Oral nicotine marketing claims in direct-mail advertising

Abstract

BackgroundLittle is known regarding how oral nicotine products (eg, nicotine pouches, lozenges) are marketed to consumers, including whether potential implicit reduced harm claims are used. In the current study, we explored the marketing claims present in a sample of direct-mail oral nicotine advertisements sent to US consumers (March 2018–August 2020).MethodsDirect-mail ads (n=50) were acquired from Mintel and dual-coded for the following claims: alternative to other tobacco products, ability to use anywhere, spit-free, smoke-free and product does not contain tobacco leaf. We merged the coded data with Mintel’s volume estimate (number of mail pieces sent to consumers) and calculated the proportion of oral nicotine advertisements containing claims by category.ResultsOf the 38 million pieces of oral nicotine direct-mail sent to US consumers, most featured claims that the product could be used anywhere (84%, 31.8 million pieces); was an alternative to other tobacco products (69%, 26.1 million pieces); and did not contain tobacco leaf (eg, ‘tobacco leaf-free’, ‘simple’ approach of extracting nicotine from tobacco; 55%, 20.7 million pieces). A slightly smaller proportion contained claims that oral nicotine was ‘spit-free’ (52%, 19.8 million pieces) or ‘smoke-free’ (31%, 11.7 million pieces).ConclusionOur results provide an early indication of marketing claims used to promote oral nicotine. The strategies documented, particularly the use of language to highlight oral nicotine is tobacco-free, may covey these products as lower-risk to consumers despite the lack of evidence or proper federal authorisation that oral nicotine products are a modified-risk tobacco product. Future research is needed to examine consumer perceptions of such claims.

Levels of nicotine and tobacco-specific nitrosamines in oral nicotine pouches

“…This is of importance as tobacco smoking still claimed the lives of 7.69 million people worldwide in 2019 35. Manufacturers already advertise the products as alternatives to cigarettes 36. However, the overall public health effect of these new products is unclear.…”

“…35 Manufacturers already advertise the products as alternatives to cigarettes. 36 However, the overall public health effect of these new products is unclear. For example, the appeal of nicotine pouches to youth and their potential to induce addiction are not known yet.…”

Perceptions of Oral Nicotine Pouches on Reddit: Observational Study

“…The proliferation of these products in the marketplace and the former availability of the Zonnic product as an FDA-approved cessation aid might engender confusion that using oral nicotine pouches can help with tobacco cessation [ 33 , 34 ]. In addition, the marketing of oral nicotine pouches as “tobacco-free” might convey to users that oral nicotine pouches are low-risk products, although there is a lack of evidence and there is no FDA authorization for those products as a modified risk tobacco product [ 35 ]. These findings broadly support the discovery of quitting-related posts of oral nicotine pouches in our study, as well as the unanticipated conclusion that the majority of these posts have positive sentiments.…”

Neighborhood distribution of availability of newer tobacco products: A four-site study, 2021

“…Availability varies in different parts of the country and patterns of availability of these two product types are not the same. Though these products share some common features such as relatively high nicotine concentration, flavor availability, 'tobacco-free' claims, and relatively low price, [16][17][18][19] retail marketing appears to differ. Nicotine pouches seem to be more common in chain convenience stores likely driven by their promotion by major tobacco companies.…”