rss
Tob Control 2006;15:458-463 doi:10.1136/tc.2006.016378
  • Research paper

The association of retail promotions for cigarettes with the Master Settlement Agreement, tobacco control programmes and cigarette excise taxes

  1. Brett R Loomis,
  2. Matthew C Farrelly,
  3. Nathan H Mann
  1. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
 B R Loomis
 RTI International, 3040 Cornwallis Road, PO Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA; loomis{at}rti.org
  • Received 22 February 2006
  • Accepted 27 July 2006

Abstract

Background: Retail stores are the primary medium for marketing cigarettes to smokers in the US. The prevalence and characteristics of cigarette retail advertising and promotions have been described by several investigators. Less is known about the proportion of cigarette sales occurring as part of a retail promotion and about the effects of tobacco control policies on cigarette promotions.

Objective: To estimate the effect of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), state tobacco control programme funding and cigarette taxes on retail promotions for cigarettes in supermarkets in the US.

Outcome measures: Proportion of cigarette sales occurring under a retail promotion and the value of multipack promotions (eg, buy one pack, get one pack free) and cents-off promotions, measured using scanner data in supermarkets from 50 retail market areas from 1994 to 2004.

Results: Promoted cigarette sales have increased significantly since the MSA (p<0.01), and are higher in market areas with high tobacco control programme funding (p<0.01) and high cigarette tax (p<0.01). The value of a multipack promotion is higher since the MSA (p<0.01) and in market areas with high cigarette tax (p<0.01). The value of a cents-off promotion is negatively related to the MSA (p<0.01), with mixed results for tobacco control programme funding (p<0.05), and is unassociated with tax.

Conclusions: Higher promoted cigarette sales and increased promotional values in market areas with strong tobacco control policies, compared with market areas with weaker tobacco control policies, may partially offset the decline in smoking achieved in those areas.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Substance Abuse Policy Research Programme (grant 48280). Data acquisition was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health.

  • Competing interests: None.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register hereto access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alertsso you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.