Point-of-sale marketing and context of marijuana retailers: Assessing reliability and generalizability of the marijuana retail surveillance tool

Abstract

As recreational marijuana expands, standardized surveillance measures examining the retail environment are critical for informing policy and enforcement. We conducted a reliability and generalizability study using a previously developed tool involving assessment of a sample of 25 randomly selected Seattle recreational marijuana retailers (20 recreational; 5 recreational/medical) in 2017. The tool assessed: 1) contextual/neighborhood features (i.e., facilities nearby); 2) compliance/security (e.g., age-of-sale signage, age verification); and 3) marketing (i.e., promotions, product availability, price). We found that retailers were commonly within two blocks of restaurants (n = 23), grocery stores (n = 17), liquor stores (n = 13), and bars/clubs (n = 11). Additionally, two were within two blocks of schools, and four were within two blocks of parks. Almost all (n = 23) had exterior signage indicating the minimum age requirement, and 23 verified age. Two retailers had exterior ads for marijuana, and 24 had interior ads. Overall, there were 76 interior ads (M = 3.04; SD = 1.84), most commonly for edibles (n = 28). At least one price promotion/discount was recorded in 17 retailers, most commonly in the form of loyalty membership programs (n = 10) or daily/weekly deals (n = 10). One retailer displayed potential health harms/warnings, while three posted some health claim. Products available across product categories were similar; we also noted instances of selling retailer-branded apparel/ paraphernalia (which is prohibited). Lowest price/unit across product categories demonstrated low variability across retailers. This study documented high inter-rater reliability of the surveillance tool (Kappas = 0.73 to 1.00). In conclusion, this tool can be used in future research and practice aimed at examining retailers marketing practices and regulatory compliance.

Vape shop owners’/managers’ attitudes about CBD, THC, and marijuana legal markets

“…Some research has examined marijuana advertising online via dispensary websites and social media, ( Krauss et al, 2017 , Caulkins, 2018 , Bierut et al, 2017 , Ayers et al, 2019 , Cavazos-Rehg et al, 2014 , Cavazos-Rehg et al, 2018 , Berg et al, 2017 ) and only a couple of studies have examined marijuana retailer marketing and point-of-sale practices. ( Berg et al, 2018 , Cheney et al, 2016 ) The literature underscores the importance of considering vaping of marijuana ( Schauer et al, 2020 ) and potentially the role of vape shops in marijuana vaping. Current findings highlight that some proportion of marijuana users approach vape shops with their interests in THC-containing products and for devices to use with THC products.…”

The emerging marijuana retail environment: Key lessons learned from tobacco and alcohol retail research

“…We used the MRST to conduct studies in convenience samples of 20 Denver retailers in September 2016 86 and 25 Seattle retailers in July 2017. 116 Results indicated great variability in product offering, particularly novel products (e.g., edibles). Interior ads (particularly for novel products), social media promotions, and health-related claims were prevalent.…”

The importance of psychology for shaping legal cannabis regulation.

“…Like the alcohol and tobacco industries (Chaloupka, Cummings, Morley, & Horan, 2002; Kuo, Wechsler, Greenberg, & Lee, 2003), cannabis companies are promoting increased consumption by engaging in a variety of practices that lower the “cost” (i.e., time, effort, or money) required to obtain cannabis. Discounts, coupons, loyalty programs, “buy-one-get-one-free” specials, and free samples, as well as effort- and time-based strategies such as providing delivery services and easy online ordering represent a few such practices (Berg, Henriksen, Cavazos-Rehg, Schauer, & Freisthler, 2018; Cavazos-Rehg et al, 2019; Cavazos-Rehg et al, 2016). Given that the tobacco and alcohol industries adopted many of the same practices and that these practices result in increased consumption (Chaloupka et al, 2002; Kuo et al, 2003; Slater, Chaloupka, Wakefield, Johnston, & O’Malley, 2007), as well as the behavioral economic literature demonstrating the strong relationship between cost and consumption, it is reasonable to assume that allowing such cost-based practices to proliferate will likely increase cannabis consumption in the population.…”

“…FDA, 2019). Similarly, cannabis retailers are making scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the health benefits of cannabis while simultaneously failing to display appropriate health-related warnings (Berg et al, 2018; Bierut, Krauss, Sowles, & Cavazos-Rehg, 2017; Boatwright & Sperry, 2019; Caputi, 2020; Cavazos-Rehg et al, 2019; Moreno et al, 2018). A related marketing strategy is the use of the word “natural” for promotion purposes.…”