Tobacco Industry Advertising and Promotion in Retail Outlets

Tobacco Ad  Educaiton Campaign Large Image

In New York State, the Tobacco Industry spends $1 million every day to market their deadly and addictive products.1 This includes payments to tobacco retailers to prominently display tobacco advertising and products in the most visible locations in the stores.2 As a result, all consumers, including young people under the age of 18, are exposed to a substantial amount of tobacco marketing. The more tobacco marketing they see, the more likely kids are to smoke.Tobacco Ad Tour Photo 2

What is tobacco marketing?
Tobacco marketing refers to the posters and signs inside and outside stores, as well as the displays of tobacco products behind the counter in most convenience stores, gas stations, pharmacies and grocery stores. Exposure to both ads and displays has been shown to make youth more likely to start smoking.


How does tobacco company in-store marketing affect youth smoking
?

  • While there are several factors that contribute to adolescent smoking, tobacco advertising and promotion at retail stores where tobacco products are sold is one of the most significant.Tobacco companies place most of their advertising where young people shop.3
  • 90% of regular smokers start before age 18.4
  • Young people are almost twice as likely as adults to recall tobacco advertising.5
  • Tobacco product advertising and display in stores gives youth the impression that tobacco products are easily accessible.6
  • The more tobacco retailers there are near schools, the more likely children are to smoke.3

Tobacco-Free Pharmacies
The research is clear about the harmful effects of tobacco use. Despite these facts, pharmacies and stores with pharmacies continue to sell these deadly and highly addictive products alongside medications utilized to improve one’s health.

  • Pharmacies are a trusted and vital part of the healthcare system and therefore should not be selling products that when used as intended are fatal to the consumer.
  • Selling tobacco products in pharmacies makes tobacco use seem more acceptable and sends a contradictory message to our children.

Possible Solutions
With over two thirds of teens shopping in convenience stores at least once per week, we must take action to reduce youth exposure to in‐store tobacco marketing.

  • Decrease visibility of tobacco marketing in stores
  • Limit the sale of tobacco near schools
  • Prohibit the sale of tobacco at pharmacies

Together, the American Lung Association in New York and the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City are working hard to educate New Yorkers about the dangers of tobacco industry marketing in retails stores, and the negative effects that it has on our youth.

 Local elected officials, youth leaders and community groups toured New York City’s neighborhoods to observe the many storefronts that display tobacco advertising that endangers our youth. Check out our video or download event highlights from the “Take a Walk In Our Shoes Tobacco Advertising Tour."

 To learn more about efforts underway to reduce aggressive tobacco marketing in retail stores, visit the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City.

 1Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. “Estimated tobacco industry marketing in NYS.” 2Feighery, Ribisl, Achabal, et al. “Retail trade incentives: How tobacco industry practices compare with those of other industries.” American Journal of Public Health. 89(10):1564-1566 (1999). 3Henriksen. L. et al. “Is adolescent smoking related to the density and proximity of tobacco outlets and retail cigarette advertising near schools?” 4US Department of Health and Human Services. “Youth and Tobacco: Preventing Tobacco Use among Young People” A Report of the Surgeon General.” 1995. 5International Communications Research. “National Telephone Survey of Teens Aged 12 to 17.” 2007. 6  Wakefield, Germain, et al. “An experimental study of effects on schoolchildren of exposure to point‐of‐salecigarette advertising and pack displays.” Health Education Research Theory and Practice. 21(3):338‐347 (2006)