Tobacco-Derived Nicotine Pouch Brands and Marketing Messages on Internet and Traditional Media: Content Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Nicotine pouches and lozenges are increasingly available in the United States, and sales are growing. The brands of nicotine pouch products with the largest market share are produced by tobacco companies. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the marketing of 5 oral nicotine products sold by tobacco companies. METHODS: Internet, radio, television, print, and web-based display advertisements between January 2019 and March 2020 for 6 brands of nicotine pouches and lozenges were identified through commercially available marketing surveillance systems supplemented by a manual search of trade press and a review of brand websites. A total of 711 advertisements (122 unique) were analyzed to identify characteristics, themes, marketing strategies, and target audiences, and qualitatively compared by brand. All 5 brand websites were also analyzed. Coders examined the entirety of each advertisement or website for products, marketing claims, and features and recorded the presence or absence of 27 marketing claims and lifestyle elements. RESULTS: All 6 brands of nicotine pouch products spent a total of US $11.2 million on advertising in 2019, with the most (US $10.7 million) spent by the brand Velo, and 86.1% (n=105) of the unique advertisements were web-based. Of the 711 total nicotine pouch advertisements run in 2019, the 2 brands Velo (n=407, 57%) and ZYN (n=303, 42%) dominated. These brands also made the greatest number of advertising claims in general. These claims focused on novelty, modernity, and use in a variety of contexts, including urban contexts, workplaces, transportation, and leisure activities. Of the 122 unique advertisements, ZYN's most common claims were to be "tobacco-free," featuring many flavors or varieties, and modern. Velo was the only brand to include urban contexts (n=14, 38.9% of advertisements) or freedom (n=8, 22.2%); Velo advertisements portrayed use in the workplace (n=15, 41.7%), bars or clubs (n=5, 13.9%), leisure activities (n=4, 11.1%), transportation (n=4, 11.1%), sports (n=3, 8.3%), cooking (n=2, 5.6%), and with alcohol (n=1, 2.8%). Velo and ZYN also included most of the images of people, including women and people of color. The 36 Velo ads included people in advertising in 77.8% (n=28) of advertisements, and of those advertisements with identifiable people, 40% (n=4) were young adults and 50% (n=5) were middle-aged. About one-third (n=11, 35.5%) of the 31 unique ZYN advertisements included people, and most identifiable models appeared to be young adults. Brands such as Rogue, Revel, Dryft, and on! focused mainly on product features. All nicotine pouch products made either tobacco-free, smoke-free, spit-free, or vape-free claims. The most common claim overall was "tobacco-free," found in advertisements from Rogue (1/1, 100%), ZYN (30/31, 96.8%), Velo (19/36, 52.8%), and Dryft (1/3, 33.3%), but not Revel. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine pouches and lozenges may expand the nicotine market as tobacco-free claims alleviate concerns about health harms and advertising features a greater diversity of people and contexts than typical smokeless tobacco advertising. The market leaders and highest-spending brands, ZYN and Velo, included more lifestyle claims. Surveillance of nicotine pouch marketing and uptake, including influence on tobacco use behaviors, is necessary.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».