1. Tobacco Promotions in Bars & Clubs Alison Albers, Ph.D. Lois Biener, Ph.D. Presented at National Conference on Tobacco Or Health San Francisco, November 21, 2002 Supported by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Substance Abuse Policy Research Program

2. Research Objectives  Estimate prevalence of tobacco promotions in bars and nightclubs in greater Boston area.  Assess nature and extent of promotions.

3. Sample Design  Sample Frame: Bars/clubs listed in club directory of Boston Phoenix between Sept. 1, 2000 and March 30, 2001 (N =110)  Stratified by whether or not appeared at least once in a tobacco advertisement during Sept. thru March period.  Randomly selected 20 bars/clubs from each stratum (promotion “advertised” vs “not advertised”).

5. Camel Casbah Events  Emerged at beginning of field period  Seven additional observations (in 6 clubs) added to sample  Two of six Casbah clubs were also in advertised group.

7. Data Collection Protocol  Pairs of young adult observers spent 90 minutes in designated establishment between 10 p.m. and 1:30 a.m. (Th, F, Sat.)  Recorded observations independently for 45 minutes on hand-held computers (Palm/Jornada)  Participated in any promotional opportunities  Completed a post-visit form detailing any special promos  Ratings averaged within pair

8. Data Collection Period  Observational data: May through July, 2001 May through July, 2001  Manager/owner interviews: November and December 2001 November and December 2001

9. Measures: Promotion features  Outdoor and indoor tobacco signage  Branded items of bar paraphernalia (napkins, ashtrays, coasters)  Free samples  Company reps (“Merchandisers”)  Other promotional items/activities

10. Camel Casbah Events

11. “Cigarette Girl”

12. Measures: Establishment/Event Characteristics  Size  Type of entertainment  IDs checked for age upon entry  Minimum entry age  Smoking restrictions

13. Measures: Patron Characteristics  Apparent age  Smoking behavior

16. Final Sample  Completed 45 observations at 42 clubs I: Advertised Clubs (n=19) I: Advertised Clubs (n=19) II: Non-advertised Clubs (n=19) II: Non-advertised Clubs (n=19) III: Camel Casbah Events (n=7) III: Camel Casbah Events (n=7) Two Casbah clubs overlapped with group I.Two Casbah clubs overlapped with group I. One Casbah club hosted two eventsOne Casbah club hosted two events

17. Signage & Bar Paraphernalia by Club Type ** P <.05; *P <.10 ** *

18. Free Samples by Club Type **P <.01 **

19. Company Reps Present **P <.01 **

20. Other Promotional Items by Club Type **P <.01 **

21. Bar and Club Characteristics ** ** P <.05

22. Bar & Club Characteristics – Entertainment ** P <.05 **

23. Bar & Club Characteristics

24. Patron Characteristics by Club Type

25. Results  This strategy was in flux during our observational period – moving from pervasive, low level promotions to more focused, intensely advertised, and elaborate promotions.  Although advertising with tobacco company was associated with higher levels of promotional activities, more than half non-advertised clubs used branded bar paraphernalia

26. Results (Continued)  Clubs with high levels of promotion attracted younger patrons and featured djs and dancing.  Rate of checking IDs at entry was somewhat higher at clubs with promotions, but was not 100%.  Higher levels of promotion were associated with fewer smoking restrictions and higher proportions of smoking patrons.

27. Interviews with Bar Owners or Managers

28. Research Questions  How are bar/club promotions initiated?  What are the contractual arrangements  How do managers view the costs and benefits?

29. Sample Design  Telephone interview of owner/manager of clubs observed in Study 1.  Data collected Nov/Dec 2001.  Incentive offered: $25  Response rate: 58%

30. Response rate by Club Type N =23 ** P <.05; *P <.10 ** * N=9N=13N=2 (1 shared with Adv’d group)

31. Report hosting promotions by club type N = 14 N = 9

32. Contractual Arrangements  Primarily initiated by tobacco PR agencies  Contracts vary Some one-time, some annual (e.g. 4 promos per year). Some one-time, some annual (e.g. 4 promos per year). Primarily unwritten? Primarily unwritten? Common agreement to display only promoted brand. Common agreement to display only promoted brand. Can usually be terminated at will. Can usually be terminated at will.

33. Promotional activities reported (N = 14)

34. Branded bar paraphernalia by club type (N = 23)

35. Perceived benefits of promotions by hosting managers

36. Perceived benefits of promotions by hosting and non-hosting managers

37. Perceived costs of promotions by hosting managers

38. Perceived costs of promotions by hosting and non-hosting managers

39. Advertising Prevalence and Trends  Enumeration of ads in Boston Phoenix (31 weeks in 2001)  MTCP analysis of BP 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002  Sepe & Glantz analysis of SF and Phila. alternative newspapers (1994 to 1999)

40. Research Question  How prevalent were advertising links with tobacco companies among Boston area clubs in 2001?  How prevalent are tobacco-sponsored bar/club advertisements in the Boston Phoenix?  What’s the future for this promotional strategy?

41. Results: Prevalence of tobacco- sponsored ads (Sept. ‘00 to March ‘01 - 31 weeks) 

42. Results: Advertising Links  51% (n=64) of 110 clubs in the Club Directory appeared at least once in a brand-sponsored advertisement  Among those clubs, the number of appearances in a advertisement ranged from 1 to 27 of the 31 issues. Mean = 13 appearances

43. Estimated trend in tobacco- sponsored bar/club advertising Est. from Sepe & Glantz, 2002

44. Conclusions  Bar promotions were occurring in at least half of all bars and clubs listing events in the Boston area.  Newspaper advertising has diminished considerably, but unadvertised promotions continue to occur.  Owners/managers are sensitive to links with tobacco companies and concerned about annoying patrons.