1. Gutter Share Brands Dr Stuart Roper The University of Manchester Ginette Unsworth ENCAMS Professor Cathy Parker Manchester Metropolitan University

2. A growing problem In 2006 the fast food market grew by 4.8%

3. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Year

4. Vote: Who is the most responsible for reducing fast food litter? 1 2 3 4 Local authority? The people who drop it? The fast food outlets? All of the aforementioned? 17% 37% 16% 47%

5. Our Campaign

6. Advertising campaign in partnership

7. The Survey Snapshot of 10 key cities’ presence of fast food litter Town centre and out of town locations Hourly observations of a 300m stretch

8. Vote: What is the most common fast food item found on our streets? 1 2 3 4 Fish and Chips/Kebab KFC McDonald’s Greggs 17% 51% 3% 29%

9. Gutter Share McDonald’s – 29% Fish & Chip/Kebab – 21% Greggs – 18% KFC – 8% Subway – 5%

10. The Launch Advance letters to 11 fast food companies National and regional press releases Launch event in Leicester Square on 13 th Jan

11. £6.8m media coverage! BBC Breakfast, Newsround, Radio 2 Guardian Telegraph Daily Mail Daily Mirror The Sun The Times II supp Regional papers 100’s regional radio Granada Tonight, BBC Look North West, Tyne Tees TV, ITV West, ITV Anglia, Channel M

12. What next? In discussion with Greggs and McDonald’s How does littering affect their brand? How can brands incorporate positive anti-litter messages into their marketing?

13. The Litter Effect

14. Consumer brand evaluations “Brand managers….do not exercise complete control over the brand’s presentation to customers.” (Buchanan et al, 1999) Literature review revealed 12 studies that had quantitatively investigated potential negative influences upon brand evaluations Two main categories – “incongruent” e.g. ads incongruent with brand image or “negative priming”

15. Our research A small negative effect found as a result of brand being seen in a litter context (Roper & Parker, 2007) Purpose of this research is to test the assumption that brand evaluations will suffer (Roper & Parker, 2006) when a brand is viewed in a litter context compared to a neutral or a more congruent context. Consumers’ brand evaluations were measured by evaluating Brand attitude Brand personality (positive & negative dimensions) Purchase intention

16. Methodology Experimental design manipulating context in which new brand was seen Pre-test: 417 undergraduates randomly allocated to 3 groups to calculate effect size for purpose of sample planning, pilot stimulus & experimental procedures Expected effect size calculated (d=.15), overall sample size necessary = 1,500 Sample of UK residents randomly allocated to 3 experimental conditions until 500 collected per group, equal split amongst male/female, evenly distributed 18-65 year olds

19. Stimulus

20. Results Litter Context (1) Congruent Context (2) Neutral Context (3) FContrasts & Cohen’s d MSDM M F1 vs 2 1 vs 3 Brand Personality (Positive) 5 point; 1 to 5 3.35.693.45.633.46.644.26*1<2* (.15) 1<3* (.16) Brand Personality (Negative) 5 point; 1 to 5 2.45.732.37.692.34.693.11*1>3+ (.12) 1>3* (.15) Attitude towards Brand 7 point; -3 to +3.511.14.76.92.77.9410.45 ** 1<2* * (.24) 1<3** (.25) Purchase Intention 11 point; 0 to 10 5.442.885.802.805.882.893.30*1<2* (.13) 1<3* (.15) + p=.08; * p<.05, ** p<.01

21. Discussion Results demonstrate that brand evaluations suffer when brand seen in a litter compared to a neutral or more congruent context All 4 evaluations (positive and negative brand personality, attitudes towards brand and purchase intentions) were evaluated more negatively Litter context had most effect upon attitude towards the brand and least upon negative dimensions of brand personality Therefore, it is not just positive and controllable factors that effect consumer evaluations Consider negative factors in marketing mix decisions?