Restrictions on the display of vapes and nicotine pouches could significantly reduce their appeal to consumers, according to new UK research that could inform the government’s plans to tighten rules on how nicotine products are presented in shops.
The study, by researchers at the University of Stirling’s Institute for Social Marketing and Health, found that both adults and adolescents rated conventional branded displays more favourably than displays featuring standardised white packaging or products concealed from view.
The findings come as the government considers further restrictions on the retail display of vaping and other nicotine products under the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026.
The research, published on medRxiv on 29 September, examined responses from two online surveys conducted between April and June 2026. These included 2,851 current and former adult nicotine users and 2,123 young people aged 11 to 17.
Participants were shown four images of retail displays: a large display of branded vapes and nicotine pouches; a conventional display positioned alongside covered tobacco products; a display featuring standardised white vape and pouch packaging; and a display in which the vape and pouch products were fully covered.
The researchers assessed responses across 10 measures, including attractiveness, eye-catching appeal, perceived harm, ease of purchase and whether the display made vaping seem socially acceptable or appealing.
Branded displays rated more favourably
Among adults, nearly three-quarters (74.6%) gave an overall favourable rating to the large display of branded products. This compared with 69.6% for the conventional display positioned alongside covered tobacco.
The corresponding figures among adolescents were 67.4% and 54.9%.
The larger branded display also conveyed a strong impression of how common vaping was. Almost three-quarters of adults (73.9%) and adolescents (74.4%) said it made them think that lots of people vape.
However, the effect of restricting displays was substantial. When products were presented in standardised white packaging, only 26.2% of adults and 15.9% of adolescents gave an overall favourable rating.
When the products were fully covered, these figures fell further to 9.5% of adults and 4.6% of adolescents.
The researchers found that standardised packaging reduced the odds of favourable ratings across the measures examined. Fully covered displays had an even greater effect, with the odds of favourable ratings consistently lower than for the conventional display.
The findings suggest that limiting the visibility and branding of products could reduce the positive messages communicated at the point of sale, including perceptions of attractiveness, social acceptance and accessibility.
Potential implications for youth vaping
The study also examined whether young people’s responses to the displays were associated with their susceptibility to vaping.
Among adolescents who had never vaped, 40.3% were classified as susceptible to trying it. Those who gave an overall favourable rating to the large branded display were 2.73 times as likely to be classified as susceptible as those who rated it neutrally or unfavourably, after adjustments for demographic and behavioural factors.
For the conventional display positioned alongside covered tobacco, the adjusted odds were 1.89 times higher.
No statistically significant association was found between vaping susceptibility and favourable ratings of either restricted display.
The authors said the results indicate that display restrictions could potentially reduce positive messaging around vaping and adolescent susceptibility. However, they cautioned that the study’s cross-sectional design cannot establish that favourable reactions to displays cause young people to become more susceptible to vaping.
Most adult users retained product preferences
For retailers, one important finding was that restricting displays did not appear to substantially change the stated product choices of most adult nicotine users.
When shown the standardised-packaging display, 83% of adult nicotine users remained consistent with their original product choice. When shown the fully covered display, the figure was 73%.
However, 11% said they would choose none of the products from the standardised-packaging display, rising to 18% for the fully covered display.
A small proportion indicated that they would switch to cigarettes or tobacco: 4% when shown the standardised-packaging display and 6% when shown the fully covered display.
The researchers noted that the people indicating a switch to cigarettes or tobacco were overwhelmingly already smokers or dual users. Only eight respondents in the standardised-packaging scenario and 20 in the fully covered scenario did not currently smoke; these individuals vaped but had smoked in the past.
The findings therefore do not demonstrate that display restrictions would lead to widespread switching from vaping back to smoking. The researchers said further work would be needed to understand how consumers respond to restrictions in real-world purchasing situations.
The paper also highlighted the potential effect on adult perceptions of harm and accessibility. Both adults and adolescents rated the fully covered display as making vapes more difficult to buy and increasing perceptions of harm.
Retailers face potential merchandising changes
The authors acknowledged that restrictions would have implications for retailers, particularly as businesses have invested in larger displays and backwall gantries to increase the visibility of vapes and nicotine pouches.
They cited existing research on tobacco display restrictions in Scotland, which found that retailers’ initial concerns about implementation and effects on customer transactions were largely unfounded after the ban came into force.
The paper also noted that retailers were already considering how to prepare for potential restrictions, including concealing existing displays or developing tobacco-style gantries for vape products.
However, the latest study did not measure actual sales or the financial impact of changing displays. Participants assessed mock-up images, and their product choices were hypothetical. The authors also said further research was needed to understand responses to nicotine pouch displays specifically, as the measures used in the study focused on vaping.
The research was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research through the Public Health Policy Research Unit.
The paper is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. Its findings should therefore be treated as preliminary evidence rather than a definitive assessment of the likely effects of future retail display restrictions.