Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 May 13.
Published in final edited form as: Subst Use Misuse. 2026 Feb 16;61(11):1830–1838. doi: 10.1080/10826084.2026.2624783

Exploring #Zyn-Related Video Content Posted by Zynfluencers on TikTok

Samia Amin a,b, Wayne Buente c, Jerel-Dayne Duque a, Andrew Mettias a, Sayed Mahmud Samiul Amin a,d, Scott K Okamoto a, Pallav Pokhrel a
PMCID: PMC13167055  NIHMSID: NIHMS2167747  PMID: 41699783

Abstract

Objectives:

Oral nicotine pouches such as Zyn have gained popularity, with marketing increasingly leveraging social media influencers. This study aimed to analyze the content and engagement metrics of TikTok videos tagged with #Zyn across different influencer types.

Methods:

A standardized inductive coding approach was used to analyze 130 TikTok videos tagged #Zyn, collected on February 16, 2024. Videos were categorized by macro (100,000–1 M followers), micro (1000–100,000 followers), and nano (<1000 followers) influencers. Content was evaluated for quality using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified DISCERN scale. Three coders independently coded the videos and intercoder reliability was assessed using Cohen’s kappa, achieving a value of 0.89. Themes analyzed included post origin, health messages, sponsorship and promotion, and personal stories or product insights.

Results:

Macro influencers posted longer, higher quality videos and more frequently promoted Zyn as a safer alternative to other tobacco products. Micro-influencers demonstrated the highest engagement and were the only group offering promotional incentives. Nano influencers had the lowest quality scores but the highest use of memes. Health warnings were most frequent in micro and nano influencer content. Adverse health effects were mentioned across all influencer types, with micro-influencers reporting the widest variety.

Conclusion:

This study suggests that macro influencers can be utilized to deliver accurate health information about nicotine products, while micro and nano influencers can be strategically engaged to boost audience interaction and communicate health risks, thereby addressing a wider audience and potentially reducing the appeal and misuse of Zyn products.

Keywords: Zynfluencers, Zyn, oral nicotine pouch, Tik Tok

Introduction

Oral nicotine pouches, such as Zyn©, are smokeless and tobacco-free products designed to deliver nicotine through the lining of the mouth (Robichaud et al., 2020). These pouches are placed between the gum and the upper lip, where they release nicotine over a period of time, providing a discreet and convenient alternative to smoking or vaping (Robichaud et al., 2020). While these pouches are often marketed as a safer alternative to smoking or vaping, there are ongoing debates about their appeal to nonsmokers and the potential health risks associated with long-term use (Patwardhan & Fagerström, 2022; Grandolfo et al., 2024).

Zyn has emerged as a leading brand in the oral nicotine pouch market by offering a wide range of flavors, such as mint, citrus, and coffee, as well as various nicotine strengths, ranging from mild to strong (Patwardhan & Fagerström, 2022). This variety allows users to customize their experience according to their taste preferences and desired nicotine intake, making Zyn an attractive option for both new users and those transitioning from other nicotine products (Majmundar et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2023).

Social media influencers have played a key role in promoting Zyn among young people (Liu & Halpern-Felsher, 2024). Social media influencers are individuals with varying degrees of following or network sizes who purportedly have the ability to influence their followers’ or network members’ lifestyle-related decision-making. Influencers are often perceived as relatable and trustworthy, enhancing their effectiveness in shaping followers’ behavior (Schouten et al., 2020). Mainly three types of influencers have been identified: macro-, micro-, and nano-influencers. Macro-, micro-, and nano-influencers refer to influencers with 100 thousand to a million followers (some macro-influencers often have more than a million followers), 1 thousand to 100 thousand followers, and fewer than a thousand followers, respectively (Ismail, 2023). Past research suggests that the three types of influencers tend to differ in audience reach, engagement, and perceived authenticity (Ismail, 2023; Chen et al., 2024; Conde & Casais, 2023). Macro-influencers have a broad reach but because of their larger and more heterogeneous audiences, their followers may be less inclined to directly engage with them. Whereas despite having small reach, because of the likely close-knit nature of their networks, micro- and nano-influencers may attract higher engagement and trust (Freberg et al., 2011). These findings may be explained in terms theories such as the source credibility theory (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). The theory posits that individuals and organizations with greater mass appeal (e.g., macro-influencers) are perceived to be more attractive but are considered less trustworthy because of suspected ulterior motives on their part. Individuals and organizations with more localized, retail appeal (e.g., micro- or nano-influencers), on the other hand, may be considered more trustworthy and less profit-driven even though they may be perceived as less attractive.

In the case of Zyn the brand’s popularity has been significantly amplified by “Zynfluencers;” social media influencers who actively promote Zyn products on platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube (Liu & Halpern-Felsher, 2024). These influencers create content that highlight the convenience, flavors, and lifestyle appeal of using Zyn, often framing it as a trendy and socially acceptable alternative to smoking or vaping (Tosakoon et al., 2023; Long et al., 2023). This marketing strategy has been particularly effective in reaching younger audiences (Duan et al., 2024; Ganz et al., 2025). TikTok in particular has emerged as a major social media platform that younger individuals find more attraction because of its short-form video content (Gesmundo et al., 2022; Wallaroo Media n.d). The short-form video format has also enabled influencers to promote their products in more personal and engaging ways (Creely et al., 2019). For example, a macro-influencer named Max VanderAarde, who goes by as “Cheddy” on TikTok, has popularized Zyn nicotine pouches by incorporating them into lifestyle and fitness content (VanderAarde, 2023; Freezer Tarps, 2024). He employs humor and creative terms such as “Zynbabwe” and “Zynachino” to promote nicotine pouch use while engaging in social and physical activities (VanderAarde, 2023; Freezer Tarps, 2024).

At present, however, evidence of how influencers are using TikTok to promote oral nicotine pouches is anecdotal. Although previous research has explored the impact of influencer-based marketing on attitudes and behaviors related to certain tobacco products (Smith et al., 2023; Vassey et al., 2023), studies have rarely systematically studied the quality and themes of the content generated by influencers, including product promotion, regarding oral nicotine pouches such as Zyn (Ling et al., 2023). Knowledge is also lacking regarding how the audiences engage with different types of influencers disseminating content regarding nicotine pouches. Furthermore, there has been limited attempts to understand how the different types of influencers seek to influence perceptions of the products in terms of potential health effects. Addressing these gaps in knowledge is crucial for developing more effective public health campaigns and regulatory policies concerning oral nicotine pouches. Examining Zyn-related content on TikTok in particular help address these gaps as Zyn is the most commonly used oral nicotine pouch in the U.S (Liu & Halpern-Felsher, 2024).

Thus, the purpose of this study was to 1) identify the TikTok posts originating from the three types of influencers, namely macro-, micro-, and nano-influencers; 2) examine the quality and themes (e.g., product promotion and health messages) of Zyn-related content on Tiktok across the three types of influencers; and 3) examine the audience engagements across the three types of influencers.

Methodology

Data collection

We collected publicly available TikTok videos tagged with #Zyn on a single day, on February 16, 2024, using Apify’s TikTok scraper and exported the data in an Excel format (Apify Store: Tiktok Hashtag Scraper, 2024). Initial data set contained 729 videos with meta data (location, like, follower, comment, and share). #Zyn was selected for this study due to its widespread popularity, recent surge in sales and increased digital marketing (Duan et al., 2024; Ganz et al., 2025; CBS News, 2024; Ozga et al. 2025).

Pilot search and hashtag selection

During the initial pilot search, both “Zyn” and “#Zyn” were used. The untagged term “Zyn” returned many irrelevant results, such as personal names and non-brand content, whereas the hashtag “#Zyn” consistently identified brand-related posts. To ensure the relevance and reliability of the dataset, only #Zyn was used in the final search.

Initial coding and codebook development

To analyze TikTok videos related to the #Zyn hashtag, we used a standardized inductive approach of iterative coding (Roberts et al., 2019). Three coders (AM, JD, and SA) familiarized themselves with the data by watching 20 random videos multiple times from the initial data set, taking notes on initial impressions and key points. To conduct the initial coding, we systematically reviewed each video and documented the originator of the video, whether or not the originator may be classified as a type of influencer, quality and thematic content of the video (e.g., product promotion and health messages), audience engagement with the video. To ensure coding accuracy, team members consulted with the first author (SA) on a weekly basis over a 7-week time frame to refine initial codes by re-watching the videos multiple times, combine similar codes, and split broader codes into more specific ones. We developed a comprehensive codebook with clear definitions, criteria, and examples for each code, updating it iteratively. Overall coding framework was validated and discrepancies were resolved after discussion with the senior author (PP). We used Cohen’s kappa to statistically assess the level of intercoder agreement, ensuring the reliability and validity of our coding process (McHugh, 2012). Intercoder reliability was established by having all videos double coded by three independent coders, with discrepancies resolved through discussion.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The study included TikTok videos tagged with #Zyn. Exclusion criteria entailed videos without the #Zyn hashtag, those unrelated to Zyn even if tagged, duplicate posts, non-English content, posts from private accounts inaccessible to the public, and videos lacking clear relevance to Zyn due to insufficient context or ambiguity.

Identifying influencer type

We classified the selected videos into the following three categories of social media influencers by counting the number of accounts following the originator of each video: macro-(follower count: 100,000 to 1 million), micro-(follower count: 1000 to 100,000), and nano-(follower count: less than 1000) influencers (Ismail, 2023).

Examining quality of content

The videos included in the study were evaluated using the Global Quality Scale (GQS) and modified Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information (DISCERN) scale (Singh et al., 2012). The GQS, which rates videos on a scale of one to five based on quality (from poor to excellent quality) (Appendix 2). The DISCERN scale assesses reliability through five specific questions, with higher scores indicating more reliable content (Appendix 2). In our study, video content was assessed using the GQS and modified DISCERN five-point Likert scale based on the quality of information: content scoring one to two points was categorized as low quality and potentially misleading, three points indicated moderate quality, and four to five points indicated content of high usefulness and quality.

Examining audience engagement

For each video, audience engagement was assessed by computing the number of “likes,” “shares,” and “comments.”

Examining themes of content

Thirteen codes were created to summarize the data across four broader themes (Appendix 1). The “post origin” theme captured who posted the content, distinguishing between user-generated posts by individual users and official posts by organizations or companies, as well as identifying the country in which the post was made. The “health messages” theme covered health warnings (e.g., risks of nicotine use), need for youth protection (e.g., purchase age restriction), potential adverse effects of nicotine pouch use, and promotion of nicotine pouches as agents of tobacco harm reduction (e.g., Zyn as an aid for smoking/vaping cessation). The “sponsorship and promotion” theme focused on aspects such as sponsorship disclosures, promotion incentives, such as discounts, giveaways, and loyalty programs; and the use of memes to engage audiences. Lastly, the “personal stories and product insights” theme included personal photographs shared by users, product reviews, and informational posts about Zyn, and guidance on how to use the product. Cohen’s kappa values for each main coding category ranged from 0.86 to 0.91, with percent agreement between 92% and 95%, indicating substantial agreement among the coders (McHugh, 2012).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages, were calculated overall using SPSS version 29.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL) to summarize engagement metrics (likes, shares, comments, and follower count) and content characteristics (post origin, warnings and health information, sponsorship and promotion, and personal stories and product insights) (IBM Corp, 2024). The variables were expressed as numbers, percentage, mean, and standard deviation. A chi-square test of independence or Fisher’s exact test was conducted to examine significant differences in content characteristics across macro, micro, and nano influencer videos on TikTok.

Results

Video characteristics across influencer types

Of the 729 videos screened, 410 videos were deemed irrelevant (e.g., the videos focused on cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobaccos, smokeless tobacco products, e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and snuff); 126 videos were duplicated; 16 videos were in non-English languages; and 47 videos were non-accessible due to private accounts. Finally, 130 videos were included in the study for analysis. Of the 130, 28 (21.5%), 68 (52.3%), and 34 (26.2%) videos were classified into the macro, micro, and nano influencer categories, respectively. The average video duration for macro influencers was 41.3 s (SD = 1.82), the longest among the three influencer categories, while the overall average duration across all videos (micro, macro, and nano influencers) was 28.26 s (SD = 1.38). Videos by micro-influencers averaged 31.6 s in length. Nano-influencers posted the shortest-duration videos, averaging 12.4 s. Macro-influencers predominantly used regular accounts and posted mainly from the U.S.

Audience engagement and video quality across influencer types

Table 1 provides a comparison of engagement metrics and quality evaluations of Zyn-related videos on TikTok by influencer type. Macro influencers had the highest fan and heart counts compared to micro and nano influencers. They received 692 comments and 3982 shares across their 28 #Zyn-related videos. Micro influencers demonstrated the highest engagement, leading with 951 comments and 13,336 shares across their 68 #Zyn-related videos. Macro-influencers scored highest on the GQS (2.11 ± 0.14) and DISCERN (0.82 ± 0.07) scales, indicating high quality of videos. The quality scores for videos across micro-influencers were 1.81 ± 0.10 on GQS and 1.15 ± 0.08 on DISCERN. Nano influencers had the lowest fan and heart counts. They scored the lowest on both GQS (1.29 ± 0.12) and DISCERN (0.29 ± 0.05) scales.

Table 1.

Engagement metrics and quality evaluation of #Zyn related videos on TikTok.

Macro influencer (N = 28)
M ± SD		 Micro influencer (N = 68)
M ± SD		 Nano influencer (N = 34)
M ± SD
Fan count 330,832 ± 29,395 24,124 ± 1913 451 ± 29
Following count 399 ± 49 341 ± 18 289 ± 19
Comment count 692 ± 54 951 ± 26 605 ± 14
Share count 3982 ± 104 13,336 ± 156 9636 ± 70
Heart count 15,472,642 ± 347,220 1,214,739 ± 14,033 88,860 ± 1836
Video duration (second) 41.32 ± 1.82 31.68 ± 0.99 12.41 ± 1.18
GQS score 2.11 ± 0.14 1.81 ± 0.10 1.29 ± 0.12
DISCERN score 0.82 ± 0.07 1.15 ± 0.08 0.29 ± 0.05
Open in a new tab

M: mean; N: total number of videos; SD: standard deviation.

Content themes across influencer types

Table 2 presents a comparative analysis of macro, micro, and nano influencers across various themes: post origin, health messages and information, sponsorship and promotion, and personal stories and product insights.

Table 2.

#Zyn-related content analysis of influencer videos on TikTok.

Theme Subtheme Category Macro influencer
(N#= 28)
Number of videos
(%)		 Micro influencer
(N#= 68)
Number of videos
(%)		 Nano influencer
(N#= 34)
Number of videos
(%)		 χ2 p Value
Post origin

  • Who posted

 Regular account 28 (100.0) 60 (88.2) 33 (97.0) 5.39 0.07
Official account – 8 (11.7) 1 (2.9)

  • Country posted in

 United States 27 (96.4) 62 (91.1) 24 (70.5) 11.29 < 0.001*
Other country 1 (3.5) 6 (8.8) 10 (29.4)
Health messages

  • Age warning

 Yes 1 (3.5) 2 (2.9) 1 (2.9) 0.03 0.99
No 27 (96.4) 66 (97.0) 33 (97.0)

  • Health warning in product

 Yes – 24 (35.2) 13 (38.2) 14.29 <0.001*
No 28 (100.0) 44 (64.7) 21 (61.7)

  • Individual health warning

 Yes – 7 (10.2) 5 (14.7) 4.16 0.13
No 28 (100.0) 61 (89.7) 29 (85.2)

  • Adverse effect

 Mentioned 2 (7.1) 13 (19.1) 3 (8.8) 3.36 0.19
Not mentioned 26 (92.8) 55 (80.8) 31 (91.1)

  • Public health information

 Included 5 (17.8) 8 (11.7) – 5.93 0.05*
Not included 23 (82.1) 60 (88.2) 34 (100.0)
Sponsorship and promotion

  • Promotion incentive

 Offered – 17 (25.0) – 17.83 <0.001*
Not offered 28 (100.0) 51 (75.0) 34 (100.0)

  • Sponsorship

 Sponsored – – – – –
Not sponsored 28 (100.0) 68 (100.0) 34 (100.0)

  • Meme

 Used 10 (35.7) 33 (48.5) 30 (88.2) 20.57 <0.01*
Not used 18 (64.2) 35 (51.4) 4 (11.7)
Personal stories and product insights

  • Personal photograph

 Used 13 (46.4) 24 (35.2) 8 (23.5) 3.59 0.17
Not used 15 (53.4) 44 (64.7) 26 (76.4)

  • Product review/information

 Included 13 (46.4) 45 (66.1) 4 (11.7) 26.92 < 0.01*
Not included 15 (53.5) 23 (33.8) 30 (88.2)

  • How to use guidance

 Included 8 (28.5) 5 (7.3) 1 (2.9) 12.23 < 0.001*
Not included 20 (71.4) 63 (92.6) 33 (97.0)
Open in a new tab

#N: total number of videos; χ2: Chi-square test,

*

Significant.

Chi-square tests were conducted to compare categorical variables across influencer groups. Fisher’s Exact test was used when expected cell counts were <5.

Post origin

Micro influencers also mainly used regular accounts (88.2% of 68 videos) but some videos were posted from official accounts such as tobacco retail shops or gaming or entertainment club accounts (11.7% of 68 videos). The majority of these 68 videos were posted from the U.S. (91.1%), while a smaller portion were posted from countries outside the U.S. (8.8%). Nano influencers posted more videos from outside the U.S. compared to micro influencers (29.4% vs. 8.8%). The chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference was observed in the country of posting (χ2 = 11.29, p < 0.001), indicating that nano influencers were more likely to post content from countries outside the United States compared to macro and micro influencers.

Health messages

Macro-influencers rarely mentioned health warnings but mentioned public health-relevant information such as use of Zyn for tobacco harm reduction in 17.8% (5 of 28 videos) of their videos. Macro-influencers had 2 videos that reported adverse effects of Zyn such as vomiting and headache. Micro influencers shared more health messages and mentioned adverse effects more often than macro or nano influencers. Micro influencers frequently mentioned adverse effects across 18 videos: burning (22.2%), confusion (5.5%), dizziness (11.2%), gum-related issues (11.2%), headaches (11.2%), hiccups (5.5%), overstimulation (5.5%), and vomiting (11.2%). Public health information such as promoting alternative or safer options of quitting nicotine with Zyn was included in 11.7% (8 of 68) of their videos, where 75% promoted Zyn alternative or safer options and 25% discussed quitting nicotine with Zyn. Nano influencers, across 8 videos, reported a range of adverse effects including addiction (37.4%), burning (12.5%), gum-related issues (25.1%), and headaches (25.1%). Public health information such as promoting alternative or safer options of quitting nicotine with Zyn was entirely absent in their posts. The chi-square analysis indicated that inclusion of product health warnings differed significantly among influencer types (χ2 = 14.29, p < 0.001), with micro and nano influencers more frequently displaying health messages than macro influencers.

Promotion and sponsorship

Macro-influencers were low on posts related to promotion and sponsorship. Micro-influencers were the only group to offer promotional incentives (25.0%, 17 of 68), including discounts or free shipping (58.8% of 17 videos), rewards (23.5% of 17 videos), and product promotions (17.6% of 17 videos). Promotion incentives varied significantly (χ2 = 17.83, p < 0.001), as only micro-influencers offered such content.

Personal stories and product insights

Macro-influencers were least likely to use memes. Personal stories and product insights were relatively common among macro-influencers, with 46.4% (13 of 28 videos) using personal photographs and providing Zyn product reviews. Nano influencers were the most likely to use memes, with 88.2% (30 of 34) incorporating them. Meme usage was substantially higher among nano influencers (χ2 = 20.57, p < 0.01), reflecting their preference for humorous engagement formats. Significant differences were further noted for product review or informational content (χ2 = 26.92, p < 0.01) and “how-to-use” guidance (χ2 = 12.23, p = 0.00), with macro and micro influencers more likely to include these informative elements.

Discussion

This study analyzed #Zyn-related video content posted by macro, micro, and nano influencers on TikTok, revealing distinct strategies and engagement patterns across influencer types. The significant differences in video quality, content features, and inclusion of health-related information underscore how influencer type shapes communication style and potential public health impact. Consistent with previous research showing that influencer size influences authenticity, production quality, and perceived trustworthiness (Belanche et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2023; Jin et al., 2019), our findings highlight that macro influencers dominate reach and visibility, micro influencers drive engagement through relatable and interactive content, and nano influencers contribute to the cultural diffusion of nicotine-related discussions through humor and memes. Together, these findings reflect a complex ecosystem where promotional and health-related messaging coexist, shaping public perceptions of oral nicotine products like Zyn.

Macro influencers, with their substantial follower base, demonstrated unique characteristics in their Zyn-related content. They produced the longest videos and achieved the highest quality scores on both the GQS and DISCERN measures, aligning with prior research suggesting that influencers with larger audiences often invest in high-quality production to maintain status and credibility (Belanche et al., 2021). Notably, macro influencers in this study occasionally promoted alternative or safer options for quitting nicotine with Zyn, suggesting their potential as channels for disseminating health-related information to a broader audience. Prior studies have observed that high-profile influencers sometimes incorporate smoking cessation messages to balance promotional content with public health considerations (Kong et al., 2024). Their higher production quality and perceived authority may enhance credibility and message persuasiveness, positioning them as influential figures for potential public health collaborations. Interestingly, macro influencers in this study rarely included sponsorships or promotional incentives, possibly as a deliberate choice to preserve authenticity and audience trust. This finding diverges from broader influencer marketing trends, where macro influencers often engage in brand sponsorships (Sun et al., 2023). However, as previous studies have shown, strong influencer–brand associations can enhance message credibility (Jin et al., 2019), indicating that leveraging macro influencers’ authenticity and reach could serve as an effective strategy for anti-tobacco messaging and harm-reduction campaigns. A deeper qualitative exploration of their lifestyle portrayals could further elucidate how such content normalizes or glamorizes nicotine use within aspirational social contexts.

Micro influencers emerged as particularly impactful in terms of engagement and content diversity. Our findings indicate that only micro influencers used official accounts associated with retail shops, gaming, and entertainment clubs, suggesting a strategic marketing approach to promote emerging products like Zyn through culturally resonant venues. This mirrors patterns documented for e-cigarette brands, which have partnered with lifestyle influencers on Instagram and YouTube to enhance brand appeal and social desirability (Smith et al., 2023; Vassey et al., 2023). From a tobacco control perspective, this underscores the need for stricter oversight on influencer marketing practices and transparency in promotional partnerships. Micro influencers were also more likely than other groups to include health warnings and discuss adverse effects, which may reflect attempts to balance product promotion with responsible communication trend that previously observed in e-cigarette marketing (Shroff & Sreeramareddy, 2024). Moreover, Micro influencers in this study were the only one to offer promotional incentives, such as discounts and rewards, consistent with literature showing that micro influencers often employ such strategies to increase engagement (Chen et al., 2024; Elrod & Fortenberry, 2020; Silver et al., 2022). Although this approach may strengthen audience connection, it also risks normalizing nicotine pouch use and heightening appeal among younger audiences (Fielding-Singh et al., 2021). Given their high engagement and perceived authenticity, micro influencers could serve as effective intermediaries for public health messaging, provided that appropriate regulatory and educational frameworks guide such efforts.

Nano influencers, despite their smaller follower counts and lower engagement metrics, displayed distinctive patterns in their Zyn-related content. They produced shorter and lower-quality videos, likely reflecting limited technical expertise or resources. However, a substantial proportion of their posts originated outside the United States, suggesting Zyn’s growing international market presence and emphasizing the need for globally tailored health communication strategies. The absence of content promoting safer nicotine alternatives among nano influencers is concerning from a public health standpoint, as these creators may inadvertently contribute to misinformation or product normalization (Czaplicki et al., 2020). Furthermore, nano influencers relied heavily on memes and humor, consistent with Zulli and Zulli (2022) theoretical framework of technological mimesis and imitation publics, where meme-based content fosters social connection through mimicry and relatability (Zulli & Zulli, 2022). While this approach effectively engages audiences, especially younger users, it may also trivialize nicotine use and downplay associated risks (Kong et al., 2019; Hébert et al., 2017; Majmundar et al., 2023). Such findings align with broader concerns about youth-oriented marketing tactics in tobacco-related social media content and underscore the importance of countering such narratives through youth-targeted prevention campaigns and culturally relevant interventions.

Study limitations

The primary strength of this study lies in its comprehensive and systematic approach to analyzing the video contents. The use of a standardized inductive coding method, the development of a detailed codebook, and the calculation of intercoder reliability ensure the robustness and reliability of the findings. Additionally, the categorization of influencers into macro, micro, and nano groups allows for a more detailed comparison of their impact and strategies, providing deeper insights into the effectiveness of different levels of social media influence in tobacco product marketing.

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. First, the analysis was restricted to publicly available videos tagged with #Zyn, which may not represent all relevant content. Second, the study excluded non-English videos, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to non-English speaking populations. Third, we did not specifically examine the unique features of TikTok as a platform and how they might influence content creation and community building around Zyn products. Unlike other social media platforms based primarily on social networks, TikTok encourages imitation and engaging content to foster connections among users. Features, such as “Duet”, “Stitch”, and “Use this Sound” enable content to become a foundation for community building (Kaye et al., 2022). Popular content on TikTok often gets reinterpreted or duplicated in creative ways, potentially amplifying its reach and impact. Fourth, metadata on video publication dates for individual posts were not available, which limited the ability to determine the exact time frame during which the analyzed videos were originally published. Finally, this study was exploratory. Future intervention studies may benefit from utilizing theoretical frameworks to guide the development of effective, evidence-based strategies. Given that our analytic sample included only 130 videos, which is small compared to other social media studies (Smith et al., 2023; Vassey et al., 2023; Shroff & Sreeramareddy, 2024; Zulli & Zulli, 2022; Hébert et al., 2017; Kaye et al., 2022), the results should be interpreted cautiously, as the limited sample size may constrain the generalizability of the findings to all content on social media.

Implications for tobacco product research

The strategies employed by macro, micro, and nano influencers reveal a tiered and complex landscape of nicotine-related discourse on social media. Macro influencers shape high-visibility narratives, micro influencers drive engagement and product promotion, and nano influencers foster community-level interactions through humor and memes. These patterns highlight both opportunities and challenges for tobacco control: while influencers’ credibility and reach can amplify cessation and harm-reduction messages, the blending of entertainment, marketing, and incomplete health information risks normalizing nicotine pouch use.

For research, these findings underscore the importance of considering influencer typology as a key analytic factor. Future studies should examine how content style, production quality, and audience engagement influence perceptions, behavioral intentions, and product uptake, particularly among youth and young adults. Platform-specific dynamics also warrant investigation: micro and nano influencers may leverage TikTok’s interactive features, such as memes, duets, and participatory trends to build communities around Zyn products, whereas macro influencers may rely on authority-driven messaging. Understanding these differences can inform regulatory approaches and guide public health campaigns tailored to influencer tier and engagement style.

Research should also explore the long-term impact of tier-specific strategies on consumer perceptions and behaviors. Mixed-methods approaches, combining computational content analysis with qualitative inquiry, could capture how promotional, humorous, and health-related narratives evolve over time and across geographies.

From an intervention perspective, these insights support tier-specific public health strategies: collaborating with macro influencers to disseminate credible cessation and harm-reduction messages; engaging micro influencers in interactive campaigns that emphasize product risks; and targeting nano influencers’ communities with culturally relevant educational content to counter normalization. Cross-country comparative studies could further optimize interventions by accounting for regulatory environments and cultural contexts. Overall, leveraging influencers strategically offers a promising avenue to enhance tobacco control and reduce the appeal of emerging nicotine products in the digital age.

Conclusion

Macro, micro, and nano influencers each play distinct roles in shaping perceptions of Zyn products on TikTok. By understanding their unique characteristics and impact, policymakers can strategically engage these influencers to enhance tobacco control efforts. Macro influencers can drive comprehensive educational campaigns, micro influencers can provide targeted health warnings and community engagement, and nano influencers can leverage their creative and international reach to spread tobacco control messages effectively.

IMPLICATIONS.

The study highlights the potential of leveraging different influencer tiers to tailor health messaging on social media about nicotine pouches such as Zyn. Macro influencers, who tend to create higher quality and informative content, could be engaged to disseminate accurate health information, supporting efforts to educate the public on nicotine risks. Micro and nano influencers, with their high engagement rates, offer unique opportunities to deliver frequent warnings and risk insights, potentially appealing to younger audiences more likely to view such content. Utilizing influencers strategically could help reduce Zyn misuse, enhance public awareness, and address the spread of potentially misleading product promotions.

Funding

This research was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R25CA244073; P30CA071789).

Appendix 1: Video coding definition and criteria with example

Codes Definition and examples
1. Who posted This refers to whether the post was made by a user-generated content or an organization/company. User-generated: A post by an individual user showing themselves using Zyn, with a caption about their experience. Organization/company: A post by a company’s official account promoting their Zyn product, featuring professional product photography and branding.
2. Country posted in This indicates the country in which the video post was made. Example: A post made in the United States, featuring the Zyn with packaging that complies with FDA regulations for tobacco products.
3. Sponsorship This indicates whether the post is sponsored by a company or organization. Example: A TikTok post with a caption mentioning that it is sponsored by a specific brand, with a disclaimer about the sponsorship.
4. Age warning This is a warning specifying the minimum age required to purchase or use the nicotine product. It’s typically included to comply with legal regulations and to discourage underage use. Example: A video post featuring the Zyn with a caption stating “Must be 18+ to purchase. Keep out of reach of children.”
5. Health warning in product This warning highlights the potential health risks associated with using nicotine products, such as addiction, cardiovascular issues, and other adverse effects. Health warnings are often required by law to be displayed prominently on product packaging and advertisements. Example: A post featuring the Zyn with a prominent warning label stating “Warning: Nicotine is addictive and can harm your health”
6. Adverse effect This refers to any negative or harmful effects that may result from using the product, such as nausea, dizziness, or allergic reactions. Adverse effects are typically included in product warnings and informational materials.
7. Promotion incentive This refers to any incentives or rewards offered to encourage people to purchase or use the product. Examples include discount codes, free samples, or loyalty programs.
8. Individual health warning Similar to the general health warning, this could be a specific warning tailored to individual health conditions or situations. For example: A video featuring the Zyn with a disclaimer stating “Not recommended for pregnant or nursing women.”
9. Meme This indicates whether the post contains a humorous or satirical image or text intended to convey a message about the product. Memes are often used in advertising to appeal to younger audiences or to create viral content. Example: A video featuring a humorous meme related to using Zyn, designed to engage and entertain the audience.
10. Personal photograph This indicates whether the video post is a personal photograph. Example: A selfie-style image/video post showing an individual using the Zyn, with a caption sharing their personal experience with the product.
11. Product review information This provides information about the Zyn, such as its ingredients, flavors, nicotine content, and usage instructions. It may also include reviews or testimonials from users.
12. Public health information This could include information about the risks of nicotine use, tips for quitting, or resources for getting help with addiction. Public health information aims to educate and inform the audience about the potential consequences of using nicotine products.
13. How to use guidance A video featuring the Zyn with a caption providing step-by-step instructions on how to use it properly, including placement in the mouth and disposal after use.
Open in a new tab

Appendix 2: Video quality evaluation criteria

Global Quality scoring criteria Score Modified DISCERN scoring criteria

  • Is it of poor quality, very unlikely to be informative or useful to viewers considering quitting nicotine or learning about Zyn products?

 1

  • Are the aims clear and achieved? Does the video clearly explain what it wants to do (e.g., inform about Zyn, discuss its effects, review the product)?

  • Is it of poor quality with some information present, but of very limited value to viewers in understanding or making informed decisions about Zyn?

 2

  • Are reliable sources of information used? Does the video use trustworthy sources, like scientific studies, doctors, or well-known health organizations, to support what it says about Zyn?

  • Does it have suboptimal flow, covering some relevant information but missing key aspects, making it only somewhat useful to viewers seeking guidance on Zyn use or nicotine cessation?

 3

  • Is the information presented balanced and unbiased? Does the video fairly show both the good and bad sides of Zyn without favoring one side or trying to sell something?

  • Does it have good quality and flow, covering most important topics related to Zyn and nicotine use, providing useful information for viewers considering quitting or understanding the product?

 4

  • Are additional sources of information listed for patient reference? Does the video give links or references where viewers can find more information about Zyn, like websites or articles?

  • Is it of excellent quality and flow, comprehensively covering all critical topics about Zyn and nicotine cessation, making it highly useful and informative for viewers looking to make informed decisions?

 5

  • Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? Does the video discuss what we do not know about Zyn, such as possible risks, a lack of long-term studies, or uncertain evidence?
Open in a new tab

Note: A “yes” answer is scored as “1” and “no” answer is scored as “0”. The total “yes” answers are calculated to reach a content scoring of low (1–2 points); moderate (3 points) and high (4–5 points) quality of the videos.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest

None.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [SA], upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Apify Store: Tiktok Hashtag Scraper. (2024). https://apify.com/clockworks/tiktok-hashtag-scraper/api/client/nodejs
  2. Belanche D, Casaló LV, Flavián M, & Ibáñez-Sánchez S (2021). Building influencers’ credibility on Instagram: Effects on followers’ attitudes and behavioral responses toward the influencer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61, 102585. 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102585 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. CBS News. (2024). Zyn nicotine pouches gain popularity among youth through social media. Experts explain rising concerns. https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/zyn-influencers-blamed-for-enticing-youth-on-social-media-partake-in-unauthorized-nicotine-pouches/ [Google Scholar]
  4. Chen J, Zhang Y, Cai H, Liu L, Liao M, & Fang J (2024). A comprehensive overview of micro-influencer marketing: Decoding the current landscape, impacts, and trends. Behavioral Sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 14(3), 243. 10.3390/bs14030243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Conde R, & Casais B (2023). Micro, macro and mega-influencers on Instagram: The power of persuasion via the parasocial relationship. Journal of Business Research, 158, 113708. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113708 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Creely TE, Knisely WN, Ayotte T, & Lewis C (2019). Technology and the self: A new deity. Ethics, Medicine and Public Health, 10, 111–119. 10.1016/j.jemep.2019.100404 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Czaplicki L, Kostygina G, Kim Y, Perks SN, Szczypka G, Emery SL, Vallone D, & Hair EC (2020). Characterising JUUL-related posts on Instagram. Tobacco Control, 29(6), 612–617. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2018-054824 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Duan Z, Henriksen L, Vallone D, Rath JM, Evans WD, Romm KF, Wysota C, & Berg CJ (2024). Nicotine pouch marketing strategies in the USA: An analysis of Zyn, On! and Velo. Tobacco Control, 33(2), 154–163. 10.1136/tc-2022-057360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Elrod JK, & Fortenberry JL Jr. (2020). Sales promotion in health and medicine: Using incentives to stimulate patient interest and attention. BMC Health Services Research, 20(1), 820. 10.1186/s12913-020-05601-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fielding-Singh P, Epperson AE, & Prochaska JJ (2021). Tobacco product promotions remain ubiquitous and are associated with use and susceptibility to use among adolescents. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 23(2), 397–401. 10.1093/ntr/ntaa136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Freberg K, Graham K, McGaughey K, & Freberg L (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Freezer Tarps. (2024). Freezer tarps: Official website. https://frzrtrps.com
  13. Ganz O, Barnwell PV, Hrywna M, Donaldson SI, Allem JP, & Delnevo CD (2025). Marketing ZYN: Examining branded and un-branded content. Tobacco Control, tc-2024–058766. 10.1136/tc-2024-058766 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gesmundo M, Jordan M, Meridor W, Muyot D, Castano M, & Bandojo A (2022). TikTok as a platform for marketing campaigns: The effect of brand awareness and brand recall on the purchase intentions of millennials. Journal of Business and Management Studies, 4(2), 343–361. 10.32996/jbms.2022.4.2.27 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Grandolfo E, Ogden H, Fearon IM, Malt L, Stevenson M, Weaver S, & Nahde T (2024). Tobacco-free nicotine pouches and their potential contribution to tobacco harm reduction: A scoping review. Cureus, 16(2), e54228. 10.7759/cureus.54228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hébert ET, Case KR, Kelder SH, Delk J, Perry CL, & Harrell MB (2017). Exposure and engagement with tobacco- and e-cigarette-related social media. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 61(3), 371–377. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.04.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hovland CI, & Weiss W (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(4), 635–650. 10.1086/266350 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. IBM Corp. (2024). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (version 29.0). IBM Corp. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ismail K (2023). Types of social media influencers: Mega, macro, micro or nano. https://www.cmswire.com/digital-marketing/social-media-influencers-mega-macro-micro-or-nano/
  20. Jin SV, Muqaddam A, & Ryu E (2019). Instafamous and social media influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 37(5), 567–579. 10.1108/mip-09-2018-0375 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kaye DBV, Zeng J, & Wikström P (2022). TikTok: Creativity and culture in short video. Polity.
  22. Kong G, Laestadius L, Vassey J, Majmundar A, Stroup AM, Meissner HI, Ben Taleb Z, Cruz TB, Emery SL, & Romer D (2024). Tobacco promotion restriction policies on social media. Tobacco Control, 33(3), 398–403. 10.1136/tc-2022-057348 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Kong G, LaVallee H, Rams A, Ramamurthi D, & Krishnan-Sarin S (2019). Promotion of vape tricks on YouTube: Content analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e12709. 10.2196/12709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Ling PM, Hrywna M, Talbot EM, & Lewis MJ (2023). Tobacco-derived nicotine pouch brands and marketing messages on internet and traditional media: Content analysis. JMIR Formative Research, 7, e39146. 10.2196/39146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Liu J, & Halpern-Felsher B (2024). Popularity of Zyn and other nicotine pouch brands among U.S. adolescents, young adults, and adults in 2021. Preventive Medicine, 185, 108068. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.108068 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Long L, Alalwan MA, Keller-Hamilton B, Patterson JG, Roberts ME, Wagener TL, Atkinson L, Suraapaneni S, & Mays D (2023). Perceptions of oral nicotine pouches & their marketing among Ohio Appalachia smokers and smokeless tobacco users. PLoS One, 18(10), e0293597. 10.1371/journal.pone.0293597 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Majmundar A, Okitondo C, Xue A, Asare S, Bandi P, & Nargis N (2022). Nicotine pouch sales trends in the US by volume and nicotine concentration levels from 2019 to 2022. JAMA Network Open, 5(11), e2242235. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Majmundar A, Pérez C, Huerta M, Unger JB, & Allem JP (2023). Describing memes referencing vaping: Thematic analysis. Substance Use & Misuse, 58(2), 306–310. 10.1080/108 26084.2022.2161316 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. McHugh ML (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282. 10.11613/BM.2012.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Ozga JE, Cornacchione Ross J, Hrywna M, Sharma A, Ling PM, & Stanton CA (2025). Oral nicotine product marketing expenditures in the USA from 2016 to 2023: Trends over time by brand and targeted media outlets. Tobacco Control, 34(3), 382–385. 10.1136/tc-2023-058537 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Patel M, Kierstead EC, Kreslake J, & Schillo BA (2023). Patterns of oral nicotine pouch use among U.S. adolescents and young adults. Preventive Medicine Reports, 34, 102239. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Patwardhan S, & Fagerström K (2022). The new nicotine pouch category: A tobacco harm reduction tool? Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 24(4), 623–625. 10.1093/ntr/ntab198 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Roberts K, Dowell A, & Nie JB (2019). Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 66. 10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Robichaud MO, Seidenberg AB, & Byron MJ (2020). Tobacco companies introduce ‘tobacco-free’ nicotine pouches. Tobacco Control, 29(e1), e145–e146. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2019-055321 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Schouten AP, Janssen L, & Verspaget M (2020). Celebrity vs. Influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 258–281. 10.1080/02650487.2019.1634898 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Shroff SM, & Sreeramareddy CT (2024). Marketing claims, promotional strategies, and product information on Malaysian e-cigarette retailer websites-a content analysis. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 19(1), 11. 10.1186/s13011-024-00592-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Silver N, Rahman B, Folger S, Bertrand A, Khatib B, Gbenro M, & Schillo B (2022). A content analysis of promotional features in us direct-mail from advertisements across tobacco products from 2018 to 2020. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 24(10), 1627–1634. 10.1093/ntr/ntac095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Singh AG, Singh S, & Singh PP (2012). YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis–a wakeup call? The Journal of Rheumatology, 39(5), 899–903. 10.3899/jrheum.111114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Smith MJ, Buckton C, Patterson C, & Hilton S (2023). User-generated content and influencer marketing involving e-cigarettes on social media: A scoping review and content analysis of YouTube and Instagram. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 530. 10.1186/s12889-023-15389-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sun C, Zhou D, & Yang T (2023). Sponsorship disclosure and consumer engagement: Evidence from Bilibili video platform. Journal of Digital Economy, 2, 81–96. 10.1016/j.jdec.2023.07.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Wallaroo Media. TikTok statistics—everything you need to know. https://wallaroomedia.com/blog/social-media/tiktok-statistics/
  42. Tosakoon S, Romm KF, & Berg CJ (2023). Nicotine pouch awareness, use and perceptions among young adults from six metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation, 9, 10–19. 10.18332/tpc/163243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. VanderAarde M (2023). How Freezertarps built a brand around nicotine pouches and fitness culture. Nicotine News Daily. https://www.nicotinenewsdaily.com/freezertarps-brand-story [Google Scholar]
  44. Vassey J, Valente T, Barker J, Stanton C, Li D, Laestadius L, Cruz TB, & Unger JB (2023). E-cigarette brands and social media influencers on Instagram: A social network analysis. Tobacco Control, 32(e2), e184–e191. 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Zulli D, & Zulli DJ (2022). Extending the internet meme: Conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society, 24(8), 1872–1890. 10.1177/1461444820983603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [SA], upon reasonable request.

RESOURCES