Well, any questions in these kinds of surveys could be used for commercial purposes. The whole thing has commercial value. However we are OK with people like Foulds and Etter using the material for any purpose they like, including commercial purposes, as they have done enough for us. There are many people in tobacco control who have morphed into anti-nicotine and anti-harm reduction activists; the researchers we allow to operate on ECF help us with providing a science base to fight the antis. Indeed Prof Etter, whose work we often support here, is doing a great deal to help us fight the pharmaceutical industry (typified by the W.H.O., the World pHarmaceutical Organisation) in the EU regulatory battle currently. This would be professional suicide for many in the field, and standing up to the industry that essentially controls research funding and many academic institutions takes far more courage than people appreciate. The community owes people with genuine courage, like these researchers, a significant debt of thanks. Some senior figures have had their careers within academia ended by standing up to pharma.
Regarding the mini ecig purchase choice, it is a subject of fascination to all who look at these issues: why people buy something that doesn't work very well; then, how they come to a decision to either upgrade or return to smoking. A vaper's journey, if you like. Why buy something that works about 25% as well as modern hardware; why/how they upgrade; why some fail and revert to smoking. In 30 year's time you'll find academic posts established with titles like Professor of Ecigarette Motivational Decisions, or the Endowed Chair of Electronic Cigarette Psychology, or something

That'll be when the ecig business is so big, it outweighs big tobacco and competes with big pharma. Oh for a time machine...