Quench a Thirst for Health in Food Deserts

As a Time blog post reported, mobile stores carrying fresh produce are pulling into food deserts—low-income communities which have had limitations on access to a large grocery store. The objective is to sell good health. The initiatives reported in that Time post plus academic research findings provide lessons for a range of retailers about how to profit by creating and then quenching a thirst for health in food deserts:

• In communities where retailers of all sorts feature health benefits in their advertising and marketing, consumers are more likely to seek out healthy foods. 
• In some ways, shoppers in low-income communities have expectations similar to those in higher-income communities. Research findings from RTI International in North Carolina and George Washington University say that low-income shoppers want cleanliness and convenience. The Time post quotes potential customers in low-income areas saying they hesitate entering stores where there are people drinking alcohol outside, where they’d have to walk deep into the store to reach the healthy offerings, or where those offerings aren’t displayed attractively. Minimize these obstacles. 
• In other ways, shoppers in low-income communities differ from shoppers in higher-income neighborhoods. Researchers at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Oregon Health and Science University, University of Massachusetts, and University of Alabama-Birmingham looked at whether having lots of Quick Service Restaurants (QSRs) in a neighborhood was related to the consumption of less healthy foods. They found that for the men in low-income neighborhoods, a higher density of QSRs was related to less healthy eating. There was no relationship with low-income women or with consumers of either gender in middle- and high-income neighborhoods. The findings argue for marketing to women as the agents of change and the men as the targets of change in food deserts. 
• What about measures such as a fat tax? That’s the name researchers at University of Alberta and University of Wisconsin-Madison used for a surcharge on the purchase of foods that are less healthy than available alternatives. It turns out that, overall, consumers do respond to a fat tax. The additional cost makes them significantly less likely to buy an unhealthy product. However, they also become less likely to buy any product in that category. Their irritation about the fat tax leads to them boycotting a purchase. They may be healthier for it, but you’re losing a sale. There are better alternatives for both the shopper and you. Consumers prefer rewards to punishments. 

For your profitability: Sell Well: What Really Moves Your Shoppers

Click below for more: 
Mobilize Collective Efficacy for Health 
Tax Our Ingenuity to Keep Customers Healthy