Background: The electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) industry has grown in size and organizational complexity in recent years, most notably with the entry of major tobacco companies in 2012 and the proliferation of vape shops. Many brands maintain retail websites that present e-cigarette marketing claims and sell directly to consumers. Understanding of the evolving composition of different types of e-cigarette brand websites is currently underdeveloped. Objective: This paper presents how e-cigarette brand websites surveyed in 2013-2014 evolved by 2016-2017, and how the websites run by different types of e-cigarette producers currently differ. Methods: In 2016-2017, we revisited 466 e-cigarette brand websites surveyed in 2013-2014, 288 of which were extant, and identified 145 new English-language websites. We compared product designs, marketing claims, and age-based warnings presented by types of e-cigarette producers: major tobacco companies, independent vape shops, and independent internet-only companies. Results: Among the 433 websites examined in 2016-2017, 12 were owned by major tobacco companies, 162 operated a physical vape shop, and 259 were internet-only operations. Closed-system product designs were sold by 83% (10/12) of tobacco-owned brands. In comparison, 29.0% (47/162, P<.001 of vape shop and p=".06)" internet-only brands sold closed-system designs. compared with tobacco-owned offered a smaller set product models values narrower range flavors greater emphasis on the traditional combustible cigarette tobacco menthol also nicotine options than shops were less likely to offer nicotine-free e-liquid finally brand websites featured age verification pop-up windows. in comparison only surveyed both became more sell open-system mods an increased number prevalence several types claims decreased significantly including indirect regarding smoking cessation e-cigarettes as healthier expensive usable places cigarettes. conclusions: e-cigarette has not appeared increase since even website messaging evolved owned by companies pulling opposite directions. limited products whereas emphasized panoply flavor options. furthermore food drug administration regulatory action may influence market shares various companies.>
This is the abstract only. Read the full article on the JMIR site. JMIR is the leading open access journal for eHealth and healthcare in the Internet age.