In-Store Food Marketing Research

Innovative strategies to market healthier foods and

de-market junk foods

Karen Glanz, PhD, MPHUniversity of Pennsylvania

 

In-Store Food Marketing

Deserves attention as a unique focus – distinct from media marketing, digital

marketing, and package labeling

Shoppers/buyers are usually adults, but they are often influenced by children

 

Significant Research Gaps

Little research on children related to IN-STORE marketing Lack of representation of diverse

population groups (race/ethnicity, income, education) Limited research on consumer behavior & health in real-life settings

Price: coupons, specials, private label/store brands

* Promotion: In-store vs. out-of-store; signage; banners; taste-testing; shopper marketing”; single- vs. cross-brand promotion; store nutrition guidance systems

* Placement: Location of products in store; influence of assortments (quantity and variety); placement on shelves; quantity of facings/shelf-space; store layout

Products: Nutrient composition; packaging; health claims; targeting markets; effects of color and naming

* Most robust in-store marketing intervention opportunities

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: Marketing the 4 P’s

GOAL: evaluate impact of in-store marketing strategies to…

– Increase sales of healthy children’s foods– Decrease sales of empty calories from energy-dense,

low-nutrient children’s foods– Be profitable or cost-neutral to retailers/manufacturers– Improve customer satisfaction & loyalty

Pilot test observational measure: Grocery Marketing Environment Assessment

Pilot Study in progress(The Food Trust, U of Penna, Temple University)

Product Category Focus• Known role in excess weight or weight gain prevention• Nutritional content {CALORIES} varies within category • Child-relevant• Strong brand competition• Potential to be revenue-neutral for retailers• Can increase healthy, decrease unhealthy, and/or shift the balance

CerealMilkBeverages (SSB/0-calorie)Salty snacksFrozen entrees

Frozen dairy dessertsCanned pastaFrozen entreesHealthy check-out aisles

Review previous sales data (select products) Consumer focus groups Design interventions Randomize stores (4 tx, 4 control) Implement interventions 4-6 months

MEASURES Weekly sales data, 1 yr pre, weekly, post-intvn Intercept interviews Observations Grocery Marketing Environment Assessment

pre-post

Study Phases & Design

 MEASUREMENT

Needed! Feasible measures of the 4 P’s for in-store food retail environments (measures exist for products)

Separate dimensions (e.g., placement, promotion)

Composite ‘scores’ to prompt and evaluate change

Maximize objectivity (e.g., use sales data)

Clear, feasible, reliable, disseminable

FIRST-GENERATION MEASURES

GroPromo (Kerr, Sallis, Bromby & Glanz; in review 2011)

Measures placement and promotion for several categories of foods Studied in 3 neighborhoods in San Diego Good inter-rater reliability Discriminant validity Criterion validity (compared to customer receipts)

Health Responsibility Index (Dibbs/NCC, 2004 in UK) Nutritional content of store brand (sodium, fat, sugar) Labeling information In-store promotions (shelf space, less healthy snacks @ checkouts Customer information & advice Overall Score

Research Methods

Balance between internal & external validity

Controlled experiments Advantages: determine causal effects, manipulate variables of interest Disadvantages: if done in lab settings they may differ from real-life situations

Field studies & natural experimentsAdvantages: closer estimate of real-world effectsDisadvantages: expensive, hard to control external factors & events

“Micro” includes laboratory experiments, often not in real-world settings

“Meso” includes analogue stores, with experiments and/or observation

“Macro” is in real-world settings,ideally sustainable

Design Approaches (micro to macro)

Balancing pros & cons: Controlled experiments in real store settings Uses advantages of previous two approaches Where industry-researcher partnerships have the most potential payoff

From a public health perspective Maximizes scientific rigor + real-world applicability Can build on controlled/lab experiments Better chance of dissemination & sustainability over time

Issues to considerand Opportunities to use

• Will need to tackle the unhealthy options• Brand-based vs. health-based marketing • Loyalty card users• Slotting allowances• Displays and signage – in-store triggers• Audio and shopping-cart displays• Information: on-packages and elsewhere

Challenges

Working together – supermarkets (want people to buy more) and public health researchers (want people to buy less of common products)

Consumer price and value sensitivity (wanting more food for their money)

Defining ‘categories’ for sales data isn’t as easy as it seems

Balancing industry’s profit motive, consumer desire for value, & health experts’ goal to reducing childhood obesity

Acknowledgments/Collaborators

University of PennsylvaniaKaren GlanzErica Davis

The Food TrustAllison KarpynStephanie Weiss

Temple UniversityGary FosterAlexis Wojtanowski

Collaborating GrocersBrown’s ShopRiteFresh Grocer

Funding: RWJF, HER, USDA

Thank you!

”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”

- Ben Franklin