1. @TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven
Persuasive shelves:
The healthiness of on-package marketing communications
@TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven
Thanks to:Tine Mathues & Silke De Win
CTC 2014 – Edinburgh– April 2014

2. Focus: Child-targeted packaged foods
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
Above-the-line

3. Marketing exposure broader than TV
Background
Limitations?
Marketing exposure broader than TV
Other marketing tools than endorsers
Some previous studies on actual food packaging
Packaging = “last moment of truth”
Aid recall of campaign cues ~ endorsers
Consumption cues
Branding/product cues

5. Chapman et al. (2006) – Australia
Previous findings
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”
Chapman: also healthiness included, measured with NSW and CHOICE criteria; binary coding
Focus on endorsers

6. Julian & Holdsworth (2008) – UK
Previous findings
Julian & Holdsworth (2008) – UK
83% of all promotions: cartoon characters
58% of all promotions for “less healthy foods” (FSA criteria; binary coding)
Cereals most likely to use multiple techniques
Focus on endorsers

7. Van Assema et al. (2011) – The Netherlands
Previous findings
Van Assema et al. (2011) – The Netherlands
Endorsers most popular
90% of “marketed” foods for the unhealthy category (Voedingscentrum)
Data from 2009

8. Belgian supermarket offerings? In 2013?
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
Extensive set of marcom cues

9. 472 child targeted products (about 25% of all products)
Results
472 child targeted products (about 25% of all products)
90% unhealthy products (binary FSA system)
Average # marcom cues:
National brands: vs – Private labels: 2.8
83% products from national brands
Extensive set of marcom cues

10. Most heavily child-targeting: FSA criterion Mean(FSA)
Results
Most heavily child-targeting:
FSA criterion Mean(FSA)
soft candy (75%) % unhealthy
candy & chips (67%) 96% unhealthy
cookies (34%) % unhealthy
cereals (30%), % unhealthy
Extensive set of marcom cues

11. Results % use of cues Savory Dairy Chocolate Cereals Cocoa Soft candy…
Endorser
100
64,2 50
83,9
57,6
Premium
1,9
6,3
25,8
3,4
Call-to-action
11,3
18,7
54,8 20
1,7
Games 29 60
Sweepstakes
3,8
34,4
12,9
Promotion
5,7
9,4
Claim
62,3 25
77,4
37,3
Illustration
66,7
56,6
96,2 80
Package design
6,2
Product design
46,9
74,2
79,7
Extensive set of marcom cues

12. In regression analyses: What predicts a product’s (un)healthiness?
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 (-)
Extensive set of marcom cues

13. Up-to-date overview of BE supermarket offerings
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