Investigating the healthiness of food products on promotion: market brands and own brands

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to investigate the proportionality of market brand (MB) foods versus supermarket own brand (OB) foods sold on promotion and to compare their healthiness.Design/methodology/approachAn existing dataset containing nutritional information about a variety of foods on promotion (n = 6,776) from 48 stores across 8 retail chains in Northern Ireland (NI) was reanalysed. Product healthiness was measured using a score aligned to the Food Standards Agency's Front of Pack nutrient labelling system. MBs and OBs were considered as a whole and in their respective subsets–international/national and regional MBs, and premium, mid-market and value tiered OBs.FindingsResults found a balance in favour of health (52.4% amber/green versus 47.6% red) across retailers' promotions in NI. Further, OB products were often found to be superior to MBs with regards to overall healthfulness, and regional brands were found to be less healthy than international/national brands.Research limitations/implicationsFindings rationale further retail research to compare nutritionally OB and MB product types, and further consumer research regarding important attributes of OBs.Practical implicationsRetailers should communicate the comparative healthiness of their OBs in comparison to MB alternatives, in addition to communicating comparative price savings. There is opportunity for retailers to increase visibility of mid-market and value OB tiers, and for regional MBs to improve the nutritional profile of products in line with the consumer trend for health.Originality/valueThis study provides a contribution by using data on OBs and MBs on promotion, and by investigating the nutritional differences between different tiers of OB and MB products.

Nutritional Labelling and Purchase Intention

“…When a food product is given positive -negative-evaluation from Nutri-Score, the nutrient-specific interpretative labelling reinforces -cancels-its effect (Medina-Molina & Pérez-González, 2021). Likewise, those foods that receive negative evaluations rely more on sales promotions (Beacom et al, 2022).…”

“…Perceived healthiness is determined by six categories of elements (Da Silva et al, 2022;Lin et al, 2017;Plasek et al, 2020): communication information; product category, the shape and colour of the product packaging, the ingredients of the product, the organic origin of the product, and the taste and other sensory features of the product. However, products with less healthiness receive a greater number of promotions (Beacom et al, 2022). Consumers make inferences on food healthiness using nutritional information and claims of health benefits shown on labels, being strongly linked with the purchase intention (Medina-Molina & Pérez-González, 2021;.…”

“…Companies can condition the decision to purchase food through the use of promotions or the presentation of information on the packaging (Beacom et al, 2022;Corallo et al, 2021). When consumers are exposed to the packaging, they value the specific food attributes and the ingredients, and health claims.…”

“…Nutritional warnings highlight high nutrient content associated with non-communicable diseases and facilitate the identification of healthy products (Nobrega et al, 2020), although they only change consumer behaviour when they offer new information (Da Silva et al, 2022). However, it is inevitable that products with a higher content of fat, salt and sugar receive greater promotions from organizations enjoying greater visibility (Beacom et al, 2022), changing the purchase intention of the nutritional warning only for certain food categories (Da Silva et al, 2022). In any case, manufacturers highlight positive healthy associations in food packaging that can reduce the effectiveness of nutritional warnings (Nobrega et al, 2020).…”