Beth A Reboussin, Shelby Lake, E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross, Kathleen L Egan, Kimberly G Wagoner, Erin L Sutfin, Cynthia K Suerken, Olivia E Horton, Allison J Lazard
{"title":"A Thematic Text Analysis of Cannabis Edibles Brand Names.","authors":"Beth A Reboussin, Shelby Lake, E Alfonso Romero-Sandoval, Jennifer Cornacchione Ross, Kathleen L Egan, Kimberly G Wagoner, Erin L Sutfin, Cynthia K Suerken, Olivia E Horton, Allison J Lazard","doi":"10.1089/can.2025.0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> This study explores whether the cannabis edibles industry uses brand names that might impact consumer appeal and harm perceptions. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An exploratory thematic text analysis of brand names for 1344 cannabis edible products from 250 brands advertised online between June and November 2022 was performed. Brands marketing only delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products (<i>n</i> = 80), THC and cannabidiol (CBD) products (<i>n</i> = 130), and only CBD products (<i>n</i> = 40) were compared. <b>Results:</b> Five core themes emerged: cannabis culture (42% of brands, <i>n</i> = 106), product characteristics (30%, <i>n</i> = 76), medicine and health (23%, <i>n</i> = 58), environment and nature (20%, <i>n</i> = 51), and identity and culture (14%, <i>n</i> = 34), with 15 subthemes. Brands only marketing CBD products more often had names with medicine and health (45%, <i>n</i> = 18) themes with subthemes of health and wellness (30%, <i>n</i> = 12) and expected effects (18%, <i>n</i> = 7) in contrast to brands marketing THC products (18%, <i>n</i> = 14; 2%, <i>n</i> = 2; 11%, <i>n</i> = 9 THC-only; 20%, <i>n</i> = 26; 5%, <i>n</i> = 6; 13%, <i>n</i> = 17 THC and CBD). Brands marketing THC products more often had names with cannabis (12%, <i>n</i> = 10 THC-only; 18%, <i>n</i> = 23 THC and CBD; 8%, <i>n</i> = 3 CBD-only) and spiritual/mystical (9%, <i>n</i> = 7 THC-only; 9%, <i>n</i> = 12, THC and CBD; 0%, CBD-only) subthemes. Food type subthemes were also more common among brands marketing THC products (19%, <i>n</i> = 15 THC-only; 21%, <i>n</i> = 27 THC and CBD; 8%, <i>n</i> = 3 CBD-only). Unconventionality (6%, <i>n</i> = 5 THC-only; 2%, <i>n</i> = 2 THC and CBD; 0% CBD-only) and names and places (16%, <i>n</i> = 13 THC-only; 5%, <i>n</i> = 8 THC & CBD; 5%, <i>n</i> = 2 CBD-only) were subthemes more common among brands only marketing THC products. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study identified distinct cannabis edibles brand name marketing strategies for THC versus CBD products that may affect consumer appeal and perceptions of harm, underscoring the need to monitor and potentially regulate cannabis edibles marketing to ensure that it does not mislead consumers or downplay potential risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":9386,"journal":{"name":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2025.0033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: This study explores whether the cannabis edibles industry uses brand names that might impact consumer appeal and harm perceptions. Materials and Methods: An exploratory thematic text analysis of brand names for 1344 cannabis edible products from 250 brands advertised online between June and November 2022 was performed. Brands marketing only delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) products (n = 80), THC and cannabidiol (CBD) products (n = 130), and only CBD products (n = 40) were compared. Results: Five core themes emerged: cannabis culture (42% of brands, n = 106), product characteristics (30%, n = 76), medicine and health (23%, n = 58), environment and nature (20%, n = 51), and identity and culture (14%, n = 34), with 15 subthemes. Brands only marketing CBD products more often had names with medicine and health (45%, n = 18) themes with subthemes of health and wellness (30%, n = 12) and expected effects (18%, n = 7) in contrast to brands marketing THC products (18%, n = 14; 2%, n = 2; 11%, n = 9 THC-only; 20%, n = 26; 5%, n = 6; 13%, n = 17 THC and CBD). Brands marketing THC products more often had names with cannabis (12%, n = 10 THC-only; 18%, n = 23 THC and CBD; 8%, n = 3 CBD-only) and spiritual/mystical (9%, n = 7 THC-only; 9%, n = 12, THC and CBD; 0%, CBD-only) subthemes. Food type subthemes were also more common among brands marketing THC products (19%, n = 15 THC-only; 21%, n = 27 THC and CBD; 8%, n = 3 CBD-only). Unconventionality (6%, n = 5 THC-only; 2%, n = 2 THC and CBD; 0% CBD-only) and names and places (16%, n = 13 THC-only; 5%, n = 8 THC & CBD; 5%, n = 2 CBD-only) were subthemes more common among brands only marketing THC products. Conclusions: This study identified distinct cannabis edibles brand name marketing strategies for THC versus CBD products that may affect consumer appeal and perceptions of harm, underscoring the need to monitor and potentially regulate cannabis edibles marketing to ensure that it does not mislead consumers or downplay potential risks.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
