Research paper
 
CC-BY-NC 4.0
 
 

Clean, Cheap, Convenient: Promotion of Electronic Cigarettes on YouTube

Clara G Sears 1  ,  
Joy L Hart 1,  
Allison Siu 1,  
 
1
University of Louisville, United States
Tob. Prev. Cessation 2017;3(April):10
Publish date: 2017-04-07
Submission date: 2016-11-29
Final revision date: 2017-02-15
Acceptance date: 2017-03-08
KEYWORDS:
TOPICS:
 
ABSTRACT:
Introduction:
Videos promoting electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) can be easily accessed on YouTube. Marketing claims present in YouTube videos may help shape the public’s opinion of e-cigarettes. Thus, it is important to understand the most frequent marketing claims and video sources.

Methods:
The objectives of this study were to 1) identify marketing claims in YouTube videos that are commonly made on e-cigarette retail websites and 2) compare the frequency of marketing claims in user-generated and professional YouTube videos. Through content analysis, this study evaluated six marketing claims and descriptive information about YouTube videos (n = 50) related to “electronic cigarettes” and “vape”.

Results:
Overall, the most frequent marketing claim promoted e-cigarette use as better than traditional tobacco use (52%). Approximately 65% of videos appeared to be user-generated and 35% were professionally-produced. Compared to user-generated videos, significantly more professional videos made claims that e-cigarettes are cleaner (p < 0.001) and cheaper (p = 0.04) than traditional cigarettes. Additionally, more professional videos had claims promoting e-cigarettes as better than traditional cigarettes because of their convenience—the user can smoke anywhere (p < 0.0001) and the products do not produce secondhand smoke (p < 0.001). The most frequent claim in user-generated videos was related to recreation (53%).

Conclusions:
Videos on YouTube promote e-cigarettes as safer than other tobacco products. Videos appearing to be user-generated contained different marketing claims compared to professional videos. Further research is necessary to assess how the perceived source of the video impacts the ways these marketing claims shape public perception and influence use.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Clara G Sears   
University of Louisville, 310 Strickler Hall, 40204 Louisville, United States
 
REFERENCES (15):
1. de Andrade M, Hastings G, Angus K: Promotion of electronic cigarettes: tobacco marketing reinvented?. BMJ [2013], 347:f7473. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f7473.
2. Yamin CK, Bitton A, Bates DW: E-cigarettes: a rapidly growing internet phenomenon. Ann Intern Med [2010], 153:607-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-153-9-201011020-00011.
3. Paek HJ, Kim S, Hove T, Huh JY: Reduced harm or another gateway to smoking? source, message, and information characteristics of e-cigarette videos on YouTube. J Health Commun [2014], 19(5):545-60. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.821560.
4. Noel JK, Rees VW, Connolly GN: Electronic cigarettes: a new 'tobacco' industry? Tob. Control [2010], 20:81. doi: 10.1136/tc.20O.0138562.
5. McQueen A, Tower S, Sumner W: Interviews with "vapers": implications for future. McQueen A, Tower S, Sumner W: Interviews with "vapers": implications for future research with electronic cigarettes. Nicotine Tob Res [2011], 13(9):860-7. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntr088.
6. Elkin L, Thomson G, Wilson N: Connecting world youth with tobacco brands: YouTube and the internet policy vacuum on Web 2.0. Tob Control [2010], 19(5):361-6. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.035949.
7. Freeman B, Chapman S: Is "YouTube" telling or selling you something? tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tob Control [2007], 16(3):207-10. doi: 10.1136/tc.2007.020024.
8. Huang J, Kornfield R, Emery SL: 100 million views of electronic cigarette YouTube videos and counting: quantification, content evaluation, and engagement levels of videos. J Med Internet Res [2016], 18(3):e67. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4265.
9. Romito LM, Hurwich RA, Eckert GJ: A snapshot of the depiction of electronic cigarettes in YouTube videos. Am J Health Behav [2015], 39(6):823-31. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.39.6.10.
10. Luo, C, Zheng X, Zeng DD, Leischow S: Portrayal of electronic cigarettes on YouTube. BMC Public Health [2014], 14:1028. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1028.
11. Steyn, P, Ewing MT, van Heerden G, Pitt LF: From whence it came: understanding source effects in consumer-generated advertising. International J Advertising [2011], 30(1):133. doi: 10.2501/ija-30-1-133-160.
12. Grana RA, Ling PM: "Smoking revolution": a content analysis of electronic cigarette retail websites. Am J Prev Med [2014], 46(4):395-403. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.12.010.
13. Amrock SM, Zakhar J, Zhou S, Weitzman M: Perception of e-cigarette harm and its correlation with use among U.S. adolescents. Nicotine Tob Res [2015], 17(3):330-6. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu156.
14. Schraufnagel DE: Electronic cigarettes: vulnerability of youth. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Pulmonol [2015], 28(1):2-6. doi: 10.1089/ped.2015.0490.
15. McMillen RC, Gottlieb MA, Shaefer RM, Winickoff JP, Klein JD: Trends in electronic cigarette use among U.S. adults: use is increasing in both smokers and nonsmokers. Nicotine Tob Res [2015], 17(10):1195-202. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu213.
eISSN:2459-3087