273
Views
2
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Persistence of cigarette advertising across media and smoking rates

Pages 611-619 | Published online: 10 Feb 2011
 

Abstract

This article uses state-level US panel data to examine the effects of cigarette advertising on smoking. We disaggregate cigarette advertising into (1) print, (2) outdoor, (3) entertainment and (4) store. How does advertising persist over time across advertising media? Are there differences in effectiveness of advertising across different smoking rates? Results show that the price elasticity of cigarette demand is negative and within the range of recent estimates, whereas border price elasticities and income elasticities are positive. All elasticities, however, are uniquely sensitive to smoking rates, as is the effectiveness of the Master Settlement Agreement. Current aggregate advertising increases cigarette demand, whereas accompanying negative advertising takes hold in the third year. Upon disaggregation, current store advertising increases smoking in most cases. However, store advertising has a negative effect by the third year, especially in states with smoking rates at or above the median. Other advertising media have weak or no effects.

Acknowledgements

I thank Michael Nelson for comments, Christopher Baum for help with econometric estimation and Michael Naretta for research assistance. Remaining errors are mine.

Notes

1The study by Goel and Ram (Citation2004) is the only other study examining cigarette demand responses across smoking rates. However, the authors use US data from only 1993 to 1999 and, more importantly, do not control for advertising effects.

2Our sample data begin in 1975. Hence we are not replicating the effects of the 1971 broadcast advertising ban that has garnered attention of a majority of the advertising restrictions literature focusing on the United States (Baltagi and Levin, Citation1986; Mitchell and Mulherin, Citation1988; Eckard, Citation1991; Goel and Morey, Citation1995).

3We also had information on Internet advertising. However, such data were available for only a few years (limiting the consideration of lag effects) and their magnitude was relatively small. Hence, whereas Internet advertising is included in total cigarette advertising, a separate Internet advertising category is not considered here. Evans (Citation2009) provides a nice overview of the issues related to online advertising.

4In the absence of data on individual cigarette consumption, we follow related studies by taking cigarette sales to proxy for consumption (see, e.g. Baltagi and Levin, Citation1986).

5Alaska and Hawaii have no immediate bordering states and are dropped from the analysis.

6The Hausman test's asymptotic assumption was not satisfied; thus, the default FE model results are reported.

7One exception is the positive, marginally statistically significant, effect of EntrtnADV −2 in the median regression.

8This may be viewed as the effectiveness of indirect anti-smoking initiatives. Given appropriate data, one could also include government spending on anti-smoking advertising and compare the efficacy of direct and indirect anti-smoking initiatives (see, e.g. Pechmann and Ratneshwar, Citation1994).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.