Persuasive shelves:The healthiness of on-package marketing communications

@TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven

Thanks to:Tine Mathues & Silke De WinCTC 2014 – Edinburgh– April 2014

http://www.slideshare.net/timsmitstim/

BACKGROUND

Focus: Child-targeted packaged foods

Marketing often called culprit for childhood obesity epidemic

Dominant areas of effects research: Effects of TV or TV-ads exposure

Effects of endorser advertising

BACKGROUND

Limitations? Marketing exposure broader than TV Other marketing tools than endorsers

Some previous studies on actual food packagingPackaging = “last moment of truth” Aid recall of campaign cues ~ endorsers Consumption cues Branding/product cues

Previous findingsChapman et al. (2006) – Australia“food promotions were defined as marketing and sales promotions used on food labels

or as food packaging designed to entice consumers to buy a product at the point-of-sale”

Previous findingsJulian & Holdsworth (2008) – UK83% of all promotions: cartoon characters58% of all promotions for “less healthy foods” (FSA criteria; binary coding)Cereals most likely to use multiple techniques

Previous findingsVan Assema et al. (2011) – The NetherlandsEndorsers most popular90% of “marketed” foods for the unhealthy category (Voedingscentrum)

This study

Belgian supermarket offerings? In 2013? Relation between MarCom cues & Healthiness?National brands vs Private labels?

Methodology 16 food categories in a Belgian retailer Child-focused (-12 years) Coding:

Healthiness (FSA nutrient profiling model; binary – cont) Endorsers, premiums, games, promotions, claims

(health, product), consumption illustration, premium packaging, premium product design, colors, collection items

Results472 child targeted products (about 25% of all products)

90% unhealthy products (binary FSA system)

Average # marcom cues: National brands: 3.1 - vs – Private labels: 2.883% products from national brands

Results

Most heavily child-targeting:

FSA CRITERIONMEAN(FSA)

soft candy (75%) 100% unhealthy 13.71

candy & chips (67%) 96% unhealthy 15.01

cookies (34%) 100% unhealthy 19.05

cereals (30%), 100% unhealthy 10.74

Results

% use of cues Savory Dairy Chocolate Cereals Cocoa Soft candy

…

Endorser 100 64,2 50 83,9 100 57,6

Premium 0 1,9 6,3 25,8 0 3,4

Call-to-action 0 11,3 18,7 54,8 20 1,7

Games 0 0 6,3 29 60 1,7

Sweepstakes 0 3,8 34,4 12,9 0 0

Promotion 0 5,7 9,4 0 0 1,7

Claim 50 62,3 25 77,4 100 37,3

Illustration 66,7 56,6 96,2 100 80 100

Package design 0 9,4 6,2 0 0 1,7

Product design 66,7 5,7 46,9 74,2 0 79,7

Results

In regression analyses: What predicts a product’s (un)healthiness? (Model incl. product category: R² = .78; model excl. product category: R² = .60)

(Product category) More cues National brands Nutrition claims (-) Illustration or promotion (-) Characteristic color use (-) Product design (-) Package design (-)

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

Up-to-date overview of BE supermarket offerings

Regulation & Pledges are only a manifest radar and much goes “undetected” to policy

Research agenda for children-and-persuasion