The Association Between Product Attributes and Oral Nicotine Pouch (ONP) Preference – Evidence from Online Stores

Abstract

Introduction:

Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) have steadily gained popularity since first appearing in the U.S. market during 2014, but research on how their features are associated with consumer preference remains limited. We examined how ONP characteristics, including prices, flavors, pouches per can, nicotine concentration, and ingredient claims, are associated with online ratings (1–5 stars), which measured consumer preferences in our analysis.

Methods:

Data on 1,689 unique ONPs from 19 brands that received reviews were scraped from 4 online stores that shipped to the US, and we used ordinary least squares regressions to estimate associations between product features and ratings.

Results:

On average, products cost $0.20/pouch and contained 19 pouches/can. Nearly half (46%) had 5 to <10 mg nicotine/pouch. The most common flavors were “fruit/sweet” (33%), “mint” (25%) and “wintergreen” (13%), while 21% of products had “ice/freeze” mentions. The brand on! accounted for 15% of products. Nicotine claims included “tobacco-free” (21%), “leaf-free” (26%), “synthetic” (8%), and multiple claims (20%). Product size was associated with lower ratings while mint flavor was associated with higher ratings (p < 0.05). Product characteristics were highly correlated with brands, and the negative association between price per pouch and ratings became insignificant after adjusting for brands.

Conclusions:

More pouches per can are associated with lower ratings. Sales prices vary across ONP brands, which is related to how consumers rate more expensive products. Future research should investigate how restricting mint flavor, product size and certain brands may impact consumer preferences for ONPs and their subsequent use.

Introduction

Oral nicotine pouches (ONPs) are small pouches containing powdered nicotine and other ingredients, placed between gum and lip to deliver nicotine. This type of nicotine/tobacco product has grown in popularity,¹ with U.S. sales rising from 126 million units in August-December 2019 to 808 million during January-March 2022.² Discreet use of ONPs, “tobacco-free” marketing, favorable perceptions compared to traditional tobacco products,³ as well as product features such as flavors and nicotine concentration may have contributed to its uptake and sustained use.^2,4

No published research has investigated how ONP features are associated with consumer preference, though product attributes like flavor are often the focus of federal, state, and local tobacco regulations.^5–7 Nicotine concentrations of ONPs range from 1.79 to 47.5 mg/pouch.⁸ While 6 mg, 4 mg and 3 mg ONPs were most commonly sold in 2019–2022, sales of 8 mg ONPs grew most rapidly.² In 2024, 86% of youth who reported past-30-day ONP use in the U.S. used flavored ONPs, especially mint (53%), fruit (22%), and menthol (19%), and 23% reported using ONPs marketed as “ice”.⁹ The term “ice” or “freeze” is used to market products containing synthetic coolants, and the combination of characterizing flavors and synthetic coolants (e.g., “blueberry ice”) attracts young people and increases their nicotine dependence.¹⁰ Brand is another key factor contributing to sales and use: Zyn was the usual brand for 62% of U.S. youth who reported past-30-day ONP use, followed by on! (4%).⁹ Sales data also indicates that Zyn is by far the most popular brand, followed by on!, Rogue, and others.²

Existing studies largely focused on sales data from general purpose brick-and-mortar stores,^2,11 and information regarding online stores is lacking, which may offer a broader range of flavors and nicotine concentrations. Prior research using surveys and interviews to examine ONP consumption or use patterns^3,12,13 are subject to self-reported bias. Online ratings and reviews were used in the literature to assess consumer preferences for a variety of goods and services,^14–19 yet they have not been applied to ONP research.

This study addresses those gaps by collecting and analyzing consumer ratings and product attributes from online stores. We constructed a novel dataset to identify which ONP features may influence consumer preferences; as a growing number of state and local authorities consider restricting nicotine/tobacco product attributes, this research informs future regulations by providing crucial information on the potential policy impacts.

Methods

Data source

We scraped data from four online-only stores selling ONPs that operated without physical store locations. This was a convenience sample based on a Google search using the term “oral nicotine pouches selling to the U.S.,” conducted in Columbus, Ohio in 2024, from which our team randomly selected 4 store websites from the search results. To be included, each store had to offer shipping to the United States and display prices in U.S. dollars. Of the four selected stores, three were based in the U.S. and one in Europe.

Detailed product-level information was scraped from webpages between June 5–7, 2024, including sales prices, pouches per can (i.e., size), nicotine concentration per pouch, flavors, brands, marketing descriptions such as ice/freeze mentions and nicotine claims (leaf-free, synthetic, tobacco-free), as well as consumer ratings. Among the 3,983 unique ONP products that we scraped, 1,689 (42%) received reviews. Products included “mix packs” that were sold together, usually in packs of five.

Measures

If a product received reviews, its average rating (1–5 stars) as of the web scraping date was used as the outcome measure. Key explanatory variables included flavors, ice/freeze mentions, nicotine concentration (< 5 mg, 5 to < 10 mg, ≥ 10 mg per pouch, or missing), nicotine claims (“leaf-free” only, “synthetic” only, “tobacco-free” only, multiple claims, or none), pouches per can, and price per pouch (U.S. $). In sensitivity analysis, nicotine concentration was treated as a continuous variable to check if regression results changed.

Each product’s core flavor labeled on store website was re-categorized as fruit/sweet, mint, nut/spice, tobacco, coffee, wintergreen, unflavored, mixed flavor, or missing. A categorical variable indicated mentions of “ice” or “freeze” in product name, flavor description or product description (ice, freeze, both, or none). Nicotine marketing claims were based on keywords found in product description.

Regression analysis

For products with reviews, we conducted ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions weighted by review counts, using two specifications, i.e., with or without brand fixed effects. For the full sample (n = 3,983), a logistic regression of whether the product received reviews was estimated. All regressions controlled for store fixed effects.

Results

Table 1 summarizes characteristics of ONPs that received reviews: the average price was $0.20/pouch and the average size was 19 pouches/can; around half (46%) contained 5 to < 10 mg/pouch. The most common flavors were fruit/sweet (33%) and mint (25%); the brand on! had the highest number of unique products (15%); 3/4 of the products had at least one nicotine marketing claim: “tobacco-free” only (21%), “leaf-free” only (27%), “synthetic” only (8%), and two or more of those claims (20%); 13% had “freeze” mention, 4% had “ice” mention, and 4.2% featured both keywords.

Table 1.

Summary statistics of ONP characteristics, for products that received consumer ratings in online stores

Variables	Frequency	Mean/Percentage	SD
Outcome measures
Consumer rating (1–5 stars)	1689	4.27	0.87
Explanatory variables
Sales price per pouch (US $)	1689	0.20	0.07
Pouches per can	1689	18.65	2.31
Pouches per can (categorical)
Less than 15	5	0.30
15	458	27.12
16 to 19	5	0.30
20	1205	71.34
More than 20	16	0.95
Nicotine concentration (mg nicotine per pouch)
< 5 mg/pouch	539	31.91
5 to less than 10 mg/pouch	779	46.12
10 mg/pouch or higher	356	21.08
Product nicotine concentration missing	15	0.89
Core flavor labelled by store
Fruit/sweet	561	33.21
Mint	424	25.10
Nut/spice	126	7.46
Tobacco	24	1.42
Coffee	120	7.10
Wintergreen	218	12.91
Unflavored	83	4.91
Mixed flavor	73	4.32
Missing flavor	60	3.55
Brand
on!	260	15.39
Rogue	235	13.91
Velo	205	12.14
Lucy	200	11.84
Zyn	192	11.37
FRE	169	10.01
Juice Head	155	9.18
Sesh	66	3.91
Zone	40	2.37
Bridge	36	2.13
Hit	25	1.48
White Fox	25	1.48
Nic-s	21	1.24
Siberia	20	1.18
L!x	16	0.95
Zeo	12	0.71
Dope	4	0.24
Kozmo	4	0.24
Nico	4	0.24
Nicotine content’s type indicator
Not found	427	25.28
Leaf-free claim only	447	26.47
Synthetic claim only	129	7.64
Tobacco-free claim only	349	20.66
2+ claims	337	19.95
Ice or freeze indicator
Both	71	4.20
Freeze	218	12.91
Ice	69	4.09
Neither	1331	78.80
Store
Store 1	762	45.12
Store 2	585	34.64
Store 3	330	19.54
Store 4	12	0.71
Observations	1689

For each continuous variable, mean and standard deviation (SD) is reported; for each categorical or dichotomous variable, percentage is reported.

Supplemental Figure 1 shows most products received 10 or fewer reviews. Table 2 presents results from weighted regressions of ratings: most flavors, ice/freeze, nicotine concentration, and prices were not significantly associated with ratings; each additional pouch per can was associated with a 0.11-star decrease in ratings; mint flavor was associated with a 0.18-star increase in ratings; and products with a “leaf-free” claim only were on average rated 0.39-star lower than those without nicotine claims. Column (2) displays results without brand fixed effects: ONPs with ≥ 10 mg nicotine/pouch were rated lower (relative to < 5 mg nicotine/pouch); either ice or freeze claim was associated with higher ratings; more expensive products were rated lower; unflavored ONPs were rated higher; and the association between “leaf-free” claim and ratings was no longer significant. Supplemental Table 1 displays associations between specific brands and ratings, among products that received reviews. Compared to on! (reference), Velo, Lucy, and FRE received lower ratings, and there were no statistical differences in ratings between on! and Rogue, or between on! and Zyn. Supplemental Table 2 shows that when nicotine concentration was treated as a continuous variable, findings were similar to those in Table 2.

Table 2.

OLS regressions of online ratings, weighted by review counts (nicotine concentration as a categorical variable)

Outcome: online consumer ratings (1–5)
	(1)	(2)
Core flavor labelled by store (reference: fruit/sweet)
Mint	0.18*	0.18*
	(0.08)	(0.09)
Nut/spice	0.09	0.11
	(0.12)	(0.12)
Tobacco	0.10	−0.16
	(0.46)	(0.31)
Coffee	0.07	0.11
	(0.10)	(0.09)
Wintergreen	−0.01	0.04
	(0.09)	(0.10)
Unflavored	0.20	0.32**
	(0.11)	(0.11)
Mixed flavor	−0.25	−0.05
	(0.16)	(0.20)
Missing flavor	0.47	0.40*
	(0.24)	(0.19)
Ice or freeze indicator (reference: neither)
Both	−0.02	0.17
	(0.10)	(0.11)
Freeze	0.07	0.24**
	(0.07)	(0.08)
Ice	0.16	0.28*
	(0.11)	(0.11)
Nicotine (mg) per pouch (reference: < 5mg/pouch)
5 to less than 10mg/pouch	0.04	0.02
	(0.06)	(0.06)
10mg/pouch or more	0.18	−0.44***
	(0.13)	(0.10)
Missing	0.17	−0.47**
	(0.18)	(0.18)
Nicotine content’s type indicator (reference: none)
Leaf-free claim only	−0.39**	−0.002
	(0.14)	(0.12)
Synthetic claim only	−0.10	−0.02
	(0.29)	(0.19)
Tobacco-free claim only	0.01	0.08
	(0.09)	(0.09)
2+ claims	−0.20	−0.09
	(0.12)	(0.12)
Pouches per can	−0.11*	−0.12***
	(0.05)	(0.03)
Price ($) per pouch	−0.71	−3.88**
	(1.81)	(1.29)
Store fixed effects	Yes	Yes
Brand fixed effects	Yes	No
Products (clusters)	354	354
Observations	1689	1689
AIC	12602.33	14697.19

Standard errors are in parenthesis.

^*p < 0.05

^**p < 0.01

^***p < 0.001.

Estimated coefficients on brands from specification (1) are reported in Supplemental Table 1.

As reported in Supplementary Table 3, ONPs with missing flavor information, larger sizes and higher prices were less likely to be reviewed, while products with higher nicotine concentration and a leaf-free claim were more likely to receive reviews. Supplementary Table 4 summarizes characteristics of ONPs that did not receive reviews: the average size was somewhat bigger with larger standard deviations, a lower percentage (10%) had a leaf-free claim only, and a higher percentage (10%) had missing flavor information, compared to Table 1. The distributions of nicotine level as a categorical variable, product flavors, as well as ice/freeze/both claims were similar.

Discussion

Using data from online stores, we examined how ONP attributes associate with consumer preferences measured by ratings. Products were very affordable, and many contained ≥ 10 mg nicotine/pouch, higher than the < 7 mg/pouch in 2019 across 37 brands.²⁰ Given that sales of 8 mg ONPs grew the fastest in 2019–2022,² the online availability of ONPs with even higher nicotine strength is concerning and warrants regulatory oversight.

Fruit/sweet flavors—followed by mint and wintergreen—had the highest number of unique product offerings online, consistent with their popularity among youth⁹ and adults.¹² While mint flavors (including wintergreen) dominated sales in brick-and-mortar stores from 2016–2020, fruit-flavored ONPs experienced faster sales growth in 2019–2020.¹¹ Among ONPs that received reviews, 26% had a “leaf-free” claim, nearly 30% had a “synthetic” or “tobacco-free” claim, and 20% carried multiple nicotine claims. These marketing strategies, combined with appealing flavors, are commonly used by manufacturers to increase ONP uptake, particularly among tobacco-naive youth.^21–24 Continued surveillance of online marketing is needed to understand the evolving ONP market and inform future policies.

Our results showed that ONPs with higher nicotine concentration or lower prices were more likely to receive reviews, although when rated, prices and nicotine concentration were not significantly associated with ratings after controlling for brands. This reflects that brand preferences may strongly correlate with prices and nicotine concentration. While existing literature indicated that prices and nicotine impact consumer behaviors, especially in younger demographics,²⁵ this study does not directly measure consumer behaviors, which could explain some of the difference in findings.

Synthetic coolants (marketed as ice/freeze),¹⁰ nicotine/leaf ingredients and flavors are related to higher abuse liability and addictiveness of tobacco products (e.g., e-cigarettes).^10,26 In our study, ONPs with a leaf-free claim were more likely to receive reviews but were rated lower when controlling for brands, suggesting that “leaf-free” may draw attention but not translate to consumer satisfaction. Ice/freeze claim was rated higher when not controlling for brands. ONPs with a “tobacco-free” claim may be perceived as less harmful,²⁴ while our results indicated it is not significantly associated with consumer preferences.

We also found that mint flavor was rated higher than fruit/sweet. ONPs without flavor information were less likely to receive reviews but had higher ratings, suggesting niche appeal or higher satisfaction among a smaller group of consumers. The impacts of characterizing or explicit flavor descriptors (or lack thereof) and synthetic coolants (e.g., “blueberry ice”) on ONP preferences require further investigation, particularly given the appeal of flavors and cooling agents among youth.⁹

There was a significant association between ONP brands and ratings, consistent with literature on brand recognition and loyalty.²⁷ Brands with large market shares (e.g., Zyn, on!) were rated higher, showing a convergence between consumer ratings from online stores and sales from brick-and-mortar stores such as Nielsen Retail Scanner data.²

ONPs with more pouches per can were rated lower and less likely to be reviewed, which may reflect preference for smaller size with discreet feature, that has been observed among consumers of other tobacco products (e.g., e-cigarettes).^28,29 Smaller sizes may be more appealing among people using ONPs to quit smoking or nicotine, similar to those who prefer smaller cigarette or cigar pack sizes to help with quitting.³⁰

Key attributes of ONPs may correlate with brands, e.g., Zyn offers 3 mg and 6 mg ONPs, whereas on! sells ONPs with 1.5 mg, 2 mg, 3.5 mg, 4 mg, or 8 mg per pouch.³¹ Thus, some brands may have more observations (i.e., unique products) in the category of < 5 mg/pouch. Zyn dominates ONP sales (59% from August 2019 to March 2022)² and tends to be more expensive than other brands such as on!. The differing marketing strategies across brands may explain why the associations between ratings and some attributes (prices, nicotine concentration, “leaf-free”, ice/freeze) changed after controlling for brands.³²

This study has several strengths. Our data was collected from stores selling ONPs nationwide, providing insights on consumer behaviors across the U.S. Additionally, this dataset is the first to utilize scraped data to assess consumer preferences for ONPs, moving beyond traditional survey methods. However, limitations exist. While we examined nicotine concentration, other factors such as nicotine form (salt vs. freebase) may also influence ratings. Unfortunately, these features were not consistently reported by online stores. It is also worth noting that when we scraped the data, Zyn experienced a product shortage that was reported by several news outlets.³³ Product availability and brand-specific promotions during this time may have influenced the observed ONP characteristics and consumer ratings. Another limitation is that online ratings are not uniformly provided by all consumers; individuals with more extreme opinions were more likely to leave reviews. Additionally, cultural differences in rating behavior may affect results, given that one store was based in Europe. These factors can bias the reliability of ratings as a measure of overall consumer satisfaction. However, as we did not have access to online sales data, the current study was determined to be the best alternative. Lastly, including more stores could improve data representativeness.

Regulations over mint flavor, product size and brands may change consumer preferences for ONPs. Future studies could explore additional store websites and incorporate sales data to better understand how product attributes are associated with online purchases.

Implications:

We provide novel evidence on how oral nicotine pouch (ONP) features are associated with consumer preferences, measured by online ratings (ranging from 1–5 stars). Larger product size (more pouches per can) is associated with lower consumer ratings while mint flavor is associated with higher ratings. Brands are strongly correlated with ratings, impacting how consumers rate more expensive products. Restricting mint flavor, product size and certain brands may influence consumer preferences for ONPs and their subsequent use, which should be investigated in future research.

Data Availability Statement:

The data underlying this article will be shared upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.