Author: Thomas Bäumer

Posted on

Heart vs. Brain: The influence of emotional and informative advertising

In an era in which advertising spending has risen excessively despite the flood of information, only about 5% of messages struggle to get the attention of potential consumers (Kroeber-Riel, 2015). Especially in saturated markets, such as the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector, advertisers are subjected to a high level of competitive pressure (Naderer et al., 2011). Today’s demand for advertising spots is clear: they need to stand out and catch attention in order to be effective at all (Levenson, 2011).

In this challenging environment, emotional marketing relies on the influence of the decision-making process without presenting offering rational arguments. Our latest study aimed at highlighting the effectiveness of more emotional compared to informative advertising. The central question was to find most effective advertising strategies to have a sustainable impact on respective target groups.

Research objective:

The study was conducted by Svenja Greitmann and takes a look at the world of advertising in the midst of a real abundance of information. The aim was to assess the effectiveness of emotional compared to informative advertising in the field of Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG). It further investigated differences with regard to gender and product categories. The outcome may be helpful for companies looking for the most effective advertising strategies.

Method:

Based on a preliminary study, two product categories were selected, one that was utilitarian (glass cleaner) and one that was hedonic (soft drink).

For each category a product from a fictitious brand was created. And for each product, two social media spots were made that either were emotional (e.g., by showing positive pictures like smiling people using the product) or information (e.g., by giving positive information about product ingredients). The emotional spot was expected to be especially effective with the hedonic product, whereas the informational spot should be more effective with the utilitarian product.

The main study had an experimental 2x2x2 factor-between-subject design to examine cause-effect relationships. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four advertising spots to systematically measure the impact of advertising appeals and product categories. In addition, gender of participants was assessed.

Sample:

The sample consisted of 185 adults.

Key Findings:

Contrary to our expectations, the study showed overall an advantage of the informational over the emotional spots. However, there was also a three-way interaction found. For men, the expected interaction pattern showed, i.e. emotional spot was more effective with the hedonic product, whereas the informational spot was more effective with the utilitarian product.

This effect was not found for women, which may be due to a different relevance of nutrition and health information when buying a soft drink. This may explain, why informational advertising was more effective with soft drinks for female participants.

Thus, informational advertising seems to be relevant if the product category shows a higher level of involvement (e.g., due to health issues)

Conclusion:

This study investigated the effectiveness of emotional and informative advertising on two different Fast Moving Consumer Goods. The results showed that informative advertising is superior, contrary to the assumption that emotional stimuli should be more effective with low-involvement products. There is a need to clearly understand the relevance of a product for a selected target group in order to find the best advertising strategy. Overall, advertising research remains relevant in the face of changing consumer needs, but requires continuous adaptation and refinement of advertising strategies.

References

 

Kroeber-Riel, W. (2015). Strategie und Technik der Werbung: Verhaltenswissenschaftliche und neurowissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Levenson, R. W. (2011). Basic Emotion Questions. Emotion Review, 3(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911410743

Naderer, G., Balzer, E. & Batinic, B. (Hrsg.). (2011). Qualitative Marktforschung in Theorie und Praxis: Grundlagen, Methoden und Anwendungen. Wiesbaden: Gabler.

 

Posted on

Nutri-Score – Do consumers understand what it means?

The prevalence of adult obesity has more than doubled worldwide since 1990 (World Health Organization [WHO] 2024). Obesity-related diseases caused about 11% of deaths in 2019 (WIOD, 2022). A healthy diet is recommended to prevent obesity; however, only few consumers are interested in learning about this topic (IfD Allensbach, 2023, as cited in Statista, 2023).

Front-of-pack (FOP) labels, particularly the Nutri-Score, can be used to address this problem. Nutritional values, which are otherwise only shown in a nutritional value table, usually on the back of a package, are summarized using the Nutri-Score. This allows consumers to quickly judge how nutritious selected products are in comparison.

The EU plans to introduce a binding FOP label (European Parliament, 2022, 2023). Studies have shown that the conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score must be improved to ensure its’ effective use (Liu et al., 2014). However, it remains unclear whether consumers know how to use the Nutri-Score accurately. This post summarizes research examining consumers’ conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score.

Research aim:

In the present study conducted by Nicole Del, the conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score was examined and compared with other forms of understanding, namely subjective and objective understanding. It was further investigated whether gender and the involvement in healthy nutrition have an influence on conceptual understanding.

Method:

This study examined the extent to which consumers correctly understand the Nutri-Score. In the survey, different aspects of understanding were assessed using a sample of 170 consumers (aged 18-78 years).

  • Objective understanding was assessed by letting participants choose the healthiest and unhealthiest options from three products within a product category. Each product had a different Nutri-Score. They had to make a choice for five different product categories. The number of correct choices was translated into an objective score.
  • Subjective understanding was measured through self-assessment using a rating scale from 1 (I do not understand at all) to 10 (I understand very well).
  • Conceptual understanding was measured using ten true-false statements. The score was based on correctly categorizing the statements as true or false.

Key results:

  • Consumers’ conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score was lower than that of the other forms (conceptual 63%, objective 85%, subjective 70%).
  • Thus, consumers do not have a sufficient conceptual understanding of the Nutri-Score for the correct application. Over half of the participants mistakenly thought that foods with a Nutri-Score of D or E should not be consumed, and over 40% believed that a Nutri-Score of A or B indicates that the food is healthy (both are not correct).
  • Interestingly, subjective, objective, and conceptual understanding did not correlate, implying that they constitute different dimensions of understanding.
  • Neither gender nor involvement in healthy eating had a significant influence on conceptual understanding.

Summary:

The EU’s Farm-to-Fork Strategy plans to introduce a binding FOP label. Currently, the Nutri-Score is one of the most widely used FOP labels in the EU. If properly applied, the label can reduce the number of consumers with diet-related diseases by guiding healthy food choices (Egnell et al., 2019). However, our study shows that many consumers do not understand the label sufficiently. They have knowledge gaps in their conceptual understanding of the label, implying that they may not always correctly apply the Nutri-Score. Thus, there is a need for informational campaigns to explain the meaning of the Nutri-Score.

References

Egnell, M., Crosetto, P., d’Almeida, T., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Ruffieux B et al. (2019). Modelling the impact of different front-of-package nutrition labels on mortality from non-communicable chronic disease. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 16(1), 56. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-019-0817-2

European Parliament (2022) Taking the EU’s ‘farm to fork’ strategy forward. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/690622/EPRS_ATA(2021)690622_EN.pdf

European Parliament (2023) Proposal for a harmonised mandatory front-of-pack nutrition labelling. In “A European Green Deal”.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-a-european-green-deal/file-mandatory-front-of-pack-nutrition-labelling

Liu, P.J., Wisdom, J., Roberto, C.A., Liu, L.J. & Ubel, P.A. (2014). Using Behavioral Economics to Design More Effective Food Policies to Address Obesity. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt027

Statista (2023) Interesse der Bevölkerung in Deutschland an gesunder Ernährung und gesunder Lebensweise von 2019 bis 2023.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/170913/umfrage/interesse-an-gesunder-ernaehrung-und-lebensweise/

Statistisches Bundesamt (2023) Mehr als die Hälfte der Erwachsenen hat Übergewicht.
https://www.destatis.de/Europa/DE/Thema/Bevoelkerung-Arbeit-Soziales/Gesundheit/Uebergewicht.html

WIOD (2022) Anteil von Todesfällen aufgrund von Fettleibigkeit in ausgewählten Ländern weltweit im Jahr 2019 [Graph]. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1246951/umfrage/todesfaelle-aufgrund-von-fettleibigkeit-in-ausgewaehlten-laendern/

World Health Organization (2023) Obesity.
https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity/#tab=tab_3

Posted on

Sustainable seals of approval: don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

Sustainable seals of approval: don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

In a world where sustainability and environmental awareness are becoming increasingly important, quality seals play a crucial role. But not every seal delivers what it promises. A recent study sheds light on precisely this question and provides surprising insights into the world of certifications.

A jungle of seals

Quality seals are ubiquitous, especially in the food sector, such as chocolate. These small symbols are intended to reassure consumers that the product meets certain standards – be it environmental, health or social aspects. But the reality is much more complex. Some of these seals are untested. This means that they are not certified by independent bodies.

What does this mean for the consumer?
Can these seals be trusted at all under these circumstances?

The study: An experiment with chocolate

Pia Futterer, a student of our bachelor’s program tried to answer these questions in her Bachelor thesis. In a quantitative online survey with 101 participants who regularly consume chocolate she took a closer look at precisely this problem. The participants evaluated four chocolate bars, each bearing a different seal: a known certified one (German organic seal), an unknown certified one (Biokreis seal), an invented, untested one (see picture) and a bar with no seal at all. The results are astounding.

Main results: Trust in unverified seals

 The study shows that even unverified seals of approval increase consumers’ willingness to buy. What is even more surprising is that these unverified seals were rated as more credible than unknown verified seals. This underlines the fact that many consumers have difficulty distinguishing between reliable and questionable seals. This blind trust in unverified labels is alarming and shows how urgently regulatory measures are needed.

The role of availability heuristics

 Why do consumers trust unverified seals? One answer lies in the so-called availability heuristic. This mental shortcut leads us to perceive easily accessible or frequently seen information as particularly credible. So, if an unverified seal often appears on products, we tend to trust it – regardless of whether it is actually verified or not.

Discussion: A complex purchase decision

 The results of the study suggest that consumers often do not have the motivation or ability to critically scrutinize the credibility of quality seals.

Especially when it comes to stressful grocery shopping, we often rely on simple decision-making rules. This is exacerbated by the abundance of products and information in the supermarket, which further increases the confusion.

Recommendations: Time to act

 In view of these findings, it is important that we as a society take action:

  1. Stricter legal regulations: The planned EU directive against greenwashing must be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that only certified seals may be used. This directive would help to prevent misleading environmental claims and ensure that only verified seals appear on products.
  2. Conscious consumption: Consumers should actively inform themselves about the meaning and origin of quality labels. Knowledge is power, especially when it comes to sustainable consumption. Better consumer education about the various labels could help to avoid misjudgments.
  3. Transparency on the part of companies: Companies should disclose which criteria their seals of approval fulfill and how these are checked in order to strengthen consumer trust. A clear and transparent process for awarding seals of approval could help to win back consumer trust.

Conclusion: More than just a seal

 This study opens our eyes to the fact that not every seal of approval delivers what it promises at first glance. While we want to be environmentally conscious, we also need to be more critical and not blindly trust every label. The results underline the urgency of better regulation and education so that we can make more informed and sustainable purchasing decisions in the future.

The next chocolate bar you buy could tell more than just a story about taste – it could also be a story about trust and deception. Don’t trust every seal on your chocolate!

References