Search results

Increasing and maintaining the population’s consumption of healthful food may hinder the global obesity pandemic. The purpose of this paper is to empirically test whether it is possible for healthful sub-brands to achieve higher consumer behavioural loyalty than their less healthful counterparts.

The study analysed three years of consumer panel data detailing all purchases from five consumer goods categories for 15,000 UK households. The analysis uses best-practice techniques for measuring behavioural loyalty: double jeopardy, polarisation index, duplication of purchase and user profile comparisons. Each sub-brand’s healthfulness was objectively coded.

Despite the level of healthfulness, all sub-brands have predictable repeat purchase patterns, share customers as expected and have similar user profiles as each other. The size of the customer base, not nutrition content, is, by far, the biggest determinant of loyalty levels.

Consumers do not show higher levels of loyalty to healthful sub-brands, or groups of healthful sub-brands. Nor do they buy less healthful sub-brands less often (as a “treat”). There are also no sub-groups of (health conscious) consumers who would only purchase healthful options.

Sub-brands do not have extraordinarily loyal or disloyal customers because of their healthfulness. Marketers need to focus on growing sub-brands by increasing their customer base, which will then naturally grow consumer loyalty towards them.

This research brings novel evidence-based knowledge to an emerging cross-disciplinary area of health marketing. This is the first study comparing behavioural loyalty and user profiles towards objectively defined healthful/less healthful sub-brands.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to provide a descriptive analysis of consumers’ ability to comprehend and use common price promotion information when they choose to do so (e.g. to find the least expensive price or to understand the savings amount); second, to identify which consumer groups (in terms of demographic characteristics) find price promotion comprehension particularly challenging.

An online questionnaire with 14 measures (four literacy, ten numeracy) was administered in the study. Data from 607 Australian consumers were analysed using descriptive, cross-tabulation, and multiple regression analysis via IBM SPSS analytics software.

On average, 20 per cent of the consumers surveyed were unable to comprehend the price promotion signage. On average, 13 per cent of the consumers were unable to carry out arithmetic tasks using the information on price promotion signage. Multiple regression models showed that income level was the main driving factor for the consumers’ price promotion literacy and numeracy levels.

The present study is the first exploratory examination of consumers’ levels of comprehension (literacy) and effective use (numeracy) regarding common types of price promotion communication. The use of online samples and data collection method overestimates the results effect.

This is a pilot field study to investigate whether levels of consumers’ price promotion literacy and numeracy are adequate for everyday decision making. The information can be used as evidence and justification for further research.

This research describes and evaluates the co-creation of a programme called “A Healthy Choice”. Underpinned by design thinking (DT), this study aims to improve the healthfulness of food choices in supermarkets among consumers to promote their well-being.

The research features two studies. Study 1 included five co-design workshops with consumers and staff (n = 32) to develop a consumer-centred programme. The findings supported the design and implementation of a programme evaluated in Study 2 (an ecological trial). The programme modified a supermarket environment to increase the prominence of healthier products (shelf-talkers and no discount), ran positive food experiences (cooking and label reading workshops) and was supported by a community-wide information campaign in social and local print media.

A total of 15 new strategies were developed by consumers and staff to support health and well-being in supermarkets. Feasibility discussions and staff voting contributed to the development and storewide implementation of the programme. Evaluation showed that the programme was effective in increasing consumer knowledge of healthier food choices (measured via public survey). Sales analysis showed mixed results; sales increased for promoted products in some categories, but there was no effect in others.

Given the real-world setting in which this programme and its evaluation were conducted, there were several innate limitations. The co-design process generated many more ideas than could be implemented, thus creating a healthy “pipe line” for the next iterations of the programme.

The key contribution of this work to supermarket intervention literature is the recommendation to change the paradigm of engagement between the key stakeholders who are typically involved in supermarket programs. Using the co-design and DT frameworks, the authors offer an example of stakeholders working together in close partnership to co-design and collaboratively implement a programme that promotes healthier choices.

This project contributes to the emerging body of empirical work using DT principles in the area of healthy food choices in supermarkets. A rigorously designed evaluation of a co-designed supermarket programme contributes to scholarly evidence on food well-being programs in supermarkets.

The paper seeks to conduct an exploratory study into how positive and negative brand belief levels differ before, and change after, consumers defect from a brand or take up a new brand.

Two longitudinal studies in banking and insurance were used. These included repeat interviews with the same consumers. Brand buying behaviour and positive and negative brand beliefs were measured and then compared across those who defected from a brand and those who took up a new brand.

Prior to defection, differences in both positive and negative perceptions were apparent in those who subsequently defected. There was also evidence of a readjustment after defection to match the new user status. There was evidence that this readjustment did not just occur in the behaviour change period, but continued to occur afterwards, with differences over time much greater for the longer time frame interview than evident for the shorter time frame. Negative beliefs were more discriminating when the defection was customer‐initiated rather than during a renewal process. New brand users displayed a higher propensity to give positive beliefs prior to taking up the brand compared to non‐users who did not take up the brand. These changes further continued post‐switching as new users adjusted to their new status.

This research contributes to the understanding of the brand belief‐behaviour relationship using two very different longitudinal studies. It also investigates negative brand beliefs, which are rarely researched, and compares the effects of negative beliefs with that of positive beliefs.