Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Tobacco retail displays: A comparison of industry arguments and retailers' experiences

  • Janet Hoek*
  • , Rhonwyn Vaudrey
  • , Philip Gendall
  • , Richard Edwards
  • , George Thomson
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Otago
  • Massey University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Tobacco companies have opposed the removal of tobacco retail displays, arguing this would compromise retailers' safety, increase retail crime, reduce retailers' income, impose additional costs and be inconvenient. These arguments have successfully delayed policy development in several jurisdictions. Methods: In-depth interviews conducted with New Zealand retailers who had voluntarily removed tobacco from open display in their stores. Results: Retailers who had removed tobacco displays did so primarily to reduce their security risk and found their stores had become less vulnerable to retail crime. They did not find removing displays costly or inconvenient nor had this decision significantly reduced their revenue. Conclusions: Removing in-store tobacco displays may increase rather than decrease store safety. Our findings reveal that retailers' experiences differed in many ways from tobacco companies' predictions and suggest that industry arguments against display removal lack objective support and are self-serving.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)497-501
Number of pages5
JournalTobacco Control
Volume21
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept 2012
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
  2. SDG 16 - Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Tobacco retail displays: A comparison of industry arguments and retailers' experiences'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this