Department of Marketing, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Tob Control. 2012 Sep;21(5):497-501. doi: 10.1136/tc.2011.043687. Epub 2011 Aug 17.
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.
In-depth interviews conducted with New Zealand retailers who had voluntarily removed tobacco from open display in their stores.
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.
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.
烟草公司反对移除烟草零售展示,声称这将危及零售商的安全,增加零售犯罪,减少零售商的收入,增加额外成本,且不方便。这些论点成功地延迟了一些司法管辖区的政策制定。
对新西兰自愿将烟草从店内展示架上撤下的零售商进行深入访谈。
移除烟草展示架的零售商主要是为了降低安全风险,发现他们的商店变得不易受到零售犯罪的侵害。他们没有发现移除展示架的成本高昂或不便,也没有发现这一决定显著减少了他们的收入。
移除店内烟草展示架可能会增加而不是降低商店的安全性。我们的研究结果表明,零售商的经历在许多方面与烟草公司的预测不同,这表明行业反对移除展示架的论点缺乏客观支持,是出于自身利益考虑的。