Can E-Cigarette Companies Following the Price-Cut Trend Stop Their Losses?
Since November 1, 2022, when e-cigarettes were officially included in the consumption tax scope, the practice of major brands raising product prices has sparked ongoing controversy. Some industry players believe this approach is the simplest and most direct way to maintain corporate profits, while most consumers and retail terminals feel that completely passing on the consumption tax and excessively profiting is inherently "unethical" and disrespects the principle of "national interests first, consumer interests first."
Meanwhile, e-cigarette companies that find it difficult to adhere to "short-termism" have gradually regained their senses from the initial blind and flamboyant "price hike craze." The "short, flat, fast" sales model is not suitable for the regulated e-cigarette industry, and its survival path will also break conventional balances.
The e-cigarette industry welcomes a "price reduction craze"
The "survival path" is forced to break the balance
According to a report by Vapor Talk on February 6, several e-cigarette companies have submitted price reduction applications to higher authorities, which officially took effect on April 17. Recently, it has been reported that in addition to the few brands whose price reduction applications have recently taken effect, more related companies have also followed suit in submitting price reduction applications.
The continuous wave of price reductions has also raised suspicions: is it genuinely beneficial to consumers, or is it laying the groundwork for future strategies? After e-cigarettes were included in the tax scope, brands like Pod, Qianmu, Lankai, and VAZO stated they would bear part of the tax to ensure that retail prices do not rise too high while benefiting consumers and retail terminals. However, due to excessive price increases, consumers and retail terminals are reluctant to accept, leading to losses for several companies.
This time, Vapor Talk invited 20 audience members for interviews, including consumers, retail terminals, and brand representatives. Excluding examples with similar proposals and overly extreme opinions, three audience viewpoints were selected for release. Due to personal privacy concerns, all comments are categorized.
Interview Responses
1. Consumer:
Compared to the previous premium sales, the cost of purchasing after the price reduction will decrease, saving real money, which is the most direct benefit for consumers. However, those who previously spent more to purchase may still have some resistance. The price reduction feels like grabbing a high-value discount coupon on a shopping platform—tasteless yet regrettable to discard, more of a psychological comfort than a real demand. Nevertheless, I still support this price reduction operation; if the quality can improve, it should increase acceptance among consumers like me.
2. Retail Terminal:
Although the sudden price reduction is indeed a good thing, if we consider the normal tax-inclusive price, it is still quite high. I know we can no longer view this matter with past ordering prices, but the sudden increase in retail prices not only drives customers away but even makes me question how to define it. The quantity of products that could be ordered is already low, and I have to rely on time and luck to encounter them, which is frustrating when every click shows "sold out." Perhaps the brand wants us to clear out the previous high-priced inventory during this time, but they haven't considered how we should respond to customer inquiries about price changes. Compared to those big distributors making a fortune, my small county's scarce customer base has already lost many due to previous high pricing. This price reduction by the brand should stabilize old customers, while new customers may gradually be attracted.
3. Brand Representative:
The decision to reduce prices is made by the company, not only to align with the weight of consumer purchasing mechanisms but also as a preliminary planning scheme for future market share. The e-cigarette industry needs to undergo significant changes after being regulated, and the implementation of consumption tax brings both openness and constraints. Policies that encourage and restrict simultaneously cannot be clearly defined for now, making the entire company system overly passive. Moreover, revolutionary products resulting from technological innovation cannot be achieved overnight. We hope to cater to consumers through price and flavor advantages while also introducing changes in the interaction system to enhance the overall product experience.
Based on interviews with 20 audience members, most users still support the price reduction. Although the initial pricing and premium sales put the entire industry at the center of controversy, the emergence of the price reduction craze is undoubtedly beneficial for the industry's future layout. Whether this layout ultimately serves to stop losses in time and provide more benefits to consumers, or is merely a "sweet date after a slap," will require the test of time and subsequent actions.
