In-Store Food Marketing Research
Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH
University of Pennsylvania


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


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

ONCEPTUAL
RAMEWORK

Price: coupons, specials, private label/store brands
* Promotion: In-store vs. out-of-store; signage; banners; tastetesting; 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, lownutrient children’s foods
– Be profitable or cost-neutral to retailers/manufacturers
– Improve customer satisfaction & loyalty
 Pilot test observational measure:
Grocery Marketing Environment Assessment

• 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

 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


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

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

(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

 Uses advantages of previous two approaches
 Where industry-researcher partnerships have the most potential payoff
 Maximizes scientific rigor + real-world applicability
 Can build on controlled/lab experiments
 Better chance of dissemination & sustainability over tim e

• 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

 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