- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
- HAYDEN: Intelligence, evidence and the case against Russia
- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
NYC looks to bump tobacco from prime retail space
Question of the Day
NEW YORK (AP) - Walk into any convenience store or gas station in the country, and chances are the cigarettes will be in roughly the same spot: at eye level, right behind the cash register.
That’s no coincidence. Tobacco companies have worked hard, and paid handsomely, to ensure that cigarette displays occupy the retail equivalent of prime real estate. In 2010 alone, the industry made $370 million in payments to retailers to help lock down prime shelving space, according to a report last year by the Federal Trade Commission. It spent an additional $107 million on in-store advertising.
“Every consumer-product goods manufacturer in the country wants to be there,” said Kurt M. Ribisl, a professor at the University of North Carolina who studies tobacco marketing. “People making chips and Doritos and Pepsi _ all of these companies want that space. But the tobacco industry wins.”
Now, that supremacy could be in jeopardy in one of the nation’s biggest cigarette markets.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a bill this week that would force retailers to keep cigarettes out of public view until a customer asks for a pack.
The rule would effectively require merchants to keep tobacco products in closed cabinets or drawers, rather than on the colorful displays, dubbed “power walls,” that are familiar just about everywhere in the U.S.
A second bill would take aim at the system of discounts and incentives that manufacturers have long used to woo retail customers and keep merchants happy. It would ban coupons and buy-one-get-one-free promotions for tobacco products and eliminate deep discounts by creating a price floor for each pack.
It is too early to tell whether either measure will survive the legislative process or an almost-certain court challenge. Tobacco companies and convenience store owners have assailed both proposals as unfair and maybe unconstitutional. An industry lawsuit forced the New York village of Haverstraw to quickly rescind a similar ban enacted last April. The city of Providence, R.I., was sued over an anti-coupon ordinance, much like the one proposed in New York.
Even more unclear is whether the policy would actually lead to fewer people smoking.
A number of nations, including Ireland, Canada and Australia, have restricted retail tobacco displays, but most experts say the policies haven’t been in place long enough to know whether they have had a strong impact.
Big immediate drops in sales are unlikely, said Ribisl, who favors tighter restriction on tobacco marketing. But he predicted that the display rules _ and especially the new prohibitions on discounts and coupons _ might lead to a modest reduction in smoking rates over time.
An FTC report last year said the industry gave $6.49 billion worth of price discounts to cigarette retailers and wholesalers in 2010.
“When you stop discounting and multipack specials, you are now thwarting the tobacco industry’s ability to prey on low-income smokers,” Ribisl said.
Scientists at the nonprofit research firm RTI International recently published the results of an experiment in which they had 1,200 young people take virtual shopping trips through computerized convenience stories. It found that kids were less likely to make fantasy purchases of cigarettes in shops where tobacco products were hidden in cabinets.
It is hard to say whether that type of simulation would repeat itself in real life, said Annice Kim, a social scientist who was involved in the project. But she said that one theory is that simply making a product less visible makes people less likely to make an impulse buy.
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- White House readies for House GOP impeachment push: 'Foolish' to ignore
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq