Shopping behaviours and meal deals - consumer behaviours: evidence brief

Meal Deals

Extent of purchasing

Responses to the consumer survey supports an understanding that meal deals are purchased frequently by a sizeable proportion of the population:

• 21% of adults in Scotland purchase a lunch meal deal at least once per week;
• 9% of adults in Scotland purchase an evening meal deal at least once per week;
• 24% of adults in Scotland purchase either a lunch or evening meal deal at least once per week.

Characteristics associated with higher purchases of meal deals: younger age; higher affluence; ethnic minority (EM); non-disabled; living in urban areas.

Gender – A higher proportion of men than women purchase lunchtime meal deals at least once a week (24% vs 19%). A higher proportion of women than men purchase evening meal deals at least sometimes (29% vs 23%).

Age – The proportion who purchase lunch or evening meal deals either weekly or at least sometimes decreases with age.

Socioeconomic status (SES) – Overall, the data suggests that those who are more affluent are more reliant on meal deals.

A higher proportion of those in social groups AB compared to CD purchase lunch or evening meal deals at least weekly and sometimes.

A higher proportion of those with high incomes purchase lunch meal deals (79%) than those on mid (56%) or low incomes (50%) at least sometimes. Numbers purchasing meal deals are too small to make meaningful comparisons.

No statistical differences are found comparing most and least deprived for purchase of lunch or evening meals either at least once a week or sometimes.

Ethnicity – A higher proportion of those from EM groups consistently report purchasing lunch or evening meal deals at least weekly or sometimes compared to those from white groups.

Disability – A higher proportion of non-disabled report purchasing lunch meal deals at least sometimes (60%) than disabled (53%).

Rurality – A higher proportion of urban residents report purchasing of lunch meal deals at least weekly or sometimes than those from rural areas. The same tendency can be observed for evening meal deals, though not statistically significant and with very small subsample numbers.

See Tables 1, 2 & 3 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

Items commonly purchased and whether healthy or not

Lunch Meal Deals

The survey asked, “Thinking about the type of lunchtime meal deal you most often purchase, what do you tend to choose to include as a main?”. The following response options could be selected and more than one could be selected:

• Sandwich (including baguettes, sub sandwiches etc.)
• Wrap
• Pie
• Sushi
• Pasta salad
• Other (please specify)
• A main doesn’t tend to be part of the meal deals I buy

A similar style of question was asked separately about a snack and a drink. See technical report and output tables for further details on response options for these items.

In each element of the meal deal, healthier items and less healthy items were grouped together to compare the extent to which healthier versus less healthy items were bought.

Responses to the consumer survey indicate that lunch meal deals mostly consist of a sandwich and crisps and either a sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) or a low calorie soft drink. The results support the concern that add-on snacks or drinks to the main item tend to be HFSS.

See Table 4 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

Evening Meal Deals

In questions 14a to 14e, the survey asked, “Thinking about the type of evening meal deal you buy from supermarkets, what do you tend to choose to include as a [insert starter, or main, or side, or dessert or drink]?” Respondents were able to write in free text what they typically purchased.

The table on the next page offers a summary of the analysis of free text responses and presents the reported top three ranked items typically purchased as part of an evening meal deal from a supermarket – those estimated to be healthier (from perspective of contribution to calories) are in bold.

A third (36%) of those who report ever purchasing an evening meal, indicate they typically include a starter by stating what type in the free text box.

Analysis of the free text indicates the top 3 choices for starter are: soup, Indian or similar style of starters and bread, mostly garlic bread (17%, 12% and 10% of the 107 classifiable mentions respectively – 39% combined). Potentially healthier items, such as fruit or salad made up 12% of mentions combined.

See Table 5 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

The vast majority who report buying an evening meal deal (93%), indicate they typically include a main by stating what type in the free text box.

Analysis of the free text indicates the top 3 choices for main are: sandwich or wrap; a chicken dish (unspecified mainly but included chicken in sauce or roast chicken); and a pasta dish (mostly just listed as pasta, but several reported lasagne or macaroni) (19%, 18% and 16% of classifiable mentions, respectively). Pizza comes fourth (12%). Specific mention of vegetarian dishes or salad or pasta salad dishes are only made by 3%.

The large majority who report buying an evening meal deal (80%), indicate they typically include a side by stating what type in the free text box.

Analysis of the free text indicates the top 3 choices for sides are: chips/fries/wedges, veg or salad and garlic bread/naan (23%, 23% and 12% of classifiable listed items, respectively).

50% of sides appear to be less healthy compared to 40% healthier and around 10% unable to estimate how healthy they might be.

A sizeable majority of those who report buying an evening meal deal (66%), indicate they typically include a dessert by stating what type in the free text box.

Analysis of the free text indicates the top 3 choices for desserts are: cheesecake, a general type of dessert (e.g. trifle, sticky toffee pudding, tiramisu, etc) or cake (26%, 18% and 17% of classifiable listed items, respectively). Only 2% claim to purchase fruit and 4% yoghurt.

A sizeable majority of those who report buying an evening meal deal (72%), indicate they typically include a drink by stating what type in the free text box.

Analysis of the free text indicates the top 3 choices for drinks are: fizzy soft drink, alcohol (mainly wine), or diet fizzy soft drink (36%, 23% and 12% of classifiable listed items, respectively).

Only 7% claimed to purchase water (or flavoured water) and 3% fruit juice.

See Tables in Data Tables on Tab titled “Evening Meal Deals summary Q14”

Motivations for purchasing meal deals

Question 11 of the survey asked “What is the main reason you buy a lunch meal deal?”

Respondents were able to choose multiple responses from the following options:

• Price/value for money
• Convenience
• Taste/enjoyment
• Variety
• Treat
• Health (e.g. nutritional value)
• Other (please specify)
• Don’t know

The survey findings indicate that value for money is a key driver of purchasing, but with little difference by SES and second in importance to convenience. Value for money was cited by 56% of those purchasing lunch or evening meal deals, but convenience was cited by 76% of those who purchase lunch meal deals and 66% of those who purchase evening meal deals.

Taste and a treat are relatively more important in relation to evening meal deals than for lunch meal deals.

Importance of different motivations for purchasing lunch meal deals in rank order:

Importance of different motivations for purchasing evening meal deals in rank order:

For lunchtime meal deals:

Convenience – There is no difference in the proportion who selected this by population group.

Price/value for money – This is more important to men compared to women (62% vs 51%); younger age groups (18-34 and 35-54) compared to those 55 years and older (57% and 60% vs 50%, respectively); and disabled compared to non-disabled (64% vs 53%).

Taste/enjoyment – This is more important to the mid age range group (35-54) compared to those 55 years and older (33% vs 22%); and disabled compared to non-disabled (34% vs 25%).

Treat – This is more important to women compared to men (24% vs 16%); and to accessible rural compared to ‘Rest of Scotland’ (i.e. urban) (34% vs 20%).

For evening meal deals, numbers are generally too small to make meaningful comparisons of motivations between different population groups.

See Tables 6 and 7 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

Perceptions of how meal deals influence purchasing of additional items

Respondents were asked, “To what extent do you agree with the following statement: buying a meal deal means I buy and consume items I would not otherwise have purchased?”

A majority (56%) agree that buying a meal deal means they buy and consume items they would not otherwise have purchased compared to 21% that disagree and 22% who neither agree or disagree.

There are no statistically significant differences by population group.

See Table 8 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

Anticipated actions if restrictions placed on inclusion of less healthy items in meal deals

Question 18 asked a hypothetical question about what action consumers would take if less healthy items were no longer able to be purchased as part of a meal deal: “If less healthy items, such as ‘off-the-shelf’ pre-packed pasties, crisps, chocolate, sugary drinks, pizzas, garlic bread etc. were not available as part of meal deals, what do you think you would do?”

The results indicate that restricting meal deals has the potential to influence positive behaviour change for a sizeable proportion of those who purchase meal deals - 32% say they would just buy a healthier meal deal; 9% would just buy a main; and a further 9% feel the question not applicable as they don’t buy less healthy items.

Others may change little around what they eat at lunch or evening. A fifth indicate they would purchase additional items anyway (22%), purchase items desired but not as a meal deal (19%) or take their own snacks/drinks from home^[3] (9%).

No other unintended consequences are highlighted – no one cites an alternative response to those set out in the survey and listed above. For example, switching to loose food items or going to takeaways is not mentioned, which was an unintended consequence suggested by industry in the consultation.

See Table 9 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

Public Opinion on restricting meal deals

Question DV19a asked, “To what extent do you support or oppose the idea of excluding less healthy ‘off-the-shelf’ pre-packed items as part of a meal deal to support healthier diets and reduce the risk of obesity? (Less healthy items can still be bought, but not as part of a meal deal. Meal deals with healthier items can still be offered)”. Response options were: Strongly support; Support; Neither support nor oppose; Oppose; Strongly oppose; Don't know.

The Public is generally supportive of healthier meal deals, although not emphatic. A greater proportion are supportive of restrictions on meal deals (40%) than oppose (24%), although a large proportion state neither support nor oppose (34%).

Age – The youngest age group (18-34) are more likely to support than those age 55 years and older (45% vs 36%).

Ethnicity – Those from EM groups are more likely to support than those from white groups (59% vs 39%).

There are no differences between other population groups.

See Table 10 in Data Tables on Tab titled “MEAL DEAL Summary Tables”

How to access background or source data

The data collected for this:

are available in the accompanying supplementary Data Tables