How tobacco companies ensure prime placement of their advertising and products in stores: interviews with retailers about tobacco company incentive programmes

• Published in: Tobacco control 2003-06, Vol.12 (2), p.184-188
• Main Authors: Feighery, E C, Ribisl, K M, Clark, P I, Haladjian, H H
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Advertising; Advertising as Topic - economics; Advertising as Topic - methods; Attitude; Boxes; Chain stores; Cigarette industry; Cigarettes; Competition; Consumer goods industries; Contract Services; Convenience stores; Displays (Marketing); Economic Competition; Expenditures; Franchises; Humans; Incentives; Influence; Interprofessional Relations; Interviews; Liquor stores; Litigation; Management; Market strategy; Marketing; Motivation; Oil companies; Perception; Pharmacy; Prices; Product displays; promotional allowances; Research Paper; retail outlet marketing; Retail outlets; Retail stores; Retail trade; Sales; Settlements & damages; slotting fees; Smoking - economics; Studies; Supermarkets; Tobacco; Tobacco industry; Tobacco Industry - economics; United States; Vouchers
• ISSN: 0964-4563; 1468-3318
• DOI: 10.1136/tc.12.2.184

Background: About 81% of cigarette manufacturers’ marketing expenditures in the USA is spent to promote cigarette sales in stores. Relatively little is known about how these expenditures help the manufacturers achieve their marketing goals in stores. A better understanding of how tobacco companies influence the retail environment would help researchers and tobacco control activists to monitor industry presence in stores. Objective: To describe the types of tobacco company incentive programmes offered to retailers, how these programmes impact the store environments, and possible visual indicators of retailer participation in incentive programmes. Study design: In-depth qualitative interviews with a convenience sample of 29 tobacco retailers were conducted in 2001. Setting: USA. Main outcome measures: The types and requirements of retailer incentive programmes provided by tobacco companies, and how participation in a programme alters their stores. Results: The retailers provided insights into how tobacco companies convey promotional allowances and special offers to them and how these incentives shape the retail environment. Retailers noted that tobacco companies exert substantial control over their stores by requiring placement of products in the most visible locations, and of specific amounts and types of advertising in prime locations in the store. Retailers also described how tobacco companies reduce prices by offering them volume based discounts, “buy two, get one free” specials, and “buying down” the price of existing product. Conclusions: Tobacco companies are concentrating their marketing dollars at the point-of-sale to the extent that the store is their primary communication channel with customers. As a result, all shoppers regardless of age or smoking status are exposed to pro-smoking messages. Given the financial resources spent by tobacco companies in stores, this venue warrants closer scrutiny by researchers and tobacco control advocates.