MKTG204 Integrated Marketing Communications Consumer insights survey results for Task 2B

1. About this document

The following document has been prepared for students enrolled in MKTG204 during Session 1, 2016 at Macquarie University. This document provides students with the information required to complete Task 2B (Consumer insights report). The following results come from selected data, collected by MKTG204 students from the Assessment Task 2A (Consumer insights data collection).

Please refer to the Assessment Criteria document for details on the Task 2B assessment and its marking rubric. The Assessment Criteria document and the template for completing Assessment Task 2B can both be found on iLearn.

2. Copyright

The following document is a copyright material. Reproduction of this material without obtaining prior permission from the unit convenor or deputy convenor is strictly prohibited.

3. Research aim, questions and significance

This research aims to gain insights into foodie consumers and the influence of photographic depiction types of food ads on consumer responses and marketing communications outcomes for Sara Lee. This research asks: how foodie consumers can be described and what the role of photographic depiction types in food advertising communication is. This research provides practical implications on creative and media strategies of marketing communications campaigns for its new chocolate chip cookie brand.

4. Research method

This research employed a 1 factor (chocolate chip cookie) x 3 factor (depiction types: Image 1. cookie alone, Image 2. cookie bitten by a consumer and Image 3. cookie shared by people) between-subject experimental online survey (see these visual ad stimuli in Table 2 on page 4). This means each participant saw one ad in a randomised fashion. Before exposure, all participants rated their hunger. All participants were told to view the ad and see if the product is desirable to eat and that they could view the ad as long as they wished just like how they viewed a magazine ad. After exposure, all participants were asked the same questions to investigate the influence of photographic depiction types before providing personal information.

5. How to cite this document

Pitt, J. & Ang, L. (2016). MKTG204 Understanding foodie consumers and the influence of photographic depiction types of food ads on consumer responses: Assessment Task 2B, Session 1, 2016 Consumer insights survey results. North Ryde: Macquarie University.

Page 2

6. Key constructs, definitions and operationalisations

Table 1. Key constructs investigated in this article with definitions and operationalisations explained

Key constructs Definitions Operationalisations*

Hunger Consumer subjective evaluation of feeling desire for food

How hungry are you feeling right now? “0 not at all hungry”, “1 Slightly hungry”, “2 Moderately hungry”, “3 Very hungry”, “4 Extremely hungry”

Brand attitude (ABrand)^ Consumer overall evaluation of the brand/product

How good or bad do you think Kathy’s Gourmet Brand of choc chip cookie is?: “-2 Very bad”, “-1 Bad”, “0 Neither good nor bad”, “1 Good”, “2 Very good”

Ad attitude (AAd) Consumer overall evaluation of the advertisement

How much do you like or dislike the ad?: “-2 Dislike very much”, “-1 Dislike”, “0 Neither like nor dislike”, “1 Like”, “2 Like very much”

Social proof (Popularity)

Consumer evaluation of the brand/product popularity influenced by another consumer’s/other consumers’ actions depicted in an advertisement

After viewing the ad, how popular or unpopular do you think the food is?: “-2 Very unpopular”, “-1 Unpopular”, “0 Neither popular nor unpopular”, “1 Popular”, “2 Very popular”

Sociableness of food experience

Consumer evaluation of the friendliness of the food consumption experience

The picture seems to convey a food experience that is….: “-2 Very unsociable”, “-1 Unsociable”, “0 Neither sociable nor unsociable”, “1 Sociable”, “2 Very sociable”

Source (background) attractiveness

Consumer evaluation of the attractiveness of visual elements other than the product, text, logo and slogan

Ignoring the product, text and logo, how attractive or unattractive is the rest of the picture?: “-2 Very unattractive”, “-1 Unattractive”, “0 Neither attractive nor unattractiveness”, “1 Attractive”, “2 Very attractive”

Source (background) familiarity

Consumer evaluation of the relatability of visual elements other than the product, text, logo and slogan

Ignoring the product, text and logo, how much can you relate to the picture?: “0 Cannot relate at all”, “1 Can relate very little”, “2 Can somewhat relate”, “3 Can relate very much”, “4 Can relate extremely”

*Each construct was measured on a 5-point scale (unless stated otherwise). Participants were prompted with the above question/statement for each measure. All scales were numerically and verbally anchored as shown. ^Key marketing communications outcome

Page 3

7. Quality control before data collection

We ensured the quality of data prior to data collection by following Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff’s (2003) procedural remedies. We counterbalanced question order where it would not disrupt the flow of the survey. We used both radio button and slider scale formats in a randomized fashion. Rotated scale options were used and randomized. In addition, all scale points were verbally and numerically anchored to reduce response biases of scales anchored only at endpoints among some respondents who may exhibit extreme response style (Dolnicar & Grün, 2007).

8. Quality control after data collection

In this survey, 1834 participants were recruited. We excluded 293 participants from analyses based on pre-defined exclusion criteria. We removed participants who used mobile devices (n = 76), delayed responses (n = 86), extreme speeding response (n = 126), consistent outlying (n = 1) and extreme flat-lining (n = 4). After elimination, 1541 participants (49% male) were included for data analyses. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 28.

9. Analyses and results

There are two parts in this section: Part 1. Experimental study and Part 2. Foodie survey. Note that the number of participants in the experimental study is small. This is because only a small number of participants was randomized to participate in this particular experimental study that we selected to include in this article.

Part 1: Experimental study

9.1. The effect of depiction type on consumer responses To understand the effect of depiction type on consumer responses, we first investigated the mean value of each depiction type (image) on each construct. The mean values are shown in Table 2 along with the depiction types (images) of chocolate chip cookie product on page 4. Next, we conducted a number of Independent samples t-tests to investigate whether the mean values are significantly different between depiction types. Table 2 shows mean comparisons and test statistics on page 5.

Page 4

Table 2. Visual ad stimuli used in the experiment and mean values of each measure

Construct

Mean value of Image 1: Cookie alone (n = 21)

Mean value of Image 2: Cookie bitten by a consumer (n = 26)

Mean value of Image 3: Cookie shared by people (n = 40)

Brand attitude (ABrand) 0.381 0.538 0.575

Ad attitude (AAd) 0.000 0.231 0.575

Social proof (Popularity)

0.000 0.538 0.725

Sociableness of food experience

0.048 0.385 1.175

Source (background) attractiveness

-0.095 0.269 0.250

Source (background) familiarity

1.333 1.731 1.850

Notes: The image sizes shown to participants are 450 x 320 pixels. The sizes are reduced here for the layout purpose. This research is not aimed to investigate the

effects of brand name, logo and slogan (Freshness is our recipe). Hence, these elements are standardised throughout. The brand name, Kathy’s Gourmet, is

fictitious so that the findings can be easily generalised for a new brand of the same product.

Mean is the measure of central tendency. It is the average score, which is calculated by adding up all of the scores from all sampled participants and then divided by the total number of sampled participants (n).

Page 5

Table 3. Comparing between two means – Independent samples t-test results

Mean difference value of Image 1 Cookie alone

vs. Image 2 Cookie bitten by

a consumer with t value and p value

Mean difference value of Image 1 Cookie alone

vs. Image 3 Cookie shared by

people with t value and p value

Mean difference value of Image 2 Cookie bitten by a

consumer vs.

Image 3 Cookie shared by people with t value and p value

Brand attitude (ABrand) -0.158 t (45) = -0.688, p =0.495

-0.194 t (59) = -0.827, p =0.412

-0.037 t (64) = -0.179, p =0.859

Ad attitude (AAd) -0.231 t (45) = -0.849, p =0.400

-0.575 t (59) = -2.323, p =0.024

-0.344 t (64) = -1.510, p =0.136

Social proof (Popularity)

-0.538 t (34.430) = -1.911, p =0.064

-0.725 t (59) = -2.714, p =0.009

-0.187 t (64) = -0.851, p =0.398

Sociableness of food experience

-0.337 t (45 = -1.382, p =0.174

-1.127 t (59) = -4.344, p < 0.001

-0.790 t (64) = -3.483, p =0.001

Source (background) attractiveness

-0.364 t (34.430) = -1.019, p =0.314

-0.345 t (59) = -1.134, p =0.261

0.019 t (64) = 0.071, p =0.944

Source (background) familiarity

-0.397 t (34.430) = -1.195, p =0.238

-0.517 t (59) = -1.649, p =0.104

-0.119 t (64) = -0.434, p =0.666

Notes: Mean difference is the difference between two mean values, which is calculated by Mean a minus Mean b. For example, the mean difference of Image 1 vs. Image

2 on ABrand is -0.158, which is derived from the mean value of Image 1 (0.381) minus the mean value of Image 2 (0.538). t is a test statistic to test whether the two mean values are significantly different from zero (in this context). When the t value is + or -1.96, it means the difference is significant at 95% Confidence interval. p is a test statistic to test how it is evidently weak or strong to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. in this context the null hypothesis is that Mean a – Mean b = 0 or no difference). When the p value is smaller than or equal to 0.05 (i.e. <= 0.05), it means there is strong evidence against the null hypothesis (i.e. there is a significant difference). When the p value is larger than 0.05 (i.e. >0.05), it means there is a weak evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. there is no significant difference). If the p value ranges from 0.051 to 0.100, it means there is a moderate evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. the difference is marginally significant).

Page 6

9.2. The influence of Ad attitude (AAd), Social proof (Popularity), sociableness of food experience, source (background) attractiveness, source (background) familiarity and hunger on Brand attitude (ABrand) Next, we combined the data from the experimental study (n = 87) and investigated if AAd, Social proof (Popularity), sociableness of food experience, source (background) familiarity, source (background) attractiveness and hunger could significantly influence Brand attitude (ABrand) by conducting a multiple regression analysis with ENTER approach. Brand attitude (ABrand) was loaded as the dependent variable and all other variables were loaded as predictors in the order appeared above. Table 4 shows the multiple regression results. In addition, the model showed that it significantly explained the variation in ABrand (R2 = 0.191, p = 0.008). Table 4. Multiple regression results.

Model

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

t value p value

Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) .567 .203 2.796 .006

AAd .081 .111 .092 .732 .466 .634 1.578

Social proof (Popularity)

.243 .109 .286 2.226 .029 .613 1.632

Sociableness of food experience

.052 .097 .064 .534 .595 .701 1.426

Source (background) familiarity

-.049 .089 -.067 -.546 .586 .663 1.508

Source (background) attractiveness

.106 .094 .146 1.125 .264 .599 1.670

Hunger -.104 .068 -.165 -1.540 .128 .884 1.131

Notes:

Multiple regression is a model in which an outcome (i.e. ABrand in this context) is predicted by a linear combination of two or more predictor variables (i.e. AAd, Social proof (Popularity), sociableness of food experience, source (background) familiarity, source (background) attractiveness and hunger). That is: Yi = b0 + b1X1i + b2X2i + … + bnXni) + Ɛi. B is an unstandardized value of coefficient of determination or the proportion of variance in the outcome variable (i.e.

ABrand in this context) explained by a predictor variable. For example, the B value for AAd  ABrand is 0.081. This means when AAd increases by one unit (i.e. scale point), it is estimated that ABrand would increase by 0.081. t and p are test statistics – in this multiple regression context, the values show whether the B value is significantly

different from zero. For example, the p value for AAd  ABrand is 0.466. This means there is a weak evidence to reject the null hypothesis (i.e. B = 0). Put simply, AAd could not significantly predict ABrand when other predictors were included in the model. VIF is variance inflation factor, a measure of multicollinearity. The VIF indicates whether a predictor has a strong linear relationship with other predictors. If the VIF value is greater than 5, it suggests that multicollinearity may be biasing the regression model.

Page 7

Part 2: Foodie survey

9.3. About foodie consumers Next, we looked at the entire survey (not just the experimental study) to develop an understanding of foodie consumers (n = 1541). Below are descriptive statistics that give insights into foodie consumers. 9.3.1. Question: How true or untrue does the following statement describe you? “I am a foodie”, measured on a 5 point bipolar scale: “-2 Very untrue of me”, “-1 Untrue of me”, “0 Neither true nor untrue of me”, “1 True of me”, “2 Very true of me” Table 5.1 How true or untrue does the following statement describe you? – All participants

Scale Frequency Percent

-2 84 5.5

-1 224 14.5

0 473 30.7

1 557 36.1

2 203 13.2

Total 1541 100.0

Table 5.2 How true or untrue does the following statement describe you? – By gender (Count)

Scale

Total -2 -1 0 1 2

Gender Male 51 135 250 243 71 750

Female 33 89 223 314 132 791

Total 84 224 473 557 203 1541

Page 8

9.3.2. Question: Food is ……………….. my passion, measured on a 5 point unipolar scale: “0 Not at all”, “1 Not very much”, “2 Somewhat”, “3 Very much”, “4 Totally” Table 6.1 Food is ……………….. my passion – All participants

Scale Frequency Percent

0 65 4.2

1 219 14.2

2 502 32.6

3 524 34.0

4 231 15.0

Total 1541 100.0

Table 6.2 Food is ……………….. my passion – By gender (Count)

Scale

Total 0 1 2 3 4

Gender Male 37 129 263 235 86 750

Female 28 90 239 289 145 791

Total 65 219 502 524 231 1541

Page 9

9.3.3. Question: I have …………….. interest in food, measured on a 5 point unipolar scale: “0 No”, “1 A little”, “2 Some”, “3 Much”, “4 A lot of” Table 7.1 I have …………….. interest in food – All participants

Scale Frequency Percent

0 33 2.1

1 141 9.1

2 359 23.3

3 522 33.9

4 486 31.5

Total 1541 100.0

Table 7.2 I have …………….. interest in food – By gender (Count)

Scale

Total 0 1 2 3 4

Gender Male 16 80 204 248 202 750

Female 17 61 155 274 284 791

Total 33 141 359 522 486 1541

Page 10

9.3.4. Question: Imagine if the blue circle / represents your identity and the red circle represents food. Which picture best / describes your relationship with food?, measured on a 5 point unipolar scale using a venn diagram:

0

1

2

3

4 Table 8.1 Imagine if the blue circle / represents your identity and the red circle represents food. Which picture best / describes your relationship with food? – All participants

Scale Frequency Percent

0 56 3.6

1 240 15.6

2 472 30.6

3 447 29.0

4 326 21.2

Total 1541 100.0

Table 8.2 Imagine if the blue circle / represents your identity and the red circle represents food. Which

picture best / describes your relationship with food? – By gender (Count)

Scale

Total 0 1 2 3 4

Gender Male 29 131 236 207 147 750

Female 27 109 236 240 179 791

Total 56 240 472 447 326 1541

Page 11

9.3.5. Question: Which picture best describes your feelings when you talk about food?, measured on a 5 point bipolar scale with picture-oriented manikins:

-2

Hate very much

-1

Hate

0

Neither love nor hate

1

Love

2

Love very much

Table 9.1 Which picture best describes your feelings when you talk about food? – All participants

Scale Frequency Percent

-2 9 .6

-1 31 2.0

0 292 18.9

1 709 46.0

2 500 32.4

Total 1541 100.0

Table 9.2 Which picture best describes your feelings when you talk about food? – By gender (Count)

Scale

Total -2 -1 0 1 2

Gender Male 0 21 166 367 196 750

Female 9 10 126 342 304 791

Total 9 31 292 709 500 1541

###### END OF DOCUMENT ######