Transcript Karen Glanz - NCCOR National Collaborative on Childhood Obesity

In-Store Food Marketing Research
Innovative strategies to
market healthier foods and
de-market junk foods
Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH
University 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
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Marketing  the 4 P’s
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
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 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
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
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
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 experiments
Advantages: closer estimate of real-world
effects
Disadvantages: expensive, hard to control
external factors & events
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
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 consider
and 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 Pennsylvania
Karen Glanz
Erica Davis
The Food Trust
Allison Karpyn
Stephanie Weiss
Temple University
Gary Foster
Alexis Wojtanowski
Collaborating Grocers
Brown’s ShopRite
Fresh Grocer
Funding: RWJF, HER, USDA
”An ounce of
prevention is worth a
pound of cure”
- Ben Franklin
Thank you!