Young adults who are more familiar with e-cigarette marketing practices are more likely to have attitudes against vaping than those unaware of the industry’s marketing, according to a study led by Drexel University public health researchers published this month in the journal Tobacco Control.
Expanding on ways cigarettes were marketed in the 1970s, such as using models and hosting smoking events, e-cigarette marketing includes more modern tactics, like paying social media influencers to promote vaping. The findings, from researchers at Drexel’s Dornsife School of Public Health and The National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, suggest that efforts to educate young people about e-cigarette marketing tactics can help reduce the number of new vape users.
The researchers surveyed 1,329 young adults, 18–30, who never used tobacco products—but were deemed “susceptible to vaping,” from their responses to screening questions—about their awareness of the e-cigarette industry’s marketing practices and their level of agreement with anti-e-cigarette attitude statements, such as “taking a stand against vaping is important to me.”
I wonder if a similar thing would work for animal agriculture, telling people about all the lobbying they do to get taxpayer money from subsidies to keep exploiting other animals
Bacon doesn’t need marketing. A marketing campaign using facts to change consumer behavior is just marketing. Not really the same as and effort to educate kids to recognize marketing.
I work in marketing so I recognize it in all its forms. I am very concerned about the amount of influcing my kids are exposed to through “safe”, “ad free” channels like YouTube Kids.
I also consider myself well informed about environmental issues. I consciously eat less meat for both environmental and health reasons, but bacon doesn’t need marketing. I want bacon because I REALLY enjoy bacon.
The scope of my comment was wider than bacon and wider than marketing to consumers, but I get your point.
Also in my mind health and environment are the weakest arguments against eating animal products. Exploiting and harming others for our own pleasure is unethical, that should be more than enough reason to change our behavior on both a societal and individual level. To bring that back to my original point, informing people that trying to justify hurting others for pleasure is ok because “they’re just animals” or something is a pretty twisted, un-empathetic way to look at things and animal agriculture is happy to exploit those excuses (and in turn, the animals) for profit. Showing people that their apathy and selfishness is being preyed upon for profit, could have a similar result as showing teens that they’re being manipulated into buying a product