You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 32, Issue 6
  • Is tobacco a driver of footfall among small retailers? A geographical analysis of tobacco purchasing using electronic point of sale data

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Is tobacco a driver of footfall among small retailers? A geographical analysis of tobacco purchasing using electronic point of sale data
  1. Helena Tunstall1,
  2. Niamh K Shortt1,
  3. Amanda Y Kong2,3,
  4. Jamie Pearce1
  1. 1 Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, School of GeoSciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2 Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
  3. 3 TSET Health Promotion Research Center, Stephenson Cancer Center, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Helena Tunstall, Centre for Research on Environment, Society and Health, School of GeoSciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK; helena.tunstall{at}ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective Opponents of policies designed to reduce tobacco retail availability argue that tobacco products are a vital driver of ‘footfall’ in small retailers. This study considers the changing contribution of tobacco to footfall and revenue among convenience stores across Britain, compares tobacco to other ‘footfall driver’ products and assesses whether tobacco’s importance varies by neighbourhood deprivation and urban/rural status.

Methods We conducted an analysis of electronic point of sale systems data from 1253 convenience stores in Britain in 4 weeks in 2016 and 2019. We calculated the number and value of purchased basket types (Tobacco Only, Non-Tobacco, Mixed) in each year and by neighbourhood characteristics.

Results The mean numbers of baskets per store containing tobacco fell by 47% during 2016–2019, a greater decline than any other footfall driver product. The sales value of tobacco products rose sharply over this time period due to increasing unit price. However, the proportion of store turnover accounted for by tobacco transactions declined. There were marked falls in the turnover from non-tobacco products in Mixed tobacco baskets. The proportion of baskets containing tobacco and the value of turnover from these baskets was greater in more deprived and urban areas but these places also experienced larger reductions over time, narrowing differences between areas.

Conclusion Tobacco’s importance as a driver of footfall and related turnover among convenience retailers has reduced significantly in Britain in recent years, particularly in deprived and urban areas, undermining industry claims that tobacco is essential to the viability of these businesses.

  • socioeconomic status
  • environment
  • end game
  • tobacco industry
  • economics

Data availability statement

Data may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data on tobacco purchases must be requested from The Retail Data Partnership. Neighbourhood data describing income deprivation and urban/rural status in England, Wales and Scotland are publicly available.

https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-057089

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 may be obtained from a third party and are not publicly available. Data on tobacco purchases must be requested from The Retail Data Partnership. Neighbourhood data describing income deprivation and urban/rural status in England, Wales and Scotland are publicly available.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @niamhshortt, @AmandaYKong, @jamie0pearce

    • Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to this paper. NKS and JP conceived and designed the study. HT carried out the analysis with critical feedback from NKS, JP and AYK. NKS, JP, AYK and HT interpreted the results. HT wrote the initial draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to critical review, significant comments and writing to the preparation of the final manuscript. JP is the guarantor of this work.

    • Funding This research was funded by the National Health Service Health Scotland. NKS and JP are members of SPECTRUM, a UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) consortium. UKPRP is an initiative funded by the UK Research and Innovation Original Research Councils, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the UK devolved administrations, and leading health research charities. AYK was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (T32CA128582, P30CA225520) and the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust (TSET R21-02).

    • Competing interests AYK serves as a paid expert consultant in litigation against tobacco companies.

    • 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.