CVS turned a tobacco ban into a financial win
linkedin.com
linkedin.com
[1] https://www.drugchannels.net/2014/10/thoughts-on-caremarks-n...
I do think that getting rid of tobacco products helps the brand image though. It always took longer to get customers through a line when you had to find their particular brand out of 30. It's also true that many of the customers buying tobacco were noticeably lower-class, so I could imagine this change making middle class and higher people more into CVS (sort of like the Target vs Walmart divide).
No, actually. There's a tiny but important distinction here: the author is merely saying that there was a certainty that there would be negative effects, and that the expected negative effects didn't happen.
The author even grants that there isn't a certainty that this decision caused a positive outcome:
"Of course, there are many other factors that have contributed to CVS’s ... stock performance."
The article's only point is that ideologues and demagogues often assume with 100% certainty that there will be some negative outcome from some company changing some policy or another, but that this is a flaw in their thinking, because they're imagining the market to be something much more limited, simple, and rigid than it really is.
People offload their trust to an authority, a pharmacy, to stock actual medicine. Just like when they go to a grocery store they expect to buy actual food and not sawdust shaped and packaged as food.
Try looking for cold or flu medicine, or earache drops at CVS. You will find the tiny print "homeopathic" on nearly every item being presented on the shelf. All of them are mimics that have all of the trappings of medicine (official looking labels, colors, words) but none of the results.
I think this is an ethical failure that is worse than the sale of tobacco, because it not only dupes people looking for proven medical solutions to say, their child's earache that bring home a vial of water instead, it also continues to lend credence to the industry of swindlers and snake oil.
Also I usually find Tylenol PM just fine at my cvs. Along with benedryl, ibuprofen and other routine “real” meds.
Does that analysis include people who neglect to seek real medical attention because snakeoil crackpottery has lured them into a false sense of security?
(I would not expect as many people to be harmed by homeopathy as cigarettes, but nevertheless I don't think you should characterize it as harmless.)
Homeopathic stuff may be harmless, but homeopaths are sometimes actively harming themselves or others by not getting proper treatment.
This changed my attitudes towards consumer protection a lot. I thought I was smart enough to tell medicine from snake oil, but Zicam ads had high production values and looked just like ads for Tylenol or NyQuil. It was a far cry from the laughable marketing of that other '00s homeopathic product, HeadOn. (Apply directly to the forehead!) So I thought it was a legit product until the news of the lawsuits came out.
I'd presume a substantial correlation between ignorance and poverty, the last thing these people need is wasted money on ineffective treatment.
Also, it's important to remember that "homeopathic" has multiple definitions in this context. There is the definition of "a substance in a dilution so minute that it's likely non of the actual molecules exist in solution", but that BS is not what you'll find at CVS.
Instead, you'll find stuff like Zicam, which is marketed as a "homeopathic preparation" (TBH I have no idea why), but it most definitely contains sizable amounts of the active ingredient, zinc. While the jury is still out on whether zinc is as effective in shortening the duration of the common cold as advertised, there is certainly a sizable number of studies that support it. I take it and it definitely seems to work for me - whether that's placebo effect or not I have no idea.
The word homeopathic was written on it in VERY small print. It was sold right next to all the other burn creams.
It does happen.
https://www.rn.com/headlines-in-health/zicam-alert/
The CVS here in Gilroy has, at a rough estimate, about 20-30% of their pill-shelf space dedicated to homeopathic stuff. It's awful.
https://www.cvs.com/search/?cp=%5B%7B"key"%3A"source"%2C"val...
I am actually rather shocked to see that 3 of the first 20 items listed (Zicam, Cold-eeze, CVS Non-drowsy cold remedy) do indeed say "homeopathic" on the front label.
But 3 out of 20 is certainly not "flooded" or "nearly every item". And those 3 are just lozenges, where the main action is the sugar that coats your throat anyways, so I don't see any evidence it's trying to trick people from buying actual medicine.
But still, I wasn't aware "homeopathic" products were sold at legitimate drugstores at all, and I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I get a little wound up on a number of topics, but this is one where, if I had the opportunity, I'd gleefully kick square in the goolies every single person involved in putting that product on the shelf. And I'd buy a pair of steel-toed boots first.
How is that legal? Is there no law by which they could be sued for misleading representation of a life-saving medical product or something?
It seems like such a no-brainer of a law. Serious question: why is this the first I'm hearing about it? I've literally never seen an article about this in any newspaper and I read a lot of news. And this is exactly the kind of stuff that journalists tend to discover and expose.
Where is the outrage, and how is this still being permitted?
As for the outrage: it’s because it’s too common; you don’t want to alienate a large portion of your viewer base by “exposing” homeopathic remedies
You could also get better. The placebo effect is a real thing. People wouldn’t fall for the snake oil if it never “worked.”
Pharmacies carry a lot of stuff that have nothing to do with health and that includes junk food.
So CVS is primarily a pharmacy, unlike Walmart and Kroger, which are stores that have pharmacies.
And the pharmacy creates a captive market of people that buy other items while they’re there.
There’s a reason pharmacies keep getting bigger even though the dispensing area isn’t.
In other words, Walmart is not a pharmacy but Walmart has a pharmacy.
A YouTube channel Loft Pursuits has a video part of which explains soda pop. The video is about the NY Egg Cream but it starts off with the history of carbonated water and soda pop.
In New York city in the early 1800s St. Patrick's cathedral was being constructed. Someone figured out the marble dust from the construction when mixed with acid created a cheap supply of carbon dioxide. Carbonated water was rare and expensive back then so this was a great opportunity. Candy stores in the area made syrups and sold it by mixing it was the carbonated water.
Maybe doctors offices and mechanics should consider something similar.
The problem is that people don’t smoke only one cigarette once a month or eat junk food once s month.
When I first heard the news I worried it would kill CVS. Tobacco companies at the time had famous tech company margins. It would really hurt them to do so. Still do it seems: Phillips Morris operating margin is 38%.
I am really glad it worked out for them. I hate it when other people can smoke because I can smell it downwind. I can smell it on other people. I could barely smell it on one guy who said he washed his hands and arms in the bathroom sink afterwards to avoid others smelling it.
It seemed pretty clear to me their business was prescriptions and addictions in one convenient place.
A more obscure but significant problem with some tobacco is psychology. The packaging, quantity and pre-rolling exacerbate it, making it too easy to effectively smoke a habit, rather than cigarette, ie some smoking is done less because of addiction and more due to habit. Cigarettes, and in some cases tobacco, are obviously problematic. Abandoning either rather than banning both altogether seems reasonable. However, I can no longer buy a cigar at CVS. I can get Rx for restless leg filled and wash it down with acetaminophen and beer and Skittles though. Meanwhile, cigars are legal, but CVS is at a higher level.
I know tobacco can be a problem. Is it a problem? Maybe some applications are problematic. Well, certainly some are.
They don't need to carry anything else. And convenience stores obviously don't have to carry anything in particular.
Ideally there's also a full suite of basic over the counter medicines but I wouldn't say it's a necessity at pharmacies. I would say it's very important that somewhere carries those...