Declining cigarette sales and shifts in the US cigarette marketplace from 2016 to 2024: Analysis of market scanner sales data in US convenience stores

Abstract

Objective

Changing cigarette sales trends can indicate shifts in tobacco marketing, consumer preferences, and smoker demographics. This study examines trends in US convenience store sales for cigarettes (2016–2024) by brand tier, flavor, and leading brands.

Methods

Using Nielsen market scanner cigarette data (2016–2024) for US convenience stores, annual market shares and sales trends for each brand tier (premium, value, deep-discount), flavor (menthol, non-menthol), and leading brands were determined. Sales trends were assessed using Joinpoint for average annual percentage changes (AAPCs—primary outcome), with annual percent changes (APCs) describing shorter-term trends.

Results

Sales declined from 9.23 to 5.61 billion packs from 2016 to 2024 (AAPC: −5.82% [95% CI: −6.40%, −5.21%]). Premium cigarettes declined more slowly between 2016 and 2021 (APC: −4.22% [95% CI: −5.47%, −1.93%]) than 2021 to 2024 (APC: −10.78% [95% CI: −15.38%, −8.29%]). Value cigarettes declined steadily (AAPC: −7.54%, [95% CI: −8.56%, −6.49%]). Deep-discount cigarettes were the only segment to grow (AAPC: 5.56% [95% CI: 3.81%, 7.39%]) and decrease in price. Non-menthol cigarettes declined steadily (AAPC: −4.97% [95% CI: −5.43%, −4.51%]). Menthol cigarettes declined slowly between 2016 and 2021 (APC: −2.65% [95% CI: −3.90%, −1.29%]) before rapidly declining (2021–2024 APC: −14.83% [95% CI: −16.94%, −12.13%]).

Conclusion

Research assessing potential impacts of the growing deep-discount segment on smoking patterns and health disparities, as well as continued monitoring of menthol cigarettes, is needed.

Highlights

• •Deep-discount cigarettes were the only segment with growing sales from 2016 to 2024.
• •Average pack price decreased only for deep-discount cigarettes.
• •Menthol cigarette declined rapidly from 2021 to 2024, outpacing non-menthol declines.

1. Introduction

Despite substantial declines in cigarette smoking over the past several decades, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States (US), and disparities in smoking prevalence and tobacco-related mortality remain (American Lung Association, 2024; Cornelius et al., 2023).

Changes in consumer cigarette preferences—including specific brands—can reflect broader economic factors, the shifting demographic makeup of people who smoke, and the impact of tobacco control policies and tobacco industry marketing practices (Sharma et al., 2018). Studies suggest that the market share of discount brands is growing, and industry reports have specifically discussed the growth of deep-discount cigarettes (Cornelius et al., 2014; Covino, 2025). These shifts may be in response to rising cigarette prices and will likely have a greater impact on low-income and older adults, given their disproportionately higher use of discount brands (Cho et al., 2024; Cornelius et al., 2014). However, cigarette brands are typically categorized dichotomously (i.e., premium or discount) in tobacco control studies assessing trends by brand tier; therefore, despite their growing salience among industry groups, research on deep-discount cigarettes as a distinct category is lacking (Cornelius et al., 2014).

Additionally, while sales and use prevalence for both menthol and non-menthol cigarettes have declined, menthol cigarettes have declined more slowly than non-menthol cigarettes (Delnevo et al., 2020; Federal Trade Commission, 2023; Miller Lo et al., 2022). These findings are concerning, as health disparities related to menthol cigarettes are likely to widen, given that menthol cigarette use is more prevalent among several demographic groups (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025). Moreover, menthol cigarette use is associated with increased smoking initiation, greater nicotine dependence, and less likelihood of sustained smoking cessation, particularly among Black individuals, to whom the tobacco industry has aggressively targeted its menthol cigarette marketing (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2025; Cook et al., 2022). Therefore, continued monitoring of menthol cigarette sales and use patterns is critical.

Many traditional advertising channels were closed to cigarette companies following the Master Settlement Agreement (1998) and the Tobacco Control Act (2009), although advertising remains permitted through several channels, including the point of sale (POS) (Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111–31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009-03-03), 2009; National Association of Attorneys General, 1998). POS tobacco advertising remains ubiquitous, and exposure to POS tobacco advertising is associated with tobacco use (Ribisl et al., 2017; Robertson et al., 2015). Tobacco companies spent $8.01 billion on cigarette advertising in 2022, with 71.7% of expenditures being discounts paid to retailers to reduce consumer price, making the POS an important area of tobacco control research and policy (Federal Trade Commission, 2023). Given that most people who smoke purchase cigarettes through convenience stores (including gas stations), convenience stores are particularly important to monitor (Edwards et al., 2023).

Retail market scanner data are useful for rapid surveillance, as they can highlight early signals of interest. Furthermore, scanner sales data provide timely information on trends in consumer brand preferences and the cigarette marketplace (including average cigarette prices). This study examines trends in cigarette sales within US convenience stores from 2016 to 2024, including trends in overall cigarette sales and by brand tier (premium, value, deep-discount), leading brands/parent companies, and flavor (menthol, non-menthol).

2. Methods

2.1. Data source

Annual US cigarette sales data from 2016 to 2024 were licensed from Nielsen's Convenience Track system, which tracks sales in retail chains, gas stations, and independent stores (e.g., bodegas, corner stores). Nielsen reports unit and dollar sales for each Universal Product Code (UPC) assessed using a combination of in-store barcode scanners and audits of retailers without barcode scanners. For each UPC, Nielsen assigns product attributes, including brand/sub-brand, parent company, flavor, and pack size.

2.2. Data cleaning and coding

UPCs for non-cigarette items (e.g., hemp products) and those missing brand information (0.016% of cigarette units, mean price per pack $5.62, range: $2.27–$16.66) were excluded. Average unit price for each UPC was determined by dividing dollar sales by units sold. Prices reported by Nielsen include federal and state excise taxes, with the lowest tax burden being $1.18 per pack (Missouri); therefore, items with prices below $2.00 (0.018% of units) were deemed implausible and excluded.

All unit sales were standardized to reflect the number of cigarette packs sold (one pack contains 20 cigarettes) to account for products with varying pack sizes (e.g., single packs versus cartons). For example, unit sales for UPCs representing cartons (i.e., 10 packs or 200 cigarettes) were multiplied by 10, while unit sales for UPCs representing a single pack were left as is.

Cigarette flavors recorded by Nielsen were coded as non-menthol or menthol. UPCs from brands offering predominantly menthol cigarettes (i.e., Newport, Kool, and Salem) were presumed to be menthol unless explicitly labeled as “non-menthol” (Caraballo and Asman, 2011). For all other brands, UPCs were coded as menthol if the flavor or item description explicitly mentioned menthol or green colors (e.g., “Green,” “Jade”). Items that did not explicitly mention menthol or green colors were coded as non-menthol. Coding criteria and examples are provided in Appendix A.

We categorized brands as premium, value, or deep-discount, based on primarily on how brands are marketed, since perceptions of a product's value can shape consumer preferences (Cornelius et al., 2014). Three coders (MR, RO, and CD) met to discuss definitions for brand tiers and assigned each brand a tier designation through an iterative coding process until unanimous agreement was reached for each brand. The following agreed-upon brand tier definitions were used: Premium brands were defined as those explicitly labeled as “premium” or “luxury” in company documents or advertisements; Value brands were defined as brands offered by major tobacco companies (i.e., Altria, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, and Japan Tobacco) that are not explicitly labeled as “premium” or “deep-discount” by the company; Deep-discount brands were defined as brands offered by smaller tobacco companies that were not coded as “premium,” as well as brands from major tobacco companies that are explicitly labeled as “deep-discount” brands by the company (e.g., Sonoma from Imperial Brands) (Cornelius et al., 2014; Tobacco Insider, 2025). Definitions and brand lists for each tier are shown in Appendix B.

2.3. Statistical analysis

Total unit sales (packs) were reported by year. For each year, market shares for each brand tier (premium, value, deep-discount) were determined. Market shares (non-menthol and menthol combined) were also determined by brand family (e.g., Marlboro), not sub-brands (e.g., Marlboro Gold). The 10 brand families with the greatest sales were determined for each year, resulting in a shortlist of 13 leading brands across the study period. Annual market shares for these 13 brands are reported. The same process was repeated separately for menthol brands. Similarly, annual market shares were determined for each parent company, not subsidiaries of these companies (e.g., Altria instead of Philip Morris USA). The five parent companies with the most packs sold was determined by year, and market shares for parent companies in the top five for at least one year (eight companies) were reported. Market shares were also reported by flavor (non-menthol versus menthol).

Average annual percentage changes (AAPCs) and 95% CIs were determined for overall cigarette sales and by brand tier, brand, parent company, and flavor to assess sales trends (Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, 2025). Best model fit was determined using the grid search method, and best model fits by flavor, brand tier, and average price per pack for each brand tier (adjusted for inflation, December 2024 USD) are presented (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025c). Timepoints when significant changes in trends occurred (i.e., “joinpoints”) were also identified, and annual percent changes (APCs) describing trends for each segment (i.e., shorter term trends) are presented. Weighted BIC (a data-driven BIC method) calculations were used to determine the optimal number of “joinpoints,” (up to 1 joinpoint per model allowed for the present study). AAPCs represent the weighted average of the APCs (with weights equal to each segment's duration) and are used to describe changes across the entire study period. 95% CIs for APCs and AAPCs were determined using the Empirical Quantile method (Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, 2025). Analyses were conducted in Joinpoint version 5.4.0 (National Cancer Institute)—a segmented regression analysis application—to determine AAPCs, best model fits, joinpoints, and APCs (Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute, 2025).

This study was not considered human participant research and exempt from review.

3. Results

Table 1 presents total unit sales (packs in billions) by year; market shares by brand, flavor, and brand tier for each year; and AAPCs in sales across the study period. Between 2016 and 2024, sales significantly decreased from 9.23 billion packs (2016) to 5.61 billion packs (AAPC: −5.82% [95% CI: −6.40%, −5.21%]). The rate of decline from 2021 to 2024 (APC: −8.57% [95% CI: −11.42%, −6.74%]) was double that from 2016 to 2020 (APC: −4.13% [95% CI: −5.02% to −2.58%]) (Fig. 1).

Table 1.

Market Share by Year and Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) in Unit Sales (2016–2024) for Cigarettes Sold in US Convenience Stores, by Brand Tier, Brand, Parent Company, Flavor, and Pack Size.

	Market Sharea (% of Units Sold)									AAPC in Unit Sales (95% CI)b
	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Units Sold (Billions of Packs)	9.23	8.92	8.28	7.84	7.89	7.41	6.83	6.30	5.61	−5.82 (−6.40, −5.21)
Brand Tier
Premium	76.4	76.8	77.4	77.2	76.2	76.1	74.8	73.0	71.0	−6.73 (−7.71, −5.83)
All Non-Premium	23.6	23.2	22.6	22.8	23.8	23.9	25.2	27.0	29.0	−3.52 (−4.15, −2.58)
Value	17.9	17.1	16.6	15.4	15.2	14.9	15.5	15.4	15.0	−7.54 (−8.56, −6.49)
Deep-Discount	5.7	6.1	6.1	7.3	8.6	9.0	9.7	11.7	14.0	5.56 (3.81, 7.39)
Leading Brands, Non-Menthol & Menthol (Brand Tier, Parent Company)c, d
Marlboro (P, Altria)	45.9	45.5	46.1	46.1	44.0	44.2	43.7	43.2	42.5	−6.80 (−7.16, −6.45)
Newport (P, RAI/BAT)	11.6	12.2	12.0	12.4	13.4	13.4	12.9	11.9	11.6	−5.91 (−7.53, −4.31)
Camel (P, RAI/BAT)	9.7	9.4	9.5	9.3	9.2	8.7	8.3	7.9	7.3	−9.03 (−10.05, −8.14)
Lucky Strikee (RAI/BAT)	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	0.9	2.4	3.7	4.6	134.42 (76.00, 228.93)
Pall Mall (V, RAI/BAT)	8.4	8.0	8.0	7.7	7.2	6.4	5.5	4.4	3.7	−15.40 (−15.96, −14.87)
Natural American Spirit (P, RAI/BAT)	2.2	2.4	2.6	2.7	2.9	3.0	3.1	3.1	3.1	−1.91 (−3.25, −0.72)
Montego (DD, Vector)	–	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	0.2	0.8	1.7	2.3	714.89 (294.01, 1392.47)
Winston (P, Imperial)	2.5	2.6	2.5	2.3	2.1	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	−7.26 (−8.56, −5.92)
Maverick (V, Imperial)	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.7	2.0	2.0	2.0	−3.26 (−5.13, −1.34)
L&M (V, Altria)	5.1	5.1	4.8	4.4	4.2	3.7	3.3	2.6	1.9	−17.34 (−18.51, −16.12)
Kool (P, Imperial)	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.8	1.8	1.9	1.9	1.7	−4.18 (−6.13, −2.03)
305's (DD, Dosal)	0.9	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.5	1.5	1.7	1.8	2.0	4.32 (0.14, 8.63)
Pyramid (DD, Vector)	1.1	1.0	0.9	0.8	0.8	0.6	0.5	0.4	0.3	−18.40 (−20.01, −16.90)
All Others	9.5	9.4	9.2	10.0	11.2	11.6	11.8	13.0	14.7	−0.24 (−2.36, 1.94)
Leading Parent Companies
Altria Group Inc.	53.3	52.9	53.0	52.5	50.1	49.8	48.8	47.7	46.2	−7.57 (−8.29, −6.95)
British American Tobacco (BAT)f	–	33.4	33.3	33.0	33.8	33.4	33.0	32.0	31.1	−6.86 (−8.15, −5.49)
Reynolds American Inc. (RAI)f	33.3	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	N/A
Imperial Brands plc.	7.7	7.8	7.6	7.2	7.8	8.1	9.0	9.5	9.8	−2.71 (−3.95, −1.20)
Vector Group Ltd.g	1.8	1.9	1.8	1.9	2.4	2.4	2.8	3.4	3.6	2.77 (0.48, 6.23)
Xcaliber International	<0.1	0.1	0.2	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.3	1.8	2.5	59.33 (46.65, 73.40)
Dosal Tobacco Corporation	0.9	1.1	1.0	1.1	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.9	2.1	4.91 (0.87, 9.09)
All Others	2.8	3.0	3.0	3.4	3.5	3.8	3.3	3.8	4.7	−0.56 (−3.27, 2.19)
Flavor
Non-Menthol	64.3	63.4	63.2	62.4	61.5	61.4	63.8	67.2	68.2	−4.97 (−5.43, −4.51)
Menthol	35.7	36.6	36.8	37.6	38.5	38.6	36.2	32.8	31.8	−7.41 (−8.13, −6.71)
Capsule	3.8	4.4	4.9	5.0	5.0	4.8	4.8	4.4	4.0	−5.47 (−8.54, −2.33)
Pack Size
Pack	87.0	87.2	88.7	89.4	88.0	88.2	88.4	89.2	89.7	−5.55 (−6.21, −4.90)
Carton	13.0	12.8	11.2	10.6	12.0	11.8	11.6	10.8	10.3	−7.61 (−11.81, −3.19)
Multi-Pack	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	<0.1	−30.64 (−40.06, −19.91)
Menthol Units Sold(Billions of Packs)	3.29	3.27	3.04	2.95	3.04	2.86	2.47	2.06	1.78	−7.41 (−8.13, −6.71)
Leading Menthol Brands (Brand Tier, Parent Company)c, d
Newport (P, RAI/BAT)	27.9	28.9	28.1	28.9	30.9	31.0	32.3	32.9	33.6	−5.05 (−6.79, −3.27)
Marlboro (P, Altria)	32.4	31.9	32.3	31.9	29.7	30.4	26.7	22.9	22.7	−12.00 (−12.87, −11.15)
Camel (P, RAI/BAT)	12.2	11.7	12.0	12.0	11.8	11.1	11.1	10.9	10.2	−9.24 (−9.96, −8.50)
Kool (P, Imperial)	4.1	4.3	4.4	4.3	4.6	4.8	5.3	5.7	5.3	−4.23 (−6.15, −2.23)
Lucky Strikee (RAI/BAT)	–	–	–	–	<0.1	0.6	1.7	2.8	3.6	Not Reportedh
Pall Mall (V, (RAI/BAT)	6.3	6.0	6.0	5.7	5.4	4.8	4.4	3.9	3.4	−14.41 (−15.18, −13.60)
Maverick (V, Imperial)	2.3	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.7	3.3	3.3	−2.17 (−6.30, 2.14)
L&M (V, Altria)	4.4	4.4	4.3	4.0	3.9	3.5	3.4	3.1	2.4	−14.02 (−16.38, −11.80)
305's (DD, Dosal)	0.7	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.1	1.4	1.7	2.0	5.54 (2.74, 8.52)
Salem (P, Imperial)	2.5	2.3	2.2	2.0	2.0	2.0	2.1	2.1	2.0	−9.65 (−10.85, −8.25)
Virginia Slims (P, Altria)	1.5	1.4	1.4	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.4	1.4	−7.52 (−8.42, −6.47)
Natural American Spirit (P, RAI/BAT)	1.0	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4	1.4	−3.69 (−4.89, −2.52)
All Others	4.8	4.9	5.0	5.5	5.9	5.9	6.3	7.9	8.7	0.02 (−1.69, 1.76)

^aDenominator for all market shares is “Units Sold (Billions of Packs) in the first Table row, except for Leading Menthol Brands (denominator for menthol is separately listed).

^bAAPC = Average Annual Percent Change. AAPC is reported for 2016 to 2024, except for Montego (2017–2024) and British American Tobacco (2017–2024).

^cPremium brands are indicated by (P); value brands are indicated by (V); deep-discount brands are indicated by (DD).

^dBAT = British American Tobacco; RAI = Reynolds American Inc.

^eLucky Strike was marketed as a premium brand from 2016 to 2020 and was rebranded as a value brand from 2021 onward. Therefore, in this study, Lucky Strike is counted as “Premium” from 2016 to 2020 and “Value” from 2021 to 2024.

^fBritish American Tobacco Acquired Reynolds American Inc. in 2017.

^gAcquired by Japan Tobacco October 7, 2024.

^hToo few datapoints to accurately determine AAPC.

Fig. 1.

Segmented Regression Models Depicting Change in Unit Sales for Menthol and Non-Menthol Cigarettes by Year (2016–2024).

3.1. Trends by brand tier

Sales declined for both premium (AAPC: −6.73% [95% CI: −7.71%, −5.83%]) and value (AAPC: −7.54% [95% CI: −8.56%, −6.49%]) brands between 2016 and 2024, with the pace of decline remaining consistent for value brands (Table 1). However, the pace of decline for premium brands was initially slower than that of value brands (2016–2021 APC: −4.22% [95% CI: −5.47%, −1.93%]) before accelerating between 2021 and 2024 (APC: −10.78% [95% CI: −15.38%, −8.29%]) (Fig. 2). In contrast, deep-discount brand sales increased between 2016 and 2024 (AAPC: 5.56 [95% CI: 3.81, 7.39]). As a result, the market share of deep-discount brands increased from 5.7% (2016) to 14.0% (2024).

Fig. 2.

Segmented Regression Models Depicting Change in Unit Sales and Average Price Per Pack for Premium, Value, and Deep-Discount Cigarettes by Year (2016–2024).

Fig. 2 shows trends in the average price per pack by brand tier. The average price for premium brands increased throughout the study period (AAPC: 1.66% [95% CI: 1.36%, 1.97%]), growing from $7.93 (2016) to $9.16 (2024). The average price per pack for value brands grew from $6.54 to $7.22 between 2016 and 2020 (APC: 2.41% [95% CI: 1.62%, 3.43%]), then declined (2020–2024 APC: −1.03% [95% CI: −2.11%, −0.28%]) to $6.96 in 2024. In contrast, the average price per pack for deep-discount brands decreased steadily throughout the study period (AAPC: -1.48 [95% CI: −1.85, −1.11]), declining from $5.59 (2016) to $5.07 (2024). These trends resulted in widening price gaps between premium and value brands ($1.39 to $2.20), value and deep-discount brands ($0.95 to $1.89), and premium and deep-discount brands ($2.34 to $4.09) across the study period.

3.2. Trends among leading cigarette brands (non-menthol and menthol)

The combined market share of all leading brands declined from 90.5% in 2016 to 85.3% in 2024. Sales volume for all leading brands significantly changed over the study period. Ten of the thirteen leading brands experienced declining sales volumes, with some brands declining rapidly and losing market share (e.g., Camel, Pall Mall, L&M) and others declining more slowly and gaining market share despite decreasing pack sales over the study period (e.g., Natural American Spirit). Sales for three brands (Lucky Strike, Montego, and 305's) increased over the study period. Lucky Strike (AAPC: 134.42% [95% CI: 76.00%, 228.93%]), once considered a premium brand, was relaunched in December 2020 and is now considered a “value segment” brand. Both Montego (AAPC: 714.89% [95% CI: 294.01%, 1392.47%]) and 305's (AAPC: 4.32% [95% CI: 0.14%, 8.63%]) are deep-discount brands.

3.3. Trends by flavor

Sales for both non-menthol and menthol cigarettes declined over the study period; however, sales of menthol cigarettes—including capsule cigarettes—declined faster (AAPC: −7.41% [95% CI: −8.13%, −6.71%]) than sales of non-menthol cigarettes (AAPC: −4.97% [95% CI: −5.43%, −4.51%]) (Table 1). While the rate of decline remained consistent for non-menthol cigarettes, menthol sales declined more slowly between 2016 and 2021 (APC: −2.65% [95% CI: −3.90%, −1.29%]), then accelerated between 2021 and 2024 (APC: −14.83% [95% CI: −16.94%, −12.13%]) (Fig. 1). As a result, menthol's market share increased from 35.7% to 38.6% between 2016 and 2021, then declined, reaching 31.8% in 2024 (a 17.6% decrease between 2021 and 2024).

Nine of the 12 leading menthol brands experienced significant declines in sales volume, including brands offering primarily menthol cigarettes (i.e., Newport, Kool, and Salem). Rates of decline varied substantially, with some brands experiencing rapid declines and losing market share (e.g., Marlboro, Camel, and Pall Mall) and others declining more slowly and gaining market share despite decreasing sales (e.g., Kool, Maverick, and Natural American Spirit). Notably, Marlboro's menthol market share declined by 29.9% over the study period (AAPC: −12.00% [95% CI: −12.87%, −11.15%]). In contrast, sales volume for 305's menthol varieties significantly increased over the study period (AAPC: 5.54% [95% CI: 2.74%, 8.52%]).

Notably, Lucky Strike's menthol market share grew rapidly, increasing from less than 0.1% in 2020 (when Lucky Strike's menthol varieties were first recorded in Nielsen convenience store sales data) to 3.6% in 2024. While AAPC could not be accurately determined for Lucky Strike's menthol varieties due to insufficient data points, sales increased by 50,109.7% (501-fold) from 2020 to 2021 (from 32,265 to over 16.2 million packs), with smaller increases in subsequent years (151.9% between 2021 and 2022, 43.4% between 2022 and 2023, and 9.4% between 2023 and 2024).

4. Discussion

This study found that, while cigarette sales continue to decline, sales trends vary substantially across specific brands and by brand tier and flavor. Moreover, the combined market share of all leading brands declined, suggesting decreasing market consolidation. Since there was no significant change in the combined sales volume of all other brands, the gain in market share among non‑leading brands is likely due to declines in sales volume for leading brands, rather than increased pack sales among non‑leading brands, with deep-discount brands being an exception.

Consistent with prior research, we found that the market share for non-premium cigarettes increased, with the pace of decline in sales volume being nearly half that of premium brands (Cornelius et al., 2014). However, combining value brands with deep-discount brands masks important trends in the US cigarette market. Indeed, deep-discount brands were the only growing segment, while value brand sales declined faster than that of premium brands. Industry reports have highlighted the increasing importance of the deep-discount segment in a declining cigarette market (Covino, 2025; Tobacco Insider, 2025).

The growth of deep-discount cigarettes likely reflects the shifting demographic profile of people who smoke, changes in cigarette prices, and broader economic factors in the US. Smoking is increasingly concentrated in low-income populations, who are more affected by economic shocks, such as higher unemployment and inflation following the COVID-19 pandemic (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024b; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025b; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025). Furthermore, cigarette taxes increased in 17 states and Washington DC over the study period, potentially making premium cigarettes increasingly inaccessible to people with less disposable income and contributing to downtrading (Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 2025a). These findings raise concerns about the burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality among low-income individuals in particular, who are disproportionately impacted by tobacco-related illness and are more likely to use discount brands, which are associated with greater nicotine dependence and a higher prevalence of daily smoking (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024a; Cho et al., 2024; Cornelius et al., 2014, Cornelius et al., 2023). Given the growth of deep-discount cigarettes, and their potential impact on low-income populations, price policies that are less likely than taxes to be circumvented by discounts (i.e., minimum floor prices for cigarettes) can be considered (Ribisl et al., 2022).

Purchasing cheaper cigarettes is one price-minimizing strategy utilized following price increases, particularly among low-income individuals and older adults, suggesting that deep-discount cigarettes can potentially undermine the effectiveness of excise tax policies (Cho et al., 2024; Choi et al., 2012). Previous research found that the proportion of smokers who using non-premium brands (versus premium brands) increased between 2002 and 2011, with a trend toward more smokers switching from premium to non-premium brands, particularly after 2009, corresponding with an increase in the federal cigarette tax (Cornelius et al., 2014). These findings raise concerns that smokers may switch to lower-priced cigarettes (rather than quit) as premium cigarette prices increase. Studies assessing the potential impact of deep-discount cigarettes on consumer behavior in the current US tobacco/nicotine product marketplace are needed, given the limited evidence base. Indeed, while previous US-based studies have not found associations between switching to cheaper brands and quit intentions/behaviors, these studies were conducted over a decade ago and did not look at specific brands or differentiate between deep-discount and value cigarettes (Cho et al., 2024; Choi et al., 2012).

This study found substantial increases in sales volume and market share for two brands—Lucky Strike (British American Tobacco) and Montego (Vector)—and small increases for 305's (Dosal). Lucky Strike—once considered a premium brand in the US—was relaunched as a value brand in the US in December 2020, with the company stating in a 2021 presentation that the relaunch “successfully broad[end] [their] portfolio in the lower priced segment”(British American Tobacco, 2021; Cornelius et al., 2014). Magazine advertisements for Lucky Strike were observed starting in 2020 after rarely appearing between 2002 and 2019 (Rutgers Institute for Nicotine and Tobacco Studies, 2022, Stanford Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising, 2025). Lucky Strike's relaunch coincided with rapidly increasing sales between 2020 and 2024 (1.3 to 258 million packs) after a period of decline between 2016 and 2019 (0.99 to 0.58 million packs), resulting in Lucky Strike becoming the 4th leading brand by market share in the US in 2024. Annual reports from Vector Group LTD similarly provide context for the sudden growth of Montego. In August 2020, Liggett began expanding its distribution of Montego, which was only “sold in select targeted markets in four states” prior to August 2020 (Vector Group Ltd, 2023). By February 2022, Montego was available nationally, with the company focusing on “volume growth” for Montego in 2022 (in contrast to “income growth” for Eagle 20's and Pyramid) (Vector Group Ltd, 2023). However, national survey data is needed to examine consumption patterns for these brands among different demographic groups.

Finally, consistent with prior research, we found that non-menthol sales were declining faster than menthol sales through to 2020 (Delnevo et al., 2020, Delnevo et al., 2023, Delnevo et al., 2025). Moreover, over the time period we explored, the decline in menthol sales began to accelerate in 2021, which has been noted elsewhere (Delnevo et al., 2025). Importantly, different data sources and time periods have been used across these studies. Nonetheless, the more recent rapid decline in menthol cigarettes noted here and in previous research coincided with flavored tobacco sales restrictions (including menthol cigarettes) in two states (Massachusetts, effective June 1, 2020, and California, effective December 21, 2022), Washington DC (effective October 1, 2022), and a growing number of local jurisdictions (Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 2025b; Delnevo et al., 2025). Studies assessing the impact of flavored tobacco sales restrictions in Massachusetts and surrounding states have found that sales of menthol cigarette sales and overall cigarette sales declined in Massachusetts post-policy, with one study finding that the decline in menthol cigarette sales and total cigarette sales was greater in Massachusetts than in comparison states, while the decline of non-menthol cigarettes was greater in comparison states (Asare et al., 2022; Goli et al., 2024). Another Massachusetts study found an increase in cross-border menthol cigarette sales (Goli et al., 2024). A study evaluating the impact of California's restrictions on flavored tobacco sales found that, while menthol cigarette sales decreased by about 90%, sales of “non-menthol” labeled cigarettes containing synthetic coolants increased 708% (Whitney et al., 2025). While the present study was not able to accurately assess changes in sales volume for cigarettes containing synthetic coolants, future studies should monitor sales of such products, in addition to trends in menthol cigarette sales. Furthermore, the rapid decline in menthol cigarette sales coincided with FDA's proposed rule to ban menthol cigarettes; therefore, declines in menthol cigarette sales may indicate tobacco company behavior to reduce dependence on menthol sales, given impending federal action (United States Food and Drug Administration, 2022). Ongoing tracking of these trends will be important, given the withdrawal of FDA's final rule banning menthol cigarettes in January, 2025 (Anderson, 2025).

4.1. Limitations and strengths

A limitation of this study is that the data only includes convenience store sales and does not account for cigarette sales from other retailer types (e.g., food stores, big box stores, online), including those that may be more likely to carry deep-discount brands (e.g., discount tobacco outlets) (Tobacco Insider, 2025). However, given that most cigarettes are purchased through convenience stores, Nielsen's Convenience Track system likely captures the majority of cigarette sales in the US, making the focus on convenience store sales a strength of the present study (Edwards et al., 2023). If deep-discount brands are undercounted by excluding these sources, our conclusions may be underestimating how steep the rise of deep-discount sales truly is. Nevertheless, future studies should determine if there are differences in sales trends among different retailer types.

This study examines national data, which may mask important differences across regions with different tobacco control policies and varying availability of certain brands; therefore, future studies should examine regional variation in trends.

Additionally, in response to state flavored tobacco sales restrictions, some cigarette brands have included synthetic cooling agents to mimic the sensation of menthol (Page et al., 2025; Whitney et al., 2025). However, such products could not accurately be coded in the present study, as it was unclear from the item descriptions whether “non-menthol” referred to cigarettes with synthetic coolants (often explicitly labeled as “non-menthol”) versus variants that contain neither menthol nor synthetic coolants. Future research should account for products containing synthetic coolants when monitoring trends in menthol cigarette consumption.

Notably, sales data does not provide information about cigarette use patterns (e.g., daily versus non-daily smoking) among individuals or specific demographic groups. Therefore, the results of this study should be triangulated with findings from nationally representative population surveys. Furthermore, this study's focuses exclusively on US convenience stores; therefore, findings may not be generalizable to other countries.

A strength of this study is that Nielsen provides timely sales data and includes sales from all types of convenience stores (i.e., large chains and small, independent stores). Nielsen scanner data also captures brands with high sales volumes that may not appear among leading brands in population surveys (e.g., PATH), which typically ask consumers with a usual brand to report their preferred cigarette brand. Finally, in addition to reporting market share and sales volume trends across the entire study period, this study highlights specific years where notable shifts occurred, providing insight into important timepoints for the cigarette marketplace.

5. Conclusions

Our analysis of Nielsen convenience store cigarette sales data found that deep-discount cigarettes were the only growing segment from 2016 to 2024 in an otherwise declining cigarette market and that the average price for deep-discount brands decreased, defying price increases in the overall cigarette market. Non-menthol cigarette sales declined steadily, decreasing faster than menthol sales through to 2020, followed by a rapid decline in menthol sales from 2021 to 2024. Research assessing potential impacts of the growing deep-discount segment on smoking patterns and health disparities, as well as continued monitoring of menthol cigarettes, is needed.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Meagan O. Robichaud: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Richard J. O'Connor: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. Andrea C. Villanti: Writing – review & editing. Kathyrn C. Edwards: Writing – review & editing. Cristine D. Delnevo: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Conceptualization.

Disclaimer

Rutgers University Institute for Nicotine and Tobacco Studies' own analyses and calculations are based in part on data reported by the Nielsen Company through its Convenience Track Service for tobacco products from 2016 through 2024 (US Convenience Store Channel, copyright 2024, The Nielsen Company). The conclusions drawn from Nielsen data are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of Nielsen. Nielsen is not responsible for and had no role in analyzing and preparing the results reported herein.

Funding

This work was supported by grants U01CA278695 and U54CA229973 from the National Cancer Institute and the US Food and Drug Administration. This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or FDA.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Meagan O Robichaud reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. Meagan O Robichaud reports financial support was provided by US Food and Drug Administration. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Andrea C. Villanti reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Cristine Delnevo reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Kathryn C. Edwards reports financial support was provided by National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute. Kathryn C. Edwards reports a relationship with FDA, Center for Tobacco Products that includes: funding grants. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Cigarette flavor coding criteria, with examples

Brands	Item, brand, and flavor descriptions provided by Nielsen	Flavor Code Assigned	Example (As Written in Nielsen)
Kool, Newport, Salem (i.e., predominately menthol brands)⁎	•Flavor or item descriptors explicitly stating “Non-menthol”	Non-Menthol	Item Description [underline added to emphasize non-menthol indicators]: “NWPR NON MNTH FLTR CGRT BOX IN WRP 20 CT” (i.e., Newport non-menthol filtered cigarette pack in plastic wrap); Brand(Brand Low): Newport (N/A); Flavor: “Non-Menthol”
	•Flavor names that include “Menthol” (e.g., “Refreshing Menthol”) OR •Non-descriptive flavor names (i.e., “Not Applicable”, “Not Collected”, or “Not Stated”)	Menthol	Item Description: “NWPR 100 MM FLTR CGRT BOX 20 CT” (i.e., Newport 100 mm length filtered cigarettes pack); Brand (Brand Low): Newport (N/A); Flavor: “Not Stated”
All other brands	•Non-descriptive flavor names (i.e., “Not Applicable”, “Not Collected”, or “Not Stated”)	Non-Menthol	Item Description: “MRLB CLS 100 MM FLTR CGRT BOX 20 CT” (i.e., Marlboro Classic 100 mm length filtered cigarettes pack); Brand (Brand Low): Marlboro (N/A); Flavor: “Not Stated”
	•Flavor names that include “Menthol” or “Menthe” (e.g., “Black Menthol”) OR •Item descriptions or brand names that include green color descriptors.	Menthol	Item Description [underline added to emphasize menthol indicators]: “CML JD SLV TRKS BLND FLTR CGRT BOX IN WRP 20 CT” (i.e., Camel Jade Silver Turkish Blend filtered cigarette pack in plastic wrap); Brand (Brand Low): Camel (Camel Jade Silver); Flavor: “Not Stated”

^⁎(Caraballo and Asman, 2011).

Appendix B. List of Brands Categorized as Premium, Value, and Deep-Discount

Brand tier	Criteriaa	Brand list
Premium	•Explicitly labeled as “premium” or “luxury” by the parent company	Barclay, Belair, Benson & Hedges, Camel, Capri, Davidoff, Dunhill, Eclipse, Kent, Kool, Lucky Strike (2016–2020)b, Macdonald Export, Marlboro, Merit, More, Nat Sherman, Natural American Spirit, New York Cut, Newport, Parliament, Revo, Salem, Saratoga, State Express 555, Tareyton, Vantage, Virginia Slims, VLN, Winston
Value	•Offered by major tobacco companies (i.e., Altria, British American Tobacco, Imperial Brands, Japan Tobacco) AND not labeled as “premium” or “deep-discount” by the parent company.	Alpine, American, Basic, Best Value, Bristol, Bull Durham, Cambridge, Carlton, Century 25's, Chesterfield, Dave's, Doral, Falcon, Fortuna, Gold Coast, GPC, Highway, L & M, L. Ducat, Lark, Lucky Strike (2021–2024)b, Magna, Malibu, Maverick, Misty, Monarch, Now, Old Gold, Pall Mall, Players, Private Stock, Quality Smokes, Rave, Sterling, Style, Sundance, Triumph, True, Tuscany, USA Gold, Viceroy, Wave, West, Wings
Deep-Discount	Meets one of the following sets of criteria: •Offered by major tobacco companies AND labeled as “deep-discount” by the parent company, OR •Offered by non-major tobacco companies AND not labeled as “premium” by the parent company.	1839, 1st Class, 24/7, 305's, Ace, American Bison, American Diamond, Aura, Bailey's, Baron, Berkley, Berley, Bronco, Calon, Carnival, Champion, Checkers, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Class ‘A', Classic, Competidora, Complete, Couture, Covington, Cowboys, Crowns, Dave's, Decade, Double Diamond, DTC, Du Maurier, Eagle (Genco Marketing Co.), Eagle (Liggett Group Inc.), Echo, Edgefield, Eve, Exeter, Flavor, Gold Crest, Golden Bay, GP, Grand Prix, GSmoke, GT One, Hi-Val, Jade, Kentucky's Best, King Mountain, Liggett, Liggett Select, LM Promotional, Main Street, Market, Meridian, Montclair, Montego, Nashville, Native, New York New York, Omni, Palermo, Patriot, Pinnacle, Premis, Private Label brands (not specified), Pyramid, Quality, Quest, Riverside, Sago, Sandia, Seneca, SF, Shield, Signal, Silver Eagle, Skydancer, Smokin’ Joes, Sonoma, Sport, Tahoe, Tajmahal Bidisc, Teton, This, Timeless Time, Total, Tourney, Ultra Buy, US1, USA, Westport, Wild Horse, Yours

^a(Cornelius et al., 2014; Tobacco Insider, 2025).

^bLucky Strike was marketed as a premium brand from 2016 to 2020 and was rebranded as a value brand in December 2020. Therefore, Lucky Strike is counted as “Premium” from 2016 to 2020 and “Value” from 2021 to 2024 (British American Tobacco, 2021).

^cBidis are regulated as cigarettes in the US; therefore, the Tajmahal Bidis brand is included in this study.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.