ArticlePloS one2020
#toolittletoolate: JUUL-related content on Instagram before and after self-regulatory action.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promotion of Health-Harming Products on Instagram: Characterizing Strategies Boosting Audience Engagement with Cigar Marketing Messages.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- 'O-ZYN-PIC' and 'ZYNCOIN': how viral marketing, tokenisation and trendjacking boosted Zyn popularity in the USA.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Identification and Characterization of Synthetic Nicotine Product Promotion and Sales on Instagram Using Natural Language Processing.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- Using Exogenous Social Media Exposure Measures to Assess the Effects of Smokeless Tobacco-Related Social Media Content on Smokeless Tobacco Sales in the United States.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2024Article
- Deciphering Influence on Social Media: A Comparative Analysis of Influential Account Detection Metrics in the Context of Tobacco Promotion.Social media + society · 2024Article
- E-Cigarette Brand Trends in the United States: An Investigation of Data From a Youth and Young Adult Sample and the E-Cigarette Retail Market (2022).Tobacco use insights · 2024Article
- Developing a theoretical marketing framework to analyse JUUL and compatible e-cigarette product promotion on Instagram.Tobacco control · 2023Article
- User-generated content and influencer marketing involving e-cigarettes on social media: a scoping review and content analysis of YouTube and Instagram.BMC public health · 2023Article
- E-Cigarette Marketing on Social Media: A Scoping Review.Current addiction reports · 2023Article
- E-Cigarette Retailers' Use of Instagram in New Zealand: A Content Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Industry response to strengthened regulations: amount and themes of flavoured electronic cigarette promotion by product vendors and manufacturers on Instagram.Tobacco control · 2022Article
- Examining influencer compliance with advertising regulations in branded vaping content on Instagram.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Cannabis Vaping Among Youth and Young Adults: a Scoping Review.Current addiction reports · 2022Article
- E-Cigarette Advertising in the UK: A Content Analysis of Traditional and Social Media Advertising to Observe Compliance with Current Regulations.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2021Article
- Compliance With Cannabis Act Regulations Regarding Online Promotion Among Canadian Commercial Cannabis-Licensed Firms.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- At the speed of Juul: measuring the Twitter conversation related to ENDS and Juul across space and time (2017-2018).Tobacco control · 2021Article
- Difficulty Regulating Social Media Content of Age-Restricted Products: Comparing JUUL's Official Twitter Timeline and Social Media Content About JUUL.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDigital e-cigarette marketing is largely unregulated and remains easily accessible to young people. The growing public concern around youth JUUL use and its viral presence on social media led the company to engage in several voluntary actions to remove and reduce JUUL-related content on Instagram in May 2018. The current study examined how JUUL-related Instagram content changed in the US following JUUL Labs' wave of voluntary actions in May 2018.
methodsIn 2019, we collected a total of 50,817 JUUL-relevant posts by 16,323 unique users on Instagram from March 1-May 15, 2018 (Phase 1) and May 16-November 11, 2018 (Phase II) using the application programming interface. We conducted a semantic network analysis to identify major topic clusters over time.
resultsApproximately 14,838 JUUL-related posts were made by 5,201 accounts in Phase I and 35,979 posts were made by 11,122 accounts in Phase II. Major content clusters remained unchanged over time-key topics were JUUL-related product characteristics and JUUL-communities; the general vape community; and cannabis-related behavior. Of note, cannabis-related content grew in Phase II, particularly use of the term CBD.
conclusionsOur results reflect the limits of voluntary industry actions to reduce or change vaping-related content on social media. Rather, strong federal restriction on commercial tobacco marketing is the optimal pathway to reduce initial product marketing exposure among youth. These limits would make the emergence and viral contagion of brand-related social media content less likely and reduce its influence on youth behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.