There will most certainly be a push-back from smokers. It is about respect.

http://www.kainoto.com/index.aspx?str=4&lang=en&tip_strani=baza_podrobno&id=115&pred=4

Yet my question on this subject from the experiences in Slovenia is:

Are smokers loyal customers? They come to a bar only because they can smoke as it seems? Isn't it better to find other target groups? Like dog-lovers or something.

Well, my ideas on "tobacco fight":

http://www.kainoto.com/index.aspx?str=4&lang=en&tip_strani=baza_podrobno&id=119&pred=4

:-)

Who cares? As long as they are sticking to it, we all benefit. Big Tobacco is one of the most underhanded, conniving industries to ever exist. They will stop at nothing to get adults and kids alike addicted to their products. This is a great step in a great direction.

Don't get me wrong - I'm anti-tobacco, not anti-tobacco user. But as more companies draw a line in the sand and decide to stand for something like this, the better. They will benefit from it and so will the greater good.

Spike has it right. Motivations are far less important than results.

Your comments prove that people have strong opinions on this issue, Dusan and Spike. Since smokers can buy tobacco products in many outlets, the decision by some retailers to remove them from their assortments shouldn't cause any major to-dos. And if this stance really does reflect the philosophy of the retailer, it will probably be respected by most consumers within local communities. So I do think, Lewis, that motivations are important. . .because they really should go to the overall position retailers take on numerous health-related issues. The foods they choose to offer for better nutritional value, the store environments themselves and community-based programs they support should all reflect a total philosophy and positioning to really be most effective, in my view.

Thanks for weighing in. I appreciate your points of view, guys.

I think it is a matter of segmenting. Upscale shoppers are much less likely to smoke.

Why offer something that your best customers do not want to buy or even see? This is just the market at work. It's about cash.

The smoker won't have trouble buying a pack of smokes nearby.

Ted,

I agree it matters to the business, assuming decisions are made based on values and principals. But it doesn't need to be reflected in any single instance as it affects customers. All they see in a single decision are the results of that decision.

My comment was based on this one example, not on the foundation that makes up these businesses, neither of which I have any experience. Therefore, I have no opinion regarding their brand or their motivations; therefore, the motivations don't matter to me, only the results do.

I like this move.

In the interest in full disclosure, I'm not a smoker...

Why do I like the move?

Because I like it when a company can make a choice of how to run their business and let the market sort out what works and what doesn't.

If a store doesn't want to sell tobacco products, it shouldn't have to. If it loses customers, so be it. But maybe it gains customers.

Same thing with being closed on Sundays. Take Chik-fil-a for example. I love Chik-fil-a. Every once in a while I'll want Chik-fil-a on a Sunday. They're not open because of the founder's personal beliefs. Do I eat something else? Yes. But that doesn't stop me from eating there the other 6 days? Or from telling people how much better they are than McD's or BK as far as quality and service? Of course not.

I'm very much a "let 'em do what they want and let the customers sort 'em out" guy.

And as far as smokers being upset, I can appreciate that. I don't like having to settle for Coke when I want a Pepsi with my dinner. But you know what? I can either go some place with Pepsi or I can stop drinking Pepsi altogether and only drink water.

Everybody has a choice.

...Bill Andronico just has the integrity to make the one he feels best about, despite it being a controversial one.

I think the choices a retailer makes regarding what kind of products it sells/doesn't largely reflects its values - that kind of positioning is more important to convey these days.
It's smart

You raise an interesting point, Neil. Demographics show that a higher percentage of more educated, more affluent consumers don't tend to be smokers. Being a more upscale food retailer, and looking at this from a mercenary point of view, Andronico's probably feels it doesn't have a lot to lose financially by its decision to stop selling tobacco products. Thanks for adding your observations.

To be fair, Lewis, I do think a number of food shoppers will just be happy to see their local Andronico's simply doesn't carry tobacco products anymore. Still others, who are conscious of health issues, will applaud the fact that Andronico's has chosen to take a number of steps, including its decision not to sell tobacco as part of a longer view. The latter will no doubt, also applaud the fact the retailer is offering cleaner food products with higher nutritional value as well as adopting a more environmentally friendly operational stance. For those consumers, I expect a higher degree of loyalty will form as Andronico's comes to reflect their personal values. . .that is the point I was trying to make. As ever, Lewis, I appreciate your sharp marketing evaluations.

Exactly, Michael. Smart marketers know they can't be all things to all people. Better to take a position and stick to it: like-minded consumers will gravitate to the retailers that share their values and become loyal customers.

Agreed, Mario.

Thanks for adding your thoughts, guys. I appreciate it.

I also agree with the above comments.

When a company professes it values improving the health of customers, the statement better be backed up with consistent supporting actions. Otherwise the claim rings false and the consumers' whom you're targeting will see through the false pretenses.

A key to making a great business is demonstrating authenticity.

Props to Andronico, and a shout out from a loyal Wegman's shopper in Rochester, NY!

Agreed, Jesse that "A key to making a great business is demonstrating authenticity."

As a Wegman's devotee myself, I second that shout out, too. More retail operations might take a page from the way Wegman's does business. Thanks for adding your comments, Jesse.

Yes, Ted, it is a home run for the retailer. Their best customers do not buy and do not want to see smokes.

They also position themselves as concerned about the health and well being of their customers. To avoid being to cynical, I think it is very possible that they are doing it because they think it is the right and moral thing to do.

As others have noted above, let stores decide what to sell and let the consumer decide where to shop.

As a child who went to the gas station with a note from my mom to buy her cigarettes, I have to say it a good thing.

"As others have noted above, let stores decide what to sell and let the consumer decide where to shop."

Well-stated, Neil. Exactly.

I'm sure many adults feel as you do, Ted, and those people probably feel a lot more comfortable being able to shop where they aren't being constantly reminded about such a childhood task.

Thanks for writing.

I agree that a grocer or retailer has the right to determine what it will or will not sell. Whether the decision to stop selling cigarettes is motivated by special interests or consistency with the store's green and healthy mission doesn't really matter. It's ultimately a supply and demand issue. For those who are anti-smoking (including me), I applaud this move because I happen to think it makes a positive statement.

What I find interesting is that stores aren't lining up to stop selling alcohol, which contributes to alcoholism, liver disease, etc. Or what about high-fat foods that cause obesity, heart disease and diabetes? We really could go on.

Elaine,

I think that stores would have to consider their customer when making such decisions. For example, here in Oregon, you can only sell wine and beer (not hard liquor) in grocery stores. Hard liquor only in specially licensed (by the state gov) liquor stores. Anyway, I like being able to buy a bottle of wine along with my organic veggies at my local grocery. :-)

I do not think most New Season's customers object to alcohol but I bet they would hear about it if they started pushing smokes. In other words, they make plenty of money of beer and wine and their good customers want it.

We really could, in theory, go on but I doubt many store are going to do something intentional and directly against their financial interests.

So I would not worry too much about sins being squashed by profit making enterprises. Leave that to the government. :-)

You raise some excellent points, Elaine. Thanks for adding another dimension to this conversation. You're right to point out that food retailers offer alcoholic beverages as well as fatty foods. But even these products, consumed in moderation, while not ideal, may not be as undermining to consumer health as tobacco products are. It is also important to point out that people have to take responsibility for what they choose to eat and drink, as well as the quantities they consume.

Worth noting on the food side: manufacturers are getting the message due to a groundswell of consumer demand and gradually eliminating harmful ingredients, or substituting them for more healthful ingredients. That is ongoing now. The worst fats are slowly being replaced by less harmful ones; whole grains are appearing in cereals; sugar is being cut in numerous products, etc.

The Whole Foods of the world do carry healthier food choices, organic wines and beer, etc. But they also offer more mainstream options since their customers demand them, staying away from the least healthy options in major product categories as much as they can. It's better than it used to be. Is there room for significant improvement in product mixes at retail? You bet there is. However, given recent developments, I do think we're moving in the right direction. Thanks for your great insights as ever, Elaine.

Wow, there's so many questions that one could ask about their motives and strategy here.. and even more answers.

I think that these guys must have a genuine moral desire to go "clean" - noone would cut a profitable line (which could also then lead to disgruntled customers) unless they had a strong belief in doing so.

On the other hand however, this news could be interesting for a different reason.

In sacrificing an admittedly profitable line of business they are showing how committed they are to the concept. This could be morally based, or a strategic brand positioning move. It's normally very hard to place a numeric value on how much a move like this is worth... but by effectively swapping this in, in place of something based on revenue.. we are suddenly able to place value and worth on something thats typically very difficult to quantify.

I like that... it gives so much insight into how much the right brand positioning is worth.

Probably a number of factors were considered when Bill Andronico made his decision, Anne. But I believe you're right in saying that he must have a core belief he is doing the right thing. As to giving up some volume and profit dollars, I sense that Andronico's will probably make it up with their loyal customers. Especially as these food stores become known for their values. . .like-minded consumers will tend to gravitate to retailers like these and become very loyal to them.

"I like that... it gives so much insight into how much the right brand positioning is worth." I like that, too, Anne. Thanks for weighing in.

As if we need more reasons to discontinue selling tobacco products in grocery stores. Grocery shopping tends to be a family activity, and we all know what happens when we reach the checkout, and there is the candy staring our children in the face. I'm from the Wegman's region of the country, and they have clearly positioned themselves as a family friendly store. Between the prepared foods, the fun shopping carts, and the free in-store "childcare", they are focusing on families and their values. Removing tobacco products provides another reason for people to shop there. Even parents that smoke, can swing by the gas station to pick up their smokes. You don't need to get them in a grocery store. If tobacco companies are prevented from advertising on television or in certain publications, why should they be allowed to place their products in view of children? These grocers have taken the initiative on their own, and I applaud them.

Thank you for making such an articulate argument for removing tobacco products from grocery stores, Amy. You're right: grocery stores are often frequented by parents accompanied by their children. It's nice to see food retailers taking the initiative to make these environments more kid friendly, isn't it? Thanks for speaking about this so eloquently, Amy.

I just so happen to work for a tobacco company and feel if a grocery chain believes he is accomplishing something by not selling tobacco, then good for them! The tobacco consumer will just shop at a store that carries his needs, and spend a few extra dollars while he/she is there. And in regards to grocery shoping being a family thing, ok.. then we should ban condoms from shopping isles too? When will it all end?

Every independent retailer, as well as every chain, has to determine its product mix, Lizzy. There are so many retail outlets in this country, consumers who really want to buy tobacco products, can very easily find them. If certain food retailers take a stand on products they find harmful for their customers, that's their choice. If some of their customers are offended by that decision, they may choose to take their business elsewhere. That's the way a free market system works. We all have a right to voice our opinions in this forum and I thank you for adding your voice to this discussion. I appreciate it, Lizzy.