You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Marketing claims on the websites of leading e-cigarette brands in England

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Original research
Marketing claims on the websites of leading e-cigarette brands in England
  1. Matilda Kim Nottage1,
  2. Eve Violet Taylor1,
  3. Yebin Kim1,
  4. Nicole Soh1,
  5. David Hammond2,
  6. Erikas Simonavicius1,
  7. Ann McNeill1,3,
  8. Deborah Arnott4,
  9. Katherine East1
  1. 1Addictions Department, King's College London, London, UK
  2. 2School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  3. 3Shaping Public Health Policies to Reduce Inequalities and Harm (SPECTRUM) Consortium, Edinburgh, UK
  4. 4Action on Smoking and Health, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Matilda Kim Nottage, Addictions Department, King's College London, London, SE5 8BB, UK; matilda.nottage{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Introduction Exposure to electronic cigarette (EC) marketing is associated with EC use, particularly among youth. In England, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations and Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) regulate EC marketing to reduce appeal to youth; however, there are little published data on EC marketing claims used online. This study therefore provides an overview of marketing claims present on the websites of EC brands popular in England.

Methods From January to February 2022, a content analysis of 10 of England’s most popular EC brand websites was conducted, including violation of CAP codes.

Results Of the 10 websites, all presented ECs as an alternative to smoking, 8 as a smoking cessation aid and 6 as less harmful than smoking. Four websites presented ECs as risk-free. All mentioned product quality, modernity, convenience, sensory experiences and vendor promotions. Nine featured claims about flavours, colours, customisability and nicotine salts. Seven featured claims concerning social benefits, personal identity, sustainability, secondhand smoke and nicotine strength. Six featured claims about fire safety. Some claimed ECs are cheaper than tobacco (n=5), cited health professionals (n=4) or featured collaborations with brands/icons (n=4). All were assessed by the research team to violate one or more CAP code(s) by featuring medicinal claims (n=8), contents which may appeal to non-smokers (n=7), associations with youth culture (n=6), depictions of youth using ECs (n=6) or media targeting youth (n=5).

Conclusion Among 10 top EC brand websites in England, marketing elements that might appeal to youth were commonly identified and CAP code compliance was low.

  • Electronic nicotine delivery devices
  • Public policy
  • Nicotine
  • Advertising and Promotion

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tc-2023-057934

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @MatildaNottage, @EveTaylor22, @kingsNRG

    • Presented at This research was presented as an e-poster at the European Conference on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies.

    • Contributors MKN—guarantor; investigation, writing (original draft) and formal analysis. EVT—conceptualisation, methodology, supervision, funding acquisition and writing (review and editing). AM—conceptualisation, supervision, funding acquisition and writing (review and editing). YK—investigation and data curation. NS—investigation and data curation. DH—writing (review and editing), conceptualisation and funding acquisition. ES—writing (review and editing). DA—writing (review and editing). KE—methodology, writing (review and editing), supervision, data curation, project administration and funding acquisition.

    • Funding This project was funded by Cancer Research UK (PPRCTAGPJT\100008). KE is the recipient of fellowship funding from the UK Society for the Study of Addiction (SSA). EVT is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit in Environmental Exposures and Health, a partnership between the UK Health Security Agency and Imperial College London.

    • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UK Health Security Agency or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.