Nathan A. Silver*
Adrian Bertrand
Padmini Kucherlapaty- Truth Initiative, Washington, DC, United States
Background: Youth and young adults are exposed to vaping advertisements on social media sites, despite regulations and guidelines intended to reduce the prevalence of such content on these platforms. This research uses replicable criteria to identify vaping influencers who have worked with vaping brands to promote vaping products on Instagram and documents the extent to which posts by these users comply with existing advertising regulations.
Methodology: We conducted three google searches collecting eight different vaping influencer lists, with a total of 575 unique influencers. We limited our sample to public accounts with 100,000 followers or more (n = 54). An initial sample of 360 Instagram posts was used to identify an analytic sample of 262 vape-related posts from 2021. We conducted a conceptual content analysis to first identify unambiguous vaping advertisements (branded content), and then code ads for compliance with existing regulations.
Results: On average, the 54 Instagram accounts had 265,851.9 followers (sd = 383,349.8) and 4,158 posts (sd = 7,302.1). Most posts featured vaping products 239 (91.2%), with 186 (76.2%) posts being unambiguously branded vape advertisements and 31 (14.3%) even including purchase links in the post itself. However, one post complied with FTC disclosure guidelines. Although 50 (20.9%) had warning labels, only 8 (15.1%) were fully compliant with FDA warning label guidelines.
Discussion: Findings demonstrate minimal compliance with existing regulations among influencers known to have financial relationships with vaping brands. Most influencer posts are unambiguous, branded, vaping advertisements. Implications for barriers to regulating influencer content and the need for greater enforcement resources are discussed.
1. Introduction
Youth and young adults are often exposed to tobacco advertising through social media use. (1–3) As of 2021, an estimated 84% of young adults reported using at least one social media site (4, 5). Moreover, 53% of American youth report past 30-day exposure to tobacco advertisements on social media sites (1). Instagram, a visual social media platform most popular among youth and young adults (6), is particularly problematic, as an increase in vaping-related content (7) has created a platform where users are far more likely to be exposed to visually appealing vape advertisements than tobacco control and educational content (8). Exposure to vaping content on social media sites is associated with both lower risk perceptions as well as increased likelihood of initiation and habitual use of vaping products (9, 10). Youth vaping remains a prevalent public health problem with documented habitual use as early as middle school and an estimated 14.1% of high school students (11) and 9.7% of young adults 18–24 reporting current use (12). In light of the clear pathway between exposure to vaping content on social media and use and progression of vaping behavior, updated marketing policies that extend to social media platforms like Instagram are needed.
The stated aim of tobacco marketing restrictions in the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) is “prohibiting tobacco companies from taking any action to target youth in the advertising, promotion, or marketing of tobacco products” (13). Youth-targeted ad characteristics like cartoons are strictly prohibited in advertisements promoting cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products (14). Moreover, “youth-targeting” was also conceptualized as the placement of ads where young people are likely to be exposed. As a result, promotional materials are not allowed near schools, at sporting events, or in youth-oriented magazines. Furthermore, cigarettes and smokeless tobacco cannot be promoted on broadcast media given the probability of youth exposure (14). Although a clear goal of the MSA was to keep tobacco ads off of platforms where youth exposure was likely, the MSA does not apply to newer products, like vaping, or newer mediums, like social media. Thus, there is a need for updated restrictions on advertising that are consistent with the current tobacco product and media landscape.
In the years following the deeming of e-cigarettes as tobacco products to be regulated by The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), FDA CTP has issued guidance as to what constitutes youth appealing advertising, specifically highlighting the way “Marketers seek to create “brand ambassadors,” [i.e., social media influencers] who promote the product in the context of their online communications” (15). However, the ambiguous space between private citizens and hired brand representatives occupied by social media influencers has made effective regulation elusive. Vaping companies often contract with influencers who are paid for their ability to target a niche audience (16) of potential buyers (17); and have become a vehicle for promoting products on social media, especially Instagram (18). Because influencers can also share organic, unpaid content, it can be difficult to identify which posts are subject to commercial regulation (18).
Instagram posts are potentially subject to a hodgepodge of existing regulations. The U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits unsubstantiated claims about health benefits or modified risk of vaping (19), and requires a nicotine health warning label to occupy at least 20% of an advertisement (20, 21). The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued guidelines for disclosing relationships between social media influencers and brands (22). Finally, Instagram's branded content policies explicitly prohibit promotion of “tobacco products, vaporizers, electronic cigarettes, or any other products that simulate smoking” (23). However, previous research shows low compliance with FDA nicotine health warning requirements (24), low compliance with FTC disclosure guidelines among social media influencers (25), and limited impact of such restrictions on the volume of branded content still prevalent on Instagram (26). At the time data was collected for this study, hashtags such as #vape (31 million posts), #vapelife (17 million posts), and #vapecommunity (11.9 million posts) highlight the prevalence of vape-related content, while #vapestore (2.49 million posts) clearly indicates that a substantial portion of such posts are commercial (27).
The current research is based on the assumption that limited enforcement of existing regulations observed by previous research is the result of ambiguity regarding commercial vs. organic posts. Like previous research, we examine Instagram posts for compliance with existing regulatory guidelines. However, we go one step further in adding “explicitly branded content” by “known hirable entities” as criteria for inclusion. To inform the development of a policy framework for regulating advertising on Instagram, we take the perspective of a vaping brand seeking to hire social media influencers to promote vaping products on Instagram. We first identify a sample of known vaping influencers (i.e., hirable content creators easily identified via web search), capture a sample of their most recent content, identify branded vape content from within their most recent content We thus propose two research questions:
RQ1: What percentage of the most recent posts by known vaping influencers are unambiguously ads (i.e., promote branded vaping content)?
RQ2: How often are unambiguous vaping ads by vaping influencers in violation of existing regulations?
2. Methods
2.1. Procedure
A replicable protocol was established to systematically sample posts from known vaping influencers on Instagram who are available for hire. We then conducted a conceptual content analysis with two trained coders to identify posts that met our proposed criteria for unambiguous vape ads (e.g., promoted branded vaping products for sale) and identify their compliance with existing regulations.
2.2. Influencers and content sampling
We sought to mimic the process a brand might go through in finding an influencer to hire to promote a vaping product. We developed an online google search protocol to identify websites listing vaping influencers active on Instagram using an established definition of an influencer as “third-party actors who have established a significant number of relevant relationships to influence on organizational stakeholders through content production, content distribution, interaction, and personal appearance on the social web” (28). These lists were compiled by bloggers, sites advertising influencers for hire or Instagram users outside of the platform and required no log-in to access them and provided links to each influencer's account. Our Google searches provided an initial sampling frame of 575 unique accounts, with between 1,042 and 2.6 million followers each. From those, we focused on the top 60 accounts with 100,000 followers or more. Two accounts were no longer active, and four were private, giving us a user sample of n = 54 unique vaping influencers. To sample the influencers' most recent activity, starting in October 2021, we downloaded a maximum of ten of the most recent posts from 2021. Several users had <10 posts from 2021, yielding an initial sample of n = 360 posts made by vaping influencers unambiguously identified as available for hire to promote vaping brands on Instagram. The full search protocol is documented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flow chart of key search terms, lists, and post selection.
2.3. Codebook development
Our codebook and content analysis followed best practices established in The Content Analysis Guidebook (29). It is recommended that at least 10% of the sample be withheld to establish reliability, and that researchers and coders set multiple coding practices and meet frequently to discuss and resolve discrepancies. Given that we coded for concrete features that can be discreetly identified as present or absent (e.g., warning labels, disclosures etc.) rather than abstract features that are more subject to interpretation (e.g., ad themes or emotional appeals), we set a higher threshold for reliability of Krippendorff's alpha >0.8 and trained two research assistants to code the same reliability sample of n = 66 posts. After reliability was established, the remaining posts were divided equally between the two coders. Coders first identified vape posts which were then coded for unambiguous ad characteristics (e.g., branded content), FTC brand relationship disclosure violations, and FDA claims or warning label violations. Table 1 presents all coded features, a summary of criteria used to identify coded features, and the resulting Krippendorff's alpha values.
Table 1. Krippendorff's alpha accessing reliability of coded post characteristics with summary of criteria.
2.4. Identifying relevant content
Not all posts by vaping influencers were related to vaping. We developed strict rules to determine whether a post was a vaping post or not. Our two coders identified the presence of at least one of the following key elements in the image: a vape device or parts including e-juice, coils, mouthpieces etc., 258 (98.47%), kalpha = 1, vaping behavior such as a vape cloud, 85 (32.44%), kalpha = 1, or a person, 80 (30.53%), kalpha = 1, or group of people, 2 (0.76%), kalpha = 1, actively drawing (inhaling from a vape). Ambiguous images (e.g., a cloud potentially though not clearly from vapor) were resolved using explicit cues in the text of the post (e.g., a vaping brand or hashtag that linked the cloud to vaping). We focused our analyses on n = 262 unambiguous vaping posts from n = 54 vaping influencers on Instagram.
3. Results
Information about each influencer was pulled directly from the bio section of their Instagram account. On average, the 54 vape influencer accounts had 265,851.9 followers (sd = 383,349.8) and 4,158 posts (sd = 7,302.1). The influencer accounts were not limited to individual people n = 28 (51.8%), but also included brands, n = 15 (27.8%), and other commercial entities such as retailers or shops, n = 17 (31.5%), both of which are violations of Instagram's internal policy. Influencer bios included links to vaping stores n = 17 (31.5%). The accounts also had hashtags in their bios n = 17 (31.5%) including vape-specific hashtags (e.g., #vaping, #vapelife).
At the post level, nearly all posts featured vaping products, n = 239 (91.2%). Hashtags intended to reach online vaping community members (e.g., #vapelife, #vapefam, #vapeon) were frequent throughout the sample. Despite 186 posts (76.2%) being unambiguously branded, only 1 post complied with FTC requirements of disclosing brand relationships. Moreover, 31 (14.3%) posts provided links to purchase the advertised product, signifying but not disclosing a paid relationship between influencer and brand. Violations of FDA's rules regarding unauthorized claims were rare (one post highlighted modified risk). However, only 50 posts (20.9%) had any warning label, with 8 (15.1%) of those being fully compliant with 20% of the image covered by a warning label. Finally, three posts used cartoon imagery in opposition to the FDA's warning about use of youth appealing advertisement.
4. Discussion
This research adds to the growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of addressing tobacco promotion on Instagram (3, 24, 26, 30–32). Although social media and the use of influencers pose unique challenges to regulators (18), our findings suggest that a significant amount of content includes egregious violations of already established rules. Nearly half of the influencer accounts we identified were vaping brands or retailers, many of whom use hashtags such as #vapelife, #vaping, and #vapefam among others in their posts to disseminate such content among 10s of millions of ostensibly organic posts, all in clear violation of Instagram's stated policy. Moreover, with more than 90% of posts featuring specific products and more than 75% of posts including obvious branding, most of these posts were unambiguous vaping ads—explicit promotion of branded vaping products. Only eight were compliant with FDA guidelines and one was in compliance with FTC guidelines.
The most important takeaway form this research is that FTC disclosure guidelines for influencers to disclose brand relationships are insufficient. Our design identifies influencers who actively seek and maintain relationships with brands, post branded content that unambiguously promotes specific vaping products, and are for the most part, not in compliance with FDA, FTC, or Instagram advertising guidelines. In conjunction with previous research identifying content promoting vaping on Instagram (26, 33), it is clear that greater resource allocation toward enforcement of existing regulations is needed.
Our findings also highlight the limitations of regulating influencer-based advertising at the level of the brand-influencer relationship. Like previous research, we show clear collaboration between brands and influencers to promote specific vaping products (24, 25). Conceptually, promotion of a specific brand or line of products is an ad. However, legally, in the absence of a disclosed financial relationship, such posts may be interpreted as organic and thus not subject to advertising restrictions. Regulating broadcast or print media at the level of the financial relationship between medium and brand was effective because billboards, ad space on TV, radio, magazines, or sports stadiums all necessarily implied a financial relationship wherein brands purchased ad space and were thus subject to advertising regulations. Posting on Instagram about a favorite product does not necessarily entail a financial relationship. In fact, there is undoubtedly a disincentive to disclose otherwise obvious relationships, as doing so would subject posts to regulatory scrutiny to which organic posts are exempt. Regulation of vaping promotion on Instagram likely requires a legal and conceptual definition of an ad that can be applied at the level of the post, as our analysis suggests the status quo is ineffective.
The generalizability of these findings is limited by our sampling method. We focus on influencers whose financial relationships to vape brands are easily identifiable through a systematic web search. As a result, our sample of influencers is likely not representative of the far broader population of vape influencers employed by vaping brands and the tobacco industry. Moreover, by focusing on the last 10 posts rather than a random sample of each users' post history we provide more of a “snapshot in time” rather than a generalizable accounting of the percentage of influencer posts that are in violation of extant guidelines. Nevertheless, this study provides strong evidence that vaping ads comprise a significant portion of vaping content, but still appear to be exempt from regulatory enforcement.
4.1. Conclusion
There are inevitable challenges to regulating content on a platform like Instagram where organic users and users with commercial interests alike contribute to a seemingly endless onslaught of content that runs the gamut from personal artistic expression to branded product advertisements. Clear, unambiguous guidelines are needed to differentiate commercial content from organic content. The aim of a lot of vaping content on Instagram is not ambiguous including clearly branded and commercial-oriented promotion of specific vaping products. This study adds to the mounting pile of evidence highlighting the need for better enforcement of existing guidelines while also highlighting the potential need for better defined parameters for identifying commercial content subject to regulatory enforcement.
Data availability statement
The datasets used in this study are publicly available on Instagram. The weblinks for all content used has been collated in the supplementary material. A copy of the coding instrument used can be made available upon request to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
This study was conceptualized by NS and AB. The codebook was created by AB with input and supervision by NS and BS. PK supervised coding and conducted our analysis. NS, AB, PK, and BS contributed to the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by Truth Initiative.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Jamie Humphrey, Lan Margosis, Zahra Ehtesham, and Donna Vallone, who provided invaluable support.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Hébert ET, Case KR, Kelder SH, Delk J, Perry CL, Harrell MB. Exposure and engagement with tobacco- and e-cigarette-related social media. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. (2017) 61:371–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.04.003
2. Amin S, Dunn AG, Laranjo L. Social influence in the uptake and use of electronic cigarettes: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. (2020) 58:129–41. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.08.023
3. Czaplicki L, Tulsiani S, Kostygina G, Feng M, Kim Y, Perks SN, et al. #toolittletoolate: JUUL-related content on Instagram before and after self-regulatory action. PLoS ONE. (2020) 15:e0233419. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233419
4. Anderson M, Jiang J. Teens, social media and technology 2018. Pew Res. Cent. Internet Sci. Tech. (2018). Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/ (accessed May 19, 2022).
5. Social Media Fact Sheet. Pew Res. Cent. Internet Sci. Tech. (2021). Available online at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/ (accessed May 19, 2022).
6. Alpert JM, Chen H, Riddell H, Chung YJ, Mu YA. Vaping and instagram: a content analysis of e-cigarette posts using the content appealing to youth (CAY) index. Subst Use Misuse. (2021) 56:879–87. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2021.1899233
7. Pokhrel P, Fagan P, Herzog TA, Laestadius L, Buente W, Kawamoto CT, et al. Social media e-cigarette exposure and e-cigarette expectancies and use among young adults. Addict Behav. (2018) 78:51–8. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.10.017
8. Giovenco DP, Hammond D, Corey CG, Ambrose BK, Delnevo CD. E-cigarette market trends in traditional U.S. retail channels, 2012-2013. Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob. (2015) 17:1279–83. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntu282
9. Papaleontiou L, Agaku IT, Filippidis FT. Effects of exposure to tobacco and electronic cigarette advertisements on tobacco use: an analysis of the 2015 national youth tobacco survey. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. (2020) 66:64–71. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.05.022
10. Pike JR, Tan N, Miller S, Cappelli C, Xie B, Stacy AW. The effect of e-cigarette commercials on youth smoking: a prospective study. Am J Health Behav. (2019) 43:1103–18. doi: 10.5993/AJHB.43.6.8
11. Cooper M, Park-Lee E, Ren C, Cornelius M, Jamal A, Cullen KA. Notes from the Field: e-cigarette use among middle and high school students — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2022) 71:1283–5. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7140a3
12. Cornelius ME, Loretan CG, Wang TW, Jamal A, Homa DM. Tobacco product use among adults — United States, 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. (2022) 71:9. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7111a1
13. The Master Settlement Agreement Attorneys General. Natl. Assoc. Atty. Gen. (2022). Available online at: https://www.naag.org/our-work/naag-center-for-tobacco-and-public-health/the-master-settlement-agreement/ (accessed November 11, 2022).
14. Master settlement agreement. (1998). Available online at: https://www.publichealthlawcenter.org/sites/default/files/resources/master-settlement-agreement.pdf (accessed May 19, 2022).
15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Public Health Rationale for Recommended Restrictions on New Tobacco Product Labeling, Advertising, Marketing, and Promotion. (2019). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/media/124174/download (accessed November 10, 2022).
16. Ledbetter E. The Change in Influencer Marketing from PR Strategy to Media Strategy. (2016). Available online at: https://blog.carusele.com/change-influencer-marketing-pr-strategy-media-strategy (accessed May 19, 2022).
17. Brown D, Hayes N. Influencer Marketing: Who Really Influences your Customers? London New York: Routledge. (2015).
18. Evans NJ, Phua J, Lim J. Disclosing instagram influencer advertising: the effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral. Intent J Interact Advert. (2017) 17:138–49. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2017.1366885
19. Health Fraud | FDA. Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/health-effects-tobacco-use/health-fraud (accessed July 18, 2022)
20. “Covered” Tobacco Products Roll-Your-Own/ Cigarette Tobacco Labeling Warning Statement Requirements. US Food Drug Adm. (2020). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/labeling-and-warning-statements-tobacco-products/covered-tobacco-products-and-roll-your-own-cigarette-tobacco-labeling-and-warning-statement (accessed May 19, 2022).
21. Advertising and Promotion. US Food Drug Adm. (2022). Available online at: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/products-guidance-regulations/advertising-and-promotion (accessed May 19, 2022).
22. Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers,. Fed. Trade Comm. (2019). Available online at: http://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/disclosures-101-social-media-influencers (accessed May 19, 2022).
23. Graham M. Instagram Bans Influencers from Getting Paid to Promote Vaping Guns. CNBC. (2019). Available online at: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/18/instagram-to-ban-influencers-from-promoting-vaping-and-guns.html (accessed May 19, 2022).
24. Laestadius LI, Wahl MM, Vassey J, Cho YI. Compliance with FDA Nicotine warning statement provisions in E-liquid promotion posts on instagram. Nicotine Tob Res. (2020) 22:1823–30. doi: 10.1093/ntr/ntaa092
25. Vassey J, Valente T, Barker J, Stanton C, Li D, Laestadius L, et al. E-cigarette brands and social media influencers on Instagram: a social network analysis. Tob Cont. (2022). doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057053. [Epub ahead of print].
26. Czaplicki L, Kostygina G, Kim Y, Perks SN, Szczypka G, Emery SL, et al. Characterising JUUL-related posts on Instagram. Tob Control. (2020) 29:612–7. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824
27. About Instagram's Official Site. Instagram. (2022). Available online at: https://about.instagram.com/ (accessed May 19, 2022).
28. Enke N, Borchers NS. Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication: A Conceptual Framework for Strategic Social Media Influencer Communication. In: Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication. New York City, NY: Routledge. (2021). p. 17.
30. Chu K-H, Allem J-P, Cruz TB, Unger JB. Vaping on instagram: cloud chasing, hand checks and product placement. Tob Control. (2017) 26:575–8. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2016-053052
31. Laestadius LI, Penndorf KE, Seidl M, Cho YI. Assessing the appeal of instagram electronic cigarette refill liquid promotions and warnings among young adults: mixed methods focus group study. J Med Internet Res. (2019) 21:e15441. doi: 10.2196/15441
32. Vogel EA, Guillory J, Ling PM. Sponsorship disclosures and perceptions of e-cigarette instagram posts. Tob Regul Sci. (2020) 6:355–68. doi: 10.18001/TRS.6.5.5
Keywords: advertising, promotion, tobacco industry, social media, Instagram
Citation: Silver NA, Bertrand A, Kucherlapaty P and Schillo BA (2023) Examining influencer compliance with advertising regulations in branded vaping content on Instagram. Front. Public Health 10:1001115. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1001115
Received: 22 July 2022; Accepted: 16 December 2022;
Published: 09 January 2023.
Edited by:
Amit Yadav, The Union South East Asia Office, IndiaReviewed by:
Tony Kuo, University of California, Los Angeles, United StatesJulia Vassey, University of California, Berkeley, United States
Copyright © 2023 Silver, Bertrand, Kucherlapaty and Schillo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nathan A. Silver, 
bnNpbHZlciYjeDAwMDQwO3RydXRoaW5pdGlhdGl2ZS5vcmc=