The profitability of established products is affected greatly by the extent to which they are meaningfully differentiated from competing alternatives. Maintaining meaningful differentiation, in turn, is facilitated by ongoing development of creative marketing programs. Although marketplace observation reveals a general lack of creativity in the way established products are marketed, some product managers are able to devise creative marketing programs for their products. The authors test hypotheses concerning the effects of individual (i.e., product manager) and situational (i.e., planning process) characteristics on marketing program creativity. The findings reveal that marketing program creativity is a function of individual problem-solving inputs (e.g., knowledge of the marketing environment, diversity of experience, diversity of education), motivational factors (e.g., intrinsic motivation, risk taking), and situational factors (e.g., planning process formalization, interaction with others, time pressure).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In a laboratory experiment using a between-subjects design, the authors examine the effects on nutrition and product evaluations of nutrition claims made (e.g., "99% fat free; " "low in calories") on a product package, product nutrition value levels, and enduring motivation to process nutrition information. Enduring motivation is shown to moderate the effects of product nutrition value on consumer evaluations. Also, nutrition claims interact with product nutrition value in affecting consumer perceptions of manufacturer credibility. Given the availability of nutrient levels in the Nutrition Facts panel on the back of the mock package, nutrition claims on the front of the package generally did not affect positively consumers' overall product and purchase intention evaluations. The authors discuss some implications of these findings, suggestions for further research, and study limitations. I Regulations stemming from the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 have resulted in major changes in nutrition information on food packages. Specifically, recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations resulting from the NLEA have produced standardized Nutrition Facts panels, as well as specific stipulations regarding use of nutrient content claims on packages (Food and Drug Administration 1993). Given these important changes, we examine effects of nutrition claims on the front of packages, nutrition value information presented in the Nutrition Facts panel, and consumers' motivation to process nutrition information on consumers' product-related judgments in a between-subjects experiment. Although some exceptions exist, Nutrition Facts panels have been included on most food products since August, 1994, and are required to be of uniform design, typographic style, color scheme, and standard placement of information. The Nutrition Facts panel lists serving size and servings per container, plus total calories and calories from fat. Also listed are amounts per serving and the percentage of daily values (DV) of total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, dietary fiber, Vitamins A and C, calcium, and iron, based on a 2000-calorie daily diet (Food and Drug Administration 1993). Food labeling regulations also indicate which specific nutrient claims can be made on packages and under what specific conditions these claims can be made. For example, the term "low in fat" requires that the product have three grams of fat or less (per 100 grams of food content for a meal/main dish) and 30% or fewer calories from fat. Other claims, such as "99% fat free" and "low in calories" (i.e., 120 calories or fewer per 100 grams of food content for a meal/main dish), also are regulated according to actual food content (Food and Drug Administration 1993, 2415-19). Research Objectives Various parties interested in nutrition, such as federal agencies, citizen groups, and marketers, have sought to evaluate the effects of the NLEA-based food labeling regulations (cf. Levy 1995; M...

No abstract

Consumers of packaged goods products in the UnitedKeywords: nu t rition labe li ng, fron t*of-pac kage symbo ls, nu t rition consc iousness, U. S. Food and Drug Ad mi nistrati on C onsumers of packaged food products in the United States now face a dizzy ing array of fro nt -of-package (FOP) nutrition sy mbols and icons, including Kraft's "Sensible Solution," PepsiCo's "Smart Spot," Unilever's "Eat Smart" logo, the Ameri can Heart Assoc iati on's "Heart Chec k," General Mills' "Goodness Comer," the "Guiding Stars" from Hannaford Bros ., Ke llogg's use of the Guide· line Dail y Amo unt s, and , until recentl y, the Keystone Gro up and Nutrition Roundtable's "Smart Choices" icon To combat confusion created by the many sy mbols in the U.S. market, the Smart Choices (SC) icon was deve loped by the Keystone Gro up (a large industry, government , and academic coali tion), and it appea red on pac kages from icon (i.e., Smart Choices [SCI) , a more complex icon (i.e., Traffic Light-Guidelines Daily Amounts [TL-GDAsD, and a no-FOP icon control for the ir effects on nutrition eva luations, nutrient use accuracy, product altitudes, and purchase intentions. In addition, using prior nutrition labe ling research (Burton, Biswas, and Netemeyer 1994; Howlett , Burton, and Kozup 2008;Keller et al. 1997;Kemp et al. 2007), we examine consumers' "nutrition consciousness" as a potential moderator of effects of FOP nutrition icons re lative to Nutrition Facts Pane l infonnation. These study objectives focus on the recent FDA call for research (Federal Register 20 10 , p. 22605) in determining exactly how consumers will evaluate FOP summary icons versus nutrient-specific symbol s.

Although considerable research exists on consumer processing of nutrition labeling and package claims, less is known about consumer interpretation of nutrient content claims in advertising. This is important because product advertising often provides a significant first step for consumers in learning new nutrition information. Yet, unlike package claims, Nutrition Facts Panels are often not available for consumers during the processing of such advertising claims. Therefore, the authors examine the following research questions: (1) Do consumers misinterpret (i.e., overgeneralize) common nutrient content claims in advertising? If so, under what conditions does this occur? and (2) Can various types of disclosure statements remedy this problem? To address these questions, the authors interview a total of 365 primary food shoppers in three geographically dispersed malls in the United States in a between-subjects experiment. Misleading generalizations, beyond those of control ad claims, are found for general and specific nutrient content claims. Ad disclosure type, ad claim type, and nutrition knowledge all separately influence nutrient content and disease risk measures. Evaluative disclosures reduce misleading generalizations to a greater extent than do absolute or relative disclosures. The authors offer implications for public policy and food marketers. ne of the most significant and controversial changes affecting consumers and food manufacturers is the Congressionally mandated Nutritional Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1990; deNitto 1991; Ingersoll 1991). The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulations as a result of the NLEA have required nutritional labeling for most foods since May 1994 and specification of the approved use of nutrient content and health claims on all food packaging (Federal Register 1993). The regulations have provided the impetus for several recent studies that examine consumer acquisition, comprehension, and interpretation of nutrient content claims, health claims, and labeling on food packages (e.g., Ford et al. 1996; Levy, Derby, and Roe 1997; Moorman 1996). Although it has been estimated that the regulations will cost food manufacturers between $1.4 and $2.3 billion over the next 20 years, public health benefits (e.g., reductions in coronary heart disease, cancer, high blood pressure) are predicted to exceed the costs (FDA Consumer 1993, p. 6). Although nutrition labeling and package claim research has progressed since the appearance of the new food-labeling rules, relatively little is known about how consumers will process nutrient content and health claims in advertising in this new environment. This is important because of J. Craig Andrews is Professor of Marketing, Marquette University. Richard G. Netemeyer is Professor of Marketing, Louisiana State University. Scot Burton is Professor of Marketing, University of Arkansas. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Marketing Science Institute, which provided funding for the data collection for this project. The auth...