E-cigarette brand mocks tobacco control warning labels

Visual attention to blu's parody warnings and the FDA's warning on e-cigarette advertisements

OBJECTIVES

In 2017, the e-cigarette brand, blu, released advertisements featuring large, boxed, positively-framed messages. These messages mimicked the format of FDA-mandated warnings that would appear on e-cigarette advertisements in the United States in 2018. We compared attention to blu's parody warnings and FDA-mandated warning appearing on blu advertisements.

METHODS

N = 73 young adults who had used tobacco participated in an eye-tracking study. Participants viewed three blu e-cigarette advertisements in random order: one with a parody warning and two with the FDA-mandated warning (one with a model's face and one without). Areas of interest (AOIs) were the parody or FDA-mandated warning. We compared dwell time on AOIs between the three advertisements.

RESULTS

Participants viewed parody warnings longer than each FDA-mandated warning on average (254 and 608 ms longer; p's < 0.02). Comparing the advertisements with FDA-mandated warnings revealed that participants spent less time looking at the warning in the advertisement with a model's face (354 fewer milliseconds; p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Parody warnings attracted more visual attention than FDA-mandated warnings, and the presence of a face in the advertisement drew attention away from the FDA-mandated warning. Results underscore the need for advertisement regulations that support increased attention to health warnings.

People in E-Cigarette Ads Attract More Attention: An Eye-Tracking Study

OBJECTIVES

Minimally regulated electronic cigarettes (e-cigarette) advertising may be one potential factor driving the increasing prevalence of young adult e-cigarette use. Using eye-tracking, the current study examined which e-cigarette advertising features were the most appealing to young adults as a first step to examine how e-cigarette advertising may be regulated.

METHODS

Using a within-subjects design, 30 young adults (M age = 20.0 years) viewed e-cigarette ads in a laboratory. Ad features or areas of interest (AOIs) included: 1) brand logo, 2) product descriptor, and 3) people. During ad viewing, eye-tracking measured participants' dwell time and time to first fixation for each AOI as well as each ad brand. Harm perceptions pre- and post-viewing were measured.

RESULTS

Participants spent the longest dwell time on people (M = 2701 ms), then product descriptors (M = 924 ms), then brand logos (M = 672 ms; ps < .001). They also fixated fastest on AOIs in that order. Participant sex significantly impacted dwell time of ad brand, and harm perceptions decreased after viewing the ads (ps < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides initial evidence about which e-cigarette ad features may appeal most to young adults and may be useful when designing evidence-based policy.

Adolescent males' responses to blu's fake warnings

OBJECTIVE

Blu's 'Something Better' advertising campaign ran in popular print magazines in 2017. The campaign included advertisements with fake warnings conveying positive messages, which mimicked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s warning requirements for electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) advertisements that took effect in 2018. We report adolescent males' recall of these fake warnings and how exposure to fake warnings affected recall of other advertisement components, including the actual warning or health risks, brand and product.

METHODS

Ohio males ages 12-19 years (N = 775; 73.8 % white non-Hispanic) were randomly assigned to view an e-cigarette advertisement with or without a fake warning. Afterward, they were asked what they remembered most about the advertisement. Responses were qualitatively coded. Statistical analyses included survey-weighted descriptive statistics and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of participants who viewed an e-cigarette advertisement with a fake warning, 27.0 % reported the fake warning was what they remembered most, and 18.8 % repeated the fake warning message. Participants viewing advertisements with a fake warning had lower odds of recalling the actual warning or health risks (OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.77) or brand (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.85), compared with participants viewing other e-cigarette advertisements.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents viewing an advertisement with a fake warning were less likely to recall the advertisement's actual warning or health risks. Although e-cigarette advertisements now carry large FDA-mandated warnings, this tactic could be used for cigarette advertisements that continue to carry small warnings in the USA. Findings underscore the necessity of tobacco advertisement surveillance and study of advertisements' effects on adolescents.

The Impact of E-Cigarette Warnings, Warning Themes and Inclusion of Relative Harm Statements on Young Adults' E-Cigarette Perceptions and Use Intentions

Although e-cigarettes in the United States are required to carry one nicotine addiction warning, little is known about the impact of other potential e-cigarette warning themes, nor about pairing warnings with messages that communicate e-cigarettes' reduced-harm potential relative to cigarettes. We randomly assigned 876 young adults (ages 18⁻29) to view e-cigarette ads in a 3 × 2 plus control online experiment that varied by warning theme (i.e., nicotine addiction; nicotine's impact on adolescent brain development; presence of harmful chemicals) and warning type-i.e., the presence ("relative harm warning") or absence ("standard warning") of a relative harm (RH) statement in the warning label ("e-cigarettes may cause harm to health but are less harmful than cigarettes"). Warning believability, informativeness, understandability and support were high across conditions and there were no significant differences by warning theme on e-cigarette harm perceptions or use intentions nor on nicotine (mis)perceptions. Perceived warning effectiveness for discouraging youth initiation was higher for the "brain" and "chemicals" warnings compared to the addiction warning. Warnings with the included RH statement were perceived as less believable and credible and were less frequently correctly recalled. Research should continue to investigate the impact of different e-cigarette warning themes and formats with priority audiences.