Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Upcoming SlideShare
Scotiabank mining conference, website, toronto, dec 2015
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0

Share

Download to read offline

Dissertation Defense Finnell

Download to read offline

  • Be the first to like this

Dissertation Defense Finnell

  1. 1. 11/30/2015 1 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! A Social Marketing Intervention May 7, 2015 F O R M A T I V E R E S E A R C H 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! A Social Marketing Intervention May 7, 2015 Methods  Pre-Intervention Sample  553 SNAP households randomly selected to participate  94% completion rate (94%)  520 respondents included in the final sample  Proportional weighting based on ethnicity  Pre-Intervention Telephone Survey  25 questions  Milk purchasing habits  Biggest reason usually purchase the type of milk  Willingness to consider using low-fat milk  10 true/false milk nutrition knowledge questionnaire  Self-rated physical health May 7, 2015 Milk Sales DataMilk Sales Data  Baseline of the type of milk sold  80 supermarkets in the Oklahoma City MM  Aggregated by gallons per week per store by type (volume)  Market share of 1% milk sold Methods May 7, 2015
  2. 2. 11/30/2015 2 Baseline Milk Consumption Patterns  Milk is rich in nutrients but is a leading source of saturated fat and excess calories  Low-fat milk use is low among Oklahoma SNAP beneficiaries Table 1. Type of Milk Consumed Type of Milk National1 (2012) Oklahoma City MM2 (April, 2012) SNAP Beneficiaries3 Whole milk 29.4% 37.1% 44.6% 2% milk 36.2% 42.8% 47.9% 1% milk 17.8% 10.0% 3.9% Nonfat milk 16.6% 10.1% 3.6% 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2013); 2. Milk sales; 3. Pre-Intervention Telephone Survey (Weighted, All ethnicities).May 7, 2015 Socio-demographic Predicators at Baseline SNAP Beneficiaries  No association between low-fat milk use and most of the socio-demographic variables examined.  Having some college education or more and having a child living in the household predicted low-fat milk use (p = .02)  14.3% of those with some college education who had a child living in the household reported usually purchasing low-fat milk  More women used 2% milk than men (p = .004)  56.4% of women reported using 2% milk  42.1% of men reported using 2% milk May 7, 2015 Attitudes & Beliefs SNAP Beneficiaries  Taste vs. health benefits  Perceived that low-fat milk lacked the same vitamins and minerals as whole or 2% milk  Same amount of calcium (37.2% correct answers)  Same amount of vitamin D (44.6% correct answers)  1% milk has fewer vitamins and minerals than whole milk (51.2% correct answers)  Low-fat milk users were significantly more likely to know two key facts than 2% milk users  1% milk is not watered down whole milk (p = .01)  2% milk is not low-fat (p = .02)  Little awareness of the recommendations to serve children age 2 and older low-fat milk (49.4% correct answers). May 7, 2015 Milk Nutrition Knowledge  Milk nutrition knowledge was no better than guessing (M = 51.1)  Low-fat milk users scored better than high-fat milk users (p = .00)  Milk nutrition knowledge progressively improved among those using lower-fat milk (p = .00) 46.0 53.2 66.0 69.0 R² = 0.9547 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 Whole Milk 2% Milk 1% Milk Nonfat Milk T e s t S c o r e Figure 1: Mean milk nutrition quiz scores by type of milk usually purchased (SNAP Beneficiaries) May 7, 2015
  3. 3. 11/30/2015 3 T H E I N T E R V E N T I O N 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! A Social Marketing Intervention May 7, 2015 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! Audience Segment: 2% milk users (SNAP Beneficiaries) Actual product: 1% milk use in the home Core product: All the vitamins and minerals of whole or 2% milk with less fat Price: Relative exchange of benefits and the costs of changing a habit and adapting to the taste and texture of 1% milk Place: Supermarket Promotion: Gain-based message strategy (Sobal & Bisogni, 2009) May 7, 2015 TV Commercials ONIE - Kendrick Perkins TV - YouTube.mp4 May 7, 2015 R E S U L T S M I L K S A L E S 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! A Social Marketing Intervention May 7, 2015
  4. 4. 11/30/2015 4 Milk Sales DataMilk Sales Data  80 supermarkets in the Oklahoma City MM  66 supermarkets in the Tulsa MM  Intervention year and year prior Methods May 7, 2015 1% Milk Sales (Market Share) 10.0% 8.5% 11.5% 8.4% OKC MM Tulsa MM Pre-Intervention Post-Intervention Figure 2. Market share of 1% milk prior to and after the intervention (2012). May 7, 2015 Weekly Milk Sales (Oklahoma City MM) Mar 7 Mar 22 Apr 6 Apr 21 May 6 May 21 Jun 5 Jun 20 Jul 5 Jul 20 Aug 4 Aug 19 Sep 3 Sep 18 Oct 3 Oct 18 Nov 2 Nov 17 Dec 2 Day of Date [2012] 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 Beginning of Intervention: June 10, 2012 M = 224.7 Pre-Intervention Period 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! Intervention Post-Intervention Period September 2, 2012 M = 275.8 20.4% increase June 3, 2012 M = 229.1March 2, 2012 M = 223.5 November 25, 2012 M = 241.8 Oklahoma City MM Figure 3. 1% milk sales, weekly mean gallons sold per supermarket in the intervention MM (segmented by 12-week intervention periods.)May 7, 2015 Weekly Milk Sales (Tulsa MM) Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Day of Date [2012] 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 Pre-Intervention Period in the OKC MM Intervention Period in the OKC MM Post-Intervention Period in the OKC MM June 3, 2012 M = 208.1 March 4, 2012 M = 217.0 June 10, 2012 M = 212.1 September 2, 2012 M = 221.1 6.3% increase November 25, 2012 M = 199.4 Tulsa MM Figure 4. 1% milk sales, weekly mean gallons sold per supermarket in the Tulsa MM, the comparison MM May 7, 2015
  5. 5. 11/30/2015 5 Poverty of Neighborhood Higher-income areas • 17.3% relative increase in monthly mean number of gallons of 1% milk sold (r =.73) • 4.5 gallon average weekly increase • 13.7% relative increase in monthly market share (12.4% at baseline) Lower-income areas • 23.3% relative increase in monthly mean number of gallons of 1% milk sold (r =.73) • 4.1 gallon average weekly increase • 17.1% relative increase in monthly market share (8.2% at baseline) Poorest areas • 29.1% relative increase in monthly mean number of gallons of 1% milk sold (r =.75) • 2.4 gallon weekly increase • 20.3% relative increase in monthly market share (5.9% at baseline) Mar 1 Apr 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Day of Date [2012] 150 200 250 300 350 100 150 200 250 300 350 Higher-Income Neighborhoods Lower-Income Neighborhoods June 3, 2012 M = 159.8 September 2, 2012 M = 201.4 26.1% increase June 3, 2012 M = 275.7 September 2, 2012 M = 323.1 14.7% increase Pre-Intervention Period 1% Low-Fat Milk Has Perks! Intervention Post-Intervention Period Figure 5: Average weekly gallons of 1% milk sold in supermarkets grouped poverty of the neighborhood were the supermarket is located Oklahoma & Cleveland Counties May 7, 2015 Point-of-Sale Items Limited Availability Promotion Placement Poor Product Placement and Few Shelf Facings Price Competition May 7, 2015 R E S U L T S P R E - P O S T I N T E R V E N T I O N T E L E P H O N E S U R V E Y R E S U L T S 1% Low Fat Milk Has Perks! A Social Marketing Intervention May 7, 2015 Methods  Pre- and Post-Intervention Final Samples  520 SNAP households (Pre-intervention)  560 SNAP households (Post-intervention)  Focus on head of households identified as of black or white ethnicity  Proportional weighting based on ethnicity  Pre- and Post-Intervention Telephone Survey  Type of milk usually purchased for use in the home  Milk nutrition knowledge  Recall of the intervention  Impression of the intervention  Recall other campaigns promoting 1% milk use May 7, 2015
  6. 6. 11/30/2015 6 Type of Milk Usually Purchased 43.2% 49.2% 4.1% 3.6% 38.8% 48.5% 7.9% 4.7% Whole milk 2% milk 1% milk Skim or nonfat milk Pre-Intervention (n = 417) Post-Intervention (n = 443) Note. Black and white ethnicity only, weighted. Figure 6: Type of milk usually purchased by SNAP beneficiaries before and after the intervention (weighted). May 7, 2015 Self-reported Low-Fat Milk Use Among Groups of SNAP Beneficiaries  Low-fat milk use increased among all groups except persons identifying as married  Increase was found to be statistically significant among the following groups:  Women, single SNAP beneficiaries, households without children, and SNAP beneficiaries of black ethnicity as well as those residing in urban areas  Non-significant but substantial improvements  High school education or less  Low-fat milk use increase from 6.0% to 8.7%, a 45% relative improvement  Men  More likely to be whole milk users  The proportion of men reporting whole milk as the type of milk usually purchased decreased 12.1% (22.5% relative change)  The proportion of self-reported lower-fat milk use increased (2%, 1%, and non-fat milk)  The proportion of black men reporting whole milk as the type of milk usually purchased decreased 26.3% (52.6% relative change)  Children living in household  Low-fat milk use increased 27.7%  Whole-milk use decreased 14.3%  Low understanding of dietary recommendations  Unlikely to buy two types of milk 42.1% 48.5% 43.7% 49.8% 36.1% 51.8% 41.2% 46.0% Whole milk 2% milk Whole milk 2% milk Children No children Pre-Telephone Survey Post-Telephone Survey Figure 7: High-fat milk use in SNAP households with and without children.May 7, 2015 Statistically Significant Gains in Milk Nutrition Knowledge & Low-Fat Milk Use Low-Fat Milk Use Only Females Knowledge Only Males High school or less Whites Knowledge & Low- Fat Milk Use Single Urban No children living in household Blacks Figure 8: Illustration of significant gains in milk nutrition knowledge and low-fat milk use by group (SNAP beneficiaries) May 7, 2015 RecallRecall Point-of-Sale DisplaysPoint-of-Sale Displays Recall & Channel Effects (SNAP Beneficiaries)  Recalled intervention (20.1%)  Channels recalled  Television (6.9%)  Radio (0.8%)  Magazines (3.2%)  Billboards (3.1%)  Point-of-sale items  Supermarkets (2.3%)  Service agencies (3.4%)  No recall of the mass-transit ads, Pandora radio, or the website May 7, 2015
  7. 7. 11/30/2015 7 Recall & Impressions (SNAP beneficiaries)  Most seemed to like the intervention (Mdn = 6, 1 -7)  Most seemed to comprehend the message (75.7%)  Response varied  Adopted 1% milk use  Tried it but did not like the taste  Some intended to try  A few were indifferent or resolute  Message recall  Higher in urban areas (27.3%) than rural areas (10.2%)  Higher among all blacks (29.5%) than all whites (14.0%)  Higher among urban blacks (35.1%) than urban whites (19.4%)  No other milk related interventions were recalled May 7, 2015 Effect in the Rural Area of the OKC MM among SNAP Beneficiaries  Approval of the intervention  Urban, white SNAP beneficiaries – Mdn = 6, (1,7)  Rural, white SNAP beneficiaries – Mdn = 4 (1,7)  Married & white (1.3 rating) vs. single & white (4.9 rating)  Rural and urban white SNAP beneficiaries were very similar based on socio- demographic variables, type of milk usually purchase, and milk nutrition knowledge  Rural white SNAP beneficiaries were slightly more resolute than urban counterparts (p = .06))  Message did not resonate among rural, white SNAP beneficiaries  “Did not offer choice”  Not credible  Some took it personally (“we are overweight”) May 7, 2015 Successful Strategies  Understood the core product  Salient messages  Asked the audience to perform a single “doable” behavior  Simple, brief, credible  Place where the behavior to be performed was clear  Message consistency and repetition  “Personalizing” the message  Gain-based message strategy paired with a positive mood  Incorporation of strategies to change a routine behavior  Spokesperson/female shopper (Anghelcev & Sar, 2014; Best, 2001; Dixon et al., 2011; Fleck, Korchia, & Roy, 2012; Kim & Cheong, 2011; Luntz, 2007; Misra & Beatty, 1990; Wedel & Pieters, 2008) May 7, 2015 References Anghelcev, G., & Sar, S. (2014). In the mood for [the right kind of] social marketing communication. Journal of Social Marketing, 4(1), 38-57. doi: doi:10.1108/JSOCM-04-2013-0025 Best, J. (Ed.). (2001). Introduction: The diffusion of social problems. In How claims spread: Cross national diffusion of social problems (pp. 1-18). Hawthorne, NY: Walter de Gruyter. Dixon, H., Scully, M., Wakefield, M., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., & Donovan, R. (2011). Parent's response to nutrient claims and sport celebrity endorsements on energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods: an experimental study. Public Health Nutrition, 14(6), 1071-1079. Fleck, N., Korchia, M., & Le Roy, I. (2012). Celebrities in advertising: Looking for congruence or likability? Psychology & Marketing, 29(9), 651-662. doi: 10.1002/mar.20551 Kim, K., & Cheong, Y. (2011). The effects of athlete-endorsed advertising: The moderating role of the athlete- audience ethnicity match. Journal of Sport Management, 25(2), 143-155. Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: It's not what you say, it's what people hear. New York: Hyperion. Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21, 159-173. Pieters, R., Warlop, L., & Hartog, M. (1997). The effect of time pressure and task motivation on visual attention to brands. Advances to Consumer Research, 24, 282-287. Sobal, J., & Bisogni, C. A. (2009). Constructing food choice decisions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38(Suppl. 1), 37-46. U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2013). Fluid milk sales by product (Annual) [Data file]. Available from Economic Research Service Web site, Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2008). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Review of Marketing Research, 4, 123-147. May 7, 2015

Views

Total views

131

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

3

Actions

Downloads

2

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×