Catherine L Jo1, Rachel Kornfield2, Yoonsang Kim3, Sherry Emery3, Kurt M Ribisl4. 1. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 3. Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 4. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study examined price-related promotions for tobacco products on Twitter. METHODS: Through the Twitter Firehose, we obtained access to all public tweets posted between 6 December 2012 and 20 June 2013 that contained a keyword suggesting a tobacco-related product or behaviour (eg, cigarette, vaping) in addition to a keyword suggesting a price promotion (eg, coupon, discount). From this data set of 155 249 tweets, we constructed a stratified sampling frame based on the price-related keywords and randomly sampled 5000 tweets (3.2%). Tweets were coded for product type and promotion type. Non-English tweets and tweets unrelated to a tobacco or cessation price promotion were excluded, leaving an analytic sample of 2847 tweets. RESULTS: The majority of tweets (97.0%) mentioned tobacco products while 3% mentioned tobacco cessation products. E-cigarettes were the most frequently mentioned product (90.1%), followed by cigarettes (5.4%). The most common type of price promotion mentioned across all products was a discount. About a third of all e-cigarette-related tweets included a discount code. Banned or restricted price promotions comprised about 3% of cigarette-related tweets. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the vast majority of tweets offering price promotions focus on e-cigarettes. Future studies should examine the extent to which Twitter users, particularly youth, notice or engage with these price promotion tweets. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
OBJECTIVES: This cross-sectional study examined price-related promotions for tobacco products on Twitter. METHODS: Through the Twitter Firehose, we obtained access to all public tweets posted between 6 December 2012 and 20 June 2013 that contained a keyword suggesting a tobacco-related product or behaviour (eg, cigarette, vaping) in addition to a keyword suggesting a price promotion (eg, coupon, discount). From this data set of 155 249 tweets, we constructed a stratified sampling frame based on the price-related keywords and randomly sampled 5000 tweets (3.2%). Tweets were coded for product type and promotion type. Non-English tweets and tweets unrelated to a tobacco or cessation price promotion were excluded, leaving an analytic sample of 2847 tweets. RESULTS: The majority of tweets (97.0%) mentioned tobacco products while 3% mentioned tobacco cessation products. E-cigarettes were the most frequently mentioned product (90.1%), followed by cigarettes (5.4%). The most common type of price promotion mentioned across all products was a discount. About a third of all e-cigarette-related tweets included a discount code. Banned or restricted price promotions comprised about 3% of cigarette-related tweets. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the vast majority of tweets offering price promotions focus on e-cigarettes. Future studies should examine the extent to which Twitter users, particularly youth, notice or engage with these price promotion tweets. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Advertising and Promotion; Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Price; Surveillance and monitoring
Authors: Emily T Hébert; Elizabeth A Vandewater; Michael S Businelle; Melissa B Harrell; Steven H Kelder; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2017-05-03 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Allison M Glasser; Lauren Collins; Jennifer L Pearson; Haneen Abudayyeh; Raymond S Niaura; David B Abrams; Andrea C Villanti Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-11-30 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: David T Levy; Eric N Lindblom; David T Sweanor; Frank Chaloupka; Richard J O'Connor; Ce Shang; Thomas Palley; Geoffrey T Fong; K Michael Cummings; Maciej L Goniewicz; Ron Borland Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2019-03
Authors: Jennifer B Unger; Robert Urman; Tess Boley Cruz; Anuja Majmundar; Jessica Barrington-Trimis; Mary Ann Pentz; Rob McConnell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-06-10 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Kelly D Blake; Anna Gaysynsky; Rachel Grana Mayne; Andrew B Seidenberg; Annette Kaufman; Heather D'Angelo; Maria Roditis; Robert E Vollinger Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Elizabeth A Vandewater; Stephanie L Clendennen; Emily T Hébert; Galya Bigman; Christian D Jackson; Anna V Wilkinson; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2018-03