Joseph G L Lee1,2, Amanda Richardson1,3, Shelley D Golden1, Kurt M Ribisl1,3. 1. Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 2. Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC. 3. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While cigarette pack designs are part of integrated marketing efforts, it is unclear the degree to which packs are used to advertise promotions and whether the tobacco retailers' neighborhood characteristics influence the likelihood and type of pack-based promotion in the United States. METHODS: Between June and October 2012, data collectors purchased packs of either Marlboro Red (n = 1090) or Newport Green (n = 1057) cigarettes at 2147 stores that were part of a national sample of tobacco retailers in the contiguous US. Coders rated packs for the presence of an exterior and interior pack promotion, placement of exterior promotion (eg, front, back), presentation of exterior promotion (eg, onsert, tear strip), and nature of the promotion (eg, contest/give/away). Using Census tract data, we examined the association of pack promotions with tobacco retailers' neighborhood demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Marlboro packs were approximately twice as likely to have promotions as Newport packs (31.7% vs. 14.7%). Fewer Marlboro packs (14.6%) and no Newport packs had interior promotions. The majority of exterior promotions were for contests (>80% for both brands), while almost all interior Marlboro promotions (97.5%) were for a discounted price. There were few differences in presence or type of promotion by tobacco retailers' neighborhood characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Exterior packs promotions, in particular, were fairly common and may contribute to the allure of tobacco products. IMPLICATIONS: Use of promotions on the interior and exterior of cigarette packs are a mechanism that the tobacco industry uses to sell its products and should be continually assessed for their influence on consumer behavior.
INTRODUCTION: While cigarette pack designs are part of integrated marketing efforts, it is unclear the degree to which packs are used to advertise promotions and whether the tobacco retailers' neighborhood characteristics influence the likelihood and type of pack-based promotion in the United States. METHODS: Between June and October 2012, data collectors purchased packs of either Marlboro Red (n = 1090) or Newport Green (n = 1057) cigarettes at 2147 stores that were part of a national sample of tobacco retailers in the contiguous US. Coders rated packs for the presence of an exterior and interior pack promotion, placement of exterior promotion (eg, front, back), presentation of exterior promotion (eg, onsert, tear strip), and nature of the promotion (eg, contest/give/away). Using Census tract data, we examined the association of pack promotions with tobacco retailers' neighborhood demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Marlboro packs were approximately twice as likely to have promotions as Newport packs (31.7% vs. 14.7%). Fewer Marlboro packs (14.6%) and no Newport packs had interior promotions. The majority of exterior promotions were for contests (>80% for both brands), while almost all interior Marlboro promotions (97.5%) were for a discounted price. There were few differences in presence or type of promotion by tobacco retailers' neighborhood characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Exterior packs promotions, in particular, were fairly common and may contribute to the allure of tobacco products. IMPLICATIONS: Use of promotions on the interior and exterior of cigarette packs are a mechanism that the tobacco industry uses to sell its products and should be continually assessed for their influence on consumer behavior.
Authors: Seema Mutti; David Hammond; Ron Borland; Michael K Cummings; Richard J O'Connor; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Addiction Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Mohammad Siahpush; Raees A Shaikh; K Michael Cummings; Andrew Hyland; Michael Dodd; Les Carlson; Asia Sikora Kessler; Jane Meza; Neng Wan; Melanie Wakefield Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-29 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: James F Thrasher; Kamala Swayampakala; K Michael Cummings; David Hammond; Dien Anshari; Dean M Krugman; James W Hardin Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 4.018