Tag Archives: psychology

The Cannabis Industry and the Science of Seasonality

By Blaise Lucey
No Comments

Let me be honest: I’ve only been part of the cannabis industry for six months. Before that, I worked at B2B tech start-ups and ad tech companies like Roku and Criteo. The most valuable thing I learned is that most good ad campaigns are linked to seasonality.

When I worked at Criteo, the vast majority of our clients were retail and ecommerce. Seasonality initiatives were critical. The more relevant your ads to an upcoming seasonal event, the more relevant they were to the audience. Think about any window display you’ve seen recently – the CVS near me has had Valentine’s Day products in the window since at least mid-January.

When I worked at Roku, we got to take a look at TV streaming behavior. For example, when Ben Affleck started dating Jennifer Lopez again, searches for their movies and music videos skyrocketed. During the space race, general space-related (think Star Trek) TV content went up.

That’s not seasonality – that’s psychology.

As the cannabis industry matures, businesses should start thinking about what seasonal, psychological and cultural factors impact their consumers. Cannabis consumption could be said to be the art of the business, but understanding what cannabis consumers want is the science. Here are three ways to think about that science:

1. The Science of Stash

One analyst recalls that cannabis sales reached “unimaginable” highs in 2020. He called this “pantry-loading” behavior. Let’s call it “stash” behavior.

The buying behavior of a cannabis buyer who buys an eighth is fundamentally different from someone who buys a six pack. The six pack is gone in a weekend. Which flower buyers are buying an eighth just for a weekend? A week? A month?

During the height of the pandemic, with nowhere to go and a lot of anxiety, dispensaries provided at-home entertainment for cannabis consumers. That’s why sales grew by 46%. Cycles of consumption naturally went up. In this case, I think of streaming TV, too – Netflix added 36 million subscribers in 2020 and Roku saw 58.7 billion hours streamed in 2020.

Is there a correlation? Well, stashing behavior obviously correlates with couch behavior. When people spend more time inside, they’re more tempted to go through their stash and cannabis sales increase.

Cannabis isn’t affected by just regular old seasons – it’s affected by what we could call personal, seasonal patterns. Just like streaming TV, when consumers spend more time inside, they buy more cannabis because they consume it faster.

What is the stash turnover rate for your different audiences? What factors make that turnover rate go faster or slower?

Analyzing stash behaviors can reveal your most loyal and high value customers, and offer new perspectives on how to market to different groups.

2. The Science of Celebration.

One estimate shows that Illinois cannabis sales jumped up by 10% in July due to Lollapalooza. Makes sense – more than 385,000 people attended.

women grow event
“When people are coming into cities for events, they’re picking up cannabis then and there, and likely consuming it in true real-time.”

Looking at our own data, there’s a clear spike around St. Patrick’s Day – cannabis sales are 70% higher than average daily sales in February and 54% higher than average compared to March daily sales. This goes against stashing behavior, because the sales happen on the same day.

This is a different science. When people are coming into cities for events, they’re picking up cannabis then and there, and likely consuming it in true real-time.

Event trends can have a huge impact on cannabis sales and psychology. Where there’s a celebration, there’s going to be cannabis buyers. Event trends often translate to tourism trends. And these cannabis buyers aren’t just tourists to cities, a lot of them are likely tourists to cannabis itself as well – novelty consumers who go into a dispensary for the specific event and pick up a little bit of everything.

That’s an opportunity for new brands and more niche categories (beverages, pills, edibles) to connect with a new group of customers. That said, after that initial purchase, how can the brands stay in touch? That’s where dispensaries and cannabis brands need to come up with new strategies for managing cannabis customer data.

3. The Science of States.

Events like Lollapalooza are regional – and so are cannabis markets. In Massachusetts, BDSA data shows continued growth. In the West Coast, analysts call it a “rollercoaster.”

Note the specific pandemic trend lines. Any state that suddenly saw more than 50% sales one year and a sudden slump the next year at the same is bound to see a market crash. It also made it easy to ignore a lot of structural problems – which states like California are now trying to correct.

Legal cannabis sales are radically different depending on the maturity of the market. Let’s not forget that this goes deeper than just states. Only 32% of the California market even has legal dispensaries open right now.

What are regional trends? What are event trends? What are cultural trends?

The more dispensaries and cannabis brands can proactively market to anticipate these needs – and get the message out there to the right audience segments – the better.

Making Cannabis Personal

What keeps becoming apparent is that above all, cannabis is personal. Everyone is looking for something a little different. A consumer’s tastes can change based on all sorts of factors – or not change at all. Different products might suit different occasions. Different messages will talk to different use cases – some people want cannabis that can make a concert better. Others want it to sleep. Dispensaries need to figure out who’s who.

At the end of the day, that’s what makes the cannabis industry so unique. It is an end-to-end experience like no other. From researching products and dispensaries to analyzing brands and products to consuming it, every interaction a consumer has with a cannabis business is very personal. And if they don’t like their personal experience, they won’t come back.

As the industry looks ahead into a competitive 2022, the mission should be simple: make every touchpoint for every customer a great experience, from start to finish.

A Joint Problem: How Cannabis Testing Policies Affect Applicants’ Attraction Toward an Organization

By Prachi
No Comments

Employees with substance abuse issues could cause problems for their employers. Recent legalization of cannabis has prompted organization to re-evaluate their drug testing policies in anticipation of increased usage among employees and potential hires (Rotermann, 2020). Cannabis use has increased from 14.9% to 16.8% post-legalization in Canada. Policies that enable routine cannabis-testing of employees, though beneficial in some cases, might negatively affect the perceptions of individuals toward the organizations that hold these policies. Specifically, job applicants may perceive the administration of such policies as unfair. I investigated the influence of cannabis testing policy and its perceived fairness on job applicants’ perception of organizational attractiveness and their intention to apply to a job vacancy.

A recruitment notice was presented to potential participants, which included a link to the survey. After reading and signing the consent form, participants were randomly assigned one of the three drug testing conditions (severe, moderate, none). Severe drug testing policies include testing pre-employment, randomly during the employment period, and in response to suspicious behavior. Moderate drug testing policies include administering drug testing pre-employment and in cases of suspicion. None is the control (i.e., no testing policy in place). The corresponding vignette was presented, followed by the survey questionnaire (measures on organizational attractiveness, intention to apply, perceived fairness, and perceived stigma), demographic questions, and questions on cannabis usage.

Cannabis user’s perceived fairness of cannabis testing was higher within organizations with no compared to severe testing situations (Figure 1). However, for individuals who do not ingest cannabis, the perceived fairness was higher for organizations with severe compared to no cannabis testing policy. This suggests that cannabis users deem cannabis testing as unfair regardless of the type of policy. This supports previous research findings on recreational use of cannabis and job seekers’ perception of drug testing (Paronto et al., 2002). Based on Gilliland’s (1993) model of organizational justice and perceived fairness, there are 10 procedural rules categorized into three categories: formal characteristics of selection system, explanations offered during the selection process, and interpersonal treatments that help form the applicants’ perceived fairness. In the current study, the no-cannabis testing job advertisement was seen as valid (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is selection information) and honest (one of Gilliland’s procedural rules is honesty) by the cannabis users; however, moderate and severe testing was not seen in the same light, which might explain why we see decreased perceived fairness for cannabis testing. Those two procedural rules violate reasonableness leading to decreased perception of organizational fairness among cannabis users for cannabis testing.

The current study also supported past research by confirming that the individuals who ingest cannabis demonstrated increased levels of organizational attractiveness and intention to apply to organizations that had none compared to severe cannabis testing policies. If the organization is testing for cannabis use pre-employment or randomly, in addition to post-accident/suspicious behavior (i.e., severe policy), cannabis users’ level of organization attractiveness and intention to apply is much lower. This could be due to the fact that cannabis has been legalized in Canada and 11 states in the US  (Leafly, 2020). Individuals might feel that severe testing is an invasion of their privacy given that they are not doing anything illegal. Furthermore, job applicants perceived drug-testing as harassment toward individuals and claimed it represents a repressive work environment. Given that, this feeling could prevent an applicant from applying or considering the available job.

Implications: This study has important implications for employers and organizations in general. Even though it is important to have cannabis testing policies in place, it is equally important to consider the impact of cannabis testing on the potential talent pool. Such perceptions of drug testing may lead talented applicants to self-select out of the job pool. This would lead to a decreased number of applicants for a job available to the employer. Therefore, knowing the attitudes and intentions of individuals who ingest cannabis toward moderate and severe testing policies will provide employers with solid research-based evidence from which to design programs and policies surrounding cannabis testing.