This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Pierce, J. P. Articles by Gilpin, E. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pierce, J. P. Articles by Gilpin, E. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

How Did the Master Settlement Agreement Change Tobacco Industry Expenditures for Cigarette Advertising and Promotions?

Cancer research and director of Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California-San Diego, La Jolla, California.

Elizabeth A. Gilpin, MS

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine; Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Moores Cancer Center, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California.

The 1998 multistate Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the tobacco industry restricted cigarette advertising and promotions. The MSA monetary settlement was also associated with an average cigarette price increase of U.S.$1.19/pack between 1998 and 2001 to fund, in part, industry payments to the states. We examined Federal Trade Commission reports on how the tobacco industry spends its cigarette advertising and promotional dollars to see if changes expected as a result of the MSA occurred. Expected changes included reduced total expenditures and reductions for outdoor advertising, specialty promotional items identified with a brand (e.g., caps, t-shirts, lighters), and public entertainment. However, tobacco industry spending for advertising and promotions increased 96% between 1995 and 2001, with large increases in 1998 and 1999, as the MSA took effect. Between 1997 and 2001, outdoor advertising declined 98%, expenditures for specialty promotional items decreased 41%, although public entertainment increased 45%. However, in 2001, these categories represented only a small fraction of the total budget. Expenditures for retailvalue-added increased 344% between 1997 and 2001 (to 42.5% of total), perhaps to mitigate increased cigarette prices. In 2001, the incentives-to-merchants and retail-value-added categories comprised more than 80% of total expenditures. To adequately monitor tobacco industry expenditures as they adapt to the MSA and other tobacco control efforts, more refined reporting categories are essential.

Key Words: smoking • adolescents • marketing

Health Promotion Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3 suppl, 84S-90S (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1524839904264600


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. R. Alpert, H. K. Koh, and G. N. Connolly After The Master Settlement Agreement: Targeting And Exposure Of Youth To Magazine Tobacco Advertising Health Aff., November 1, 2008; 27(6): w503 - w512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B R Loomis, M C Farrelly, J M Nonnemaker, and N H Mann Point of purchase cigarette promotions before and after the Master Settlement Agreement: exploring retail scanner data. Tob. Control, April 1, 2006; 15(2): 140 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Gilpin, J. M. Distefan, and J. P. Pierce Population Receptivity to Tobacco Advertising/ Promotions and Exposure to Anti-Tobacco Media: Effect of Master Settlement Agreement in California: 1992-2002 Health Promot Pract, July 1, 2004; 5(3_suppl): 91S - 98S. [Abstract] [PDF]