In-Store Food Marketing Research Innovative strategies to market

In-Store Food Marketing Research Innovative strategies to market healthier foods and de-market junk foods Karen Glanz, Ph. D, 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) Ø 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 Ø 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 ØCereal ØMilk ØBeverages (SSB/0 -calorie) ØSalty snacks ØFrozen entrees ØFrozen dairy desserts ØCanned pasta ØFrozen entrees ØHealthy 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 v Needed! Feasible measures of the 4 P’s for in-store food retail environments (measures exist for products) v Separate dimensions (e. g. , placement, promotion) v Composite ‘scores’ to prompt and evaluate change v Maximize objectivity (e. g. , use sales data) v. Clear, feasible, reliable, disseminable

FIRST-GENERATION MEASURES Gro. Promo (Kerr, Sallis, Bromby & Glanz; in review 2011) ü Measures placement and promotion for several categories of foods ü Studied in 3 neighborhoods in San Diego ü Good inter-rater reliability ü Discriminant validity ü Criterion validity (compared to customer receipts) Health Responsibility Index (Dibbs/NCC, 2004 in UK) ü Nutritional content of store brand (sodium, fat, sugar) Labeling information ü In-store promotions (shelf space, less healthy snacks @ checkouts Customer information & advice ü Overall Score

Research Methods Balance between internal & external validity Controlled experiments v Advantages: determine causal effects, manipulate variables of interest v Disadvantages: if done in lab settings they may differ from real-life situations Field studies & natural experiments v. Advantages: closer estimate of real-world effects v. Disadvantages: expensive, hard to control external factors & events

Design Approaches (micro to macro) v “Micro” includes laboratory experiments, often not in real-world settings v “Meso” includes analogue stores, with experiments and/or observation v “Macro” is in real-world settings, ideally sustainable

Balancing pros & cons: Controlled experiments in real store settings v Uses advantages of previous two approaches v Where industry-researcher partnerships have the most potential payoff From a public health perspective v Maximizes scientific rigor + real-world applicability v Can build on controlled/lab experiments v 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 Ø Working together – supermarkets (want people to buy more) and public health researchers (want people to buy less of common products) Ø Consumer price and value sensitivity (wanting more food for their money) Ø Defining ‘categories’ for sales data isn’t as easy as it seems Ø 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 Shop. Rite Fresh Grocer Funding: RWJF, HER, USDA

”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” - Ben Franklin Thank you!