Search results

The purpose of this study is to assist brand and product managers in selecting appropriate ingredient names for environmentally friendly products. It investigates the effects of unfamiliar ingredients on consumers’ evaluations of environmental friendliness and their purchase intentions, based on the cue consistency theory.

Five experimental studies (n = 968) were conducted to achieve the research objectives. Study 1 found that consumers tended to avoid choosing unfamiliar ingredients. Study 2 examined the impact of ingredient familiarity on consumers’ perceived greenness. Study 3 investigated the mediating role of perceived naturalness. Studies 4 and 5, respectively, explored the moderating effects of emphasizing the importance of technology in environmental conservation and product category.

The findings indicate that when environmentally friendly products are labeled with unfamiliar ingredients (vs. familiar), consumers’ perceived greenness and purchase intentions decrease. This effect is mediated by perceived naturalness. Moreover, the negative impact of unfamiliar ingredients is mitigated by emphasizing the importance of technology and the high-tech product category.

This paper reveals the unique role of unfamiliar ingredients in shaping consumer attitudes toward environmentally friendly products. Based on cue consistency theory, it uncovers how unfamiliar ingredients influence the perceived greenness of environmentally friendly products through perceived naturalness. Furthermore, the paper demonstrates the impact of emphasizing the importance of technology (emphasis vs. control) and product category (high-tech vs. low-tech) on consumer attitudes and behaviors toward environmentally friendly products.

This paper aims to examine the effect of three types of health-related claims (health, nutrition and ingredient) and product healthiness on situational skepticism toward the claims that appear on the front-of-package of food products. The effect of situational skepticism on the purchase intention of the product is further examined.

Two experimental studies were conducted with a 3 (health-related claims: health claim vs nutrition claim vs ingredient claim) × 2 (product healthiness: healthy vs unhealthy) between-subjects factorial design. Study 1 investigates the effects within a single product category (Biscuits) and Study 2 the effects across product categories (Salad and Pizza).

The results demonstrate that situational skepticism is the highest for health claims, followed by nutrition claims and the least for ingredient claims. In addition, situational skepticism is higher for claims appearing on unhealthy products vis-à-vis healthy ones. Finally, situational skepticism mediates the relationship between claim type, product healthiness and product purchase intention.

This study contributes to the field of nutrition labeling by advancing research on information processing of nutrition labels through the lens of the persuasion knowledge model (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Specifically, this study contributes to a nuanced understanding of claim formats on how the language properties of the claim – its vagueness, specificity and verifiability – can affect consumer perception. This study finds that higher specificity, verifiability and lower vagueness of ingredient claims lead to lower skepticism and hence higher purchase intention.

Furthermore, this study incrementally contributes to the ongoing discussion about the claim–carrier combination by showing that health-related claims are better perceived on healthy compared to unhealthy products. Hence, managers should avoid health washing, as this can backfire and cause harm to the reputation of the firm.

From a public policy point of view, this study makes a case for strong monitoring and regulations of ingredient claims, as consumers believe these claims easily and hence can be misled by false ingredient claims made by unethical marketers.

The scope of research on skepticism has largely been limited to examining a general individual tendency of being suspicious (i.e. dispositional skepticism) in health-related claims as well as other areas of marketing. In this research, the authors extend the scope by examining how specific types of claims (health vs nutrition vs ingredient) and product healthiness jointly impact consumer skepticism, i.e. situational skepticism.

As the restaurant industry is a representative service industry, long-living restaurants could carry the secrets of key factors that are needed to establish “sustainable business models” in service industry. The authors aim to answer the following question: How can restaurants innovate business model sustainably to last for more than 50 years through the era of digital transformation with open innovation dynamics?

Five long-lived restaurants from Daegu, Kyoto and Naples were selected separately by using the snowballing approach, and were analyzed through in-depth interviews and participatory observations.

Restaurants in Daegu have lived long mainly because of adding value to their recipes. Restaurants in Kyoto have lived very long, primarily by decoupling their original services, ingredients and recipes. Restaurants in Naples have enjoyed long lives by coupling or recoupling their ingredients, services and recipes.

The implication is that long-living restaurants or service firms could maintain their own sustainability by dynamically circling the following services: (1) adding and boning recipes (focusing on special menus or products), (2) coupling of ingredients (creative recoupling of original ingredients) and (3) decoupling of services (disconnecting the value chain and rebalancing it).

The purpose of this paper is to determine the key ingredients of Six Sigma in order to grasp and understand its essential characteristics and then identify suitable ingredients and complements in consideration of vision, strategies, capability, and circumstance of a company.

The study outlines the range of research in Korean enterprises, suppliers, and SMEs. Potential ingredients collected from previous studies about critical success factors, ingredients of Six Sigma and TQM, and criteria of quality awards (Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA), European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Award, Deming Prize, Korean National Quality Award) are classified into 11 categories based on Six Sigma expert opinions and affinity analysis. Also, questionnaires are surveyed from champions, master black belts and black belts in 90 Korean companies that have more than three years of experience in implementing Six Sigma. Statistical analysis with factor analysis and hypothesis testing has been done to select the key ingredients and to find the differences among the diverse types of companies.

By using factor analysis, three main factors are derived for each category respectively, and consequently 30 factors in 11 categories are concluded as the key ingredients of Six Sigma in Korean companies. There is a significant difference in importance of Six Sigma key ingredients according to company size, business type, and implementation phase.

A study may be conducted to identify Six Sigma success factors according to corporate characteristics from key ingredients identified in this study in future.

The paper investigates the key ingredients of Six Sigma based on a survey of diverse sizes, industries, and implementation phases of Korean companies. Compared with other studies conducted by empirical methods, the survey data are statistically analysed and the evaluation results are represented as quantitative indicators.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the purchase intention of functional food is influenced by the perception of carrier-ingredient fit, that is, to what extent the carrier product and functional ingredient are intuitively perceived to be matched, and how such influence is moderated by consumers’ prior nutrition knowledge and provided health claim.

Through two phases of experimental studies on 30 hypothetical functional foods, this paper analyzed the relationship between perceived carrier-ingredient fit and purchase intention which were reported by participants with different nutrition knowledge levels and in conditions that differed in the content of health claim.

Phase 1 (n=62) found that the positive influence of perceived fit on purchase intention of functional products was moderated by one’s prior nutrition knowledge; compared to those knowledgeable in food/nutrition fields, consumers with less knowledge relied more heavily on the perceived carrier-ingredient fit when making purchase decision. The results of study 2 Phase 2 (n=93) revealed that the perceived fit was more important to predict purchase intention in the condition without health claim. A further analysis revealed that health claim increased the purchase intention particularly for functional foods receiving poor perceived carrier-ingredient fit.

For innovative functional foods, the product development and market penetration may be benefit from fine-grained segmentation and positioning strategies that are based on the understanding of interaction between intuitive perception and cognitive knowledge.

The present work highlights consumers’ perception of the carrier-perception fit, interacting with nutrition knowledge and health claim, as a critical factor determining the acceptance of functional foods.

This Order, which is made under Regulation 2 of the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943 (S.R. & O. 1943 No. 1553; item No. 1605), and will come into force on January 1st, 1945, specifies the information which must be given on the labels of pre‐packed foods when sold by retail. These requirements also apply on sales otherwise by retail but alternatively the food must be sold unlabelled and the purchaser supplied with a statement giving the required information. Special requirements apply to the disclosure of the vitamin or mineral content of food for which claims are made in labels or advertisements. The Order also provides appropriate defences in cases of infringement, including a defence similar to that provided by the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, where some other person is responsible for the commission of the offence charged. Retail Labelling Requirements.—Subject to the exemptions specified in the First Schedule, pre‐packed food must not be sold (or displayed for sale) by retail unless the label bears a true statement as to the matters mentioned below. The label must be marked on the wrapper or container or securely attached to it. The statement must be clearly legible and placed in a prominent position on the label. If the food is pre‐packed in more than one wrapper or container, the label must be placed on the inner package. A second label must be placed on the outer wrapper or container if the first label is not clearly legible throughout it. (a) Name and Address of Packer or Labeller.—The statement must specify the name of either the packer or the labeller and one of his business addresses. The name and address of another trader may be substituted if the food is packed or labelled for him or on his instructions and he carries on business at any address in the United Kingdom. The above requirement may also be satisfied by placing a trade mark (but not a certification trade mark) prominently on the label. The trade mark must be one of those entered on the Trades Mark Register kept under the Trade Marks Act, 1938 (1 & 2 Geo. 6, c. 22), for that food and the words “Registered Trade Mark” must be associated with it on the label. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (other than canned); sugar; yeast; unfermented apple juice and soft drinks in solid, semi‐solid or powder form. (b) Names of Foods and Ingredients.—The statement must also specify the common or usual name (if any) of the food and of each ingredient, if the food is made of two or more ingredients. The ingredients must each be given a specific, not a generic, name and must be named in the order of the proportion in which they were used. The ingredient used in the greatest proportion (by weight) must be the first on the list. If the food contains an ingredient made from two or more constituents, the statement must specify those constituents and it will not be necessary to name the ingredient. [See also (vi) below.] It is not necessary to state that the food contains water. The following exemptions from this requirement are given in Table A of the First Schedule: (i) Spices and flavouring essences, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food, may be designated as spices, etc., without further specifying their common or usual name or their composition. This exemption also applies to colourings, except those pre‐packed for sale as such. (ii) In the case of speciality flour, whether pre‐packed for sale as such or forming an ingredient of another food there is no need to specify ingredients or constituents which are authorised ingredients of National or “M” flour. (iii) Preservatives, as defined in the Public Health (Preservatives, etc., in Food) Regulations, are wholly exempt if the label complies with the requirements of those Regulations, whether the preservatives are pre‐packed for sale as such or form an ingredient of one of the foods specified in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Regulations. (iv) It is not necessary to specify the ingredients used in the foods specified in Table C. The food must, however, be pre‐packed for sale as such and must comply with the composition requirements of the relevant Control Order listed in the Table. Table C specifies the following foods: Foods for which a standard is prescribed under a Food Standards Order; specified canned fruit; Christmas puddings; fish cakes; jam and marmalade; meat or fish paste; meat roll or galantine; canned ready or prepared meals; canned soup; beef or pork sausages or sausage meat and slicing sausage (not canned); standard saccharin tablets; and sweetening tablets. (v) There is no need to specify the ingredients of the following foods when pre‐packed for sale as such; biscuits, condensed milk as defined by the Public Health (Condensed Milk) Regulations, 1923 and 1927; curry powders; pickles and sauces (except salad cream, mayonnaise and sandwich spread). (vi) When a food mentioned in (iv) or (v) above or in Table B (see below) forms an ingredient of some other food, it may be designated by its common or usual name, without specifying the ingredients. (c) Minimum Quantity.—The statement must also specify the minimum quantity of food in the wrapper or container. This quantity must be expressed according to trade custom in terms of net weight, measure or number. In cases where Section 4 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1928, permits the weight of the wrapper or container to be included in the weight sold, the above provision may be complied with by specifying the minimum weight of the food with its wrapper or container. Table A of the First Schedule provides that the following foods shall be wholly exempt from this requirement: biscuits, when sold by the packet or piece at not more than 3d. per unit; condensed milk, as defined above; and dried milk, as defined by the Public Health (Dried Milk) Regulations 1923 and 1927, including sweetened or modified dried milk but not compounded dried milk. (d)Exemptions.— The above provisions do not apply to: (i) foods packed by a retailer for sale on the premises, but there must be no reference to the food on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on, attached to or given with it; (ii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original container or wrapper; (iii) food packed specially for consumption by H.M. Forces or the Forces of H.M. Allies or Co‐Belligerents; (iv) assortments of foods packed for sale as a meal and ready for consumption without cooking, heating, etc.; (v) food intended for export or for use as ships‘ stores; (vi) foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule when pre‐packed for sale as such. Table B specifies the following foods: bread (not including breadcrumbs); butter and milk blended butter; cakes; cheese (including processed cheese, blue vein, soft curd or cream cheese and cheese made from milk other than cow's milk); compound cooking fat; intoxicating liquor, i.e., spirits, wine, beer, porter, cider, perry and sweets and other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquors which cannot be sold with‐out an excise licence; liquid milk; margarine (not including vegetarian butter); meat pies; National Flour and “M” flour; soft drinks if specified in Part I of the First Schedule to the Soft Drinks Order, 1943; still spa water; sugar confectionery, chocolate and chocolate confectionery. (e) Small Packages.—If the wrapper or container holds less than ½ oz. or ½ fluid oz. and, owing to insufficient space it is not reasonably practicable for all the above particulars to be given on the label, it will only be necessary to give those particulars which it is reasonably practicable to specify. The particulars required in (b) must be specified first and those required in (c) must be specified next, in order of priority. The foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see above) are exempt from this provision when pre‐packed for sale as such. Labelling Requirement on Other Sales.—On sales of pre‐packed food otherwise than by retail, the seller must either: (a) deliver the food labelled in the manner prescribed for retail sales; or (b) deliver the food unlabelled and furnish the purchaser an invoice or other document within 14 days of delivery. The invoice, etc., must contain a statement of any particulars that may be necessary to enable a retail trader to comply with provisions (b) and (c) of the retail labelling requirements (see above). Pre‐packed food will be regarded as unlabelled only if there is no reference to it on the wrapper or container or on any label printed on or attached to it. The food will not, however, be regarded as labelled merely because the wrapper or container has been marked at packing with reasonable words or marks of identification. This provision, however, does not apply to foods exempted from the retail labelling requirements, including foods specified in Table B of the First Schedule (see (d) above). Defacement of Labels.—Statements on labels placed on a wrapper or container under the above provisions must not be removed, altered or defaced. It will, however, be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the food was in his possession otherwise than for sale; and (b) that there was no intent to deceive. Claims for Vitamins and Minerals in Food.—(a) General Claims: No one, except under certain conditions, may (i) sell any food with a label making a general claim that vitamins or minerals are present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a general claim as above. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. The conditions referred to above are as follows: (i) If a claim that vitamins are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part I of the Second Schedule, i.e. Vitamins A, B1, B2 (Riboflavin), C and D; Carotene; or Nicotinic Acid, Nicotinic Acid Amide and the active derivatives. (ii) If a claim that minerals are present is made, the food must contain one or more of the substances specified in Part II of the Second Schedule, i.e., Calcium, Iodine, Iron or Phosphorus. (iii) The label or advertisement must specify the minimum quantity of each substance in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in Parts I and II of the Second Schedule. (b) Particular Claims.— The Order also provides that no one shall: (i) sell any food with a label which claims or in any way suggests that a particular substance specified in the Second Schedule is present in it; (ii) stock pre‐packed food with a similar label; or (iii) publish, or be a party to publishing, an advertisement making a particular claim or suggestion as above. These claims or suggestions may, however, still be made if the label or advertisement specifies the minimum quantity of each substance contained in each oz. or fluid oz., expressed in the appropriate units specified in the Second Schedule. The above provisions apply whether the label is attached to or printed on the wrapper or container or not. (c) Exemptions.—These provisions do not apply to: (i) fruit or vegetables, excluding those which have been canned or bottled or those preserved otherwise than by freezing, gas or cold storage or other storage methods; (ii) food served by a caterer as a meal or part of a meal; (iii) food imported on Government account which is still in the original wrapper or container. In case (iii), however, the provisions relating to advertisements are still applicable. (d) Defences.—In proceedings relating to the publication of an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that his business is to publish or arrange for the publication of advertisements and that he received it for publication in the ordinary course of business. In similar proceedings against the manufacturers, producers or importers of the advertised food the onus of proving that he did not publish, and was not a party to publishing, the advertisement is on the defendant. In proceedings for a failure to specify the required particulars in an advertisement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove that he took all reasonable steps, by pre‐packing, to see that it would not be sold without an appropriate label. Deficiencies of Weight or Measure.—In proceedings for infringement of the labelling requirements relating to the weight or measures of pre‐packed articles of food, the Court must disregard inconsiderable variations in the weight or measure of single articles and take into account (a) the average weight or measure of a reasonable number of other articles of the same kind (if any) sold or stocked by the defendant on the same occasion and (b) all the circumstances of the case. In similar proceedings relating to weight, measure or number, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that the offence was due to a bona fide mistake or accident or to other causes beyond his control and that he took all reasonable precautions to prevent it; or (b) that the alleged deficiency was due to unavoidable evaporation, although due care had been taken to avoid it. Proceedings for a deficiency in the weight or measure of any pre‐packed food or in the number of articles in a wrapper or container may be instituted, in England, by the local Weights and Measures Authority, and, in Northern Ireland, by the Ministry of Commerce. Inaccurate Statements, etc.—In prosecutions relating to the inaccuracy or omission of a particular required to be shown on a label or statement, it will be a defence for the defendant to prove: (a) that he bought the food in the wrapper or container in which it was sold from a person carrying on business at an address in the United Kingdom, and that the wrapper or container had remained unopened; (b) that the particular in question was shown on (or omitted from) the label or statement at the time of purchase; and (c) that he had no reason to believe that there was any infringement. The defendant, within fourteen days of the service of the summons (or in Scotland, the complaint), must send the prosecutor a copy of the label or statement with a notice stating that he intends to rely on it and giving the name and address of the person from whom he received it. A similar notification must be sent to the person who gave him the label or statement and he is entitled to appear in Court and give evidence. A defendant who is an employee may also rely on the above defence. Act or Default of Another.—A defendant who is prosecuted under the Order may allege that the offence was due to the act or default of another person. He is entitled to make this person a party to the proceedings but must first lay an information and give at least three clear days' notice to the prosecution. If the original defendant's allegation is proved, the second defendant may be convicted of the offence. The original defendant will then be entitled to an acquittal if he can prove that he used all due diligence to comply with the provisions in question. Both the prosecution and the second defendant will have the right to cross‐examine the original defendant and his witnesses and to call rebutting evidence. The Court may make any order it thinks fit for payment of costs by one party to another. If the Minister or other enforcing authority is reasonably satisfied that an offence for which one defendant might be prosecuted is due to the act or default of a second defendant and that the first defendant could establish the above defence, he may prosecute the second defendant without taking a preliminary prosecution against the first. The second defendant may then be convicted of the offence with which the first defendant might have been charged and may be awarded similar punishment. Special provision is made for a similar procedure under the Law of Scotland. Analysts' Certificates.—In proceedings for infringement, the production by one of the parties of a certificate from a Public Analyst or the Government Chemist will be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it, unless the other party requires that the Analyst shall be called as a witness. A copy of the Analyst's certificate supplied by one party to the other is admissible in evidence without further proof. If the prosecution intends to produce a certificate, a copy must be served with the summons (or, in Scotland, the complaint). A defendant who intends to produce a certificate or require the Analyst to give evidence must give the other party at least three clear days' notice of his intention. The Court is entitled to adjourn the hearing on such terms as it thinks proper if there is any failure to comply with these requirements. In Northern Ireland, “Government Chemist” means the Government Chemist for Northern Ireland. Other Provisions.—The Order also contains various provisions for securing its application under the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland. The provisions of the Order are subject to any directions, licences or authorisations given by the Minister. Holders of licences or authorisations must comply with every condition imposed. The Order will come into force on January 1st, 1945. Definitions.—“Food” means any article used as food or drink for human consumption and includes any substance intended for use in the composition or preparation of food, any flavouring, sweetening matter or condiment and any colouring matter intended for use in food. An article is not to be deemed not to be food merely because it can also be used as a medicine. Save as otherwise provided, the description or definition of food given in an Order of the Minister will apply for the purposes of this Order. If described or defined in more than one Order, the description or definition given in a Price Control Order will be applicable. “Pre‐packed” means packed or made up in advance ready for retail sale in a wrapper or container. Wrapped or packed food found on premises where that food is packed, kept or stored for sale will be deemed to be pre‐packed unless the contrary is proved. The contrary cannot, however, be proved merely by showing that the food had not been labelled in accordance with the provisions of the Order. “Pre‐pack” is to be correspondingly interpreted. “Retail Sale” means any sale to a person buying otherwise than for resale but does not include a sale to a caterer for his catering business or a sale to a manufacturer for his manufacturing business. “Advertisement” includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document and any public announcement made orally or by a means of producing or transmitting light or sound. References to a label marked on a wrapper or container include references to any legible marking, however effected. “Food Imported on Government Account” means food imported into the United Kingdom for defence purposes, which was the property of, or consigned directly to, His Majesty or a Government Department, or their agents. “Public Analyst” has the same meaning as in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, [and the corresponding Acts in force for Scotland and Northern Ireland.] References to Orders or Regulations refer to those Orders or Regulations as subsequently amended or replaced.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of ingredient advertising. Specifically, the authors consider the question as to whether ingredient advertising can increase derived demand and favorably influence purchase intentions and attitudes toward the host product that incorporates the advertised B2B ingredient.

They conduct experiments in two host product categories using a three-group, between-subjects experimental design.

The findings of the study are revealing about the impact of ingredient advertising on the demand for host products, in which the advertised ingredients are incorporated. It is demonstrated that consumer advertising positively affects the attitude and purchase intention toward the host brand that incorporates the advertised industrial product. It is also found that the higher the importance of the advertised ingredient as an attribute of the host product, the greater the advertising effects on the consumer brand.

The findings imply that ingredient advertising can help marketers to stimulate derived demand in the sense that it makes consumer brands incorporating the advertised industrial product more attractive to consumers. The positive influence of ingredient advertisements is greater for industrial products that are perceived by consumers as very important ingredients of the final product as consumers are more prone to search for and process ingredient-related information and are also more likely to respond to it.

Despite the implementation of ingredient advertising campaigns by many B2B brands and the vast literature on conventional B2C advertising, there has been no previous attempt to investigate this issue in the empirical literature. This empirical study shows how ingredient advertising works and how it can benefit both buyers and suppliers of the advertised B2B products.

This study aims to examine the factors that drive consumers' trial and repeat purchases of cobranded extensions, and the amount of spillover effects on host and ingredient brands.

The analysis uses a comprehensive consumer transaction dataset that includes the actual introduction of four cobranded extensions. The authors develop a conceptual framework and three empirical models to explain how consumers' prior experience with the parent brands affect their trial and repeat purchase behaviors, and how their experiences with the cobranded extensions further affect parent brand purchases.

The results from the study indicate that repeat purchases are higher for consumers with more joint purchase incidences in both host and ingredient categories when they have complementary features. In contrast to existing research on single‐brand based extensions, it is found that host brand loyalty has a positive effect on both trial and repeat purchases when the host brand is not a market‐leader. Due to the introduction of the cobranded extension, host brand experiences a negative spillover whereas ingredient brand experiences a positive spillover.

The results from the study suggest that while initial targeting for the cobranded extension should be focused on consumers who are loyal to both host and ingredient brands, later targeting should be focused on consumers who are loyal to only the host brand.

The study contributes to the existing literature on cobranded extensions by using actual purchase data to analyze the adoption of cobranded extensions.

The purpose of this paper is to develop new model formulation for reducing the workload in pre‐batching at a manufacturer of flavors and fragrances, by optimally assigning ingredients to different storage types, taking into account past usage of ingredients and several restrictions about volumes and number of storage units.

Two models were developed, using mathematical programming, accommodating either fixed or variable shelf settings in vertical carousel storage, along with other varying storage types. The models were validated, yielding a sizeable reduction in workload, and run under varying scenarios of storage additions to reduce workload even further.

For different storage addition scenarios, application of the new model formulation yielded a reduction of 22 percent in workload. In addition, aside from space savings, approximately 40 percent of refill order total waiting time was reduced due to improved allocation.

The authors' analysis was limited by considering direct cost savings only. Yet, reduced workloads in pre‐batching may also yield indirect cost savings, such as reduced quality costs, inventory costs, and investment savings by not having to extend the pre‐batching area. Such considerations may be addressed in future research, provided data on indirect savings are available.

While intuitive storage allocation overloads the pre‐batching department and increases space utilization, suggesting an incorrect perception that more personnel and space are needed, the proposed approach provides a better alternative through optimized allocations.

The present paper adds to the literature on carousel storage location by explicitly addressing the storage sizing issue, as well as workload balancing.

This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of positioning unknown ingredients either with the presence or absence of framing; both are common in marketplace (e.g. Secret® deodorant visibly claims “aluminum chlorohydrate” while Crystal® promotes “no aluminum chlorohydrate”).

The authors used three scenario-based experiments. The participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk online panel and randomly assigned to a variety of experimental conditions.

Initial study results show that consumers have more positive evaluations and purchase intentions for absence positioning than presence positioning, because absence positioning induces greater perceptions of protection. In the second study, these results are extended using multiple ingredients, along with competitor products; they show that absence positioning leads to better evaluations than presence positioning and replicate the mediation effect that was found earlier. In the final study, through manipulating participants’ regulatory focus, the authors show that absence-positioned ingredients have a higher choice share when consumers are in the prevention mindset. Conversely, when customers are in promotion mindset and looking for better performance, presence positioning of ingredients seems to have higher choice shares.

The research has implications for product development, promotions, labeling and packaging, showing the positive influence of absence positioning of unknown ingredients.

Marketers may emphasize the absence of unknown ingredients in their products instead of following a strategy that highlights the inclusion of them.

To the authors’ extant knowledge, this research is an initial attempt to understand how consumers react to promotion of product ingredients. In addition, it contributes to the literature in unknown attributes by showing that absence positioning of certain types of ingredients is perceived better than presence framing of them.