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":"大麻食品品牌名称的主题语篇分析。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
引言：本研究探讨大麻食品行业是否使用可能影响消费者吸引力和危害认知的品牌名称。材料与方法：对2022年6月至11月期间250个品牌的1344种大麻食用产品的品牌名称进行探索性主题文本分析。仅销售δ -9-四氢大麻酚（THC）产品的品牌（n = 80）， THC和大麻二酚（CBD）产品的品牌（n = 130），以及仅销售CBD产品的品牌（n = 40）进行了比较。结果：出现了五大核心主题：大麻文化（占品牌总数的42%，n = 106）、产品特征（占品牌总数的30%，n = 76）、医药与健康（占品牌总数的23%，n = 58）、环境与自然（占品牌总数的20%，n = 51）、身份与文化（占品牌总数的14%，n = 34），共15个子主题。与销售四氢大麻酚产品的品牌（18%,n = 14）相比，仅销售CBD产品的品牌名称更多地以医药和健康（45%,n = 18）为主题，以健康和保健为副主题（30%,n = 12）和预期效果（18%,n = 7）；2%, n = 2；11%, n = 9，仅thc；20%, n = 26；5%, n = 6；13%, n = 17 THC和CBD)。销售四氢大麻酚产品的品牌更多地以大麻命名（12%,n = 10）；18%, n = 23 THC和CBD；8%, n = 3只cbd)和精神/神秘(9%,n = 7只thc；9%, n = 12， THC和CBD；0%（仅限cbd）子主题。在营销四氢大麻酚产品的品牌中，食品类副主题也更为常见(19%,n = 15；21%, n = 27 THC和CBD；8%, n = 3，仅限cbd)。非常规（6%,n = 5）；2%, n = 2 THC和CBD；0%仅限cbd)和姓名和地点(16%,n = 13，仅限thc；5%, n = 8 THC和CBD；5% （n = 2）是仅销售四氢大麻酚产品的品牌中更常见的子主题。结论：本研究确定了THC与CBD产品不同的大麻食用品牌营销策略，这些策略可能会影响消费者的吸引力和对危害的认知，强调有必要监测和潜在地监管大麻食用营销，以确保其不会误导消费者或淡化潜在风险。
A Thematic Text Analysis of Cannabis Edibles Brand Names.
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
