Introduction
In-store placement promotions are used widely in supermarkets, but their effects on
customer purchases remain largely unknown. This study examined associations of supermarket
placement promotions with customer purchases overall and by Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) benefit use.
Methods
Data on in-store promotions (e.g., endcaps, checkout displays) and transactions (n=274,118,338) were obtained from a New England supermarket chain with 179 stores from
2016 to 2017. Product-level analyses examined multivariable-adjusted changes in products’
sales when they were promoted (versus not) across all transactions and stratified
by whether the transaction was paid for with SNAP benefits.Food group−level analyses
examined the extent to which a 20% increase from the mean number of weekly promotions
for a food group (e.g., increasing the number of candy promotions from 17.0 to 20.4)
was associated with total food group sales. Analyses were conducted in 2022.
Results
Across stores, the mean (SD) number of promotions per week was highest for sweet/salty
snacks (126.3 [22.6]), baked goods (67.5 [18.4]), and sugar-sweetened beverages (48.6
[13.8]) and lowest for beans (5.0 [2.6]) and fruits (6.6 [3.3]). Product sales were
between 16% (low-calorie drinks) and 136% (candy) higher when promoted versus not
promoted. In 14 of 15 food groups, associations were stronger among transactions made
with SNAP benefits than among those not made with SNAP benefits. The number of in-store
promotions was generally not associated with total food group sales.
Conclusions
In-store promotions, which were mostly for unhealthy foods, were associated with large
product sales increases, particularly among SNAP purchasers. Policies limiting unhealthy
in-store promotions and incentivizing healthy promotions should be explored.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive MedicineAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
World Health Organization. Food marketing exposure and power and their associations with food-related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours: a narrative review. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240041783. Published February 7, 2022. Accessed February 24, 2023.
- Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on intake in children and adults.Am J Clin Nutr. 2016; 103: 519-533https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.120022
- Food marketing influences children's attitudes, preferences and consumption: a systematic critical review.Nutrients. 2019; 11: E875https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11040875
- Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children's dietary intake and preference: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.Obes Rev. 2016; 17: 945-959https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12445
- A systematic review of persuasive marketing techniques to promote food to children on television.Obes Rev. 2014; 15: 281-293https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12141
- Effectiveness of food environment policies in improving population diets: a review of systematic reviews.Eur J Clin Nutr. 2022; 76: 637-646https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-021-01008-y
- Diet quality of items advertised in supermarket sales circulars compared to diets of the US population, as assessed by the Healthy Eating Index-2010.J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016; 116 (115–122.e1)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2015.09.016
- Healthy or unhealthy on sale? A cross-sectional study on the proportion of healthy and unhealthy foods promoted through flyer advertising by supermarkets in the Netherlands.BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 470https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1748-8
- An analysis of sodium, total fat and saturated fat contents of packaged food products advertised in Bronx-based supermarket circulars.J Community Health. 2014; 39: 775-782https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-014-9829-7
- Price promotions for food and beverage products in a nationwide sample of food stores.Prev Med. 2016; 86: 106-113https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.01.011
- Availability and placement of healthy and discretionary food in Australian supermarkets by chain and level of socio-economic disadvantage.Public Health Nutr. 2021; 24: 203-214https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980020002505
- The healthiness of food and beverages on price promotion at promotional displays: a cross-sectional audit of Australian supermarkets.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17: 9026https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239026
- FoodAPS National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey: Summary Findings.2019 (Accessed August 19, 2022)
Rivlin G. Rigged: supermarket shelves for sale. https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/misc/CSPI_Rigged_4_small.pdf. Published online 2016. Accessed January 26, 2023.
- Sales impact of displaying alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in end-of-aisle locations: an observational study.Soc Sci Med. 2014; 108: 68-73https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.02.032
- Increase in sales due to in-store display.J Mark Res. 1975; 12: 426-431https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377501200406
- Assessing the sales effectiveness of differently located endcaps in a supermarket.J Retailing Con Serv. 2018; 43: 200-208https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2018.03.015
- The interplay among category characteristics, customer characteristics, and customer activities on in-store decision making.J Mark. 2009; 73: 19-29https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.5.19
- Spontaneous selection: the influence of product and retailing factors on consumer impulse purchases.J Retailing Con Serv. 2012; 19: 578-588https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.07.003
- Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means so Much.Times Books, 2013
- A lot of sacrifices:” work-family spillover and the food choice coping strategies of low-wage employed parents.Soc Sci Med. 2006; 63: 2591-2603https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.06.029
- Increases in sugary drink marketing during supplemental nutrition assistance program benefit issuance in New York.Am J Prev Med. 2018; 55: 55-62https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.03.012
- Environmental/lifestyle factors in the pathogenesis and prevention of type 2 diabetes.BMC Med. 2017; 15: 131https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0901-x
- Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular outcomes: challenges and interventions.Circulation. 2018; 137: 2166-2178https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029652
- Does social class predict diet quality?.Am J Clin Nutr. 2008; 87: 1107-1117https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1107
Guiding Stars: Nutritious Choices Made Simple; https://guidingstars.com/. Published 2021. Accessed November 10, 2021.
- Development and implementation of the guiding stars nutrition guidance program.Am J Health Promot. 2011; 26: e55-e63https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.100709-QUAL-238
- Transactions at a Northeastern Supermarket Chain: Differences by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Use.Am J Prev Med. 2017; 53: e131-e138https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.06.019
- A taste of inequality: food's symbolic value across the socioeconomic spectrum.SocScience. 2017; 4: 424-448https://doi.org/10.15195/v4.a17
Nielsen. The path to efficient trade promotions. https://origin-vip.nielsen.com/dotcom/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/the-path-to-efficient-trade-promotions-feb-2015.pdf. Published online 2015. Accessed January 26, 2023.
Muller F. Ahold Delhaize pledges under the second component of the EU Code of Conduct for Responsible Business and Marketing practices. https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-11/f2f_sfpd_coc_20210705_pledge_ahold-delhaize.pdf. Published online 2021. Accessed January 7, 2023.
Center for Science in the Public Interest. Healthier checkout lanes coming to Aldi supermarkets. https://www.cspinet.org/news/healthier-checkout-lanes-coming-aldi-supermarkets-20160112. Published online 2016. Accessed January 7, 2023.
- Erratum for Nakamura et al. Price promotions on healthier compared with less healthy foods: a hierarchical regression analysis of the impact on sales and social patterning of responses to promotions in Great Britain. Am J Clin Nutr 2015;101:808-16.Am J Clin Nutr. 2015; 102: 980https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.115.118844
- Removing seasonal confectionery from prominent store locations and purchasing behaviour within a major UK supermarket: evaluation of a nonrandomised controlled intervention study.PLOS Med. 2022; 19e1003951https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003951
- Supermarket policies on less-healthy food at checkouts: natural experimental evaluation using interrupted time series analyses of purchases.PLOS Med. 2018; 15e1002712https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002712
- Choice architecture modifies fruit and vegetable purchasing in a university campus grocery store: time series modelling of a natural experiment.BMC Public Health. 2018; 18: 1149https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6063-8
- Association between store food environment and customer purchases in small grocery stores, gas-marts, pharmacies and dollar stores.Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017; 14: 76https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-017-0531-x
- Choice architecture to promote fruit and vegetable purchases by families participating in the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): randomized corner store pilot study.Public Health Nutr. 2017; 20: 1297-1305https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980016003074
- Nudging customers towards healthier food and beverage purchases in a real-life online supermarket: a multi-arm randomized controlled trial.BMC Med. 2022; 20: 10https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-021-02205-z
- A systematic review of the influences of food store product placement on dietary-related outcomes.Nutr Rev. 2020; 78: 1030-1045https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaa024
- Obesity prevention in the supermarket-choice architecture and the supplemental nutrition assistance program.Am J Public Health. 2017; 107: 1582-1583https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.303991
- Public support for healthy supermarket initiatives focused on product placement: a multi-country cross-sectional analysis of the 2018 International Food Policy Study.Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021; 18: 78https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01149-0
- Public acceptability in the UK and USA of nudging to reduce obesity: the example of reducing sugar-sweetened beverages consumption.PLOS ONE. 2016; 11e0155995https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155995
City of Berkeley Ordinance No. 7,734-N.S. Adding Chapter 9.82 to The Berkeley Municipal Code “Healthy Checkout.”https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2020-10-13%20Item%2002%20Ordinance%207734.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2023.
Justia. U.S. Supreme Court. Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525. Published 2001. Accessed February 24, 2023.
- Supermarket purchases over the supplemental nutrition assistance program benefit month: a comparison between participants and nonparticipants.Am J Prev Med. 2019; 57: 800-807https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.07.025
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 03, 2023
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
