The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Vaping versus JUULing: how the extraordinary growth and marketing of JUUL transformed the US retail e-cigarette market
Open accessAbstract
Background: While national surveys showed declines in e-cigarette use in the USA between 2015 and 2016, recent reports indicate that JUUL, a sleekly designed e-cigarette that looks like a USB drive, is increasingly being used by youth and young adults. However, the extent of JUUL’s growth and its marketing strategy have not been systematically examined. Methods: A variety of data sources were used to examine JUUL retail sales in the USA and its marketing and promotion. Retail store scanner data were used to capture the retail sales of JUUL and other major e-cigarette brands for the period 2011–2017. A list of JUUL-related keywords was used to identify JUUL-related tweets on Twitter; to identify JUUL-related posts, hashtags and accounts on Instagram and to identify JUUL-related videos on YouTube. Results: In the short 3-year period 2015–2017, JUUL has transformed from a little-known brand with minimum sales into the largest retail e-cigarette brand in the USA, lifting sales of the entire e-cigarette category. Its US$150 million retail sales in the last quarter of 2017 accounted for about 40% of e-cigarette retail market share. While marketing expenditures for JUUL were moderate, the sales growth of JUUL was accompanied by a variety of innovative, engaging and wide-reaching campaigns on Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, conducted by JUUL and its affiliated marketers. Conclusions: The discrepancies between e-cigarette sales data and the prevalence of e-cigarette use from surveys highlight the challenges in tracking and understanding the use of new and emerging tobacco products. In a rapidly changing media environment, where successful and influential marketing campaigns can be conducted on social media at little cost, marketing expenditures alone may not fully capture the influence, reach and engagement of tobacco marketing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
E-Cigarettes: A Scientific Review
Grana, R., Benowitz, N., & Glantz, S. A. (2014) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.114.007667 · Cited by 1,194 · cited 1×
“Our study reveals affiliate marketing 24 35 36 as an important promotional method for JUUL on social media.”
Cited by
What are the respiratory effects of e-cigarettes?
Gotts, J. E., Jordt, S.-E., McConnell, R., & Tarran, R. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l5275 · Cited by 516
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation
Hartmann-Boyce, J., Lindson, N., Butler, A. R., McRobbie, H., Bullen, C., Begh, R., Theodoulou, A., Notley, C., Rigotti, N. A., Turner, T., et al. (2022) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub7 · Cited by 320
Smart, R., & Pacula, R. L. (2019) · The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse · doi:10.1080/00952990.2019.1669626 · Cited by 305
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation
Hartmann-Boyce, J., McRobbie, H., Lindson, N., Bullen, C., Begh, R., Theodoulou, A., Notley, C., Rigotti, N., Turner, T., Butler, A., et al. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010216.pub · Cited by 179
Martinelli, T., Candel, M. J. J. M., de Vries, H., Talhout, R., Knapen, V., van Schayck, C. P., & Nagelhout, G. E. (2023) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056528 · Cited by 92
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, J., Duan, Z., Kwok, J., Binns, S., Vera, L. E., Kim, Y., Szczypka, G., & Emery, S. L.
- Venue
- Tobacco Control
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2018-05-31
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 146-151
- ISSN
- 0964-4563 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3318
- OpenAlex
- W2806348441
- Cited by
- 607
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 48.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.