June 11, 2008
Brain Trust Query: Will Ontario’s new Tobacco Display Law Prevent Young People from Lighting Up?
By Doron Levy, president, Captus Business Consulting
“Big Tobacco” can always be counted on to stir up controversy. Now small retailers and the government of Ontario are battling over new tobacco sales regulations that have retailers wishing these new laws would go up in smoke.
As of May 31st, 2008, it is illegal in Ontario to display or merchandise tobacco products in plain sight to the customer. It is also illegal for sales staff to assist or suggest tobacco products to customers. Ontario’s unofficial motto for these new regulations is: Out of Sight, Out of Mind.
To justify this law, Ontario has cited studies that suggest minors are less tempted to start smoking when not actually presented with the appearance of cigarette products. In non-government English: What kids don’t know, won’t kill them.
This new law has caused retailers merchandising headaches as most stores have had cigarettes prominently displayed behind the front cash in plain view to the customer. Retailers must now conceal tobacco products from plain view and staff must be made aware that they cannot assist or suggest products to any customers. As well, staff must vigorously enforce the legal smoking age law by requesting identification from anyone who appears under 25 years old.
Since pharmacies and most grocery stores that sell health related products have long since banned tobacco sales, cigarettes are mainly available from small convenience stores and gas stations. The new law increases costs to retailers because they have to refixture their entire tobacco section to conform to new regulations. Noted so far is the use of black metal flaps installed over the entire section to conceal the packs. These flaps are installed at a cost of approximately $1500 to $2000. Major brand gas stations with their huge profits can easily absorb this cost, but what about the small family-owned convenience store? An amount of $1500 to $2000 could represent a few weeks or even a month of sales to pay for something that is meant to eventually reduce sales.
Discussion Question: Will Ontario’s new Tobacco Display Law prevent young people from lighting up? Are the costs that small store owners have to incur to install new fixtures justified? Are there other, more effective ways to stop minors from starting the habit?
[Author’s commentary] Now, while I agree with the general concept of this, I am having trouble understanding how a big display that used to be there and is now covered with large metal black flaps and covered in “Must Be 19 to Smoke” stickers will prevent young people from knowing that cigarettes are available to them. I believe smoking should be regulated as it is truly detrimental to one’s health. But I believe that retailers should not be the ones responsible for footing the bill for this regulation and the re-fixturing involved.
A local convenience store owner I spoke with said, “Imperial Tobacco paid for a portion of the new fixtures but not for all of it. It almost makes sense to stop selling cigarettes and put movies or something else on the shelf.”
My opinion is that smoking should be heavily regulated but at the manufacturer level – by decreasing pack and cigarette size. Tobacco products should not be allowed to have fancy or colorful labels and should only be packaged in plain white boxes. If the government wants to decrease smoking, perhaps a campaign to make smoking as boring as possible would have the best results.
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
If grocery stores and pharmacies in Ontario have already banned tobacco sales, why is a “coverup” allowed for small convenience stores and gas stations? I’d like to see the research results on whether smoking by minors is reduced as a result of this approach. I don’t really see covers as being effective as everyone knows what is being displayed there due to the signs. A targeted public campaign especially geared to young people might have a better result.
The sign that says, “Must Be 19 to Smoke,” is what will still lure young smokers into the “glamour” of purchasing tobacco products.
“Out of sight, out of mind?” Are they out of their minds? I had to laugh when I read that. When I was a kid, condoms were all kept behind the counter, never advertised, and never discussed. So, um, as kids, did we stop thinking about sex? Sorry, guys. I’m about as anti-tobacco as you’ll find, but this just hurts the small retailer, and it’s the wrong approach anyway.
Although I do not believe the new display law will deter smoking among youths, I do believe this law has opened up a massive consumer communication opportunity via billboard advertising on the fronts of “Well Built” back wall tobacco enclosures.
This is the largest advertising vehicle to come available in the last 50 years. Any company that is trying to reach the various demographic groups who frequent C-Store and Gas retailers should be jumping on board to acquire this space.
What better way to talk to your target consumer then this. It is a shame that because no major advertisers had the vision to fund this “relatively inexpensive” renovation, independent retailers were forced to go it alone. The result is cheap poorly built systems that do not lend themselves to a clean advertising space on the front panels.
I hope that a few visionary marketers get on board and assist retailers by providing a durable long term solution that can adequately carry a good looking advertisement to the C-store customer.
Simply silly. And to think full grown, seemingly educated adults actually met, debated, decided that they had a brilliant approach and endured the arduous process of putting laws in place to enforce it.
One would think they would at least employ the services of a child development psychologist to advise on adolescent human behavior vs. coming up with another neat bumper sticker slogan form of governance. Seeing cigs behind the counter doesn’t influence kids to purchase if they didn’t think it was cool to smoke in the first place.
This is more whacking at the ever-growing leaves vs. killing the problem at the root.
Without doubt, it will be something to brag about in an upcoming re-election campaign.
While this may make it more difficult for young people to buy cigarettes, It certainly won’t dissuade anyone from actually smoking. It’s simply a waste of time and effort to pass such regulations.
A similar suggestion was floated by the British government recently although it has not become law (yet). The idea was to put cigarettes out of sight completely, not to highlight their presence with big curtains that said we’re here but you can’t have them. As for the cost of re-organising the shelves, retailers sell cigarettes precisely because they make money and attract people in to buy other things along with their cigarettes rather than vice versa. So expecting them to pay to reduce their own income doesn’t entirely make sense to me. Perhaps teenagers could be persuaded to buy condoms instead, reducing pregnancy rates and lung cancer at the same time.
I applaud their efforts and it may help some but probably not enough to justify the expenses involved. But as has been pointed out, at least they are doing something to reduce the amount of young people taking up smoking.
The easiest way to sell more of something is to make it hard to get. Just tell someone they cannot have something and they will want it all the more.
The Canadian government is doing a great job of helping the bottom line of the fixture companies.
Just like alcohol and casinos, the government denounces drinking and gambling on one hand, but loves the huge tax revenue they get on the other.
If any sinful product is really “that bad,” the government would outright ban it. But as long as they get a cut of the action, they are happy. Take a look at all the casino and pro-line TV ads…they have sports fans staring at their ticket in hopes of a win. And how many anti-drinking ads do you see? I don’t see many.
The new way retailers must display tobacco sounds good in theory, but will it really make smokers quit or affect teens thinking about taking up the habit? I doubt it. I’ve yet to meet a smoker who has quit due to soaring prices. A black rack won’t deter them either. As for deterring young people, it’ll probably attract them!
That’s the way it goes. Money talks as usual.
Well at least Canada is trying, although maybe not all that wisely. When I think that here in Arizona they just recently stopped smoking in restaurants, Canada’s efforts look pretty good.
But David hit the mark with his sound insight. Most efforts to bring about deep cultural change like “How about not killing yourself with tobacco?” usually end up working against the intended cause. “Must be 19 to smoke” does in fact reinforce the idea of smoking. It gives a kid something to aim for like being tall enough for the big rides at the fair. We need to brand a desired state rather than emphasize the situation we want to avoid.
Once again this is just another cop out by the provincial government. Rather than working directly with smokers to help them kick the habit, they take the easy way out and try to disrupt the supply chain. Will this work? In the past, higher sin taxes have only resulted in a stronger black market.
Whether you agree with the selling of cigarettes or not, the fact is that they are a legal product and the government makes a mint from the tax dollars they bring in. So until that changes, the only reductions we’ll see are the sales at your local convenience store.
Smoking is an addiction, caused by nicotine. Why doesn’t Ontario ban all nicotine products except those sold to stop smoking? Why doesn’t Ontario bill tobacco companies for all the health care for smokers with emphysema and lung cancer? And why all the sympathy for mom and pop stores? Aren’t they helping to kill their customers just like the chain stores that still sell cigarettes?
In 2003, Ontario raised cigarette taxes a measly 25 cents a pack. Why not raise the cigarette tax by $5 a pack? Why not require cigarette retailers to buy licenses for $50,000 annually, per location?
Indeed the new law was never about retail policy–it is about public health.
No one has suggested that any small measure will stop smoking by itself, but the last 20 years of small changes in public education and social perceptions has undeniably reduced the number of young people becoming ensnared by the addiction. Smoking in public spaces is all but gone in Ontario and numbers of new smokers are falling steadily as a result of many small measures working in concert over long periods of time.
In a province of 12 million people that pays the full tab for treatment of the cancers and respiratory damage caused by smoking, research has proven that taxpayers save far more money when young people don’t become addicted than is collected in sales tax on tobacco products.
Many predicted the apocalypse a decade ago when most pharmacies in Canada decided to voluntarily withdraw from selling tobacco entirely–the result was that most became better merchandisers of profitable health and beauty aids and other merchandise. Dollar sales and square footage has increased considerably since that time.
As a third generation retailer I can only say, get over it and become better retailers.
“It almost makes sense to stop selling cigarettes and put movies or something else on the shelf.”
Perhaps that really is the goal. Methinks the respondents here protesteth too much: despite the “forbidden fruit” et al arguments put forth, prohibitions really DO reduce consumption–at least partially–but they also produce unintended consequences, since they never prohibit completely, and there is a problem in criminalizing/stigmatizing a behavior which is still widespread. This (type of) legislation seems like it’s on the “can’t help, but won’t hurt” end of the good intentions spectrum…and I always get a kick out of these regulations that give specific age limits for which ID must be requested: if age could be accurately determined, ID wouldn’t be needed in the first place.
The new Tobacco Display Law will not prevent young people from smoking. It places a financial burden on the small retailer but it will take the threat of putting alternative products in the shelf to persuade tobacco companies to pay for all the fixtures. What other choice will they have?
There isn’t one silver bullet answer to persuade minors from starting the habit. I worked on the California anti-smoking campaign, and it was the combination of multiple efforts (including those similar to this one) that decreased smoking in minors and/or placed a stigma on underage smoking.
It’s not fair for small merchants to take on additional costs, the burden should be on the tobacco companies to help the retailer sell their product within the established law.
Interestingly enough, birth control (condoms) was also kept out of sight. From the results, sex did not become “out of mind.”
Since when is it okay to ask the retailers to perform the parental function of raising our children and informing them of the “evils” of smoking? If society is to have an effect on this health hazard, it begins at home and not in the middle with the retailer.
Time will only tell, but for my vote, young adults are very outgoing and will have no problem asking or looking for what they want, no matter the deterrent.
As an Ontario resident I’ve watched the grocery and drug stores be creative and build mini stores at the front entrance (with a separate entrance) to sell tobacco for many years. My local grocery in currently renovating and has now moved Lottery into the same “Smoke” store. This actually makes sense since you also need to be 18 years old to by lottery tickets.
A large sign now covers the glass windows of the store noting that entrants must be 18 years of age. I expected to see the cigars still in the cabinets, but was shocked to see all of the cabinets covered. It looked like an empty store selling lottery tickets, except for the distinguishable smell of cigars.
I figured since you had to be off age to enter the store you’d still get to see the merchandise, but no. Gone are the days when you could discuss your cigar purchase with the skilled merchant.
I think this law has finally gone too far. It’s going to hurt most of these businesses in too many ways. I know the local stores count on the other impulse purchases made by smokers and I fear those days are waning.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
If grocery stores and pharmacies in Ontario have already banned tobacco sales, why is a “coverup” allowed for small convenience stores and gas stations? I’d like to see the research results on whether smoking by minors is reduced as a result of this approach. I don’t really see covers as being effective as everyone knows what is being displayed there due to the signs. A targeted public campaign especially geared to young people might have a better result.
The sign that says, “Must Be 19 to Smoke,” is what will still lure young smokers into the “glamour” of purchasing tobacco products.
“Out of sight, out of mind?” Are they out of their minds? I had to laugh when I read that. When I was a kid, condoms were all kept behind the counter, never advertised, and never discussed. So, um, as kids, did we stop thinking about sex? Sorry, guys. I’m about as anti-tobacco as you’ll find, but this just hurts the small retailer, and it’s the wrong approach anyway.
Although I do not believe the new display law will deter smoking among youths, I do believe this law has opened up a massive consumer communication opportunity via billboard advertising on the fronts of “Well Built” back wall tobacco enclosures.
This is the largest advertising vehicle to come available in the last 50 years. Any company that is trying to reach the various demographic groups who frequent C-Store and Gas retailers should be jumping on board to acquire this space.
What better way to talk to your target consumer then this. It is a shame that because no major advertisers had the vision to fund this “relatively inexpensive” renovation, independent retailers were forced to go it alone. The result is cheap poorly built systems that do not lend themselves to a clean advertising space on the front panels.
I hope that a few visionary marketers get on board and assist retailers by providing a durable long term solution that can adequately carry a good looking advertisement to the C-store customer.
Simply silly. And to think full grown, seemingly educated adults actually met, debated, decided that they had a brilliant approach and endured the arduous process of putting laws in place to enforce it.
One would think they would at least employ the services of a child development psychologist to advise on adolescent human behavior vs. coming up with another neat bumper sticker slogan form of governance. Seeing cigs behind the counter doesn’t influence kids to purchase if they didn’t think it was cool to smoke in the first place.
This is more whacking at the ever-growing leaves vs. killing the problem at the root.
Without doubt, it will be something to brag about in an upcoming re-election campaign.
While this may make it more difficult for young people to buy cigarettes, It certainly won’t dissuade anyone from actually smoking. It’s simply a waste of time and effort to pass such regulations.
A similar suggestion was floated by the British government recently although it has not become law (yet). The idea was to put cigarettes out of sight completely, not to highlight their presence with big curtains that said we’re here but you can’t have them. As for the cost of re-organising the shelves, retailers sell cigarettes precisely because they make money and attract people in to buy other things along with their cigarettes rather than vice versa. So expecting them to pay to reduce their own income doesn’t entirely make sense to me. Perhaps teenagers could be persuaded to buy condoms instead, reducing pregnancy rates and lung cancer at the same time.
I applaud their efforts and it may help some but probably not enough to justify the expenses involved. But as has been pointed out, at least they are doing something to reduce the amount of young people taking up smoking.
The easiest way to sell more of something is to make it hard to get. Just tell someone they cannot have something and they will want it all the more.
The Canadian government is doing a great job of helping the bottom line of the fixture companies.
Just like alcohol and casinos, the government denounces drinking and gambling on one hand, but loves the huge tax revenue they get on the other.
If any sinful product is really “that bad,” the government would outright ban it. But as long as they get a cut of the action, they are happy. Take a look at all the casino and pro-line TV ads…they have sports fans staring at their ticket in hopes of a win. And how many anti-drinking ads do you see? I don’t see many.
The new way retailers must display tobacco sounds good in theory, but will it really make smokers quit or affect teens thinking about taking up the habit? I doubt it. I’ve yet to meet a smoker who has quit due to soaring prices. A black rack won’t deter them either. As for deterring young people, it’ll probably attract them!
That’s the way it goes. Money talks as usual.
Well at least Canada is trying, although maybe not all that wisely. When I think that here in Arizona they just recently stopped smoking in restaurants, Canada’s efforts look pretty good.
But David hit the mark with his sound insight. Most efforts to bring about deep cultural change like “How about not killing yourself with tobacco?” usually end up working against the intended cause. “Must be 19 to smoke” does in fact reinforce the idea of smoking. It gives a kid something to aim for like being tall enough for the big rides at the fair. We need to brand a desired state rather than emphasize the situation we want to avoid.
Once again this is just another cop out by the provincial government. Rather than working directly with smokers to help them kick the habit, they take the easy way out and try to disrupt the supply chain. Will this work? In the past, higher sin taxes have only resulted in a stronger black market.
Whether you agree with the selling of cigarettes or not, the fact is that they are a legal product and the government makes a mint from the tax dollars they bring in. So until that changes, the only reductions we’ll see are the sales at your local convenience store.
Smoking is an addiction, caused by nicotine. Why doesn’t Ontario ban all nicotine products except those sold to stop smoking? Why doesn’t Ontario bill tobacco companies for all the health care for smokers with emphysema and lung cancer? And why all the sympathy for mom and pop stores? Aren’t they helping to kill their customers just like the chain stores that still sell cigarettes?
In 2003, Ontario raised cigarette taxes a measly 25 cents a pack. Why not raise the cigarette tax by $5 a pack? Why not require cigarette retailers to buy licenses for $50,000 annually, per location?
Indeed the new law was never about retail policy–it is about public health.
No one has suggested that any small measure will stop smoking by itself, but the last 20 years of small changes in public education and social perceptions has undeniably reduced the number of young people becoming ensnared by the addiction. Smoking in public spaces is all but gone in Ontario and numbers of new smokers are falling steadily as a result of many small measures working in concert over long periods of time.
In a province of 12 million people that pays the full tab for treatment of the cancers and respiratory damage caused by smoking, research has proven that taxpayers save far more money when young people don’t become addicted than is collected in sales tax on tobacco products.
Many predicted the apocalypse a decade ago when most pharmacies in Canada decided to voluntarily withdraw from selling tobacco entirely–the result was that most became better merchandisers of profitable health and beauty aids and other merchandise. Dollar sales and square footage has increased considerably since that time.
As a third generation retailer I can only say, get over it and become better retailers.
“It almost makes sense to stop selling cigarettes and put movies or something else on the shelf.”
Perhaps that really is the goal. Methinks the respondents here protesteth too much: despite the “forbidden fruit” et al arguments put forth, prohibitions really DO reduce consumption–at least partially–but they also produce unintended consequences, since they never prohibit completely, and there is a problem in criminalizing/stigmatizing a behavior which is still widespread. This (type of) legislation seems like it’s on the “can’t help, but won’t hurt” end of the good intentions spectrum…and I always get a kick out of these regulations that give specific age limits for which ID must be requested: if age could be accurately determined, ID wouldn’t be needed in the first place.
The new Tobacco Display Law will not prevent young people from smoking. It places a financial burden on the small retailer but it will take the threat of putting alternative products in the shelf to persuade tobacco companies to pay for all the fixtures. What other choice will they have?
There isn’t one silver bullet answer to persuade minors from starting the habit. I worked on the California anti-smoking campaign, and it was the combination of multiple efforts (including those similar to this one) that decreased smoking in minors and/or placed a stigma on underage smoking.
It’s not fair for small merchants to take on additional costs, the burden should be on the tobacco companies to help the retailer sell their product within the established law.
Interestingly enough, birth control (condoms) was also kept out of sight. From the results, sex did not become “out of mind.”
Since when is it okay to ask the retailers to perform the parental function of raising our children and informing them of the “evils” of smoking? If society is to have an effect on this health hazard, it begins at home and not in the middle with the retailer.
Time will only tell, but for my vote, young adults are very outgoing and will have no problem asking or looking for what they want, no matter the deterrent.
As an Ontario resident I’ve watched the grocery and drug stores be creative and build mini stores at the front entrance (with a separate entrance) to sell tobacco for many years. My local grocery in currently renovating and has now moved Lottery into the same “Smoke” store. This actually makes sense since you also need to be 18 years old to by lottery tickets.
A large sign now covers the glass windows of the store noting that entrants must be 18 years of age. I expected to see the cigars still in the cabinets, but was shocked to see all of the cabinets covered. It looked like an empty store selling lottery tickets, except for the distinguishable smell of cigars.
I figured since you had to be off age to enter the store you’d still get to see the merchandise, but no. Gone are the days when you could discuss your cigar purchase with the skilled merchant.
I think this law has finally gone too far. It’s going to hurt most of these businesses in too many ways. I know the local stores count on the other impulse purchases made by smokers and I fear those days are waning.