The moderating role of health consciousness and brand familiarity
on the effectiveness of claims on packaging
The moderating role of health consciousness and brand familiarity
on the effectiveness of claims on packaging
By Daan Smit January 12, 2020
MSc Marketing Intelligence University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisors:
Abstract
As over half of the world’s population is overweight and obesity numbers still rise, the topic of healthy food decision becomes more and more urgent. The use of claims on food packaging is a widely used method by marketeers in order to attract customers. Claims can come in several forms. In this research the impact of health, nutrition and unrelated claims are researched. Existing literature regarding this topic mainly studies the direct impact of claims whereas this research is about the moderating role of health consciousness and brand familiarity on the effectiveness of claims on packaging. 155 participants filled out a survey where they answered question regarding these concepts. Results showed that customers prefer the claims with
nutritional information followed by health claims over the unrelated claim. Health consciousness strengthens this preference for nutritional claims. No interaction effect was found regarding brand familiarity. A suggestion for further research would be to investigate this concept in a setting where brands are presented as they are in a real-life grocery store in order to investigate whether brand familiarity is influencing the effectiveness of claims on packaging.
Table of Contents Abstract 3 Introduction 5 Theoretical review 8 - Health claims 11 - Nutrition claims 12
- Vague unrelated claims 13
- Health consciousness 14 - Brand familiarity 17 Methodology 20 - Sample 20 - Conjoint setup 20 Results 23 - Direct effects 24 - Interaction effects 25
- Latent Class Analysis 28
Introduction
According to the World Health Organization (2018), obesity remains one of the biggest issues regarding mental and physical health. The prevalence of this issue has increased over the past decades. WHO indicates that worldwide obesity has tripled since 1975. In 2016, more than 1.9 billion adults, 18 years and older, were overweight. Of these over 650 million were obese. Most of the world's population live in countries where overweight and obesity kills more people than underweight. Likewise, the growing obesity numbers directly (morbidities) and indirectly (diabetes, heart disease, etc. as a result of obesity) are associated with growing health care costs (Wee et. al, 2005). In 1995, the direct costs of obesity (which is defined as having a body mass index greater than 30) were total 70 billion dollars. These costs are independent of those that are caused by inactivity. The total costs associated with obesity accounted for 9,4% of the total health care expenditures in the United States in 1995 (Colditz, 1999). Keeping this in mind and knowing that obesity numbers have grown after 1995, this shows that reducing obesity is not only a problem for society, but also for government and health care organizations.
Even though it is proven that obesity kills people, it is also proven that it is preventable, because the main cause of obesity is the food intake and the regulation of it (Rolls, 2007; Jebb, 2007). There is some evidence that the use of claims on packaging improves dietary choices and
knowledge of diet-disease relationships (Williams, 2005). These claims can contain a very broad message such as “this product is good for you”, but can also include information about the healthiness (e. g. “this product supports your inmumesystem”) or nutrition of the product. The fact that the use of these claims is influencing the buying decision insinuates that food marketers can play a role in decreasing obesity numbers. Contrary to governments and health care
customers’ well-being. This is a result of the free market, where food companies that are less profitable than their competitors are likely to end up being acquired by their rivals or to go bankrupt. In this context, the mission assigned to most food marketeers is to understand what the several consumer segments desire and to profitably offer it to them (Chandon & Wansink, 2012). However, marketeers and policy makers are not sufficiently equipped with a proper
understanding of how customers differ in their food choices (Mai & Hoffmann, 2012). Despite the fact that existing research proved nutrition health claims on packaging to influence consumer buying habits (Roe et al, 1999; Williams, 2005). The aim of this research is to detect which type of claims on packaging are most effective for different type of customers, in order to better understand how to effectively promote healthy food. The impact of food packaging on purchase intention is a frequently studied subject. However, current research fails to indicate customer and brand characteristics that influence the effectiveness of health claims on packaging (Williams, 2005). The types of claims that will be investigated will be discussed in more detail in the next section. By investigating the effectiveness of claims on packaging, a contribution is made for both the political/social issue, and the marketing/economic issue.
After the current state of the literature was reviewed regarding this problem, a conceptual model was formed in which factors were drafted that asked for further research. The first research question of this paper is: Which types of claims on food packaging are most effective in
increasing purchase intention? After the literature was reviewed, two conditional variables were drawn that are expected to influence the effectiveness of health claims on the purchase intention. The first concept is health consciousness, which is defined as the extent to which someone is aware and seeking for nutritional information of food products. In this research, the following question regarding this concept is investigated: is the effectiveness of claims on packaging
concept that is investigated is brand familiarity. This concept is defined as the extent to which someone knows and recognizes a brand that is selling a certain product. The third research question is: is the effectiveness of claims on packaging influenced by the extent to which the customer is familiar with the brand that is selling the food product? Because the measurement of the concepts is scaled, participants can take on different levels of the several variables which enables us to create segments by combining levels of different concepts in the analysis.
By answering the research questions, food marketers are offered an answer on how to effectively use claims on food packaging. The customers of healthy food products are classified based on health consciousness and their familiarity with the brand that is executing marketing strategies including the use of claims. Customers in the retail shopping will form the data source of this research. Data is acquired by setting customers up in an experimental setting where they were face several combinations of products, brands and package claims. The participants are asked about their preferences and familiarity regarding the brand and nutrition of a certain product.
In the next section, the theoretical background will be discussed followed by the methodology section. Subsequently, results and conclusions will be presented as well as some
Theoretical Background
In 2004, Cowburn and Stockley came across 103 (un)published articles on the subject of the use of claims on food packaging. It can be assumed that this number has become a lot bigger in the 15 years after the Cowburn and Stockley article. Besides the fact that the presence of nutrition health claims does create a greater number of specific attribute-related thoughts, more inferences, and creates a more believable and positive image of the product (Wansink, 2003), there does not seem to be consensus on the effect of claims on the actual calorie intake of customers (Skinner et. al, 2018; Hales et. al, 2018). People do not seem to lower their calorie intake as a result of the way they are nudged by the companies in the food industry (Tangari et. al, 2019).Misperception of the claims by the customer is probably the main reason for this and this might be a result of health consciousness which will be discussed later in this section. Nevertheless, it can be
concluded that marketing communications, including advertising, promotion, branding, nutrition, and the use health claims, can influence a consumer’s expectations of the sensory and
non-sensory benefits of the food (Chandon & Wansink, 2012).
Marketing communications comprise the most recognized form of influence and the one most closely scrutinized by marketing and non-marketing researchers. Besides the name of the food, communication about the nutritional attributes and the presence (and number) of specific
Within the healthy food industry, the use of claims on packaging is a frequently used type of marketing communication. The aim of the use of claims is to make customers aware of the some specific or more broad aspects of the product that benefit the customers’ health. These nutrition health claims are distinct from the mandatory and regulated nutrition information about calories, nutrient levels, and serving sizes (Ippolito & Mathios, 1991). In this paper, the focus will be on three types of claims on food packaging as defined by Chandon & Wansink (2012):
- Health claims - Nutrition claims
- Vague unregulated claims or health sales
Figure 1: Framework of different claims
Extent of specific information
As already mentioned, some of these claims can improve brand evaluation and sales, although these effects are influenced by comparisons with other foods in the same category and by how they influence taste expectations (McCluskey & Villas-Boas, 2011; Kozup et. al, 2003). In general consumers see health claims as useful, they prefer short succinct wording rather than long and complex claims, and they believe claims should be approved by government (Williams, 2005). Roe et al. (1999) proved that the use of claims on packaging positively influences
consumer buying behavior. The net effect of the claims probably depends on brand and individual characteristics (Chandon & Wansink, 2012), and is stronger for some claims than others. For example, differences in taste expectations about food, specifically when described as “low fat,” as opposed to branded as “healthy” in general, have been found between
demographics characteristics like gender, age and income,and mostly influence unfamiliar brands (Bowen et. al, 1992; Cavaliere, et al 2015). In the next sections, every type of claim will
"Good for
you"
"25% less
fat"
be discussed in more detail and its effect on the purchase intention will be hypothesized. In the remainder of the theoretical section, two moderators will be discussed that are expected to influence the effectiveness of the claims. Also, their impact is expected to differ amongst the several types of claims. One of the goals of this research is to test other conditional variables that might have an impact on the relationship between the claims on food packages and the change purchase intention. Finally, conclusions will be drawn on which type of claims will be more effective for specific groups of customers.
Health claims
From a commercial point of view, the use of health claims has had mixed results so far. Evidence from the United States and Europe suggest that health claims can increase market share for healthy food products (Heasman & Mellentin, 2001), and it is argued that they have improved communication to consumers about the role of diet in disease prevention (Fulgoni, 2001). Health claims have been shown to increase the sales of more nutritious products that are consistent with healthy dietary patterns (Calfee & Pappalardo, 1991). However, there have also been some significant marketplace failures for foods with claims (Nestle, 2002). A WHO review of health claim regulations concluded that too little is understood about the role that health claims play in nutrition education, and that there is insufficient evidence concerning their effect on diet and public health (Hawkes, 2005). Consumers do view a food as healthier if it contains a health claim and this “halo” effect may hold them from seeking further nutrition information. There is
they view it as healthier and state that they are more likely to purchase it (Williams, 2005). It can be concluded that health claims do change beliefs and healthiness perception of customers. Therefore, it is hypothesized that the use of health claims will also increase the purchase intention.
H1: Health claims on food packaging have a positive impact on the purchase intention of the customer
Nutrition claims
Nutrition claims or ‘nutrient content claims’, as defined by the Food and Drug Association (FDA), describe beneficial levels of a nutrient in the food (e.g. ‘good source of protein’, ‘low in fat’), or compare the level of a nutrient to levels in other foods (e.g. ‘more vitamins’, ‘light’). Nutrition claims can be misleading, especially when placed on products with high levels of nutrients that need to be limited (e.g. sugar, sodium) and low levels of other nutrients to encourage (e.g. fibre, protein). Consumers also may not realize that they are already taking too much of a particular nutrient (e.g., protein intake in Western countries). This source of confusion is applicable to the nutrition claim as described above because this is the type of claim were claims like “high in protein” could occur. Although it is unclear if nutrition claims are making people eat more healthy, earlier research shows that these claims do increase the expected
H2: Nutrition claims on food packaging have a positive impact on the purchase intention of the customer
Vague unrelated claims
Prohibiting all health claims in some countries, or those that refer to diseases, has not prevented the proliferation of a wide number of potentially confusing or misleading “vague unrelated” claims on food products that may be interpreted by consumers as implied health claims (e.g., “makes you healthy”). These “soft claims” do not give the customer much information about nutrients or specific medical information. They entail a broader message about the healthiness of the product and require less “hard evidence” than the other claims. According Katan (2004), manufacturers have “made the formulation of soft claims into a fine art, creating claims that imply health effects without actually naming a disease.” It is a requirement that health claims are scientifically founded. However, their phrasing is criticized for being unappealing and
cumbersome to communicate to consumers. Instead, it has been found that consumers respond favorably to non-scientifically phrased ‘soft’ health information. Soft information positively influences health inferences and attitudes towards the food (Aschermann-Witzel & Grunert, 2015). Therefore, vague unrelated claims are expected to have a positive impact on the purchase intention of customers.
H3: Vague unrelated claims on food packaging have a positive impact on the purchase intention of the customer
cause of the restriction of effectiveness the use of claims on healthy food packaging. These misperceptions might be a result of a lack of health consciousness.First, although the
relationship between any nutrient and health is almost always curvilinear, consumers expect it to be monotonic (“more is better”). According to this, it seems that this misperception restricts the effectiveness of the claims and that is a result of the level of health awareness and health consciousness of the consumer. Second, consumers may not realize that they are already taking too much of a particular nutrient (e.g., protein intake in Western countries). If customers are not aware of their recommended daily intake of certain nutrients, they are more likely to
overconsume. Third, wording can be misleading; such as when “provides energy” is understood as “energizing”. Finally, some claims are based on flimsy science, or they overstate research findings.
Health consciousness
attributes of a food product. One group was more health consciousness and thus gave more importance to health-related aspects (nutrition fact-seekers), the other group gave more
importance to taste and was more focused on health-unrelated aspects (taste lovers). The level of health consciousness can thus vary from nutrition fact-seeker (high health consciousness) to taste lover (low health consciousness).
In this research, it is investigated whether the different types of claims are more or less effective for the different levels of health consciousness. The psychological basis for the hypotheses we make lies in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) of Petty & Cacioppo (1986). The ELM suggests that the individual’s motivation and ability (here: health consciousness) influences the extent of elaboration in information processing. Although the fact that health consciousness is expected to have a positive impact on the effectiveness of claims in general, the previous
insinuates that depending on an individual’s motivation and ability to make healthy food choices, certain claims on food packaging can be more effective than others.
health and nutrition claims are expected to be more effective for customers who take the central route which means that the buying behavior is a more thought out decision based on rational motives and supported by a high level of motivation and ability to make health food choices.
The example about traffic light labeling that was mentioned earlier is an example of this. This type of claim is more informative about the presence of certain food attributes in the product, and because the health-conscious shopper is already aware of what this information means, it will have more effect on this particular group of shoppers than on the group of shoppers that care less about the healthiness of the product. Bower (2001) suggested that health claims on food alone cannot adequately address the need for consumer education; they are better thought of as a means of easily identifying healthy foods once the target group is informed of their existence and the reasons for consuming them. This confirms the hypothesis that health and nutrition claims will be more effective for the more health-conscious consumer.
H4: The higher the level of health consciousness, the higher the effectiveness of health claims on purchase intention.
H5: The higher the level of health consciousness, the higher the effectiveness of nutrition claims (but less than the effect in H4) on purchase intention.
have more impact on the people that are usually not labeled as health-conscious people because they get triggered by the message that a product is healthy for some vague unrelated reason and not necessarily by the informational value of the claim.
H6: The lower the level of health consciousness, the higher the effectiveness of vague unrelated claims.
Brand familiarity
As individual customer characteristics are expected to have an impact on the healthy food choice decision, brand characteristics should also be considered as an important driver of healthy food choices. It is already known that perceived quality of products by the customer can be influenced by the way the customer sees the brand (Dawar & Parker, 1994; Akdeniz et. al, 2013; Kent & Allen, 1994). As discussed in the previous parts, also in terms of healthiness of the product there seems to be a lot of room for misperceptions when using nutrition health claims.
Whether the customer pays attention to a certain claim on the packaging of healthy food products or not, from an ethical perspective, the claim should at least be the truth. To increase the
based on experiences from the past. Although current research provides that brand familiarity does have a positive impact on the effectiveness of advertising (Campbell & Keller, 2003), little is known about the effectiveness of nutrition health claims. Bimbo et. al. (2016) found that most nutrition health claims supported by a familiar brand benefit from an additional premium price compared with those supported by less familiar ones. In other words, people are willing to pay more for a healthy product that includes a health claim that is executed by a familiar brand. Therefore, firms investing in the development of functional products may need to invest first in building and sustaining their brand familiarity as a mean to increase the value of the claim on their packaging. Based on previous research we expect brand familiarity to positively influence the promotion of healthy food products (Baker et al, 1986). This is for instance happening when a customer experienced to be fitter and healthier after consuming a product that was claiming to increase the immune system. The next time this customer sees a new product with a nutrition health claim, we expect that this customer than is more likely to fall for this claim. This is based on the idea that a high level of brand familiarity creates trust and confidence towards a brand, and which in turn results in a higher purchase intention of that same brand (Ha & Perks, 2005; Laroche et al, 1996). No distinction is made between the types of claims, in terms of their effectiveness in relation to brand familiarity. This is because brand familiarity is expected to have a positive effect on the effectiveness of nutrition health claims in any form.
H7: The higher brand familiarity, the higher the effectiveness of health claims on the purchase intention.
H9: The higher brand familiarity, the higher the effectiveness of vague unrelated claims on the purchase intention.
After reviewing the existing literature and identifying the gaps on this subject, the following conceptual model was composed
Health
consciousness Brand familiarity
Methodology
Sample
One hundred and fifty-five respondents volunteered to fill out an online survey. The data that was used for answering the research questions was collected by asking the participants questions about health consciousness, brand familiarity and their preference in several conjoint choice sets. Conjoint analysis has been widely used in marketing to evaluate consumer preferences for
products and services (Hair et al., 1998). It is frequently applied in examining preferences for food product attributes (Gil and Sanchez, 1997). Green and Krieger (1991) pointed out the usefulness of conjoint analysis for benefit segmentation. This type of analysis allows to find people’s preferences in terms of claims (flavor and price), but also to create segment sbased on peoples’ health consciousness and brand familiarity. The utility for a product is based on the systematic utility of consumer n for a certain attribute (see table 1).
𝑈
"#= 𝐹
"#+ 𝐶
"#+ 𝑃
"#+ 𝜀
"#Conjoint setup
Because of the low information efficiency of choices and due to the increasing complexity in information processing for the respondent when the number of attributes becomes larger (Eggers, 2011), it was chosen too only use three types of product attributes that differed among the choice sets. These attributes were the type of claim on the package, flavor and price. (see table 1). All attributes existed of three or four levels. This resulted in realistic and balanced choice sets that presented the quarks as they are presented in the grocery store. Because all attributes had about the same number of levels, it was less obvious what the purpose of this survey was (Eggers, 2011). Balancing the importance of the attributes was also the reason for the relatively small range of price levels. To keep the participants engaged and to avoid hypothetical bias a €20,- Amazon voucher was awarded to one of the participants. For the same reason, the participants were exposed to only ten choice sets of quark that contained different combinations of attributes. Before the participants were exposed to the choice sets, they were asked to respond on seven statements which tell something about their health consciousness. On a 7-point Likert (1932) scale they were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statements. After the health consciousness section, the participants were asked to choose their best and worst option out of three different options of quark (see figure 2). By presenting the conjoint study like this, information not only about peoples’ most preferred attributes will be revealed, but also
Table 1: Attribute and levels for conjoint analysis ATTRIBUTES LEVELS FLAVOR - Raspberry - Peach - Vanilla - Stracciatella
CLAIM - Health claim: “Supports your
inmumesystem”, “Supports muscle growth”
- Nutrition claim: “0% fat”, “Protein source”
- Unrelated claim: “Good start of the day”, “Provides energy”
- No claim
PRICE - €1.09
- €1.21 - €1.35 - €1.45
analyze differences in preferences of claims between the two brands. After the choice sets, participants answered on a 7-point Likert (1932) scale to what extent they agreed with statements about brand familiarity. Because two different brands were used in the survey, participants answered these questions about both Dania and Lindahl separately.
Figure 2: Example of a choice set from the survey
Results
Figure 3: The relative importance of the attributes
A multinomial logistic regression was executed to collect estimates for the utilities of the attributes. Table 2 shows the results of a model without taking any moderators into consideration.
Direct effects
Table 2: Part-worth model
ATTRIBUTE COEFFICIENT (BEST OPTION) COEFFICIENT (WORST OPTION) FLAVOR RASPBERRY 0.071823 -0.100659* FLAVOR PEACH 0.024842 -0.169466*** FLAVOR VANILLA -0.173103*** 0.236785*** FLAVOR STRACCIATELLA 0.07643791*** 0.033340*** HEALTH CLAIM 0.294456*** -0.321922*** NUTRITION CLAIM 0.396076*** -0.303353*** UNRELATED CLAIM -0.282285*** 0.170591*** 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Flavor Claims Price
Relative importance of attributes
NO CLAIM -0.4082476*** 0.454683*** PRICE €1.09 0.220513*** -0.182577*** PRICE €1.21 0.041618 -0.138077** PRICE €1.35 -0.109836** 0.055724 PRICE €1.45 -0.1522941*** 0.254929*** Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
The table above shows us the utilities of the attributes that were present in the conjoint study. For the remainder of the results section, only significant coefficients (p < 0.05) will be considered. For every attribute, significant estimates for at least two levels were found. The coefficients show consistency when looking at the estimates for the best and worst option, as they are the opposite for every attribute level (except for stracciatella). The best flavor turns out to be questionable as the coefficients do not differ much. As expected, negative price elasticity was found (utility for the best option goes down if price goes up). Regarding the claim attribute, the products with a health claim turned out to be the most preferred, followed by the nutrition claim and the products without any claim. H1 and H2 are both supported by the results in table 1, as both health and nutrition claims have a positive impact on the purchase intention. H3 is not supported, because the unrelated claim turns out to have a negative effect on the purchase intention.
Interaction effects
Before any interaction effects were tested, it was first investigated whether the price variable(s) followed a linear trend or not. If the utility of price is linear, then less parameters would be needed to estimate which increases parsimony of the model. It turned that price does follow a linear trend in terms of utility so only one parameter for price was estimated.
Table 3: Model for interaction effects control variables with claims
GENDER * HEALTH CLAIM 0.082035 -0.021824 GENDER * NUTRITION CLAIM -0.025641 -0.043352 GENDER * UNRELATED CLAIM 0.020849 -0.050518
GENDER * NO CLAIM 0.02937692 0.1156
HUNGER * HEALTH CLAIM -0.030474 0.051994
HUNGER * NUTRITION CLAIM 0.010195 -0.022195 HUNGER * UNRELATED CLAIM -0.018513 0.010851
HUNGER * NO CLAIM 0.0388 -0.0407
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
From the table above, it can be concluded that no significant interaction effects between any of the control variables and the claims was found. Gender and hunger did not have an effect on the preferences of the participants.
Table 4: Model for interaction effects of health consciousness
DEPENDENT VARIABLES COEFFICIENTS (BEST OPTION) COEFFICIENTS (WORST OPTION) HEALTH CON * HEATH CLAIM 0.033714 -0.072499 .
HEALTH CON * NUTRITION CLAIM 0.186973*** -0.209922*** HEALTH CON * UNRELATED CLAIM -0.137074** 0.060545
HEALTH CON * NO CLAIM -0.0836*** 0.2218***
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
No significant interaction effects were found between health consciousness and health claims. This means that we can reject H4. Table 4 shows that nutrition claims are more effective when people are more health conscious. We can accept H5. By analyzing the coefficients, we learn that health conscious people dislike the unrelated claims and prefer a claim in any form over a
Table 5: Model for interaction effects of brand familiarity
DEPENDENT VARIABLES COEFFICIENTS (BEST OPTION) COEFFICIENTS (WORST OPTION) BRAND FAM DANIO * HEALTH
CLAIM
-0.056116 0.0920089*
BRAND FAM DANIO * NUTRITION CLAIM
0.056018 -0.0675043
BRAND FAM DANIO * UNRELATED CLAIM
-0.010989 0.0065783
BRAND FAM DANIO * NO CLAIM 0.0110 -0.0311*** BRAND FAM LINDAHL * HEALTH
CLAIM
-0.014192 -0.014192
BRAND FAM LINDAHL * NUTRITION CLAIM
0.016537 0.016537
BRAND FAM LINDAHL * UNRELATED CLAIM
-0.009240 -0.009240
BRAND FAM LINDAHL * NO CLAIM 0.0069 0.0069
Significance codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Latent Class Analysis
To dive even deeper in the data, segments were created based on preferences for the attributes and their scores on health consciousness by the use of a Latent Class Analysis. A part-worth model will be used for estimating preferences. Brand familiarity was left out of this analysis, because this variable showed no significance in the previous regressions.
consistent in their decisions, and this group might be participants that did not take the survey too serious. Overall, the outcome of the Latent Class Analysis does confirm our results from before.
Discussion
The aim of these analysis was to add knowledge to the literature regarding the promotion of health food choices. As obesity remains to be an unresolved problem, we analyzed the impact of customer and brand characteristics that would possibly affect the effectiveness of health food promotion. To help governments and marketeers in the right way when promoting health food. To come back to the question which type of claim is most effective in increasing purchase intention, the results show that health and nutrition claims are the most preferred type of claims compared to the vague claim or the no claim alternative. This means that in general, customers will be more sensitive for health and nutrition claims than for vague unrelated claims or a package without a claim. All claims were expected to have a positive effect on purchase
intention, and this can only be accepted for the health and nutrition claims. Marketeers could use this outcome because in general, a more informative type of claim results in a higher purchase intention by the customers.
The fact that in this research health and nutrition claims are preferred over the unrelated claim does not mean that the unrelated claim itself cannot be effective. Especially in the setting that was used in the conjoint setup, similar products from the same brand were visualized at the same time. This is usually not the case in real life grocery stores were brands usually use the same claim for a certain product range. It is possible that participants of the survey selected the health and nutrition because they compared the products by only considering the type of claim.
A segmentation analysis confirmed our finding and as a result we were able to separate groups of customers based on their preferences. Adding segments resulted in statistically better model (AIC/BIC/CAIC), but because time was limited and the contribution of adding more segments was not adding more value from a marketeer perspective, a maximum of six segments was retained. The most obvious six segments were discussed. Three groups showed consistent answers regarding their favorite flavor and do not consider claims that much. They score relatively low on health consciousness which explains their preference for taste. Segments who do not consider price and flavor that much, again prefer the nutrition and health claims over the other options.
Limitations
With our research setup, we tried the come as close as possible to a real-life shop situation. Unfortunately, it was not possible to use real-life shopping data because this would provide no information about the customers’ health consciousness and brand familiarity. With the use of the survey, some of the real-life shopping experience was lost, but we tried to minimize this. The biggest limitation of this research is the availability of time. Because of the limited time, the number of observations was limited to 155. When more time would have been available, the chances of gathering valid research results would increase.
claim because they could now easily compare the information that comes with the claim. The unrelated claim might become less useful because the other two give the customer more information. Claims from the same brand within the same product range were displayed at the same time which is usually not the case in a real-life setting where companies usually use the same claim for their products that are similar. In that case, the vague unrelated claim can have more value when promoting healthy food choices and will be less overshadowed by the other claims.
After analyzing the relative importance of the attributes, it turned out that people base their purchase decision for more than 50% based on the type of claim. This might be because the customers recognized the aim of this research and therefore focused more on the type of claims instead of the other attributes. This could be resolved by varying more product attributes or by having more brands that all capture one specific claim. The focus will lie less obviously on the type of claims and this makes the healthy food decision more realistic.
Future research
importance they give to a claim but also the brand in combination with that claim. The flipside of this is that it will be harder to measure the utility of the claim on the package because brand is now considered as an attribute. The use of more brands and attribute will automatically result in a more time-consuming research and it can be harder to construct a balanced orthogonal choice design (Eggers, 2019).
The last suggestion for future research is concerning the measurement of the purchase intention. In this research this was done by letting participant rank their best and worst option. An
alternative would be to ask a question next to the choice set whether the participant would actually buy the product he or she marked as their most preferred option. In this way, additional information about the purchase intention is gathered.
Conclusion
also the customers that more likely to buy products with a nutrition claim. Unfortunately, we could not find an interaction effect of brand familiarity and therefore this subject asks for further research.
Acknowledgements
References
Akdeniz, B., Calantone, R. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2013). Effectiveness of marketing cues on consumer perceptions of quality: The moderating roles of brand reputation and third‐party information. Psychology & Marketing, 30(1), 76-89.
Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (3), 411-53.
Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2011). Is Simpler Always Better? Consumer Evaluations of Front-of-Package Nutrition Symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 175–190 Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Grunert, K. G. (2015). Influence of ‘soft’ versus ‘scientific’ health information framing and contradictory information on consumers’ health inferences and attitudes towards a food supplement. Food quality and preference, 42, 90-99.
Bimbo, F., Bonanno, A., & Viscecchia, R. (2016). Do health claims add value? The role of functionality, effectiveness and brand. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 43(5), 761-780.
Bower, C. What can we say about health claims? Australian Journal of Nutrition and Dietetics. 2001; 58:209 –210.
Buul, J. van, & Brouns, F. J. (2015). Nutrition and health claims as marketing tools. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 55(11), 1552-1560.
Calfee J, Pappalardo J. Public policy issues in health claims for foods. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. 1991;10:33–53.
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of consumer research, 30(2), 292-304.
Cawley, J, M. J. Sweeney, J. S., David R. J., H. M. Kaiser, W. D. Schulze, E. Wethington and B.Wansink (2015),“The Impact of a Supermarket Nutrition Rating System on Purchases of Nutritious and Less Nutritious Foods,” Public Health Nutrition, 18, 8–14.
Cavaliere, A., Ricci, E. C., & Banterle, A. (2015). Nutrition and health claims: Who is interested? An empirical analysis of consumer preferences in Italy. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 44-51.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2012). Does food marketing need to make us fat? A review and solutions. Nutrition Reviews, 70(10)
Colditz, G. A. (1999). Economic costs of obesity and inactivity. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 31(11 Suppl), S663-7
Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. Journal of
marketing, 58(2), 81-95.
Dagevos, H. (2005). Consumers as four-faced creatures. Looking at food consumption from the perspective of contemporary consumers. Appetite, 45, 32–39.
Dzhogleva, N. H., J. Inman, J. Maurer, A. Greiner and G. Amoroso (2014), The Shopper-Centric Retailer: Three Case Studies on Deriving Shopper Insights from Frequent Shopper Data,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.75–102
Eggers, F., & Sattler, H. (2011). Preference measurement with conjoint analysis. Overview of state-of-the-art approaches and recent developments. GfK Marketing Intelligence Review, 3(1), 36-47.
Eggers, F., Hauser, J., & Selove, M. (2016). The Effects of Incentive Alignment, Realistic Images, Video Instructions, and Ceteris Paribus Instructions on Willingness to Pay and Price Equilibria. Proceedings of the Sawtooth Software Conference 2016.
Fulgoni, V. L., 3rd. History and industry benefits of health claims. Nutrition Today. (2001) 36:119 –120.
Hales, C. M., Fryar, C. D., Carroll, M. D., Freedman, D. S., & Ogden, C. L. (2018). Trends in obesity and severe obesity prevalence in US youth and adults by sex and age, 2007-2008 to 2015-2016. Jama, 319(16), 1723-1725
Ha, H. Y., & Perks, H. (2005). Effects of consumer perceptions of brand experience on the web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review, 4(6), 438-452.
Heasman M, Mellentin J. The Functional Food Revolution. London: Earthscan; 2001. Harris, J. L., Thompson, J. M., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2011). Nutrition-related claims on children's cereals: what do they mean to parents and do they influence willingness to buy?. Public health nutrition, 14(12), 2207-2212.
Hawkes C. Nutrition Labels and Health Claims: The Global Regulatory Environment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. Available online at:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/ 9241591714.pdf.
Ippolito, P. M., & Mathios, A. D. (1991). Health claims in food marketing: Evidence on knowledge and behavior in the cereal market. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10(1), 15-32.
Jebb S.A., (2007). Dietary determinants of obesity. Obesity Reviews 8(1): 93–97.
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familiarity. Journal of marketing, 58(3), 97-105.
Kiesel, K., Mccluskey, J. J., & Villas-Boas, S. B. (2011). Nutritional Labeling and Consumer Choices. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 3(1), 141–158.
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making Healthful Food Choices: The Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers’ Evaluations of Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19–3
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of business
Research, 37(2), 115-120.
Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2012). Taste lovers versus nutrition fact seekers: how health
consciousness and self‐efficacy determine the way consumers choose food products. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 11(4), 316-328.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances In Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-162.
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1999). The Elabration Likelihood Model: Current status and controversies. Dual process theories in social psychology, 41–72.
Riis J, Ratner RK. Simplified nutrition guidelines to fight obesity. In: Batra R, Keller PA, Strecher VJ, eds. Leveraging Consumer Psychology for Effective Health Communications: The Obesity Challenge
Roe, B., Levy, A.S., Derby, B.M., 1999. The impact of health claims on consumer search and productevaluation outcomes: results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 18(1), 89–105.
Rolls, E. T. (2007). Understanding the mechanisms of food intake and obesity. Obesity reviews, 8, 67-72.
Skinner, A. C., Ravanbakht, S. N., Skelton, J. A., Perrin, E. M., & Armstrong, S. C. (2018). Prevalence of obesity and severe obesity in US children, 1999–2016. Pediatrics, 141(3), e20173459.
Van Assema P, Glanz K, Brug J, Kok GJ. Effects of health claims on eating habits of the Dutch population. Eur J Public Health. (1996) 6, 281–287.
Wansink, B. (2003). How do front and back package labels influence beliefs about health claims?. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(2), 305-316.
Wansink, B. (2017). Healthy profits: an interdisciplinary retail framework that increases the sales of healthy foods. Journal of Retailing, 93(1), 65-78.
Wee, C. C., Phillips, R. S., Legedza, A. T., Davis, R. B., Soukup, J. R., Colditz, G. A., & Hamel, M. B. (2005). Health care expenditures associated with overweight and obesity among US adults: importance of age and race. American Journal of Public Health, 95(1), 159-165. Williams, P. (2005). Consumer understanding and use of health claims for foods. Nutrition reviews, 63(7), 256-264.
Appendix
Segment description These customers solely base their decision on the flavor and stracciatella is their favorite. Health
consciousness is not found significant here.
These customers prefer the peach and raspberry and is also the main ground for their decisions. After flavor, the choose the lowest price and health claims. People within this segment are moderately health conscious.
These customers just like the vanilla flavor and to not consider any of the other attributes as important. People within this segment are moderately health conscious.
These customers just like the raspberry flavor and to not consider any of the other attributes as important. People within this segment are moderately health conscious.
Customers in this segment are strongly influenced by the nutrition claims. They also consider (a low) price and flavor as important. Peach is their most preferred one. Health consciousness is not significant here.
These customers base their decisions mainly based on the type of claim. Nutrition claims are the most attractive, but health claims are also chosen very often. People within this segment are highly health conscious.
