Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 MRC Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Metabolic Science, Cambridge, UK

2 Global Food Systems and Policy Research, School of Global Health, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada

3 The Faculty of Health and Social Care, University of Chester, Chester, UK

4 Public Health England, London, UK

5 Department of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

6 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK

Abstract

Background 
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that countries implement fiscal policies to reduce the health impacts of sugary drinks. Few studies have fully examined the responses of industry to these policies, and whether they support or undermine health benefits of sugary drinks taxes. We aimed to explore the changes that sugary drinks companies may make to their marketing, and underlying decision-making processes, in response to such a tax.

Methods 
Following introduction of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) in 2018, we undertook one-to-one semi-structured interviews with UK stakeholders with experience of the strategic decision-making or marketing of soft drinks companies. We purposively recruited interviewees using seed and snowball sampling. We conducted telephone interviews with 6 representatives from each of industry, academia and civil society (total n=18), which were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Four transcripts were double-coded, three were excluded from initial coding to allow comparison; and findings were checked by interviewees.

Results 
Themes were organised into a theoretical framework that reveals a cyclical, iterative and ongoing process of soft drinks company marketing decision-making, which was accelerated by the SDIL. Decisions about marketing affect a product’s position, or niche, in the market and were primarily intended to maintain profits. A product’s position is enacted through various marketing activities including reformulation and price variation, and non-marketing activities like lobbying. A soft drinks company’s selection of marketing activities appeared to be influenced by their internal context, such as brand strength, and external context, such as consumer trends and policy. For example, a company with low brand strength and an awareness of trends for reducing sugar consumption may be more likely to reformulate to lower-sugar alternatives.

Conclusion 
The theoretical framework suggests that marketing responses following the SDIL were coordinated and context-dependent, potentially explaining observed heterogeneity in responses across the industry.

Highlights

 

Commentaries Published on this Paper

  •  Additional Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

        Abstract | PDF

 

  • Framing Marketing Responses to National Regulation: The Four Ps in Transnational Corporate Political Discourse; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

        Abstract | PDF

 

Keywords


  • epublished Author Accepted Version: January 29, 2022
  • epublished Final Version: February 23, 2022
  1. Malik VS, Popkin BM, Bray GA, Després JP, Hu FB. Sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and cardiovascular disease risk. Circulation. 2010;121(11):1356-1364. doi:1161/circulationaha.109.876185
  2. World Health Organization (WHO). Tackling NCDs: ‘Best Buys’ and Other Recommended Interventions for the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: WHO; 2017.
  3. Redondo M, Hernández-Aguado I, Lumbreras B. The impact of the tax on sweetened beverages: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr. 2018; 108(3):548-563. doi:1093/ajcn/nqy135
  4. Falbe J, Rojas N, Grummon AH, Madsen KA. Higher Retail prices of sugar-sweetened beverages 3 months after implementation of an excise tax in Berkeley, California. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(11):2194-2201. doi:2105/ajph.2015.302881
  5. Alvarado M, Unwin N, Sharp SJ, et al. Assessing the impact of the Barbados sugar-sweetened beverage tax on beverage sales: an observational study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019;16(1):13. doi:1186/s12966-019-0776-7
  6. Colchero MA, Rivera-Dommarco J, Popkin BM, Ng SW. In Mexico, evidence of sustained consumer response two years after implementing a sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):564-571. doi:1377/hlthaff.2016.1231
  7. Penney TL, Adams J, Briggs A, et al. Theorising How the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy Could Impact Population Level Diet and Health: Development of a Multi-Sectoral Systems Map. International Society for Behavioural Nutrition and Physical Activity; 2017. p. 203.
  8. Buckton CH, Fergie G, Leifeld P, Hilton S. A discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage of the “sugar tax” debate before and after the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1):490. doi:1186/s12889-019-6799-9
  9. White M, Scarborough P, Briggs A, et al. Evaluation of the Health Impacts of the UK Treasury Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL). Cambridge; 2017. https://njl-admin.nihr.ac.uk/document/download/2010886.
  10. Kotler P. Marketing Management. Prentice Hall; 2000.
  11. American Marketing Association. About AMA: Marketing. https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx.  Accessed October 22, 2017. Published 2013.
  12. Cairns G, Angus K, Hastings G, Caraher M. Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of food marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite. 2013;62:209-215. doi:1016/j.appet.2012.04.017
  13. Forde H, White M, Levy L, et al. The relationship between self-reported exposure to sugar-sweetened beverage promotions and intake: cross-sectional analysis of the 2017 International Food Policy Study. Nutrients. 2019;11(12):3047. doi:3390/nu11123047
  14. Mills SD, Tanner LM, Adams J. Systematic literature review of the effects of food and drink advertising on food and drink-related behaviour, attitudes and beliefs in adult populations. Obes Rev. 2013;14(4):303-314. doi:1111/obr.12012
  15. World Cancer Research Fund International. NOURISHING Database. https://policydatabase.wcrf.org/.
  16. Zenk SN, Leider J, Pugach O, Pipito AA, Powell LM. Changes in beverage marketing at stores following the Oakland sugar-sweetened beverage tax. Am J Prev Med. 2020;58(5):648-656.  doi:1016/j.amepre.2019.12.014
  17. HM Treasury. The Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Policy Paper. gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy. Accessed September 5, 2019. Published 2016.
  18. Pell D, Penney T, Mytton O, White M, Adams J. The impact of the announcement of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on household soft drinks purchases. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(Suppl 1):A3. doi:1136/jech-2019-SSMabstracts.6
  19. Scarborough P, Adhikari V, Harrington RA, et al. Impact of the announcement and implementation of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy on sugar content, price, product size and number of available soft drinks in the UK, 2015-19: a controlled interrupted time series analysis. PLoS Med. 2020;17(2):e1003025. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1003025
  20. Law C, Cornelsen L, Adams J, et al. An analysis of the stock market reaction to the announcements of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy. Econ Hum Biol. 2020;38:100834. doi:1016/j.ehb.2019.100834
  21. Bandy LK, Scarborough P, Harrington RA, Rayner M, Jebb SA. Reductions in sugar sales from soft drinks in the UK from 2015 to 2018. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):20. doi:1186/s12916-019-1477-4
  22. Kaushik V, Walsh CA. Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications for social work research. Soc Sci. 2019;8(9):255. doi:3390/socsci8090255
  23. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. doi:1093/intqhc/mzm042
  24. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018; 52(4):1893-1907. doi:1007/s11135-017-0574-8
  25. Urquhart C. Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2013.
  26. Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2014.
  27. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:117. doi:1186/1471-2288-13-117
  28. Green J, Willis K, Hughes E, et al. Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31(6):545-550. doi:1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x
  29. Bailey DM, Jackson JM. Qualitative data analysis: challenges and dilemmas related to theory and method. Am J Occup Ther. 2003;57(1):57-65. doi:5014/ajot.57.1.57
  30. Farmer T, Robinson K, Elliott SJ, Eyles J. Developing and implementing a triangulation protocol for qualitative health research. Qual Health Res. 2006;16(3):377-394. doi:1177/1049732305285708
  31. Maher C, Hadfield M, Hutchings M, de Eyto A. Ensuring rigor in qualitative data analysis: a design research approach to coding combining NVivo with traditional material methods. Int J Qual Methods. 2018; 17(1):1609406918786362. doi:1177/1609406918786362
  32. Forde H, Solomon-Moore E. A Qualitative Study to Understand the Potential Efficacy of an Information-Based Sugar Reduction Intervention among Low Socioeconomic Individuals in the UK. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(3):413. doi:3390/ijerph16030413
  33. Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004;22(2):63-75. doi:3233/efi-2004-22201
  34. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications; 1985.
  35. Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1802-1811. doi:1177/1049732316654870
  36. Rosas SR. Concept mapping as a technique for program theory development: an illustration using family support programs. Am J Eval. 2005;26(3):389-401. doi:1177/1098214005278760
  37. Denzin NK. Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
  38. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Triangulation. http://www.qualres.org/HomeTria-3692.html. Accessed September 5, 2019.
  39. Alvarado M, Kostova D, Suhrcke M, et al. Trends in beverage prices following the introduction of a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Barbados. Prev Med. 2017;105S:S23-S25. doi:1016/j.ypmed.2017.07.013
  40. Roberto CA, Lawman HG, LeVasseur MT, et al. Association of a beverage tax on sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages with changes in beverage prices and sales at chain retailers in a large urban setting. JAMA. 2019;321(18):1799-1810. doi:1001/jama.2019.4249
  41. Briggs ADM, Mytton OT, Kehlbacher A, et al. Health impact assessment of the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy: a comparative risk assessment modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2017;2(1):e15-e22. doi:1016/s2468-2667(16)30037-8
  42. Eagle L. The need for analysis as part of the planning and implementation process. In: Kitchen PJ, ed. Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice. London, UK: International Thomson Business Press; 1999. p. 57-72.
  43. Stewart DW. Market-back approach to the design of integrated communications programs: a change in paradigm and a focus on determinants of success. J Bus Res. 1996;37(3):147-153. doi:1016/s0148-2963(96)00064-1
  44. Ebbeling CB, Feldman HA, Osganian SK, Chomitz VR, Ellenbogen SJ, Ludwig DS. Effects of decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption on body weight in adolescents: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Pediatrics. 2006;117(3):673-680. doi:1542/peds.2005-0983
  45. White M, Aguirre E, Finegood DT, Holmes C, Sacks G, Smith R. What role should the commercial food system play in promoting health through better diet? BMJ. 2020;368:m545. doi:1136/bmj.m545
  46. Kanter R, Reyes M, Vandevijvere S, Swinburn B, Corvalán C. Anticipatory effects of the implementation of the Chilean Law of Food Labeling and Advertising on food and beverage product reformulation. Obes Rev. 2019;20 Suppl 2:129-140. doi:1111/obr.12870
  47. Wright A, Smith KE, Hellowell M. Policy lessons from health taxes: a systematic review of empirical studies. BMC Public Health. 2017; 17(1):583. doi:1186/s12889-017-4497-z
  48. Rothman AJ. “Is there nothing more practical than a good theory?”: why innovations and advances in health behavior change will arise if interventions are used to test and refine theory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2004;1(1):11. doi:1186/1479-5868-1-11
  49. HM Revenue & Customs. Soft drinks industry levy - consultations. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/soft-drinks-industry-levy/soft-drinks-industry-levy. Accessed June 21, 2020. Published 2016.
Volume 11, Issue 11
November 2022
Pages 2618-2629
  • Receive Date: 18 September 2020
  • Revise Date: 30 September 2021
  • Accept Date: 27 January 2022
  • First Publish Date: 29 January 2022