Table 3.

The distributor in the placement and promotion of obesogenic products in small food stores^† in four urban areas in the USA (Baltimore, MD; Durham, NC; Minneapolis/St Paul, MN; and San Diego, CA), mid-October 2013 to July 2014

	Savoury snack (n 71)		Sugary beverage (n 67)		Sweet snack (n 63)		Confectionery (n 51)		Frozen treat (n 64)
	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n
Type of agreements with distributor
No agreement	16	11	12	8	31	19	29	14	16	10
Informal	41	28	37	25	62	38	57	28	44	28
Formal or both types	43	30	51	34	7	4	14	7	40	25
Missing		2		0		2		2		1
Incentives provided‡	(n 58)		(n 59)		(n 42)		(n 35)		(n 53)
Displays	98	57	86	51	98	40	83	31	93	49
Free/discounted products	40	23	63	37	20	8	80	28	25	13
Signage/marketing	24	14	53	31	17	7	46	16	21	11
Slotting payments	26	15	12	7	7	3	20	7	15	8
Distributor expectations for incentives
Price control	57	33	44	26	45	19	20	7	19	10
Location control	52	30	49	29	31	13	37	13	26	14
Employee promotion	9	5	5	3	0	0	6	2	0	0
Other§	16	9	15	9	2	1	23	8	19	10
Locations under distributor control║	(n 42)		(n 36)		(n 24)		(n 18)		(n 37)
End caps	74	31	14	5	58	14	33	6	8	3
Shelf aisle	64	27	19	7	46	11	50	9	11	4
Checkout	17	7	8	3	8	2	50	9	19	7
Free-standing displays/coolers	43	18	94	34	26	6	39	7	81	30

^†Analyses exclude stores that self-sourced products (one savoury snack; five sugary beverage; nine sweet snack; twenty-one confectionery; eight frozen treat).

^‡Denominator=stores with either informal or formal agreements.

^§Other includes maintenance of agreement; exclusivity of product in display; percentage of shelf space devoted to product.

^║Denominator=number of stores with distributors’ agreements and a little-to-total control over displays per store owner/manager report.