Restricting promotions of food and drink high in fat, sugar, or salt: consultation analysis

5. Location and other non-price promotions (Qs 9-13)

5.1. Highlighting that non-price promotions can also influence consumer purchasing behaviour, the consultation paper sought views on (i) locations in-store where targeted foods should be restricted, (ii) whether there are any other types of in-store locations to include in restrictions, (iii) locations online where targeted foods should be restricted, (iv) whether any other online locations should be included in restrictions and (v) whether there are any other types of promotions (in-store or online) not covered by the proposals for restricting price and location promotions that should be included.

In-store location restrictions

5.2. The consultation paper proposed restricting the location of targeted foods in prominent places in physical premises where they are sold to the public. The consultation sought views on each of the specific locations proposed (checkout areas, end of aisle, front of store and island/bin displays).

5.3. The consultation paper noted that UK Government regulations for restrictions in England will apply to store entrances, covered external areas, aisle ends, checkouts and designated queuing areas.

Question 9: Should the location of targeted foods in-store be restricted at:

• Checkout areas, including self-service
• End of aisle
• Front of store, including store entrances and covered outside areas connected to the main shopping area
• Island/ bin displays

Overview

5.4. Non-industry organisation respondents typically agreed with all four location restrictions on the basis that they believe that these encourage customers to purchase HFSS goods that they did not intend to buy. Individuals also tended more towards agreement than disagreement.

5.5. Responses from industry organisations were more mixed. There was some concern about a disproportionate impact on small stores. However there was general support that if restrictions are introduced these should align with restrictions in England. Consequently, a majority of industry respondents indicated restrictions should not include 'island/bin displays'. There were a number of other specific concerns expressed in respect of restricting island/bin displays, such as their specific use for meeting high demand for seasonal products and for displaying clearance products.

Non-industry respondent views on in-store locations

5.6. Non-industry respondents tended to support location restrictions applying to all four in-store locations explored – i.e. checkouts (84%), end of aisle (74%), front of store (81%) and island/bin displays (77%). Table 5.1 displays the results.

Table 5.1 Non-industry views on areas that location restrictions should apply

Answer	Checkouts		End of aisle		Front of store		Island/bin displays
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	26	84%	23	74%	25	81%	24	77%
No	0	0%	1	3%	1	3%	2	7%
Don't know	0	0%	2	7%	0	0%	0	0%
Not answered	5	16%	5	16%	5	16%	5	16%
Total	31	100%	31	100%	31	100%	31	100%

Individual respondent views on in-store locations

5.7. Individual respondents tended to support location restrictions applying to checkouts (76%), front of store (66%) and end of aisle (58%). They were more muted in respect of island/bin displays (50%). Table 5.2 displays the results.

Table 5.2 Individuals views on areas that location restrictions should apply

Answer	Checkouts		End of aisle		Front of store		Island/bin displays
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	29	76%	22	58%	25	66%	19	50%
No	9	24%	13	34%	11	29%	14	37%
Don't know	0	0%	2	5%	2	5%	4	11%
Not answered	0	0%	1	3%	0	0%	1	3%
Total	38	100%	38	100%	38	100%	38	100%

Industry respondent views on in-store locations

5.8. A notable proportion of industry respondents did not provide a tick box answer to each of the four locations displayed and did not provide a comment/view. While agreement and disagreement appear to be quite evenly split for checkouts (27% agreed; 27% disagreed), end of aisle (22% agreed; 32% disagreed) and front of store (24% agreed; 29% disagreed), there was a proportion of respondents that had selected 'no' or 'don't know' or did not select a tick box that indicated that if restrictions are implemented, they support alignment with restrictions in England. Ultimately therefore, there was a level of preference among industry for applying location restrictions in these three areas that is not apparent from the tick box responses.

5.9. Taking into account both the level of industry respondents that disagreed with including island/bin displays (49%) and those that selected 'don't know' or did not select a tick box but expressed a desire for alignment with restrictions in England, there was clear opposition among industry respondents to including island/bin displays. Table 5.3 displays the tick box responses.

Table 5.3 Industry views on areas that location restrictions should apply

Answer	Checkouts		End of aisle		Front of store		Island/bin displays
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	11	27%	9	22%	10	24%	1	2%
No	11	27%	13	32%	12	29%	20	49%
Don't know	3	7%	3	7%	3	7%	5	12%
Not answered	16	39%	16	39%	16	39%	15	37%
Total	41	100%	41	100%	41	100%	41	100%

Agreement with the proposed locations

5.10. Both non-industry and individual respondents that expressed agreement with proposed location restrictions tended to do so on the basis that these locations are known to attract attention from customers and are likely to result in unintended purchases of HFSS products. A number of non-industry respondents saw the restrictions as an opportunity to use those locations to encourage the purchase of healthy foods. One public sector respondent made the point that all four location restrictions were needed, because without them, retailers would be able to display HFSS products in whichever location was not included. Similarly, another noted the importance of defining these locations clearly to avoid loopholes being found.

5.11. While some individual respondents agreed with some locations but not others, they very rarely explained why. However, one individual that agreed only with location restrictions at checkouts explained that at this point the customer has selected everything that they want and should not be tempted into spending more.

5.12. Industry respondents that supported location restrictions applying in checkout areas, end of aisle and front of store (but not island/bin displays) noted the importance of alignment with England.

Disagreement with the proposed locations

5.13. Relatively few individual respondents disagreed with all four locations and even fewer gave a reason. Reasons (each by one respondent) included:

• The Government should not control how businesses sell their products;
• Location restrictions would be ineffective because people will still want to buy HFSS products and will look for them where ever they are located;
• It would create inconvenience for customers resulting in them spending more time looking for items and potentially buying even more as a result.

5.14. Industry respondents commonly expressed concern that smaller and convenience type stores would be disproportionately impacted by location restrictions. Reasons for this included that:

• Their layout is based on aiding movement around a small space;
• Their product range and other services they provide could be adversely impacted;
• The costs associated with redesigning the layout to be able to comply would be prohibitive. While some made this point generally in respect of all locations, it was also mentioned specifically in respect of end of aisle and island/bin displays.

5.15. Other points raised, each by one industry respondent included that:

• The proposals are already extensive and are likely to disincentivise voluntary reformulation and increase costs for Scottish households;
• Location restrictions will lead to domination of the marketplace by large well-known brands which will stifle innovation and restrict consumer choice;
• Greater definition is needed on the meaning of 'available store space' in respect of small units (such as corner shops, garage forecourts and coffee shops);
• In some wholesalers and retailers, specific spaces may be rented by suppliers and manufacturers, and restrictions would thereby prevent these additional revenue sources.

5.16. Overwhelmingly, industry respondents were against restrictions applying to island/bin displays. A number of respondents highlighted that this would not align with the locations included in the restrictions for England. Other rationale included:

• That these are additional display units used to meet high demand for seasonal products and that restricting their use for HFSS products would create logistical difficulties for replenishing shelves and storing large volumes of stock back of store;
• That these are also used for product clearance and to promote new products and that retailers may have to reduce their product range to accommodate the volume of products in higher demand, reducing choice for customers;
• A lack of evidence that island/bin displays impact on over consumption;
• That there is no 'universal' definition of an island or bin display and therefore this may lead to confusion; one retailer specifically suggested focusing restrictions on set physical locations within a store rather than types of store furniture would facilitate understanding and implementation of restrictions;
• That restricting the use of 'free standing display units' in the other areas subject to location restrictions (such as front of store) would already cover a significant area of stores and that it is not therefore necessary to include all free standing units within a store.

5.17. Other concerns relating to the specific locations, each by one industry respondent included:

• In respect of front of store/entrances clarity is needed as to whether restrictions would apply only to the 'main' entrance or other entrances as well, and further how the 'main' entrance would be determined (for example whether this would be the most prominent entrance or perhaps a less prominent entrance that has higher footfall);
• End of aisles are commonly used to promote 'local' foods. This should be allowed to support local food producers to shorten supply chains which the respondent saw as contributing to environmental, social and economic goals.

5.18. One manufacturer noted there should be an exemption for charitable, social or environmental campaigns and initiatives in stores as including promotions linked to them within the restrictions would reduce visibility and therefore donations.

Other in-store locations

Question 10: Should any other types of in-store locations be included in restrictions?

Overview

5.19. Views were mixed in respect of whether any other types of in-store locations should be included in restrictions. A majority of non-industry respondents (55%) felt there were other locations to include. Industry respondents tended to disagree (63%). Individuals were mixed between disagreeing (45%) and being unsure (40%). The vast majority of respondents selecting 'don't know' or not selecting a tick box did not provide a comment/view. The results are shown in Table 5.4.

Table 5.4 Whether other in-store locations should be in scope

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	0	0%	17	55%	6	16%
No	26	63%	4	13%	17	45%
Don't know	3	7%	2	7%	15	40%
Not answered	12	29%	8	26%	0	0%
Total	41	99%	31	101%	38	101%

Other in-store locations to include

5.20. Other locations suggested by non-industry respondents included:

• Seasonal/promotional aisles (7)
• Designated/extended queuing areas (6)
• Branded chillers (4)
• Images of HFSS foods (such as Easter eggs in store windows) (3)
• The full extent of 'non-price promotions' described in the 2018 consultation on restrictions on promotion of HFSS products (although it should be noted not all of these are specific 'locations') (3)
• HFSS items should only be displayed in their 'normal' area/aisle (2)
• Temporary stands (2)
• HFSS products should not be displayed in the 'eye line' of children. (1)

Disagreement with including other in-store locations

5.21. Typically industry respondents that were not in favour of additional locations being included, expressed that they supported alignment with the restrictions in England (which additional locations would not be consistent with) or that they did not support location (or any) restrictions in general. Two public sector respondents commented that any further location restrictions would be too onerous for businesses.

Online location restrictions

5.22. The consultation paper proposed to apply location restrictions in online locations equivalent to those in-store and sought views on specific online locations (home page, favourite products page, pop ups, shopping basket and checkout page).

5.23. The consultation paper noted that UK Government regulations for restrictions in England include the online equivalents of in-store locations in scope, namely home pages, certain searching or browsing pages for other food categories, 'pop ups', favourites pages, shopping basket or checkout pages.

Question 11: If included, should the location of targeted foods online be restricted on:

• Home page
• Favourite products page
• Pop ups and similar pages not intentionally opened by the user
• Shopping basket
• Checkout page

Overview

5.24. Non-industry respondents tended to support all five online location restrictions on the basis that these encourage unintended purchases of HFSS items. Individuals shared a similar view although were a little muted in respect of the shopping basket and were split in respect of favourites, due in part to concerns that restrictions may result in products not being displayed at all in those areas (even when purposely selected by the customer). There was a level of support for restricting the online locations among industry respondents on the basis that they supported alignment with restrictions in England. There was some disagreement among industry and individual respondents which typically reflected general disagreement with the rationale for restricting the promotion of HFSS foods.

Non-industry respondent views on online locations

5.25. Non-industry respondents supported location restrictions applying online to all five locations – i.e. the home page (81%), favourites (71%), pop ups (81%), shopping basket (74%) and checkout page (84%). Table 5.5 displays the results.

Table 5.5 Non-industry views on where online location restrictions should apply

Answer	Home page		Favourites		Pop ups		Shopping basket		Checkout page
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	25	81%	22	71%	25	81%	23	74%	26	84%
No	1	3%	1	3%	1	3%	1	3%	0	0%
Don't know	0	0%	3	10%	0	0%	2	7%	0	0%
Not answered	5	16%	5	16%	5	16%	5	16%	5	16%
Total	31	100%	31	100%	31	100%	31	100%	31	100%

Individual respondent views on online locations

5.26. Individual respondents tended to support location restrictions applying online to pop ups (79%), the home page (69%) and checkout pages (68%). Agreement was a little lower with respect to the shopping basket (61%) and for favourites views were split (50% disagreed; 45% agreed). Responses indicated concern that the products may not be visible at all in favourites (and to some extent the shopping basket) even when selected by the customer. Table 5.6 displays the results.

Table 5.6 Individuals views on where online location restrictions should apply

Answer	Home page		Favourites		Pop ups		Shopping basket		Checkout page
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	26	69%	17	45%	30	79%	23	61%	26	68%
No	10	26%	19	50%	7	18%	13	34%	11	29%
Don't know	2	5%	2	5%	1	3%	2	5%	1	3%
Not answered	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
Total	38	100%	38	100%	38	100%	38	100%	38	100%

Industry respondent views on in-store locations

5.27. Agreement and disagreement appeared to be split for each of the five locations - homepage (29% agreed; 20% disagreed), favourites (24% agreed; 22% disagreed), pop ups (32% agreed; 20% disagreed), shopping basket (20% agreed; 22% disagreed) and checkout page (29% agreed; 20% disagreed). However, there was a proportion of industry respondents that had ticked 'no' or 'don't know' or did not select a tick box that commented that if restrictions are implemented, they support alignment with restrictions in England. Ultimately therefore, there was a level of preference among industry for applying all five online location restrictions that is not apparent from the tick box responses. Table 5.7 displays the responses.

Table 5.7 Industry views on where online location restrictions should apply

Answer	Home page		Favourites		Pop ups		Shopping basket		Checkout page
	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	12	29%	10	24%	13	32%	8	20%	12	29%
No	8	20%	9	22%	8	20%	9	22%	8	20%
Don't know	4	10%	5	12%	4	10%	7	17%	4	10%
Not answered	17	42%	17	42%	16	39%	17	42%	17	42%
Total	41	101%	41	100%	41	101%	41	101%	41	101%

Agreement with online location restrictions

5.28. Non-industry and individual respondents that agreed with some or all online location restrictions tended to do so on the basis that foods are displayed in these locations in order to encourage people to buy them and therefore are likely to lead to unintended purchases and over consumption. A number of non-industry respondents also highlighted the importance of locations 'matching' those in-store in order to create a level playing field across the in-store and online environment. A suggestion was made that these locations should be used to display healthy foods. One individual that took a general stance against the restrictions proposed supported a general ban on pop ups.

5.29. A small number of respondents suggested the home page, pop ups and checkout were locations that were most likely to encourage additional purchase because they are places where people were not 'looking' for HFSS products, however respondents were generally less certain in respect of favourite and shopping basket pages (explored further below in respect of 'disagreement').

5.30. There was a general view among industry respondents that online locations should align with the UK regulations for England. A number noted the difficulty that would arise if websites (many of which are UK wide) are required to apply different rules for different countries. One out of home provider suggested responsibility for complying should rest with retailers rather than online food order platforms that facilitate sales between businesses and customers.

5.31. Other specific points (each made by one respondent) in respect of applying online location restrictions included:

• HFSS products should not be displayed on the home page if customers would be able to add products directly to their basket from there; (retailer)
• There should be an exemption for paid product placement in the appropriate online 'aisle'; (manufacturer)
• There is potential for 'digital loopholes' and 'shop bots' which need to be explored fully to ensure fairness between online and in-store restrictions; (industry representative body)
• Convenience retailers would suffer competitive disadvantage if the rules only applied in-store and not online, on the basis that relatively few convenience retailers in Scotland have a website; (industry representative body)
• There would be merit in evaluating the impact of online food marketing on children to inform future policy development. ('other' organisation)

Disagreement with online location restrictions

5.32. Aside from re-iterating overall disagreement with the rationale for applying restrictions to the promotion of HFSS products, there was little consistency in reasons for disagreement among industry respondents. Reasons for disagreement and concerns expressed (each by one or two industry respondents) include:

• There is limited evidence of the impact of promotions in the online environment;
• That the websites of hospitality businesses are a 'sales tool' and as such should be allowed to bring products to the attention of customers;
• Online purchasing is not directed at children and therefore should not be in scope;
• In-store and online shopping environments are not sufficiently similar to allow direct application of in-store location restrictions to be applied online;
• Websites that operate differently to retailer websites (e.g. those such as online food ordering and delivery sites where customers go with the specific intention of buying a one off meal) should not be in scope.

5.33. Individual respondents that disagreed with all online location restrictions reiterated their overall stance against restrictions. One individual suggested that at the shopping basket, a cheaper alternative to a product already selected by the customer should be allowed to be displayed.

Uncertainty regarding the favourites page and the shopping basket

5.34. Generally there was a level of uncertainty in respect of the favourites page and the shopping basket which may account for them receiving less clear support than the other online locations explored. This seemed to hinge on the interpretation that the restrictions may result in products not being visible at all in those locations (even where the customer has purposely selected them) as opposed to not being advertised/presented on those pages when they had not already been selected by the customer.

Other online locations

Question 12: Should any other online locations be included in restrictions?

Overview

5.35. Views were mixed in respect of whether any other types of online locations should be included in restrictions. A majority of non-industry respondents (58%) felt there were other online locations to include. Industry respondents tended to disagree (56%). Individuals were mixed between disagreeing (42%) and being unsure (37%). The vast majority of respondents that selected 'don't know' or did not select a tick box did not provide a comment/view. Table 5.8 displays the results.

Table 5.8 Whether any other online locations should be in scope

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	1	2%	18	58%	8	21%
No	23	56%	3	10%	16	42%
Don't know	3	7%	3	10%	14	37%
Not answered	14	34%	7	23%	0	0%
Total	41	99%	31	101%	38	100%

Other online locations to include

5.36. A number of other online locations were proposed by non-industry and individual respondents (some indicated more than one):

• Apps/ supermarket apps; (suggested by 6 respondents)
• Social media; (6)
• Online adverts that pop up when using the internet; (4)
• Promotions via email; (3)
• All pages that customers may see on websites; (3)
• Loyalty card scheme apps. (2)

5.37. One third sector respondent suggested the approach should be based on the 'effect' (i.e. locations that encourage people to purchase unhealthy foods) rather than the specific names of different 'locations' in order to encompass all relevant locations.

5.38. A number of non-industry respondents suggested online food ordering and delivery websites/apps should be included on the basis that since the pandemic online purchases have increased and therefore play a part in overconsumption of HFSS products. However, it should be noted that in the consultation document, these were already specified as in scope.

Disagreement with including other online locations

5.39. Typically industry respondents that were not in favour of additional online locations being included expressed a preference for alignment with restrictions in England (which additional locations would not be consistent with) or that they did not support location (or any) restrictions in general. Individuals rarely explained their reasons for disagreement beyond a couple reiterating that it was not the place of the Government to apply any restrictions.

5.40. One manufacturer suggested that online restrictions could result in advertising revenue being driven to other media channels which they believed would affect competition in the food and drink industry.

Other promotions

Question 13: Are there other types of promotion (in-store or online) not covered by our proposals for restricting price and location promotions that should be within scope?

Overview

5.41. Views were again mixed in respect of whether any other types of promotion (in-store or online) should be in scope. Industry respondents tended to disagree (61%). A proportion of non-industry respondents indicated there are other promotions to include (45%). Individuals tended towards uncertainty (50%). The vast majority of respondents that selected 'don't know' or did not select a tick box did not provide a comment/view. Table 5.9 displays the results.

Table 5.9 Whether other types of promotion should be in scope

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	0	0%	14	45%	7	18%
No	25	61%	2	7%	12	32%
Don't know	1	2%	8	26%	19	50%
Not answered	15	37%	7	23%	0	0%
Total	41	99%	31	101%	38	100%

Other promotions to include

5.42. Other promotions that had not already been suggested in response to question 8 (any other price promotions) or 10 (any other in-store locations) included: -

• Coupons; (suggested by 2 respondents)
• Cinema advertising for snack outlets; (1)
• Vending machines; (1)
• Promotions that include a toy. (1)

Disagreement with including other restrictions on promotions

5.43. Respondents that explained their reasons for disagreeing tended to indicate that the proposals are already comprehensive. A number of industry respondents suggested any further restrictions would need to be based on an evaluation of the implementation of the restrictions already proposed. Again, a number of industry respondents expressed that they supported alignment with the restrictions in England (which additional restrictions would not be consistent with) or that they did not support any restrictions.