1

Amárach safetrack Wave 7

Advertising and Corporate

Image Tracking Research

Wave 7

Island of IrelandPrepared by

Amárach ConsultingOctober 2006

2

Wave 7 – Methodology OverviewTotal Number of Interviews (IOI -803 ST 7)

(ROI -497 ST 7)

(NI – 306 ST 7)

Sample - Nationally representative - Adults aged 15-74

Fieldwork - In-home face to face interviews

- 52 sampling points in ROI &- 50 sampling points in NI

RoI

NI

Benchmark – Jan 2003

ST1 - May 2003

ST2 – January 2004

ST3 – June 2004

ST4 – January 2005

ST 5a – June 2005

ST 5b – July 2005

ST 6 - January 2006

ST 7 - June 2006

3

Environmental Changes in the last 6 monthsFactors

• Avonmore replaceseircom as sponsors ofweather on RTE, now promoting healthy food message.

• Tesco roll out home delivery healthy food and nutritional service in UK: Ireland next?

• New campaign to alter children attitude to eating disorders (Bodywhys) launched in Ireland.

•Bord Bia key sponsor of the Ryder Cup event in September.

safefood

communications

•Treats campaign on

school lunches

establishes seasonal

pattern to campaigning.

•Continuing focus on

Health and Nutrition

The Irish Consumer

4

Section 1: Spontaneous Awareness & Associations

Treats CampaignSalt Heart Campaign

Cooking CampaignTemperature Stick CampaignHelpline AwarenessBBQ Summer Promotion

Section 3: Attitudes Toward Beef

Section 5: Awareness of safefood

Section 2: Advertising & PR Effectiveness

Section 4: Food Safety & Healthiness

5

Spontaneous Awareness & Associations

6

Totally Spontaneous Awareness-Food SafetyBase: All IOI Respondents N= 803

4%

12%

18%

12%

16% 16%18%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

IOIBM

IOIST1

IOIST2

IOIST3

IOIST4

IOIST5

IOIST6

IOIST7

safefood Dept of Health Bord Bia Health Boards Government

7

Spontaneous Association-Food Safety Base: All IOI Respondents N= 803

7%

13%

16% 15%

21%

16%

20%

12%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

IOI BM IOIST1

IOIST2

IOIST3

IOIST4

IOIST5

IOIST6

IOIST7

safefood Bord Bia Dept of Health

Health Boards Food Safety Authority

8

Spontaneous Association-Healthy EatingBase: All IOI Respondents N= 803

5%7%

11%

7%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

IOI ST4 IOI ST5 IOI ST6 IOI ST7

Dept of Health Bord Bia safefood

Health Boards Irish Heart Foundation

9

Key Findings: Spontaneous Awareness and Associations

In terms of spontaneous awareness in relation to food safety at an overall level; Bord Bia

& Health Boards awareness is holding constant. Where as safefood drops to levels last

encountered on ST3 while the government drops back from ST6 high.

In relation to associations with food safety, safefood drops back to pre ST6 high while the

Department of Health slips to a new low – consumer separation of the topic of food safety

from the broad health brief. Bord Bia is slipping back after ST5 high, while the health

boards drop and food Safety Authority hold constant. Bord bia strengths and consistency

over the past number of waves is indicative of a broadening media usage and spend. It is

also possible that this waves performance can be linked to support of the Ryder Cup.

Associations with healthy eating see a reversal in order, as safefood second only to Bord

Bia. The Irish Heart Foundation hold constant, where as there is a significant drop for the

Department of Health and health boards. It is important to note that NI agencies tracked

but are not breaking through to be represented here.

10

Advertising & PR Effectiveness

11

Recall of Advertising & Awareness of Food Safety and Healthy EatingBase: All IOI Respondents N= 803

21%

11%10%

17%

11%12%

8%

TV-Healthy Eating Radio - Food Safety Radio-HealthyEating

Billboards - HealthyEating

ST6 ST 7

Not TrackedIn ST6

12

Awareness of TV Treats AdvertisementBase: All IOI Respondents N= 803

Recall TV ad

46%54%

22%

78%

Yes No

ST6 ST 7

13

12%

3%

3%

23%

21%

54%

Don't know

Other

Bus (NI Only)

Billboard

Newspaper

Television

Media Vehicle Recall for TreatsBase: All Who Recall Treats Campaign N=237

53%

25%

n/a

4%

23%

14%

ROI

64%

9%

21%

12%

n/a

5%

NI

14

Rating of Treats Campaign Base: All Who Recall Treats Campaign N=237

Those that believe the Treats Campaign was good/very good at the

following

IOI

Getting the point across in a clear way 77%

Delivering a message of relevance to you 71%

Making you aware of the nutritional value of treats 71%

Encouraging you to cut down on treats 69%

Encouraging you to eat more fresh food 65%

Informing you about the potential long-term effects of treats 64%

Being hard-hitting 59%

Telling you something you didn’t already know 46%

15

Behavioural Impact of Treats CampaignBase: All Who Recall Treats Campaign N=237

*NB bracketed figures = ST6

24% (24%) have already changed their behaviour

29% (32%) plan to change their behaviour

18% (13%) plan to find out more about this issue in

the near future

24% (24%) say that it is unlikely they will look into

it any further

16

Key Findings: Treats Campaign

Drop in TV recall is most likely linked to presence on TV. However, despite the fact that the Treats campaign is no longer on TV, 1 in 5 adults can still recall it indicating a strong campaign.

Interestingly, TV ad recall in NI was higher than that in ROI, despite the fact that the most popular TV station in the north does not take advertising! Also of interest was the low recall of newspaper advertising in NI compared to ROI.

Overall the ad is very well received scoring well on delivery, relevance and content. Impact is the only aspect wearing but this is to be expected at this stage of the campaign.

17

Salt Heart Campaign

18

Awareness of Salt Heart (Billboard) Image Base: All Respondents N=803

39%

38%

9%

14%Food safety Promotion

Other

77

23Yes

No Safefood

No, don’t remember

Base: Those Who Recalled Image N = 172

ST7

19

Really capturing your interest

Delivering a message of relevance to you

Telling you something you didn’t already know

Getting the point across in a clear way

Being hard hitting

Informing you about the large amounts of salt in processed food

Encouraging you to eat more fresh food

Encouraging you to cut down on salt

Rating of Salt Heart CampaignBase: Those Who Recalled Image N = 172

77%

68%

78%

76%

73%

75%

59%

74%

75%

Making you aware there is too much salt in your diet

20

37% have already changed their behaviour.

24% plan to change behaviour.

15% plan to find out more about this issue in the near future.

13% say it is unlikely they will look into it any further

Behavioural Impact of Salt Heart CampaignBase: Those Who Recalled Image N = 172

21

Salt Radio Advertisement

22

Recall of Salt Radio AdvertisementBase: All Respondents N=803

72%

28%

57%

43%

72%

28%

Yes NoWave 5 Wave 6Wave 7

23

Really capturing your interest

Delivering a message of relevance to you

Telling you something you didn’t already know

Getting the point across in a clear way

Being hard hitting

Rating of Salt Radio AdBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 235

62%

77%

47%

72%

72%

24

Behavioural Impact of Salt AdBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 235

25% have already changed behaviour.

28% plan to change behaviour.

16% plan to find out more about this issue in the near future.

24% say it is unlikely they will look into it any further.

25

Key Findings: Salt Heart Campaign

Just over one in five are aware of the salt heart campaign. Of those who are aware of the campaign, well over one third correctly attribute the ad to safefood – excellent brand cut through.

Overall impact and call to action of the salt campaign is high. The highest rating was attributed to awareness of salt content in diet.

Owing to the impact and visual effectiveness of the campaign, more than one in three (37%) have changed their salt behaviour and a further one in four ( 24%) plan to which is a very positive on the ground response to the campaign.

Recall of the salt radio campaign has returned to ST5 levels. Again the radio ad was well received but not felt to be telling any new news. Despite not telling anything new, the behavioural impact of the campaign is quite positive, one in four (25%) have amended their behaviour and a similar proportion (28%) plan to. Almost one in five (16%) feel they need more information and aim to source it in the near future.

26

Cooking Radio Advertisement

27

24%

76%

Recall of Cooking Radio AdvertisementBase: All Respondents N=803

22%

78%

22%

78%

YES NO

R.O.I

YES YESNO NO

N.I I.O.I

28

Getting the point across

in a clear way

Really Capturing your interest

Delivering a message of

relevance to you

Being hard hitting

Telling you something you

didn’t already know

Rating of Cooking MessagesBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 178

40%

64%

70%

70%

74%

29

Telling you something you

didn’t already know

Male

Female

15-24

25-34

35-49

50-64

65+

Rating of Cooking Messages Base: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 178

36%

39%

39%

46%

35%

39%

41%

40%

30

Behavioural Impact of Cooking MessagesBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 178

24% Plan to change their behaviour

23% Say it is unlikely they will look into it any further

22% have already changed their behaviour

22% plan to find out more about this issue in the near future.

31

Key Findings: Cooking Advertisement

Recall of the cooking radio advertisement was slightly higher in NI but not significantly so, but wave on wave NI performance is much improved. One in five adults (22%) can recall the cooking campaign.

While the cooking campaign is very well received, it is not thought to be new news which could be aspirational response in relation to what may be seen as a known topic. Perhaps a slight pattern is emerging, this should be monitored on future waves

Consequently, almost one in four are unmoved by the campaign. Just one in five changed behaviour and a similar proportion plan to find out more in the near future.

32

Temperature Stick Radio Advertisement

33

Awareness of Temperature Stick Radio AdvertisementBase: All Respondents N=803

19%

81%

24%

66%

YES NO

R.O.I

YES YESNO NO

N.I I.O.I

17%

83%

34

Getting the point across

in a clear way

Really Capturing your interest

Delivering a message of

Relevance to you

Being hard hitting

Telling you something you didn’t know already

Rating of Temperature Stick MessagesBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 160

43%

57%

63%

65%

74%

35

Behavioural Impact to Temperature StickBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 160

27% Plan to change their behaviour

25% have already changed their behaviour

21% Say it is unlikely they will look into it any further

20% Plan to find out more about this in the near future

36

Key Findings: Temperature Stick

Overall one in five adults are aware of the temperature stick campaign. The significant uplift in NI could be attributed to new station and/or increased spend.

There was a slightly more muted rating of temperature stick than cooking in relation to capturing your interest and delivering a relevant message though this is not a negative as it is a targeted seasonal campaign.

Indicative of how well the ad has been received is the fact that one in four (25%) have changed their behaviour. However, possibly indicative of targeting, one in five (21%) say it is unlikely they will seek more information.

37

Radio Advertising Awareness (Aided)Base: All Having Recalled Any Radio Over Time

ST7

ST5a

ST4

ST3

ST2

ST114

10

10

6

50

40

35

39

46

35

69

48

Overall performance on radio is excellent however, in the earlier wave NI over time has significantly under performed compared to ROI . What is interesting to note is the increase in awareness from ST5 onwards. While most recently could be related to the presence of additional radio stations in NI (U105, and seven fm).

ROINI

38

Helpline Awareness

39

Spontaneous awareness of Till Receipt Initiative Base: All Respondents N=803

84

16

I.O.I

Yes

No

All that recalled advert on receipt

ROI

Tesco 23%

Dunnes Stores 15%

Supervalu 13%

Superquinn 25%

NI

Tesco 9%

Sainsbury 0%

40

Incidence of using helpline number for Temperature StickBase: All Who recall the Temperature Stick

91%

9%

Yes

No

Gender:

Male 12%

Female 7%

Age:

15-24 9%

25-34 6%

35-49 11%

50-64 11%

65+ 11%

9%

41

Rationale of not using the helpline numberBase: Those Who Did Not Use Helpline Number N = 675

13%

16%

2%

4%

11%

15%

39%I feel very confident that I know

how to cook a burger or sausage

Other

I do not like calling helplines

Don’t Know

I already have and use a temperature stick/ meat probe

Fear of ending on a database

Not concerned about food safety

42

Key Findings: Helpline Number

Just under one in five adults can recall seeing this initiative. What is interesting to note is the far reaching aspects of the campaign in terms of other supermarket shoppers claiming awareness.

Recall among Superquinn shoppers is especially interesting as it is significantly higher than the average recall and marginally higher than Tesco shoppers recall. This would suggest dual shopping locations for household shopping. Essentially stores are being selected on convenience, product range and content.

Of those who are aware of the campaign, just under one in ten who recalled the initiative have used the number, which gives a minimum of 48,000 possible callers. Where as just 1% of the population or 3000 adults actually did pick the phone to make a call.

Core knowledge is the principle reason for not using the number followed, albeit not closely, by a dislike of calling helplines.

43

BBQ Summer Promotion

44

Awareness of Summer BBQ PRBase: Those Who Recalled Campaign N = 161

7875

25

51%

4%

4%

19%

27%Safefood

Food Safety Promotion Board

Other

Safefood/ Food Safety Promotion Board

No

Base: IOI (803)

Yes

No

22

Treats Campaign ST 6

BBQ Campaign ST 7

Base: Those Who Recalled Campaign N = 161

45

Key Findings: Summer BBQ Campaign

Effective cut through for safefood from this effective PR campaign is achieved in one of four recalling the piece (27%).

Overall those aware tend to attribute the source to the correct body, even if the labelling may not be fully correct!

PR cut through on safefood items holds constant from wave one. An excellent situation for any brand and strong testament to careful planning and placement

46

Attitudes Toward Beef

47

74%80% 76%

20% 24%26%

ROI NI IOI

No

Yes

Do You Eat Beef?Base: All Respondents N = 803

48

It’s a meat I really enjoy

It tastes really good

I think it is good for me

It something I have eaten

since I was a child

It is a very good source of iron

It’s a very good source

of protein

It allows me variety in my diet

It is a very good source

of B vitamins

Other

ROI

47% 43%

NI

35% 51%

29% 9%

22% 13%

8% 1%

16% 10%

5% 1%

Predominant Reasons for Eating BeefBase: All IOI Respondents Who Eat Beef N=611

20% 8%

17% 8%

4%

6%

14%

14%

16%

19%

23%

40%

45%

49

Type of Beef Consumed Each DayBase: ROI Respondents N = 365

MondayTuesday Wednesda

yThursday Friday

Saturda

y

Sunda

y n/a

Steak 20% 12% 14% 11% 18% 21% 12% 17%

Burgers 14% 13% 13% 12% 12% 11% 2% 41%

Roast beef 4% 2% 5% 2% 2% 8% 63% 22%

Minced Beef 16% 16% 14% 21% 11% 10% 1% 27%

Beef Ribs 1% 3% 4% 4% 3% 2% 2% 82%

Ready meals

w/beef2% 3% 5% 3% 2% 3% 1% 83%

Casserole/stew

w/beef11% 10% 14% 13% 10% 9% 4% 37%

Stir fries w/beef 5% 6% 8% 9% 12% 11% 2% 55%

50

Type of Beef Consumed Each DayBase: NI Respondents N = 246

MondayTuesday Wednesd

ay

Thursda

y Friday

Saturda

y

Sunda

y n/a

Steak 11% 6% 7% 10% 23% 36% 32% 15%

Burgers 14% 15% 18% 12% 17% 14% 2% 40%

Roast beef 4% 3% 5% 3% 5% 8% 70% 16%

Minced Beef 25% 26% 29% 18% 15% 10% 4% 13%

Beef Ribs 3% 2% 3% 6% 8% 6% 3% 76%

Ready meals

w/beef4% 4% 6% 6% 3% 3% 2% 80%

Casserole/stew

w/beef19% 17% 22% 20% 13% 9% 6% 26%

Stir fries w/beef 6% 8% 9% 12% 14% 9% 4% 59%

51

How Do You Like Your Steak?Base: All IOI Respondents Who Eat Beef N=611

3 2 3

58 56

1516

1010 10

1111 11

3 2 31 0 1

53

5

ROI% NI% IOI%

Very Rare BlueRareMedium to Rare

Medium

Medium to Well

Well Done

Don’t Cook / Eat Steak

52

How Do You Like Your Beef Burgers?Base: All IOI Respondents Who Eat Beef N=611

15 15 14

77 73

7

752 421 11 0 11 0 0

69

5

ROI% NI% IOI%

Very Rare BlueRareMedium to RareMediumMedium to Well

Well Done

Don’t Cook / Eat Beef Burgers

53

Concerns with Beef Preparation Base: All Respondents N = 803

48

57

58

59

59

59

61

63

70

25

18

15

15

17

18

12

11

11

20

18

21

20

19

18

21

17

9

Organic

Packaged

Antibiotics

Hormones

Origin

Labelled

BSE

E-Coli

How it is cookedConcerned

Neither

Unconcerned

54

Safety AssurancesBase: All Respondents N = 803

48

60

61

62

68

25

19

18

21

16

20

15

14

12

9

Labelled as‘Organic’

Traceability(knowing what farm

it comes from)

Country of origin

Place of purchasee.g. butchers or

supermarket

Quality assurancemarks

Effective

Neither

Ineffective

55

How Do You Cook Beef?Base: All IOI Respondents Who Eat Beef N=611

SteakBeef

Burgers Roast Beef Minced Beef

Cooked in Butter 7% 3% 2% 3%

Cooked in Vegetable Oil 7% 5% 1% 9%

Cooked in Olive Oil 20% 9% 5% 13%

Cooked in Own Juices 7% 6% 18% 37%

Oven Cooked 9% 4% 77% 7%

Grilled 31% 42% 1% 5%

Fried 29% 23% 1% 24%

Healthy Grilled e.g. George

Foreman 8% 7% 0% 2%

BBQ 5% 10% 0% 0%

56

Key Findings: Attitudes to Beef

More than three quarters of all adults on the island of Ireland eat beef. A slightly greater number in Northern Ireland claim consumption rather than ROI.

Drivers of consumption in ROI centre on enjoyment, taste, being good for the consumer and also tradition! In NI, drivers of consumption centre on taste and enjoyment.

Tradition in daily consumption patterns dominates roast on a Sunday, casserole on Wednesdays, mince on Thursdays, steak on Saturday. Essentially convenience food during the week, treat on Saturday and a lovingly cooked family meal on Sunday.

A little over one in two adults take their steak well done. One in four claim a medium steak suits them best while one in ten are fans of rare and, for some, bloody steak.

Almost three in four adults claim to prefer a well done burger. Worryingly, more than one in ten like a medium to rare burger. Overall understanding of the health risks associated with under cooking a minced product is minimal given that almost nine in ten adults (89%) state a cooking preference for their burger.

57

Key Findings: Attitudes to Beef

Overall concerns with beef centre on cooking methods, potential for bacteria, BSE, labelling and country of origin. Interestingly country of origin and labelling are of more interest to an ROI audience whereas use of hormones is a concern for NI.

In terms of what can allay consumers fears, most seek quality marks of assurance, place of purchase (familiarity with same), and traceability. Again there are regional differences, country of origin is seen as a safety assurance in ROI but as likely to be seen as such in NI.

58

Food Safety & Healthiness

59

Level of concern about Food Safety IssuesBase: All Respondents N = 803

410 6

9 11

24 18

35

23 27

1

33

ST 6 ST7

Very Concerned

Concerned

Neither

Unconcerned

Very unconcerned

Don’t Know

60

Level of Concern Regarding Healthy EatingBase: All Respondents N = 803

6 66 10

20 18

41 40

2424

ST6 ST7

Very Concerned

Concerned

Neither

UnconcernedNot Concerned at All

%

61

Attitudes to Healthy EatingBase: All Respondents N = 803

60

47

39

46I often get confused by the many different messages

about healthy eating

Over the past 6 months I have become more aware of healthy eating issues

Agreement

ST7ST6

62

When juice runs Clear

When there is no pink flesh remaining

Time that the meat has been cooking

When its piping hot all the way through it

When it looks cooked on the outside

Using a thermometer/temperature probe

Smell

Other

Don’t Know

Judging When Meat is Cooked Base: All Respondents N = 803

6

7

4

6

16

16

21

33

38

%

63

Attitudes Towards Current Fruit & Vegetable ConsumptionBase: All Respondents N = 803

26Don’t think that I need to eat more fruit & veg

%

Means of Encouragement

If they were less expensive

Greater availability in local shop

If they were already prepared – diced/peeled

Habit

If I was more aware of health benefits

If I could store them properly

Other

Don’t Know 13

11

6

9

11

12

14

23

64

Daily Portions of Fruit & VegetablesBase: All Respondents N = 803

1%5%

12% 13%

7%

1% 1% 1%

8%

2% 1% 0%

60%

4%

21%18%

27%

15%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10

Actually Eat

Should Eat

65

Barriers to eating Fruit & VegetablesBase: All Respondents N = 803

%

Cost

The fact that they go off quickly

Habit

They are a lot of hard work

Don’t like the taste

There is a lot of wastage

I don’t buy them as part of my shopping

My kids won’t eat them

Other

Don’t Know 26

15

2

3

7

8

8

16

17

18

66

Key Findings: Food Safety Issues

Overall levels of concern regarding food safety are holding constant with minimal increases in the levels of those who are very concerned in this wave. There was a marginal uplift in levels of those unconcerned with healthy eating on wave 7. Could complacency regarding a much communicated message be seeping in?

Levels of confusion remain similar, while awareness of healthy eating issues in the past six months have virtually halved.

The three key factors in establishing if meat is properly cooked are clear juices, lack of pink flesh and duration of cooking. Currently, just under one in ten (6%) use a thermometer or meat probe to check if meat is cooked.

Just over one in four (26%) claim that they are not eating enough fruit and vegetable. Cost, availability (in a convenient location) and need to peel and prepare are the principle reasons for not eating enough fruit and vegetable. A very honest one in ten (11%) say their lack of fruit and vegetable is simply down to habit.

67

Key Findings: Food Safety Issues

A little under two thirds of adults know they should consumer five portions a day, however just on in five (21%) actually consume the recommended amount. Despite the fact that there is a 40% differential between those who do eat and those who know what they should be eating, only 26% claim they are not eating enough fruit and vegetable. What is also concerning is the portion of the population who think the RDA is 3 or less!

Principle barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption are essentially three fold – cost, perish ability and habit.

68

Awareness of safefood

69

Logo RecognitionBase: All Respondents N = 803

Bases: IOI BM – 900; ST1 – 827; ST2-863; ST3 – 828; ST 4 – 819; ST 5a- 811; ST 6-831 ST7 - 803

51%61% 59%

74%64%

69% 67%

IOI ST1

IOI ST2

IOI ST3

IOI ST4

IOI ST5

IOI ST6

IOI ST7

70

Brand Attributes for safefoodBase: Those Who Recalled Ad N = 161

Trustworthy

Knowledgeable

Friendly

Relevant

Reliable

Civil Service Type Organisation

All Who Agree safefood are…….%

45

65

66

56

68

65

28

44

47

39

50

46

28

39

42

38

45

41

ST7ST6ST5

71

5% 4% 5%5% 6%

7%4% 4%

24%23% 23%

32%33% 26%

26%31%

36%

6%

Brief TipsExplanation of why you need

to do certain thingsPractical examples of how to

cook

Food Safety/Nutrition TipsBase: All Respondents N = 803

Very Helpful

Somewhat Helpful

Neither

Somewhat UnhelpfulVery UnhelpfulDon’t Know

24% 27%27%

72

Leaflets in local supermarket

Radio/TV/Newspaper Ads

Newspaper Articles

Info on website/download

Regular radio pieces slots

Information Helpline

Other

Preferred Format of Communication for Food Safety and Nutrition (Prompted)Base: All Respondents N = 803

11%

3%

6%

9%

10%

18%

38%

ROI NI

40% 35%

27%13%

8%

2%

14%

7%

3%

11%

9%

8%

9%

9%

73

Key Findings: Awareness of Safefood

Brand badge recognition has been holding constant for the past three waves indicating awareness is not underpinned by advertising, a healthy position for any brand. In terms of brand attributes, safefood is seen as trustworthy, knowledgeable, and friendly. The perception of safefood as a civil service type organisation has diminished significantly over time.

Response to food safety and nutrition tips was quite positive, but when we examine which offer the respondent truly wants, practical examples and procedure explanation are preferred.

Over all preference for communication centres on delivering messages at a time when food thoughts dominate, so in the supermarket couple this with practical advice and procedure explanation for an effective way of getting food safety and nutrition information to the general public at a time when they are prepared to listen.

74