In-Store Food Marketing Research Innovative strategies to market healthier foods and de-market junk foods

1
In-Store Food Marketing Research Innovative
strategies to market healthier foods and
de-market junk foods
Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH University of Pennsylvania
2

• 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

•  

3

• 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

•  

4
Conceptual Framework Marketing ? the 4 Ps
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
5
Pilot Study in progress (The Food Trust, U of
Penna, Temple University)

• GOAL evaluate impact of in-store marketing
  strategies to
• Increase sales of healthy childrens foods
• Decrease sales of empty calories from
  energy-dense,
• low-nutrient childrens foods
• Be profitable or cost-neutral to
  retailers/manufacturers
• Improve customer satisfaction loyalty
• Pilot test observational measure
• Grocery Marketing Environment Assessment

6

• 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
• Cereal
• Milk
• Beverages (SSB/0-calorie)
• Salty snacks
• Frozen entrees

• Frozen dairy desserts
• Canned pasta
• Frozen entrees
• Healthy check-out aisles

7
Study Phases Design

• 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

8

•  MEASUREMENT
• Needed! Feasible measures of the
• 4 Ps 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

9

• 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 _at_ checkouts
• Customer information advice
• Overall Score

10

• 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 experiments
• Advantages closer estimate of real-world
• effects
• Disadvantages expensive, hard to control
• external factors events

11
Design Approaches (micro to macro)

• 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

12

• 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

13
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

14
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 isnt as
  easy as it seems
• Balancing industrys profit motive, consumer
  desire for value, health experts goal to
  reducing childhood obesity

15

Acknowledgments/Collaborators
University of Pennsylvania Karen Glanz Erica
Davis The Food Trust Allison Karpyn Stephanie
Weiss Temple University Gary Foster Alexis
Wojtanowski Collaborating Grocers Browns
ShopRite Fresh Grocer
Funding RWJF, HER, USDA
16
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure
- Ben Franklin
Thank you!