Skip to main content
Tobacco Control logoLink to Tobacco Control
. 2001 Dec;10(4):337–339. doi: 10.1136/tc.10.4.337

State variation in retail promotions and advertising for Marlboro cigarettes

S Slater 1, F Chaloupka 1, M Wakefield 1
PMCID: PMC1747633  PMID: 11740024

Abstract

BACKGROUND—There is some evidence that tobacco companies marketing efforts undermine the effects of comprehensive tobacco control programmes.
OBJECTIVE—To determine whether point-of-purchase advertising and promotions are more pervasive in states where comprehensive tobacco control programmes are underway.
DESIGN—Cross sectional survey using 1996 data, with merged records of the existence of local tobacco advertising restrictions.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING—581 tobacco retail stores located in close proximity to high schools in mainland USA.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES—Existence of gift-with-purchase, number of interior advertisements, and exterior store advertisements for Marlboro cigarettes.
RESULTS—After controlling for store type and existence of advertising restrictions, offer of a gift-with-purchase for Marlboro cigarettes was significantly more likely in states with comprehensive tobacco control programmes than those without programmes (odds ratio 2.59, 95% confidence interval 1.57 to 4.26). Although not significant, results show an increase in the number of interior and exterior store advertisements for stores located in states with a comprehensive tobacco control programme than those in other states.
CONCLUSION—Results suggest some point-of-purchase tobacco promotions and advertising are more pervasive in states with comprehensive tobacco control programmes. These efforts are likely to act against the objectives of programmes and need to be accounted for in programme evaluations.


Keywords: advertising; public policy; value added promotions

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (118.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Pierce J. P., Gilpin E. A., Emery S. L., White M. M., Rosbrook B., Berry C. C., Farkas A. J. Has the California tobacco control program reduced smoking? JAMA. 1998 Sep 9;280(10):893–899. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.10.893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Stillman F., Hartman A., Graubard B., Gilpin E., Chavis D., Garcia J., Wun L. M., Lynn L., Manley M. The American Stop Smoking Intervention Study. Conceptual framework and evaluation design. Eval Rev. 1999 Jun;23(3):259–280. doi: 10.1177/0193841X9902300301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Wakefield M., Chaloupka F. Effectiveness of comprehensive tobacco control programmes in reducing teenage smoking in the USA. Tob Control. 2000 Jun;9(2):177–186. doi: 10.1136/tc.9.2.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Warner K. E. Profits of doom. Am J Public Health. 1993 Sep;83(9):1211–1213. doi: 10.2105/ajph.83.9.1211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Tobacco Control are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES