1 / 13

Persuasive shelves : The healthiness of on-package marketing communications

Persuasive shelves : The healthiness of on-package marketing communications. @ TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven. Thanks to: Tine Mathues & Silke De Win CTC 2014 – Edinburgh – April 2014 http://www.slideshare.net/timsmitstim/. Background. Focus : Child-targeted packaged foods

july
Download Presentation

Persuasive shelves : The healthiness of on-package marketing communications

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Persuasiveshelves: • The healthiness of on-package marketing communications @TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven Thanks to:TineMathues & Silke De Win CTC 2014 – Edinburgh– April 2014 http://www.slideshare.net/timsmitstim/

  2. Background • Focus: Child-targetedpackagedfoods • Marketing oftencalledculpritforchildhoodobesityepidemic • Dominant areas of effects research: • Effects of TV orTV-adsexposure • Effects of endorseradvertising

  3. Background • Limitations? • Marketing exposurebroaderthan TV • Other marketing tools thanendorsers • Someprevious studies onactualfoodpackaging • Packaging = “last moment of truth” • Aid recall of campaign cues ~ endorsers • Consumption cues • Branding/product cues

  4. Previousfindings Chapman 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”

  5. Previousfindings Julian & Holdsworth (2008) – UK 83% of all promotions: cartoon characters 58% of all promotionsfor “lesshealthyfoods” (FSA criteria; binary coding) Cereals most likely to use multiple techniques

  6. Previousfindings Van Assema et al. (2011) – The Netherlands Endorsers most popular 90% of “marketed” foodsfor the unhealthycategory (Voedingscentrum)

  7. Thisstudy • Belgiansupermarketofferings? In 2013? • RelationbetweenMarCom cues & Healthiness? • National brandsvs Private labels? • Methodology • 16 foodcategories in a Belgianretailer • Child-focused (-12 years) • Coding: • Healthiness (FSA nutrientprofiling model; binary – cont) • Endorsers, premiums, games, promotions, claims (health, product), consumptionillustration, premium packaging, premium product design, colors, collection items

  8. Results 472 childtargetedproducts (about 25% of all products) 90% unhealthyproducts (binary FSA system) Average # marcom cues: National brands: 3.1 - vs – Private labels: 2.8 83% productsfromnationalbrands

  9. Results Most heavilychild-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

  10. Results

  11. Results • In regression analyses: • Whatpredicts 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 (-) • Illustrationor promotion (-) • Characteristic color use (-) • Product design (-) • Package design (-)

  12. Discussion & Conclusion Up-to-date overview of BE supermarketofferings Regulation & Pledges are only a manifest radar and muchgoes “undetected” to policy Research agendaforchildren-and-persuasion

More Related