The effects of price framing, preparation time and convenience orientation on consumers’ intentions to subscribe to a Meal Kit Subscription Service.

(1)

The effects of price framing, preparation time and convenience orientation

on consumers’ intentions to subscribe to a Meal Kit Subscription Service.

(2)

Master Thesis Marketing Management

The effects of price framing, preparation time and convenience orientation

on consumers’ intentions to subscribe to a Meal Kit Subscription Service.

By

Bibi Giulietta Loman University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Marketing Management 11th_{of January 2021} Balistraat 6A 9715 CT Groningen (06)10426028 b.g.loman@student.rug.nl Student number: S2741547

(3)

Measures………15 Method of Analyses………..………17 Results.…..………...………18 Data Management…….………18 Descriptive Statistics………...………..19 Manipulation Checks……….21 Hypotheses Testing………..……….22 Additional Analyses……….……….24 Discussion.…..……….……….25 Findings……….……25 Theoretical Contributions………..………28 Managerial Contributions………..29

Limitations and Future Research………...………29

Conclusion………...….30

References.…..……….…32

Appendices.………..37

Appendix A: survey…..………37

(4)

PREFACE

This master thesis was written as my final part of the master marketing management at the University of Groningen. During the process of writing I was allowed to broaden my interest in marketing in the food sector. Composing this master thesis gave me the opportunity to use the skills I learned during my master studies, still I learned and developed new skills during this final part.

The interest in marketing began during my business administration bachelor. After attending different master marketing courses, I discovered my interest in consumer products. I have always been intrigued by the people’s motivations to make decisions regarding everyday products. The use of advertisements to inform and persuade consumers fascinated me as well. These aspects were both reflected in my research, which made writing this thesis very

enjoyable.

I want to thank my supervisor Martine van der Heide for supporting and guiding me during the process of my master thesis. She shared her professional knowledge and feedback, which were very helpful. Besides, I want to show my gratitude towards my family, friends, roommates and fellow students who have supported and helped me during this process. These strange times where Corona put our lives upside down surely had an impact, yet their

encouragement and presence helped me to stay focused. Thank you.

Bibi Loman

(5)

ABSTRACT

Regarding the upcoming trend in the food sector of the meal kit subscription service (MKSS), this research is focused on consumers’ drivers to subscribe to an MKSS.

Specifically, it examines whether price framing per meal (versus total) and short preparation time (versus long) positively influence consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS. In addition, the moderating effect of convenience orientation on the direct effect of short preparation time on consumers’ intention to subscribe is tested. The research used a survey containing a 2 (price framing per meal) x 2 (short preparation time) experiment. The results were analysed and concluded different outcomes. The effect of price framing per meal had a marginally significant effect on consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Short

preparation time did not have a significant effect on consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Besides, the research did not support the strengthening effect of convenience orientation on the latter direct effect. Yet, there was a marginal significant effect of convenience orientation on consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The research presents additional analyses of other variables as well. The findings give meaningful insights in consumers’ food choice concerning MKSS. The contributions of the research, limitations and directions for future research suggestions are discussed.

Keywords: meal kit subscription service (MKSS), convenience food, drivers, consumers’

(6)

INTRODUCTION

It is an old business model in a new guise: the subscription service. Nowadays we can subscribe to anything; from YouTube channels to bicycle services. One of the biggest trends in the form of subscription services is the subscription box, which is a box with products sent to the homes of consumers on a weekly/monthly/quarterly basis. Visits to subscription box sites grew with 3000% between 2013 and 2016 (Inc.com, 2016). The business model of subscription box services expanded to different sectors, including the food sector. A small selection of subscription services in the food sector are vitamin kits, snack boxes and meal kits. The latter one will be the subscription box service this study will focus on. The Meal Kit Subscription Service (MKSS) is a subscription box service that provides consumers on a weekly basis with a meal kit that contains recipes and all needed ingredients to cook meals at home. These kits are proportioned to household size and you can choose different variations (e.g. vegetarian, simple, etc.). Examples of MKSS are Hello Fresh, Marley Spoon and

EkoMenu.

The popularity of the box raised during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (PMNTS.com, 2020). This probably had to do with the fact that grocery shopping was discouraged as to the measures concerning the pandemic and consumers were looking for other ways of buying groceries. A research in China showed that 89% of the participants would be willing to buy fresh products online more often after the pandemic (Nielsen, 2020). The same research also included that due to the pandemic eating meals at home was

reprioritized and people felt safer when eating in-home. Besides the popularity during the pandemic in 2020, it is also estimated that the MKSS market will grow to a 20-billion-dollar market by 2027 (Grand View Search, 2020). Therefore, this study will focus on MKSS.

(7)

convenience product (Moores et al., 2020), consumers still have to prepare the meal

themselves. So, it seems to be a hybrid of a convenience meal and a fully self-prepared meal; they do offer a certain level of convenience to the consumer, but the consumer has to put some effort in preparing the meal themselves.

Secondary data from a qualitative study concerning meal kits conducted among students of the University of Groningen in 2019 was used to analyze which aspects were associated the most with meal kits. This was done to find out which aspects were seen as (dis)advantages of meal kits and which factors were important for the respondents. The dataset contained

responses from 187 participants (100 male, 87 female) with an average age of 23 years. A respondent stated: “It’s convenient and easy for preparation” as advantage. Another

respondent mentioned “time efficiency” as advantage. For disadvantage someone mentioned a “relatively higher price” and a few respondents mentioned “expensiveness”. In general, for advantages the term easy was used the most, followed by time and fast. For disadvantages the term expensive was used the most, followed by price. This shows which factors were

perceived as advantage or disadvantage among the respondents and gives useful insights on which factors are of influence when it comes to decision making concerning meal kits.

Additionally, looking at reviews of Hello Fresh consumers on www.trustpilot.nl it stands out that easiness of preparation and price seem to be key factors that are taken into account by consumers. Research shows that convenience and price are important determinants for food choices in general (Costa, Schoolmeester, Dekker and Jongen, 2007). Despite the fact that there is knowledge about drivers of food choice in general, there seems to be little

knowledge about the effects of these drivers regarding MKSS. Looking at data from the research of the University of Groningen, the reviews of www.trustpilot.nl and the fact that MKSS are an upcoming trend in the food sector it is relevant to gain specific insights into price and preparation convenience specifically.

MKSS use price to promote their services. There are different ways to present prices. Current MKSS frame their prices differently. Hello Fresh uses price framing per meal to promote their MKSS, Marley Spoon uses price framing per week and Blue Apron uses both pricing frames. This shows that it is interesting to look at price as well. Currently, research does not investigate and/or shows an unambiguous effect that shows which strategy works best.

(8)

comes to convenience food. If companies use the right strategy to use price in their advertisements, intention of subscribing to an MKSS could increase.

Preparation convenience can lie within preparation time. Consumers like ‘quick and easy’ meals. Preparation time is a crucial aspect of convenience (Candel, 2001) and can be a driver for convenience food as well (Brunner, Van der Horst and Siegrist, 2010). This implies that consumers seem to value preparation time. It is compelling to know whether preparation time can be used in the advantage of MKSS.

People vary in how much they are oriented towards convenience when they are making decisions concerning food. Convenience orientation is the level to which consumers focus on aspects that make meal preparation more convenient (Candel, 2001). Candel (2001) showed that convenience-oriented consumers are focused on the aspect of saving time and energy. This indicates that convenience orientation affects decisions about food and preparation in general. However, convenience orientation could be of stronger influence on the direct effect on preparation time, since consumers who are more convenience oriented can be more focused on preparation time.

The purpose of this study is to elaborate on research concerning price framing strategies and preparation time that affect consumers and their motivation to make decision regarding MKSS. This will give deeper insights of drivers for consumers when choosing MKSS and how convenience orientation plays a role in this construct. This can contribute to the

behavioural psychology of consumers. Specifically, when it comes to their decision-making processes concerning contemporary convenience foods and food consumption in general. Likewise, the study grants deeper understanding of consumers’ preferences which are interesting for companies and marketers to consider. This brings us to the following research question:

What are the effects of price framing and preparation time on intention of subscribing to a Meal Kit Subscription Service? And how does convenience orientation moderate the direct effect of preparation time on subscribing to a Meal Kit Subscription Service?

(9)

by a chapter where the results from the methodology will be discussed. In the fifth chapter the findings and limitations will be discussed, and the study ends with a final conclusion.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Intention of Subscribing to a Meal Kit Subscription Service

Subscription services come in many different forms. A subscription service is a service based recurring fee (McCarthy, Fader and Hardie, 2017), which implies it is not a once-off payment and delivery. An MKSS is subscription service since it delivers meal kits on a weekly basis and collects a weekly fee for the service. A subscription service delivers a certain level of convenience and saves time for consumers (Tzuo & Weisert, 2018). Nevertheless, it brings advantages for companies as well. Firstly, it secures a recurring income flow. For example; most MKSS wield a weekly payment schedule. This means that the consumer is subscribed to the service and has to pay a weekly fee for their MKSS. Often consumers can terminate the subscription service a week before the next meal kit will get delivered. Research shows that retaining consumers is more profitable than attracting new consumers (Reinartz & Kumar, 2003). So, it is less expensive to retain consumers that are already subscribed to your service, than to constantly attract new consumers to buy a product. Likewise, subscriptions

complement consumer loyalty (Stahl, Bartels and Valli, 2016). Which is why a company should want their customers to subscribe to their service to keep them around longer.

Like previously mentioned an MKSS offers convenience for consumers. Yet, it is not the same a ready-to-eat meal since consumers still have to prepare the meal themselves. This implies there are different types of categories for convenience foods. Brunner et al. (2010) used four types of convenience types in their research; highly processed, moderately

processed, single components and salads. The study did not cover a meal kit within one of

(10)

According to Birth (2017) meal kits offer convenience by decreasing the time to plan, find, shop and travel for meals. Cho, Bonn, Moon and Chang (2020) state that meal kits are known to be convenient for their home-delivery and are a ready-to-cook convenience food. Looking at the categorization of Daniels and Glorieux (2015), meal kits can be categorized within

semi-convenience food, since this study defines fully ready meals as convenience food and

ingredients or accessories as non-convenience or semi-convenience. However, the term ‘convenience food’ does not seem to be bounded to one category and consumers seem to combine different types of convenience foods (Jackson and Viehoff, 2015). In this study meal kits will be acknowledged as convenience food, specifically an unprocessed, ready-to-cook convenience food.

Research shows that self-made meals are liked more than meals prepared by others (Dohle et

al., 2014). According to Costa et al. (2007) many Europeans see hot home-made meals from

scratch as appropriate dinner compared to fully ready-to-eat meals. When consumers use an MKSS they make the meals from scratch themselves, but they do not have to compile the products for the meal. This is in favour of the MKSS. In addition, MKSS offer more than just a meal kit with a recipe and ingredients, it is a full experience for their consumers with added value in increased consumer well-being (Brunneder and Dholakia, 2018). These are aspects which contribute to the popularity of the concept and make consumers choose MKSS over other convenience foods. Yet, it is compelling to investigate the drivers that make consumers yield. Intention to subscribe is the dependent variable in this study. This study specifically focuses on the drivers price framing per meal and short preparation time ad their effects on the intention to subscribe to MKSS.

Price Framing Per Meal

The first independent variable is price framing per meal. Price is seen as the primary

(11)

Price framing is derived from framing effects, which refers to the choices that are affected when situations (or in this case prices) are illustrated in different forms (Tversky and

Kahnemann, 1981). The study of Gourville (1998) found that people had a higher intention to donate to a charity when the price was framed per day compared to the price of donating per year. Besides, another study of Gourville (1999) showed that price framing in a temporal form (e.g. price per day) was more effective when it came to ongoing expenses (e.g. a phone

service) compared to, so called, lump sum expenses (e.g. a holiday). For MKSS this could imply that a temporal price framing could be an effective strategy to increase the intention to subscribe to an MKSS, instead of using a total larger price, because the subscription is an ongoing expense. When it comes to recurring payments, consumers seem to focus on the price per payment, rather than on the number of payments they have pay (Estelami, 2003). The study of Ku and Hung (2018) compared aggregate pricing versus price framing per meal regarding group meal offerings. They stated that price framing per meal was especially effective for products that are continuously consumed. Their results showed that the intention to purchase was higher when a meal was price framed per meal. This has to do with the fact that price framing per meal activated consumers’ focus on promotion and total price framing activated consumers’ prevention concern. This indicates that the price framing per meal has a positive effect on consumers’ intention to consume a product. Regarding MKSS, this could indicate that price framing per meal for MKSS would be a more effective than price framing per week. These suggestions lead to the following hypothesis:

H1: Price framing per meal has a positive effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS.

Short preparation Time

(12)

cleaning up food nowadays compared to the 1960s. Time is scarce nowadays and even though consumers value healthy diets or meals consumers often reach to ready-to-eat meals. This is a result of the perception that preparing a meal is more time consuming (Monsivais, Aggarwal and Drewnoski, 2014). This insinuates that when consumers seek a convenience food that reduces time the only option is ready-to-eat meals. Yet, meal kits offer home-made meals that can be easily made without spending a lot of time preparing the meal. MKSS, such as

HelloFresh, even offer special kits that are arranged to make a quick home-made meal. This suggests that there is a demand for extra fast home-made meals on top of MKSS’ regular time-saving benefits.

An additional advantage for consumers when preparing a home-made meal is the ‘I cooked it myself’-effect (Dohle et al., 2014), which increases liking of the prepared meal. It makes consumers feel more in control. Besides, it increases consumers’ well-being

(Brunneder and Dholakia, 2018). The results of Costa et al. (2007) show that the trade-off between making a home-made meal and a ready-to-eat meal, lies within the level of convenience. With an MKSS that promotes the short preparation time, consumers could experience the benefits of home-made meals with the convenience of a quickly prepared meal. Considering meal kits are a convenience food that still need some preparation,

preparation time could be a factor that influence the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Given the fact that convenience and short preparation time are perceived as advantage by consumers, the short preparation time can provide higher subscription intentions. This study will focus on the time reducing part within the preparation time of the recipes in the meal kits. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H2: Short preparation time has a positive effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS.

Convenience Orientation

The direct positive effect of preparation time on intention to subscribe to an MKSS is expected to be moderated by convenience orientation. Convenience orientation is defined as the level a consumer is tended to go for aspects that save energy and time when it comes to meal preparation (Candel, 2001). A study regarding time spent on preparing food showed that that consumers who spent less time on preparing food were more oriented towards

(13)

pressure can be related to time that a consumer takes to prepare a meal; choosing between cooking or not. Applying this to the intention to subscribe to an MKSS, it insinuates that consumers who are convenience oriented would prefer to spend less time preparing a meal. A home-made meal could sound more effortful than a ready-to-eat meal. Candel (2001) found that convenience orientation had a positive relation with traditional convenience foods where the main focus lies on time and energy saving. MKSS being a convenience food, it would imply that convenience orientation could increase the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Whether the time and energy saving aspects of convenience orientation are drivers for certain consumers, you could interpret that short preparation time would make an MKSS more attractive. Yet, there is no knowledge on the strengthening effect of convenience orientation as moderator on the direct effect of preparation time on intention to subscribe to an MKSS. This leads to the following hypotheses:

H3: Convenience orientation has a positive effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS.

H4: Convenience orientation strengthens the effect of preparation time on intention to

subscribe to an MKSS.

(14)

METHODOLOGY

Data collection

To collect data to test the hypotheses a survey (Appendix A) was composed and conducted among 189 consumers of convenience food, within an age range of 16 and 73. To reach the population convenience sampling has been used. The survey was distributed through several social media platforms and personal messages from the 18th_{till the 28}th_{of November 2020.} Within this time period several reminders were sent to encourage participation. Besides, respondents were encouraged by participating through an incentive. They could win a gift card with a value of 30 euro from Bol.com when they participated in the survey and left their email address at the end of the survey.

Design and Procedure

In the beginning of the survey the participant was introduced to the study. After that the survey consisted of five parts. The first part consisted of questions about demographic

characteristics from the respondents (e.g. age, gender, occupation, household size and level of education). These characteristics can be of influence when it comes to consumer behaviour when it comes to the intention of subscribing to an MKSS and indicate the lifestyle of the participant.

In the second part contained an experiment to seek underlying thoughts of participants; hence this is an experimental study. The study used a 2 (preparation time) x 2 (price framing) between-subjects design. The experimental part of the study was randomized; there were four conditions where price framing per meal and preparation time were varied, see table 1. The prices and preparation times were based on HelloFresh prices and preparation times

mentioned on their website (October 2020) to display the advertisements as realistic as possible. The sample was evenly distributed.

Price Framing Per Meal Price Framing Total Preparation Time Short

(+/- 20 min.)

Condition A n = 39

Condition B n = 36

Preparation Time Long (+/- 45 min.)

Condition C n = 36

Condition D n = 42

(15)

The four conditions were translated into four advertisements for an MKSS (Appendix A). Before seeing the advertisement, the respondents were asked to imagine a scenario in which they had to prepare meals on a weekly basis and that they would see a product that could help them with preparing those meals. After seeing the advertisement, the intention of subscribing was measured (see below for further measurement details). Besides, the specific willingness to subscribe was measured with a control question to give an indication which factor was most important to the respondent (price, preparation time, variation, delivery service and the option to name another factor).

The third part of the survey consisted of manipulation checks. Perception of price and

preparation time were measured, and the respondent was asked which price framing condition they had seen (per meal vs. total). The price consciousness was also measured in this section, as a control variable. Within the third part an attention check was included as well.

Part four of the survey measured the convenience orientation of the respondents with several statements regarding effort for preparing meals and preparation time. These statements contribute to understand why the participant had a particular intention of subscribing to an MKSS after seeing the advertisement.

The final part of the survey included numerous control questions. Specifically, the

respondents were asked whether they had been subscribed to such a service before, if they had allergies, if they followed any type of diet and lastly how hungry they were at the moment they filled in the survey. The respondents also had the possibility to give comments on the survey in this part of the survey.

Measures

Intention to subscribe to a Meal Kit Subscription Service

(16)

Price Framing Per Meal and Preparation Time

The two factors that were ought to influence the intention to subscribe to an MKSS were formalized in the advertisement for the meal kit. As mentioned before there was a total of four conditions (two conditions per factor). For price framing per meal the price of €3,60 was selected based on the price framing of HelloFresh on their website in October 2020. The price framing total price was based on the price per meal (€3,60) and the most popular subscription form on the HelloFresh website (3 times a week for one month). This resulted in €43,20 as a price for price frame total.

The short preparation time was based on the shortest preparation times on the HelloFresh website (+/- 20 minutes) versus the longer preparation times on the websites for preparation time long (+/- 45 minutes). Figure 2 shows how the price framing per meal (vs total) and the short preparation time (vs long) were portraited in the advertisement per

condition. The asterisk at the price framing total (€43,20*) explained what the total price was based on.

Figure 2 Example of the price framing per meal (vs total) and short preparation time (vs long)

Convenience Orientation

(17)

Higher CONVOR scores among respondents indicate a stronger orientation towards convenience.

Manipulation checks and control questions

To see whether the manipulation was perceived by the consumers, they were asked to rate their perception of price and preparation time were measured with a 7-point Likert scale (i.g. “I perceived the price as very low – very high” and “I perceived the preparation time as very short – very long”). Besides the manipulation check several control variables were included. How hungry they were at the moment they filled in the survey was measured with a 7-point Likert scale as well (i.g “I am not hungry at all – I am very hungry”). For the first factor (price framing) price consciousness was measured as control variable. The scale of Ailawadi,

Pauwels and Steenkamp (2008) was used to measure price consciousness of the respondents. This was measured with a 5-point Likert scale (e.g. “disagree” – “agree”).

Method of Analysis

Before testing the hypotheses correlation of variables is tested using Pearson correlation with the following requirements p < 0.05 for strong significance and p < 0.10 for marginal

significance. After the correlation analyses the Cronbach’s alpha was analyses to see if the items from various measures could be combined, a > 0.6.

To test hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 a Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used. The independent variables both are nominal dichotomous type variables and the

dependent variable is an interval variable. The test should have a significant outcome to prove the effects of price framing per meal and short preparation time. The requirements are p < 0.05 for strong significance and p < 0.10 for marginal significance as well. The moderation effect was measured using Hayes’ PROCESS Macro model 1 (Hayes, 2018). The moderator (convenience orientation) is an interval variable. To support full moderation hypothesis 3 and hypothesis 4 should both be significant (p < 0.05 for strong significance and p < 0.10 for marginal significance).

The descriptive statistics were used to characterize the sample and its

socio-demographic and personal aspects. The control variable price consciousness is tested with a linear regression in the section of additional analyses to test in this factor plays a role in the behaviour of the respondents

(18)

RESULTS

Data Management

The data was collected among 189 respondents. The data was checked for missing values, outliers and failed attention checks. There were 33 respondents whom did not complete the survey correctly, which made their response ineffective for the analyses. There were no strange answers or outliers. However, there were 3 respondents who failed the attention check. After thoroughly checking the data the sample for analyses consisted out of 153 respondents.

Before looking at the descriptive statistics and testing the hypotheses, the data was prepared for testing. The items that measured willingness to subscribe to an MKSS (QABCD1, QABCD2, QABCD3, QABCD4, and QABCD5) were tested for correlation, followed by checking the Cronbach’s alpha for reliability. This was done to see whether the items could be combined into one sum variable, which would be used to get the average score of the

respondents on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The set consisted of five items. The Pearson Correlation matrix (Appendix B) showed that the correlation between the items was significant (p < 0.05) for each item. The following step to check whether the items could be combined was looking at the Cronbach’s alpha. This step was done multiple times to attain the highest Cronbach’s alpha. From the five items three items could be combined into a sum variable (SumWTS). The sum variable was used to get the mean of the responses (WTS) to test the hypotheses with.

The same was done for the items that measured the moderator: convenience orientation. This set consisted of 14 items. After checking for correlation two items were removed, see appendix B. After checking the Cronbach’s alpha seven items could be

combined into a sum variable (SumConvOr), which was used to get the mean of the responses (ConvOr) to test the moderation analysis. Table 2 shows the Cronbach’s alpha, the mean and the standard deviation of intention to subscribe to an MKSS and convenience orientation (WTS and ConvOr) among consumers.

Multi-item scale Cronbach’s alpha Mean Standard Deviation

WTS 0.938 3.874 1.615

ConvOr 0.942 3.432 1.452

(19)

Descriptive Statistics

The sample included 153 people within an age range of 16 and 73 years. Table 2 shows the social-demographic characteristics of the respondents. Since the study is related to food consumption allergies and diet types were also taken into account as characteristics of the respondents. Table 3 shows an overview of the allergies and diet types.

(n=153) Gender % Age Education Level % Household

size % Occupation % Female 64.7 16 – 73

years University 50.4 1 17.6 Student 56.2

Male 34.6 University of

Applied Sciences 20.9 2 28.1 Working 37.3 Other 0.7 Intermediate

Vocational Education

4.6 3 14.4 Retired 5.2

High School 21.6 4 13.1 Other 1.3

Other 2.6 >4 26.8

Table 2 Socio-demographic characteristics

(n=153) Allergies % Diet type %

No allergies 92.8 No diet 81

Nuts 1.9 Vegetarian 11.1

Lactose intolerance 1.3 Vegan 2.6

Other 4 Other 5.3

Table 3 Allergies and diet types

The mean of the question how hungry the respondent was at the moment of filling in the survey was 3.10 on a scale from 1 to 7 with a standard deviation of 1.784. From the 153 respondents 22,8% had experience with an MKSS, which implies that they were subscribed to an MKSS either currently or in the past. This shows that the greater part of the sample had no experience with an MKSS.

(20)

(M = 3.889; SD = 1.572), where price per meal and short preparation time (20 minutes) were presented.

Condition N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

A 39 1.00 6.33 3.889 1.572

B 36 1.00 6.00 3.769 1.701

C 36 1.00 7.00 4.361 1.668

D 42 1.00 6.33 3.532 1.482

Table 4 Intention to subscribe to an MKSS per condition

In table 5 the bivariate correlations of the variables are presented. These correlation coefficients show the correlation between variables. These outcomes show interesting correlations. Even though the significance is marginal, convenience orientation is positively correlated with the willingness to subscribe to an MKSS (r = 0.149, p < 0.1). This implies that respondents whom were more convenience oriented, were more willing to subscribe to an MKSS as well. Hunger level and willingness to subscribe to an MKSS positively correlated as well (r = 0.289, p < 0.05), which means respondents whom were hungrier at the time of filling in the survey, were more willing to subscribe an MKSS. This could have been expected, since hunger can affect food choices (Hoefling & Strack, 2010). The other significant correlation coefficients were not meaningful for this study.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Gender - 2. Occupation 0.080 - 3. Education 0.097* -,354** - 4. Willingness to subscribe 0.173** -0.126 0.044 - 5. Convenience Orientation 0.039 0.091 0.026 0.149* - 6. Hunger level 0.076 0.091 -,172** 0.289** 0.054 - 7. Allergies 0.090 -0.031 0.092 0.111 0.012 -0.015 - 8. Diet restrictions 0.166** -0.146* 0.126 0.048 0.012 -0.083 -0.005 - *marginal significance p < 0.1, **strong significance p < 0.05

Table 5 Pearson Correlation Coefficients

(21)

most the most important factor. In contrast preparation time is was only the most important factor for 8.5% of the respondents.

Figure 3 Important factors as drivers for intention support

Manipulation Checks

In the survey there were two questions that checked manipulation of the conditions. The first question asked how the respondent perceived the preparation time of the meal on a 7-point Likert scale (1 very short – 7 very long). The second question asked how the respondent perceived the price of the meal kit on a 7-point Likert scale (1 very cheap – 7 very expensive). Table 6 shows an overview of the means and standard deviations of each tested concept.

Condition M SD Scale

Price Framing Per Meal (condition A & C)

3.85 1.531 1 – 7

Price Framing Total (condition B & D)

4.32 1.709 1 – 7

Preparation Time Short (condition A & B)

4.08 1.799 1 – 7

Preparation Time Long (condition C & D)

4.22 1.276 1 - 7

Table 6 Perception of price framing and preparation time per condition

(22)

This was measured with a One-way ANOVA with the preparation time (Prep20vs45) on perception of the preparation time of the respondents. The One-way ANOVA was not significant, F(1,151) = 0.301, p = 0.584. This implies that the different preparation times did not have a significant influence on the perception of the preparation time of the respondents. Secondly, price framing was tested to analyze whether the condition with a price framing per meal (€3,60) differs from the condition with a price framing total (€43,20). This was tested with a One-way ANOVA with price framing (Price360vs4320) on the perception of the price of the MKSS of the respondents. The One-way ANOVA was significant, F(1,151) = 3.163, p = 0.077. This means that the different price frames did have a significant effect on the

perception of the price of the MKSS of the respondents.

Despite the fact that preparation time was not perceived significantly different among the respondents it was decided to test this factor on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. This decision was based on the fact that the preparation time were based on real life preparation times and it remained relevant to test the hypotheses to see whether it would affect the respondents’ intentions to subscribe to an MKSS.

Hypotheses testing

For the hypothesis testing, the independent variables were recoded into dummy variables; price framing per meal is labeled in the output as Price360vs4320 (coded as 1 = €3,60 and -1 = €43,20) and preparation time is labeled as Prep20vs45 (coded as 1 = 20 minutes and -1 = 45 minutes). The other variables that are included to test the hypotheses are convenience

orientation (ConvOr) and willingness to subscribe (WTS).

Effects of price framing and preparation time

To test the direct effect of price framing per meal and preparation time on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS a two-way ANOVA was conducted. Hypothesis 1 predicted that price framing per meal would have a positive effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The outcome of the analysis shows a marginal significance (F (1,149) = 3.345, p = 0.069). This indicates that price framing per meal does have a significant effect on the intention to subscribe

(23)

the preparation time of the MKSS does not significantly influence the willingness to subscribe to an MKSS. The interaction effect between price framing per meal and preparation time was tested as well. Results show there is no interaction effect between price framing per meal and short preparation time (F (1,149) = 1.864, p = 0.174). Figure 4 shows the estimated marginal means of the consumers’ intention to subscribe (WTS).

Figure 4 Estimated Marginal Mean of WTS (Intention to subscribe to an MKSS)

Moderating effect of convenience orientation

(24)

Additional Analysis

To see if other factors could have been of influence during the study some control variables were included. Socio-demographics (occupation and education level), hunger level, allergies, diet restrictions and price consciousness were the control variables in this study. To see whether these variables affected the direct effects of price framing per meal and short

preparation time on respondents’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted per control variable. The variables occupation, education level, allergies and diet restrictions did not affect the respondents’ intention significantly (p > 0.01). Gender had a significant effect, F (1,148) = 4.923, p = 0.028). After checking the effect, it became clear that females (M = 4.107) overall have a higher intention compared to males (M = 3.460). Hunger level had a strong significant effect on (F(1,148) = 13.210, p = 0.000), which shows that respondents who were more hungry had higher intentions to subscribe to an MKSS. Price consciousness was significant as well (F(1,148) = 5.221, p = 0.024), which means that the more price conscious a respondents was, the higher their intention was to subscribe to an MKSS. The latter was remarkable because the research in the introduction showed that “expensiveness” was a disadvantage of MKSS, yet this outcome shows that price conscious consumers are more likely to subscribe to a MKSS.

Due to the outcome of price consciousness as covariate, price consciousness was also tested as independent variable on consumers’ intention to subscribe. A linear regression was performed. The regression is significant, R2_{= 0.044, F(1,151) = 7.020, p = 0.009. The price} consciousness of the respondents has an effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS, B = 0.354, t = 2,650, p = 0.009.

The outcome of the manipulation check on price perception among the respondents evoked the interest to see whether price perception could be mediating the direct effect of price framing per meal on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. To test whether price perception clarified the direct effect model 4 of the PROCESS Macro with 10,000 bootstrap samples (Hayes, 2018) was used. The independent variable was price framing per meal

(25)

have a significant effect on willingness to subscribe (B = -0.011, SE = 0.81, t(153) = 0.140, p = 0.885, 95% CI [-0.171, 0.149]). The total effect (the effect without price perception as mediator) is marginally significant, B = 0.241, SE = 0.130, t(153) = 1.848, p = 0.067, 95% CI [-0.017, 0.498]. There was no significant indirect effect, CI [-0.038, 0.062]. The outcome of the analysis shows price perception does not mediate the effect of price framing per meal on consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS.

* marginal significance p < 0.1, **strong significance p < 0.05 Figure 5 Mediation of Price Perception

DISCUSSION

This study focused on the effects of price framing and preparation time on intention of subscribing to a Meal Kit Subscription Service. Furthermore, the moderation effect of convenience orientation influencing the direct effect of preparation time on subscribing to a Meal Kit Subscription Service was looked into. The results from the analyses show different outcomes than were predicted at first. Surely, the outcomes do show relevant insights of consumer behavior. Table 7 shows an overview of the hypotheses and whether they are supported or not. In the following part the findings will be discussed, followed by theoretical and managerial contributions and closing this chapter with limitations and suggestions for further research.

Findings

(26)

showed that the perception of price among the respondents was marginally significant. This could explain the fact that the outcome on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS affected by price framing was marginally significant as well. That the effect is marginally significant can be explained by the relatively small sample. Several studies already confirmed the effect of price on food choices (Mohajeri, et al., 2019; Costa et al., 2007), however this study shows that price framing per meal is an aspect that an MKSS could use in their favor to attract consumers.

Short preparation time was tested in hypothesis 2. The results of the analysis showed that the effect of short preparation time on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS was not significant. This implies that short preparation time does not increase consumers’ intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Looking at how the respondents perceived preparation time it is clear that not all the respondents perceived the preparation time as short nor long, since the

perception was not significant. This can be explained by the fact that preparation time was only called most important factor for intention to subscribe to an MKSS by 8.5% of the respondents, see figure 3. It seems that respondents do not value preparation time as an important driver, when making a food choice. Monsivais et al. (2014) showed that working adults spend the least amount of time on preparing food. Looking at the demographics of this study more than half of the respondents are students (table 3). This could clarify the role of preparation time among the respondents and the outcome of the analysis.

The direct effect of convenience orientation on intention to subscribe in hypothesis 3 and convenience orientation as moderator of preparation time was tested in hypothesis 4. The results of the analysis indicated that convenience orientation did not strengthen the effect of short preparation time on intention to subscribe to an MKSS. This can be explained by the fact that short preparation as direct effect was not significant either. Despite the interaction effect was not significant, the direct effect of convenience orientation on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS had a significant and positive effect, suggesting that consumers high in convenience orientation have a higher intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The explanation for this significant effect could lie within the fact that an MKSS is already convenience-oriented. In turn, consumers who are looking for (more) convenience can have a higher intention to subscribe to an MKSS compared to consumers who are less convenience oriented. This effect might sound logical. Nonetheless, it says something about MKSS being a convenience

(27)

Hypothesis Supported

Hypothesis 1 Price framing per meal has a positive effect on the intention to

subscribe to an MKSS Marginally significant Hypothesis 2 Short preparation time has a positive effect on the intention to

subscribe to an MKSS

Not significant Hypothesis 3 Convenience orientation has a positive effect in the intention to

subscribe to an MKSS Marginally _significant

Hypothesis 4 Convenience orientation strengthens the effect of preparation time

on intention to subscribe to an MKSS Not significant

Table 7 Summary of hypotheses

The additional analyses gave some meaningful insights. Firstly, the role of price consciousness. Price consciousness among the respondents has a significant positive effect on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The results showed that the more price conscious a respondent was, the higher their intention was to subscribe to the MKSS. When the price was framed per meal respondents with higher price consciousness had a higher intention to

subscribe to the MKSS. This is remarkable because price was also seen as an important factor by 50.4% of the respondents (figure 2). The effect shows that price framing per meal is more appealing for price conscious respondents. Price per meal could be experienced as a smaller price, because the total expense is attenuated (Gourville, 1999). It seems that price plays a significant role in decision making for situation like these. This is not groundbreaking in general. Yet, it is interesting to see that price framing per meal plays a significant role for the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. This is something that can be used in advertising/pricing strategies, but also can be investigated more by other researchers to see what the role of price framing per meal has on other convenience foods, subscription services and price

consciousness are when it comes to consumer behavior.

(28)

contribute in settings where consumers make purchase decisions, like subscribing to an MKSS.

Thirdly, the addition analysis that checked the control variables found that gender had a significant role on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. Female respondents had

significantly higher intentions compared to male respondents. There could be different reasons for this effect. One factor to take into account interpreting this effect is that 64.7% of the respondents were female (table 3). Stranieri, Ricci and Banterle (2017) found that female were more likely to purchase sustainable convenience products. The study focused on

minimally processed vegetables. Although sustainability was not tested in this research, it does confirm that female might have higher intentions to purchase unprocessed convenience products. This is interesting for an MKSS, since the MKSS is convenience products that contains unprocessed food.

Theoretical Contributions

The outcomes of the analyses contribute to current theories in different ways. The outcome of hypothesis 1 contributes to current research on price framing effects when it comes to food choices. This study confirms the finding of Ku and Hung (2018) where price framing per person is compared to aggregate pricing strategies. Likewise, it contributes to the existing theories about pricing strategies and the fact that price plays a significant role in food choices (Mohajeri, et al., 2019; Costa et al., 2007). Price is an important factor when it comes to consumer behavior (Lichtenstein et al., 1993). It especially contributes to theories on MKSS, which is a relatively new field within convenience foods. It helps as starting point for new studies regarding MKSS.

(29)

Managerial Contributions

The results of the study provide some meaningful managerial implications. Firstly, the use of price framing per meal is an effective approach in advertising strategy. Different MKSS already use the price framing per meal, yet this study proves the effect of price framing per meal to be positive on the intention to subscribe to an MKSS. The MKSS could focus on this pricing strategy, instead of (including) the total price in advertisements. This leads to more consumers, since the intention to subscribe increases. An advantage for companies in this case is the fact that this in only a small adjustment in there advertising strategy, however the

effects are significant.

Secondly, MKSS is currently not explicitly positioned as a convenience food, yet this study finds that consumers who are more convenience oriented have higher intentions to subscribe to an MKSS. MKSS could respond to this by focusing more on promoting the convenience part of an MKSS. There are different aspects of convenience orientation that can be applied to MKSS. According to Candel (2001) the focus of convenience orientation lies within the time reducing part of meal preparation. An MKSS provides time reduction in different aspects and consumers can reduce mental and physical effort when they use an MKSS. If this will be highlighted by MKSS, they might reach more convenience-oriented consumers which could lead to more subscriptions.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. These limitations could be further investigated in future studies.

(30)

This caused the sample to be under- and overrepresenting different consumer groups. For future research it is suggested to focus on a more diverse sample and preferably test within the target group of MKSS. This can create a better understanding of the behavior and attitude of respondents, which could lead to relevant insights that can be implemented in managerial situations or add on to theoretical understanding of consumer behavior.

Besides, in the additional analyses was concluded that the respondents that scored higher on the hunger level had a higher intention to subscribe to an MKSS. You could use that information to time advertisements as a company (e.g. display the advertisement online or on television around dinnertime). However, it could also have affected this study since you do not know for sure whether the respondent was biased by his/her hunger level at the moment of filling in the survey. This could be tested in future research as well, especially with data from MKSS. If you can check consumers’ purchase times you can see if it would be effective to promote your advertisement around times when consumers tend to be hungrier.

Lastly, the experiment was tested in a set up online environment. Despite the fact that MKSS heavily promote online as well, the environment in which the survey was conducted differs significantly from the environment the MKSS advertise in. This could have influenced the outcomes of the study. For future research is suggested to see whether the experiment (on- or offline) could be designed or situated in real-life situation. Another suggestion that aligns with situating the advertisement in a real-life situation, is working together with an MKSS and using with their data to test hypotheses. This could give more useful insights, since the MKSS has a broader reach and probably already has/collects data about their target group and/or consumers.

These suggestions can be useful for companies to improve their marketing strategies and it offers new insights for consumer behavior on different levels.

CONCLUSION

(31)

(32)

REFERENCES

Ailawadi,K. L., Pauwels, K. & Steenkamp, J. E. M. (2008). Private Label Use and Store Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, 72, 19-30.

Birth, A. “Meal Kits Deliver on Convenience and Health.” The Harris Poll, 21 Apr. 2017, theharrispoll.com/meal-kits-are-the-latest-and-greatest-on-the-food-prep-scene-aiming-to- make-meal-time-easier-healthier-and-more-convenient-for-consumers-the-kits-which-can-be-purchased-in-stores-or-ordered-onlin/.

BlueApron. (2020, October). https://www.blueapron.com/

Brunner, T. A., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Convenience food products. Drivers for consumption. Appetite, 55(3), 498–506

Brunneder, J., & Dholakia, U. (2018). The self-creation effect: making a product supports its mindful consumption and the consumer’s well-being. Marketing Letters, 29(3), 377-389.

Candel, M. (2001). Consumers' convenience orientation towards meal preparation: conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 36(1), 15–28.

Cho, M., Bonn, M. A., Moon, S., & Chang, H. S. (2020). Home chef meal kits: product attributes, perceived value and repurchasing intentions the moderating effects of household configuration. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 45, 192–20.

Costa, A., Schoolmeester, D., Dekker, M., & Jongen, W. M. F. (2007). To cook or not to cook: a means- end study for motives of choice of meal solutions. Food Quality and

Preference, 18, 77-88.

(33)

DesMarais, C. “Here's Data Showing the Crazy Growth of Subscription Box Services (Infographic).” Inc.com, Inc., 8 Aug. 2016, www.inc.com/christina-desmarais/heres-data-showing-the-crazy-growth-of-subscription-box-services-infographic.html.

Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store

information on buyers' product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319.

Dohle, S., Rall, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). I cooked it myself: Preparing food increases liking and consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 33, 14-16.

Estelami, H. (2003), Strategic Implications of a Multi-Dimensional Pricing Environment.

Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(5), 322–34

Gourville, J. T. (1998). Pennies-a-Day: The Effect of Temporal Reframing on Transaction Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 395–408.

Gourville, J. T. (1999). The effect of implicit versus explicit comparisons on temporal pricing claims. Marketing Letters, 10(2), 113–124.

Global Meal Kit Delivery Services Market Report, 2020-2027,

www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/meal-kit-delivery-services-market.

Hamrick, K., Andrews, M., Guthrie, J., Hopkins, D. & McClelland, K. (2011). How Much Time Do Americans Spend on Food?. Economic Information Bulletin 291940, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Hayes, A. F. (2018). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process

analysis: A regression-based approach. (2nd_{Ed.) New York, NY: Guilford Press.}

HelloFresh. (2020, October).

(34)

Hoefling, A., & Strack, F. (2010). Hunger induced changes in food choice. when beggars cannot be choosers even if they are allowed to choose. Appetite, 54(3), 603–606.

Huang, H.-C., Chang, Y.-T., Yeh, C.-Y. and Liao, C.-W. (2014). Promote the price promotion: The effects of price promotions on customer evaluations in coffee chain

stores. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 26(7), 1065-1082.

Jackson, P., & Viehoff, V. (2016). Reframing convenience food. Appetite, 98, 1–11.

Ku, H.-H., & Hung, Y.-C. (2019). Framing effects of per-person versus aggregate prices in group meals. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 18(1), 43–52.

Lichtenstein, D. R., Ridgway, N. M., & Netemeyer, R. G. (1993). Price perceptions and consumer shopping behavior: a field study. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 234–245.

Man, D., & Fullerton, E. (1990). Single drop depositors. An aid to production of chilled ready meals. In R. W. Field & J. A. Howell (Eds.), Process engineering in the food industry,

convenience foods quality insurance. UK: Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd.

MarleySpoon, 2020. https://marleyspoon.nl/

Maslowski, R. (2020). Onderwijs. In: De sociale staat van Nederland: 2020.

McCarthy, D. M., Fader, P. S., & Hardie, B. G. S. (2017). Valuing subscription-based businesses using publicly disclosed customer data. Journal of Marketing, 81(1), 17–35.

Mohajeri, M., Hoojeghani, S., Izadi, A., Ghahremanzadeh, M., Pourfarzi, F., Nemati, A., & Barzegar, A. (2019). Food choice motivations among Ardabil – Iran adults? Nutrition & Food

Science, 50(4), 641–652.

Monsivais, P., Aggarwal, A., & Drewnowski, A. (2014). Time spent on home food

(35)

Moores, C. J., Bell, L. K., Buckingham, M. J., & Dickinson, K. M. (2020). Are meal kits health promoting? Nutritional Analysis of Meals from an Australian Meal Kit Service. Health

Promotion International, 1-9.

Nielsen (2020). Asian Consumers Are Rethinking How They Eat Post COVID-19. Nielsen, 27 Mar. 2020, www.nielsen.com/nl/en/insights/article/2020/asian-consumers-are-rethinking-how-they-eat-post-covid-19/.

PYMNTS.com. “Pandemic Drives Increased Meal Kit Demand.” PYMNTS.com, 17 Sept. 2020, www.pymnts.com/subscription-commerce/2020/how-pandemic-is-driving-subscribers-hunger-meal-kits/.

Reinartz, W. J., & Kumar, V. (2003). The impact of customer relationship characteristics on profitable lifetime duration. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 77–99.

Sinha, I., & Smith, M. F. (2000). Consumer's perceptions of promotional framing of price. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 257–275.

Stahl, F., Bartels, D. M., & Valli, V. (2016). The Effects of Framing Subscription Benefits As Price Discounts Or Time Bonuses on Time Preferences. Advances in Consumer Research, 44, 634-634.

Stranieri, S., Ricci, E. C., & Banterle, A. (2017). Convenience food with environmentally-sustainable attributes: a consumer perspective. Appetite, 116, 11–20.

Trustpilot.com. “HelloFresh Is Rated ‘Average’ with 3.4 / 5 on Trustpilot.” Trustpilot, www.trustpilot.com/review/hellofresh.nl.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

Tzuo, T. & Weiserts, G. (2018). Subscribed: Why the Subscription Model Will Be Your

(36)

Worsley, A., Blaschea, R., Ball, K., & Crawford, D. (2004). The relationship between education and food consumption in the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey. Public

Health Nutrition, 7(5), 649-663.

Yale, L. & Venkatesh, A. (1986). Toward the construct of convenience in consumer research.

(37)

APPENDIX A: SURVEY

Introduction:

Dear participant,

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this survey.

My name is Bibi Loman, I’m a master student at the University of Groningen. This survey is part of my master thesis. The survey will take approximately 5 till 10 minutes. The answers will be processed anonymously and will not be shared with third parties.

You can have a chance of winning a 30 euro giftcard from Bol.com if you complete the survey. If you would like to participate in the draw, you can leave your e-mail address at the end of the survey. The winner will be notified by e-mail.

Please read the instructions of the survey carefully.

If you have any question regarding this study you can send me an email at b.g.loman@student.rug.nl.

Thank you in advance!

Part 1: Socio-demographic characteristics

P1Q1: What is your age? P1Q2: What is your gender?

o Male o Female

o Other, namely… P1Q3: What is your occupation?

o Student o Working o Retired

o Other, namely…

P1Q4 How many people does your household consist of? (Including yourself) Q32 What is your highest completed level of education?

o No education o High school degree

o Secondary education (MBO/MAVO)

o Bachelor's degree (University of Applied Sciences/HBO) o Bachelor's degree (University/WO)

(38)

Part 2: Experiment

Introduction Experiment

For the following questions think about the meals you prepare on a weekly basis, especially the meals you prepare for dinner. You need recipe ideas and ingredients to prepare these meals. The following window will show you a product you can use to prepare those meals. Keep in mind that the quantity can be adjusted to your household size.

RANDOMIZER: Condition A, Condition B, Condition C and Condition D

A. B.

C. D.

QABCD: These statements are about your willingness to subscribe to the meal box service. Please give an indication of your willingness to subscribe to the meal box service on a scale from 1 (very low) to 7 (very high):

(39)

The likelihood of subscribing to the meal box service is: •

If I were going to subscribe to the meal box service, I would

consider subscribing to the meal box service at the price shown: •

At the price shown I would consider to subscribe to the meal box: •

The probability that I would consider subscribing to the meal box

service is: •

My willingness to subscribe to the meal box service is: •

Q1: What was the most important factor that made you indicate this specific willingness to subscribe to the meal box service? You can elaborate on your answer in the text box.

o Price o Preparation time o Variation o Delivery service o Other, namely… Manipulation Checks

MQ1: How did you perceive the preparation time of the meal on a scale from 1 (very short) to 7 (very long)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The preparation time of the meal box was: •

MQ2: How did you perceive the price of the weekly meal box on a scale from 1 (very cheap) to 7 (very expensive)?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The price of the weekly meal box was: • MQ3: The price of the meal box was framed:

o per meal o as a total price

MQ4: The color test is simple, when reading this you must type in 'Blue' as your favorite color in the text box below:

(40)

MQ5: The following statements concern your price consciousness. Please indicate your level of agreement on a scale from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree):

1 2 3 4 5 For me, price is decisive when I am buying a product. • Price is important to me when I choose a product. • I generally strive to buy products at the lowest price. •

Part 3: Convenience Orientation

P3Q1: The following statements concern your attitude towards meal preparation time and the effort you have to put in preparing a meal. Please indicate your level of agreement on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree):

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The less physical energy I need to prepare a meal, the better. • The ideal meal can be prepared with little effort. • Preferably, I spend as little time as possible on meal

preparation. •

I want to spend as little time as possible cooking. • At home I preferably eat meals that can be prepared quickly. • It's a waste of time to spend a long time in the kitchen

preparing a meal. •

I do not mind if cooking a meal takes some effort. •

Part 4: End questions

P4Q1: Have you ever been subscribed to a meal box service? o Yes, but not anymore

o Yes, I still am o No

P4Q2: On a scale from 1 (not hungry at all) to 7 (very hungry) how hungry are you at the moment? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hungry level • P4Q3: Do have allergies? o No o Yes, namely…

P4Q4 Do you follow any type of diet? (E.g. vegan, vegetarian, etc.) o No

o Yes, namely…

(41)

PD If you want to make a chance of winning a Bol.com giftcard with a value of 30 euro, leave

your email address below. The winner will be notified by email.

o No, I don't want to partake o Yes, I do want to partake; …

End of survey

APPENDIX B: SPSS OUTPUT

Data Management: combining variables (correlation and reliability analyses)

Intention to subscribe (WTS) Descriptive Statistics Mean Std. Deviation N QABCD1 3,8627 1,67040 153 QABCD2 4,6275 1,68929 153 QABCD3 4,3399 1,69815 153 QABCD4 3,8039 1,68608 153 QABCD5 3,9542 1,77830 153 Correlations

QABCD1 QABCD2 QABCD3 QABCD4 QABCD5 QABCD1 Pearson Correlation 1 ,476** ,541** ,848** ,817**