RESEARCH PAPER
Reasons for engagement with online tobacco marketing among US adolescents and young adults
 
More details
Hide details
1
The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, United States
2
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, United States
3
Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, United States
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Meghan Bridgid Moran   

Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 624 North Broadway, Hampton House Room 744, Baltimore, MD 21205, United States
Publish date: 2019-01-10
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2019;17(January):2
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Engagement with online tobacco marketing among US adolescents increased from nearly 9% (2013–2014) to 21% (2014–2015). Such engagement increases the risk of tobacco use initiation. Despite the increase in the prevalence of and risks associated with engagement, the reasons why adolescents and young adults engage are not known.

Methods:
A sample of 2619 adolescents (13–17 years) and 2625 young adults (18–24 years) living in the US participated in an online survey in July–August 2017. Engagement with online tobacco marketing was assessed through five forms of engagement (e.g. watched a video online promoting tobacco products). Reasons for engagement were assessed through an open-ended survey question. Prevalence of reasons for engagement was calculated overall, by tobacco use status, and by age group (adolescents and young adults). Multivariable logistic regression models were fit with engagement as the outcome (overall and specific reasons) and sociodemographics (including age, gender, and race/ethnicity) and tobacco use status (non-susceptible and susceptible never tobacco users; ever, but not past 30-day tobacco users; and past 30-day tobacco users) as covariates.

Results:
Across all tobacco use statuses, the leading reasons for engagement were curiosity or desire for general knowledge about tobacco products (3.9%); incidental, unintended or forced exposure to tobacco ad (3.8%); and seeking discounts, coupons, incentives, or contests (2.9%). Susceptible never tobacco users were more likely to engage because of curiosity or general knowledge than nonsusceptible never tobacco users (adjusted odds ratio, AOR=6.81; p<0.01). Past 30-day tobacco users were more likely to engage because of discounts, coupons, incentives, or contests and product appeal than ever, but not past 30-day tobacco users (AOR=7.10; p<0.01).

Conclusions:
Stricter state and federal regulation of tobacco marketing, specifically tobacco ads and coupons, and stronger self-regulation by social networking sites could reduce youth engagement with online tobacco marketing.

 
REFERENCES (40)
1.
Lewis MJ, Yulis SG, Delnevo C, Hrywna M. Tobacco Industry Direct Marketing after the Master Settlement Agreement. Health Promot Pract. 2004;5(3 suppl):75S-83S. doi:10.1177/1524839904264596
 
2.
Laura Bach. Tobacco Product Marketing on the Internet. Washington DC: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids; 2018.
 
3.
Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission Cigarette Report for 2016. Washington DC: Federal Trade Commission; 2018.
 
4.
Ribisl KM. The potential of the internet as a medium to encourage and discourage youth tobacco use. Tob Control. 2003;12(suppl 1):i48-i59. doi:10.1136/tc.12.suppl_1.i48
 
5.
Freeman B, Chapman S. Open source marketing: Camel cigarette brand marketing in the “Web 2.0” world. Tob Control. 2009;18(3):212-217. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.027375
 
6.
Wackowski OA, Lewis MJ, Delnevo CD. Qualitative analysis of Camel Snus’ website message board—users’ product perceptions, insights and online interactions. Tob Control. 2011;20(2):e1-e1. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037911
 
7.
Richardson A, Ganz O, Vallone D. The cigar ambassador: How Snoop Dogg uses Instagram to promote tobacco use. Tob Control. 2014;23(1):79-80. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051037
 
8.
Tessman GK, Caraballo RS, Corey CG, Xu X, Chang CM. Exposure to tobacco coupons among U.S. middle and high school students. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(2):S61-S68. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2014.05.001
 
9.
Soneji S, Pierce JP, Choi K, et al. Engagement with online tobacco marketing and associations with tobacco product use among U.S. youth. J Adolesc Health. 2017;61(1):61-69. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.01.023
 
10.
Soneji S, Yang J, Moran MB, et al. Engagement with Online Tobacco Marketing Among Adolescents in the US: 2013-2014 to 2014-2015. Nicotine Tob Res. 2018. doi:10.1093/ntr/nty086
 
11.
Soneji S, Yang J, Knutzen KE, et al. Online Tobacco Marketing and Subsequent Tobacco Use. Pediatrics. 2018;141(2). doi:10.1542/peds.2017-2927
 
12.
Pierce JP. Tobacco industry marketing, population-based tobacco control, and smoking behavior. Am J Prev Med. 2007;33(6 Suppl):S327-S334. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.09.007
 
13.
National Cancer Institute. Monograph 19: The Role of the Media in Promoting and Reducing Tobacco Use. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health; 2018.
 
14.
McGuire WJ. Public communication as a strategy for inducing health-promoting behavioral change. Prev Med. 1984;13(3):299-319. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(84)90086-0
 
15.
McGuire WJ. Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications. In: Public Communications Campaigns. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
 
16.
Strong DR, Hartman SJ, Nodora J, et al. Predictive validity of the expanded susceptibility to smoke index. Nicotine Tob Res. 2015;17(7):862-869. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu254
 
17.
The Comprehensive R Archive Network. https://cran.r-project.org/. Published, 2018. Accessed July 14, 2018.
 
18.
Singh T, Agaku IT, Arrazola RA, et al. Exposure to Advertisements and Electronic Cigarette Use Among US Middle and High School Students. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5):e20154155. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-4155
 
19.
Dunlop S, Freeman B, Perez D. Exposure to Internet-Based Tobacco Advertising and Branding: Results From Population Surveys of Australian Youth 2010-2013. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(6):e104. doi:10.2196/jmir.5595
 
20.
Hyland A, Bauer JE, Li Q, et al. Higher cigarette prices influence cigarette purchase patterns. Tob Control. 2005;14(2):86-92. doi:10.1136/tc.2004.008730
 
21.
Rose SW, Glasser AM, Zhou Y, et al. Adolescent tobacco coupon receipt, vulnerability characteristics and subsequent tobacco use: analysis of PATH Study, Waves 1 and 2. Tob Control. 2018;27(e1):e50-e56. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054141
 
22.
Williams RS, Derrick J, Phillips KJ. Cigarette sales to minors via the internet: how the story has changed in the wake of federal regulation. Tob Control. 2016:26(4). doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052844
 
23.
Williams RS, Derrick J, Ribisl KM. Electronic Cigarette Sales to Minors via the Internet. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(3):e1563. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.63
 
24.
Soneji S, Gerling M, Yang J, Sargent J. Online Electronic Cigarette Marketing—Violation of Self-regulated Standards by Tobacco Companies. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(5):511-512. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4501
 
25.
Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center. Tobacco Price Promotion: Local Regulation of Discount Coupons and Certain Value-Added Sales. Boston, MA; 2013.
 
26.
Public Health Law Center. Policy Approaches to Restricting Tobacco Product Coupons and Retail Value-Added Promotions. Saint Paul, MN; 2013.
 
27.
Massachusetts Department of Revenue. Directive 03-14: Cigarette Manufacturer Coupon Programs. 2003.
 
28.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., et al. 585 U. S. (Supreme Court of the United States 2018). https://www.supremecourt.gov/o.... Accessed July 14, 2018.
 
29.
Public Health Law Center, Public Health and Tobacco Policy Center. U.S. E-Cigarette Regulation: A 50-State Review. Saint Paul, MN; 2018.
 
30.
Food and Drug Administration. Cigar Labeling and Warning Statement Requirements. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.
 
31.
Food and Drug Administration. “Covered” Tobacco Product and Roll-Your-Own/ Cigarette Tobacco Labeling and Warning Statement Requirements. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.
 
32.
Noar SM, Hall MG, Francis DB, Ribisl KM, Pepper JK, Brewer NT. Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: a meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tob Control. 2016;25(3):341-354. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051978
 
33.
Noar SM, Francis DB, Bridges C, Sontag JM, Ribisl KM, Brewer NT. The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc Sci Med. 2016;164:118-129. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.011
 
34.
Hammond D. Health warning messages on tobacco products: a review. Tob Control. 2011;20(5):327-337. doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037630
 
35.
US Supreme Court. Packingham v. North Carolina, 582 U.S. (2017).
 
36.
Advertising Policies. Prohibited Content. Tobacco Products. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/polic.... Published, 2017. Accessed July 14, 2018.
 
37.
Jackler RK, Li VY, Cardiff RAL, Ramamurthi D. Promotion of tobacco products on Facebook: policy versus practice. Tob Control. 2018. doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054175
 
38.
Google. YouTube Help. Harmful or dangerous content. https://support.google.com/you.... Accessed July 14, 2018.
 
39.
Lenhart A. Teens, Social Media & Technology Overview 2015. Pew Research Center; http://www.pewinternet.org/201.... Published, April 9, 2015. Accessed July 14, 2018.
 
40.
Krumpal I. Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Qual Quant. 2013;47(4):2025-2047. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9640-9
 
eISSN:1617-9625