You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Is the tobacco ‘footfall’ argument justified for tobacco purchases in New Zealand convenience stores?
  1. Louise Marsh1,
  2. Claire Cameron2,
  3. Robin Quigg3,
  4. Sarah Wood1,
  5. Mei-Ling Blank4,
  6. Noeleen Venter1,
  7. Lathan Thomas1,
  8. Lindsay Robertson5,
  9. Janet Hoek4,
  10. Trudy Sullivan5
  1. 1 Social and Behavioural Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  2. 2 Biostatistics Centre, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  3. 3 Ngāi Tahu Māori Health Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  4. 4 Department of Public Health, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand
  5. 5 Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Dr Louise Marsh, Social & Behavioural Research Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand; louise.marsh{at}otago.ac.nz

Abstract

Introduction New Zealand’s Smokefree 2025 goal aims to greatly decrease the availability of tobacco. One option is to cease the sale of tobacco from convenience stores. However, tobacco companies and retail trade associations oppose this move and have argued that customers who purchase tobacco drive footfall and spend more than non-tobacco customers. The aim of this study is to test the validity of industry claims about the importance of tobacco to convenience stores.

Methods During November and December 2019, immediate postpurchase surveys were undertaken with customers on exit from a random sample of 100 convenience stores in two New Zealand cities. We estimated the mean number of items purchased, including tobacco and non-tobacco items, and mean expenditure on non-tobacco items.

Results Of the 3399 transactions recorded, 13.8% included tobacco, of which 8.3% comprised tobacco only and 5.5% included tobacco and non-tobacco items. The mean number of transactions containing both tobacco and non-tobacco items was 1.98, and 1.87 for those containing non-tobacco items only. Customers who purchased tobacco and non-tobacco items spent on average NZ$6.99 on non-tobacco items, whereas customers who purchased non-tobacco items only, spent on average NZ$5.07.

Conclusions Our results do not support claims that tobacco drives one-quarter of footfall into stores or that customers who purchase tobacco spend almost twice as much as non-tobacco customers. Combined purchases of tobacco and non-tobacco items constituted 5.5% of transactions; the impact on a store’s profitability of removing tobacco sales is unknown and could be the focus of future research.

  • public policy
  • advocacy
  • economics

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2020-056032

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LM, CC, JH, TS and LR conceptualised the project. LM obtained the funding. LM, RQ, CC, LR and M-LB designed the study protocol. LM, SW and M-LB managed the data collection process. RQ developed the Qualtrics survey and managed the data. NV and LT obtained the data. CC undertook sampling, conducted the analysis, interpreted data and prepared the results. SW conducted the literature review. LM drafted the manuscript. All authors provided feedback on subsequent drafts of the manuscript. All authors have seen and approved the final version.

    • Funding This study was funded by Lottery Health Research (R-LHR-2019–1 01 847).

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.