IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0029871.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Retail Price and Point of Sale Display of Tobacco in the UK: A Descriptive Study of Small Retailers

Author

Listed:
  • Dionysis Spanopoulos
  • Elena Ratschen
  • Ann McNeill
  • John Britton

Abstract

Background: Since the implementation of the 2002 Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, point-of-sale (PoS) tobacco displays are one of few remaining means of communication between the tobacco industry and customers in the UK. This study aimed to explore the characteristics of tobacco displays in a UK city, and particularly to assess the tobacco prices and promotional offers, types and pack sizes on display. Methods: Digital pictures of PoS displays were taken in 117 small retail shops in Nottingham in mid 2010. Data were analysed using Windows Photo Gallery software and SPSS version 16. Results: Just over half (52%) of cigarette packs on display were packs of 20, and 43% packs of 10. Cigarette prices differed substantially between brands, ranging from £4.19 to £6.85 for 20-packs, and from £2.12 to £3.59 for 10-packs. Forty four percent of cigarette packs and 40% of RYO (Roll-Your-Own) tobacco pouches, almost exclusively lower priced brands, were displayed with a pricemark, implying a promotional price offer. Eighty percent of 20-pack cigarette brand or brand variants on sale were priced below the EU-defined Most Popular Price Category (MPPC) for the UK in 2010; 45% were priced below the Weighted Average Price (WAP), which replaced the MPPC in 2011. Conclusion: PoS displays communicate value by displaying a high proportion of lower cost brands, and smaller and hence lower-cost packs, and by displaying price discounts on packs. The MPPC substantially overestimated the prices at which most 20-cigarette packs were available. Removal of PoS displays will prevent this means of price marketing but our study also suggests that minimum pricing of 20-pack cigarettes, prohibition of sale of cigarettes in packs less than 20, and plain packaging to prevent pricemarking are necessary if price is to be used effectively as a tobacco control measure.

Suggested Citation

  • Dionysis Spanopoulos & Elena Ratschen & Ann McNeill & John Britton, 2012. "Retail Price and Point of Sale Display of Tobacco in the UK: A Descriptive Study of Small Retailers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0029871
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029871
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029871
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0029871&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0029871?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Tauras & Richard Peck & Frank Chaloupka, 2006. "The Role of Retail Prices and Promotions in Determining Cigarette Brand Market Shares," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 28(3), pages 253-284, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vivienne Pham & David Prentice, 2010. "An empirical Analysis of the Counter-factual: A Merger and Divestiture in the Australian Cigarette Industry," Working Papers 2010.08 EDIRC Provider-In, School of Economics, La Trobe University.
    2. Yuqing Zheng & Chen Zhen & Daniel Dench & James M. Nonnemaker, 2017. "U.S. Demand for Tobacco Products in a System Framework," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(8), pages 1067-1086, August.
    3. Natsuko Iwasaki & Victor Tremblay, 2009. "The effect of marketing regulations on efficiency: LeChatelier versus coordination effects," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 41-54, August.
    4. Yanwen Wang & Michael Lewis & Vishal Singh, 2016. "The Unintended Consequences of Countermarketing Strategies: How Particular Antismoking Measures May Shift Consumers to More Dangerous Cigarettes," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(1), pages 55-72, January.
    5. Vivienne Pham & David Prentice, 2013. "A Random Coefficients Logit Analysis of the Counterfactual: A Merger and Divestiture in the Australian Cigarette Industry," Working Papers 2013.04, School of Economics, La Trobe University.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0029871. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.