logo

Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation

Author: Zhu

Year Published: 2014

Summary

Introduction: This article provides an analysis of the e-cigarette market and its evolution over time, focusing on the internet marketplace. The study compares e-cigarette brands that were available on the internet in 2012 to those that became available between 2012 and 2014. The study aims to inform future regulatory policies by gaining insights from the changes taking place in an unregulated marketplace.

Key Points:

* The study identified 466 e-cigarette brands on the internet in January 2014.
* Older brands were more likely to offer cigalikes, while newer brands were more likely to offer eGos and mods.
* Older brands were more likely to claim that they were healthier, cheaper, and more effective smoking cessation aids than conventional cigarettes.
* Newer brands offered more flavors per brand and were less likely to compare themselves with conventional cigarettes.
* The number of e-cigarette brands has been increasing, and older brands tend to highlight their advantages over conventional cigarettes, while newer brands emphasize consumer choice in multiple flavors and product versatility.

Main Message:
The e-cigarette market is rapidly evolving, with a large and increasing number of brands and flavors available on the internet. The study's findings can serve as a benchmark for future research on the impact of upcoming regulations on e-cigarette product design and advertising messages. The study highlights the importance of monitoring the e-cigarette market and developing regulatory policies that can effectively address the potential risks and benefits associated with e-cigarette use.

Citation

Zhu, Shu-hong, Jessica Y Sun, Erika Bonnevie, Sharon E Cummins, anthony Gamst, Lu Yin, and Madeleine Lee. “Four hundred and Sixty Brands of E-Cigarettes and Counting: Implications for Product Regulation.” Tobacco Control 23, no. suppl 3 (July 2014): iii3–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051670.
Read Article