Marketing cues on child-targeted food packaging

857 views

Published on

Paper presentation at the 2014 Etmaal Communicatiewetenschap - February - Wageningen

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
857
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Marketing cues on child-targeted food packaging

  1. 1. Overtuigend (on)gezond: De Marketing Cues van Voedselverpakkingen @TimSmitsTim – KU Leuven Thanks to:Tine Mathues & Silke De Win Etmaal CommunicatieWetenschap – Wageningen – February 2-3 2014 http://www.slideshare.net/timsmitstim/
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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-ofsale”
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. Previous findings Van Assema et al. (2011) – The Netherlands Endorsers most popular 90% of “marketed” foods for the unhealthy category (Voedingscentrum)
  7. 7. 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, CTAs, games, promotions, claims (health, product), consumption illustration, premium packaging, premium product design, colors
  8. 8. Some Results 83% unhealthy products Average # marcom cues: National brands: 3.1 - vs – Private labels: 2.8 Most heavily child-targeting: cereals (30%), soft candy (75%) % use of cues Endorser Premium Call-to-action Games Sweepstakes Promotion Claim Illustration Package design Product design Savory 100 0 0 0 0 0 50 66,7 0 66,7 Dairy 64,2 1,9 11,3 0 3,8 5,7 62,3 56,6 9,4 5,7 Chocolate Cereals 50 6,3 18,7 6,3 34,4 9,4 25 96,2 6,2 46,9 83,9 25,8 54,8 29 12,9 0 77,4 100 0 74,2 Cacao 100 0 20 60 0 0 100 80 0 0 Soft candy 57,6 3,4 1,7 1,7 0 1,7 37,3 100 1,7 79,7 …
  9. 9. Results In regression analyses: What predicts a product’s unhealthiness?  (Product category)  More cues  National brands  Nutrition claims (-)  Illustration or promotion (-)  Characteristic color use (-)  Product design (-)  Package design (-)
  10. 10. 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

×