Qualitative Interview Results The relatively low proportion of respondents saying that any of the MM positions were outright unacceptable and in need of regulation is consistent with what was observed in the qualitative research. In the in-situ interviews, respondents tended to feel that products which made it difficult for them to find the MM when they wanted it were not “unacceptable” per se, but rather just putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. If they couldn’t easily assess a product, then they would just buy something else. Net Benefit to the Consumer A net benefit measure for food products and non-food products was calculated by subtracting overall confusion (Test 2 score) from overall acceptance of the MM (Test 3 score) at each of the eight position variations. As some of the confusion measures were negative (ie: performance on Test 2 was above the benchmark score), the proportions in some circumstances exceed 100%. They have been converted into an index score to simplify interpretation. The net benefit measure therefore represents the proportion of people who are accepting and not confused by the MM location and format, for each of the positions tested (1 representing the status quo, and 7 alternative positions under the principles-based approach). This means that larger numbers represent higher net benefit (larger numbers of people accepting and not confused by the MM location). The absolute value of the net benefit score has little objective meaning, and it is more the relative score compared to the status quo and to other positions that is of interest. Note that these net benefit scores evaluate the relative positions of the MM compared to the status quo position, but do not factor in the potential benefit to consumers of other types of information that might replace the MM on the front of pack if it was moved to another location. Net consumer benefit associated with different MM displays “Net benefit” based purely on the variations in confusion (Test 2) and acceptability (Test 3) associated with each position showed that overall, the status quo position scores higher than any of the variations tested. For food products, due to their better performance on Test 2, the back of pack variants had the highest net benefit scores other than the status quo. For non-food products there was no one factor that seemed most related to net benefit.
most to least important) would achieve. MaxDiff analysis is able to analyse in detail the interplay between all eight product variants. The Test 1 product variants included the following differences across the six product types: 1. Measurement Mark 2. Best before / Expiry date 3. Country of Origin 4. Allergen Information 5. Nutrition content claim / alcohol content claim / safety claim 6. Ingredient claim 7. Servings per pack 8. Pack The specific details for each product is shown in Table 2 below. 2: Test 1 product variant details for six test products Tomato Sauce Potato Chips Cheese Sunscreen Spirits (Gin) Aerosol (Insect spray) 1. Measurement mark 500ml 170g 500g 150ml 700ml 150g 2. Best before/ Expiry date Best before 01/08/16 Best Before 20/12/15 Best before 15/11/15 EXP 07/2016 Bottled 02/2015 EXP 07/2016 3. Country of origin 100% Made in Australia 100% Made in Australia 100% Made in Australia 100% Made in Australia Product of France 100% Made in Australia 4. Allergen Information May contain traces of milk products Contains Gluten, Soybean and Soybean products Made from cow’s milk For Sensitive Skin Alcohol warning Safe for sensitive skin 5. Nutrition content claim / alcohol content / safety claim Reduced sugar Reduced fat Reduced fat With Panthenol for greater protection 42.4% Alc/Vol Safe for use around pets 6. Ingredient claim No Preservatives No artificial colours No artificial flavours Oil free Preservative free Uses natural repellents 7. Servings per pack 33 serves per pack 6 serves per pack 24 serves per pack 30 applications Approx 23 standard drinks Over 200 sprays per can 8. Pack claim New nozzle for less waste! New Packet for fresher flavour! Improved seal pack! New improved non-drip nozzle! New bottle design New nozzle for more accurate spraying As can be seen in the table above, in some instances the categories were modified slightly to better the suit the product being tested. For example, rather than display allergen information, the spirits bottle displayed an alcohol warning message.
Note: Statistically significant differences between those who selected the MM as most important and those who did not (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents n=1,593 Table 8: Profile of those who considered the measurement marking to be ‘most useful’ on non-food products, by age group 18 – 29 years A 30 – 39 B 40 – 49 C 50 – 59 D 60 + E Respondents who selected the MM as most useful 43%B,C,D,E 36%C,D,E 26% 22% 24% Note: Only questions where significant differences are observed have been reported Note: Statistically significant differences between those who selected the MM as most important and those who did not (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents n=1,593 Table 9: Profile of those who considered the measurement marking to be ‘most useful’ on non-food products, by label information use Net: For every product + For most products A For some products B Rarely C Only the first time I buy something D E Respondents who selected the MM as most useful 32% 27% 31% 29% 47% Note: Only questions where significant differences are observed have been reported Note: Statistically significant differences between those who selected the MM as most important and those who did not (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents n=1,593
Position 4 87% 87% Position 5 95% 97% Position 6 90% 93% Position 7 84% 87% Position 8 79% 84%A QE1. Consider the product shown below. Do you think the orientation and position of the measurement marking on a real product would be… Note: Statistically significant differences between genders (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents saw four positions; sample n for each position ranged from 795-798 Table 20: Acceptance of differential MM location – food products – by household income Household income of $100,000 or less per year A Household income of more than $100,000 per year B Position 1 99% 98% Position 2 96% 98% Position 3 89% 92% Position 4 85% 87% Position 5 96% 98% Position 6 91% 96%A Position 7 84% 87% Position 8 81% 82% QE1. Consider the product below. Do you think the orientation and position of the measurement marking on a real product would be… Note: Statistically significant differences household incomes (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents saw four positions; sample n for each position ranged from 795-798 Table 21: Acceptance of differential MM location – food products – by household structure Younger single / couple with no children A Mature couple or single, no children at home B Family with children at home C Position 1 99% 98% 99% Position 2 99%B 94% 97%B Position 3 90% 86% 93%B Position 4 84% 83% 91%A,B Position 5 97% 94% 98% Position 6 92%B 86% 96%A,B Position 7 84% 81% 89% Position 8 82% 76% 86%B
50: Shopping Behaviour – Attention paid to label and shelf information A) How much attention do you pay to information on product labels or packages? B) How much attention do you pay to information on shelves? High amount of attention + Very high amount of attention 40% 47%A Medium amount of attention 40%b 36% Very low amount of attention + Low amount of attention 19%b 16% No attention 1% 1% Unsure 1% 0% Sample size 1562 1564 QF2: How much attention do you pay to… Note: Statistically significant differences between those who look at information on the product labels and those who look at information on shelves (where a significant difference p<0.05 exists) are indicated by column reference letters A and B Base: All respondents who reported looking at information on products and / or shelves n=1,562-1,564