John D Rogers1, Lois Biener, Pamela I Clark. 1. Center for Survey Research, University of Massachusetts Boston, 100 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, MA 02125, USA. John.Rogers@umb.edu
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This exploratory study was designed to assess the availability, price, and point-of-purchase marketing strategies for new smokeless tobacco products in 4 test market areas. METHODS: A random sample of 50 gas stations, convenience and food stores, and tobacco shops was selected in each of 4 test market areas. Pairs of observers visited each store, recorded product information, and engaged vendors in conversation about product demand. RESULTS: Snus was available in 64% of the stores, but availability and price differed by brand. Point-of-purchase marketing also varied by brand on a variety of dimensions and all brands appeared to be marketed primarily to smokers. Camel Snus was described by store attendants as having the highest demand and was also the most expensive of the observed products. In light of the number of test market cities and intensity of promotion at retail locations, Camel Snus was the most intensively marketed product. DISCUSSION: The results appear to reflect differences in marketing strategy by American snus manufacturers. These strategies may help to predict future marketing of snus and other tobacco products and may provide a baseline for later assessments of product acceptance.
INTRODUCTION: This exploratory study was designed to assess the availability, price, and point-of-purchase marketing strategies for new smokeless tobacco products in 4 test market areas. METHODS: A random sample of 50 gas stations, convenience and food stores, and tobacco shops was selected in each of 4 test market areas. Pairs of observers visited each store, recorded product information, and engaged vendors in conversation about product demand. RESULTS: Snus was available in 64% of the stores, but availability and price differed by brand. Point-of-purchase marketing also varied by brand on a variety of dimensions and all brands appeared to be marketed primarily to smokers. Camel Snus was described by store attendants as having the highest demand and was also the most expensive of the observed products. In light of the number of test market cities and intensity of promotion at retail locations, Camel Snus was the most intensively marketed product. DISCUSSION: The results appear to reflect differences in marketing strategy by American snus manufacturers. These strategies may help to predict future marketing of snus and other tobacco products and may provide a baseline for later assessments of product acceptance.
Authors: David T Levy; Elizabeth A Mumford; K Michael Cummings; Elizabeth A Gilpin; Gary Giovino; Andrew Hyland; David Sweanor; Kenneth E Warner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: David A Savitz; Roger E Meyer; Jason M Tanzer; Sidney S Mirvish; Freddi Lewin Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-10-03 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: David E Nelson; Paul Mowery; Scott Tomar; Stephen Marcus; Gary Giovino; Luhua Zhao Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: S-H Zhu; J B Wang; A Hartman; Y Zhuang; A Gamst; J T Gibson; H Gilljam; M R Galanti Journal: Tob Control Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Andrea R Vansickel; Caroline O Cobb; Michael F Weaver; Thomas E Eissenberg Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Robert C Klesges; Jon O Ebbert; Glen D Morgan; Deborah Sherrill-Mittleman; Taghrid Asfar; Wayne G Talcott; Margaret Debon Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Tameka S Lawler; Stephen B Stanfill; Liqin Zhang; David L Ashley; Clifford H Watson Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2013-03-19 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Kimberly G Wagoner; Eunyoung Y Song; Kathleen L Egan; Erin L Sutfin; Beth A Reboussin; John Spangler; Mark Wolfson Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Matthew C Rousu; Richard J O'Connor; James F Thrasher; Kristie M June; Maansi Bansal-Travers; James Pitcavage Journal: Prev Med Date: 2013-12-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Michael Freiberg; Raymond G Boyle; Molly Moilanen; Ann W St Claire; Susan R Weisman Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jessica L Burris; Amy E Wahlquist; Anthony J Alberg; K Michael Cummings; Kevin M Gray; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Matthew J Carpenter Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2016-07-15 Impact factor: 3.913