Marketing Responses to the Taxation of Soft Drinks; Comment on “Understanding Marketing Responses to a Tax on Sugary Drinks: A Qualitative Interview Study in the United Kingdom, 2019”

Document Type : Commentary

Author

Stirling Management School, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK

Abstract

The paper by Forde et al provides a useful qualitative consideration of marketing responses to the implementation of the 2018 Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) in the United Kingdom. This commentary discusses that paper and its conclusions and seeks to place them in a broader context for marketing, fiscal measures and health and public policy. It suggests that modern conceptualisations of marketing and wider considerations of market and non-market strategies could provide a valuable lens to understand the ways in which companies and sectors respond to the threats they perceive and the constantly changing sectoral opportunities. It is important that fiscal measures introduced have the desired effects, and that not only positive behaviours (whether of companies or consumers) are incentivised, but that adverse behaviours are actively disincentivised.

Keywords

References

  1. Forde H, Penney TL, White M, Levy L, Greaves F, Adams J. Understanding marketing responses to a tax on sugary drinks: a qualitative interview study in the United Kingdom, 2019. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022;11(11):2618-2629. doi:34172/ijhpm.2022.5465
  2. Vargo SL, Lusch RF. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. J Mark. 2004;68(1):1-17. doi:1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
  3. Tregua M, Brozovic D, D'Auria A. 15 years of service-dominant logic: analyzing citation practices of Vargo and Lusch (2004). J Serv Theory Pract. 2021;31(4):563-606. doi:1108/jstp-08-2019-0174
  4. Heinonen K, Strandvik T. Customer-dominant logic: foundations and implications. J Serv Mark. 2015;29(6/7):472-484. doi:1108/jsm-02-2015-0096
  5. Anker TB, Sparks L, Moutinho L, Grönroos C. Consumer dominant value creation: a theoretical response to the recent call for a consumer dominant logic for marketing. Eur J Mark. 2015;49(3-4):532-560. doi:1108/ejm-09-2013-0518
  6. Wood B, Williams O, Nagarajan V, Sacks G. Market strategies used by processed food manufacturers to increase and consolidate their power: a systematic review and document analysis. Global Health. 2021;17(1):17. doi:1186/s12992-021-00667-7
  7. Eastmure E, Cummins S, Sparks L. Non-market strategy as a framework for exploring commercial involvement in health policy: a primer. Soc Sci Med. 2020;262:113257. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2020.113257
  8. Lacy-Nichols J, Williams O. "Part of the solution": food corporation strategies for regulatory capture and legitimacy. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2021;10(12):845-856. doi:34172/ijhpm.2021.111
  9. Overview of Evaluation of MUP. Public Health Scotland. http://www.healthscotland.scot/health-topics/alcohol/evaluation-of-minimum-unit-pricing-mup/overview-of-evaluation-of-mup/why-we-are-evaluating-mup. Updated April 6, 2022. Accessed May 26, 2023.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 12 August 2022
  • Revise Date: 26 May 2023
  • Accept Date: 30 May 2023
  • First Publish Date: 31 May 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics