A fist full of coupons: cigarette continuity programmes
Objectives — To describe "frequent smoker programme" and estimate the economic value of proof-of-purchase coupons of different cigarette brands. Design — Descriptive study of cigarette continuity programmes operating between 1993 and 1995. Frequent smoker programme catalogues were obtained...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Tobacco control 1995-09, Vol.4 (3), p.245-252 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives — To describe "frequent smoker programme" and estimate the economic value of proof-of-purchase coupons of different cigarette brands. Design — Descriptive study of cigarette continuity programmes operating between 1993 and 1995. Frequent smoker programme catalogues were obtained from points of sale and by calling cigarette companies. When possible, coupon values were calculated by comparing coupon requirements in these catalogues to retail prices for identical items. To estimate the value of more generic merchandise, several items were obtained and compared to retail merchandise. Local merchants and smokers appraised the value of apparently unique merchandise. Setting — Lexington, Kentucky, USA. Participants — Local merchants and smokers. Main outcome measure — The rebate value of proof-of-purchase coupons. Results — Frequent smoker coupons vary in retail value from $0.0075 to $0.52. As percentage of local purchase price, they vary from less than 3% to as much as 44% of retail prices. The new continuity programmes usually offer theme oriented merchandise "branded" with cigarette emblems. The new programmes introduced novel smoking incentives, such as team smoking events. Incidental observations suggest that coupon values do not fully predict the popularity of a programme. Conclusions — Frequent smoker programmes provide modest real economic incentives for smoking, and probably create or reinforce other incentives to smoke. Health care providers may wish to anticipate the impact of these programmes in their discussions with smokers. Public health officials need to study the promotional impact of these programmes, and should consider regulating them. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0964-4563 1468-3318 |
DOI: | 10.1136/tc.4.3.245 |