Karma McKelvey1, Mike Baiocchi2, Divya Ramamurthi3, Sheila McLaughlin1, Bonnie Halpern-Felsher4. 1. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 2. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 4. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. Electronic address: Bonnie.HalpernFelsher@Stanford.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among adolescents and young adults ("AYA") and are available in many flavors. The e-cigarette industry argues that flavors are not meant to appeal to youth, yet no study has asked youth what age group they think ads for flavored e-liquids are targeting. We asked AYA which age group they thought ads for flavored e-liquids targeted. METHODS: In 2016 as part of a larger survey, a random sample of 255 youth from across California (62.4% female, mean age = 17.5, SD = 1.7) viewed eight ads, presented in randomized order, for fruit-, dessert-, alcohol-, and coffee-flavored e-liquids and indicated the age group they thought the ads targeted: younger, same age, a little older, or much older than them. Population means and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrapping (100,000 replicate samples). RESULTS: Most participants (93.7%) indicated the cupcake man flavor ad targeted an audience of people younger than they. Over half felt ads for smoothy (68.2%), cherry (63.9%), vanilla cupcake (58%), and caramel cappuccino (50.4%) targeted their age and for no flavor ad did most feel the primary target age group was much older. CONCLUSIONS: Youth believe ads for flavored e-liquids target individuals about their age, not older adults. Findings support the need to regulate flavored e-liquids and associated ads to reduce youth appeal, which ultimately could reduce youth use of e-cigarettes.
INTRODUCTION: E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among adolescents and young adults ("AYA") and are available in many flavors. The e-cigarette industry argues that flavors are not meant to appeal to youth, yet no study has asked youth what age group they think ads for flavored e-liquids are targeting. We asked AYA which age group they thought ads for flavored e-liquids targeted. METHODS: In 2016 as part of a larger survey, a random sample of 255 youth from across California (62.4% female, mean age = 17.5, SD = 1.7) viewed eight ads, presented in randomized order, for fruit-, dessert-, alcohol-, and coffee-flavored e-liquids and indicated the age group they thought the ads targeted: younger, same age, a little older, or much older than them. Population means and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrapping (100,000 replicate samples). RESULTS: Most participants (93.7%) indicated the cupcake man flavor ad targeted an audience of people younger than they. Over half felt ads for smoothy (68.2%), cherry (63.9%), vanilla cupcake (58%), and caramel cappuccino (50.4%) targeted their age and for no flavor ad did most feel the primary target age group was much older. CONCLUSIONS: Youth believe ads for flavored e-liquids target individuals about their age, not older adults. Findings support the need to regulate flavored e-liquids and associated ads to reduce youth appeal, which ultimately could reduce youth use of e-cigarettes.
Authors: Sarah M Klein; Gary A Giovino; Dianne C Barker; Cindy Tworek; K Michael Cummings; Richard J O'Connor Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Saul Shiffman; Mark A Sembower; Janine L Pillitteri; Karen K Gerlach; Joseph G Gitchell Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2015-01-07 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Bridget K Ambrose; Hannah R Day; Brian Rostron; Kevin P Conway; Nicolette Borek; Andrew Hyland; Andrea C Villanti Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eric M Clark; Chris A Jones; Jake Ryland Williams; Allison N Kurti; Mitchell Craig Norotsky; Christopher M Danforth; Peter Sheridan Dodds Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Devin M McCauley; Shivani Mathur Gaiha; Lauren Kass Lempert; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 4.614