Search

IntroductionNew Zealand’s Smokefree 2025 goal aims to greatly decrease the availability of tobacco. One option is to cease the sale of tobacco from convenience stores. However, tobacco companies and retail trade associations oppose this move and have argued that customers who purchase tobacco drive footfall and spend more than non-tobacco customers. The aim of this study is to test the validity of industry claims about the importance of tobacco to convenience stores.MethodsDuring November and December 2019, immediate postpurchase surveys were undertaken with customers on exit from a random sample of 100 convenience stores in two New Zealand cities. We estimated the mean number of items purchased, including tobacco and non-tobacco items, and mean expenditure on non-tobacco items.ResultsOf the 3399 transactions recorded, 13.8% included tobacco, of which 8.3% comprised tobacco only and 5.5% included tobacco and non-tobacco items. The mean number of transactions containing both tobacco and non-tobacco items was 1.98, and 1.87 for those containing non-tobacco items only. Customers who purchased tobacco and non-tobacco items spent on average NZ$6.99 on non-tobacco items, whereas customers who purchased non-tobacco items only, spent on average NZ$5.07.ConclusionsOur results do not support claims that tobacco drives one-quarter of footfall into stores or that customers who purchase tobacco spend almost twice as much as non-tobacco customers. Combined purchases of tobacco and non-tobacco items constituted 5.5% of transactions; the impact on a store’s profitability of removing tobacco sales is unknown and could be the focus of future research.

IntroductionArguments regarding the importance of tobacco to convenience stores could impede the adoption of tobacco retail reduction policies. Although trade associations argue tobacco constitutes two-thirds of convenience store sales and drives footfall, few studies have tested these claims. We therefore examined the prevalence and characteristics of tobacco purchases at convenience stores in Dunedin, New Zealand.MethodsWe conducted a postpurchase survey at 20 convenience stores, each visited for three 60 min intervals over a 4-week period. We used descriptive statistics to determine proportions and 95% CIs of transactions that contained tobacco and those that contained only non-tobacco items. We estimated the mean number of items purchased, the mean number of non-tobacco items purchased and mean expenditure on non-tobacco items.ResultsFourteen per cent of transactions contained tobacco (n=95/679); of those, 64% comprised tobacco only. Only 5% of all transactions included both tobacco and non-tobacco products. The mean number of non-tobacco items purchased was 1.9 for transactions containing only non-tobacco products and 1.7 for transactions containing both tobacco and non-tobacco products. After excluding the cost of tobacco, people who purchased tobacco and non-tobacco products spent on average $5.11 on non-tobacco items, whereas people who purchased only non-tobacco items spent on average $6.85.ConclusionsTobacco products constitute a small proportion of items purchased from Dunedin convenience stores and are typically not purchased with non-tobacco items. Our findings are inconsistent with arguments that most small retailers rely on tobacco sales.

Cigars are among the most heavily flavoured of all tobacco products.1 Flavoured cigars, particularly cigarillos, appeal to young people and are also associated with blunt use.2–4 Of note, young adults cite brands and flavours as important factors influencing the selection of cigars used for blunts.4 With the growing social acceptance of recreational marijuana use, tobacco control researchers have noted in the past year the explicit co-marketing of cigars and marijuana.5 6 This nascent research was limited as it focused on one brand, Splitarillos5 or a subset of 10 marijuana-related flavours available at the point-of-sale in California.6 We add to the literature on marijuana–cigar co-marketing by analysing Nielsen’s convenience store (C-Track) retail scanner data. Nielsen’s C-Track is representative of all convenience store types and includes chain stores, non-chain and independent convenience stores, as well as gas stations. Cigar …

To investigate whether increasing state cigarette taxes and/or enacting stronger smoke-free air (SFA) policies have negative impact on convenience store density in a state, a proxy that is determined by store openings and closings, which reflects store profits.State-level business count estimates for convenience stores for 50 states and District of Columbia from 1997 to 2009 were analysed using two-way fixed effects regression techniques that control for state-specific and year-specific determinants of convenience store density. The impact of tax and SFA policies was examined using a quasi-experimental research design that exploits changes in cigarette taxes and SFA policies within a state over time.Taxes are found to be uncorrelated with the density of combined convenience stores and gas stations in a state. Taxes are positively correlated with the density of convenience stores; however, the magnitude of this correlation is small, with a 10% increase in state cigarette taxes associated with a 0.19% (p0.05) increase in the number of convenience stores per million people in a state. State-level SFA policies do not correlate with convenience store density in a state, regardless whether gas stations were included. These results are robust across different model specifications. In addition, they are robust with regard to the inclusion/exclusion of other state-level tobacco control measures and gasoline prices.Contrary to tobacco industry and related organisations' claims, higher cigarette taxes and stronger SFA policies do not negatively affect convenience stores.

Background Reduction of the availability of tobacco has been proposed as a means of reducing and denormalising tobacco use. Some retailers have stopped selling tobacco. Therefore, we investigated how willing New Zealand convenience store owners were to stop selling tobacco or sell nicotine replacement therapy. Promotion of their stores was offered as an incentive to stop selling tobacco. Methods We asked convenience store owners in the Auckland metropolitan region of New Zealand to choose one of three actions. The first was to stop selling tobacco for a short period of time; the second was to restrict the hours that they sold tobacco; the third was to display and sell nicotine replacement therapy. All participating retailers completed a short interview about selling tobacco. We also surveyed customers about nicotine replacement and cessation. Results One-third of eligible retailers agreed to participate. Most who participated (93%) were unwilling to stop or restrict tobacco sales and 2 (7%) had already stopped selling tobacco. Tobacco was perceived as a key product for their businesses. Very few customers who purchased cigarettes noticed nicotine replacement therapy or obtained it from convenience stores. Conclusions Substantially reducing the availability of tobacco in communities is likely to require legislative approaches, underpinned by sustained community pressure and support for convenience store owners who are willing to change their business model.