Tobacco industry interference with the point-of-sale advertising, promotion, and sponsorship ban near educational facilities in Armenia

Abstract

Following the introduction of comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS), little is known about how the tobacco industry (TI) adapts its marketing strategies in low- and middle-income countries at point of sale (POS). This study examined post-ban TI marketing practices in Armenia after the 2022 comprehensive TAPS and display ban, focusing on youth exposure. We conducted a qualitative study using structured observations at 132 POS near educational facilities in Yerevan (capital city) and the Kotayk region, in-depth interviews with store owners/workers (n = 8), and focus group discussions with youth aged 15–20 (n = 28). Thematic analysis was applied with triangulation across data sources. Despite the ban, tobacco products remained widely available and visible near educational facilities. Cigarettes, e-cigarettes, and heated tobacco products were prominently displayed using power walls, illuminated fixtures, and placement near youth-appealing items. Advertising persisted through covert, legally ambiguous tactics such as illuminated displays, integrated signage, colour schemes, flavours, and loyalty-based promotions, coupled with misleading messages, often not recognized as advertising by youth or retailers. Retailer incentive schemes, such as financial rewards, gifts, and staff engagement, were used to secure product prominence and drive sales. Youth access restrictions were weakly enforced, with poor visibility of age-of-sale signage, inconsistent ID checks, and reports of informal access routes. Comprehensive TAPS and POS display bans alone are insufficient to eliminate youth exposure to tobacco marketing. Stronger enforcement, regulation of indirect and retailer-focused marketing, and sustained monitoring of POS environments are essential to protect youth from ongoing TI influence.

Introduction

The global tobacco market has diversified rapidly with the growth of e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products (HTPs) [1], which are promoted as harm reduction alternatives, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where regulations are often weaker and markets for alternative products are still expanding [2]. These products are marketed through traditional media, digital platforms, and points of sale (POS) [3, 4]. Marketing exposure influences risk perceptions, use behaviours, and initiation intentions [5, 6].

As traditional advertising channels have become restricted, the tobacco industry (TI) has shifted its focus towards the retail environment. The POS remains a critical marketing channel, allowing companies to shape consumer choices at the moment of purchase using visual cues, product placement, and ‘harm-reduction’ messaging [7]. Studies showed that exposure to HTP advertising across traditional media, digital platforms, and POS has been associated with perceptions that these products are less harmful than cigarettes [5, 8].

TI has a long history of targeting youth. Studies showed that tobacco advertising is more prevalent at POS near schools and that stores frequented by adolescents display more advertisements than those in other areas [9, 10]. Research consistently demonstrates that POS advertising is associated with smoking initiation among youth, reduced cessation, and normalization of smoking behaviour [11–13]. Globally, TI employs POS tactics to attract children and adolescents, including youth-oriented placement (e.g. near candies and snacks), eye-level advertisements, flavoured products, single-stick cigarettes, and visually striking displays [14].

Armenia, a LMIC, had a high smoking prevalence among men (53.2%) but a very low prevalence among women (2.0%) in 2022 [15]. Armenia ratified the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) in 2004 and has since made progress in adopting tobacco control legislation. However, implementation and enforcement of smoke-free laws and bans on tobacco advertising in electronic media and billboards have been suboptimal [16]. Earlier legislation did not regulate POS advertising, indirect marketing, or product placement. The 2020 legislation introduced comprehensive bans on tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS), including a POS display ban on tobacco products and their accessories, substitutes, and imitations, effective January 2022 [17]. Recent evidence (2022) showed substantial exposure to tobacco and nicotine product marketing through POS and digital media in Armenia, which was associated with lower risk perceptions and stronger intentions to use e-cigarettes and HTPs [18]. These findings suggested persistent marketing activity and gaps in enforcement of existing bans [18]. Literature on specific tactics at POS post-ban LMIC environments is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate TI tactics in Armenia, particularly those targeting youth, that undermine the TAPS ban at the POS.

Methods

Study design and sampling

This qualitative study used structured observations, in-depth interviews (IDIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs). Observations aimed to identify TI strategies and youth-targeting tactics at POS. POS were selected using purposive and convenience sampling across diverse retail types, including supermarkets, kiosks, vape shops, tobacco specialty stores, and malls. POS located within 250–300 m of schools, colleges, and universities with higher student volumes were purposively sampled. All districts of Yerevan and selected urban and rural sites in Kotayk region were included.

IDIs were conducted with POS owners/workers from different regions of Armenia (n = 8) to explore their experiences and perspectives with TI tactics. Four FGDs were conducted with adolescents and young adults (15–20 years) (n = 28), most of whom were students from different educational institutions, to explore exposure to and perceptions of TI tactics at POS. Participants were recruited through convenience sampling: POS owners/workers were identified through the research team’s professional networks, and youth were recruited through local networks and collaboration with educational and public health institutions. Eligible youth were those within the target age range who agreed to participate in the discussions.

Study instruments

The observation checklist was adapted from the study by Brown et al. [14]. It covered retailer characteristics, product availability, display and placement, advertising and promotions, flavours, youth access restrictions (e.g. signage prohibiting sales to minors, single-stick sales), and photo documentation. The checklist was programmed into Alchemer platform.

Two semi-structured guides were developed for IDIs and FGDs. The IDI guide covered: product sales; experiences and relationships with tobacco companies; marketing decisions; sales to minors; and policy implementation. The FGD guide included: POS experiences; advertising exposure; perceived impact of marketing on youth; regulations; visibility of signs and warnings; and access to tobacco products.

Data collection

Data were collected from April to June 2024. Data collectors received training on checklist use, fieldwork procedures, and ethical photography, and the checklist was pre-tested. Observations were conducted during peak student traffic hours. A total of 142 POS visits were conducted. Most visits were in Yerevan with the remainder in Kotayk region (Table 1). The POS were located near schools, other educational facilities, or within shopping malls. Observed retailer types included mini markets, supermarkets, kiosks, vape shops, tobacco specialty stores, HTP shops, and others. Observations were completed in 132 of 142 locations.

Table 1.

Characteristics of observed point of sale locations near educational facilities

Variables	n (%) 142 (100.0%)
Visit location
Yerevan	112 (78.9)
Abovyan	12 (8.5)
Hrazdan	6 (4.2)
Charentsavan	4 (2.8)
Villages in Kotayk regiona	8 (5.6)
Store type
Public market near school	97 (68.3)
Public market near other educational facility (college, university, other)	26 (18.3)
Shopping mall	19 (13.4)
Retailer type
Mini market	49 (34.5)
Supermarket	43 (30.3)
Kiosk	23 (16.2)
Vape shop	15 (10.6)
Tobacco specialty store (no alcohol)	4 (2.8)
HTP shop	2 (1.4)
Otherb	6 (4.2)
Visit outcome
Observation completed	132 (93.0)
The shop was closed or no tobacco product is sold	10 (7.0)

^aIncludes four villages.

^bIncludes a minivan, coffee store, phone and phone accessory stores.

The mode and setting of IDIs and FGDs were adapted to participants’ preferences. Eight IDIs with store owners/workers were conducted by phone with participants from different regions. Four FGDs were conducted face-to-face with 28 participants aged 15–20 years; three in Yerevan and one in a regional city. FGDs included both sexes and smokers and nonsmokers. All sessions except one IDI were audio-recorded and supported by detailed notes.

Data management and analysis

Observation data were analysed descriptively using SPSS version 21.0. IDIs and FGDs were transcribed verbatim in Armenian. A thematic analysis approach was applied combining deductive and inductive coding. To enhance analytical rigour, two researchers independently coded all transcripts and discussed discrepancies until consensus was reached. An iterative coding process was used, with regular comparison across data sources and participant groups ensuring methodological triangulation. Data collection and analysis proceeded concurrently and continued until thematic saturation was achieved.

Results

We organized the findings into six themes: availability of tobacco products near educational facilities, product display and placement at POS, advertising strategies, promotions, TI strategies to increase sales, and weak enforcement of youth access restrictions.

Availability near educational facilities

Across the 132 POS observed, cigarettes (84.1%), e-cigarettes (50.0%), and HTPs (47.0%) were widely available, while hookah, snus, nicotine pouches, and other products (e.g. cigars, pipes) were available only in a few outlets (Fig. 1). IDI and FGD participants largely confirmed these findings, noting that snus sales are legally prohibited in Armenia.

Figure 1.

Tobacco and nicotine product availability at observed point of sale.Note: Percentages do not sum to 100% because multiple tobacco and nicotine products could be available at the same point of sale.

According to youth, e-cigarettes were widely available in Yerevan, including neighbourhoods near schools. Some FGD participants from Yerevan also noted that vape shops tend to cluster in central areas, where youth spend more time. However, regional store representatives reported lower demand, indicating geographic differences in e-cigarette availability.

Within a five-minute walk… My acquaintances often go during school breaks to buy from vape shops. As for cigarettes, they are generally sold in kiosks right next to the school. (FGD2, P7)

Display and placement at POS

Power walls were the dominant placement strategy across products, used for cigarettes (94.6%), HTPs (93.5%), and e-cigarettes (68.2%) (Table 2). However, the shelves were frequently left open without customers being served (cigarettes 45.0%, HTPs 25.8%, e-cigarettes 28.8%). Most power walls were positioned at cashier zones and often illuminated, enhancing visibility (Fig. S1). They were frequently placed within 30 cm of candy, beverages, or snacks (cigarettes 39.6%, HTPs 30.6%, e-cigarettes 18.2%). E-cigarette displays (excluding power walls) were also common near cashier areas (30.3%), with some positioned close to snacks/drinks (9.1%) (Figs S2 and S3). In most POS, tobacco products were not directly accessible to customers; however, e-cigarettes were openly accessible in some POS (18.2%).

Table 2.

Display, placement, accessibility, flavours, and age-of-sale signage for tobacco and nicotine products at point of sale

How are the following tobacco and/or nicotine products displayed (select all that apply)?
	Cigarettes (n = 111)	E-cigarettes (n = 66)	HTPs (n = 62)	Other productsa (n = 19)
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Power wall	105 (94.6)	45 (68.2)	58 (93.5)	5 (26.3)
Product displays (excluding power walls)	11 (9.9)	27 (40.9)	6 (9.7)	11 (57.9)
None	–	1 (1.5)	–	3 (15.8)
Power wall characteristics (select all that apply)
In the cashier zone	97 (87.4)	38 (57.6)	55 (88.7)	2 (10.5)
With lights used to illuminate the products	39 (35.1)	10 (15.2)	24 (38.7)	–
Within 30 cm of candy, beverages, or snacks	44 (39.6)	12 (18.2)	19 (30.6)	–
Shelves are open/not covered/visible	50 (45.0)	19 (28.8)	16 (25.8)	2 (10.5)
None of the above	–	1 (1.5)	1 (1.6)	1 (5.3)
No power wall was available	6 (5.4)	21 (31.8)	4 (6.5)	14 (73.7)
Product display characteristics (excluding power walls) (select all that apply)
In the cashier zone	10 (9.0)	20 (30.3)	3 (4.8)	8 (42.1)
With lights used to illuminate the products	1 (0.9)	14 (21.2)	4 (6.5)	6 (31.6)
Within 30 cm of candy, beverages, or snacks	4 (3.6)	6 (9.1)	–	1 (5.3)
None of the above	–	–	–	1 (5.3)
No product display is available	100 (90.1)	39 (59.1)	56 (90.3)	8 (42.1)
Are the following tobacco and/or nicotine products accessible to the consumer without help from a cashier or store attendant?
Yes	5 (4.5)	12 (18.2)	4 (6.5)	2 (10.5)
Are the following tobacco and/or nicotine products that are accessible to the consumer without help placed within 1 meter from the floor?
Yes	2 (1.8)	6 (5.4)	–	–
What flavours are available for the following tobacco/nicotine products (select all that apply)?
a. Tobacco	58 (52.3)	3 (4.5)	4 (6.5)	3 (15.8)
b. Other flavours (e.g. menthol, fruit, dessert)	21 (18.9)	41 (62.1)	19 (30.6)	10 (52.6)
c. NA (only device is being sold, no e-cigarette liquid or HTP sticks)	–	5 (7.6)	1 (1.6)	1 (5.3)
d. Unknown, shelves were closed/could not see	53 (47.7)	25 (37.9)	42 (67.7)	6 (31.6)
Is there a sign that says any of the following tobacco/nicotine products can only be sold to adults (select all that apply)?
Yes: a sign saying sales are prohibited with a specific age indicated (e.g. ‘sales are prohibited to youth under 18’)	36 (32.4)	25 (37.9)	24 (38.7)	7 (36.8)
Yes: a sign saying sales are prohibited with no specific age indicated (e.g. ‘sales are prohibited to youth’)	–	1 (1.5)	–	–
No	75 (67.6)	40 (60.6)	38 (61.3)	12 (63.2)

^aIncludes nicotine pouch (n = 2), snus (n = 5), hookah (n = 10), other (n = 2).

Consistent with observations, most store owners/workers reported that cigarettes and HTPs are primarily stored on power walls and generally kept covered as required. Several considered these display restrictions unnecessary, arguing that those have little practical effect on purchasing behaviour. Youth described inconsistent compliance with the display restrictions, particularly in smaller neighbourhood stores. While many POS keep cigarette shelves covered, some remain open either intentionally or by neglect, especially in suburban areas.

I didn’t like the idea of power walls being closed. It does not affect sales at all. A person who smokes will not look that the power wall is closed or not, no matter what, he will find a way to smoke. (IDI, P8)

In small supermarkets, in neighborhood groceries, the regular cigarettes [power walls] are open. (FGD1, P3)

Youth further noted that e-cigarettes were often displayed more openly than cigarettes, sometimes in colourful, illuminated sections that increased visual appeal (Fig. S2). They noted, such displays successfully function as self-promotion, reinforcing the perception that e-cigarettes are distinct from traditional cigarettes.

While the law requires power walls to be closed, e-cigarettes are displayed in a separate, open section that’s much more colorful, almost like they’re advertising themselves. They seem to bypass the restriction by promoting the idea that these are not cigarettes, so there’s no need to keep them hidden. (FGD1, P1)

Advertising strategies

Availability and types of advertisements

Advertisements were present in most POS for cigarettes (82.9%) and HTPs (74.2%), but relatively less frequently for e-cigarettes (42.4%) (Table 3; Fig. S4). Electronically illuminated advertisements were the most common format (cigarettes 78.4%, HTPs 25.8%, e-cigarettes 28.8%), followed by print signage integrated into product displays or power walls (e.g. backgrounds, shelf liners), particularly for HTPs (25.8%). Standalone print signage (posters, banners, flyers) was uncommon across products (≤7.2%). In some POS, advertisements were positioned within one meter of the floor, most often for e-cigarettes (9.1%). Among POS with visible open shelves or displays, flavoured products were most common for e-cigarettes (62.1%) and HTPs (30.6%), but less so for cigarettes (18.9%) (Fig. S5).

Table 3.

Advertising and promotional practices of tobacco and nicotine products at point of sale

How are the following tobacco and/or nicotine products advertised (select all that apply)?
	Cigarettes (n = 111)	E-cigarettes (n = 66)	HTPs (n = 62)	Other productsa (n = 19)
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
a. Print signage (posters, banners, flyers, etc.), apart from a product display or power wall	8 (7.2)	4 (6.1)	4 (6.5)	1 (5.3)
b. Print signage inside/as part of a product display/power wall (backgrounds, shelf liners)	16 (14.4)	8 (12.1)	16 (25.8)	1 (5.3)
c. Digital signage (video or electronic screen)	–	–	1 (1.6)	–
d. Electronically illuminated advertisements	87 (78.4)	19 (28.8)	44 (71.0)	1 (5.3)
None of the above	19 (17.1)	38 (57.6)	16 (25.8)	16 (84.2)
Are any advertisements for the following tobacco and/or nicotine products placed within 1 meter from the floor? (yes)
Yes	4 (3.6)	6 (9.1)	3 (4.8)	–
Are the following tobacco/nicotine products promoted in any of the following ways (select all that apply)?
a. Price discounts (e.g. sales, coupons, limited time offer, multi pack discounts)	15 (13.5)	11 (16.7)	4 (6.5)	2 (10.5)
b. Free product (with or without the purchase of other goods)	–	2 (3.0)	–	1 (5.3)
c. Gifts other than the product (free or with purchase) (e.g. carrying case)	–	2 (3.0)	1 (1.6)	–
d. A tobacco brand sponsored event, activity, or cause	–	–	–	–
e. Contests or competitions	–	–	–	–
f. Loyalty/rewards scheme	–	–	1 (1.6)	–
g. Presence of brand representative	1 (0.9)	–	1 (1.6)	–
h. Other, please specify	–	1 (1.5)b	1 (1.6)c	–
None of the above	95 (85.6)	52 (78.8)	56 (90.3)	16 (84.2)
Do you see any of the following tobacco and/or nicotine product branding on non-tobacco products in the store (e.g. clocks, hats, t-shirts, mirrors, carry bags, cigarette lighters, counter mats)?
Yes	20 (18.0)	–	1 (1.6)	–
If ‘Yes’, please specify where the branding of the tobacco product was placed?
Coin holder	14	n/a	–	n/a
Calendar	3		–
Fridge	1		–
Welcome sign with tobacco brand name	2		–
T-shirt with brand name	–		1
Total	20		1
Are any of the following items that are inside the store visible from outside the store (through a window, door, or storefront), for each type of tobacco/nicotine product?
a. Display of products/power wall	48 (43.2)	32 (48.5)	27 (43.5)	11 (57.9)
b. Advertising	12 (10.8)	4 (6.1)	5 (8.1)	–
c. Promotions	1 (0.9)	3 (4.5)	–	–
None of the above	62 (55.9)	34 (51.5)	34 (54.8)	8 (42.1)

^aIncludes nicotine pouch (n = 2), snus (n = 5), hookah (n = 10), other (n = 2).

^bSample of e-cigarettes to try with ‘Try me’ label.

^cQR code for an advanced programme.

Most store owners/workers stated that tobacco advertisements are legally prohibited and no longer present at their stores. However, one participant acknowledged ongoing advertising practices, including illuminated power-wall displays and company-provided print materials accompanying new product releases.

Usually, the tobacco company managers come and place new products on the power walls with their advertisements. The advertisements are displayed on the power walls and illuminated with lights to attract the customer’s attention and spark interest. Each time, it’s different: we receive new cigarettes along with corresponding advertisements and posters. There are various types. (IDI, P3)

Youth reported mixed exposure to POS advertisements. While some noticed none, others described frequent exposure, particularly for HTPs and e-cigarettes. Participants noted brand logos, illuminated displays, and other forms of subtle advertisements that persist despite legislative bans. They also noted that advertising was rarely visible outdoors, though a few noted product displays near transparent windows, branded signage on shop facades, and banners in underground passageways.

There are no advertisements, at least for cigarettes, but there are advertisements for vapes and IQOS [a brand of HTP]. (FGD1, P2)

They make it really nice, it’s [e-cigarettes] placed by the transparent window of the shop, with different colorful items. (FGD3, P6)

Discreet nature of tobacco advertisements

Although both IDI and FGD participants described illuminated displays, brand names on power walls, and other advertising elements, many did not perceive these as advertisements. Many FGD participants emphasized the hidden or discreet nature of tobacco advertising, noting that it often relies on subtle cues rather than explicit messages. This subtleness made it difficult for them to immediately recognize these materials as advertising content.

No, no… there are just pictures, but no cigarette images. To be honest, I don’t know what’s there [in the electronically illuminated parts] now since they change it frequently. The text isn’t related to cigarettes. (IDI, P2)

When you read it, it’s not immediately clear what these advertisements mean. But when you look a bit more carefully, you eventually realize it’s an IQOS advertisement. (FGD2, P8)

Misleading youth-targeting messaging

Youth consistently reported that marketing for HTPs and e-cigarette promotes these products as ‘safer’, ‘less harmful’, and ‘more modern’, and even as tools for quitting smoking. Such narratives contribute to the perception that these products are intended for young people and are presented as fashionable, technologically advanced, and preferable to cigarettes. Participants also emphasized that flavours, colourful packaging, sleek, and visually attractive device shapes reinforce these misleading messages, making the products youth-friendly and socially acceptable.

The variety of flavors serves as an advertisement in itself, along with their packaging featuring fruits and bright colors. It gives the impression that you should switch from smoking cigarettes to using e-cigarettes, which seems less harmful. (FGD3, P5)

Promotions

Promotional activities were limited across most POS, although price discounts were still observed (e-cigarettes 16.7%, cigarettes 13.5%, HTPs 6.5%) (Table 3; Fig. S6). Additional tactics included occasional gifts (e.g. lighters), bonus products with purchase, loyalty and rewards schemes, ‘try me’ options, or QR codes. Product branding on non-tobacco items (e.g. coin holders, calendars, refrigerator doors, staff T-shirts) was observed mainly for cigarettes (18.0%).

According to study participants, cigarette prices consistently increase over time. Store owners/workers noted price tactics used to promote new products. Youth frequently mentioned loyalty, cumulative and discount cards for e-cigarettes and HTPs. They also reported receiving promotional messages via messaging platforms, sometimes including contest-style engagement. Finally, youth described encountering tobacco brand representatives at POS who actively presented and promoted products.

When they introduce a new product, the price is initially lower, but after a while, they raise the price. At first, they also use price tags in a different bright color to stand out on the power wall. (IDI, P4)

I came across the promotion of IQOS; I didn’t use their webpage but continuously received messages from them, also about some contests for winning an IQOS. (FGD2, P5)

The promotions or offers work really well on people in our age group because, as is well-known, most people our age don’t have a lot of money, so these deals are really appealing. (FGD2, P7)

TI strategies to increase sales

Store owners/workers revealed several strategies used by tobacco companies to increase product visibility and drive sales. Companies provide small end-of-year gifts (e.g. branded calendars, pens, napkins), while others offer more valuable rewards (e.g. TVs, refrigerators, washing machines) to stores that sell only specific cigarette brands or meet higher sales volumes. Although retailers may work with multiple companies, receiving a brand’s power wall naturally increases that brand’s prominence.

Companies also directly incentivize store employees. One of the companies provides staff with a phone and apps that assign daily tasks (e.g. quizzes, uploading product display photos) to accumulate points redeemable for cash rewards, with higher bonuses for prompt completion. Participants also noted that companies directly control product placement by providing and arranging the power walls themselves; representatives routinely visit stores to organize displays and prioritize the visibility of new products.

To motivate shop owners, the more you sell of a specific brand, the more valuable the gift you receive at the end of the year. They offer choices like TVs, refrigerators, washing machines, and other household appliances. (IDI, P3)

They offer opportunities to participate in quizzes and learn about the product to better present it to customers, and we also have a chance to earn money. Daily tasks appear in the form of game-like activities… The points we earn can then be converted into money and transferred to our credit cards. (IDI, P3)

A special employee comes to our store once a month to organize the products according to their specifications. (IDI, P1)

Weak enforcement of youth access restrictions

More than half of POS (65.9%) lacked clearly visible signs prohibiting tobacco sales to minors (Table 2). Youth confirmed that signage was often absent or not easily visible especially in smaller or peripheral shops. In contrast, store owners/workers uniformly claimed that they visibly display the required signage.

Mostly in central supermarkets, it’s larger, but in the suburbs, either it’s not there or it’s unnoticeable. (FGD3, P1)

All store owners/workers asserted that they do not sell to minors, though several acknowledged that other retailers might do so. Some reported checking IDs when customers appeared underage. Youth, however, overwhelmingly reported that minors can easily purchase tobacco products, particularly in small shops and kiosks where ID checks are rare, unlike larger supermarkets that tend to enforce age restrictions more consistently.

In kiosks or, in shops on the peripheral areas, they don’t ask [for ID]. (FGD3, P2)

Participants explained that minors often circumvent restrictions by asking older friends or adults to purchase tobacco products or by claiming the product is for a parent or grandparent. In smaller communities, retailers may knowingly allow purchases if they know the adult family members.

I said I was 15 and mentioned it wasn’t for me but for my father. They still sold it to me. (FGD3, P3)

Single stick cigarette sales were not observed or reported by store owners/workers; however, some youth mentioned that these can still be obtained in certain small or peripheral shops.

I’ve seen my classmate get cigarettes from another guy, buying them one by one, but they also buy it [from stores] without a problem. (FGD3, P6)

Discussion

This study, conducted after the implementation of Armenia’s comprehensive TAPS and POS display bans, demonstrated that tobacco and nicotine products remain widely available, highly visible, and actively promoted in retail environments near educational facilities. It highlights the significant influence of the TI’s marketing tactics at POS in Armenia, particularly their targeted strategies to attract youth. Importantly, both youth and retailers tended to underestimate the influence of these marketing practices. This reflects a core TI strategy: marketing that is so normalized and embedded in everyday retail environments that it becomes largely invisible.

Tobacco products were widely available within a short walking distance of schools. This pattern aligns with international evidence showing that TI concentrates retail outlets and marketing near schools and youth-frequented areas in contexts with weak enforcement [9, 10]. Also, vape shops are clustered in central areas [19, 20].

Studies demonstrated that visible tobacco displays, particularly power walls, increase adolescents’ susceptibility [14, 21–23]. Given the prevalence of open shelves and prominent displays in our study, these patterns raise concern about their likely impact on youth perceptions and initiation. Such non-compliance parallels implementation challenges reported in other LMICs following POS display bans [24–28]. Additionally, placing tobacco products near items appealing to children is a youth-targeting strategy. Multiple studies conducted worldwide have documented tobacco placed next to sweets at POS, increasing visibility and contributing to misperceptions that tobacco is a normal consumer good [14, 29, 30].

Our findings indicate that tobacco advertising remains prevalent at retail outlets primarily through illuminated displays, product visibility, and price/loyalty promotions. Our study revealed persistent exposure to subtle, indirect promotional elements that were often not recognized as advertising. This pattern mirrors post-ban compliance evidence from Poland, where the TI increasingly exploited the POS by framing promotional content as ‘product information’, while relying on covert tactics [24]. Evidence suggests that such below-the-line POS marketing has become a key industry strategy in post-ban environments, particularly where enforcement is uneven [31].

In our study, youth participants’ difficulty in identifying these tactics as advertising, combined with misleading messages presenting e-cigarettes and HTPs as ‘modern’, ‘less harmful’, or cessation tools, underscores how these covert strategies may be especially effective in shaping social norms and misperceptions. However, youth participants often described peer influence as more powerful than advertising, while simultaneously acknowledging that promotions, product visibility, flavours, and design features increase appeal and encourage experimentation. Research shows that even subtle or indirect exposure to tobacco advertising and promotions is linked with greater social acceptability and normalization of tobacco use and increases risk of tobacco use initiation among adolescents [12, 13, 32–34]. Marketing and social influence likely operate synergistically: retail marketing reinforces social norms and peer-driven uptake, while weakening parental and family-based prevention, particularly when newer products are framed as ‘modern’ or ‘less harmful’. These findings show that in a post-ban LMIC context, comprehensive legislation alone is insufficient to eliminate marketing exposure, as the TI rapidly adapts POS strategies.

Our findings reveal a mostly hidden layer of TI influence operating through retailer-level incentive systems. Interviews with store owners/workers showed that tobacco companies systematically deploy financial and experiential rewards, performance-based incentives, and direct control over product placement to secure brand prominence and drive sales at the POS [35]. These practices closely mirror evidence from Australia and Scotland, where TI has used business-to-business relationship marketing to position retailers and store staff as active brand intermediaries [36, 37]. In our study, incentives were explicitly tied to sales targets, exclusive brand promotion, and compliance with company-specified displays and placement, while app-based tasks, quizzes, and cash-redeemable point systems functioned to ‘upskill’ staff as effective brand promoters. Similar retailer incentive mechanisms have been documented in other settings [35–37]. These findings demonstrate that even under comprehensive TAPS bans, the retail channel remains actively mobilized by the industry as a primary promotional medium, operating through mechanisms that are invisible to regulators, retailers, and consumers alike.

Enforcement of TAPS restrictions in Armenia is carried out through relevant regulatory authorities (e.g. the Health and Labor Inspection Body); however, monitoring capacity and compliance remain variable. Our study also identified substantial gaps in the enforcement of age-of-sale laws. Poor visibility of ‘no sales to minors’ signage, inconsistent ID checks, and reported access to single sticks in some areas mirror international patterns of weak enforcement and proxy purchasing [38]. In the Armenian context, youth accounts indicate that familiarity between retailers and customers makes it easier to bypass age-of-sale restrictions. These gaps are concerning in a post-ban environment characterized by high product visibility and ongoing retail promotion near schools.

This study is among the first in Armenia to document TI practices following the implementation of a comprehensive TAPS and POS display ban using rigorous qualitative research methods. The use of methodological triangulation and independent coding strengthened the credibility of qualitative findings. Several limitations should be noted. The study relied on purposive and convenience sampling in selected regions, which may limit generalizability to all retail settings in Armenia. Observations captured a single time point and may not reflect promotional activities that vary over time or occur intermittently. Additionally, retailer self-reports may have been influenced by social desirability bias, particularly regarding compliance with regulations and sales to minors.

This study provides the first post-ban evidence from Armenia showing that comprehensive TAPS and POS display bans are insufficient to eliminate youth exposure to tobacco and nicotine marketing. Our findings highlight the need for stronger enforcement of existing regulations and may inform future regulatory and monitoring efforts aimed at improving compliance with TAPS restrictions, including policies that address indirect and business-to-business marketing, retailer incentives, flavours, and loyalty-based promotions.

Routine monitoring of POS environments strengthened age-of-sale enforcement, and public awareness efforts to counter misleading ‘reduced harm’ narratives are essential to prevent the initiation and normalization of tobacco use among young people.

Author contributions

Varduhi Hayrumyan (Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing), Zhanna Sargsyan (Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing—review and editing), and Varduhi Petrosyan (Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing—review and editing)

Supplementary data

Supplementary data are available at EURPUB online.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

This manuscript has been produced with the help of a grant from Vital Strategies on behalf of Bloomberg Philanthropies. The contents of this manuscript are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the positions of the donors.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study can be made available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Institutional review board statement

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the American University of Armenia (Approval #AUA-2024-008) and was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report and the regulations of the U.S. Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP).

Key points.

• Tobacco and nicotine products remain highly visible and promoted near schools in Armenia despite comprehensive TAPS bans.

• The TI increasingly relies on covert, legally ambiguous POS marketing tactics that are often not recognized as advertising.

• Retailer incentive schemes represent a largely hidden but powerful mechanism sustaining tobacco promotion in post-ban environments.

• Weak enforcement of age-of-sale laws continues to enable youth access to tobacco products.

• Effective tobacco control requires not only legislation but strong enforcement, monitoring of retailer practices, and public awareness of subtle industry tactics.