Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Food Store Owner, Manager, and Employee Perspectives that May Impact Decision Making and Intervention Applications

From: A systematic review of factors that influence food store owner and manager decision making and ability or willingness to use choice architecture and marketing mix strategies to encourage healthy consumer purchases in the United States, 2005–2017

First Author, Year [In-text Citation] Retailer Perspectives
Place: Atmospheric or Structural Qualities, n = 15
Andreyeva, 2011 [44]; Ayala, 2012 [46]; Caspi, 2015 [60]; Dannefer, 2012 [48]; Gravlee, 2014 [50]; Izumi, 2015 [68]; Jilcott Pitts, 2013 [74]; Kim 2017 [64]; Larson, 2013 [52]; O’Malley, 2013 [54]; Pinard, 2016 [72]; Song, 2009 [56] Limited or lacking infrastructure (due to lack of space or equipment, time and/or cost barriers).
Baquero, 2014 [47] Customer service and store cleanliness was improved after a nutrition intervention. The time and space required to install infrastructure is a challenge and may require interventionist assistance.
Gittelsohn, 2012 [49] A produce display improved perceptions of the store atmosphere. The creation of a pleasant store atmosphere was of business interest.
O’Malley, 2013 [54] Interventionist assistance would be required to implement changes.
Song, 2011 [57] Store atmosphere was perceived to improve as a result of establishing trust.
Profile: Food Store Inventory, n = 11
Andreyeva, 2011 [44] Enhancing the store’s inventory is of interest to enhance product variety.
Budd, 2017 [62] There were mixed results regarding whether retailers would sustain the stocking of promoted foods post-intervention.
Caspi, 2015 [60] Products such as fresh fruit and low-fat milk were perceived to be low-profit items in comparison to other healthy products that were perceived as average profit items (not high profit).
D’Angelo, 2016 [71] The following percentages of participants noted willingness to stock these items: 74%, low-fat dairy; 66%, whole grain bread; ~ 51%, three varieties each of fresh fruits and vegetables; 40%, frozen produce; ~ 40%, pre-cut fresh fruits and vegetables.
DeFosset, 2017 [63] Variety and affordability were the most important stocking indicators and 75% considered offering healthy products a high priority.
Gittelsohn, 2012 [49] Current store inventory informed food purchasing needs. Perishable foods  were the greatest challenge with regard to predicting sales and thus ordering needs.
Gravlee, 2014 [50] Few healthy products were currently available in stores, as indicated by participants. Product sales informed stocking needs.
Gravlee, 2014 [50]; Izumi, 2015 [68]; Mayer, 2016 [65] Perishable products were challenging to sell before they expired.
O’Malley, 2013 [54] There were mixed perceptions on the profitability of fresh fruits and vegetables. Sometimes the high cost of produce was considered a challenge that would require financial assistance from the intervention team.
Pinard, 2016 [72] All except two participants expressed a willingness to stock healthier options if consumers bought them. Competition among stores in the community prompts in-store product variety. It was perceived necessary to expand inventory options that are convenient for consumers.
Pricing: Altering Costs of Food and Beverage Products, n = 3
Kim, 2017 [64] Small stores noted challenges to item sales due to customer expectations for continued affordability. Also, a limited variety of products available was considered a barrier to placing multiple items on sale.
Sanchez-Flack, 2016 [55] Employees believed that tienda coupon dispensers would be an effective approach to facilitate consumer purchases, especially for produce.
Song, 2011 [57] Believed that customers prefered product coupons rather than incentive cards.
Promotion: Increasing Consumer Demand Through Product Promotions, n = 8
Baquero, 2014 [47] Retailers reported liking the recipes and in-store food demonstrations used.
Dannefer, 2012 [48] Participant feedback indicated that use of more posters, cooking and food demonstrations, and promotional events would be preferred.
Escaron, 2015 [67] Perceived that deli tastings, food bundling, and promotional materials were effective in increasing consumer demand for intervention items.
Kim, 2017 [64] Common promotional suggestions included taste testing/free samplings. Fliers were also suggested to draw consumers in.
Mayer, 2016 [65] Some owners expressed a willingness to verbally promote healthy choices as a way to support the community.
Sanchez-Flack, 2016 [55] Food demonstrations were discussed positively. Managers and employees believed that reusable bags for healthy foods would be an effective promotional tactic.
Song, 2009 [56] Taste testing as a component of an intervention was perceived effective.
Song, 2011 [57] Retailers believed the use of culturally appropriate artwork was beneficial in attracting the target intervention population. Food samples tended to be perceived as more successful than chip clip and water bottle promotions. Flyers were considered to be the least effective promotional method. Larger stores preferred posters and some perceived this method to be the most effective intervention material.
Priming or prompting: consumer cues implemented to draw attention to healthier foods and beverages, n = 4
Abarca, 2005 [59] Displays were perceived to be a possible approach to promoting sales.
Sanchez-Flack, 2016 [55] Both managers and employees agreed on the importance of visible, well placed displays. Also, while employees tended to like the concept of using floor stickers to guide consumers with limited space, managers did not agree due to cleanliness concerns.
Song, 2009 [56] The use of shelf labels was preferred for stores with limited space and some considered labels to be the most effective intervention method, although proper placement was important.
Wingert, 2014 [58] Larger displays were considered to have the potential to sway consumer purchasing decisions.
Proximity: altering the location of healthy foods and beverages to reduce associated consumer effort, n = 5
Baquero, 2014 [47] Intervention infrastructure was chosen to be placed at eye-level and near a consumer check out location.
D’Angelo, 2016 [71] The following percentages of participants noted willingness to change the location of certain items: ~ 70%, move healthy snacks and produce to checkout area; 34%, move unhealthy snacks away from checkout area.
Pinard, 2016 [72] Perceived that placing complementary products within the same area would be a positive sales tactic. Placing aesthetically pleasing food and beverage options near the front of the store was perceived to be beneficial for sales.
Sanchez-Flack, 2016 [55] Managers discussed the importance for effective placement of promotional reusable bags to enhance visibility.
Setala, 2011 [57] Considered the stocking location of promoted intervention items to be an important variable.
  1. This table includes the perspectives of United States food store owners and managers with respect to the applied or prospective application of marketing-mix and choice-architecture (MMCA) strategies to improve the dietary quality of consumer food and beverage purchases. These perspectives are within the social-ecological context of the food store environment and are influential on food store owner/manager decision making and ability or willingness to use MMCA strategies.