Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 98, Issue 4, pp 265–270 | Cite as

Tobacco Point-of-Purchase Marketing in School Neighbourhoods and School Smoking Prevalence

A Descriptive Study
  • Chris Y. LovatoEmail author
  • Helen C. H. Hsu
  • Catherine M. Sabiston
  • Valerie Hadd
  • Candace I. J. Nykiforuk
Article

Abstract

Background

Point of Purchase (PoP) promotional and advertising activities are a sophisticated tobacco marketing strategy. This study describes tobacco PoP activities in school neighbourhoods and compares PoP activities in retail stores between schools with high and low smoking prevalence.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in 81 randomly selected schools across five provinces. Students in grades 10–11 completed a questionnaire on smoking. Observations were made in all retail stores located within a one-kilometre radius around the school. ANOVA tests were used to detect differences on PoP variables between high (>20.6%) and low (≤20.6%) smoking prevalence schools, defined as percentage of students reporting at least a few puffs on >2 days in the last 30 days.

Results

Approximately half of retail stores in each school neighbourhood exhibited tobacco PoP activities. Average school smoking prevalence was 20.99%. There were significant main effects on PoP variables between schools with high and low smoking prevalence, Wilk’s λ=0.81, F (6,74)=2.89, p<0.01, η2=0.19. Stores near schools with high smoking prevalence had significantly lower prices per cigarette (F (1,79)=15.34, p<0.01, η2=0.16), more in-store promotions (F (1,79)=6.73, p<0.01, η2 =0.08), and fewer government-sponsored health warnings (F (1,79)= 6.26, p<0.01, η2=0.07) compared to schools with low smoking prevalence.

Conclusion

Higher levels of PoP activities in stores located in the school neighbourhood are related to school smoking prevalence. Schools with low smoking prevalence had more stores that posted government health warning signs and higher cigarette prices. Legislation regulating PoP activities and health warnings in school neighbourhoods should be considered.

MeSH terms

Tobacco marketing adolescent 

Résumé

Contexte

L’une des stratégies les plus subtiles des compagnies de tabac consiste à promouvoir et à publiciser la cigarette sur le lieu de vente. Cette étude porte sur les activités de promotion du tabac sur le lieu de vente dans les quartiers où l’on trouve des écoles; ces activités sont ensuite comparées dans les magasins de détail proches d’écoles où la prévalence du tabagisme est soit faible, soit forte.

Méthode

Une étude transversale a été menée dans 81 écoles sélectionnées au hasard dans cinq provinces. Les élèves de 10e et de 11 e année ont rempli un questionnaire sur le tabagisme. Tous les magasins de détail situés dans un rayon d’un kilomètre de chaque école ont aussi été visités. Des analyses de la variance ont permis de déceler les écarts, attribuables à la promotion sur le lieu de vente, entre les écoles à forte (>20,6 %) et à faible (≤20,6 %) prévalence de tabagisme, cette prévalence étant définie comme le pourcentage d’élèves disant avoir tiré au moins quelques bouffées de cigarette au cours de trois ou plus des 30 jours précédents.

Résultats

La présence d’activités de promotion du tabac sur le lieu de vente a été observée dans environ la moitié des magasins de détail de chaque quartier scolaire. La prévalence moyenne du tabagisme dans les écoles était de 20,99 %. La prévalence du tabagisme à l’école était significativement liée aux variables de promotion du tabac sur le lieu de vente (lambda de Wilk=0,81, rapport F [6,74]=2,89, p<0,01, η2=0,19). Dans les magasins proches d’écoles à forte prévalence de tabagisme, le prix par cigarette était significativement plus bas (F [1,79]=15,34, p<0,01, η2=0,16), les publicités internes étaient plus nombreuses (F [1,79]=6,73, p<0,01, η2=0,08), et les mises en garde gouvernementales sur les effets néfastes du tabac étaient moins nombreuses (F [1,79]=6,26, p<0,01, η2=0,07) que dans les magasins proches d’écoles à faible prévalence de tabagisme.

Conclusion

Il existe un lien entre les niveaux élevés d’activité promotionnelle sur le lieu de vente dans les magasins situés dans les quartiers scolaires et la prévalence du tabagisme à l’école. Les écoles à faible prévalence de tabagisme sont situées près de magasins affichant des mises en garde gouvernementales et vendant les cigarettes plus cher. Dans les quartiers où l’on trouve des écoles, il faudrait donc envisager une réglementation plus stricte des activités promotionnelles sur le lieu de vente, ainsi que l’affichage de mises en garde sur les effets néfastes du tabac.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lovato C, Linn G, Stead LF, Best A. Impact of tobacco advertising and promotion on increasing adolescent smoking behaviours. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(4):CD003439.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pierce J, Gilpin EA, Burns DM, Whalen E, Rosbrook B, Shopland D, et al. Does tobacco advertising target young people to start smoking? Evidence from California. JAMA 1991;266:3154–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Schleicher NC, Haladjian HH, Fortmann SP. Reaching youth at the point of sale: Cigarette marketing is more prevalent in stores where adolescents shop frequently. Tob Control 2004;13(3):315–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krugman DM, Quinn WH, Sung Y, Morrison M. Understanding the role of cigarette promotion and youth smoking in a changing marketing environment. J Health Commun 2005;10(3):261–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pollay RW. Targeting youth and concerned smokers: Evidence from Canadian tobacco industry documents. Tob Control 2000;9(2):136–47.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmidt JB (Ed.). Targeting the Young is an Old Story: A History of Cigarette Advertising to the Young. Contemporary Marketing History; East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, 1994.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feighery EC, Ribisl KM, Schleicher N, Lee RE, Halvorson S. Cigarette advertising and promotional strategies in retail outlets: Results of a statewide survey in California. Tob Control 2001;10(2):184–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    U.S. Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission report to Congress for 2003. Washington, DC, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aquilino ML, Lowe JB. Approaches to tobacco control: The evidence base. Eur J Dent Educ 2004;8(Suppl 4):11–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hastings G, MacFadyen L. A day in the life of an advertising man: Review of internal documents from the UK tobacco industry’s principal advertising agencies. BMJ 2000;321(7257):366–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pollay RA, Siddarth S, Siegel M, Haddix A, Merit R, Gionino GA. The last straw? Cigarette advertising and realized market shares among youth and adults, 1979–1993. J Marketing 1996;60:1–16.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Reducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. 1989. Rockville, Maryland, Public Health Service, Centre for Disease Control, Office of Smoking and Health.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wakefield MA, Terry-McElrath YM, Chaloupka FJ, Barker DC, Slater SJ, Clark PI, et al. Tobacco industry marketing at point of purchase after the 1998 MSA billboard advertising ban. Am J Public Health 2002;92(6):937–40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruel E, Mani N, Sandoval A, Terry-McElrath Y, Slater SJ, Tworek C, et al. After the Master Settlement Agreement: Trends in the American tobacco retail environment from 1999 to 2002. Health Promot Pract 2004;5(Suppl 3):99S–110S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Celebucki CC, Diskin K. A longitudinal study of externally visible cigarette advertising on retail storefronts in Massachusetts before and after the Master Settlement Agreement. Tob Control 2002;11(Suppl 2):ii47–ii53.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Terry-McElrath Y, Wakefield M, Giovino G, Hyland A, Chaloupka F, Slater S, et al. Point-of-purchase tobacco environments and variation by store type—United States, 1999. MMWR 2002;51(9):184–87.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schneider JE, Reid RJ, Peterson NA, Lowe JB, Hughey J. Tobacco outlet density and demographics at the tract level of analysis in Iowa: Implications for environmentally based prevention initiatives. Prevention Sci 2005;6(4):319–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wildey MB, Young RL, Elder JP, de Moor C, Wolf KR, Fiske KE, et al. Cigarette point-of-sale advertising in ethnic neighborhoods in San Diego, California. Health Values 1992;16(1):23–28.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laws MB, Whitman J, Bowser DM, Krech L. Tobacco availability and point of sale marketing in demographically contrasting districts of Massachusetts. Tobacco Control 2002;11(Suppl 2):71–73.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Barovich M, Sussman S, Burton D, Flay B. Availability of tobacco products at stores located near public schools. Int J Addictions 1991;26(8):837–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Preliminary results of the effect of community characteristics on the tobacco retail environment. World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Chicago, IL, 2000.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cohen J. Tobacco Marketing at Point-of-Sale in Ontario. 2005. Ontario Tobacco Research Unit: Research Update.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cummings KM, Sciandra R, Lawrence J. Tobacco advertising in retail stores. Public Health Rep 1991;106(5):570–75.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Donovan RJ, Jancey J, Jones S. Tobacco point of sale advertising increases positive brand user imagery. Tob Control 2002;11(3):191–94.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wakefield MA, Ruel EE, Chaloupka FJ, Slater SJ, Kaufman NJ. Association of point-of-purchase tobacco advertising and promotions with choice of usual brand among teenage smokers. J Health Commun 2002;7(2):113–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dewhirst T. POP goes the power wall? Taking aim at tobacco promotional strategies utilised at retail. Tob Control 2004;13(3):209–10.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Henriksen L, Flora JA, Feighery E, Fortmann SP. Effects on youth of exposure to retail tobacco advertising. J Appl Soc Psychol 2002;32(9):1771–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaufman NJ, Castrucci BC, Mowery P, Gerlach KK, Emont S, Orleans CT. Changes in adolescent cigarette-brand preference, 1989 to 1996. Am J Health Behav 2004;28(1):54–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Henriksen L, Feighery EC, Wang Y, Fortmann SP. Association of retail tobacco marketing with adolescent smoking. Am J Public Health 2004;94(12):2081–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Aitken P, Eadie D, Hastings G, Haywood A. Predisposing effects of cigarette advertising on children’s intention to smoke when older. Br J Addiction 1991;86:383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Biener L, Siegel M. Tobacco marketing and adolescent smoking: More support for a causal inference. Am J Public Health 2000;90:407–11.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Health Canada. Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey (CTUMS) Annual results, 2004. Internet. 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Myllyuoma J. ImpacTeen Community Data Collection Year 5 Final Report. Baltimore, MD, Battelle Centers for Public Health Research & Evaluation, 2003. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.impacteen.org (Accessed February 23, 2006).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cameron R, Manske S, Brown KS, Jolin MA, Murnaghan D, Lovato C. Integrating public health policy, practice, evaluation, surveillance, and research using local data collection and feedback systems: The example of the School Health Action Planning and Evaluation System (SHAPES). Am J Public Health 2007;97(4):648–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics, 4 ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slater S, Terry Y, Ruel E, Wakefield M, Chaloupka FJ, Barker DC, et al. Preliminary results of the effects of community characteristics on the tobacco retail environment. 11th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, Chicago, Illinois, August 6–11, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Slater S, Chaloupka FJ, Wakefield M. State variation in retail promotions and advertising for Marlboro cigarettes. Tob Control 2001;10(4):337–39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chaloupka FJ, Cummings KM, Morley CP, Horan JK. Tax, price and cigarette smoking: Evidence from the tobacco documents and implications for tobacco company marketing strategies. Tob Control 2002;11(Suppl 1):I62–I72.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ross H, Chaloupka FJ. The effect of cigarette prices on youth smoking. Health Econ 2003;12(3):217–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Warner KE, Jacobson PD, Kaufman N. Innovative approaches to youth tobacco control: Introduction and overview. Tobacco Control 2003;12(Suppl 1):i1–i15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pierce JP, Gilmer TP, Lee L, Gilpin EA, de BJ, Messer K. Tobacco industry price-subsidizing promotions may overcome the downward pressure of higher prices on initiation of regular smoking. Health Econ 2005;14(10):1061–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    von Tigerstrom B. Tobacco Control and the Law in Canada. In: Bailey TM, Caulfield T, Ries NM (Eds.), Public Health Law & Policy in Canada. Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2005;273–325.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Y. Lovato
    • 1
    Email author
  • Helen C. H. Hsu
    • 1
  • Catherine M. Sabiston
    • 1
  • Valerie Hadd
    • 2
  • Candace I. J. Nykiforuk
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Health Care and EpidemiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.School of Human KineticsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Health Promotion StudiesUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations