USC Tobacco Industry Monitoring Project Collection
(Rochester vs. Birmingham Markets)
Abstract
Lists differences of interest to marketers between Rochester & Birmingham. Demographic info (Race, income, age); Trade; merchandising; sales activity based on various factors (company, tar, length, flavor, box/soft, price); and info on top 5 drugstore chains. Media, POS, Vending & sales force activity listed as "Not Yet Available."
Document Images
Rochester Birmingham
Demographics:
Income average low income
Race very low black very high black
Age average average
Wholesale Trade:
dcmi.nated by tvwo distributors volume spread among accts
Retail Trade:
Strong Trade Classes drug (very) conv./gas (very)
Volume Levels high volume bias low volume bias
% Self-service below average average
Merchandising Plan Coverage:
Plan A average low
Plan B low high
Category Developrnent:
High -- --
Low 100,120, box ultra low, 120, box (very)
Activity Indices:
Company very low very high
Tar Level very low average
Length average high
Flavor very low very high
Box/Soft very low very low
Price very low low
Brand -- Virginia Slims:
Develognent very low very high
Growth average above average
Chains:
Media: S E E A T T A C H E D T A B L E
N 0 T Y E T A V A I L A B L E
~[1
Vending:
..+
P.O.S. N O T Y E T A V A I L A B L E ~t-
sx-
~
0
Sales Force Activity:
N 0 T
Y E T A V A I L A B L E na
N O T Y E T A V A I L A B L E
TOP FIVE CHAINS
Rochester
% Voltime # Stores % Stores
Rite Aid 14 28 4
Wegman's Markets 10 24 3
Fay's Drugs 8 25 3
Star Markets 5 23 3
CVS Drug 3 17 2
Total 40 117 15
Birmingham
% Voltmfe # Stores % Stores
Bruno Food Stores 6 50 2.0
Winn Dixie 2 37 1.0
Kroger 2 14 .4
Big B Drug 2 59 2.0
Western Supmkts 1 14 .4
Total 13 174 5.8
