Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Indulgence in snacking is often justified by trade-offs

On-the-go consumers tend to take a ‘debit/credit’ approach to the snack items they choose, suggesting that health will often take a back seat, according to a new survey.

Conducted by Evolution Insights, the survey of 1,100 Americans found that indulgence in snacking is often justified by trade-offs elsewhere in the diet, with most people overlooking calorie counts and nutritional content when snacking.

“Our evidence suggests that the majority of shoppers who say they consider their health when buying lunch and snacks on-the-go are less swayed by calorie content and nutrition of individual items at the point of purchase,” writes Evolution.

Who’s counting?

The new research, which included a demographically representative survey of 1,123 snacking on-the-go and 1,156 lunch on-the-go shoppers aged 13-65+, found that almost 38 percent of shoppers say they consider calories, but only 6 percent give calorie content as a reason for their choice of items.

Females were found to be significantly more likely to say they consider calories when shopping for snacks and lunch on-the-go than males, with 18-34s in particular the most prone to concerns, said Evolution. But at the point of purchase, these concerns appear to evaporate.

A striking example cited by the researcher is that the most frequently purchased items by those consumers who said they do consider calories when snacking on-the-go are chocolate bars.

Healthy alternatives including cereal bars, fruit, water and smoothies fare less well, with a more significant increase in relative penetration only among those who state calorie and nutritional content as an actual reason for item choice, says the researcher.

Careful balance

“While health and wellbeing is clearly of increasing concern to shoppers, manufacturers should be careful to balance attempts to target shoppers with health messages with efforts to retain great taste and brand loyalty,” said Evolution Insights analyst, James Johnson.

No comments: