David Levy1, Frank Chaloupka2, Eric N Lindblom3, David T Sweanor4, Richard J O'Connor5, Ce Shang6, Ron Borland7. 1. Cancer Prevention and Control, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 2. Health Policy Center, Institute for Health Research and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Tobacco Control and Food & Drug Law, O'Neill Institute for National & Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC. 4. Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Canada. 5. Department of Health Behavior, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, NY. 6. Department of Pediatrics and Oklahoma Tobacco Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK. 7. Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tobacco company conduct has been a central concern in tobacco control. Nevertheless, the public health community has not taken full advantage of the large economics and marketing literature on market competition in the cigarette industry. METHODS: We conducted an unstructured narrative review of the economics and marketing literature using an antitrust framework that considers: 1) market; definition, 2) market concentration; 3) entry barriers; and 4) firm conduct. RESULTS: Since the 1960s, U.S. cigarette market concentration has increased primarily due to mergers and growth in the Marlboro brand. Entry barriers have included brand proliferation, slotting allowance contracts with retailers and government regulation. While cigarette sales have declined, established firms have used coordinated price increases, predatory pricing and price discrimination to sustain their market power and profits. CONCLUSIONS: Although the major cigarette firms have exercised market power to increase prices and profits, the market could be radically changing, with consumers more likely to use several different types of tobacco products rather than just smoking a single cigarette brand. Better understanding of the interaction between market structure and government regulation can help develop effective policies in this changing tobacco product market.
OBJECTIVES: Tobacco company conduct has been a central concern in tobacco control. Nevertheless, the public health community has not taken full advantage of the large economics and marketing literature on market competition in the cigarette industry. METHODS: We conducted an unstructured narrative review of the economics and marketing literature using an antitrust framework that considers: 1) market; definition, 2) market concentration; 3) entry barriers; and 4) firm conduct. RESULTS: Since the 1960s, U.S. cigarette market concentration has increased primarily due to mergers and growth in the Marlboro brand. Entry barriers have included brand proliferation, slotting allowance contracts with retailers and government regulation. While cigarette sales have declined, established firms have used coordinated price increases, predatory pricing and price discrimination to sustain their market power and profits. CONCLUSIONS: Although the major cigarette firms have exercised market power to increase prices and profits, the market could be radically changing, with consumers more likely to use several different types of tobacco products rather than just smoking a single cigarette brand. Better understanding of the interaction between market structure and government regulation can help develop effective policies in this changing tobacco product market.
Authors: Andrew J Oliver; Joni A Jensen; Rachel I Vogel; Amanda J Anderson; Dorothy K Hatsukami Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2012-04-22 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Monica E Cornelius; K Michael Cummings; Geoffrey T Fong; Andrew Hyland; Pete Driezen; Frank J Chaloupka; David Hammond; Richard J O'Connor; Maansi Bansal-Travers Journal: Tob Control Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: David T Levy; K Michael Cummings; Bryan W Heckman; Yameng Li; Zhe Yuan; Tracy T Smith; Rafael Meza Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: David T Levy; Alex C Liber; Christopher Cadham; Luz Maria Sanchez-Romero; Andrew Hyland; Michael Cummings; Cliff Douglas; Rafael Meza; Lisa Henriksen Journal: Tob Control Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 6.953
Authors: Erin J Miller Lo; William J Young; Ollie Ganz; Eugene M Talbot; Richard J O'Connor; Cristine D Delnevo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-17 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Connie Hoe; Caitlin Weiger; Marela Kay R Minosa; Fernanda Alonso; Adam D Koon; Joanna E Cohen Journal: Global Health Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 10.401
Authors: Nicholas J Felicione; Jenny E Ozga-Hess; Stuart G Ferguson; Geri Dino; Summer Kuhn; Ilana Haliwa; Melissa D Blank Journal: Tob Control Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Veronica Acosta-Deprez; Judy Jou; Marisa London; Mike Ai; Carolyn Chu; Nhi Cermak; Shannon Kozlovich Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390