Hollis Ashman

Consumer centered “brand value” of foods: drivers and segmentation

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically test the consumer‐centered approach to brand management theorized by Rust, Zeithaml and Lemon in 2004 to assist companies in reducing the depreciation of brand equity.Design/methodology/approach – Brand equity was operationalized in the context of conjoint measurement. In total, 5,364 respondents participated in interviews testing drivers of brand equity for six brands each in 28 food categories.Findings – Data from the large‐scale study revealed that across categories brand value may not hold much beyond the name in the minds of consumers. It was found that mindset segmentation may be a basis for brand management. Messages that focused on product functionality were found to be stronger drivers of preference of one brand over another. Product features instead of brand names emerged as the primary source of value across segments.Research limitations/implications – The study focused on brands in the food industry requiring the replication to additional i...

The mind-set of teens towards food communications revealed by conjoint measurement and multi-food databases

We introduce a new type of study that combines self-profile of behaviors and attitudes regarding food together with responses to structured, systematically varied concepts about the food. We deal here with the responses of teens, for 28 different foods and beverages. The study creates a database that reveals how a person responds to different types of messaging about the food. We show how to develop the database for many different foods, from which one can compare foods to each other, or compare the performance of messages within a specific food.

Using Mind-Set Information About Health, Pleasure and Function to Understand Consumer Choices in Bottled Water

Purpose: The objective of this paper is to demonstrate that databases of consumer mind-sets, created by experimental design, can be combined and analyzed to identify new product opportunities for foods and beverages. Methodology/Approach: This paper analyzes responses to test concepts about bottled water from five different mind-set databases (Crave It! 2001 for adults, teens; Drink It! 2002 and 2004; Healthy You! 2003), each focusing on a different as- pect of food/drink, but each containing a study about bottled water. The databases combine conjoint analysis with exten- sive classification, which generate parallax views about bottled water from different vantage points Practical Implications: Based upon strong performance of specific elements across databases for different end-uses, the analyses suggest that a market exists for bottled water containing strong health benefits, as well as a strong opportunity for functional bottled water specifically targeting younger consumers. Originality: The paper presents a unique new approach to understanding the mind-set of consumers by combining infor- mation from concept databases.

Obesity and the dilemmas of choice

Obesity is a complex issue, and, as researchers look at it more broadly, its paradigms are open to change. Let’s consider two articles that were run in the New York Times in the summer of 2006. The first article, published in July 2006 by Gina Kolata and entitled “So Big and Healthy Grandpa Wouldn’t Even Know You,” tells a wonderful story about how researchers are finding that humans in the industrialized world have undergone “a form of evolution that is unique not only to humankind, but unique among the 7,000 or so generations of humans who have ever inhabited the earth.” It describes researchers who are amazed at the transformation of humans in size and in health and robustness. They compare findings found in records from the Civil War, from famines in many parts of the world, and current records (5). This article was followed in August 2006 by an article by Robin Henig, who began to lay out the dilemma of some researchers who study obesity. They are finding that many of the concepts about obesity do not really hold when one studies traditional mass-balance obesity. Some scientists are looking for a link with gut microflora and even suggest that there is a potential for “infectobesity.” The research is saying that this whole area is complex and that an interdisciplinary approach is key. Yet blaming the people who make food (big food companies) and the people who use food has been the traditional way to deal with the issue. The Henig article quotes a woman named Joan, who says, “I know that I’m not being obedient, I am not using my body the way God intended. I know how I’m supposed to eat, but I’m not having a healthy appetite....I’m not wanting to be obedient.” These blaming practices are reliable ways to sell government programs and books on diets, the industry, health, and policy (4). But what other consumer insights exist that can move beyond a focus on blame? Agreed-upon definitions suggest that “big” (overweight) people are those who have a surplus of weight that includes muscle, bone, fat, and water. “Obesity” gets more specific and is really about a surplus of body fat. Most health professionals concur that men meet the criteria for obesity when they have 25% body fat, while women need to have 30% body fat to qualify as obese (World Health Organization, www.who.int). Right now, the U.S. MARKet research