree, and the last question: in your experience, how different are the challenges in communications, PMI’s vision in emerging markets compared to larger, more developed ones?

Look I would say they are different and they’re not. In the sense that in the end I think the challenge is similar, and it’s making sure that people do understand the basics about the category: they understand nicotine, they understand the role of burning, they do understand what those alternatives are and the potential benefits and risks. One difference is sometimes that the point of departure in understanding al those things may be different. There are countries, for instance, where people are not as concerned with smoking as an issue. In those countries it’s clearly more difficult to convince them that alternatives are a good solution. That is why we are so insisting in saying “If you don’t smoke – don’t start.  If smoke- quit. If you don’t quit – change. ” We want every smoker who does not quit – to change to a better alternative in every country as soon as possible.