Tobacco companies in the U.S. spend billions of dollars advertising at the point-of-sale. Using photographs of storefront tobacco ads in New York City (NYC), we conducted a content analysis to describe the prevalence of common features across four product categories and illuminate ways in which they may influence behavior. In 2017, data collectors photographed exterior ads from a representative sample of tobacco retailers in NYC (n = 796). We coded each ad (n = 976) for the presence of various characteristics (e.g., brand, price displays, warning labels, menthol/flavors, size, location). Chi-square tests examined differences by product type. Most ads were for cigarettes (40%), followed by electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS, 27.9%), cigars (26.9%), and smokeless tobacco (5.2%). Over half of cigarette and smokeless tobacco ads promoted a menthol or flavored style (61% each), compared to about a quarter of cigar (25.9%) and ENDS ads (30.3%, p < .0001). Cigar and ENDS ads, however, were more frequently placed directly on the door of entry (49.4% and 46.7%, respectively, p < .001). Only 5% of ENDS ads displayed a standard warning label. Notably, a quarter of all tobacco ads (23.4%) were for the brand Newport. Cigarette ads still dominate at the point-of-sale with regard to volume and size. Across all products, ad features did not always align with local and federal policies (e.g., flavor bans, warning label mandates). Continued surveillance of advertising strategies and policy compliance can help provide the evidence base needed to inform marketing regulations that reduce the deadly burden of tobacco use.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6534426PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.045DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

storefront tobacco
8
differences product
8
product type
8
content analysis
8
york city
8
tobacco ads
8
smokeless tobacco
8
tobacco
6
ads
5
characteristics storefront
4

Similar Publications

The current study: (1) assesses sociodemographic disparities in local policies related to tobacco and cannabis retail, and (2) examines the cross-sectional association between policy strength and retailer densities of tobacco, e-cigarette (vape), and cannabis retailers within California cities and county unincorporated areas (N = 539). We combined (a) American Community Survey data (2019 5-year estimates), (b) 2018 tobacco, vape, and cannabis retailer locations from a commercial data provider, (c) 2017 tobacco and vape retail environment policy data from American Lung Association, and (d) 2018 cannabis policy data from California Cannabis Local Laws Database. Conditional autoregressive models examined policy strength associations with sociodemographic composition and retailer density in California jurisdictions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: As cannabis legalization continues to spread, best regulatory practice remains ill-defined and elusive, exposing the population to potential harms.

Methods: We conducted an annual, statewide, cross- sectional survey to assess cannabis-related laws in effect by January 1, 2020, in local California jurisdictions and at the state level and measured adoption of potential best practices.

Results: The current laws of all 539 jurisdictions were located; 276 jurisdictions allowed any retail sales (storefront or delivery) covering 58% of the population, an increase of 20 jurisdictions (8%) from year 1 of legalization (2018).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Introduction: The state of California has enacted progressive anti-tobacco policies, including Proposition 56 in 2016. In response, the alternative and emerging tobacco product (ATP) industry has increased its political activity. This study explores the association between the proportion of people voting against Proposition 56 and tobacco/ATP retail density.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Various tobacco vendors, including alternative tobacco product sellers, are listed on the popular crowdsourced business listing platform Yelp. Yelp is used to rate and choose tobacco, electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) goods/services and includes self-reporting of user experiences with shops and products. We cross-referenced California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) licensed tobacco, vape, and head shop retail stores with publicly available Yelp business listings to identify licensed and unlicensed stores in California.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Background: Access to tobacco products, including vape products, from local brick-and-mortar stores influences the exposure, uptake, and use of these products in local communities.

Methods: Licensed tobacco retailers in California were classified as specialized tobacco/vape stores or non-specialized stores by obtaining categories published on Yelp. California smoking and vaping prevalence data were obtained from the 500 cities project and ESRI community analyst tool respectively.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!