Erin J Miller Lo1, Daniel P Giovenco2, Olivia A Wackowski3, Melissa B Harrell4, Cheryl L Perry5, Cristine D Delnevo6. 1. Research Assistant, Rutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, Piscataway, NJ. 2. Assistant Professor, Columbia University, Mailman School of Public Health, Department of Social Sciences, New York, NY. 3. Assistant Professor, Rutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, Piscataway, NJ. 4. Associate Professor, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Austin Campus, Department of Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences, Austin, TX. 5. Professor and Regional Dean, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Austin Campus, Austin, TX. 6. Professor, Rutgers School of Public Health, Center for Tobacco Studies, Piscataway, NJ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the cigarette and smokeless tobacco (SLT) markets in Texas and the United States (US) as a whole. METHODS: Nielsen convenience store sales data from 2014 were obtained for Dallas, Houston, San Antonio/Austin, and the total US. Descriptive statistics highlighted market share differences in Texas compared to the US overall. RESULTS: Marlboro and Copenhagen dominated the cigarette (58.9%) and SLT markets (44.8%) in Texas and had substantially higher relative market shares in Texas than nationally (46.7% and 29.8%, respectively). Camel, with sales driven largely by its Camel Crush variety, held second place in Texas (9.8%), outselling Newport (6.6%), despite Newport's status as second best-selling brand in the US (11.5%). Copenhagen led the SLT market in Texas, outselling Grizzly 2 to 1, yet the brands hold roughly equivalent shares nationally. Whereas flavored SLT products made up nearly 60% of the US SLT market, unflavored SLT (58.6%) dominated in Texas markets. Finally, sales of fine-cut SLT in Texas were more than triple their national market share. CONCLUSIONS: Regional tobacco market share differences are likely influenced by multiple factors such as marketing, population demographics, culture, and neighboring communities. Policymakers are encouraged to develop local tobacco control policies and programs within the context of this knowledge.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares the cigarette and smokeless tobacco (SLT) markets in Texas and the United States (US) as a whole. METHODS: Nielsen convenience store sales data from 2014 were obtained for Dallas, Houston, San Antonio/Austin, and the total US. Descriptive statistics highlighted market share differences in Texas compared to the US overall. RESULTS: Marlboro and Copenhagen dominated the cigarette (58.9%) and SLT markets (44.8%) in Texas and had substantially higher relative market shares in Texas than nationally (46.7% and 29.8%, respectively). Camel, with sales driven largely by its Camel Crush variety, held second place in Texas (9.8%), outselling Newport (6.6%), despite Newport's status as second best-selling brand in the US (11.5%). Copenhagen led the SLT market in Texas, outselling Grizzly 2 to 1, yet the brands hold roughly equivalent shares nationally. Whereas flavored SLT products made up nearly 60% of the US SLT market, unflavored SLT (58.6%) dominated in Texas markets. Finally, sales of fine-cut SLT in Texas were more than triple their national market share. CONCLUSIONS: Regional tobacco market share differences are likely influenced by multiple factors such as marketing, population demographics, culture, and neighboring communities. Policymakers are encouraged to develop local tobacco control policies and programs within the context of this knowledge.
Entities:
Keywords:
cigarettes; regional tobacco market; smokeless tobacco; tobacco control
Authors: Sherry T Liu; Julianna M Nemeth; Elizabeth G Klein; Amy K Ferketich; Mei-Po Kwan; Mary Ellen Wewers Journal: Tob Control Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Richard J O'Connor; Rosalie V Caruso; Ron Borland; K Michael Cummings; Maansi Bansal-Travers; Brian V Fix; Bill King; David Hammond; Geoffrey T Fong Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2013-08-13 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: M B Harrell; S R Weaver; A Loukas; M Creamer; C N Marti; C D Jackson; J W Heath; P Nayak; C L Perry; T F Pechacek; M P Eriksen Journal: Prev Med Rep Date: 2016-11-11
Authors: Cheryl L Perry; MeLisa R Creamer; Benjamin W Chaffee; Jennifer B Unger; Erin L Sutfin; Grace Kong; Ce Shang; Stephanie L Clendennen; Suchitra Krishnan-Sarin; Mary Ann Pentz Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-06-12 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Olivia A Wackowski; Kiameesha R Evans; Melissa B Harrell; Alexandra Loukas; M Jane Lewis; Cristine D Delnevo; Cheryl L Perry Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Inti Barrientos-Gutierrez; Farahnaz Islam; Yoo Jin Cho; Ramzi George Salloum; Jordan Louviere; Edna Arillo-Santillán; Luz Myriam Reynales-Shigematsu; Joaquin Barnoya; Belen Saenz de Miera Juarez; James Hardin; James F Thrasher Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 7.552