‘Point of sale advertising doesn’t make teens want to smoke’
Thursday 1st October 2009, 2:29PM BST.
TEENAGE shoppers do not believe that tobacco advertising at the point of sale encourages them to smoke, according to a survey.
Town retailer Phillip Morgan (pictured) questioned 101 teenage customers to find out whether they were influenced by cigarette displays in shops.
The results showed eight out of 10 thought the displays had no influence on them, he said.
‘There has been so much campaigning by Gasp for a display ban, despite there being no evidence that it will have any effect.
‘I decided to ask the young people themselves what they thought,’ said Mr Morgan, who owns the Paper Box and the Candy Shop.
Guernsey Adolescent Smokefree Project manager Vidya Amey said the results of Mr Morgan’s survey were interesting, but it did not change the organisation’s aim to reduce smoking among young people.
‘Gasp will always strive to protect children from tobacco marketing techniques,’ she said.
Gasp said that the number of children buying cigarettes from shops had almost trebled in the past two years – from 12% in 2007 to 35% this year.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
Congratulations to Mr Morgan for taking the effort to counter the extremist minority group GASP. Mr Morgan talks common sense while GASP spins propaganda which failed in Canada just as the smoking ban has failed miserably EVERYWHERE in the world.
The sooner these insidious extremist groups stop politicising health the sooner we’ll spend more money on health and less on interfering with our lives.
Point of sale gardening magazines have also not influenced teenagers to tend my lawn. much to my disappointment!
Report abuse
‘Point of sale advertising doesn’t make teens want to smoke’
On the contrary as town retailer Phillip Morgans’ survey clearly shows that it affects 20% of teenagers. Obviously the initiative to remove point of sale advertising and displays is to try and safegaurd this 20%.
Report abuse
So if point of sale advertising is ineffective why have it in the first place.
Surely it’s a pointless waste of space that could be more profitably employed with other products and promotions?
Therefore, as a sensible businessman, Mr Morgan will be removing these displays from his premises I assume?
Report abuse
Spanner (a rather apt name) – on what basis are you saying that the smoking ban has failed in either Guernsey or the UK? They are generally considered to be resounding successes by the people that I speak to.
Report abuse
‘Gasp said that the number of children buying cigarettes from shops had almost trebled in the past two years – from 12% in 2007 to 35% this year.’
I still have a problem with this, the PERCENTAGE has trebled. Where are the numbers?
Report abuse
Doug White
It was the question that first came to my mind when all this started.
What’s the point of a display if not to induce a sale?
If you let kids into the shop where tobacco is sold and there’s a big, bright and colourful advert and see adults laughing as they purchase their 40 Mayfair, it doesn’t take much school attendance to work out the connection between product and enjoyment, nicely summed up by a few billion quid in marketing expertise straight into your brain as you pay for your curly wurly.
Report abuse
I always find it helpful in cases such as this to turn the argument on its head …
If tobacco displays were not currently legal would anybody actively campaign to allow them to be introduced ?
Also try replacing the word “cigarettes” with the words “legal highs” ….. both are legal, both are dangerous – and we know exactly how dangerous cigarettes are ….
And again, if the displays create only 20% of cigarette sales then logically removing them would only lose Mr Morgan 20% of his sales – sales of addictive toxic chemicals to children …
Report abuse
Q.If tobacco displays were not currently legal would anybody actively campaign to allow them to be introduced?
A.Town retailer Phillip Morgan
Report abuse
Spanner!! Just because you say something doesn’t make it true. Research throughout Europe, especially the Swedish study has shown that removing POS tobacco advertising creates a substantial (70%+) reduction in prevalence of underage smoking.
Mr Morgan’s own study shows that 20% of teens fancy a cigarette when Mr Morgan suggests that they have one.
i guess the argument comes down to this… if you’re a smoker, you’re going to buy cigarettes whether they’re advertised or not. If you don’t want to smoke, you’re not going to buy cigarettes. So, the only people being targeted are the impressionable or undecided. If we agree that smoking is a bad thing, then surely we should not encourage the impressionable to try it?
Report abuse
Isn’t it about time we stopped calling them ‘cigarettes’ and call them ‘nicotine inhalers’. Nicotine-free cigarettes have been available in the past, but did not sell – why? Nicotine is a highly addictive substance and anyone who ‘smokes’ is merely another drug addict! Point of sale doesn’t encourage a smoker any more than a non-smoker to buy cigareetes. What it does is re-enforce the smoker who’s not quite sure – that it’s ok to smoke, even glamourous for heavens sake!
Adults are just as vulnerable as youngsters but young people especially, should be made to see the ‘con’ and not be so keen to look ‘grown-up’ – because that is the bottom line and everyone knows it, regardless of all the fancy excuses people come up with!
Don’t kid yourselves – the cigarette smoker is merely another drug addict.
Report abuse
Right – this is the usual “for and against” debate.
And Student Bob is spot on.
However I’d say the peer pressure and society in general is a far greater force in this matter.
Go and have a mooch around St Sampsons High at lunch times (not too furtively or you’ll be arrested!) – you’ll see that there are large numbers of children who are smoking quite openly (in the vicinity). Do the same at Elizabeth College and you won’t. Interesting eh?
Report abuse
I think Mr Morgan hasn’t quite appreciated the no-win nature of the argument he’s entered.
If advertising has no effect, then removing it will not decrease sales. So Mr Morgan won’t be out of pocket, and so doesn’t need to worry.
If advertising does have an effect, then removing it will decrease sales. Fewer cigarettes sold equals fewer cigarettes smoked equals fewer deaths and health problems caused by smoking. Which is a good thing. Or perhaps Mr Morgan would think it isn’t?
Either way, getting rid of advertising sounds fine to me.
Report abuse
I’d like to throw another thought into the discussion: Mr. Morgan’s “survey” is inherently worthless.
Asking people if they are influenced by advertising is a stunningly pointless exercise, for a couple of reasons I can think of:
(1) Few people, especially teenagers, will readily admit to being so “gullible” when you phrase a question that way.
(2) Few people are aware of the influence advertising has over them anyway, and are not in a position to give a meaningful answer.
If you want a reliable answer, follow the money. Tobacco executives are sufficiently convinced that advertising works to pour millions into it every year, and to fight tooth & nail to keep it in place.
Report abuse
We all know advertising sells,but do we really want a “Big Brother” state where decision making is taken away from us.I am a non-smoker and have never smoked, but if this ban goes ahead then don’t be surprised when the next target of the “Health Police”, is a ban on Alcohol advertising, and Chocolate advertising.
Report abuse
DJ, I don’t think the “thin end of the wedge” argument really holds that much water here.
There isn’t really anything good to be said about cigarettes, and plenty of bad things. Chocolate and alcohol, on the other hand, while they might have some disadvantages if used to excess, are harmless (or potentially beneficial) under normal circumstances.
Look back in history at all sort of things that were banned, which we are grateful for now. Slavery. Wife beating. Child marriage. The list could go on. As people tried to ban each one, you can bet there was someone saying “it’s the thin end of the wedge. They want to ban this now, and it’ll be x next. Do we really want ‘big brother’?”
Report abuse
DJ, there are already plenty of guidelines restricting and governing the advertising of alcohol and junk food. No-one complains about these because every right-minded person appreciates that it is the sensible thing to do.
Why should smoking be any different?
I’d suggest that our leaders would be negligent if they didn’t try and stop the promotion of an addiction that kills millions.
Report abuse
I don’t smoke, tried it and to be honest I think I could smoke if i felt like it. But all my family smoke, I don’t see the point of wasting all that money to at some points get so stressed to need a little white stick that can kill you! People are craving death at the end of the day, I want to live my life, No advert could make me want to start smoking or try it again. I think alcohol should be banned from being advertised before they ban fags from being displayed, think about it, who do you know that has ben killed from someing smoking and driving!? you can be arrested for drinking, yet its advertised, well done people, this makes wonderful sense, NOT!
Report abuse
Gilthead – you make me chuckle – is that because the Elizabethans are too intelligent to smoke? Or is it that they too smoke – they just darent do it in uniform in full public display? I think if you look in the right places in the nooks and crannys of the town area you will find plenty of college boys enjoying a puff!
Report abuse