18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      History and Current Trends in the Electronic Cigarette Retail Marketplace in the United States: 2010–2016

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          The US market for electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) has grown rapidly in the last decade. There is limited published evidence examining changes in the ENDS marketplace prior to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) deeming rule in 2016. This study describes US ENDS retail market trends from 2010 to 2016.

          Methods

          National data were obtained from Nielsen retail scanners for five product types: (1) disposables, (2) rechargeables, (3) cartridge replacements, (4) e-liquid bottle refills, and (5) specialty vapor products. We examined dollar sales, volume, price, brand, and flavor.

          Results

          Adjusted national sales increased from $11.6 million in 2010 to $751.2 million in 2016. The annual rate of sales growth rapidly increased before slowing through 2015. The rate of growth spiked in 2016. Market share for menthol products and other assorted flavors increased from 20% in 2010 to 52.1% by 2016. NJOY’s early market dominance shifted as tobacco industry brands entered the market and eventually captured 87.8% of share by 2016. Rechargeables and accompanying products comprised an increased proportion of total volume sold over time while disposable volume declined. Specialty vapor products appeared at retail in 2015.

          Conclusions

          Findings show strong early growth in the ENDS retail market followed by considerable slowing over time, despite a slight uptick in 2016. Trends reflect shifts to flavored products, newer generation “open-system” devices, lower prices, and tobacco industry brands. This study provides a baseline against which to compare the impact of FDA’s 2016 deeming rule and future actions on the ENDS marketplace.

          Implications

          This study uses market scanner data from US retail outlets to describe trends in the ENDS retail market from 2010 to 2016, providing a baseline against which to compare the impact of FDA’s 2016 deeming rule and future actions on the ENDS marketplace. Understanding historical market trends is valuable in assessing how future regulatory efforts and advances in ENDS technology may impact industry response and consumer uptake and use.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Four hundred and sixty brands of e-cigarettes and counting: implications for product regulation

          Introduction E-cigarettes are largely unregulated and internet sales are substantial. This study examines how the online market for e-cigarettes has changed over time: in product design and in marketing messages appearing on websites. Methods Comprehensive internet searches of English-language websites from May–August 2012 and December 2013–January 2014 identified brands, models, flavours, nicotine strengths, ingredients and product claims. Brands were divided into older and newer groups (by the two searches) for comparison. Results By January 2014 there were 466 brands (each with its own website) and 7764 unique flavours. In the 17 months between the searches, there was a net increase of 10.5 brands and 242 new flavours per month. Older brands were more likely than newer brands to offer cigalikes (86.9% vs 52.1%, p<0.01), and newer brands more likely to offer the more versatile eGos and mods (75.3% vs 57.8%, p<0.01). Older brands were significantly more likely to claim that they were healthier and cheaper than cigarettes, were good substitutes where smoking was banned and were effective smoking cessation aids. Newer brands offered more flavours per brand (49 vs 32, p<0.01) and were less likely to compare themselves with conventional cigarettes. Conclusions The number of e-cigarette brands is large and has been increasing. Older brands tend to highlight their advantages over conventional cigarettes while newer brands emphasise consumer choice in multiple flavours and product versatility. These results can serve as a benchmark for future research on the impact of upcoming regulations on product design and advertising messages of e-cigarettes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Have combustible cigarettes met their match? The nicotine delivery profiles and harmful constituent exposures of second-generation and third-generation electronic cigarette users.

            Electronic cigarettes' (e-cigarettes) viability as a public health strategy to end smoking will likely be determined by their ability to mimic the pharmacokinetic profile of a cigarette while also exposing users to significantly lower levels of harmful/potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs). The present study examined the nicotine delivery profile of third- (G3) versus second-generation (G2) e-cigarette devices and their users' exposure to nicotine and select HPHCs compared with cigarette smokers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic review of consumer preference for e-cigarette attributes: Flavor, nicotine strength, and type

              Objective Systematic review of research examining consumer preference for the main electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) attributes namely flavor, nicotine strength, and type. Method A systematic search of peer-reviewed articles resulted in a pool of 12,933 articles. We included only articles that meet all the selection criteria: (1) peer-reviewed, (2) written in English, and (3) addressed consumer preference for one or more of the e-cigarette attributes including flavor, strength, and type. Results 66 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Consumers preferred flavored e-cigarettes, and such preference varied with age groups and smoking status. We also found that several flavors were associated with decreased harm perception while tobacco flavor was associated with increased harm perception. In addition, some flavor chemicals and sweeteners used in e-cigarettes could be of toxicological concern. Finally, consumer preference for nicotine strength and types depended on smoking status, e-cigarette use history, and gender. Conclusion Adolescents could consider flavor the most important factor trying e-cigarettes and were more likely to initiate vaping through flavored e-cigarettes. Young adults overall preferred sweet, menthol, and cherry flavors, while non-smokers in particular preferred coffee and menthol flavors. Adults in general also preferred sweet flavors (though smokers like tobacco flavor the most) and disliked flavors that elicit bitterness or harshness. In terms of whether flavored e-cigarettes assisted quitting smoking, we found inconclusive evidence. E-cigarette users likely initiated use with a cigarette like product and transitioned to an advanced system with more features. Non-smokers and inexperienced e-cigarettes users tended to prefer no nicotine or low nicotine e-cigarettes while smokers and experienced e-cigarettes users preferred medium and high nicotine e-cigarettes. Weak evidence exists regarding a positive interaction between menthol flavor and nicotine strength.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Nicotine & Tobacco Research
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                1462-2203
                1469-994X
                May 2020
                April 21 2020
                October 12 2018
                May 2020
                April 21 2020
                October 12 2018
                : 22
                : 5
                : 843-847
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, College of Global Public Health, New York University, New York, NY
                [2 ]Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
                [3 ]Department of Health Policy and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA
                [4 ]Schroeder Institute, Truth Initiative, Washington, DC
                Article
                10.1093/ntr/nty214
                30312465
                9cbf14f7-9d21-44ba-9e0b-8d372185c951
                © 2018

                https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article