Doris G Gammon1, Brett R Loomis1, Daniel L Dench1, Brian A King2, Erika B Fulmer2, Todd Rogers1. 1. Public Health Research Division, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA. 2. Office on Smoking and Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Little cigars are comparable to cigarettes in terms of shape, size, filters and packaging. Disproportionate tobacco excise taxes, which directly affect purchase price, may lead consumers to substitute cigarettes with less expensive little cigars. This study estimated the effects of little cigar and cigarette prices on little cigar sales. METHODS: Sales data from a customised retail scanner database were used to model a log-log equation to infer own-price and cross-price elasticity of demand for little cigars relative to little cigar and cigarette prices, respectively, from quarter 4 of 2011 to quarter 4 of 2013. Data were available for convenience stores (C-stores) (n=29 states); food, drug and mass merchandisers (FDMs) (n=44 states); and C-stores and FDMs combined (n=27 states). The dependent variable was per capita little cigar pack sales, and key independent variables were the price index for little cigars and cigarettes. RESULTS: A 10% increase in little cigar price was associated with a 25% (p<0.01) decrease in little cigar sales in C-stores alone, and a 31.7% (p<0.01) decrease in C-stores and FDMs combined. A 10% increase in cigarette price was associated with a 21.5% (p<0.05) increase in little cigar sales in C-stores, and a 27.3% (p<0.01) increase in C-stores and FDMs combined. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that US cigarette smokers are avoiding the high cost of cigarettes by switching to lower priced little cigars. Increasing and equalising prices among comparable products, like cigarettes and little cigars, may motivate cost-conscious smokers to quit. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
INTRODUCTION: Little cigars are comparable to cigarettes in terms of shape, size, filters and packaging. Disproportionate tobacco excise taxes, which directly affect purchase price, may lead consumers to substitute cigarettes with less expensive little cigars. This study estimated the effects of little cigar and cigarette prices on little cigar sales. METHODS: Sales data from a customised retail scanner database were used to model a log-log equation to infer own-price and cross-price elasticity of demand for little cigars relative to little cigar and cigarette prices, respectively, from quarter 4 of 2011 to quarter 4 of 2013. Data were available for convenience stores (C-stores) (n=29 states); food, drug and mass merchandisers (FDMs) (n=44 states); and C-stores and FDMs combined (n=27 states). The dependent variable was per capita little cigar pack sales, and key independent variables were the price index for little cigars and cigarettes. RESULTS: A 10% increase in little cigar price was associated with a 25% (p<0.01) decrease in little cigar sales in C-stores alone, and a 31.7% (p<0.01) decrease in C-stores and FDMs combined. A 10% increase in cigarette price was associated with a 21.5% (p<0.05) increase in little cigar sales in C-stores, and a 27.3% (p<0.01) increase in C-stores and FDMs combined. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that US cigarette smokers are avoiding the high cost of cigarettes by switching to lower priced little cigars. Increasing and equalising prices among comparable products, like cigarettes and little cigars, may motivate cost-conscious smokers to quit. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Entities:
Keywords:
Economics; Non-cigarette tobacco products; Price; Public policy; Taxation
Authors: F Baker; S R Ainsworth; J T Dye; C Crammer; M J Thun; D Hoffmann; J L Repace; J E Henningfield; J Slade; J Pinney; T Shanks; D M Burns; G N Connolly; D R Shopland Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-08-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Israel T Agaku; Brian A King; Corinne G Husten; Rebecca Bunnell; Bridget K Ambrose; S Sean Hu; Enver Holder-Hayes; Hannah R Day Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Cassandra A Stanton; Eva Sharma; Kathryn C Edwards; Michael J Halenar; Kristie A Taylor; Karin A Kasza; Hannah Day; Gabriella Anic; Lisa D Gardner; Hoda T Hammad; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Jean Limpert; Nicolette Borek; Heather L Kimmel; Wilson M Compton; Andrew Hyland Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Teresa W Wang; Kyle Falvey; Doris G Gammon; Brett R Loomis; Nicole M Kuiper; Todd Rogers; Brian A King Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Kurt M Ribisl; Dorothy K Hatsukami; Jidong Huang; Rebecca S Williams; Eric C Donny Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jidong Huang; Cezary Gwarnicki; Xin Xu; Ralph S Caraballo; Roy Wada; Frank J Chaloupka Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-04-21 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Catherine G Corey; Enver Holder-Hayes; Anh B Nguyen; Cristine D Delnevo; Brian L Rostron; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Heather L Kimmel; Amber Koblitz; Elizabeth Lambert; Jennifer L Pearson; Eva Sharma; Cindy Tworek; Andrew J Hyland; Kevin P Conway; Bridget K Ambrose; Nicolette Borek Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-11-15 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Reema Goel; Neil Trushin; Samantha M Reilly; Zachary Bitzer; Joshua Muscat; Jonathan Foulds; John P Richie Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 4.244