Abstract
Many factors can shift cigarette brand preference, and surveillance is an important tactic to inform regulatory strategy. The objective of this study was to identify shifts in top brands’ overall and menthol market share from 2014 to 2019. We used data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health public use datasets, which are a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of people aged 12+ in the USA. In our analysis of top brands, we accounted for consumption patterns and computed the percent change in market share for each brand. We observed that overall market share declined for nearly all brands, though top moderately priced brands gained share. Half of the top brands with menthol styles grew in menthol market share. We observed three primary shifts in the cigarette market: brands that gained the most menthol market share were brands with both menthol and non-menthol in their product lineups; menthol contributed substantially to discount brands’ market share increases; the two premium brands that employed “natural” descriptors experienced increased market share. Research should continue to focus on trends that influence cigarette market share, as the cigarette market in the USA is likely to look very different in five years than it does today.
Highlights
A 2020 study of two decades of cigarette consumption and sales data demonstrated that menthol cigarettes are becoming increasingly dominant in the tobacco marketplace: menthol cigarette market shares have increased, while non-menthol cigarette shares have
As our analysis focused on cigarette brand market share, we adjusted the weighting variable by multiplying it by the average number of cigarettes consumed each day and the total number of days that participants reported smoking in the past month
We expanded on a previous study [3] to further examine market share for popular cigarette brands in the United States from 2014 to 2019; an important addition is the analysis of menthol subbrands, the only allowable cigarette flavoring post-Tobacco Control Act (TCA) and a source of demonstrated public health inequities
Summary
Academic Editors: MichaelFor nearly a quarter of a century, most traditional advertising channels have been closed to cigarette manufacturers by the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 (MSA) [1].Despite these barriers, the tobacco industry continues to be invested in promoting products to consumers through any permissible channel, and cigarettes remain one of the most heavily promoted products in the United States, with industry-wide advertising expenditures of more than USD 7.5 billion in 2019 [2].In the years since the MSA and the subsequent Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009 [3,4], which introduced additional restrictions to advertising and promotion, and the Children’sHealth Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (S-CHIP), which introduced a61.6 cent federal excise tax (FET) increase on cigarettes [5], most tobacco promotional spending has been spent on price discounts. For nearly a quarter of a century, most traditional advertising channels have been closed to cigarette manufacturers by the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 (MSA) [1]. Despite these barriers, the tobacco industry continues to be invested in promoting products to consumers through any permissible channel, and cigarettes remain one of the most heavily promoted products in the United States, with industry-wide advertising expenditures of more than USD 7.5 billion in 2019 [2]. In the years since the MSA and the subsequent Tobacco Control Act (TCA) of 2009 [3,4], which introduced additional restrictions to advertising and promotion, and the Children’s. A 2020 study of two decades of cigarette consumption and sales data demonstrated that menthol cigarettes are becoming increasingly dominant in the tobacco marketplace: menthol cigarette market shares have increased, while non-menthol cigarette shares have
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
