Sales promotions and food consumption

Sales promotions and food consumptionnure_206 333..342

Corinna Hawkes

Sales promotions are widely used to market food to adults, children, and youth. Yet,in contrast to advertising, practically no attention has been paid to their impacts ondietary behaviors, or to how they may be used more effectively to promote healthyeating. This review explores the available literature on the subject. The objective is toidentify if and what literature exists, examine the nature of this literature, and analyzewhat can be learned from it about the effects of sales promotions on food consump-tion. The review finds that while sales promotions lead to significant sales increasesover the short-term, this does not necessarily lead to changes in food-consumptionpatterns. Nevertheless, there is evidence from econometric modeling studies indicat-ing that sales promotions can influence consumption patterns by influencing thepurchasing choices of consumers and encouraging them to eat more. These effectsdepend on the characteristics of the food product, sales promotion, and consumer.The complexity of the effects means that sales promotions aiming to encourageconsumption of nutritious foods need to be carefully designed. These conclusions arebased on studies that use mainly sales data as a proxy for dietary intake. The nutrition(and economics) research communities should add to this existing body of research toprovide evidence on the impact of sales promotions on dietary intake and relatedbehaviors. This would help support the development of a sales promotion environ-ment conducive to healthy eating.© 2009 International Life Sciences Institute

INTRODUCTION

Sales promotions are widely used to market food toadults, children, and youth. An increasingly importantcomponent of the marketing mix, they are designed tostimulate consumers to take direct and immediate actioni.e., to create an incentive to encourage consumersto purchase a product more quickly, more frequently,and/or in greater quantities than in the absence of thepromotion. The many different ways to define sales pro-motions are discussed elsewhere by Blattberg and Neslin.1

While there are many different types of sales promotions,most (but not all) are delivered in a retail setting (includ-ing food service outlets) (Table 1). Sales promotions areoften components of integrated promotional campaignsinvolving a range of different marketing techniques.

In stark contrast to food advertising, practicallyno attention has been paid to the impacts of sales

promotions on dietary behaviors or to how they could beused more effectively to promote healthy eating. Very fewstudies on the subject have been conducted by the nutri-tion and public health research communities, and therehas been no attempt thus far to review the availableevidence. This is somewhat overdue given the currentfocus on improving the food marketing environmentin the context of unhealthy eating habits and risingobesity in the United States and around the world.

In this context, then, this review explores the avail-able literature on how sales promotions affect what foodspeople buy and eat. Its objectives are as follows: 1) toidentify the existing literature on this subject andexamine its nature; 2) to analyze what can be learnedfrom it about the effects of sales promotions on foodpurchasing and consumption thus far; and 3) to identifyany further steps that need to be taken in this area. It ishoped that this initial examination of the literature will

Affiliation: C Hawkes is an Independent Consultant and Visiting Research Fellow at the Centre for Food Policy, City University, London.

Correspondence: C Hawkes, Le Pouget, 43380 Lavoute-Chilhac, France. E-mail: [email protected], Phone: +33-4-6397-0420.

Key words: food advertising, food consumption, food marketing, obesity, sales promotions, supermarkets

Nutrition Science↔Policy

doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00206.xNutrition Reviews® Vol. 67(6):333–342 333

mailto:[email protected]

encourage further analysis of the evidence by multi-disciplinary teams and more research by the nutritionand public health research communities; further, mayit provide a starting point from which to developapproaches that are designed to orient the sales promo-tion environment towards healthy eating.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A search for relevant literature was conducted amongacademic publications and the trade press. To identifyacademic studies on the effects of sales promotions, asearch was carried out of academic databases coveringhealth (PubMed), marketing, business, and retailingstudies (Emerald and EBSCO Business Source Premier),economics (EconLit), and psychology and its related dis-ciplines (PsycInfo). The search terms used were selected

to cast a wide net and are listed in Table 2. More targetedsearches were attempted but they tended to exclude rel-evant articles. The many articles retrieved were scannedto identify if they had any relevance to the effects of salespromotions on food consumption. The bibliographiesof the papers selected were also scanned to identify addi-tional relevant papers.

Trade publications in the food, advertising, andpromotional marketing industries were also searchedto identify articles on the effects of sales promotions.The search terms used were “sales promotions”, “point-of-purchase”, “trade promotions”, and “price promo-tions”. Due to the large number of hits, the search wasrestricted to the following key publications: AdvertisingAge, Campaign, Brandweek, Promo, Promotions andIncentives, and In-Store between the years 2000 and2008.

Table 1 Types of sale promotions used to market food products.Type of promotion* ExamplePrice discounts Direct price discounts such as “50% off”

Coupons issued by the manufacturers or supermarketsDiscounts via supermarket loyalty cardsRefunds

Extra-product price promotions Free with-purchase (buy-one-get-one-free)Reduced price with-purchase (buy one and get another at a reduced price)Multi-purchase (e.g., three for the price of two)Bonus-sized packages

Premium promotions Free-with-purchase giftReduced-price-with-purchase gifts

Collector promotions Collecting vouchers/food labels/beverage container tops in return for gift

Prize promotions SweepstakesLotteriesInstant winsFree drawsCompetitions

Feature and display promotions Front-of-store displayEnd-of-aisle displayIn-aisle display“Shelf-talker” (graphic or sign that draws attention to the shelf )Instore flyersInstore bannersAdvertising at point-of-saleFood packages designed to attract attentionLeaflets with recipes using products on saleFlyers containing nutritional information for products on sale

Sampling promotions Taste samples provided in a retail storeFree samples attached to another product

* Though the majority of sales promotions take place in a retail setting, they can also be delivered to the consumer by mail, withinprint media, or via electronic means such as mobile phones. Sales promotions are sometimes termed “point-of-purchase” or“point-of-sale” marketing, but these terms may also be used to just refer to feature and display promotions.

Nutrition Reviews® Vol. 67(6):333–342334

Though the search was global in scope, it wasrestricted to the English language. The results thus reflectonly English-language publications, which tended to befrom the United States, the United Kingdom, and to someextent, the Netherlands.

NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE BASE

The nature of the current evidence-base can be cha-racterized as follows. First, there is a body of evidenceavailable on the effects of sales promotions on food pur-chasing and “consumption”, but it comes largely fromthe econometric modeling literature. The relevant studiesestimate the effects of sales promotions on what is termed“category demand”, “category expansion”, or “categoryconsumption” using sales data (often scanner data) as aproxy for consumption. The term “consumption” in thiseconomic literature means food purchases, or someform of analysis of sales data, rather than actual dietaryintake. It is thus limited since it does not measure ifthe food is actually consumed (it may be wasted, forexample), or who actually consumes the food. Nor does itprovide information on how sales promotions affectdietary precursors such as food preferences, requests, andbeliefs (measures that are found in the literature on theeffects of advertising).2

This limitation reflects the fact that the studies havebeen conducted largely by academic researchers in thefields of marketing science, consumer economics, agricul-tural economics, business studies, and communicationsstudies. The nutrition and public health research com-munity has rarely conducted research into the dietaryimpacts of sales promotions. Thus, while the econometricliterature provides a useful source of evidence, the studiesthat would be most helpful in identifying how foodchoices and other dietary behaviors are affected bysales promotions – experimental and quasi-experimentalstudies, observational and cross-sectional studies that

actually take some measure of dietary precursors orintake – are rarely available. Few studies been carriedout in the specific context of healthy eating or obesity.Thus, there are no studies that explicitly aim to measurethe effects of sales promotions on the consumption ofenergy-dense, nutrient-poor foods, relative to more nutri-tious foods like fruits and vegetables. No studies wereidentified on the effects of the promotions often used totarget energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods to children andyouth, such as collector and prize promotions (Table 1).Nor are there any studies on the effect of sales promotionson “product substitution” between nutritious and lessnutritious foods (Figure 1). No studies were identifiedthat examined whether people with unhealthy diets oroverweight/obese people are more prone to respondto sales promotions. This lack of evidence is in con-trast with the large numbers of studies published inthe health literature in the past few years on the effectof advertising on dietary behaviors among children,3–5

in addition to the extensive systematic reviews of theadvertising-diet association published in 20036 (updatedin 2007)7 and 2006.2

Second, even within the disciplinary limits, theeconometric modeling literature contains gaps. Mostof the studies look at price discounts rather than extra-product price promotions or other forms of sales pro-motion (see Table 1). Relatively little is understood abouthow sales promotions influence consumers’ choicesabout where to shop (the “store-switching” effect). Thereare very few studies from developing countries, eventhough this is where sales of packaged foods are growingfaster than the relatively saturated markets of the devel-oped world, and where consumers are less familiar withmany brands. Many of the available studies use rather olddata from the 1970s and 1980s, which was collected priorto the development of more recent sales promotionaltechniques and the rapid growth of large retailers whoengage aggressively in promotional activities.

Table 2 Search terms used to identify academic studies on the impact of sales promotions on food purchasingand consumption patterns.Database Search type Search terms DatesPubMed General Sales promotions and food 1990–2008

Emerald Advanced “Sales promotion” OR “salespromotions” OR “price promotion” in the abstract

1980–2008

Econlit Advanced “Sales promotion” OR “sales promotions” OR “pricepromotion”

1980–2008

EBSCOhost BusinessSource Premier

Advanced “Sales promotion” in subject 1990 to 2008

PsycInfo Advanced “Sales promotion” OR “sales promotions” in keyword 1980–2008

Nutrition Reviews® Vol. 67(6):333–342 335

Third, interpreting the results of the availablestudies is complex and difficult. This is partly becauseof the difficulty of interpreting the terms. For example,“consumption” and “demand” are often used to meanexpenditure, and/or purchasing. It is often unclear exactlywhat the commonly used term “category” means. Thereare numerous terms used to describe the effects of salespromotions; sometimes different terms are used to des-cribe the same effect and sometimes the same terms areused to describe different effects. It is not always clear whatis meant by “short-term” and “long-term”. This makesinterpretation of the results of the studies and their appli-cation to food consumption behaviors very challenging.

Fourth, very little evidence is available fromindustry-data held in the private domain. Yet, potentially,this is where the most useful information lies. There issurprisingly little data on degrees of sales increases fromsales promotions in the public domain.

Finally, though, the econometric studies availabledo develop a useful body of theory of why and how sales

promotions can affect food consumption. This usuallystems from economic theory, and to a lesser extent, con-sumer psychology, and provides a constructive basis fromwhich to form testable hypotheses.

LESSONS LEARNED

Despite the limitations of the evidence base, five keylessons on the effects of sales promotions on food pur-chasing and consumption can be drawn from the avail-able literature. First, sales promotions lead to significantsales increases over the short-term. Second, the increasedsales arising from sales promotions do not necessarilylead to changes in food-consumption patterns. Third,there is evidence that sales promotions can encourageconsumers to change their consumption patterns. Fourth,the extent of the effect of sales promotions on consump-tion varies among different types of foods. Fifth, the effectalso depends on the type of sales promotion and the

Before the supermarket* shop:planning and influences

Main household shopper in a

family of four (in this case the

woman) makes shopping list,

which includes mayonnaise and

apples.

As a result, shopper decides to

shop at supermarket X this week,

rather than her usual store. This is

termed the “store switching” effect

of sales promotions.

Shopper receives a flyer through

the mail stating that supermarket X

has a special series of sales

promotions, especially price

discounts, the following week.

Shopper views a TV advertisement

for a new line of “sandwich

sauces.” She notices the

advertisement because unlike the

rest of the family, her 15-year-old

son does not like mayonnaise and

she thinks it could be a substitute.

At the supermarket:purchasing

Shopper enters the supermarket and sees a

“shelf talker” promoting a price discount on

oranges. In the “product substitution” effect of

sales promotions, she buys the oranges in place

of her usual apples.

At the end of the aisle, the shopper sees a

display for “sandwich sauces”. She recalls them

from the TV ad and notes the “buy-one-get-one-

free” offer. In a “product testing” effect, she buys

the product for her son.

Shopper walks through the condiments aisle and

notices that a brand of mayonnaise she does not

usually buy has a free sample. In what is known

as a “brand switching” effect she buys the new

brand in her usual quantity so she can benefit

from the sample.

Shopper moves to the dairy aisle and sees a

price discount on the brand of 8-pack yogurt she

usually buys. Though not on her list, noting the

distant sell-by date, in a “purchase acceleration”

or “forward buying” effect, she buys two packs

rather than her usual one with the intention of

storing them in the fridge and consuming them

at her usual rate.

At home:post-purchase consumption

At home, the shopper places the

oranges in a bowl. All the family

consume them at their usual rate;

their diet is affected in that they

consume oranges instead of apples

that week.

The son tries the new “sandwich

sauce”, and likes it. In an “increased

category consumption” effect, he

continues to do so. He used to have

no condiment in his sandwiches, so

this adds calories to his diet.

The family consumes the new brand

of mayonnaise at their usual rate so

there is no effect on consumption.

The shopper is the usual consumer

of the yogurt. She usually eats one

serving a day, but, in an “increased

category consumption” effect, the

presence of the extra in the fridge

encourages her to have two on some

days, especially since they take up

needed space.

Moving onto the next aisle, the shopper spots a

branded bin containing the breakfast cereal from

which her 10-year-old daughter is collecting in-

pack tokens to receive a gift. Even though she

bought the cereal last week in order to obtain

the token, in a “repeat purchasing” effect, she

buys the cereal again.

The daughter continues to consume

the cereal for breakfast and collect

the tokens. But she consumes it at

her usual rate and gets bored of it.

So she receives the free gift but the

last two packs of cereal go stale in

the cupboard and have to be thrown

out.

Figure 1 How sales promotions work: examples from a theoretical shopper. *This example is given from a supermarket,but it is recognized that there are many other settings for sales promotions.


characteristics of the consumer. Each of these lessons isdiscussed in more detail below.

Sales promotions lead to significant salesincreases over the short-term

There is no doubt that sales promotions lead to anincrease in sales of the promoted product during theperiod of the promotion. Numerous studies in the aca-demic literature show that promotions generate sub-stantial short-term increases in the sales of the promotedproduct.1,8–12 Most of this evidence comes from pricepromotions, which show that the greater the degree ofthe discount, the greater the increase in sales.

Data on the effects of specific sales promotions is noteasy to find, but what is available suggests that the effectsof promotions can be significant. The UK’s CompetitionCommission reported that sales promotions in Britishsupermarkets typically lead to sales increases of 200%,and buy-one-get-one-free-type offers can lead to incre-ases reaching 3000%.13 In the United States, a study in2004 showed that sales promotions in drugstores typi-cally increase the sale of candy by 29.8%, salty snacks by19.5%, and soft drinks by 5.1%.14

Increased sales arising from sales promotionsdo not necessarily lead to changes infood-consumption patterns

The short-term sales effect of promotion is very straight-forward. But analysis in the econometric literature showsthat the effect on consumption is not. In fact, the salesincrease from a promotion may not have any effect onconsumption at all. There are two timelines to consider:short-term (i.e., the period of the promotion and itsimmediate aftermath) and long-term (i.e., beyond theshort-term). Over the short-term, whether sales pro-motions affect consumption behavior depends on thesource of the increase in sales. The possible sources ofthe sales increases are illustrated in Figure 1: more ofthe promoted product may be purchased as a resultof “product substitution”, “forward buying” or “purchaseacceleration”, “brand switching” “product testing”, or“repeat purchasing”. As exemplified, if the source of theincrease is people switching away from their usual brandto the promoted brand of exactly the same productwithout actually increasing the amount they usually buy(“brand switching”), there will be no impact on consump-tion patterns (although nutrient intake would differ ifthe nutrient profile of the promoted brand is differentfrom the usual brand purchased by the consumer). Evenif consumers do purchase more of the product during theperiod of the promotion, they may just consume it at thenormal rate and wait longer before buying the product

again (often termed “purchase acceleration” or “forwardbuying”). Or they may buy more overall but waste thefood (Figure 1). There are, however, three cases in whichthese sources of sales increases can translate into changesin consumption: 1) product testing leading to the con-sumption of a product not previously consumed, and,therefore, increased consumption of the category; 2)product substitution leading to the consumption of aproduct with a different nutritional profile; 3) purchaseacceleration/forward buying or repeat purchasing leadingto increased consumption of the product category, notjust the brand.

Product testing occurs when people try the productfor the first time because it is on promotion. This reflectsone of the most common aims of sales promotions –to encourage consumers to try new products. Producttesting can affect consumption if it encourages peopleto eat something they would not have otherwise tried.For example, as illustrated in Figure 1, if a person buysand tries a sandwich condiment they have never triedbefore, and it then becomes a regular part of their diet.

Product switching occurs when people buy the pro-moted product as a direct substitute for another product.This can affect the quantity and quality of calories andnutrients consumed, for example, if a sugared orangedrink is purchased and consumed in place of fresh orangejuice or an orange, or a diet orange drink in place of afull-calorie version. Or it can have a relatively small affect,such as when oranges rather than apples are consumed(Figure 1).

The third potential effect on consumption occursthrough increased category consumption. This occurswhen people consume more of the product category as aresult of the sales promotion, rather than just switchingbrands or buying more but consuming it at the usual rateover a longer time period. Under increased category con-sumption, consumers buy more of the product as a resultof the promotion (termed stockpiling) and then consumeand replace it faster than usual, or they buy and consumethe product more often during the period of the promo-tion (termed repeat purchasing) or they buy the productas a result of product testing.

The critical point here is that increased categoryconsumption requires a change in both purchasingbehavior and post-purchase consumption (as illustratedin Figure 1). In the literature, it has been theorized thatstockpiling is the core mechanism through which salespromotions increase post-purchase consumption.15

According to Chandon and Wansink,16 higher householdinventories encourage consumers to eat more (at onetime or more often) by increasing the convenience ofconsumption and the salience of the product. Stockpiledproducts are more convenient to consume because,once they are inside the home, they are readily available,


and, with more in stock, there is no need to consumeless for fear of running out. Stockpiled products are alsomore likely to be consumed because they are salient (i.e.,having a quality that attracts attention): they take morestorage space, may be unusually packaged and are moresalient in the consumers memory because of the extraeffort required to purchase them (e.g., making the deci-sion to purchase and carrying the extra products home).Having more than the usual amount of a product thusencourages greater consumption until the inventorylevel is brought down to the expected norm for thehousehold.17 In economic terms, then, stockpiling reducesthe “perceived acquisition and replacement costs ofconsumption”.16

Sales promotions can also have long-term effects.They can encourage“repeat purchasing” of the brand overthe long-term (brand loyalty), or of the product category(e.g., if the consumer tries the product for the first timeas a result of the promotion and then buys it again inthe future). This can then affect usual dietary intake.Another long-term effect is on store (usually a super-market) loyalty: customers may base their decision to useone retailer over another on their preference for the sales-promotions environment in the store. Of these effects, itis the repeat purchasing of the product category that leadsto a long-term increase in category consumption.

Sales promotions can encourage consumers tochange their food-consumption patterns

In theory, then, sales promotions can lead to changesin food-consumption patterns. The evidence in the aca-demic literature to support this theory remains somewhatlimited: evidence is only available on the increased-category-consumption effect (sometimes more accuratelytermed “category demand” or “category expansion”), andthe studies do not measure the impact on actual dietaryintake or dietary precursors, relying, as already discussed,on analysis of sales data. (As a result, in the followingdiscussion, “consumption” refers to purchasing ratherthan actual dietary intake.) There is also some ongoingdebate in the literature regarding the extent of thecategory-consumption effect, and whether the effectpersists over the longer term. But, overall, there doesseem to be consensus that sales promotions can lead toincreased category consumption over the short-term.Most of the studies available examine the extent of thebrand-switching effect versus the increased-category-consumption effect. They measure the effect by estimat-ing what proportion of the sales increase is explained byincreased category consumption relative to brand switch-ing, and/or other sources of change.

One of the earliest such studies found that 16% ofthe sales spike for coffee was the result of people buying

more of a promoted product, not just switching brands.18

More recent work suggests the increased-category-consumption effect is more significant, but still smaller,than the brand-switching effect. Bell et al.19 examined arandom sample of 250 participants shopping in threesupermarkets for a range of food and non-food productsover a period of 78 weeks. The results indicated that 25%of sales arising from price promotions resulted fromincreased category consumption. Consumers purchasedgreater quantities of the products when on promotionand consumed them faster. Putsis20 and Putsis and Dhar21

examined data from 59 markets in the United States andfound that sales promotions across scores of food prod-ucts in the early 1990s, particularly feature and displaypromotions, had a relatively small but significant impacton increased category consumption. Sun22 found thatbetween 12 and 25% of the sales increases related to tunaand yoghurt promotions were the result of increasedcategory consumption. Nijs et al.8 found from Dutchdata that price promotions led to increased categoryconsumption for 58% of 560 products during an averageperiod of 10 weeks. van Heerde et al.23 found thatapproximately one-third of the sales increase caused byprice promotions for peanut butter and tuna resultedfrom people purchasing more of the product overall.

Other studies suggest that increased category con-sumption is even more significant than brand switching.Astudy by Ailawadi et al.12 found that around 50–60% of thesales increases following sales promotions on yoghurts(depending on the brand), and 30–50% for ketchup, couldbe explained by increased category consumption. Pauwelset al.24 found that 58% of the purchase increase foryoghurt, and 66% for soup, following a sales promotionwas the result of increased category consumption. Using adifferent method of measuring sales, van Heerde et al.25

concluded that Bell et al.19 underestimated the increased-category-consumption effect, suggesting that it explains75% of the recorded sales increase, not 25%.

Two studies were identified that estimated how muchoverall category sales are actually affected by sales pro-motions (also using scanner data) rather than just esti-mating the proportion of sales increases attributable toincreased category demand. Chandon and Wansink16

found that sales promotions in France (1994 data)increased consumption of fruit juice by 110% and cookiesby 92%. Ailawadi and Neslin15 found that display promo-tions in two cities in the United States in the late 1980sled to increases in consumption of yoghurt by 30% andof ketchup by 11.5%.

A very small number of studies found no impact onincreased category consumption. For example, one recentstudy found that extra-product promotions on potatocrisps had a strong impact on brand switching but littleimpact on increased category consumption.26


The question of whether the sales-promotions effectincreased category consumption over the longer term,after the period of the sales promotion and its immediateaftermath, is still debated in the academic literature. Somestudies have identified no long-term effects. Pauwelset al.,24 found from US data that increased-category-consumption effects for yoghurt and soup are short-lived,limited mainly to 2 weeks, or 8 weeks at the most. Thestudy by Nijs et al.,8 based on Dutch data, also found thatprice promotions only led to increased category con-sumption over a 10-week period; there were no long-termeffects of the promotions on increased category con-sumption (the study covered 4 years of data). In contrast,Ailawadi et al.12 found that sales promotions were associ-ated with a small but significant increase in repeat pur-chases of yoghurt and ketchup, indicating a long-termeffect on increased category consumption. A study ofusage of sales promotions also identified a consistentlong-term effect. Dong and Kaiser27 examined the effectof coupon usage on cheese purchases in a sample of30,000 American households between 1996 and 1999,finding that coupon usage was significantly associatedwith increases in cheese purchases over the 4-year period.Coupon usage thus increased demand for cheese over thelonger term. This contrasts somewhat with the findings ofMela et al.,28 who found that the greater exposure of con-sumers to price promotions made them less likely toexpand their increased category consumption over thelonger term.

Sales promotions, then, have been found to increaseshort-term consumption (albeit using a limited measureof consumption). But there remains a debate about theireffect on usual dietary intake over the longer term. Intheory, though, it could be argued that the continuousimplementation of sales promotions on a range of differ-ent foods in the retail environment leads to a longer-termeffect through the accumulation of short-term effects.In other words, if consumers eat more of one promotedcategory over, say, a 2-week period, and then reduce con-sumption back to usual levels, they may still be influencedby another promotion in the following 2-week period andthus increase consumption of that product. So, overallconsumption over the 4-week period is increased, albeitnot of the same product category. This raises the questionof whether the effects of sales promotions vary amongdifferent food categories.

The extent of the effect of sales promotions onconsumption varies among different types of food

The studies reviewed above find considerable variation inthe extent of the sales promotions’ effects on increasedcategory consumption. To some extent, these variationsreflect the different models and methodologies used in

the studies. But an important conclusion of all thesestudies is that a key reason for the variations is the char-acteristics of the food product i.e., increased-category-consumption effects differ among different types offoods. Several, sometimes contrasting, theories have beenproposed to explain why this might be. Broadly, thesetheories can be captured as follows: the extent of the effectof sales promotions varies with the degree of perishabilityor storability of the food, the degree of convenience,and/or the degree of desirability.

With regard to perishability, it has been theorizedthat sales promotions are more likely to affect theconsumption of perishable products because there is alimited amount of time within which they must be con-sumed after being purchased. Some evidence supportsthis theory. Among a total of 560 mainly food but alsonon-food categories, Nijs et al.8 found that price promo-tions had a significantly greater effect on category con-sumption for perishable relative to storable products.Bell et al.19 found that consumption of yoghurt andbacon increased as a result of stockpiling after pricepromotions, whereas they had no effect on the usage rateof bathroom tissue and laundry detergent, even thoughhouseholds stockpiled these products as well. Ailawadiand Neslin15 and Ailawadi et al.12 found that high house-hold inventory of yoghurts had a greater effect on con-sumption relative to ketchup, which they attribute tothe difference in perishability.

In contrast, it has also been theorized that salespromotions are more likely to have an effect on storableproducts. According to this theory, consumers are morelikely to buy more storable foods on promotion relativeto perishables because they think they can save moneyby buying now and storing the product for later. But theyend up consuming the products faster anyway. Pauwelset al.,24 for example, found that the category consumptionincreased to a greater degree for canned soup than foryoghurt, a finding they attribute to greater quantities ofsoup being purchased on promotion relative to yoghurt.Narasimham et al.11 found that products that could bestored more easily were more likely to be stockpiled asa result of sales promotions.

Another theory, offered by Li et al.,29 suggests that themost relevant food characteristic is its usual rate of con-sumption. That is, the foods most likely to be purchasedas a result of sales promotions are those that are usuallyconsumed frequently. This theory is based on a study ofthe effects of buy-one-get-one free promotions, whichfound that dairy products are usually that consumed at afaster rate are more likely to be sold in greater quantitiesas a result of the promotion relative to those that areusually consumed more slowly.29

Other theories focus on convenience. In theory, largeinventories of high-convenience products are more likely


to encourage greater consumption because they are con-venient to consume relative to products that require somepreparation. In a field study specifically designed to testthis effect, Chandon and Wansink16 examined the effect ofstockpiling three products perceived to be highly conve-nient (crackers, granola bars, and fruit juice), relative tothree perceived to be less convenient (noodles, oatmeal,and microwave popcorn). They found that stockpilingincreased consumption of the three high-convenienceproducts by 11.4 ounces relative to 4.0 ounces for thelow-convenience products.

Bell et al.18 present a further theory based on theirfindings that price promotions had no impact onincreased category consumption of butter, margarine,and sugar, whereas potato chips and soft drinks wereconsumed faster as a result of the promotion. The authorssuggest this is because consumers have a desire toconsume more soft drinks and chips, and the sales pro-motions provide them with an excuse to do so, whereasthey have no particular desire to consume more sugar(as a raw product), butter, or margarine. The authorsnote that soft drinks are the only truly storable productfor which consumption increases, a trend they attributeto the very large number of promotions. This desirabilityeffect, could, however, actually be a convenience effectsince it is easier to consume soft drinks and snacks rela-tive to raw sugar and fat spreads.

The effect of sales promotions on consumptionalso depends on the type of sales promotionand the characteristics of the consumer

There is limited evidence on how the category-consumption effect of sales promotions is mediated bythe type of promotion and the consumer characteristics,but what is available suggests that these factors do matter.For example, van Heerde et al.23 found that price promo-tions supported by feature and display promotions hada larger effect on increased category consumption thanprice promotions alone. Studies based on consumersurveys have found that consumers are more likely tostockpile in response to certain promotions relative toothers.30,31 A recent survey conducted by the Institute ofGrocery Distribution in the United Kingdom found that25% of those interviewed identified buy-one-get-one-freeoffers as particularly effective in encouraging producttesting of a new brand.32 These promotions were mostlikely to influence sales of non-perishable products; forfresh products like fruits and vegetables, consumers saidthey would be more likely influenced by overall lowerprices.

Another important factor mediating the effect of thesales promotion is consumer characteristics. The market-ing literature refers to people more likely to respond

to promotions as “deal-prone” consumers. Studies haveshown that, in general, price-conscious consumers are themost deal-prone.33,34 The results of studies into the socio-demographic characteristics associated with “deal prone-ness” have been somewhat inconsistent. Different studieshave reported that younger, middle-aged, or older con-sumers tend to be more deal prone, and variables suchas education that are significant in some studies arenot significant in others.1 As a result, researchers haveadvanced the idea that, along with price-consciousness,psychographic and purchasing-habit variables are morerelevant than sociodemographic characteristics whendefining a deal-prone consumer.33 These include theimpulsiveness and innovativeness of the shopper,33 howmuch they enjoy shopping,33,35 and whether the shopperuses a shopping list.36

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this exploration into the literature hasshown that while the available evidence on the effects ofsales promotions is limited, it indicates that sales promo-tions can affect food consumption patterns by influencingconsumers’ purchasing choices and encouraging themto eat more. These effects are complex; the direct salesincreases resulting from sales promotions do not neces-sarily translate into changed or increased consumption,and the effects vary widely according to the type of food,the sales promotion technique, and the consumer.

This finding has implications for how sales pro-motions could be utilized more effectively to promotehealthy diets and reduce consumption of energy-dense,nutrient-poor foods. Most importantly, it implies thatsales promotions with the objective of promoting nutri-tious foods would need to be designed very carefullyto ensure that they would have the effect of increasingproduct consumption among target groups. For example,sales promotions on fruits and vegetables would only besuccessful if they boosted overall levels of consumptionand/or broadened the consumer base, rather than justencouraging the following: 1) switching between, say, anapple or an orange (Figure 1); 2) purchases in one storerather than another; 3) greater consumption by consum-ers who already consume sufficient fruits and vegetables;and/or 4) increased waste.

There are already examples of nutrition inter-ventions that have utilized sales-promotion techniquesin grocery stores or food-service settings to encouragethe consumption of nutritious foods, particularly low-fat products and fruits and vegetables.37–39 These havehad some success. For example, one study showed thatpromotional activity, including sales promotions, suc-cessfully increased the sales of low-fat menu items inhigh-school cafeterias in the United States (consumption


was not actually measured).40 But, overall, the resultsof these interventions have been mixed. It could be spe-culated that this is because they were led by healthprofessionals rather than marketing and retailing experts,and thus were less likely to be based on a sophisticatedunderstanding of the different effects of different typesof sales promotions on different types of food. They werealso ad-hoc interventions that therefore necessarily havea limited effect. A better, more sophisticated approachmight be to utilize commercial approaches to shift theentire sales-promotion environment towards the sellingand consumption of more nutritious foods. This couldapply to all forms of retail outlets and sales-promotionsettings, including those in which children are specificallytargeted. A particularly important setting is supermar-kets, given the rising proportion of foods purchased fromsupermarkets and the rising importance of supermarketsas a setting for sales promotions.41

This review also identified some critical researchgaps. Fundamentally, studies are needed to examinehow sales promotions actually affect dietary patterns anddietary precursors rather than just using sales as a proxy.Specifically, there is a need for research into the followingareas 1) the effects of sales promotions on the consump-tion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods relative to theabsence of such promotions; 2) the effects of sales pro-motions commonly used to target energy-dense, nutrientpoor foods to children on their consumption and percep-tions of these foods; 3) the potential of sales promotionsto encourage “product substitution” from less to morenutritious foods and vice versa; 4) to identify what typesof sales promotions would be most likely to encourageunder-consuming populations to consume more fruitsand vegetables and other nutritious foods; and 5) toexamine how they affect usually dietary habits over thelong-term. While this research calls for nutrition exper-tise, there is also potential for greater involvement byexperts in the emerging discipline of behavioral eco-nomics.17 This research could contribute to the design ofa sales promotional environment that is more conduciveto healthier eating.

Acknowledgments

This review was initiated when the author was employedat the International Food Policy Research Institute. Theauthor thanks Mike Rayner for his insightful commentson an earlier draft.

REFERENCES

1. Blattberg N, Neslin S. Sales Promotion: Concepts, Methods andStrategies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1990.

2. McGinnis JM, Gootman JA, Kraak VI. Food Marketing to Chil-dren and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC:National Academies Press; 2006.

3. Kopelman CA, Roberts LM, Adab P. Advertising of food tochildren: is brand logo recognition related to their foodknowledge, eating behaviours and food preferences? J PublicHealth (Oxf). 2007;29:358–367.

4. Buijzen M, Schuurman J, Bomhof E. Associations betweenchildren’s television advertising exposure and their foodconsumption patterns: a household diary-survey study.Appetite. 2008;50:231–239.

5. Dixon HG, Scully ML, Wakefield MA, White VM, Crawford DA.The effects of television advertisements for junk food versusnutritious food on children’s food attitudes and preferences.Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1311–1323.

6. Hastings G, Stead M, McDermott L, et al. Review of Researchon the Effects of Food Promotion to Children. London: FoodStandards Agency; 2003.

7. Hastings G, McDermott L, Angus K, Stead M, Thomson S.The Extent, Nature and Effects of Food Promotion to Children:A Review of the Evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: World HealthOrganization; 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/Hastings_paper_marketing.pdf. Accessed 16 June 2008.

8. Nijs VR, Dekimpe MG, Steenkamps J-BEM, Hanssens DM.The category-demand effects of price promotions. MarketSci. 2001;20:1–22.

9. Blattberg R, Briesch R, Fox E. How promotions work. MarketSci. 1995;3:G122–G132.

10. Martinez-Ruiz MP, Molla-Descals A, Gomez-Borja MA,Rojo-Alvarez JL. Using daily store-level data to understandprice promotion effects in a semiparametric regressionmodel. J Retail Consumer Serv. 2005;13:193–204.

11. Narasimhan C, Neslin SA, Sen S. Promotional elasti-cities and category characteristics. J Market. 1996;60:17–30.

12. Ailawadi KL, Gedenk K, Lutsky C, Neslin SA. Decompositionof the sales impact of promotion-induced stockpiling.J Market Res. 2007;XLIV:450–467.

13. Competition Commission. Supermarkets: A Report on theSupply of Groceries from Multiple Stores in the United Kingdom.London: Competition Commission; 1999.

14. Spethmann B. Promos boost drug store sales. Promo. 2005;18:4.

15. Ailawadi K, Neslin SA. The effect of promotion on con-sumption: buying more and consuming it faster. J MarketRes. 1998;35:390–398.

16. Chandon P, Wansink B. When are stockpiled productsconsumer faster? A convenience-salience framework of post-purchase consumption incidence and quantity. J Market Res.2002;XXXIX:321–335.

17. Wansink B. Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We Think.New York: Bantam Books; 2006.

18. Gupta S. Impact of sales promotion on when, what andhow much to buy. J Market Res. 1988;25:342–355.

19. Bell DR, Chiang J, Padmanabhan V. The decomposition ofpromotional response. Market Sci. 1999;18:504–526.

20. Putsis WP. Are brand promotions just a zero-sum game –or can they increase the size of the pie? Bus Strategy Rev.1998;9:21–32.

21. Putsis WP, Dhar R. An empirical analysis of the determinantsof category expenditure. J Bus Res. 2001;52:277–291.

22. Sun B. Promotion effect on endogenous consumption.Market Sci. 2005;24:430–443.


http://www.who.int

23. van Heerde HJ, Leeflang PSH, Wittink DR. Decomposingthe sales promotion bump with store data. Market Sci. 2004;23:317–334.

24. Pauwels K, Hanssens DM, Siddarth S. The long-term effectsof price promotions on category incidence, brand choice,and purchase quantity. J Market Res. 2002;39:421–443.

25. Van Heerde HJ, Gupta S, Wittink DR. Is 75% of the salespromotion bump due to brand switching? No, only 33% is.J Market Res. 2003;XL:481–491.

26. Foubert B, Gijsbrechts E. Shopper response to bundle promo-tions for packaged goods. J Market Res. 2007;44:647–662.

27. Dong D, Kaiser HM. Coupon redemption and its effect onhousehold cheese purchases. Am J Agric Econom. 2005;87:689–702.

28. Mela CF, Jedidi K, Bowman D. The long-term impact ofpromotions on consumer stockpiling behavior. J Market Res.1998;XXXV:250–262.

29. Li S, Sun Y, Wang Y. 50% off or buy one get one free?Frame preference as a function of consumable nature in dairyproducts. J Soc Psychol. 2007;147:413–421.

30. Gilbert DC, Jackaria N. The efficacy of sales promotions in UKsupermarkets: a consumer view. Int J Retail Distribut Mgmt.2002;30:315–322.

31. Shi Y-Z, Cheung K-M, Prendergast G. Behavioural responseto sales promotion tools: a Hong Kong study. Int J Advert.2005;24:467–486.

32. In-Store Promotions – Optimising Your Investment. London:IGD; 2007.

33. Martinez E, Montaner T. The effect of consumer’s psy-chographic variables upon deal-proneness. J Retail ConsServ. 2006;13:157–168.

34. Huff LC, Alden DL. An investigation of consumer responseto sales promotions in developing markets: a three-countryanalysis. J Advert Res. 1998;38:47–56.

35. Garretson JA, Burton S. Highly coupon and sale proneconsumers: benefits beyond price savings. J Advert Res. 2003;43:162–172.

36. Thomas A, Garland R. Susceptibility to goods on promotionin supermarkets. J Retail Cons Serv. 1996;3:233–239.

37. Glanz K, Yaroch AL. Strategies for increasing fruit andvegetable intake in grocery stores and communities:policy, pricing and environmental change. Prev Med. 2004;39(Suppl):S75–S80.

38. Seymour JD, Yaroch AL, Serdula M, Blanck HM, Khan LK.Impact of nutrition environmental interventions in point-of-purchase behavior in adults: a review. Prevent Med.2004;39(Suppl):S108–S136.

39. Paine-Andrews A, Francisco VT, Fawcett SB, Johnston J,Coen S. Health marketing in the supermarket: using pro-mpting, product sampling and price reduction to increasecustomer purchase of lower-fat items. Health Mark Q. 1994;14:85–99.

40. Fulkerson JA, French SA, Story M, Nelson H, Hannan PJ. Pro-motions to increase lower-fat food choices among studentsin secondary schools: description and outcomes of TAOS(Trying Alternative Cafeteria Options in Schools). PublicHealth Nutr. 2004;2:665–674.

41. Hawkes C. Dietary implications of supermarket development:a global perspective. Dev Policy Rev. 2008;26:657–692.


Documents

Sales promotions and food consumption