International audienceAre monetary savings the only explanation for consumer response to a sales promotion? If not, how do the different consumer benefits of a sales promotion influence its effectiveness? To address the first question, this research builds a framework of the multiple consumer benefits of a sales promotion. Through a series of measurement studies, the authors find that monetary and nonmonetary promotions provide consumers with different levels of three hedonic benefits (opportunities for value expression, entertainment, and exploration) and three utilitarian benefits (savings, higher product quality, and improved shopping convenience). To address the second question, the authors develop a benefit congruency framework, which argues that a sales promotion's effectiveness is determined by the utilitarian or hedonic nature of the benefits it delivers and the congruence these benefits have with the promoted product. Among other results, two choice experiments show that, as predicted for high-equity brands, monetary promotions are more effective for utilitarian products than for hedonic products. The authors then discuss the implications of the multibenefit and the benefit congruency frameworks for understanding consumer responses to sales promotions, reexamining the value of everyday-low-price policies, and designing more effective sales promotions

In this era of increasing obesity and increasing threats of legislation and regulation of food marketing practices, regulatory agencies have pointedly asked how "low-fat" nutrition claims may influence food consumption. The authors develop and test a framework that contends that low-fat nutrition labels increase food intake by (1) increasing perceptions of the appropriate serving size and (2) decreasing consumption guilt. Three studies show that low-fat labels lead all consumers-particularly those who are overweight-to overeat snack foods. Furthermore, salient objective serving-size information (e.g., "Contains 2 Servings") reduces overeating among guilt-prone, normalweight consumers but not among overweight consumers. With consumer welfare and corporate profitability in mind, the authors suggest win-win packaging and labeling insights for public policy officials and food marketers.Can "Low-Fat" Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?1 Following the guidelines of the World Health Organization (WHO), people are classified as "normal weight" if their body mass index (BMI) is between 18 kg/m 2 and 25 kg/m 2 , as "overweight" if their BMI is greater than 25 kg/m 2 , and as "obese" if their BMI is greater than 30 kg/m 2 . The BMI is computed as the ratio of weight, measured in kilograms, to squared height, measured in meters.

Why is America a land of low-calorie food claims yet high-calorie food intake? Four studies show that people are more likely to underestimate the caloric content of main dishes and to choose higher-calorie side dishes, drinks, or desserts when fast-food restaurants claim to be healthy (e.g., Subway) compared to when they do not (e.g., McDonald's). We also find that the effect of these health halos can be eliminated by simply asking people to consider whether the opposite of such health claims may be true. These studies help explain why the success of fast-food restaurants serving lower-calorie foods has not led to the expected reduction in total calorie intake and in obesity rates. They also suggest innovative strategies for consumers, marketers, and policy makers searching for ways to fight obesity. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..

Recent trends in marketing have demonstrated an increased focus on in-store expenditures with the hope of "grabbing consumers" at the point of purchase, but does this make sense? To help answer this question, the authors examine the interplay between in-store and out-of-store factors on consumer attention to and evaluation of brands displayed on supermarket shelves. Using an eye-tracking experiment, they find that the number of facings has a strong impact on evaluation that is entirely mediated by its effect on visual attention and works particularly well for frequent users of the brand, for low-market-share brands, and for young and highly educated consumers who are willing to trade off brand and price. They also find that gaining in-store attention is not always sufficient to drive sales. For example, top-and middle-shelf positions gain more attention than low-shelf positions; however, only topshelf positions carry through to brand evaluation. The results underscore the importance of combining eye-tracking and purchase data to obtain a full picture of the effects of in-store and out-of-store marketing at the point of purchase.

Studies of the relationship between purchase intentions and purchase behavior have ignored the possibility that the very act of measurement may inflate the association between intentions and behavior, a phenomenon called “self-generated validity.” In this research, the authors develop a latent model of the reactive effects of measurement that is applicable to intentions, attitude, or satisfaction data, and they show that this model can be estimated with a two-stage procedure. In the first stage, the authors use data from surveyed consumers to predict the presurvey latent purchase intentions of both surveyed and nonsurveyed consumers. In the second stage, they compare the strength of the association between the presurvey latent intentions and the postsurvey behavior across both groups. The authors find large and reliable self-generated validity effects across three diverse large-scale field studies. On average, the correlation between latent intentions and purchase behavior is 58% greater among surveyed consumers than it is among similar nonsurveyed consumers. One study also shows that the reactive effect of the measurement of purchase intentions is entirely mediated by self-generated validity and not by social norms, intention modification, or other measurement effects that are independent of presurvey latent intentions.

Food marketing is often singled out as the leading cause of the obesity epidemic. The present review examines current food marketing practices to determine how exactly they may be influencing food intake, and how food marketers could meet their business objectives while helping people eat healthier. Particular attention is paid to the insights provided by recently published studies in the areas of marketing and consumer research, and those insights are integrated with findings from studies in nutrition and related disciplines. The review begins with an examination of the multiple ways in which 1) food pricing strategies and 2) marketing communication (including branding and food claims) bias food consumption. It then describes the effects of newer and less conspicuous marketing actions, focusing on 3) packaging (including the effects of package design and package-based claims) and 4) the eating environment (including the availability, salience, and convenience of food). Throughout, this review underscores the promising opportunities that food manufacturers and retailers have to make profitable “win-win” adjustments to help consumers eat better.

The effectiveness of healthy eating nudges in field settings increases as they shift from focusing on influencing cognition to affect to behavior.

No abstract