Convenience store visitors recall cigarette advertisements even if they do not purchase cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: This study examined the extent to which visitors to convenience stores remember the cigarette advertisements they encounter in these stores and investigated the relationships between how advertisements are recalled and attitudes toward them. METHODS: Exit surveys of 1007 visitors to three convenience stores located in Seoul, Korea, were conducted between 25 November 2015 and 7 December 2015. RESULTS: Of the respondents, 23.4% (n = 236) freely recalled the cigarette advertisement in the store just visited. However, the percentage of participants who correctly recalled the advertisement increased to 55.2% (n = 556) after we presented them with a card showing options for the advertisement (i.e. a cued recall task). Regardless of sex or purchasing cigarettes, free recall performance was significantly associated with age, number of weekly visits to the convenience store and current smoking status. In addition, free recall increased with having a positive attitude toward cigarette advertisements. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated visits to convenience stores may continue to expose individuals to cigarettes and their advertisements; such exposure may subconsciously affect recall of the advertisements and maintenance of a positive attitude toward cigarette advertisements. Therefore, to denormalize smoking in society, cigarette advertising and displays at points of sale including convenience stores, should be banned.

Differences in visual fixation duration according to the position of graphic health warning labels: An eye-tracking approach.

INTRODUCTION: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) recommends that graphic health warning labels (GHWLs) be positioned at the top of the principal area of cigarette packs, rather than at the bottom, to increase visibility. However, during the legislative process of introducing GHWLs in South Korea, the position of GHWLs has become a contested issue. The pro-tobacco industry group argued that the warnings should be placed at the bottom of cigarette packs because evidence for the effectiveness of the upper position was insufficient. Therefore, this study investigated whether the position of the GHWL affects eye movement. METHODS: Participants (30 daily smokers and 24 non-smokers) were shown six cigarette packs in random order with different position combinations (top, middle, bottom) and image concepts (skin aging, toxic constituents). Participants' eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking equipment to measure visual fixation duration in milliseconds (ms). RESULTS: Participants visually fixated longer on the health warning area than on the tobacco branding area (p<0.05). Mean fixation duration on the health warning area was significantly longer at the top or middle positions compared to the bottom, by 28% (mean difference=340 ms, p=0.006) and by 30% (mean difference=368 ms, p=0.002), respectively. By contrast, mean fixation duration on the branding area was longer with the warning at the bottom compared to top or middle positions by 25% and 33%, with mean differences of 157 ms (p=0.100) and 212 ms (p=0.026), respectively. No significant difference in fixation time was observed between the top and middle positions (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The duration of visual fixation on GHWLs was longer when they were displayed at the top and middle, rather than at the bottom. Therefore, GHWLs should be positioned from the top to the middle of the tobacco package.

Tobacco company strategies for maintaining cigarette advertisements and displays in retail chain stores: In-depth interviews with Korean convenience store owners.

INTRODUCTION: This study gathered data from store owners regarding the advertising and display of, and the contractual arrangements and promotional activities related to, the sale of tobacco products in convenience stores. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with three owners of convenience stores in South Korea: to examine the procedures for managing the sale of tobacco products; for allocating the advertising allowance for such products; and for coordinating the promotional activities of tobacco companies. RESULTS: All tobacco advertisements and displays in convenience stores are installed and managed in accordance with the contract between the tobacco companies and the convenience store headquarters. The headquarters receives an allowance from the tobacco company in return for maintaining and displaying their product and promotional materials. The headquarters then pays a monthly advertising allowance to each franchisee as an operating subsidy. However, the owners also stated that tobacco companies provide financial incentives directly to them to engage in illegal promotional activities. CONCLUSIONS: Because tobacco advertisements and displays at convenience stores are related to the profitability of these products, the participants in these relationships have become increasingly entangled. Illegal promotional activities must be monitored to limit tobacco sales and advertising. Furthermore, efforts to ban the advertising and display of tobacco products at the point of sale must be based on the development of policies emerging from an understanding of the roles of the major stakeholders.