Retailers’ perspectives on selling tobacco in a low-income San Francisco neighbourhood after California’s $2 tobacco tax increase

Abstract

BackgroundCalifornia’s tobacco tax increased by $2.00 per pack in 2017. Although such increases are among the most effective tobacco control strategies, little is known about their impact from the perspective of corner store owners in low-income neighbourhoods with high concentrations of tobacco outlets.MethodsWe interviewed 38 corner store owners and managers in San Francisco’s Tenderloin, the district with the city’s highest tobacco outlet density, 60–90 days following implementation of the tax increase. Questions focused on perceptions of the impact of the higher tobacco tax on their revenues, customers and tobacco company promotions. We used qualitative content analysis to identify, compare and reconcile key themes.ResultsMost retailers reported a decline in cigarette sales, with customers buying fewer cigarettes, switching to cheaper brands or other products like marijuana, or trying to quit smoking. Retailers described challenges associated with running a small business and selling tobacco and concerns about selling a product that is ‘bad’ for customers’ health. Contrary to expectation, tobacco companies appeared to be offering few product promotions in this neighbourhood.ConclusionsSmall, independent retailers’ concerns, about selling tobacco and about the health and well-being of customers, suggest that such retailers may be important allies in tobacco control efforts,particularly those focused on the point-of-sale.

Are California’s Local Flavored Tobacco Sales Restrictions Effective in Reducing the Retail Availability of Flavored Tobacco Products? A Multicomponent Evaluation

“…Interventions that aid retailers with transitioning from tobacco to alternative product lines may alleviate some of their economic concerns ( Ribisl et al 2016 ). With this assistance, the expected economic benefits to the community—including increased jobs, economic activity, and reduced healthcare costs ( Chaloupka & Glantz, 2021 )—as well as concern for the health of their customers ( Chavez et al 2019 ) may outweigh any short-term financial losses that lessen retail employees’ support for local flavor ordinance.…”

E-cigarette and cigarette purchasing among young adults before and after implementation of California’s tobacco 21 policy

“…The impact of T21 on purchasing behaviour could have been impacted by one of several other policy changes or campaigns in California during the data collection period. During this time, many anti-tobacco campaigns targeting youth were implemented23–26 and the tax on tobacco products in California was increased (2017) 27. Anti-tobacco campaigns in California or nationally, or increases in the tobacco tax in California, might be expected to supplement T21 and result in changes to overall use and to purchasing behaviour 28–30.…”

Tobacco company agreements with tobacco retailers for price discounts and prime placement of products and advertising: a scoping review

“…Seventeen studies were conducted in the USA,6 14 17 23–36 three in Australia,37–39 two in the UK,8 15 two in South Korea7 40 and one each in Canada,41 New Zealand,42 and Indonesia 43. The earliest was published in 199114 and the most recent were published in 2020 17 25 38 39.…”

“…For example, one retailer interviewed in the UK reported reserving two-thirds of their tobacco unit space for a contracted manufacturer15 and another in the USA recounted that manufacturer representatives required 45% of the tobacco retail space to be dedicated to that particular manufacturer 29. Studies also reported that representatives regularly visited retailers and, to varying degrees, had control over the store design, layout, and placement of tobacco products and advertisements 6 8 15 17 24 27 32 37 40. Slotting fees (ie, payments from the manufacturer to the retailer in exchange for shelf space) were also commonly reported as an incentive in different contracts,7 particularly in the USA 6 17 24 28.…”