Koert van Ittersum – Professor of Marketing and Consumer Well-Being at the University of Groningen

Koert van Ittersum is a Professor of Marketing and Consumer Well-Being at the University of Groningen since 2013. He received his PhD at Wageningen University in 2001, after which he spent several years working at different academic institutes in the USA. In his research and teaching he argues and demonstrates how marketing can contribute to the well-being of consumers. Van Ittersum focuses predominantly on healthier and more sustainable diets. He has published several articles in leading academic journals. This interview will cover insights from Koert’s own research. Additionally, he will share how these insights can be put into practice.

DVJ: Let’s start with current events. There have been recent discussions in the news about possible measures that the Dutch government can take for promoting more healthy food choices. For example, by making fruit and vegetables cheaper by reducing or eliminating taxes. However, it is apparently very difficult to do this. As you are collaborating with Dutch retailers on studying how shoppers can make healthier purchases while shopping for groceries, what is your opinion on this? Would making fruits and vegetables cheaper be the best option to make people eat healthier?

Koert: Let me start by saying that I am not a big fan of government interventions. However, I also realize that we are not going to improve the healthiness of diets based on individual choices alone. I think we should go for a combination of individual- and government-level interventions and measures. It is a very complicated matter, and as I read the report, I was flabbergasted that they spent so much time and effort on the question of what fruit and vegetables are, instead of looking into what would work best. In the report, they considered the possible effects on the average consumer and found that by reducing the taxes on fruit and vegetables, only 4% more would be purchased. The report concluded that this effect is small, but I think it is quite substantial. What is also important to mention, is that for some people — for example, for people with budget constraints, this tax reduction might have a substantially larger positive effect than for the average consumer. And since the consumption of fruit and vegetables tends to be relatively low among consumers with budget constraints, a tax cut would be especially beneficial for these consumers. Studies often look at the ‘average consumer’ however, the average consumer doesn’t exist. All in all, I think the results from the research look promising and the tax reduction might be worthwhile to introduce.

“I realize that we are not going to improve the healthiness of diets based on individual choices alone hence we should go for a combination of individual- and government-level interventions and measures.”

DVJ: Can you tell me a bit more about the research you are conducting in cooperation with Dutch retailers?

Koert: An important thing I am working on is a large PPS research project called ‘Transparently healthy and sustainable’, which started four years ago. This research, a joint venture between the University of Groningen, Wageningen University & Research, and all Dutch supermarkets, examines how increased transparency can help consumers make more healthy and sustainable choices while shopping for groceries. More specifically, how can you take the information that is already available in the supermarket and make it more transparent and thus easier for consumers to understand? There is already a lot of information on packaging, such as ingredients and nutrients, but that is too difficult to process for most consumers.

I am currently supervising two PhD students who are working on different projects related to this research project. For example, together with David Olk (PhD student), we are conducting research on the Nutri-score [editor´s note: a score that will be introduced in January 2024[1] on the packaging of food products to indicate the healthiness of the product within a category, see also Figure 1]. We are examining whether and how this Nutri-score works; does it lead to more healthy food choices? And we find that the effects differ among people. For about 30% of people, it does lead to more healthy choices; yet for some people, it leads to more unhealthy choices. What we want to find out is how to explain this heterogeneity. What is causing these differences?

One explanation is that people already have certain expectations in their minds on how healthy a product should be. We tested this in an experimental setting and we found that it indeed matters what expectations people already have, and the discrepancies that occur between their own expectations and the Nutri-score. A bag of crisps getting an E score, for example, is not surprising; however, it receiving a B or C may be surprising and may encourage individuals to buy that bag of crisps, increasing the number of unhealthy choices.

Figure 1: The Nutri-score explained

Source: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/voeding/gezonde-voeding/nieuw-voedselkeuzelogo-nutri-score

We also study how the Nutri-score can be used as a means to an end. That is, besides studying the direct effect of the Nutri-Score on the healthiness of purchases, we also research, for instance, whether giving shoppers the option to sort or filter products based on the Nutri-Score changes their purchase behavior. For example, when this option is offered, do shoppers sort or filter products based on the Nutri-Score? And does this improve the healthiness of purchases? And what happens when a retailer pre-sorts or pre-filters products based on the Nutri-Score??

In addition to studying the effects of sorting and filtering, together with Wieteke de Vries, a PhD student, we also examine whether offering shoppers feedback on the healthiness of the products in their shopping cart influences the healthiness of subsequent purchases. And, does this effect depend on the type of person you are? For this, we built an experimental online supermarket, including a full assortment of products to make it as realistic as possible, and asked study participants to shop in the store. First, people had to fill in some background questions before being instructed that they will have to do some grocery shopping online. Then they are moved to the experimental online supermarket. While shopping they receive feedback based on the Nutri-Score on how healthy the products in their shopping cart are. The aim is to see how this feedback affects the contents of the final shopping basket. Results are not final yet, but when zooming in on respondents who have the goal of eating healthy, there seems to be a positive effect.

Of course, the Nutri-score is relatively new, has not been officially introduced yet, and there has not been a national campaign to explain to people how to interpret it. I believe the Nutri-score is the best of all worlds as there is nuance in the scores, but it is key to inform and educate consumers on it. Even though the effects of the Nutri-score might be small now, they may become bigger over time when people are more used to the score and have more knowledge of how to use it. And, of course, it can be an incentive for food manufacturers and retailers to adapt their products in such a way that they will score better on the Nutri-score.

“Nutri-score is the key to informing consumers about the healthiness of a product and it can be an incentive for food manufacturers and retailers to adapt their products in a way to score better on the Nutri-score.”

DVJ: Interesting that you mention online supermarkets, as I also saw your study from 2013 about smart shopping carts in which you examined how real-time feedback affects spending for both budget and non-budget shoppers. Would you expect that smart shopping carts could also play a role in consumers making more healthy or sustainable choices?

Koert: The research from 2013 actually triggered the research on using smart shopping carts to support more healthy and sustainable choices. And, when I returned to the Netherlands in 2013, we had planned to conduct offline versions of the described online studies, in the supermarket with smart shopping carts. The PPS trial began in 2019, shortly before the covid pandemic. Unfortunately, during covid, it was not possible to conduct studies in the supermarket, so we moved online. However, things that work online will probably also work in the ‘offline’ supermarket. Having said that it does of course depend on which specific tools you want to study. Filtering and sorting appear predominantly relevant in the online environment. However, the feedback function is something that can also be implemented in brick-and-mortar stores. Another example is offering food swaps.

My colleagues in Wageningen are studying food swaps. Think of peanut butter; the handheld scanner can inform you that the ‘regular’ peanut butter you just scanned has a Nutri-Score D but that the 100% peanuts version has a Nutri-Score A, making it a relatively healthier alternative. This can stimulate consumers to swap their original choice for this relatively healthier alternative. A retailer or food manufacturer can even combine this with coupons or any other rebates to improve the healthiness of all items in the shopping cart. When people shop again, you can track whether they stick with the healthier alternative or go back to their original choice.

“In the supermarket,  the handheld scanner showing a Nutri-score of a product can stimulate consumers to swap their original choice for a relatively healthier alternative.”

I believe that with knowledge and experience, we will gradually but steadily observe changes in the healthiness of food purchases. But it is important to realize that we may not see improvements among all consumers because some intrinsic motivation to improve one’s health plays an important role in this. Moreover, all behavioral changes take time as it is a slow process.

DVJ: A recent article of yours examined why consumers are skeptical about sustainable food alternatives. Considering the growing adoption of meat or dairy substitutes, as well as more and more people becoming vegetarian or flexitarian, is this skepticism still there? And what would be your advice to marketers?

Koert:

“While the adoption of meat and dairy substitutes appears to be growing, national statistics also show that meat consumption is not decreasing. It is not certain what is happening.”

Maybe people are indeed eating more vegetarian, but on the days that they do eat meat, they eat more of it. For many people, it is now clearer that eating meat has a considerable impact on the climate. At least the topic is discussed more nowadays and you see different developments – such as more meat substitutes. We do have to start somewhere and together.

State interventions may also be useful on this topic when addressing health and sustainability challenges collaboratively. They could develop educational materials and a general vision of where to go; possibly even define health goals. We do have to solve this all together; this includes individuals, small firms, and large firms as well. Some argue that large manufacturers should not join the discussion because their main goal isn’t to make people healthier – but even small changes matter, and it is not that black and white. Think of Coca-Cola, no one would argue that Coke is healthy. Coke Zero is probably healthier and they put most of their marketing budget on Coke Zero. However, they also provide other alternatives for beverages that are much healthier. Again, we should all contribute to supporting and stimulating people to eat healthier and more sustainably.

DVJ: You also conducted research on the effects of warning labels on packaging to reduce the consumption of meat via the emotion of disgust. Another study looked at designing elongated packaging in such a way that induces a healthy mindset in consumers. Based on those studies, what would be your advice for producers of FMCG products if they want to encourage more healthy consumption behaviour?

Koert: Now I have to think back since that study was quite a while ago. We looked indeed at ‘fat’ vs. ‘thin’ packaging. Of course, as a producer, you can do a lot with your packaging and it is definitely a valuable instrument to think about. One of the things that has occurred due to the price increases of raw materials is that producers started to change the packaging. They reduced the amount of product but also made the packaging more rectangular so that consumers still feel there is the same amount of product. Of course, this is a moral question: should you be transparent about this or not?

The other study, conducted by PhD student Jan Koch, was about putting ‘disgusting’ pictures on meat packs to reduce consumption. Think of something similar to what is used on cigarette packs. Together with a lot of other measures, smoking decreased considerably. Disgust appears to be a complicated emotion. However, would putting pictures on meat be something you want to use? Are you then stigmatizing people? But it is definitely something to think about. It is a trade-off between costs for society versus costs to implement and the possible reaction of consumers.

DVJ: As a final question: How do you see the future for commercial companies, considering the environment and society? What advice would you give them, based on your knowledge?

Koert: I am a professor of marketing and consumer well-being. Commercial parties should keep in mind that consumers vote with their wallets. In the end, no one benefits from unhealthy or unsustainable consumers. If you do not become a part of the solution, time will catch up with you, because health and sustainability are not going away. With this in mind, I would recommend companies seize the moment and become part of the solution towards a more healthy and sustainable future.

“In the end, no one benefits from unhealthy or unsustainable consumers. If you do not become a part of the solution, time will catch up with you, because health and sustainability are not going away.”

[1] Source: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2023/04/25/nutri-score-krijgt-officieel-groen-licht-ondanks-kritiek-van-voedingsexperts-a4163068