Search results

The interest of food consumers in improved quality, healthiness, freshness, and authenticity results in a growing introduction of new food products featuring a variety of “positive” (e.g. “Enriched with Vitamin D”) and “negative” (e.g. “Low in Fat”) label claims. It's the goal of this paper to uncover how the presence of positive and absence of negative benefits or attributes balance in the minds of consumers, determine which label claims would have the greatest impact on consumers' intention to buy milk, and understand the role of stating these in either a positive or a negative frame.

To achieve the objectives of this paper, we utilize (1) descriptive study to identify which claims are currently used by the dairy marketing practitioners, (2) focus group to identify the importance of positive and negative product claims, and (3) online survey including discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine the effect of positive and negative claims on consumer food choices.

We provide evidence of negative bias in consumers facing the choice between foods with enriched positive ingredients vs foods that are free-from negative ingredients. Specifically, we find that consumers have a general tendency toward giving negative attributes more weight than positive ones.

The research was conducted in one food category.

This research should encourage food marketers to include more positive statements about their products rather than the current focus on negatives such as no GMOs or no hormones. the authors understand these negative attributes need to be made but there should also be positive attributes.

Consumers will get a total picture of the product values and not skewed to one point.

The concept of negative bias has not be adequately explored in the food category on product labels.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the use of front of package (FOP) claims within product categories by private label (PL) products and national brands (NB). This research adapts an existing conceptual model exploring the marketing strategies of PL products and NBs.

Information for this study came from Mintel’s Global (2009/2011). There were 10,791 products launched in 2011 in the US database, 8,120 NB and 2,671 PL food and drink products. For 2009: 5,838 NB and 2,118 PL that gives 7,956 food and beverages products launched in USA.

PL and NB companies increased the usage of FOP claims, and also often moved in the same direction for some product categories. The greatest number of increases across product categories for PL and NB between 2009 and 2011 were Ethical-Enviromentally Friendly Packaging; Allergen; Fiber; Weight Control; Gluten Free; Kosher and No Additives claims. There were much less FOP that were decreased in usage. The claims that most frequently decreased were “Organic,” “Calories,” and “Vitamin/Mineral Fortified.” The categories that significantly decreased the “Organic” claim were Baby Food, Bakery, Breakfast Cereals, Fruit and Vegetables among PL product categories and Breakfast Cereals, Dairy, Side Dishes and Soup among NB categories.

The study is based on only a three-year time span. difference over a greater period of time could reveal more significant differences.

The evidence from this research indicates that PL brands are matching NBs as they look to using other attributes and benefits. However, as PL sales increase, retailer margins increase which can lead to further aggressive marketing by the PL brands.

The analysis of FOP claims for PL and NB over such a large sample has not previously been done.

This paper aims to compare the use of front-of-pack nutrition claims made on 32,257 food labels launched in 2009 in the US and the EU.

Information from Mintel's Global New Product Database was analyzed, for 25,417 products launched in the EU and 6,840 in the US. The hypothesis was that “products launched in the US and EU have a different frequency of front-of-pack nutrition claims”. Using inferential statistics, significant differences (two-tailed Z-tests) in the number of claims are explored and compared to differences in legislation standards and consumer preferences.

The initial analysis revealed that there were six significant differences between the presence of the seven health and nutrition claims across 16 product categories in the US and the EU. Further analysis of the 16 product categories revealed a range of significant differences between the frequency of US and EU claims.

The emerging relevance of front-of-pack nutrition labeling as a marketing tool makes such differences pertinent. This paper marks the first systematic comparison of the use of claims between the US and EU.