1. In-Store Food Marketing Research Innovative strategies to market healthier foods and de-market junk foods Karen Glanz, PhD, MPH University of Pennsylvania

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 C ONCEPTUAL F RAMEWORK : Marketing  the 4 P’s

5.  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 Pilot Study in progress (The Food Trust, U of Penna, Temple University)

6. 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

7.  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 Study Phases & Design

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11.  “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 Design Approaches (micro to macro)

12. 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 tim e

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

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