Experimental auctions of smokeless tobacco & cigarettes: Impact of information and trials
Matthew C. Rousu, Richard O’Connor, James F. Thrasher,
Kristie Kibby, Maansi Travers, James Pitcavidge
ABSTACT
Objectives:
Beginning in the mid 2000’s, cigarette manufacturers such as Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds began to market smokeless tobacco (ST) products of varying forms, often ‘co-branded’ with their existing cigarette products. Examples of such products include Camel Snus, Marlboro Snus, Camel Dissolvables, and Marlboro Sticks. Epidemiological and toxicological evidence suggests that using these types of smokeless tobacco products can be substantially less harmful than cigarette smoking.
Despite the clear reduced risk of these products compared to cigarettes, there is substantial debate within the public health community about whether to encourage smokers to move toward ST. Information is needed, however, on smokers’ preferences for ST products. In this study, we conducted in-person experimental auctions to test the impact of information and product trials on smokers’ preferences. Our goal is to examine the extent to which providing information and product trials affects smokers’ demand for smokeless tobacco products and cigarettes, as well as to provide evidence on whether information or product trials could help prompt smokers to use ST.
Data/Methods: Experimental Design
Participants from Buffalo NY, Columbia SC, and Selinsgrove PA participated in experimental auctions of three smokeless tobacco products and Marlboro cigarettes. The ST products were Camel Snus, Ariva Dissolvables, or Nicorette Lozenges. These were actual auctions – using the random nth price auction mechanism – where the auction winners purchased cigarettes. Auctions were conducted with eight to sixteen participants at a time, and a total of 571 smokers participated. Prior to bidding in the auction, treatments were randomly assigned to groups of participants. The treatments fell into two broad classes: information (5 conditions) and product trial (3 conditions). The information was presented in three separate brochure formats of similar style and tone, based on peer-reviewed literature and created by the study investigators. For the free trial treatments, participants were offered the opportunity to try either Camel Snus, Ariva Dissolvables, or Nicorette Lozenges, depending on assigned condition.
Results
The table shows bids across cities. Our regression results (reported in paper but not in this abstract) provide evidence that to increase demand for ST products, providing smokers with anti-smoking information is more effective than information on smokeless tobacco. For all ST products auctioned, we found a statistically significant increase in demand among those who received only anti-smoking information for at least one of the model specifications. Receiving only pro-smokeless tobacco information or both pro-smokeless tobacco and anti-smoking information did not influence ST demand.
Table: Mean bids across cities
|
Bid_SNUS |
BID_ARIVA |
BID_NICORETTE |
BID_CIGARETTES |
Buffalo (N=209) |
$1.86 |
$2.24 |
$3.06 |
$5.34 |
Columbia (N=195) |
$0.84 |
$1.08 |
$1.51 |
$2.72 |
Selinsgrove (N=167) |
$1.00 |
$1.35 |
$1.55 |
$4.22 |
Overall (N=571) |
$1.26 |
$1.58 |
$2.09 |
$4.12 |