ICMC Labelling Effects for Alcoholic Drinks in Australia: Evidence from Three Experimental Designs. Doina Olaru and Wade Jarvis 3 RD JULY 2013

Transcription

1 ICMC RD JULY 2013 Labelling Effects for Alcoholic Drinks in Australia: Evidence from Three Experimental Designs Doina Olaru and Wade Jarvis

2 Why this research? Increasing concerns about alcohol consumption among the young population and its short and long-term effects $217 spent on alcoholic beverages by 575,000 Australians between 12 and 17 years of age (Doran et al., 2006) % of students in the same age group had already consumed alcohol (Secondary Students Alcohol and Drug Survey in White & Smith, 2009) Binge drinking normative pattern amongst young people (Müller et al., 2010) 20 billion annually in UK (Gill & O May, 2006).

3 Interventions to curb the trend Increasing (or returning the legal drinking age to 21) (BBC, 2012; George, 2011; Wechsler & Nelson, 2010) Price-based measures, i.e. alcohol tax (Müller et al., 2010) - partial substitution effects, in favour of beverages associated with riskier drinking patterns and effects (Siegel et al., 2011). Underage alcohol compliance check (WHO, 2010) Educational/awareness campaigns Regulating marketing, e.g. labelling (Scholes-Balog et al., 2012; Thomson et al., 2012)

4 Labelling High levels of support for health warning labels (Greenfield et al., 1999; Scholes-Balog et al., 2012; Thomson et al., 2012) tobacco labelling - effective in increasing health knowledge, as well as in quitting smoking a review of European research on food labelling (Grunert & Wills, 2007) no insights on dietary patterns as a result of using labelling info Not linked to changed drinking behaviours (Mackinnon et al., 2000; Scholes-Balog et al., 2012; Thomson et al., 2012; Wilkinson & Room, 2009; Wogalter & Laughery, 1996) Also due to limited mandated requirements on the warning labels (Thomson et al., 2012).

5 Data collection 600 young Australians (18-25) Online panel Stated choice survey exploring the effect of warning labels on choice of alcoholic drinks Three experimental designs: (Design 1) orthogonal design with 12 choice tasks (Design 2) D-optimised design with 9 tasks using linear coding (Design 3) D-optimised design with 9 tasks using dummy level coding

6 Attributes Alcohol volume % (2 to 7%) Price - AUD (2.99 to 6.49 AUD) Warning statements with or without the presence of the word warning before the statement Size of the font on the warning Type of alcoholic beverage (type of pre-mix)

7 Alcopops Sweet taste pre-mixes, now alcohol-energy - masks the alcohol contents and seduces consumers (Gill & O May, 2006; Jones, 2011; Müller et al., 2010) Extremely popular amongst teenagers (more vulnerable to high volumes and high frequency of consumption) 92% of year olds and 55% of year olds reported that people in their age group regularly consumed alcopops (Jones, 2011)

8 Example label Message worded in a positive or a negative tone, and displayed in a 10pt or 14pt font size text Drink driving kills (example negative). Keep your brain healthy (example positive).

9 Types of drinks

10 Additional questions Behaviour related to alcohol purchase and consumption Common socio-demographic variables (gender, age, educational attainment, employment, family circumstances etc.)

11 Descriptive statistics 56% females, 44% males Average age /3 university graduates, 1/5 some college or trade qualifications, the remainder having completed years high school > 90% born in multi-children families (average number of children 2.7) Average consumption 4.12 alcoholic drinks/week Average of 1.6 social occasions/week 54 participants were not working (9.3%), but equal proportions working full- time and studying full-time (36%)

12 Comparison sub-samples by design Variable Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 p Gender (% males) 45% 45% 42% Employment (% full-time) 38% 34% 35% Education (% above year 12) 54% 53% 56% Number children per family Age respondent (years) Number social occasions/week Average number of drinks per week Average number of drinks per occasion Sample size (N)

13 Comparison designs Design 1 (orthogonal SPSS) Design 2 (optimised linear coding) Number stimuli Dp-error Balance Yes No No Priors No Alcohol volume (0.07) Warning statement (-0.02) Font size (-0.03) Presence of warning (-0.04) Price (-0.1) Design 3 (optimised level coding) Alcohol volume (0.07) Warning statement (-0.04, -0.03, -0.02, 0.02, 0.03) Font size (-0.03) Presence of warning (-0.04) Price (-0.1)

14 Analysis MNL benchmarking SMNL checking for scale effects LCM and RPL Here only MNL compared to LCM

15 Variable Total sample Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Coefficient Bundaberg Rum and cola Jim Beam Black and Cola Bacardi Breezer Tropical Orange Smirnoff Ice Double Black Heineken Lager Alcohol volume (%) Negative statement Font size 10pt Presence of warning Price (AUD) Design Design LL -4, , , , LL (Ct) -5, , , ,548.71

16 MNL results All designs price and alcohol content significant; preference for alcopops Design 1 presence of term Warning Design 2 font size Design 3 warning statement

17 Variable Bundaberg Rum and Cola Jim Beam Black and Cola Bacardi Breezer Tropical Orange Class 1 (0.41) Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Class 2 (0.59) Class 1 (0.54) Class 2 (0.46) Class 1 (0.5) Class 2 (0.5) Heineken Lager Alcohol volume (%) Negative statement Font size 10pt Presence of warning Price (AUD) LL -1, , Smirnoff Ice Double Black significant and +ve in all classes

18 LCM results Design 1 Class 1 Strong preference for alcopops and beer Strong price sensitivity Class 2 Preference for Yellow sparkling Higher preference for alcohol content Older respondents, higher education attained, more FT employed, drinking more on each occasion and per week

19 LCM results Design 2 Class 1 Strong preference for beer and high alcohol content Strong preference for big font size Class 2 Preference for alcopops with juice, but dislike beer Price sensitive Females dominated class, drinking less per week

20 LCM results Design 3 Class 1 Preference for vodka based alcopops, but not other mixes or beer Strong avoidance to negative statements and preference for smaller font sizes Strong price sensitivity Class 2 Preference for alcopops with cola Avoidance to negative statements Male dominated class, drinking significantly more on each occasion and per week

21 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 (% females) Age Education attained (% above year 12) Employment (% full-time) Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Design 1 Design 2 Design 3 Number children in the respondent s family Drinks/week Drinks/occasion

22 Findings Common to all classes - the relationship between frequency of drinking (# drinks) with price sensitivity Substantial differences between classes Designs 2 and 3 - identify a latent class that is not price responsive, tending to choose the higher priced items (contrast with Design 1) Class 1 (Design 2) female dominated, significantly lower number of drinks/week, price-insensitive, prefers labels with bigger font size for warning Class 1 (Design 3) has significantly more males, drinking more on each occasion and per week, reports strong preference for vodka-based mixes

23 Findings Cont d Potential effectiveness of warning statements only Design 3, both latent classes Previously reported - strong avoidance responses linked to labels that evoked emotional reactions on their own (Scholes-Balog et al., 2012) + Class 1 chooses drinks with small font warnings Warning term not supported No connection between choice and family circumstances Strong preference for mixes with cola, and for beer, and lower for mixes with juices Some interactions = significant alcohol * warning statement

24 Implications Which design? Results - associated to the sample or to the model? Nevertheless questions the robustness of the findings According to Design 1, financial measures would be key instrument, but with Designs 1 or 2 taxes would play a lesser role Alcohol content - significant in models with data for Designs 1 and 2, but not for 3; ignoring the alcohol volume may be an unexploited opportunity if samples collected 1 and 2 = truly representative for the population Design 3 indicates that labels with negatively worded statements and bigger font may reduce attractiveness of alcoholic drinks

25 Conclusions Design matters Additional systematic work required Although not found here, certain designs may yield more attributedominated responses Recommendation - more attention should be paid to cross-validation When sufficient resources available - consider competing designs Vastly different profiles of the latent classes - suggests that effects/benefits would be unevenly distributed

26 Q&A Thank you for your attention 26

27 Potential lexicographic? behaviour

28

29