Andrew B Seidenberg1, Catherine L Jo1, Kurt M Ribisl2. 1. Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Health Behavior, 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
BACKGROUND: Three categories of e-cigarette brands have emerged within the US market: e-cigarette brands developed by cigarette manufacturers, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation. In the absence of federal regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, we assessed differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these categories. METHODS: Brand websites for top-selling e-cigarette brands from each of these categories were examined in October of 2015 to compare website access restrictions, online sales practices and products sold, including e-cigarette model type (eg, 'cigalike' vs advanced systems) and options available (eg, flavoured, nicotine free). RESULTS: Website access to brands developed by cigarette manufacturers was restricted to users aged 21 years or older, and one website required user registration. In addition, these brands were exclusively reusable/rechargeable 'cigalikes.' Limited flavour options were available for these products, and nicotine-free options were not sold. In contrast, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation generally required website visitors to be 18, offered a nicotine-free option, and most offered disposable products and an array of flavoured products (eg, fruit/candy flavours). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study finds differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these three e-cigarette brand categories, with brands developed by cigarette manufacturers adopting a particularly distinctive product and sales strategy. Anticipated regulation of e-cigarettes in the USA may be influencing these product and sales decisions. 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/
BACKGROUND: Three categories of e-cigarette brands have emerged within the US market: e-cigarette brands developed by cigarette manufacturers, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation. In the absence of federal regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, we assessed differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these categories. METHODS: Brand websites for top-selling e-cigarette brands from each of these categories were examined in October of 2015 to compare website access restrictions, online sales practices and products sold, including e-cigarette model type (eg, 'cigalike' vs advanced systems) and options available (eg, flavoured, nicotine free). RESULTS: Website access to brands developed by cigarette manufacturers was restricted to users aged 21 years or older, and one website required user registration. In addition, these brands were exclusively reusable/rechargeable 'cigalikes.' Limited flavour options were available for these products, and nicotine-free options were not sold. In contrast, brands acquired by cigarette manufacturers and brands with no cigarette manufacturer affiliation generally required website visitors to be 18, offered a nicotine-free option, and most offered disposable products and an array of flavoured products (eg, fruit/candy flavours). CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study finds differences in e-cigarette products and sales practices across these three e-cigarette brand categories, with brands developed by cigarette manufacturers adopting a particularly distinctive product and sales strategy. Anticipated regulation of e-cigarettes in the USA may be influencing these product and sales decisions. 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:
Electronic nicotine delivery devices; Surveillance and monitoring; Tobacco industry
Authors: Dale S Mantey; Melissa B Harrell; Kathleen Case; Brittani Crook; Steven H Kelder; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Jessica L Barrington-Trimis; Laura A Gibson; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher; Melissa B Harrell; Grace Kong; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Adam M Leventhal; Alexandra Loukas; Rob McConnell; Scott R Weaver Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 4.244
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: Andrew A Strasser; Valentina Souprountchouk; Amanda Kaufmann; Sonja Blazekovic; Frank Leone; Neal L Benowitz; Robert A Schnoll Journal: Tob Regul Sci Date: 2016-10