I

USE 0? END SATISFACTION WITH
A PACKAGED CONSUMER
EDUCATEON SLIDE PRGGRAH

“was for the Deqru of M. A.
WCHBW QUE {MEMBER

M. Charline Hatchett
E 970*

 

fl‘

 

 

mumunuIlllulmmIHIHIIIHIHHIlllllllllulllllllll
3__1g_9§Ho107o 2598

 

 

 

_—~.h~ “mm

I
f")- [IRE/SR ' ’

h-74:.}‘*"gan Shut

' \ *
r .'
“t \w . )1

I

v” "

r

 

 

-m_w H,._

_ _-.‘ h H. rq-v-vr-4~Av 4

r-‘ND—u-

 

>'—-.. ~rfiwgk‘-_%h- .-—-.-.- a

ABSTRACT

USE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH A PACKAGED
CONSUMER EDUCATION SLIDE PROGRAM

By
M. Charline Hatchett

The purpose of this exploratory study was to evaluate
an informational teaching technique (Ads Add_gp slide program
and related material) as to its implication for COOperative

Extension programs and other educational organizations working

in Consumer Education. This was done by seeking the Opinion

of professionals who used the material.
An opinionnaire was devel0ped to evaluate use of, and

satisfaction with, the kit and to learn how users thought

participants benefited from the information. The test group

consisted of all purchasers of Ads Add Up for whom we had a

specific name and address. Since New York Cooperative

Extension Service bought Ads Add Up and recommended its use
on a state-wide basis, data for this group was compared with

all others. There were 37 usable responses from New York and

59 other usable responses-~for a total of 96 respondents.

‘Method and Content satisfaction scores were developed

by selecting questions which would represent each. A combina-

tion of these two scores represented Overall Satisfaction.

M. Charline Hatchett

Scores were arbitrarily divided into three groups-~Clearly
Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied, and Clearly Dissatisfied.
Overall, only l0 respondents were Clearly Dissatisfied
with the kit, however, respondents were better satisfied with
the Method used than they were with the Content.
The recommendation of the Cornell Extension Staff for

use of Ads Add Up on a state-wide basis seems to have influenced

When comparing New York and the Other

 

the New York group.
group, satisfaction scores of New Yorkers were higher for both

Method and Content than the Other group's. In spite of this

fact, New Yorkers rated many related questions lower than

the Other group-~an inconsistency which could not be fully

explained.
The Ads Add Up kit was developed under the assumption

 

that professionals as well as consumers have an interest In
learning about marketing functions such as food advertising.

This study was based on the theory that information is an

essential element in effective decision making,which in turn

affects the management process.
The data shows a majority of respondents felt that parti-

cipants learned the function of food advertising, felt the
kit was relevant to teaching home management and food buying,

and felt that the information would lead to improved decision

making and buying practices.

M. Charline Hatchett

The findings of this study cannot be considered conclu-
sive, but they do seem to indicate a need for further

develOpment of packaged information programs and for care-

fully planned research to evaluate them. Indications are

that well designed packaged programs could fill a real need

in the Consumer Education field and would be used if made

available to professionals.

USE OF AND SATISFACTION WITH A PACKAGED
CONSUMER EDUCATION SLIDE PROGRAM

by

M. Charline Hatchett

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Famlly and Child Sciences

I970

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author wishes to express appreciation to her
Committee, Dr. Carol Shaffer, Miss Esther Everett, and
Dr. Everett Rogers, without whose guidance this study would
not have been possible.

Special gratitude is extended to Dr. Carol Shaffer for
her patience, cooperation, and direction during the drafting
and correcting of the manuscript, and to Dr. Everett Rogers
who gave generously of his time and provided valuable
suggestions related to development of the opinionnaire and
analysis of the data.

A special ”thank you'I goes to Mary Zehner and Anita lmily
for technical assistance in preparing the data.

Appreciation is also expressed to the Consumer Marketing
Information Program, Michigan C00perative Extension Service

for the cooperation and support which made this study possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER
I. PROBLEM AND RATIONALE. . .
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . .

Ill. METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . .
IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS. . . .
V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . .
APPENDUX O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

78
82

LIST OF TABLES

 

 

 

Table Page
I. Opinionnaire response. . . . . . . . . . . 28-
2, Breakdown of opinionnaire returns. . . . . 28
3. Number and percent of respondents by

occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
A Kind of audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3l
5. Method satisfaction score distribution . . 33
6. Content satisfaction score distribution. . 3h
7. Overall satisfaction score distribution. . 36
8. Respondent method, content, and overall

satisfaction with kit. . . . . . . . . . . 37
9. Overall satisfaction by occupation . . . . 39
IO. Method satisfaction by occupation. . . . . 40
ll. Content satisfaction by occupation . . . . Al
l2. Average audience size. . . . . . . . . . . Ah
I3. Number of times Ads Add Up was shown . . . 45
I4. Ways, besides as a slide program, infor-

mation from Ads Add Up was used as

resource materiall . . . . ... . . . . . . A6
IS. Respondents use of Ads Add Up in a series

of related lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . A7
16. Respondent use of supplemental material

in script. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A8
I7. Respondent use of quiz . . . . . . . . . . A8

Table

l8.

I9.
20.
2l.

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3i.

Page

Respondents evaluation of interest created
in other consumer education programs
designed to create understanding of the

food marketing system. . . . . . . . . . . 50
General response of audience . . . . . . . SI
Kit worth price paid . . . . . . . . . . . 5i

Interest in purchasing other food market~
ing slide programs . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Rating kit for relevance in teaching Home
Management and Food Buying . . . . . . . . 53

Satisfaction related to relevance in
teaching Home Management and Food Buying . 54

Respondents evaluation of Improved Buying
Practices as a benefit derived from the
kit. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 56

Satisfaction related to respondents evalu-
ation of improved buying practices as a
benefit from the kit . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Respondents evaluation of improved decision
making as a benefit derived.from the kit . S7

Satisfaction related to respondents
evaluation of improved decision making as
a benefit derived from the kit . . . . . . 57

Respondents evaluation of learning the
function of advertising as a benefit
derived from the kit . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Satisfaction related to respondents evalu-
ation of learning the function of advertis-
ing as a benefit derived from the kit. . . . 58

Respondents evaluation of entertainment as
a benefit derived from the kit . . . . . . S9

Satisfaction related to respondents evalu-
ation of entertainment as a benefit derived
from the kit 0 o o o o o o o o o o o a o 59

Table Page

32. Respondents evaluation of the slide
teaching technique compared to the
lecture technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6l

33. Satisfaction related to respondents evalua-'
tion of the slide teaching technique
compared to the lecture technique. . . . . . 6l

3h. Respondents evaluation of the slide teach-
ing technique compared to the discussion
technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
35. Satisfaction related to respondents

evaluation of the slide teaching technique
compared to the discussion technique . . . . 62

36. Respondents evaluation of the slide teach-
ing technique compared to the motion
picture technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

37. Satisfaction related to respondents evalu-
ation of slide teaching technique compared
to the motion picture technique. . . . . . . 63

38. Respondents evaluation of the slide teach-
ing technique compared to the lecture-
demonstration technique. . . . . . . . . . . 64

39. Satisfaction related to respondents
evaluation of slide teaching technique
compared to the lecture-demonstration
technique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

#0. QUestions uSed in method satisfaction
score development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

“I. Questions used in content score development. 84

vi

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM AND RATIONALE

introduction

Researchers predict that education in the future will be an
organized lifetime activity rather than a segment in life of l2
or more years. Progress in this direction is evidenced by statis-
tics from the first phase of the National Opinion Research Center's
survey on Adult Education in America, done In I962. The survey
showed that 25,000,000 adults, or more than one in five, had been
active in educational pursuits other than as full time students.
(1).

From the Home Management-Consumer Economics point of view,
this outlook is encouraging. In a very broad sense, education
widens the sc0pe for decision making, by broadening one's notion
of what is possible. It enables the individual to engage in
the general process of thinking through the problems he faces.
Through education, a knowledge of alternatives is made a conscious
Ingredient In a person's thought processes which is one of the
basics In decision making in all aspects of life. (2)

"It has been said that history turns on small hinges. and
so do people's lives. We are constantly making small decisions,
some of them apparently trivial. The total of these decisions

finally determines the success or failure of our lives.” (3)

Many decision making models have been developed. These

usually take the form of a series of steps similar to the

following: ”(I) becoming aware of a choice situation, (2) dis-
covering several alternative courses of action, (3) weighing

these courses of action, and (A) making the choice.“ (A)

But, it is not enough to learn the technique for making
decisions. Information about what is being decided is essential.
Discussing decision making in relation to effective management,

Paolucci says, ”The prerequisites of effective management (sound

decisions and effective execution of these) demands both

involvement of persons concerned in determining the solution

plus relevant and accurate information.” (5) Gross says that in
order to manage successfully“. . knowledge about each resource
is necessary.” (6) Paolucci and O'Brien spell out the need for
information in effective decision making clearly when they say:

The mere recognition of a choice-making situation and

some possible alternatives is not sufficient grounds

for making an intelligent decision. The alternatives

must be balanced one against another to determine which
An effort

will lead to the greatest satisfactions.
must be made to predict the future consequences of each

alternative, which entails knowing the possible outcome

of each course of action. The more knowledge an
individual has the greater his potential for accurate

prediction. (7)

It has been said, “Information is not wisdom, but knowledge used

for thinking.” (3)

Another aspect of information is Glen Johnson's cost-risk

The idea implies a decision maker may find himself in one

idea.
of several situations according to the amount of information

he has for making a decision. Paolucci and O'Brien interpret

Johnson's idea like this:

I. When present knowledge seems sufficient and more

knowledge is apparently not worth the cost of
acquisition, one is in a risk situation. . . .

2. A learning situation arises when action being
considered is postponed until more knowledge is

gathered. . . .
3. An inaction or no action situation exists when what
one knows is insufficient to warrant positive action,
yet the effort required to gain more knowledge is
apparently not worthwhile. . . .

A. In a forced-action situation, outside influences
compel an individual to act even though his existing
state of knowledge is inadequate and he realizes that
more knowledge would be worth acquiring. (7)

Decision making is barren without action; action involves courage.

Having planned one must risk one's convictions in an act. (3)

The problem, howeven lies in knowing when enough information has

been gathered to minimize the risk.
For many years the Cooperative Extension Service has been a

it's primary function as

leader in informal adult education.

in the Smith Lever Extension Act is: ”To aid in the

stated
diffusion among the people of the United States useful and

practical information on subjects related to agriculture and

home economics and to encourage the application of the same.” (8)

 

 

One of the aims of the Michigan Consumer Marketing Infor-

mation (CM|*) program of the Cooperative Extension Service IS

to improve the economic literacy of consumers by developing a
basic understanding of the roles played by various marketing

functions in the overall food marketing system.

With this objective in mind, plans were made to develop a

series, maybe as many as l2 to l5 packaged, self-contained
consumer education slide programs. These would be made available
to the CMI staff as well as to others who are concerned with

consumer education.
The first such kit developed was Ads Add Up. The response

in other states pointed out the interest

 

from consumer educators
in and need for this type of consumer education material.

Because slide programs were a new type of effort for the CMI

program, it was felt that an evaluation of one of the slide
programs was needed before proceeding with the development of

the complete series.
Evaluation has become an important part of Extension

Its importance is emphasized in a study

programs everywhere.
The authors say;

of a consumer marketing program in Missouri.

The findings of this study further demonstrate the
feasibility and the desirability of incorporating
systematic evaluation into the planning and execution

*Henceforth referred to as the CMI program.

In a very real sense,

of an educational program.
carrying on such programs requires systematic and

continuous evaluation of the situation, methods
used, and program content and end results. (9)
Recognizing the importance of evaluation, the CMI staff

deveIOped guidelines for evaluation soon after its program was

initiated in I95A. These guidelines formed the basis for this

study. (l0)

Purpose of Study
This research was designed to evaluate Ads Add Up, A Look at

 

Food Advertising, a consumer education slide program developed
by the Michigan CMI staff at Michigan State University. Its

purpose is to gain some insight into professional use of, and

satisfaction with, packaged slide programs as a means of

conducting consumer education programs. This information should
prove useful in program planning for those responsible for
Consumer Food Marketing Programs as well as those concerned with

consumer education in general.

Objective of Study
The objective of this study was to evaluate an informational

teaching technique (Ads Add Up slide program and related
material) as to its implications for Cooperative Extension
programs and other educational organizations working in consumer

education, by seeking the Opinion of professionals who have
used this material. Hopefully, information obtained from this

study will be useful in deveIOpment of future slide programs.

 

P I 1
RI! Ahh
(I,

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Consumer Economics Literature
According to Troelstrup, food management is ”. . . one of

the most important jobs in the home. The health and happiness

of the family are directly dependent on the skill and infor-

mation used in the kitchen and in the market place. The family

pocketbook is affected tOO. because food is the largest single

expense most families have in their budgets.” (ll)

Gordon and Lee. spell out the responsibilities of the

consumer as follows:

A primary responsibility of consumers is to be aware
of their role and function in the economy . . . . A

second consumer responsibility is to perform
effectively. This requires training and knowledge as

well as independence of judgement and action. Consumers
have an important job to do and must work at it
conscientiously if they are to do it well. (l2)

”Consumerism,” consumer education and consumer economics

have come to the forefront in the U.S. political and educational

arenas in the last ten years. Better educated consumers,

instant communications, mass marketing of consumer products, as

well as the ebb and flow of consumer advocates on the scene have

all contributed to the stirring of consumer awareness. President

Kennedy's awareness of consumer concerns resulted in his setting

 

with

forth a bill of Consumer Rights (l3) and appointment of a

Consumer Advisory Council. President Johnson in January I96A,

appointed Esther Peterson the first presidential advisor on

consumer affairs. Her first activity was to travel the

country setting up consumer meetings to hear consumer complaints.

Mrs. Peterson was followed by Betty Furness and then by Virginia

Knauer, who now holds that position. In the meantime, Ralph

Nader, with his crew of ”raiders” arrived on the scene as a

new voice of the consumer. Mr. Nader has conducted investigations

of many industries as well as government agencies, charging many

inadequacies in both business and government which adversely

affect consumers.
With encouragement from government and others, consumers

have begun to make themselves heard, and as they become vocal

in the marketplace it is ever more apparent that they do not
understand the economics Of our marketing system. Recent
attendance at a consumer dialogue in Detroit, sponsored by
industry as an Opportunity for businessmen in the food field to

talk to a group of consumers, and at other dialogues, conducted

by the Michigan CMI staff, revealed how uninformed consumers

are in many areas. For instance, some consumers in the Detroit

dialogue (IA) thought that retail grocers averaged fifty cents

out of every dollar sold as net profit. Only one out of eleven

at this dialogue came close to the one to two cent actual profit

I:
‘F‘

She said three cents net profit from each dollar sold.

figure.
it is no wonder during the

If these women were at all typical,
boycotts of l966 and again during the beef boycotts in I969,

that women were making unrealistic demands.

At the same Detroit dialogue in answer to the question:
”Would you be willing to pay more for groceries if you could

have better service?", all ll answered no but most felt that

the stores could provide more and better service without

increasing prices -- again unrealistic.

In answer to the question: ”Do you think you would be

interested in a course on how to become a better shopper?”, all

ll said yes which indicates a conscious need for consumer

information.
Not only do consumers need information, there is an indica-

tion that many of those who impart information to the consumer

lack economic background in their college work and feel they

need better sources of consumer economic information. This was

pointed out in a study of high school home economics teachers

and women Extension agents in Montana. The authors make the

following statements regarding the findings of their study:

The majority of the home economists teaching consumer
economics had had little actual course work while in
college to help them adequately understand the basic

laws of economics.

 

:1 .I El!

 

ID

The results of the questionnaires indicate that
36 percent of the home economists call upon the
food store manager as a resource person to assist

them in teaching consumer economics; 27 percent
l5 percent, the Extension family

named bankers,
ll percent, the Extension marketing )
l5

economist;
Specialist; and l2 percent, food processors.

Those who use commercial sources of information (about 50

percent) felt that it was biased, but that ”. . . it was more

current than most available materials on consumer economics and
marketing research.” (IS)

The home economics Extension agent and high school

teacher teaching consumer economics feel poorly
57 percent of

prepared to do this job adequately:
the respondents rated themselves as average or

below average in their degree of competency in

this area. Approximately three out of four respon-
dents wanted information in the following areas;
installment buying and cost of credit, new products

available to the consumer, seasonal sales, and
managing the food dollar. (l5)

If home economics teachers and home economics Extension agents
in Montana are at all representative of those in other parts of

the United States, then these groups indeed need in-depth,

unbiased consumer education materials to aid them in classroom

teaching as well as in informal adult education situations.

Qgcision Makingiand Management Literature
Decision making has been called the ”crux” of management.

(I6) Paolucci agrees by saying, ”The key factor in 'making

things happen' rather than lletting things happen' is conscious,

ll

deliberate choice-making.” (l7) In this statement Paolucci
points out that decisions can be, and are made at the subconscious
level, but it is only when they are made at the conscious level
that they are managerial in nature. The writer believes that
decisions made at the conscious level without the information
and understanding needed to make an intelligent choice may be
little better than ones made at the subconscious level. With
this in mind, Troelstrup's writing on consumer buying decisions
is of interest. He says, “In reviewing the studies of how
consumers behave as buyers, . . . one is squck by the feeling
that much, if not most, buying is routine. Only when a major
purchase is contemplated -- a TV set or a house -- do consumers
indulge in serious conscious decision making before the actual
purchase." (ll) And yet it has been estimated by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that a homemaker could save from six
to ten percent on her food bill if she takes advantage of
specials offered by grocery stores. (l8)

Gordon and Lee go even further by saying, “The buyer who
never shOps around foregoes savings of IO to 30 percent in
food purchases and up to IOO percent on other commodities.” (l2)
At another point they say, ”A typical shopper could cut her
food bill by 25 percent by shrewder shopping. This could amount

to $300 a year or more.” (l2)

 

 

 

 

'|
\i
v

(I)

\‘A.
I“,

‘ c
I..

I
(In
’1‘.

(I1

III
I'll
( I

I. ‘
v“

I '1
h .
u. I
g I
‘I

I2

Troelstrup agrees that there are substantial savings to
be made by saying, ”Any alert shopper can save from ID to 20
percent by seeking bargains widely available at most competitive
supermarkets.” (ll) One way he suggests consumers can do this
is by taking advantage of shOpping the food ads for specials
before going to the supermarket. He says comparing food costs
before marketing is both economical and timesaving.

It is doubtful that homemakers could make a $200 to $300
savings, which shrewd food shopping seems to Offer, on most of
the larger items for which they go through a conscious decision
making process. Yet, according to the Progressive 952225, Colonial
Store Study, ”The typical woman shOpper reads food store ads,
Inn strangely, rarely buys the advertised specials." (l2)

In the Detroit dialogue mentioned earlier, nine out of II home-
makers read food ads regularly but only five out of the nine
said they used them to plan their shopping. (IA)

Troelstrup has characterized some consumers as ”good”
routine shoppers and some as "bad.” ”A good routine shopper
Iflans with care, is more discriminating, brings more information
into use, shOps around intelligently, and reads labels more
carefully than a bad shOpper. The buying skills of good shoppers
must have been learned sometime, . . . however habitual these
skills may have become. Perhaps one may correctly assume that
many, if not most, good shoppers receive their earliest consumer

education from their parents.” (II)

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘J

‘r
A:

It!
I'll

(I

II!
(I.
(I)

l3

Troelstrup goes on to say that decision making takes place,
but implies that much of it may be done, as Paolucci suggests,
at the subconsicous level. He also states that "sounder
decision making could be encouraged . . . if effective consumer
education were taught in schools and colleges.” (ll)

Dr. Joseph Uhl of Purdue University, (l9) in reporting to
economists on his studies of buying, commented recently that
American education is producing scientific geniuses and
illiterate consumers, however, the need for consumer education
has finally made itself heard. In I968, the Vocational Education
amendment was passed and funds were earmarked to support consumer
education in public schools.

Reporting on the passage of this amendment at the I970
National Agricultural Outlook Conference, Rose Mary Bengel
said, "In today's complex society, consumer education is viewed
as a universal need. Consumer education programs in the public
schools can reach a majority Of the population, and can therefore
manmch to meet this need. Consumer education programs in their
"any forms must help peOple to comprehend and cOpe with problems
CW consumption by equipping them with tools to make wise
decisions and choices.” (20)

This amendment should improve the situation for consumers
in the future but the consumers of today still need information.
ltis with today's consumers in mind that we look for better ways
Hicommunlcate and to extend limited staffs to reach as many

consumers as possible.

H

H

Eli

III
.\-
E

IA

Audio Visual Literature

Most of the research on the use of slides and films has
been done in the classroom or other formal training situations
where at least part of the controls needed for valid research
could be met.

It is assumed that the findings of this research would also
apply to use of slides in an informal adult education situation.

The Encyclopedia of Educational Research reviewed the
research on filmstrips and slides. Selected portions of this
review considered to be relevant to this study are presented

here. According to the author of this section:

Filmstrips and slides are among the most economical of
AV materials; therefore, their effectiveness as compared
with the more expensive motion picture has frequently
been studied.

Early studies by Brown (2i), James (22), McClusky (23),

and McClusky and McClusky (2A), comparing filmstrips

and slides with the silent motion picture found in

general that the prOJectea still pictures were about

isleffective in teaching factual information as silent
l ms.

Later studies comparing filmstrips and slides with
sound motion pictures supported these earlier

In ngs. Goodman (25) compared sound and silent
filmstrips with sound and silent motion pictures in
teaching four safety topics to Grades VI and VII
students finding no significant differences among
the four methods when tested a month after the
lessons. (26)

In another article by the same author is found the following

research reported:

l5

Stampolis and Sewell (27) compared the use of four

filmstrips with lectures in teaching economic concepts

to university students. In only one of the four cases

was the filmstrip method significantly superior to

the lecture method, no differences existing in the

remaining three cases. However, every student felt

that the filmstrip on business cycles, which

produced the superior gain, was the best filmstrip

of the four used. (28)

In general, the research indicates that well designed slide
presentations can be an effective and inexpensive method of

getting information to people.

Communication Literature

In the past it has been assumed that, given information for
making choices, people would use this information to make
rational choices. Like many other educational programs, the
Consumer Marketing program has assumed this role of information
giver. It relies heavily on mass and other specialized media
to reach consumers.

Research on decision practices raises some question as to
whether people actually use such information to maximize
cmtcomes. At one time it was thought that the mass media were
all powerful -- that one need only push a program through the
nedia and everyone was influenced. This has been called the
”hypodermic needle” model of communication. (29) Empirical

research soon proved how difficult it is to ”convert" people

l6

by means of mass media alone. Research also reveals that
people are selective about their mass media exposure usually
selecting information which reinforces the point of view they
already hold. (30)

With the study, The People's Choice, (3i) came the
development of the idea of personal influence or the two-step
flow Of communication and the coining of the term ”opinion
leader.” Opinion leaders are defined as those individuals
from whom Others seek advice.

In a review of research, Rogers (32) set forth the following
generalizations concerning Opinion leaders. Opinion leaders
conform more closely to social system norms than the average
member of society. There is little overlapping among the
different types Of Opinion leadership. Opinion leaders use more
impersonal, technically accurate, and cosmOpoIite sources of
information than do their followers. Opinion leaders are more
cosmOpoIite (in general) than their followers. Opinion leaders
have more social participation, higher social status and are
more innovative than their followers. In addition, Lazarsfeld
and Menzel state “they are likely to have the strongest interest
in the subject matter concerned." (33)

The literature further reveals the interplay between mass
Redia and personal influence on decision making. A good deal

of research has been done on the role of personal influence

l7

or the two-step flow of communication. The findings of these
studies are almost as varied as the type and number Of studies.
For instance, evidence indicates that Opinion leaders seek
advice even more than followers. (3A) It has been found that
Opinion leaders have Opinion leaders themselves. (35) Some
evidence suggests that the flow of information may operate
directly from media to ultimate consumer, rather than through
an opinion leader, (36) while still other evidence suggests that
when the inactive segment is omitted, leaders and followers are
equal in knowledge, mass media exposure, etc. and tend to share
opinions rather than influence. (37)

Paolucci found that the teachers were ”more influenced by
their past teaching experience or by alternatives first presented
to them by other home economics teachers than they were by
formal education or alternatives Offered by experts or
administrators.” (7) She says, ”This suggests that past‘
experience and persons with whom we relate on a face-to-face
basis influence us more than impersonal sources when choosing
among alternatives.” (7)

On the other hand, in looking at decision making from the
point of view of the adOption of a new idea, research shows
that the most innovative, or the first to adopt a new idea, use
different information sources than the majority. Beal (38)

found for all stages in the adoption process (awareness,

l8

information, application, trial and adoption) that innovators

used government agency sources as their most important source

of information. While Iaggards, or the last to adopt, used

informal sources (neighbors, friends and relatives) as the

most

important sources of information at all stages of the

adoption process.

this

here

On the subject of information sources, Klapper says:

The source of a communication, or, to be more exact,
the source as conceived by the audience, has been
shown to influence the persuasive efficacy of the
communication itself. . . . Audiences have been
shown, for example to respond particularly well to
Specific sources because they considered them of
high prestige, highly credible, expert, trustworthy,
close to themselves, or just plain likable. (30)

While Klapper is talking about mass media, it seems that

idea of credibility of information source would apply

as well.

In commenting on a related subject, specialized sources of

information Klapper says:

Highly specialized sources, directed to special
interest, occupation or age groups, and thus not
in a true sense mass media, have been observed to
be especially persuasive for their particular

audiences.

The effectiveness of such specialized publications

is probably increased by the fact that exposure

to them is likely to be highly selective and in
accord with group norms and interests. It is quite
possible that persuasiveness may even be correlated~
with degree of Specialization, i.e., that very
highly specialized publications are still more

l9

persuasive than the ordinary run of specialized

publications. (30)

This idea seems to have a direct relationship to Ads Add
Up and other such specialized programs used as an information

source.

FOOd Marketinq Literature

A search of the literature did not reveal many pieces of
research in the area of food marketing, however, in those located
the role Of personal influence in marketing decisions was
considered important.

A study by M. B. Minden, (39) found that talking with
neighbors and friends was the most important source of food
information, while Katz and Lazanfield (35) found in the Decatur
study that personal influence played a more frequent and more
effective role in decision making about food marketing than
any of the mass media. Studies by Lewin (A0) have demonstrated
that group decision making was more effective in getting home-
nmkers to change their food buying patterns than individual or
lecture methods tested. Lewin also stressed the importance of
the homemaker as the gatekeeper governing the channels which
Infing fOod to the family. He discussed the conflicts which

arise as a result of making food buying decisions; SUCh conflict,

20

no doubt, brings about the seeking out of opinion leaders for
advice and discussion of the matter.

Whether there is a two-step flow, or a multi-step flow as
some research seems to indicate, the importance of personal
influence in the realm of food marketing has been demonstrated.
Research also provides some evidence that many persons who are
associatedlwith and communicate directly with expert agencies,
such as the Cooperative Extension Service, tend to be
influential in interpersonal communication networks on the
topic in question. (AI) If this is the case, perhaps those
who attend Extension meetings are in fact Opinion leaders, some
cfi whom will have a wide and others a more narrow range of

influence.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Research Method Used

Behavioral scientists generally recognize three measurable
effects of communication...change in knowledge, change in
attitude, and change in behavior. The least difficult of the
three to measure is change in knowledge. To do this the
researcher must give the participants a pre-test, expose them
to the message, and then test to see if there is a change in
knowledge level.

Ideally, this study should have evaluated change in level
of knowledge of participants in sessions where Ads Add Up_was
used. Because the participants were scattered all over the
country, the cost in time and money Of this type Of research
would far outweigh its value. Considering limited time and funds,
and the kind of information wanted, the most feasible method
seemed to be a mailed opinionnaire to evaluate the opinions of
those who had used the Ads Add Up_kit in consumer education

P rog rams .

DEyeIOpment of Opinionnaire

An Opinionnaire was deveIOped to evaluate professional use

0f and satisfaction with, the Ads Add Up slide kit.

2l

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘-u

in.

22

Each kit contained:*

5] color slides

IO copies Advertisin Adds U bulletin

2 copies Meat Ads Bulletin

2 copies oo in the Light of the Law bulletin
l c0py slide script - with supplemental

material in back

I copy quiz in back of script booklet

In addition, there was an informational brochure announcing
the availability of the kit. All this was contained in a
two-pocket folder, at a cost of $l0.00. A synchromatic sound
tape was made available at a later date, but this was an
Optional purchase and not a part of the kit as such. Each
purchaser was notified of the availability of the tape.

The Opinionnaire was pre-tested twice. The first pre-test
consisted of three users of the kit answering the questionnaire
fifllowed by a personal interview. For the second. ten
questionnaires were mailed to users, eight were returned. Minor
<flmnges were made after each pre-test.

The opinionnaire was designed to get information regarding
satisfaction of the user for each element of the kit._ This was

done so as to identify the least satisfactory elements which

then could either be improved or eliminated from subsequent

slide prerams .

\

fl

. *See Appendix for a copy of all written material contained
'0 the kit.

23

Satisfaction Score Development

The following nine questions related to the slide presenta:

ethgd were used to develop a score to indicate Method

Satisfactigg.

_

Question
Number

3

l3
lA

l6
I7

22

Did the_Ags Add Up promotional material describe
the kit meaningffilly?

Was the material presented in an interesting manner?
00 you feel the Ads Add U slide program makes its
points about the roIe of good advertising with
enough impact?

Was there enough resource information in the kit

to meet your needs in preparing to present

Ags Add Up?

Was the number of slides adequate?

If you used the Ags Add Up slides, how would you
rate the length of the sTTde presentation?

Did you like the style of art work on the slides?

How would you rate the technical quality (color
quality, etc.) of the slides?

Rate the ease of use Of the slide kit.

Because the field of possible responses varied for the

questions used to develop the Method Satisfaction score, the

data from questions IA, l7 and 22 was compressed into the three

reSponse pattern of the majority of questions used to develop

this score.

were recoded as follows so the three and five pattern responses

could be combined for an Overall Satisfaction score.

New
Original Code
0 = O
l = I
Questions with a field of five were recoded:. N.A. = 2
2 = 3
3 = A
New
Original Code
= 0
Questions with a field of three were recoded: N.A. = i
3 =

The following five questions related to the slide program

content were used to develop a score to indicate Content

Satisfaction.

Question
Number

9 Rate the quality of the following information sources
in the kit as to relevant, factual information:

a. Advertisin Adds U leaflet
Em
C. £903 in the Light of the Law leaflet

'8 How would you rate the appropriateness of the slide
illustrations to the points made in the script?

'9 How would you rate the content of the slide script
in regard to accurate, factual information on the
role of food advertising in the marketing system?

25

-Responses to the preceding IA questions were recoded so
they could be added together to give an Overall Satisfaction
score. An arbitrary decision was made to divide the scores
into thirds as nearly as possible with the overlap going into
the middle group to give three satisfaction groupings; Clearly
Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied and Clearly Dissatisfied.

These satisfaction scores were cross tabulated with the following
questions to see if there was a relationship between satis-

faction and other aspects of the Ads Add Up kit.

 

Question
Number

20 How would you rate the information in the Ads Add
Up slide kit as to its relevance in teaching
management and food buying decisions?

25 Rate the slide program teaching technique in
comparison with each of the teaching techniques
listed below:

a. Lecture .
b. Lecture-demonstration
c. Discussion
d. Motion picture
26 In your opinion does the information in Ads Add Up

 

benefit participants by:

a. Improving buying practices

b. Improving decision making

c. Entertaining

d. Learning about the function of advertising

26

Questionable Data

Question Two caused some confusion for some respondents.

Several thought the code numbers in parenthesis represented an

answer range and merely checked their answer rather than writing

in a number. This confusion occurred because the opinionnaire

was pre-tested without code numbers.

 

 

 

2. With what kind of audience Number Average Check groups
did you use the Ads Add Up_ of times Number material is
slide program? shown in groups suitable for
-Extension Leader training .___(3-A) ‘___(5-7) .___(8)
-Extension Club meeting ___j9-I0) ___(II-I3) ___(IA)
-Church group ___(l5-l6) ___(I7-l9) (20)
-Women's Service Club ‘___(2l-22) .___(23-25) ——_(26)
-Men's Service Club ___(27-28) ___X29-3I) __—(32)

In classroom: .——'
-Jr. High School ___(33-3£i) __(35-37) _____(38)
-High School ___(39-Ao) ____(AI‘-A3) ___(LiLi)
-College .___(45-A6) .___(47-A9) ___XSO)
OTHERS: specify
___(Sl-52) __(53-55) ___(56)
____(S7-58) ___(59-6I)' __(62)

The data from Questions Two was recoded as follows:

. For those who gave a number answer, that number was used.
For those who checked their answers, the check was coded
to the highest number in the Number of Times Shown column
while the check in Average NumEer in Group colfimn was
recoded to the middle number.

Example: If a respondent checked the (3-A) category in the

Number of Times Shown column, this was recoded to four times

shown -- and if they checked the (5-7) category in the Average

flgmber in Gregg column, this was recoded as six.

27

The portion of Question Two regarding suitability of
material for various audiences was not usable and all the data
from Question Two are in serious question.

It should be noted that data presented in table form may

not always add to ICC percent due to rounding error.

male.

Ads Add Up slide programswere sold to individuals, insti-
tutions and businesses across the United States. One large
order came from Cornell University's Consumer Marketing program.
Cornell purchased 6i sets which were in turn sold to New York
County Extension Offices. Because this was a concentrated
effort as Opposed to the sale and distribution of the other
Idts, it was decided to compare this group's evaluation of
Ads Add Up with the rest of the sample. Respondents from New
York were therefore coded so that they could be separated from
the rest of the sample. Questionnaires were sent to every
purchaser on our list for whom we had-an individual's name. A
list of names and addresses was obtained from Cornell for those
individuals who had purchased kits in New York. A total of I90
opinionnnaires Were sent out; IA8 or 77.9 percent were returned
with only 96 or 50.8 percent of these usable. Percentage of

returns ran somewhat higher for the New York group. See

Table l.

=

 

28

Table l. Opinionnaire response

 

 

 

TotaT‘ Percent

Number Number Percent Returned

Sent Returned Returned And Usable
New York 63 55 87.2 58.7
Other l27 93 73.2 A6.A
Total Sample I90 IA8 77.9 50.8

 

The first letter and Opinionnaire: mailed July I, I969,
brought 73 responses,the second letter and opinionnaire mailed
June l7, I969, drew 6A replies and the final postcard mailed
July 28, I969, pulled ll responses. See Table 2 for details of
various reasons returns were not usable. A self-addressed
return envelOpe which required no postage, was furnished with

the two letters. See copies of this material in the Appendix.

Table 2. Breakdown of opinionnaire returns

W
W

 

 

Number Returned Reasons Not Usable
'NO. Did“ Staff
Total Not No. Addressee On Not Use Too
Retgrned Usable Usable Unknown Leave Use Only Late
N.Y. 55 IB 37 l2 0 A 2 O
Other 93 3A 59 8 3 I7 A 2
Total 1A8 52 96 20 3 21 6 2

 

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Respondents Occupation

Tabulation of respondents by occupation reveals, as
expected, that an overwhelming majority were employed by the
Cooperative Extension Service.

Of the 7l.9 percent associated with Extension, 5A.2 percent
were county Home Economics Extension Agents who work directly
hfith women's groups and other groups in the community.

The next largest group was teachers,with College Teachers
representing IA.6 percent of total respondents; followed by
Extension Marketing Specialists with IO.A percent.

Of the 37 New York respondents, there were 35, or 9A.6
percent, Extension County Home Economics personnel, one Extension
Home Economics Specialist, and one food business. In the Other
group, Extension personnel also made up the largest percentage
of respondents with 55.9 percent. Of this group, only 28.8
percent were County Extension Home Economists. The remainder
of the Other group was quite different from the New York sample.
See Table 3 for specific breakdown by occupation for Total

Sample, New York and Other.

29

30

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_0.00. :.m 0.0 m.. m.0. :.m m.. m.m~ n.. n.. n.. m.w m.m~ ucoucom
mm N J . 0. N . J. .. .. . m m. LooE32
Losuo
0.00. m.~ m.~ 0.:m ucoueom
mm . . mm LooE:z
xLo> 3oz
0.00. ..N ~.m 0.. :.0. ..N 0.. 0.:. 0.. 0.. 0.. m.m N.:m ucouLom
0m N m . 0. N . J. . . . 0 mm LooE32
o.aEmm .OHOP
O I... E S. p. S 3 nl U- 0- S 3
u. 0 A a . e I. . 6 J a n
a p. a o 1 i. u. a o O
J J I. 8 a 9 U. 3 I. 3
O. 1. e 3 5 I. 1. E A
S S '0 u P UI J '0
0 II. S o O S
U .4 w .4
no i. o.
S I.
.4 J
.mHoh Losuo mmocMmzm .uxz mucumuzou em_E0coum
.uxm OEOI .uXu

 

 

 

 

co.umozooo >0 mucoocoamoL mo ucoucoa ocm consaz

.m 2%...

3l

lfinds of Audiences

In view of the make-up of the sample, it is not surprising
to see the kinds of audiences with which the slide program was
teed. In the New York sample, 73 percent reported using the
slides in Extension Leader Training or Extension Club meetings
iwfile only A9.l percent of the Other group used the slides with

Extension groups. See Table A for the breakdown of other kinds

of audiences.

Table A. Kind of audience

 

Total New York Other
Sample
% % %
Extension Leader Training 27.l 2A.3 28.8
Extension Club Meeting 3l.3 A8.6 20.3
Church Group 2.1 5.A 0
Women's Service Club l5.6 27.0 8.5
Men's Service Club A.2 0 6.8
Junior High 8.3 l3.5 5.l
Hi h School lA.6 l6.2 13.6
C0 lege l6.7 5.A 23.7
Other 23.9 I0.8 32.2

 

_atisfaction Scores

As mentioned in Chapter Two, nine questions were selected
to build a Method Satisfaction score, and five questions were
selected which would represent Content Satisfaction. See

Tables A0 and Al in the Appendix for how these questions were

answered.

32

Satisfaction scores were tabulated for Method, Content,
and Overall for the Total Sample of 96 respondents as well as
for the New York group of 37 respondents and the Other group
which represents 59 respondents.

The score possibility for Method Satisfaction using the
nine questions was from I to 36. The score range for Content
Satisfaction using five questions was from I to 20. The
combination of these two for Overall Satisfaction had a score

possibility of from I to 56.

Method Satisfaction

With score possibilities for Method Satisfaction ranging
from I to 36, the Total Sample range fell between A and 36.
In the Clearly Dissatisfied group there was a very wide range,
from A the lowest, to l8--a span of IA points. While the span
in the Clearly Satisfied group was only A points,77.l percent
of the respondents fell into the Clearly Satisfied category
and only A.2 percent into the Clearly Dissatisfied group.
Compared with the Other group, the New York respondents were very
satisfied with the method. Their lowest score was 28 as compared
to a low score of A in the Other group. No New Yorkers were
Clearly Dissatisfied with the method used in Ads Add Up and
83.8 percent of this group was Clearly Satisfied compared to

72.9 percent of the Other Group.

33

Table 5. Method satisfaction score distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scores Total Sample New York Other
No. % No. % No. %

Clearly A l I.O l l.7

Dissatisfied I6 I l.O l l.7

l8 2 2.l 2 3.A

Sifitotal A A.l A 6.8

Moderately 22 l 1.0 l l.7

Satisfied 26 3 3.l 3 5.I

28 7 7.3 3 8.l A 6.8

30 _7 7.3 3 8.l A 6.8

Subtotal l8 18.77 6’ l6,;_ l2 20.5

Clearly 32 20 20.8 7 18.9 l3 22.0

Satisfied 3A 6 6.3 A lO.8 2 3 A

_36 A8 50.0 20 5A.] 28 A7.5

SubtotaTI 773' 77.I 3T7 83.8 A3 72.9

Total 26 393.9 37 loo.o 59 loo.i
9 questions,‘highest score: 6

Content Satisfaction

Score possibilities for Content Satisfaction were from I to
20. For the Total Sample the range was from 2 to 20. Once again,
there were no Clearly Dissatisfied respondents in the New York
group. The higher satisfaction of the New York respondents is I
clearly evident when they are compared with the Other group.
Since all the Clearly Dissatisfied respondents fell into the
Other group, there were l3.5 percent Clearly Dissatisfied in
this group. Of the New York group, 5A percent were Moderately
Satisfied with Content, compared to 55.8 percent in the Other

Group, while A5.9 percent of the New York respondents were

 

3A

Clearly Satisfied, only 30.5 percent of the Other group were

Clearly Satisfied with Content.

Table 6. Content satisfaction score distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scores Total Sample New York Other
No. % No. % No %
Clearly 2 l 1.0 I 1.7
Dissatisfied 7 l 1.0 l 1.7
8 2 2.1 2 3.A
9 A A.2 A 6.8
Subtotal 8 853 8 13.6
Moderately ll 3 3.1 3 5.1
Satisfied 12 7 7.3 2 5.A 5 8.5
l3 7 7.3 2 5.A 5 8.5
1A 7 7.3 3 8.1 A 6.8
15 18 18.8 7 18.9 11 18.6
I6 _]_I 1.145 6 16.2 5 8.8
Hibtotal 53 55 3 20 571.0 33 56.3
Clearly 17 9 9.A A 10.8 5 8.5
Satisfied 18 6 6.3 6 16.2
19 13 13.5 A 10.8 9 15.3
_E 20 _] 7.3 3 8.1 A 6.8
m 35 36. 5‘" 12" ""Es'is l8 30.6
Total 96 lOO.1 373 99.9 59 100.5
,questions,highest score: 20

93erall Satisfaction

Score possibilities for Overall Satisfaction, a combination
of the Method and Content scores, were from I to 56. For the
Total Sample, 57.3 percent were Clearly Satisfied while only

10.A percent were Clearly Dissatisfied. Since there were no

35

Clearly Dissatisfied New Yorkers, all of the Dissatisfied
respondents fell into the Other group with a total of 17 percent
of this group Clearly Dissatisfied.

Of the New Yorkers, 37.8 percent were Moderately Satisfied
compared to 28.8 percent in the Other group, and 62.2 percent
of the New Yorkers compared to 5A.2 percent of the Other group
were Clearly Satisfied overall.

As has been seen, the New York group noted their satis-
faction with the kit much higher than the Other group. An
explanation for this higher rating may be in the fact that the

Ads Add Up slide program was purchased by the Cornell Cooperative

 

Extension Service and recommended as a state-wide program.
Because the program had the endorsement of the Cornell state
level staff, giving it higher credibility, respondents may have
been influenced by this endorsement in their evaluation of the
kit. Klapper's (30) ideas about specialized sources of infor-
mation, mentioned in Chapter Two seem to be applicable here as
well.

In looking at Overall Satisfaction for the Total Sample, it
is interesting to note the contrast between Method and Content
Satisfaction. Over twice as many respondents (77.1 percent)
were Clearly Satisfied with the Method used than were Clearly
Satisfied with Content (36.5 percent). Conversely, twice as

many (8.3 percent) were Clearly Dissatisfied with the Content

I I
Air

 

 

 

 

36

Table 7, Overall satisfaction score distribution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Scores Total Sample New York Other
No. % No. % No. %
l7 1 1.0 l 1.7
18 1 1.0 1 1.7
26 1 1.0 1 1.7
Clearly 27 l 1.0 l 1.7
Dissatisfied 29 1 1.0 l 1.7
36 l 1.0 1 1.7
37 l 1.0 l 1.7
38 3 3.1 3 5.1
Subtotal mo min IO TLO
39 2 2.1 2 3.A
A1 2 2.1 2 3.A
A2 1 1.0 1 2.7
Moderately A3 5 5.2 “I 2.7 A 6.8
Satisfied A5 3 3.1 -2 5.A I 1.7
A6 2 2.1 2 5.A
A7 6 6.3 2 5.A A 6.8
A8 10 lO.A 6 16.2 A 6.8
mtotal 31 3273 M 37.8 17 28.;
A9- A A.2 A ~ 6.8
50 6 6.3 2 5.A A , 6.9
51 15 15.6 7 18.9 8 13.6
Clearly 52 6 6.3 3 8.1 3 5.1
Satisfied 53 A A.2 2 5.A 2 3.A
5A 5 5.2 5 13.5
55 10 IO.A 3 8.1 7 11.9
56 5 5.2 1 2.1_ A 6.8
§_btotaT’ _§B’ _§7.A 23’ 62.1 32 SA.A
Total 96 99.8 37 99.9. 59 100.3
HiquestTOns,highest score: 56

37

Table 8. Respondent method, content and overall satisfaction
with kit

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly Moderately Clearly Total
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Across
% % % %

Method Total Sample 77.1 18.7 A.2 lO0.0
Satisfaction New York 83.8 16.2 0 100.0
Other 72.9 20.9 6.8 100.6

Content Total Sample 36.5 55.2 8.3 100.0
Satisfaction New York A5.9 5A.0 O 99.9
Other 30.5 56.8 -13.5 100.8

Overall Total Sample 57.3 32.3 10.A 100.0
Satisfaction New York 62.1 37.8 0 199.9
Other 5A.2 28.8 17.0 100.0

 

38

than were Dissatisfied with Method (A.2 percent). This difference
is, of course, very evident when looking at the data for the New
York and Other groups.

Only 10.A percent of all respondents were Clearly Dissatis-
fied with the kit. It should be noted, however, that the sample
may be biased in the direction of the favorable reactions since
at least two respondents wrote notes indicating negative
reactions, but failed to fill out the opinionnaire so that these
negative reactions could be tabulated.

The wide contrast in satisfaction between Method and Content
would seem to indicate that professionals think the CMI program
has found an effective method Of presenting information, but

that improvements need to be made in the content.

Sptisfaction by Occupation

Method, Content, and Overall Satisfaction scores were
tabulated by occupation for the Total Sample. As mentioned
earlier, County Extension Home Economists were by far the
largest group of purchasers. For Overall Satisfaction, out of
the 52 County Extension Home Economists, 35 or 67.3 percent were
Clearly Satisfied, 28.8 percent were Moderately Satisfied and
3.8 percent were Clearly Dissatisfied. The contrast between

satisfaction of Method and Content of the kit is again striking.

See Tables 9, IO, and 11.

39

 

 

 

 

o m m.mm om .oooe
c.0m _ o o 0.0m _ _.N N tozoo
o o 0.00. N o o _.N N om_eocoom .o<
o o o.0m N o.oo m N.m m omoc_msm oooe
o o o.oo_ _ o o o._ _ mc_m_OEo>o<
o.oN N o.oN N o.oo o :.o_ o. .ooom .oxz .oXm
o o o o o o o o ocom< .oxz .oxN
o o 0.00. _ o o 0.. _ Eooooo_o .osom
o.mN : o.mN : m.N: o o.:_ :_ omo__oo
o o o o 0.00. _ o._ _ ;m_: .ta
o o o o 0.00. _ 0.. _ .ooeom ;o_z
o o o.oo_ _ o o o._ _ .E_o .ow oeoz .oxN
N.o_ _ o.om m m.mm N m.o o .ooom .om oeo: .oXm
m.m N m.wN m m.No m N.:m Nm .ow osoz .oXm
N .oz N .oz N .oz
.mu0u
oo_em_oomm:u oo_om_oom oo_om_oom to .oz
>.Lmo.0 >.06mcoooz >.Lmo.0 ucouLom .OHOP

co.umasooo >o co.uommm.umm ..mLo>0 .m o.omp

 

 

'Eé

A2

The College Teacher group is the next largest occupation
category with IA respondents. This was also the most dis-
satisfied group. They represented two out of four, or half of
all respondents, Clearly Dissatisfied with the Method. Five
out of the eight respondents Clearly Dissatisfied with Content
here frmn this group and on an Overall Satisfaction basis, they
represented four out of the ten respondents Clearly Dissatisfied.

In Checking to see where the College Teachers rated each
of the 1A questions used in building satisfaction scores, it
was found that this group rated the Method questions slightly
lower than the Total Sample, but it was in the Content area
where the contrast was most evident. The number of ”excellent”
ratings for Content questions was in general, much lower -- the
only aspect of content rated similar to the Total Sample rating
was the 35.7 percent who rated the script ”excellent”. The
College Teachers show a much higher percentage of ”fair” and
”poor'I ratings related to all Content questions than the Total
Sample. See Tables A0 and Al in the Appendix. It should be
noted that a high percentage of the College Teachers did not
respond to the Content questions, so there was a high percentage

in the ”no answer“ category.

It is difficult to speculate on the reason for College

Teacher dissatisfaction, however, a number of possible reasons

A3

come to mind. The one that comes to the forefront is that the

Ads Add Up kit was deveIOped by Extension personnel for use With

 

informal adult education groups and not specifically for class-
room teaching. The idea behind the kit was to acquaint audiences
with the function of food advertising, its costs, who pays for
it, and how the food buyer can make use of advertising. It is

a general overview and probably is not detailed enough for
classroom use unless other classes were devoted to the subject.
Then too, there is the time limitation of the formal classroom
which sometimes makes it difficult to set up, present, and

then have time for discussion and other activities to supplement
a slide presentation.

The third largest occupation category was Extension Marketing
Specialists with 10 respondents. Seven out of 10 respondents I
in this group were Clearly Satisfied with Method. The remaining
3 respondents were Moderately Satisfied.with Method. In
contrast, only 3 out of the 10 Marketing Specialists were Clearly

Satisfied with Content. Six were Moderately Satisfied and one

Clearly Dissatisfied with Content.

Use Made of Information in Ads Add Up
Although data on frequency of use and on average size of
audience are questionable for reasons explained in Chapter Two,

this information is included for the reader's examination.

AA

Table 12. Average audience size

 

 

Average No. Total
in Group Sample New York Other
No. No. No.
l - 20 A3 21 22
21 - A0 26 5 21
Al - 6O 6 l 5
N.A. 21 IO 11
Total 96 37 59

 

Nearly half of all respondents reported average audience
size as 20 or less, while about a third said average audience
sizes fell between 21 and A0. Only 6 respondents reported
audience sizes between A1 and 60. In general, there seems to
be a tendency toward use of Ads Add Up with small groups probably
due to Extension Club size. It is interesting that the majority
of those using the kits with audiences above 20, fell into the
Other group. Twenty-six respondents in the Other group reported

audience sizes between 21 and 60, while the New York respondents

reported only 6 larger audiences.

11.11””

 

iii

ll
I‘iu

3‘

a

A5

Table 13. Number of times Ads Add Up was shown

1

 

.___— - H‘-

 

 

 

 

No. Times Total
Shown Sample New York Other
No. No. NO.
I - 5 50 13 37
6 - 15 23. 13 10
I6 - 30 7 3 4
30 - 52 3 2 l
N.A. 13 6 7
Total 96 37 59

 

Ads Add Up was shown a total of 663 times. The New York

 

group (37 respondents) made more use of the kit, showing it
331 times, compared to 332 times shown by the Other group

(59 respondents).

Over half of all respondents used the kit 5 times or less.
A little less than a third used the kit 6 to 15 times. Only
10 respondents used the slide kit more than 15 times. Eight
respondents used the kit only 1 time, while one respondent

reported using it 52 times.

sAnother measure of the use made of the Information in the
Idt was obtained from the question: ”In what ways, besides
as a slide program, have you used the information from-Ag;

Add Up as resource material?”

The three highest uses made, for the Total Sample, were

as resource material for giving talks -- 36.5 percent, preparing

 

II

A6

news releases -- 31.3 percent, and preparing for radio programs
-- 27.1 percent. It would seem from this that the information

in Ads Add Up received a fairly wide exposure to the public

 

through mass media as well as through other types of meetings.
See Table 1A for further breakdown of use made of information

in Ads Add Up kit and contrast between New York and the Other

 

group.

Table 1A. Ways, besides as a slide program, information from
Ads Add Up was used as resource material

 

Total Sample New York Other

 

A A %
In teaching class Extension 22.9 21.6 23.7
Junior High A.2 O 6.8
High School 7.3 8.1 6.8
College 9.A 2.7 13.6
In a talk 36.5 29.7 AO.7
In a news release 31.3 35.1 28.8
In a TV program 13.5 18.9 10.2
In a radio program 27.1 35.1 22.0
Other 10.A 8.1 11.9

 

Since the New York group had a much higher satisfaction
score and because the kit was recommended for use on a state-wide
basis, it was assumed that a state-wide consumer education
project was in progress. However, in answer to the question,

”Was Ads Add Up used in a series of related lessons being

 

taught?”, only 10.8 percent of the New York group used the kit

A7

in this manner while 50.8 percent of the Other Group used the
kit in a lesson series. It would seem that respondents in the
Other group were probably seeking consumer education material
to be used in a specific way, whilethe New York group may have

used the material just because it was suggested to them.

Table 15. Respondents use of Ads Add Up in a series of
related lessons

 

 

 

 

 

——S====--
*Total
Sample New York Other
% % %

Used in series 35.A 10.8 50.8
Not used in series 59.A 86.5 A2.A
N.A. 5.2 2.7 6.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

For the reason stated above, it was also suspected that
all of the information in the kit would be used more extensively
by the New York group; however, this was not the case.

In answer to the question, “When you used_Ags Add Up
slides, did you go beyond the slide portion of the program and
discuss sections in the latter part of the script?” A higher
percentage of the Other Group, A2.A percent, made use of this
supplemental material than did the New York group with 29.7

pe I‘CEI‘I t o

A8

Table I6. Respondent use of supplemental material in script

 

 

 

 

‘TOtaT
Sample New York Other
% % %
Usedomaterial 37.5 29.7 A2.A
Did not use 38.5 A3.2 35.5
N.A. 2A.O 27.0 22.0
Total 100.0 99.9 100.0

 

In regard to use made of the quiz, the figures for the
two groups are reversed, with A8.6 percent of the New Yorkers
using the quiz compared to only 27.1 percent of the Others.
There seems to be no explanation for this reversal. The only
possible answer may lie in the fact that the Cornell State
staff may have stressed the use of the quiz and not the use
of the supplemental materials in the script; this does not,
however, explain the lower percentage who used the quiz in the

Other'group.

Table 17. Respondent use of quiz

IotaI

 

Sample New York Other
__ % % %
Used quiz 35.A A8.6 27.1
Did not use 58.3 A3.2 67.8
N.A. 6.3 8.1 5.1

__

Total . 100.0 99.9 100.0

A9

The data from two questions dealing with the interest
Ads Add Up created in other consumer education programs and the

general response of the audiences who saw Ads Add Up were again

 

not as expected, especially when viewed with Satisfaction scores
in mind.

Only 10.8 percent of the New Yorkers with their high
satisfaction scores indicated that the program created interest
in other consumer education programs. However, this may be
explained by the fact mentioned earlier that the New York group
used this as a “one shot deal“ and not as a part of a series of
lessons. This could account for some of the difference. It is
interesting to note that 10.8 percent of the New York group
used the kit in a series of related lessons and 10.8 percent
of this group :bhought it created interest in other consumer
education programs. It appears that interest created may
revolve around the amount of interest the user of the kit has
in the subject and whether they exhibit this interest to

participants.

Vii Fl if
All! A19 3‘.

Ti

 

50

Table 18. Respondents evaluation of interest kit created in
other consumer education programs designed to
create understanding of the food marketing system

 

 

 

 

Total
Sample New York Other
% % %
Created interest 2A.O 10.8 32.2
Created no interest 52.1 70.3 AO.7
N.A. T 2A.0 18.9 27.1
Total 100.1 100.0 100.0

 

On the question of rating general audience response, only
8.1 percent of the Clearly Satisfied New Yorkers said their
audiences were ”very enthusiastic,” 78.A percent I'mildly
enthusiastic,“ compared to 23.7 percent of the Other group who
said their audiences were ”very enthusiastic“ and 61.0 percent

who said they were ”mildly enthusiastic.“

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

Table 19. General response of audience
7 Totalfi_

Sample New York Other

% % %

Very enthusiastic 17.7 8.1 23.7
Mildly enthusiastic 67.7 78.A 61.0
Lacked enthusiasm 2.1 O 3.A
N.A. 12.5 13.5 11.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

In general, the respondents felt the kit was ”worth the

price paid.‘I

However, a higher percentage of the New York

group, 9A.6, felt this way compared with 78 percent of the

Other group.

 

 

 

 

Table 20. Kit worth price paid
774 TOtal

Sample New York Other
__ % % %
Worth price 83.3 9A.6 78.0
Not worth price 8.3 5.A 8.5
N.A. 8.3 O 13.6
Total 99.9 100.0 100.1

 

1i

 

 

ii

52

Response to the question llWould you be interested in
purchasing additional slide kit programs in the area of food
marketing?“ was particularly interesting when looking back at
the data from the question, ”Did Ads Add Up trigger interest
in more consumer education programs designed to create a better
understanding of the food marketing system?“ Only 10.8 percent
in New York compared to 32.2 in the Other group said it created
interest, yet 70.3 percent in New York and 57.6 percent in the
Other group were interested in purchasing additional consumer

food marketing slide programs.

Table 21. Interest in purchasing other food marketing slide

 

 

 

 

programs

Total

Sample New York . Other

% % %

Interested 62.5 70.3 57.6
Not Interested 25.0 2A.3 25.A
N.A. 12.5 5.A 16.9
Tgtal 100.0 100.0 99.9

 

Satisfaction Related to Ratinq Other Aspects of the Kit

In this section is found what seems to be a contradiction
or at least an inconsistency. There is a tendency here for the
New York group, which consistently rated their Satisfaction

with the kit higher than the Other group, to now rate the

J".
u .

 

 

 

 

ll

53

related questions lower in an almost equally consistent manner.
For example, there were 5.A percent Clearly Satisfied and 13.5
percent Moderately Satisfied New York respondents who rated
the relevance of the kit to teaching Home Management and Food
Buying as "fair.” On the other hand, only 1.7 percent in the
Clearly Satisfied and Moderately Satisfied Other group rated
the relevance to teaching Home Management and Food Buying as
”fair.” The majority of those rating relevance to teaching
Home Management and Food Buying as ”fair” or below the Other
group fell into the Clearly Dissatisfied category rather than
in the Clearly or Moderately Satisfied groups. See Table 23.
Only 18.9 perCent in the New York group as compared to 28.8
percent in the Other group rated the relevance to teaching

Home Management and Food Buying as ”excellent.” See Table 22.

Table 22. Rating kit for relevance in teaching Home Management
and Food Buying

 

 

 

TOtaT
Sample New York Other
% % %

Excellent 25.0 18.9 28.8
Good 57.3 62.2 5A.2
Fair 13.5 18.9 10.2
Poor 1.0 0 1.7
N.A. 3.1 O 5.1

*

Total 99.9 100.0 100.0

5A

Table 23. Satisfaction related to relevance in teaching Home
Management and Food Buying

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total—
Sample New York Other
% % %
excellent 19.8 16.2 22.0
Clearly good 3A.A AO.5 30.5
Satisfied fair 2.1 5.A 0
poor 0 O O
N.A. 1.0 O 1.7
excellent 5.2 2.7 6.8
Moderately good 19.8 21.6 18.6
Satisfied fair 6.3 13.5 1.7
poor 0 O O
N.A. 1.0 O 1.]
excellent 0 O 0
Clearly good 3.1 O 5.1
Dissatisfied fair 5.2 O 8.5
poor 1.0 O 1.7
_p N.A. 1.0 O 1.7
Total 99.9 99.9 100.0

 

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they
felt participants benefited from the information in Ads Add Up
in the following ways:
Improves Buying Practices
Improves Decision Making
Entertalns
Learns about Function of Advertising
Here again, New Yorkers responded somewhat differently from

the Other group. On the question of whether the information

improves buying practices, 69.5 percent of the Other group felt

55

the information improved buying practices compared to 51.A
percent of the New York group. A high percentage, 32.5 percent,
of the Clearly and Moderately Satisfied New Yorkers indicated
the information did not improve buying practices, compared to
5.1 percent in these two Satisfaction categories in the Other
group. See TablesZA and 25.

On the question of improvement of decision making, 76.3
percent of the Other group compared to 67.6 percent of the New
York group felt it improved decision making. Of the New York
group, 18.9 percent which fell into the Clearly and Moderately
Satisfied groups, thought the information did not improve decision
making compared to only 1.7 percent in the Other group...and
this percentage (l.7) fell into the Clearly Dissatisfied category.
See Tables 26 and 27.

Only one respondent out of the total felt that participants
did not learn about the function of advertising from_Ags Add Up.
So even the majority of the Clearly Dissatisfied respondents
indicated they felt participants learned about the function of
advertising.

0n the queStion of the entertainment value of Ads Add Up,

 

the majority of respondents indicated they thought participants
were entertained. About a third disagreed indicating they felt

Ads Add Up had no entertainment value.

56'

Table 2A. Respondents evaluation of improved buying practices
as a benefit derived from the kit

IotaI

Sample New York Other

 

 

% A A
Improves buying 62.5 51.A 69.5
Does not improve 17.7 32.A 8.5
N.A. . 19.8 16.2 22.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Table 25. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
improved buying practices as a benefit derived
from the kit

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

Sample New York Other
% % %

Clearly Improves bbying A3.8 37.8 A7.5
Satisfied Does not improve 7.3 16.2 1.7
_E N.A. .3 8.1 5.1
Moderately Improves buying 15.6 13.5 16.9
Satisfied Does not improve 8.3 16.2 3.A
N.A. 8.3 8.1 8.5
Clearly Improves buying 3.1 O 5.1
Dissatisfied Does not improve 2.1 O 3.A
N.A. 5.2 0 8.5
Total 100.0 99.9 100.1

¥

— c“ — ..1€ cu — nlv av.

 

 

 

57

Table 26. Respondents evaluation of improved decision making
as a benefit derived from the kit

 

 

 

 

TOtal
Sample New York Other
% % %
Improves decisions 72.9 67.6 76.3
Does not improve .8.3 18.9 1.7
N.A. . 18.8 13.5 22.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Table 27. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
improved decision making as a benefit derived from

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the kit
_T ’Total 7

Sample New York Other

% % %
Clearly Improves decisions A7.9 A5.9 A9.2

Satisfied Does not improve 3.1 8.1 O
__A N.A. 6.3 8.1 5.1
Moderately Improves decisions 20.8 21.6 20.3

Satisfied Does not improve A.2 10.8 0
__ N.A. 7.3 _5.A 8.5
Clearly Improves decisions A.2 O 6.8
Dissatlsifed Does not improve 1.0 O 1.7
N.A. 5.2 O 8.5
Total 100.0 99.9 100.1

 

*

:

 

:

 

 

 

Table 28. Respondents evaluation of learning the function
of advertising as a benefit derived from the kit

 

 

 

 

Total
Sample New York Other
% %__, %
Learned 89.6 9A.6 86.A
Did not learn 1.0 O 1.7
N.A. 9.A 5.A 11.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Table 29. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
learning the function of advertising as a benefit

derived from the kit

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

Sample New York Other

% % " %
Clearly Learned 55.2 59.5 52.5
Satisfied Did not learn 0 O O
__ N.A. 2.1 2.7 1.7
Moderately Learned 28.1 35.1 23.7
Satisfied Did not learn 0 O O
_.E N.A. A.2 2.7 5.1
Clearly Learned 6.3 O 10.2
Dissatisfied Did not learn 1.0 O 1.7

N.A. 3.1 O 5.1

:ptal 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

 

 

H

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 30. Respondents evaluation of entertainment as a
benefit derived from the kit
17 *Total
Sample New York Other
% % %
Entertains A2. A3.2 A2.A
Does not entertain 33.3 37.8 30.5
N.A. 2A. 18.9 27.1
Total 100.0 99.9 100.0
Table 31. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
entertainment as a benefit derived from the kit
‘7 Total
Sample New York Other
% % %
Clearly Entertains 22. 9 21.6 23.7
Satisfied Does not entertain 25. O 27.0 23.7
N.A. '9.A 13.5 6.8
Moderately Entertains 15. 6 21.6 11.9
Satisfied Does not entertain 6. 3 10.8 3.A
N.A. 10. A 5.A 13.6
Clearly Entertains A.2 O 6.8
Dissatisfied Does not entertain 2.1 O 3.A
N.A. A. 2 O 6.8
Total 100.1 99.9 100.1

 

60

In general, the New York and Other groups were fairly
equal in their opinions as to whether the slide program technique
was “Better Than,” ”About as Good,” or ”Not as Good” as other
teaching techniques such as lecture, discussion, motion picture,
and lecture-demonstration. The one exception lies in the New
York group where a fairly high percentage of the Clearly
Satisfied and Moderately Satisfied respondents rated the slide
technique "Not as Good'l as the other techniques, while a high
percent of those Clearly Dissatisfied respondents in the Other
group rated the slide technique as "About as Good” or "Better
Than” the other techniques. See Tables 32 through 39.

For example see Table 33. While the New York group had no

Clearly Dissatisfied respondents, 13.5 percent of the Moderately
and Clearly Satisfied groups thought the slide technique was
”Not as Good" as the lecture technique. On the other hand,
17 percent of the Other group were Clearly Dissatisfied and
yet, every respondent in the Other group thought the slide
technique was llAbout as Good” or "Better Than” the lecture
technique.

An explanation of this apparent contradiction does not
suggest itself, unless, an answer lies in the high percent of

no answers in the Other group.

 

 

H

61

Table 32. Respondents evaluation of the slide teaching
technique compared to the lecture technique

 

m

IotaI
Sample New York Other

 

 

A A ‘ a
Better than 67.7 67.6 69.5
About as good 13.5 13.5 11.9
Not as good 5.2 13.5 0
N.A. 13.5 5.A 18.6
Total 77 99.9 100.0 100.0

 

Table 33. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of

the slide teaching technique compared to the
lecture technique

 

 

 

 

 

 

TOtal
Sample New York Other
% % %
Clearly Better than A2.7 AO.5 AA.1
Satisfied About as good 8.3 10.8 6.8
Not as good 3.1 8.1 O
___ N.A. 3.1 2.7 3.A
Moderately Better than 21.9 27.0 18.6
Satisfied About as good 2.1 2 7 1.7
Not as good 2.1 5.A O
N.A. 6.3 2.2_ 8.5
Clearly Better than A.2 O 6.8
Dissatisfied About as good 2.1 O 3.A
Not as good 0 O O
_t N.A.. A.2 O 6.8
Total 100.1 99.9 100.1

——_

 

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3A. Respondents evaluation of the slide teaching
technique compared to the discussion technique
Total—
Sample New York Other
% % %
Better than 3A.A AO.5 28.8
About as good AO.6 37.8 AA.1
Not as good 10.A 13.5 8.5
N.A. lA.6 8.1 18.6
Total 100.0 99.9 100.0
Table 35. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
the slide teaching technique compared to the
discussion technique
Total
Sample New York Other
% % %
Clearly Better than 27.1 32.A 23.7
Satisfied About as good 22.9 18.9 25.A
Not as good 3.1 5.A 1.7
__, N.A. A.2 5.A 3.A
Moderately Better than 6.3 8.1 5.1
Satisfied About as good 15.6 18.9 13.6
Not as good A.2 8.1 1.7
__ N.A. 6.3 2.2 8.5
Clearly Better than 0 O O
Dissatisfied About as good 3.1 0 5.]
Not as good 3.1 O 5.]
N.A. A.2 0 6.8
Igtal 100.0 99.9 100.1

 

63

Table 36. Respondents evaluation of the slide teaching
technique compared to the motion picture technique

 

 

 

 

Total
Sample New York Other
% % %

Better than 19.8 18.9 20.3
About as good 50.0 59.5 AA.1
Not as good 13.5 16.2 11.9
N.A. 16.7 5.A 23.7
Total 100.0 100.0 -100.0

 

Table 37. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
slide teaching technique compared to the motion
picture technique

 

 

 

 

 

TTotal
Sample New York Other
Clearly 10.A 10.8 10.2
Satisfied 35.A 37.8 33.9
6.3 10.8 3.A
5.2 2.7 6.8
Moderately 7.3 8.1 6.8
Satisfied 12.5 21.6 6.8
5.2 5.A 5.1
7.3 2.] ‘ 1052_
Clearly 2.1 O 3.A
Dissatisfied 2.1 0 3.A
2.1 O 3.A
A.2 O 6.8

Total 100.1 99.9 J. .loo.§—

 

 

6A

Table 38. Respondents evaluation of the slide teaching
technique compared to the lecture-demonstration

 

 

 

technique
Total
Sample New York Other
% % %

Better than 19.8 21.6 18.6
About as good 58.3 56.8 59.3
Not as good 8.3 16.2 3.A
N.A. 13.5 5.A 18.6

 

Total 99.9 100.0 99.9

 

Table 39. Satisfaction related to respondents evaluation of
slide teaching technique compared to the lecture-
demonstration technique

 

 

 

 

 

 

7' T ‘Total

Sample New York Other

_ % % °°.
Clearly Better than lA.6 16.2 13.6
Satisfied About as good 37.5 37.8 37.5

Not as good 2.1 5.A O
T N.A. 3L1 2.] 3.A
Moderately Better than A.2 5.A 3.A
Satisfied About as good 16.7 18.9 15.3
Not as good 5.2 10.8 1.7
___ N.A. 6.3 2.1L 8.5
Clearly Better than 1.0 O 1.7
Dissatisfied About as good A.2 O 6.8
Not as good 1.0 O 1.7
N.A A.2 O 6.8
Total 100.1 99.9 IOO.A

 

 

CI

65

The majority of respondents, 67.7 percent, rated the slide
technique “Better Than” while 13.5 percent rated it ”About as
Good” as a lecture. When comparing the slide technique with
the discussion technique 3A.A percent of the Total Sample rated
the slide technique “Better Than“ and AO.6 percent ”About as
Good” as discussion.

A majority of respondents rated motion picture and lecture-
demonstration “About as Good” as the slide technique.
In answer to the question, ”If you were assigned to revise
figs Add Up, what would you do to improve it?“, there came a
variety of answers, some of which should be considered in the
deveIOpment of future slide programs. However, no visable
trend for suggested changes developed.

There were several suggestions to cut the length of the
program and several others who would provide more extensive
detail, which no doubt would lengthen the program. A couple of
comments indicated that the program was not sophisticated enough
for college students. Other comments dealt with giving more

practical Illustrations -- Information which the homemaker

could take home and put to use. Several wanted more emphasis

on deceptive advertising and the moral issues of advertising.
In another vein, there were numerous suggestions which

dealt with the technical aspects of the kit. For instance, it

 

 

6,6

bothered some that a couple of slides were repeated; one would
not use art, but actual photographs; others wanted the slides

to say more; and the problem of keeping the information up to

date was also mentioned.

In addition to the above, there were numerous positive

comments such as, ”it's good as is,” or “can't think how to

improve it,” or “flexible enough to be adapted to almost any
audience.”

Major Findings
Overall, only 10 respondents were Clearly Dissatisfied

I.
10 Clearly Dissatisfied respondents

with the kit. All

fell into the Other group.
Respondents were much better satisfied with the Method used

2.

than they were with the Content.

3. The New York group's Satisfaction scores were higher for
both Content and Method, than were the Other group's. In
spite of this fact, New Yorkers rated many related questions
lower than the Other group.

4. Over 80 percent rated the kits relevance to teaching Home

In

Management and Food Buying as ”excellent“ or ”good.”
addition, a majority felt participants benefited in the

following ways, (I) learned about the function of food

advertising; (2) improved buying practices; (3) improved

decision making.

 

2:

N

 

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

There is general agreement in the Home Management-Decision

Making literature that information is an important element in

decision making. This study evaluated a packaged consumer

education slide program as a method of communicating consumer

information and was based on the theory that information is an

essential element in effective decision making which, in turn,

affects the management process.
One of the aims of the CMI program is to provide consumers
with information to help them understand the food marketing

system. As one means to accomplish this goal, plans were made

to develop a series of packaged slide programs on the various

aspects of food marketing.
Ads Add Up, A Look at Food Advertising was the first

 

program developed. This kit was made available on a materials

replacement cost basis, to all who had an interest in the

information. Because slide programs were a new method of

communicating consumer marketing information for the CMI program,
it was felt that an evaluation of this slide kit would provide

information useful in the development of additional kits.

67

 

 

68

Simmons and Roehm (IS) in their study of the needs of
Home Economics Teachers and Extension Home Economists in

Montana, demonstrated that professionals need in-depth, unbiased

consumer education information.

The consumer movement. which in many respects is an

information seeking movement,along with trends in the widening

scope of Adult Education add strength to the idea that consumers

need and want consumer information. This, in turn, points to

the need to explore different communication methods in order

to develop more efficient ways to disseminate information,and

in the process extend limited professional staff time.

Evaluation has become an accepted part of most Extension

programs and one of the important findings in this Study
supports the need to evaluate a project of this type. Even

though only a small percent of the respondents were Clearly

Dissatisfied with the kit, the study reveals an apparent

staff would

weakness in the content of the kit which the CMI

not likely have suspected.

Summary

The objective of this study was:

I. to evaluate an informational teachin technique
(Ads Add Up slide program and relate materials)
as to its—Tmplications for Cooperative Extension
programs and other educational organizations
working in Consumer Education, by seeking the
opinions of professionals who used this material.

.K- s.” ,9L I. I Rh. it, b. .r

 

 

.3
~‘!

 

69

No hypotheses were formulated since this was an exploratory
study.

In the review of literature, the lack of current research
which evaluated audio-visual methods of communicating informa-
tion was shown. Much of the previous research was done in the
l930's and usually tested one teaching method against one or
more audio-visual methods. There was little evidence of any
type of packaged information programs having been evaluated in
the Home Management-Consumer Economics area. In the communica-
tions field, researchers had looked at where homemakers get
information related to food buying decisions. This research
revealed that homemakers obtain most food buying information
in personal contacts with family members, friends, and neighbors.
In one such study, persons from whom others seek information
were labeled ”opinion leaders.”

Research also indicates that opinion leaders use different,
more technically accurate sources of information,and are often
found to be in direct contact with organizations which provide
such information. From this it was speculated that women who
are associated with the Cooperative Extension may be, in fact,
opinion leaders.

The review of literature revealed numerous research possi-
bilities, but considering limitations of time and money alone,

the mailed ophfionnaire seemed to be the most appropriate method

available.

70

An opinionnaire was developed to evaluate use of, and
satisfaction with, the kit and to learn how users thought

participants benefited from the information in Ads Add Up.

 

The opinionnaire was first pre-tested with three users, who
were then interviewed to identify areas of concern to them.

The revised opinionnaire was then mailed to a sample of IO
users. Only minor changes were made after this pre-test. The
opinionnaire was then pre-coded so that data could be punched
directly from the opinionnaire to computer cards. The presence
of the code numbers on the opinionnaire caused a problem for

a number of respondents, particularly on Question Two. The
data from this question had to be recoded in order to be used
and its reliability is in question.

Method Satisfaction and Content Satisfaction scores were
developed by selecting questions which would represent each.

A combination of these two scores represented Overall Satisfaction
with the kit. These satisfaction scores were arbitrarily divided
into three groups -- Clearly Satisfied, Moderately Satisfied,

and Clearly DiSsatisfied.

In an analysis by occupation, the 52 County Home Economics
Extension agents were by far the largest group. A majority of
this group was Clearly Satisfied while only 3.8 percent were
Clearly Dissatisfied with the kit. The next largest occupation

group was College Teachers with IA respondents. This was also

 

 

we

(7;,

 

7l

the most Dissatisfied group. Comments in Open-ended answers
indicated the information probably was not specific enough for
the college level. This may be due to the fact that Ag§_Agg_up_
was developed for use in informal Adult Education situations
rather than for use in the classroom.

For the majority of the analysis, respondents were divided
into two groups. Those from New York (37 respondents) who had
the kit recommended to them by the Cornell Extension staff and
all Others (59 respondents) for a total of 96 respondents.

Overall, only lO respondents out of 96 were Clearly Dis-
satisfied with the kit. There were no Clearly Dissatisfied
respondents in the New York group, so, all 10 Clearly Dissatis-
fied respondents fell into the Other group.

There was a wide difference between respondent satisfaction
with Method and satisfaction with Content. Overall, twice as
many respondents were Clearly Satisfied with the Method used,
than were Clearly Satisfied with Content. Conversely, twice
as many were Clearly Dissatisfied with Content than were Clearly
Dissatisfied with Method. This contrast in Method and Content
Satisfaction seems to indicate that respondents felt the CMI
staff had found an effective method for presenting information,
but that improvements needed to be made in the Content. A
partial explanation for the discontent with Content may lie in

the fact that two bulletins included in the kit were Michigan

72

oriented with information regarding laws and regulations for
the State of Michigan. It should also be pointed out that a

New York version of the Food jfl_the Liqht gfi the Law bulletin

 

was printed for use in that state.

The New York group's satisfaction scores were higher for
both Content and Method, than were the Other group's. This
finding may be partially explained by the fact that the kit was
recommended to the New York group by the Cornell Extension staff
at the state level. Such a recommendation may have influenced
respondent evaluation by creating a higher credibility for the

information in Ads Add Up.

 

The data related to how Ads Add Up was used, specifically

 

if it was used in a series of related lessons, seems to indicate
that respondents in the Other group were probably seeking
consumer education material to be used in a specific way, while
the New York group may have used the program just because it
was suggested to them.

The data also reveals an inconsistency relative to the
New York group. This group which consistently rated their
Satisfaction with the kit higher than the Other group, rated
related questions about other aspects of the kit lower than the
Other group in an almost equally consistent manner. A reason

for this inconsistency escapes the writer.

 

73

Ads Add Up was developed under the assumption that pro-
fessionals and participants wanted information about and had
an interest in, learning about the function of food advertising
-- its purpose, who pays for it, and how homemakers can use
food ads and merchandising techniques to advantage. The data
show that 90 percent of the respondents felt that participants
learned the function of food advertising. In addition, over
80 percent rated its relevance to teaching Home Management and
Food Buying as ”excellent" or ”good”. Over 60 percent felt the
information led to improved buying practices, while over 70
percent felt it would lead to improved decision making. A
review of communications research leads one to believe that the
respondents in this study, in all probability, were over
optimistic in their evaluation of the benefits derived from
the information In Ads Add Up. However, Lewin's research
revealed that group decision making was more effective in
changing behavior than lecture or individual methods. So, the
way in which Ads Add Up sessions were conducted, no doubt,
influenced the benefits participants received. Then, too, if
women who associate with "expert agencies” are in fact,
"opinion leaders'I as some research suggests, perhaps respondent

evaluation of benefits derived from Ads Add Up are not so far

 

off base after all.
The variety of ways the kit was used is another indication

that professionals want; need and will use this type of packaged

7A

information. Respondents reported using the kit a total of

663 times. New Yorkers used it proportionally a larger number

of times, but the Other group reported larger audience sizes.
About a third of all respondents reported using the infor-

mation in Ads Add Up as resource material for giving talks,

 

preparing news releases and preparing for radio programs.
Communication research on the effects of mass media show that
reinforcement of existing ideas and beliefs is more likely

to be the result of mass media than changing ideas and beliefs.
However, if the people who usedthis information as resource
material for mass media are recognized as a ”specialized source
of information” and if they have a following, mass media used
in this way may be more effective as a source of information
than the usual mass media program -- at least for part of the

audience.

implications

On one hand, the Home Management literature states that
information is an essential element in effective decision
making, while on the other, the Simmomsand Roehm (l5) study
reveals professional home economists feel a lack of training
and a lack of unbiased consumer education information. Where
are professionals, or for that matter, consumers to get

accurate, unbiased consumer information on which to base decisions?

75

The findings of this study raise about as many questions
as they answer and cannot be considered conclusive, but they
do seem to point the way to the need for further development
of packaged information programs and for sound research designed
to evaluate them. Just from the standpoint of economies of
professional time alone, this type of pulling together of infor-
mation seems to justify itself.

Lewin's (#0) research indicated that group decision making
was more effective in changing behavior than lecture or
individual methods. It would seem that research on the effective-
ness of various methods used when presenting information to
groups could help guide those who design programs. In addition,
this information could be used as suggested guides for presenting
consumer education material. Along this same line, some testing
of effectiveness between individuals who are more or less told
they should use materials and those who make this decision
themselves could ,prove interesting.v

Since the CMI program relies heavily on mass and other
specialized media for dissemination of consumer information,
it would seem that cooperative research, which builds on past
research in the Audio-Visual and the Communicationsiareas would
benefit each discipline.

Even though the method used was considered the most appro-

priate under the circumstances, one of the main weaknesses of

76

this study lies in the fact that it did not go far enough. It
solicited user opinions rather than measuring change in knowl-
Yedge of participants. With a little planning one could compare
user opinions with what participants actually learned. For
example, cooPeration of two or three users in pre-testing

and post-testing their audiences could provide enough data

for this comparison.

Another weakness was the lack of clarity regarding code
numbers on the opinionnaire. If such codes are to be used,
they should be on the questionnaire during pre-testing in
order to eliminate such problems.

The development of a satisfaction score seems to have some
merit. In this study it revealed a very clear picture of the
differences between satisfaction with the method used and the
content. This technique was somewhat limited; however, when
used to try to relate satisfaction to other questions in the
evaluation. This limitation seemed to be due to the fact that
there were very few Clearly Dissatisfied respondents so that
the majority of respondents fell into the two top categories.

It is doubtful that a packaged program such as Ads Add Up,
could ever be developed that would please all who need and want
specifflc information on a particular subject. However, steps

could be taken to increase the versatility of such kits. For

'77

example, better suggestions could be made on how to shorten or
lengthen the program. In addition, specific materials could be
developed for use with a specific audience such as, h-H, high
school, or college groups.

The main strength of this study seems to be: it shows that
even with inevitable shortcomings, well designed packaged
information programs could fill a real need in the Consumer
Education field and will find use if made available to

professionals.

l0.

ll.

l2.

LITERATURE CITED

Johnstone, J. W. C. The educational pursuits of American
adults. Adult Education l3 (4), pp. 2l7-222.

Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. Education and agricultural
growth: The role of education in early stage agricul-
ture, in Education and Economic Development. Anderson,
C. A. andBowman, BT_3. (edf) Chicago: ATdine
Publishing Co., I963, pp. 206-209.

Chance versus informed planning, Royal Bank

 

of Canada Monthly Letter, #5 (IO). Montrea , anaaa,
T965.

Paolucci, Beatrice. Family decision making. FOCUS. April,

19659 pp. 3'“.

Paolucci, Beatric. Contributions of a framework of home
management to the teaching of family living, I965,
Mimeographed, p. ll.

Gross, Irma H. Home management in family living. Marriage
§fl§_fgmlly Living, August, l95l, p. l02.

Paolucci, Beatrice and O'Brien, Carol. Decision making:
the crux of management. Forecast, November, I959, p. 30.

U.S. Congress, Smith-Lever Act of May 8, I9IA Amended,
Public Law 83, 83d Congress, lst Sessnon, I953.

.Porter. Ward F. and Wilson, Sorene 5. Evaluation of St.

Joseph consumer marketing program. University of

Missouri Experiment Station, 8. 784, June, I962. P- ‘3-

Consumer Information Evaluation Project. Michigan State
University, I956, Mimeographed, p. 5.

Troelstrup, Arch W. Consumer Problems and Personal
Finance. 3rd edition. New—York: McGraw- I ook

Company, I965, p. l58, l59, I66, l8l.

Gordon, Leland, J. and Lee, Stewart M. Economics for
‘Consumers. 5th edition. New York: 'American 800

Company, I967, p. 23, 383, 388, 389.

 

 

78

l3.

IA.

l5.

l6.

17.

I8.

'9.

20:

2|.

22.

23.

79

Message from the President of the United States relative
to Consumer's Protective and Interest Program.
Washin ton, D. C.: House of Representatives Document
No. 36 , 87 Congress, 2d Session.

Frank, Janet. Report on consumer dialogue. Detroit,
Michigan, Feb. I969. Mimeographed.

Simmons, Mary R. and Roehm, Gladys H. Needs and concerns
of Montana home economists in consumer economics.
J. of Home Economics, 57 (I). pp. 30-32.

Gross, l. and Crandall, E. Management for Modern
Families. New York: AppTeton-Century-Crofts,

I963, p. 63.

Paolucci, Beatrice. Managerial decision patterns.
Penney's Fashion and Fabrics, 8:l7, I963.

 

 

Simonds, Lois A. Take Advantage of Specials, Ohio Food
Market Situation and Outlook, Feb. l5-2I, I959.

io tate University.

'Meyers, Trienah. The extra cost of being poor. l97O

National Agricultural Outlook Conference.

Bengel, Rose Mary. Consumer education programs in the
public schools. I970 National Agricultural Outlook

Conference.

Brown, H. E. Motion pictures or film slide. School
Science Math 20: Sl7-526, I928.

James, H. W. The relative effectiveness of six forms
of lesson presentation: film, lecture, still
picture, film-lecture, film-mu5ic, and reading,
With particular emphasis on the suitability of.
different types of material for film presentation,
in Visual Education. Freeman, Frank N. (Ed.).

University of Chicago, l92h, pp. I90-228.

McClusk , F. Dean. Com arisons of different methods _
of Visual instructign, in Visual Education._ Freeman,
Frank N. (Ed.). University of Chicago, 192“,

pp. 83-l66.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3I.

32.

33.

8O

McClusky, F. Dean, and McClusky, Howard Y. Comparison
of motion pictures, slides, stereographs, and
demonstration as a means of teaching how to make
a reed mat and a pasteboard box, in Visual Education.
Freeman, Frank N. (Ed.). University of Chicago,

I924, pp. 3IO-33A.

Goodman, David J. The Comparative Effectivness pf
Pictorial Teaching Materials. Doctor's Thesis.
New YorkUniversity, I9h2.

Allen, William H. Audio-visual communication.
Encyclopedia of Educational Research. Harris,
Chester W. (E37), New York: The Macmillan Co.,
I960, p. IZO.

 

Stampolis, Anthony and Sewell, Laurence, 3., Jr. .A
Stud of Film Strips Communicating_Economic COncppts.
Boston niversity, School of Public Relations and
Communications, I952, p. 27.

Allen, William H. Audio-visual materials. Review pf
Educational Research. Washington, D. C. : National

Education Assoc. of the U.S., I956, p. l23.

 

Katz, Elihu. The diffusion of new ideas and practices.
The Science pf Human Communications. Schramm,
Wilbur (Ed.). New YOrk: Basic Books, Inc., I963.

p. IO.

Klapper, Joseph T. Effects pf Mass Communication.
New York: The Free Press Corp., I960.

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard and Gaudet, .
Hazel. The PeOple's Choice. New York: Columbia

University Press, I948.

Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York:

The Free Press ofGTencoe,-T962, Chapter 8.

Lazarsfeld, Paul and Menzel, Herbert. Mass media and .
personal influence. The Scienpg of Human Communication.

Schramm, Wilbur (Ed.). New York:_—Basic Books, Inc.,
I963: PP- 96-97.

 

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

AI.

8]

Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and McPhee,

William N. Votin . Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, l95h.

Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Personal Influence.

Glencoe,

Illinois: The Free Press, I955.

Dutschmann, Paul J. and Danielson, Wayne. Diffusion
of knowledge of major news story. Journalism
anrterly, 37, Summer, I960.

Troldahl, Verling C. and Van Dam, Robert. Face-to-face
communication about major topics in the news.
Journalism Quarterly, 29, Winter I965-66.

Beal, George M.
making process: stages of adoption analyzed by
adopter categories. Iowa Agricultural and Home
Economics Ex eriment Station JEUrn l. Journal

 

paper JF35 ,
Minden, M. 8.

Information sources in the decision

roject l236.

The Consumption Decision and Implications

for Consumer Education Programs, Ph.D. Thesis.
Purdue University,73anuary, I997.

Lewin, Kurt.

Group decision and social change. Readings

lfl,§2£lgl Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.

Troldahl, V. C., Van Dam, Robert, and Robeck, George B.
Public affairs information-seeking from expert
institutionalized sources. Journalism Quarterly,

1+2 (3)

I965.

APPENDIX

Table 40.
men It

83

Questions used in method

satisfaction score deveIOp-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o o o Ota
Yes No N.A. Across
3. Promotional Material Total 92.7 4.2 3.l IO0.0
Meaningful N.Y. 94.6 2.7 2.7 100.0
Other 91.5 5.I 3.4 IO0.0
. College 85.7 7.1 _Z.l 99.
ET'Material Presented in ETOtaT* 8976' 3.I 7.3 IO .
Interesting Manner N.Y. 9I.9 O 8.I lO0.0
Other 88.I 5.I 6.8 IO0.0
College 78.6 7.] I4.3 100.0
6. Program Makes Point Total 87.5‘ 9.4 31l T 0.0
with enough Impact N.Y. 94.6 2.7 2.7 IO0.0
Other 83.I 13.6 3.4 IOO.I
College _]I.4 28.6 0 IO0.0
8. Enough Resource Total 88.5 8.7 3.T 99.9
Material N.Y. 89.2 8.I 2.7 100.0
Other 88.I 8.5 3.4 I00.0
College 8 .7 I4.8 0 100.0
13? Number Of_Slides TotaT' 8 TE' I. 9,4 100.0'
Adequate N.Y. 9I.9 O 8.I IO0.0
Other 88.I l.7 l0.2 l00.0
College. 7I.4 0 28.6 IO0.0
IE, Length Of *TotaT’ 74.0 15.6 TOCK ’TOO.OT
Presentation* N.Y. 75.7 10.8 I3.5 l00.0
Other 72.9 l8.6 8.5 IO0.0
College _7l.4 I4.3 I4.3 lO0.0
IET’Like—Style of Art Total7 87.5 7.3 5T2 IO0.0‘
N.Y. 97.3 2.7 0 100.0
Other 8I.4 IO.2 8.5 IOO.I
College 7I.4 7.l 2l.4 99.9
T7T7Techfiical Quality Total 90.677 5.2’ ‘4.2 _IOO.OT
of Slides** N.Y. 94.6 5.4 0 100.0
Other 88.I 5.I 6.8 IO0.0
College 8 .7 O I4.3 ‘ 100.0
7275658 of Use Total .5 371 7.3 100.07
of Kit** N.Y. IO0.0 0 0 I00.0
Other 94.9 0 5.I IO0.0
College 7I.4 7.I 21.4 99,9

 

* too long and too short - no
9

about r ht
** Used recoded data

- yes

84

Pl. MING .Aaiw .

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.mm‘ m.:_ _.k :._N :._N k.mm mam__oo

_.oo_ N.o_ 5.. m.m m.m: m.mm Lasso

0.00. o o o ~.~o m.km xLo> zmz ua_tum

o.oon inno o._ ~.m _.Nm nnmm .mpoe *0 panacea .m.

m.mm _.k . —.~. , m.:_ c.0m :._N mmm__oQ

0.00. _.m :.m m.m ~.:m m.om cacao

_.oo_ o k.~ m.~ ~.Nm :.~m xto> 3mz nco_umtun:___

o.oo_ _.m _.m «.m. m.km m._m .mSOF to nnmcmum_taotaa< Am—

o.oo_ m.mm _.k m.:_ o.m~ m.:_ mam—.06

o.oo_ _.NN :.m _.m m.km _.kN Lasso

m.mm :.m o :.m N.m: m.mq xto> 3mz c_um__am 3nd to

A.ooe, m.mni _.~ N.m m.mm :.:m _mboc u;m_a men :_ noon .um

mdm Jam .d i: {3 mg: 82.8

0.00. N.MN k.— ~.o_ 5.0: “.mN cacao

m.mm :.m o :.m m.o: m.m: xto> 3mz c_um__=m
jim.mm in.m_ 0.. m.m 6.0: m.mm Pmuo», nw< ummz .nm

m.mm o.m~ _.k _.N, 0.0m _.~ umm__06

_.oo_ m... A.— ~.o_ m.m: m.om tmguo

o.oo_ _.m o ~.~ m.mm k.m~ xto> 3mz c_um__:m a:

m.mm :.o_ o._ m.“ o._m N.om .muon nnu< mc_n_btm>u< .nm

mmOcu< & X N & N

_mu0p .<.z Loo; L_mu poou ace—.oUXu "mc_zo__ow may mumm

 

 

ucmEQo_m>mp ocoum co_uummm_umm ucoucoo c_ pom: mco_umm:o

._: o_QMF

.' zoom

.‘i’ICHIG.

I
‘ifil III

 

 

 

COOPE RAT IVE EXTE NS ION S E RVI CE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823
Marketing Information for Consumers

 

AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING
29 Chittenden Hall

As a purchaser of Ads Add Up slide program, you are in a
unique position to help the Michigan Consumer Marketing
program.

In your position, I am sure you are aware of the importance
of evaluation in program planning. Would you please take
the time to help us evaluate Ads Add Up by filling out the
enclosed opinionnaire?

A self-addressed envelope, which requires nogpostage, is
enclosed for your convenience. If possible, I would like
to have the Opinionnaire back in my office by June 15.

Your cooperation is very much appreciated.

Sincerely yours,

M. Charline Hatchett
Extension Specialist
Consumer Marketing Information

MCH:jp

Enclosures

. [COPE

13116

N) U

 

 

 

 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION S E RVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING o MICHIGAN 48823

Marketing Information for Consumers
29 Chittenden Hall

 

AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

June 17, 1969

Our Consumer Marketing Staff is in the process of evaluating
the slide program, Ads Add Up and as a purchaser of Ads Add Up,
we need your help. A couple of weeks ago, I sent out an
opinionnaire and we have had good response, but as yet, I

have not received your reply.

For your convenience I am enclosing another c0py of the
opinionnaire along with a self-addressed envelope which

requires no postage.

Won't you please take a few minutes to check your answers?
Thanks so much for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

M. Charline Hatchett
Consumer Marketing
Information Specialist
MCszp

Enclosures

 

umHHmHoomm nowumEHownH wnfiuoxumz Hosanna

a.“ ”A (LY,

nomaunnm unannnso ..

.3028 on mxnmsa

.mD vc< mvfi .Emuwoum ovwam
gnu no muuowmo Mao mumsfim>m on man: coo so» made .uowauno

ucow ouwnacownaao onu uno HHHM on mmuscwe 3mm m oxnu ammoan
so» u.n03 usn .on Gnu “mom mo mafia mwnu keno so: 30:: H .aHon

Hack vow: Hanan H .uax mvwfim :n: vn< mw<a .wo Hommnunsm n m<

USP-is t!" I...“ 33.08.! '2‘ I'aJn-o-I.‘ ‘0 5.I-E“ .. .3

0
l
99
g:
on
§c
2
‘1
B
e

.3... NVOIHOIH 'ONICNV'I In."

”M 03+... 2'" 9".

 

COOPERAT IVE EXTENS ION S E RVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 0 EAST LANSING o MICHIGAN 48823

 

Marketing Information for Consumers

AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING

OPINIONNAIRE - ADS ADD UP KIT
SIHMS and Related Material.

 

L IW'area of work is: (l-2) Extension Home Economist Extension Consumer Marketing
0 County _____ 7 Agent
1 Specialist__ 8 Specialist

2 Director

10 Advertising Firm
3 High School Teacher

 

 

of ll Food Business
4 Junior High Teacher 12 Agricultural Economist__
of

 

13 OTHER specify
’ 5 College Teacher of

 

 

 

 

6 State Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Director
2. With what kind of audience Number Average CheCk groups
did you use the Ads Add Up of times “amber material is
slide program? shown In groups suitable for
-Extension Leader training ____(3-4) ____(5'7) __._(8)
'Extension Club meeting ____(9'10) ____(ll'13) ———-(14)
‘Church group _’__(lS-l6) (17'19) ___.(20)
'Women's Service Club (21'22) __._(23'25) -———(26)
-Men's Service Club (27'28) .nm(29'31) _———(32)
In classroom:
“Jr. High School (33-34) ____(35'37) _——-(38)
~High School (39-40) ____(41-43) ____('+4>
'College _____(45-46) ___(47-49) ___._(50)
WHERS specify
\_ (SI-52) ____(53-55) “(56)
ak _____(57-58) ____(59-6l) ___(62)
3- Did the Ads Add Up
Promotional material Yes NO
describe the kit 3 O

meaningfully? (l)

 

 

\—

 

Was Ads Add Up used in

a series of related
lessons being taught? (2)

+\
o

If YES, what type of
leSSOn?

Yes

 

No

 

 

 

5. Was the material presented
in an interesting manner? (3)

Yes

 

No

 

 

6. Do you feel the Ads Add Up
slide program makes its
points about the role of
food advertising with
enough impact? (A)

Yes

 

No

 

 

7. What was the general response
of your audiences? (5)

very enthusiastic
mildly enthusiastic
lacked enthusiasm

H

 

8. Was there enough resource
information in the kit to
meet your needs in pre-
paring to present M
£2? (6)

*-

9- Rate the quality of the
following information
sources in the kit as to
relevant, factual
information:

8. Advertising Adds Up ‘
leaflet (7)

b. Meat Ads leaflet (8)
C- Logd in the LLght of
My leaflet (9)

 

k

i0. Did you use the quiz? (10)

K

11. If XE_S_, rate the quiz as:

a. a pre-test (11)

b- a test (12)

\

 

 

Yes

 

excellent gOOd
3 2

a”
——
-———

III

Yes

 

excellent gOOd
3 2

w

No

fair

No

fair

 

poor

 

 

e
u
n
I
I
.l
‘.
‘.
._i.
,i_

 

 

 

 

 

'-‘
..;
-.
.I
'. ‘
i.

. n.
e.

.

\
.._
.N
R
O...
~J:
‘\

.'~.
H.

 

M.
.‘7.
I T“

1

 

F““r-——*

’l
l
.5-

B.

k

N.

‘

5,

X

M.

N.

\

How would you
improve the quiz?

Ins the number of slides
adequate? (13)

If you used the Ads Add Up
sfides, how would you rate
the length of the slide
inesentation? (14)

a. When you used Ads Add Up
slides, did you go beyond
the slide portion of the
program and discuss sec-
tions in the latter part
of the script? (15)

b. If.X§§i list the sec-
tions you discussed.

c. Rate general audience
participation in this
discussion: (16)

Dklyou like the style of
art work on the slides?

(17)

Ikm would you rate the
technical quality (color
quality, etc.) of the
slides? (18)

I
I
I

 

 

 

Yes

 

too short

too long_____
0

Yes

 

No

 

No

about

 

right__

 

 

 

excellent____ 80°d—-——

Yes

 

fair____

good____

2

 

pOOI"____

excellent_____.

3

 

How would you rate the
aPDrOPriateness of the
Slide illustrations to
the points made in the
script? (19)

 

excellent____ gOOd-——'

3

fair

 

poor____

19. How would you rate the I
content of the slide script
in regard to accurate, poor____ fair____ good____ excellent_u__

I factual information on the O 1 2 3

role of food advertising in

the marketing system? (20)

20. How would you rate the
inflnmwtion in the Ads Add

Up slide kit as to its excellent good fair poor
relevance in teaching 3 2 I 0

management and food buying
decisions? (21)

Ml Did you purchase the syn-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

chromatic sound tape for Yes N0
Afis Add Up when it became 3 0
available? (22)
If XE§. rate the techni- excellent good fair poor
cal quality of the tape- (23) 3 2 l 0
I If.§9: SPECify reason" (24) Lack of equipment (synchromat, recorder) 0
Lack of knowledge for using equipment _____1
Lack of interest in this type program _____2
OTHER. specify 3
M. Rate the ease of use of very easy diffiC01t
the slide kit. (25) 3 1
easy very difficult
2 0
23~ In what ways, besides as a In teaching a class 1 se
slide program, have you used (26) Extension (31) In “PWS re ea ~—
the information from Ads (27) Junior High (33; in T‘dE:O§::gramu_
Add ' 7 ' h S hool n ra ___
———_H2 as resource material. (28) Big c (34) OTHER: specify “-

(29) College
(30) In a talk

__.

IIII

 

24.

25.

Did the Ads Add Up program
trigger interest in more
consumer education programs
designed to create a better
understanding of the food
marketing system? (35)

If YES, list the kinds of
programs:

Rate the slide program
teaching technique in
comparison with each of
the teaching techniques
listed below:

. Lecture (36)

. Lecture-demonstration (37)
. Discussion (38)

. Motion picture (39)

moo-m

No

 

Yes

 

 

 

 

Slide program teaching technique is...

Not as Good

0

About

as Good
1

Better Than

2

(5)

 

26.

27.

In your opinion, does the
information in Ads Add Up
benefit participants by:

a. Improving buying
practices (40)

b. Improving decision
making (41)

c. Entertaining (42)

d. Learning about the
function of
advertising (43)

Would you be interested in
purchasing additional slide
kit programs in the area of
food marketing? (44)

If XES, what areas of food
marketing would you like to
see covered?

Yes

 

0'2
0

No

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28. Do you feel the Ads Add Up
slide kit was worth the Yes No
J price you paid? (45) 3 O
I
29. Please indicate which parts
of the kit you actually used;
andidfich, as far as you are Actually Could Be
concerned, could be left out Used Left Out
idthout affecting the useful- 0 1
ness of the kit:
; - Quiz (46)
I - Script (47)
' - Slides (48)
Bulletins:
' ‘Advertising Adds Up (49) _____
' Food in the Light of the
Law (50) __
‘ 'Meat Ads (51) ._____
I;
#0. If you were assigned to

revise the Ads Add Up slide
program, what would you do
to improve it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

g
“

In I '
Hunk you for your cooperation.

Mncerely yours,
M Charline Hatchett
Cumumer Marketing Specialist

17.7/Fume.
...... .rx. :-
NI.

 

 

ADS
ADD UP

 

 

x
CONSUMERS’ ANNUAL STATEMENT

BILLED TO: Each U.S. consumer
AMOUNT DUE: $240 per household . . about
$70 per person

SERVICE RENDERED: Exposure to 1500
messages daily

 

 

Yes, you pay this bill each yam
fifth of it for food ads. With every purchase
you contribute to a dynamic and vital educa-

tional movement . . . . American advertising,
You increase the number of TV and radio
commercials ..... put more ads in newspapers
and magazines . . . . ask for more direct mail

promotion. Why?

“Ads Add Up”——-A new and fascinating
color slide-lecture program for consumersm
goes directly to the heart of this question. It
examines closely how advertising . . . made
possible by your support . . . is essential to the
successful Operation of our food distribution
system and well being.

Written and produced by the Consumer
Marketing Information Agents of the Michigan
State University Cooperative Extension Serv-
ice, “Ads Add Up” can be presented by any

 

 

group leader or teacher— regardless of pre-
v10us advertising background—to class or
group meetings.
To investigate advertising from the inside
out, “Ads Add Up” examines:
' What is advertising?
: The main purpose of advertising
Advert131ng as an economic force in the
food business
' The psychology of advertising . . . good ads
vs. bad ads, etc.
' Media for advertising
' Regulation and controls over advertising

. v
500d promotions and merchandising prac—
ices

AUDIENCE:

Consumer groups — men and women in civic

Efggfsgfilooplerative Extension groups, service

nom" rc groups, high school home eco-
ms and economics classes, etc.

PACKET CONTENTS:

50 05mm Kodachrome slides with complete
scrlpt
$951011ng guide offering program presen-
fitlon t1ps, additional information to sup-
?ement the slide presentation, suggeStiODS
Apr addltlonal illustrations, etc.
lobnef' quiz on food advertising
H comes of accompanying 4 page leaflet,
Advertising Adds Up”
2 copies each of reference leaflets,

::F00d In Light of the Law”
Meat Ads”

PROGRAM TIME:

0 F .
a?“ 45 mlnutes to 1 hour depending upon
1.01"” Of SUpplemental material added to
S lde Program

PRICE:
. $10. . . complete kit
$1.50 . . . script only

 

ADS ADD UP. . . . ORDER REQUEST

Enclosed is: $_r__,_____, ___
[Make checks payable to Michigan State University]

For: ”kits of “Ads Add Up” @ $10 each

— —————— copies of script Qt,» $1.50
___,,-_____copies of accompanying leaflet, “Ad-
vertising Adds Up” @

 

10-99 copies ........................ 6c each
100-999 copies ..................... 4c each
Over 1000 copies ................... 2c each

(Minimum order $1.50)

Sendto:

 

(Name)

 

(Title)

 

(Street)

 

(Town and State] (Zip)

 

 

From PLACE
_-,__._____ ~ L“ a_ STAMP
HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
Marketing Information for Consumers
Old Forestry Building

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

929917 uefimorw ‘BUISUBT 1893

AJTSJaAtun 81915 uequorw

Buzplma 51139103 PIO

suawnsuog Jo] uoyanoqu Bungalow

HDIAHHS NOISNHLXEI HALLVHHJOOi

it

 

 

PLACE

STAMP

HERE

 

 

 

From

 

 

 

 

  
   
   
       
 
   
       

5UP

y 14 billion
:ts. This is
:1 on higher
almost $70
- or nearly
:counts for

Would you

~ '_VICE

' I L-' mag-

7 'on.
‘n\

. \

 

         
   

Z

w

EM

><
“1
m -
>0
:5
<1uo
as;
E3.
025

 

 

 

{on for Con

vn Service

 

.SH‘Qu 5.. WW..).HI.....I ..‘técr. ..... c. .. . ....m...
. . . .. - ....«1. www.050— ‘0... 0.0.000003
90. warns 9.0000

38050.. $83 00303.3.

mg. 5.0.00? 3000500 330

 

 

a
4.

'10!" ‘CIn-uu-j a.-

8390’ net;

-§ID - My!" ’

‘ltuony

 

 

ADVERTISING ADDS UP

American business invests approximately 14 billion
dollars annually to advertise its products. This is
almost twice as much as Americans spend on higher
education. Advertising costs amount to almost $70
per year for each man, woman and child — or nearly
$240 per household. Food advertising accounts for
about 20 per cent of the total.

Could you get along without advertising? Would you
want to try?

Suppose all food ads were to disappear from mag-
azines, from newspapers, from radio and television.

How would you know . . . .

where to find the grocery stores
what the grocer had for sale

what the ”bargains" were in terms of com-
parative quality, size and price
what's new in food products. For that

matter would there be as many without
advertising to help create a market for them

And would you be willing to give up your free
television and radio programs?

Would you want to pay triple the price for news-
papers and magazines that contained no advertising?

 

 

 

 

 

THE CONSUMER MARKETING 3' '

IWII IMPIIRIANI
III ADVERIISING

A GOOD NEWSPAPER
AD FOR FOOD SHOULD
HAVE SOME OF THE
FEATURES OF THE TYP-
ICAL NEWS STORY. IT
SHOULD INFORM YOU
ABOUT:

WHO. . . is selling the pro-
duet~ and in the case of brands.
\VIIOSL 1eputation is at stake
in the claims being made. You
cant judge the quality of the
bundleds of individual altieles
3011 b113 Brand names made
familiar through adxeltising
make it possible I111 3011 to repeat
satistactmy pluchases. Ihe3 1e-
lieve the. glour oi the job of
"selling 121ch oi the approxi-
matel3 8 000 items in the store.

WHAT. . . . is the product be-
ing advertised. WHAT the ad
tells you depends on 31 hether
3011 and the seller speak the
same language—a language 01
sizes grades quantities and
brands It s north kncming _-
that size 130 oranges, for ex—
ample are smaller than si7e 100
because size is measured by the

 

6' \
‘d; ,1”: \‘\'

r0 QJI‘ts‘?‘ " I

43.1?
”/‘ TL‘ "“111

8315!?"

.W"

 

number needed to fill a crate.
Or that a ham half costs more
than a ham portion because the
portion has had the center slices
removed.

WHERE . . . . to find the bet-
ter values. Stores rely on the
power of advertising to coax you
into the store. They feature
“specials" and then hope you’ll
do other shopping there as well.
This pulling power is one reason
why food retailers have increased
their advertising more than four—
fold since 1950.

WHEN . . . . you can buy the
product. Is the special for to-
morrow only? All week? While

 

    
 
 

 

   
 

 

 

 

., ..aj..;.$;i.~ "lmb I ”emulate emu "

‘ ; 54s .3; dthé nukes before yen start

. ’ If "'4‘“ . ""‘ ’hvuinpdce yomshoppilng. -

i MW!!! And mm, a good food ad

' ,1 .~ 3 debut!“ sue should PEBSUADE. 11' should
I ’ 1;}; ‘ reduce: waste tell:

.* Q ‘31:: benefiting WHY. you ought to buy

a. consumer the product. Perhaps a food of-

QM . . . . much the product fers unique nutritional advan-

Mb. Price is an important tages. Perhaps it’s quick to fix—

v We of newspaper food ad- easy to store—an improvement

. musing. If the WHO, WHAT, on the old form. The ad should

. WHERE and WHEN features make these special advantages
are also present in the ad, you clear to a shopper.

1119.:

meGII-IL

HARRY’S

WEEI< diImRET'I

CONSUMER PROTECTION

We frequently hear that the law or the government protects eon-

     
   
 
  

     
   

 

 
  

 

     

Sumers_ Industry also provides protection.
It 13 good business and just plain good sense to do so.

[1111111111111111 I

    
  
  
 
  
    
   
   
  
   
   
       
  
   

IN GENERAL, BE AWARE. THEN YOU NEED NOT BEWARE:

 

lint . . . what should you do if you think you have been misled
by an ad.“

I’irst. iniorm the seller. It may be an honest error. Most sellers
will want to make good to keep you as a customer.

II this doesn‘t work. write to the manufacturer. The law requires
that the name oi the nuniufacturer, packer, or distributor appear on
food labels. lleliablr- business firms value their reputations and they
should be quick to act on your complaint. Another possibility might
be to notify the (Ihamber of (Ionnneree or Better Business Bureau
1131111 hau- one 111 your eonnnunity.

()1. armed with hard Iaets. go to the newspaper, radio or TV
station 11111111111; advertising for the product. Truth in advertising is
too important I111 tl‘n-si- media to lose their reputation by carrying
false :11’ls’.

II 31111 have been \ivtiini/rrl l13' (lelil1eratel3' 111isleading or dis-
honest claims in 11.1.11 advertising. go to the Food Inspector Divi-
>I<11111Iill11f ixln-higau l)1p;11‘t1111~nt of Agriculture.

E1,/.1111,_‘1Hippo; [1:131:1/ [.1 hm. 131131 (1111\‘111111 r Afar/111111;: Agent

Mit‘hlflun State Universitv Cooperative Extension Service, U. S. D. A. and Michigan Count”.

axm‘m't‘ to provide Marketing Information for Consumers in these Cooperative Enema:
ices;
DCImitg Kalamazoo: Saginawz
2832 In. Grand Boulevard Maryann Mcldrum Sheila Morley I
Room 302, 4521] 420 \V. Kalamazoo 6 Merrill Buildirr 48602
873417114 Ave. 49006 793-9100 Ext. 2 3

, 382-2860
I‘Imt: Mt. Pleasant:
liy‘le Hutton East Lansing: Margaret Doughty
2,4215_\\est Pasadena Ave. 4850-1 22 Old Forestry Building, Courthouse Annex 48858
132—1110 MSU 48823 773-5804

0

Grand Rapids; 355 33-8
Ada Shinabarger Marquette;

728 Fuller Av'., NE. 493 .
459-4471 Ext.‘ 32 03

Ingrid Bartclli
500 “’mt Kaye Ave. 49855
226-3508

67—22.+o9-ion—ru

   

O
'. z» .'
I '. . I I
. a .
. .. , ‘ ‘ ’_. o
‘ - ‘ I l .
.' .,. I.‘ . , 1'.
‘ - .- . “- ... x
. . 1 . .
‘ - '1 ‘- “‘4 ’ .°
1‘ . -«.". 1. 1'3 ,. ":I . .
_, ' 7 '. ‘I. “1' .L '1" )
‘1 . ‘ - 4' . «7: f
A»: j ‘ J . _
.‘.A-I:r I
'h 1
'1. ‘5 .
. ‘, J1 - ' 5
',‘ ' ‘ I .
f . r.‘ \1\ .
1 -_, _ . ' .', \. > I
W ‘ . I .A. I
. .’ ‘ . ' o
’A
‘ .
A . g
o '5'
. ‘;
,7
.‘N
.r'
1

Information for Cons
e Extension Service
.tate University

ng, Michigan

rley

 

nators:
ratchett
er

er

 

     

—~

 

llllllllllllllllm

 

'1

 

 

Information for Cons
e Extension Service
tate University

ng, Michigan

rley

nators:
Hatchett
er

er

 

    
  

.. ”—_‘M .‘t...’——’~—-v‘-0h—" m— -. - ' ~'
17'.”;..‘ "k I '33: 2““. .- o_ ., A

     
   

THE LAW REQUIRES

If advertised as PRIME, CHOICE, GOOD, or STANDARD, the meat .1
must either have been graded by the U. S. Department of Agriculture or be
of equal quality to the federal grade designated.

Hamburger cannot be advertised as ground beef. Ground beef must be “I
made only from fresh ground skeletal beef and must contain not more than

20% fat. Hamburger must meet the same regulations except it must contain '2
not more than 30% fat.

It is ILLEGAL to advertise: '
Anything that is untrue. " 0
Any pork shoulder cut as HAM.

Any cut as LAMB or YEARLINC from an animal over two years old.

Any cut of beef as BABY BEEF.

Any ham portion by the term of ONE HALF or HALF HAM
if it has had a center slice removed.

A QUALITY of meat without having that quality for sale.

BE INFORMED

Know the regular (normal) prices of meat cuts . . . ' "'

to be sure that the advertised specials are actually til
“special” values.

 

- L?
Recognize the amount of lean meat per pound . . .
know the approximate number of servings the cut will
yield. A lower price per pound does not necessarily

mean more economical meat if you're buying bone
and fat.

   
    

Customer Marketing Information Program

%
//

/

. I II”,

 

 

0 food produced and sold within Michigan

0 food entering Michigan from other states and nations

  

In Light of Protection, Shop with Assurance

Some laws set standards for food quality and sanitary conditions—
[ they assure you of buying

0 food that’s safe to eat
l ' grade and size as stated on labels

l . grade and size as stated in advertisements

 

0 food as represented on labels and in ads

Some laws regulate food quantity—they assure you of buying
0 exact weight or measure as stated on labels
0 exact amount weighed or measured for you in the market

Some food laws and protective services are cooperative efforts of
Michigan Department of Agriculture and United States Government.

EXAMPLES ARE:
Laws which govern pure food under the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act

Federal—State Fruit and Vegetable Inspection Service

 

Federal-State Poultry Products Grading Service

*

. h e economics.
Issued in furtherance of cooperative extension work In “girlhdlz? ands. oawnment of

cm at Ma 0 nd Jun 30, 1914. in cooperation , . . .
Aflficultwe. YN. |: Ialstoth Director. Coopgmtive Extension Servuce, Michigan State

University, E. lensing, Mich. ff

- #I'rm' I

 

 

In the LIGHT U
of INspEcr-I N a

I
1.. 1,,

  
 
 
 
 

 

  

    

 
   
   

       

      

   

      

l I
avg/.1 I ’
Q14;
1(- 1’3 ' “5:4
r
/\\ Q P f‘ 'lt'l
0" D .-:
‘-. ‘g'é:
, ,' . , / 7m any/cw, HE;
’ , ,’/////’ ///,//////, ”15./13"." : , .1 ’//////1 .- ‘ .
/ '/// Wm‘wonzzmhlxe1; riixfc’ 7n are: 'ffé I, I ; I r /////// ,
1 , ”Wirzymzzgi ,;;:;;:;.e;., 3. g; 3' Va: [mm ' ///4

r ‘< “’1‘: V Ill/I F H’/ ‘ ' -

. , .,.. .. . . .

. . . '- .. .. . .. . . [/ztutuzru ”In/tn In”
; , / ”1,4,” ,. ,,,, .,,,..... , ., .._ . .... ¢ .\. ll, , ' . ”/1”. t”l”l'f I/I/I/x/I/I/Ilflll

,- , , ,. I’IIII "It’ll/i ‘rl’lll’l /n (I n l._ 1"" '--( I/u/l "fffffffff ' "’ff 1 "r

I / / ""‘fllj/g/Izm’ #q/yt’hrwznweft/ I I,“ ”fun 1, 43”,,” 4,7,,,,,,,,,, , In”, . ,l/ n/I////////////////////
/ .’ . , / "”" ","',‘ . 'a . ‘.'.'.'.‘..'.'.‘.'. ,‘ I/llvlafl/II/Ifllll t V,
’r ., ,, , /// . ’/ j,’ , rl/tt/llllfiggsl ’17:..5'5-111'22212.’.€...’fizzzzzzzxz"‘val/z/Il/I/I/Il/I/fl/I/J'a'1’
/ 1 . 1’, . . .' I, " ’. , , . ., , . .' ~ r

7,95 " 7.5 W 15' ///’r '/// .' ' ./r'//.‘ ,Cé/I ,/.'///- // / ///'l I" /z/ ‘ / I / It / 1 /

utterllauea o
r I
a

Some foods produced and sold in Michigan must “pass inspection.” C

These foods are inspected and certified for i":
Grade, Quality and Condition:

APPLES PEARS

CANTALOUPE POTATOES

SLICING CUCUMBERS TOMATOES

RED TART CHERRIES for DRY BEANS

canning or freezing EGGS ll
GRAPES POULTRY '1
PEACHES C

Michigan food plants where food is prepared, manufactured, processed or
sold must pass inspection for sanitary conditions. These plants include:

Bakeries Restaurants
Canning, freezing or Meat processing plants 9P.
other processing plants Slaughtering plants
Dairies Soft Drink plants
Frozen food locker plants Confectioneries bi:
Flour mills and grain elevators

Foods and beverages coming into Michigan from other states and G
nations must pass inspection too.

Food and beverages from out of state may have been hit

inspected — BUT — iii:

Michigan inspectors examine them too, to make sure 3,]
All Foods and Beverages consumed in Michigan meet the high i
requirements of Michigan food standards for sanitation.

. J
4":

W “M
Michigan food laws are enforced by the Food Inspection Division, Mid“ MIC
lgan Department of Agriculture, Lewis Cass Building, Lansing 13, M‘Ch' lean

WWW

 

 

 

 

 

 

/////////¢

14/4/
. , - — - .../a 'fl/fl/f/fl

e

/%

  

’I//
-v-::-w~-:--v-~-.v~--P:~u.-;-r-':- , I

l u < . . n . w~.' . r /
. .

 

Do you read it?

Michigan food laws demand label information that assures you of exact
size, quality or quantity of foods as stated. For example—

»Egg cartons or containers must be marked with
0 Number of eggs in the container
0 Size of eggs
0 Name and address of the producer, distributor or packer

0 Grade of eggs

9AM)“: and potato bags or containers must be marked with
0 Net weight of contents (not counting weight of container)

0 Grade of apples or potatoes

0 Name and address of person or persons responsible for the
grading

BPackaged apples must also show minimum size and variety

aPrepackaged foods must be marked with
0 Name of the food
0 Weight, measure or numerical count of food in the package
' Name and address of packager or distributor

Artificial color, artificial flavor and harmless preservatives, where permit-
ted, must always be declared if used.

Foods and beverages for human consumption, when artificially sweetened,
must be labeled as dietary products.

WWW

MICHIGAN FOOD LAWS are constantly being revised for greater pro-
tection for the consumer.

Wfr‘

 

 

//%i"2cA/////L ,
Compared to laws of other states, Michigan’s comminuted (ground) meat
law is probably strictest of all—even more strict than Federal requirements.

Fresh ground beef must be all beef . . . with not more than 20% beef fat.

Hamburger shall meet the same requirements as ground beef except that
it shall contain not more than 30% fat.

Pork sausages and processed sausages such as wieners or bologna and
luncheon meats must be ground skeletal meat’ —

4% dried milk solids may be added to hold it together.

Seasoning and flavoring may be added.

    
  

   

Do you understand them?

Meat ads tell you what your grocer has for sale.
Michigan laws require that descriptions be exact—for example:

Fresh Meat—when described as Prime, Choice or Good must be
USDA graded or be of equal quality.

Ham must be described as skinned or regular. Half Ham means just
that—it is a ham cut in half with no center slices removed.

6‘ e .
Ham portion” means one or more center ham shoes have beend
removed.

“Picnic” is part of a shoulder of a hog—somewhat similar to ham
(hind leg) in appearance and flavor, but not like ham in texture or
amount of meat in proportion to bone and fat.

0 ,' ' . - 1
Michigan law defines skeletal meat as any clean edible part of striated mIIStle
(attached to bones) including head meat and cheek meat.

 

3“"!an State. University. Cooperative mansion Service. U.S.D.A. and Michigan Gountiee cooper-ta to
”0‘” 9 Marketing Information for Consumers in these Cooperative Extension Officee:

Detroit: Grand Rapidn' Eut Lanai Mt; Pleasant.‘ S ' '

- - . : . . aginnw.
ggRSBJorle Gibbs 723 Fuller. N.E. Eileen Ben" Margaret Doughty SheikI 1‘0"” .
TR 3W. Grand Boulevard GL 9-4471 113 Agr. Hall. M.S.U. Courthouse Annex 6 Merrill Bulldm!
Flint -om 355-3328 SP 5.0121 793-9100. Ext 228

: Kalamazoo: Marqugtte:

Idfig'iawu‘i‘,“ Maryann Meldrum Ingrid Ber-tell! Pontiac:
235-4636 ' undena Ave. County Building P.O. Box 640 155 N. Saglnew St.
Fl 3-1201 CA 6-3508 FE 4-256‘
4P-25l-6:66-WE

l

 

 

 

 

3 look at food
adverilsing

A PART OF MARKETING OUR NATION'S FOOD

AN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM FOR CONSUMERS

Produced by:
Marketing Information for Consumers

Cooperative Extension Service
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Author:
Sheila Morley

Project Coordinators:
Charline Hatchett
Joan Witter
Mary Zehner

Artist:
Ramon Hutson

II.

III.

IV.

VI.

VII.

VIII.

IX.

CONTENTS OF PROGRAM KIT - ADS ADD £13

Information for Ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Brief of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Guide for Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Equipment and Materials Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Quiz for Program (optional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Bulletins - Meat Ads and Food in the Light of the Law -
for background information

Bulletin — AdvertisingiAdds Up - to be distributed to audience

50 35 mm Kodachrome slides

CONSUMER MARKETING grate-
fully acknowledges use of material
from ADVERTISING, 2nd Ed., by
John \V. Crawford, Publisher, Ba-
con and Allyn, 1965; and for con-
t.ibutions by Kenward L. Atkin,
Dept. of Advertising, MSU.

 

 

I. INFORMATION FOR ORDERING
A§§IAQQ_QE program kits are available from:

Cooperative Extension Service
Marketing Information for Consumers

Old Forestry Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

Bulletin — ADVERTISING ADDS g2 - in quantities of

Program Script only

Program Kit (50 slides,
(make checks payable to

For program information
Marketing Agent in your

Detroit:

Marjorie Gibbs

2930 W. Grand Boulevard
TR 3-0794

Flint:

Lysle Hutton

G-4215 W. Pasadena Ave.
235-4636

Grand Rapids:

728 Fuller, N.E.
GL 9-4471

Kalamazoo:
Maryann Meldrum
County Building
FI 3—1201

Pontiac:

155 N. Saginaw St.
FE 4-2564

script,

10 bulletins, etc.)

lO-99 - 6¢ each
lOO-999— 4¢ each
Over 1000- 2¢ each

 

(Minimum order — $1.50)

 

'm-U}
l—'

0 PH
0U!
00

 

Michigan State University)

in Michigan contact the Consumer

area:

East Lansing:

Eileen Bell

22 Old Forestry, MSU
355—3328

Marquette:
Ingrid Bartelli
P. O. Box 640
CA 6-3508

Saginaw:

Sheila Morley

6 Merril Building
793-9100 Ext. 223

Mt. Pleasant:
Margaret Doughty
Courthouse Annex
SP 5-0121

II. BRIEF OF PROGRAM FOR ADS ADD UP

Purpose:

P Michigan State University's Marketing Information for Consumers
rOgram has planned this kit to include what every consumer should
ADS ADD UP explains the purposes of

know about food advertising.
advertising,

food advertisjnv

the size of the industry, laws and regulations controlling
and provides information on merchandising and

promotion. This information will help consumers better understand our
complex food distribution system and the important role food adver-
tising plays in helping it operate effectively.

WHO CAN USE:

ADS ADD UP is suggested for use by any consumer group wanting a
45-minute to two-hour presentation. It is planned so that the im-

portant information can be covered in 45 minutes or be extended to a
longer period.

This program would be especially pertinent for: men's or
women's social or service clubs or organizations, high school economics

or homemaking classes, church groups, labor union meetings, credit
union meetings, etc.

HOW TO PRESENT:

ADS ADD UP is planned to fit the time schedule of most organi-
zations. Visuals used will depend upon the group size and the person

presenting the prOgram. Teachers might decide to divide the subject
matter into a unit or lesson series.

A four-page leaflet has been prepared for everyone attending the
program. This is a condensation of the important points covered in
the presentation. It is suggested that the leaflet be issued at the
close of the prOgram. In Michigan contact the District Consumer
Marketing Agent in your area to obtain the number of COpies needed.

See the following guide for details regarding program
presentation.

III. GUIDE FOR PRESENTATION

ADS ADD UP may be condensed or expanded to fit the need of the
audience.

*It can be presented as a 45-minute to l—hour slide program by
using the entire text.

*It can be condensed by selecting one or more parts of the out—
line rather than the total for one presentation.

*It can be expanded by developing supplemental activities or
projects to enhance the subject matter. For example: a teacher might
combine sections III and V of the program presentation, and follow1ng
the lesson, visit a large food market to observe techniques of food
advertising; merchandising, and Promotlon- A women's study club might

sider section VI and arrange a v131t to an advertiSing agency - or
con entrate on sections IV and VIII and invite a representative of the
fiigfiigan Department of Agriculture to enlarge on Michigan Food Laws ami

Regulations-

*Two Consumer Marketing Information leaflets are included as
mumflemental material to allow further study of "Food in the Light of
l the Law" and "Meat Ads.‘|

*A suggested quiz is included to focus attention on food
flmmming habits and how they might be influenced by advertising. This
rmw'be used at the beginning of the presentation to stimulate interest

and discussion.

IV. EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS NEEDED

 

 

 

 

l. .AQS ADD UP Program kit

2. Slide projector (extra projector bulbs)

3. Screen

4. A light for reading script

5. Supply of Bulletin - Advertising Adds Up for each member of
the audience

6. Examples of ”good” and “poor” ads

Copies of the quiz on advertising (Duplicate own copies of
quiz)

V. PROGRAM OUTLINE

 

I- INTRODUCTION

 

II. WHAT IS ADVERTISING? — (Slides 1 to 9)
1. Economic Communication
2. Tool for Selling
I III. WHAT DOES ADVERTISING DO? — (Slides 10 to 21)

1. Advertising Informs
2. Advertising Persuades
IV- WHAT ABOUT THE DOLLARS SPENT ON ADVERTISING? — (Slides 22 to 37)
The Nation's Total Advertising Bill
Percent of National Total Spent for Food Advertising
Food Advertising at the Local Level
Advertising Costs for Various Food Groups
Goals of Food Advertising
ROMOTIONS AND MERCHANDISING - (Slides 38 to 50)
Trading Stamps
COupons and Samples
Cents—Off Deals
SYCHOLOGY OF ADVERTISING — (Show examples of advertising)

<
wtthHrou1b<DnaH

VI.

GULATIONS AND CONTROLS
Legal Controls
Voluntary Controls
Informed and Active Consumers

1. What, Where, When, How Often
V 2. "Good” vs. "Poor” Ads
11. MEDIA FOR ADVERTISING
:- Newspapers and Magazines
. Rad'o ' '
VIII. RE i and TeleVlSIOn
l.
2.
3.

I.

INTRODUCTION

VI

PROGRAM PRESENTATION

ADS ADD UP

No American is entirely removed from the
influence of advertising. It affects all
of us, businessman and housewife, young and
old. We spend hours each day watching TV,
listening to the radio, reading newspapers
and magazines. We're exposed to some 1500
ads a day. Is it any wonder, then, that
most of us have developed certain very
definite opinions about this everpresent
influence in our lives? Is it surprising

that it draws criticism from all sides?

Some economists complain that the wide use
of advertising creates undue costs and can

be a bar to free competition.

Some home economists charge it with being

an unreliable guide for consumers.

Students of ethics accuse it of occasional
displays of poor taste and even misrepreaak

tation.

The poet Ogden Nash, who is known for his
irreverent comments on our life and times,
has his say on advertising along with all
the rest of us:

"I think that I shall never see

A billboard lovely as a tree

Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,

I'll never see a tree at all."

To criticize advertising is healthy; but'U>
deny its usefulness is foolish. That itIms

imperfections is obvious to all.

There's a saying in the advertising pro—

fession that "Doctors bury their mistakes.

4.

 

 

 

 

 

E II. WHAT IS ADVERTISING?
1. Economic Communication

SLIDE 1
(title)

 

SLIDE 2
3g (Produced by)

5* SLIDE 3
I (Author)

 

SLIDE 4
(Men & Horse)

 

:fi 2- Tool for Selling
SLIDE 5
(Magnifying glass)

 

lawyers hang theirs, but ad men publish

theirs for all to see."

However, we need to focus on its positive
values, for there is no question that ad—

vertising is here to stay.

Too much criticism of advertising is based
on too little knowledge. Therefore, let's
examine this force in our daily lives...
what it does FOR us, what it does TO us, who
pays for it, who controls it, and finally,
let's consider how we can put advertising to
work for us...how we can really get our

money's worth!

(ADS ADD UP)

(Cooperative Extension Service, Consumer

Marketing Information)

(Sheila Morley)

Advertising is communication between buyer
and seller where they do not meet face to
face. It's peOple communicating with other
people about products or services which one
group provides in order to supply the needs

and desires of a larger group.

It's what a company does when it cannot send

a salesman.

Advertising is a tool for selling. Like any
tool, it is only an instrument in the hands
of the people who use it. In examining

advertising, we must differentiate between

P

advertising itself, the motives of the adver

tisers, and the content of the advertisimg

message.

5

SLIDE 6 Consider a knife. In the hands of a surgeon, (
(Dr. & criminal) it can be an instrument for saving life. In

the hands of a murderer, it can be an instru-

ment for taking life.

So it is with advertising. Used by honest
men to sell an honest product with honest
enthusiasm, advertising can produce good na-
sults. Used by dishonest men for dishonest

purposes, then evil can result.

SLIDE 7 Years ago, men cried their wares in the open
(Molly Malone) ...remember Molly Malone and her barrowzflfll

of cockles and mussels, alive - alive oh?

 

SLIDE 8 Then came the peddler and the traveling

(Paddler) salesman. But with modern methods of
distribution and transportation to carry UR:
fruits of mass production to widely sepa—
rated markets, distributors learned that
personal, face-to-face, one-salesman-
talking-to-one-customer—at-a-time communf-

cation was simply too slow.

SLIDE 9 So business turned to advertising as the way
(Housewife: radio, to carry messages beyond the range of the
T.V., Newspaper) human voice...the means of getting the wonfl

to thousands of potential customers at one
time.

III. WHAT DOES ADVERTISING DO?

1. Advertising Informs

SLIDE 10 AdvertiSing informs you of the very ex-
(Variety of Products) istence of products and services. For ex—
ample, where did you first hear about nyhmn
boil—in—a-bag frozen vegetables, or the

coated Skillets that are so easy to clean?

6

.....

 

 

SLIDE 11

(Location)

SLIDE 12

(Price)

SLIDE 13
(Men & Horse)

SLIDE 14

(Store aisle)

SLIDE 15

(Comparative ads)

SLIDE l6

(Bacon brands)

Probably by reading an ad or hearing a com—

mercial, or talking with friends who had.

Ads save you time by telling you where you
can buy. They can alert you to the availa-
bility of seasonal foods that are in the

market only at certain times.

Ads also give you price information so you
can determine whether you can afford the
goods or service, or whether you could per-
haps buy them for less at one store than

another.

When ads describe the quality and the charac-
teristics of products, they let you compare
and contrast so you can choose the product
that has the greatest value and usefulness

to you.

Without the information that advertising
supplies, you might find it difficult to ar—
rive at a wise and appropriate decision be-

tween competing products.

Not all ads, of course, give enough specific
information on quality and quantity in re—
lation to price. It is impossible,for ex—
ample, for the arm chair shopper to compare
an ad for USDA Choice Rib Steak at 69¢ a
pound with an ad for Rib Steak at the same

 

price. There just isn't enough information
about quality in the second ad for a valid

comparison.

Brand identification, certainly a part of
advertising, permits you to pick and choose

among products of the same general kind.

SLIDE 17
(John Hancock)

SLIDE 18
(Consumer spurning

poor product)

2. Advertising Persuades

SLIDE 19

(Young man on knees)

SLIDE 20

(Diamonds, etc.)

furs,

SLIDE 21
(Girl rejecting boy)

Brand names today are like the hallmarks or
signatures put on products of which their
companies are very proud...products they
wish to claim before all the world.

Putting a brand or continuing identificatflmm
on a product can be risky if the product

It can be
a signal to the shopper to avoid that

doesn't live up to its promises.

product on all future shopping trips; and,
if you are seriously displeased with the

goods, it gives you a place to complain.

Another function of advertising is to

persuade. It's when we come to this role of

 

advertising that critics really get into hnfli
gear.
”Well,

The surface critic says, in effect,
it's all right when the preacher or
the teacher attempts to persuade you.to do
something, but it's all wrong when an adver-

tiser attempts to do this."

Actually, persuasive advertising simply
tells you why the seller thinks you ought'UD
buy the product being advertised. It poinhs
out its advantages over other competitive

products.

But this is all persuasive advertising can
do. It can persuade, influence, pre—dispoma
But it cannot front for an inferior product
or a needless product. And it certainly
can't compel you to buy again a product that
disappointed you or failed to fulfill a

valid need the first time around.

l

ha
an

3!
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IVZ 'WHAT ABOUT THE DOLLARS
SPENT ON ADVERTISING?

l. The Nation's Total
Advertising Bill

SLIDE 22
(14 Billion)

SLIDE 23
($240/Household)

SLIDE 24
(Cars/price tags)

Overall, advertising is an economic force
that plays a role in the production, distri-

bution and consumption of wealth.

Last year, almost 14 billion dollars
($13,980,000,000) was spent on advertising.

This bill, if divided among the entire popu-
lation, cost each man, woman and child about
$70 last year or about $240 per household.
As an expense of doing business, this cost
is passed on to the consumer buying the

products and services advertised.

You may not like the idea of paying the $10
advertising cost of your new car, nor the
fraction of a cent added to your bottle of
Coke or Diet Pepsi. Nevertheless, without
advertising to create a big demand, mass
production and its economies might be im—
possible, and products could therefore cost

much more.

2° .ESrcent of National Total
_§pent for Food Advertising

SLIDE 25
(17 - 20%)

SLIDE 26
(Ill'd chart)

Seventeen to 20% of all advertising in the
United States is for foods and food products
...a total of about 3 billion dollars. The

lion's share of this sum is spent by food

 

processors...somewhere near 2 billion
dollars...primarily in an effort to es-
tablish brand identity.

Between 2/3 and 3/4 of the food advertising
in newspapers, magazines, on radio and TV is
paid for by processors. Retailers, whole—

salers, and distributors account for most of

the balance.

3. Food Advertising_at

the Local Level

SLIDE 27
(1950 to today)

SLIDE 28
(Ad composite)

4. Advertising Costs for

Various Food Groups

SLIDE 29
(Boy & watermelon)

SLIDE 30
(Soda — coke)

SLIDE 31
(Type " %'S)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that
retail grocers are major advertisers of food
at the local level.
their spending for advertising about five-
fold since 1950 - from $60 million to a

currently estimated $400 million...most of

They have increased

it in newspapers.

The total is easy to believe when you con-
sider the number of full-page food ads in
just the Wednesday and Thursday editions of
your own newspaper. Rates vary, but they
average close to $350 per page in a paper
with a circulation of 60,000...$750 per

page if the circulation is 120,000.

There are certain limitations on the po—
tential return from food advertising, no
matter how informative and persuasive it
One is the size of the human

Another

might be.
stomach; you can eat only so much.
is that most food products have substitutes
that can be readily used. Thus food adver—
tising is not likely to increase total food

use.

The limitations and fickleness of appetites
create some guidelines for food advertising
efforts. Much of it becomes necessary to
match the advertising of competitors where

substitution can take place easily.

Around 30% of all advertising by food pro-
cessors is on cereal, bakery and grain pm?-
ducts. Canned fruits and vegetables and

seafoods combined and dairy products each

10

SH

r .
(a

E

SLIDE 32
(Store scene)

 

5. GoaIg Of Food

Advertising

SLIDE 33
(Type)

 

 

 

 

 

 

SLIDE 34
(Grocer & lady)

account for around 15% of the total. Meat
products, which represents a far larger item
in the shoppers' food budget, make up only

10% of advertising expenditures.

Increased sales of one product or by one
store probably reflect shifts from other
products and other stores. For example,
greater sales of fruit "nectars" and fruit
"drinks" come at the expense of sales of
true fruit juices...and as cake mix sales
increase, sales of cake flour and baking

powder diminish.

Advertisers try to increase sales by:

1. Increasing the average use of a product
or of a store's merchandise and service
by the customer.

2. Getting customers to shift from one pro-
duct to another, or from one store to
another store.

3. Attracting new buyers to a product or
store because of population growth and

new family formation.

Food advertisers try to attain lasting re—
sults in still another way. This is by at-
tempting to make sales less responsive to
price changes. This requires the develop-
ment of brand or store loyalty in the minds
of a large number of consumers. The adver—
tiser tries to acquire many customers who
will buy his brand or shop at his store,
even if prices are not as low as those of

his competitor.

 

SLIDE 35 With 6,000 to 8,000 items in the usual food
(Type: 6-8000) market today, new products could easily get
lost and fail to attract the necessary at-
tention to gain sales and a permanent place

on the food market hit parade.

SLIDE 36 It's been said that doing business without
(Eye in dark) advertising is like winking at a girl in
the dark. You know what you're doing but

no—one else does.

SLIDE 37 The emphasis on new products in food retaiL—
(New food examples) ing today makes the informational role of

advertising especially important.

V. PROMOTIONS AND MERCHANDISING

SLIDE 38 Promotion and merchandising are first cousins
(First cousins) to advertising. These are methods used U)

Inake a sale, once consumer interest has been

 

established.
SLIDE 39 Examples of promotions include trading
(Woman & coupon) stamps, coupons, cents—off deals, and pre-

miums. Merchandising refers to general

 

store layout, product displays, price policy,

and special services offered by the store.

1. ggadinq StamBé

SLIDE 40 Trading stamps are a familiar form of pro—
(Trading stamps) motion. Some 90% of food chains and 40%.of
independent supermarkets offer trading
stamps to customers at a total cost of $535
million per year.

SLIDE 41 The average cost of stamps is 2% of the

(1% in hole) store's gross sales. Since most grocers

operate on a low profit margin (usually 1%
of the gross sales), they would be 1% in
the hole if they absorbed all of the cost

of the stamps. The consumer pays at least

12

.__.—.——

 

 

SLIDE 42
(TS's & ?)

SLIDE 43
($150.00 = 1 book)

2. Coupons and Samples

SLIDE 44

(WOman & coupon)

SLIDE 45
(Door samples)

SLIDE 46

(Percentages)

a portion of the bill for trading stamps in

the form of higher prices.

Today there is widespread questioning, par-
ticularly among local chains and inde-
pendents, whether the $25,000 spent by a
million dollar (gross) supermarket per year
for stamps could be applied more

productively.

Twenty—seven percent of the stamps given
out are not cashed in, although each one is
worth 2/10 of a cent. You must buy $150
worth of groceries to fill a book worth be-

tween $2 and $3 at the stamp redemption
center.

At the end of 1965, grocery manufacturers
had distributed 2.5 billion coupons and
samples by mail to American homes...more
than 40 per family...at a cost of more than
$110 million, not including the cost of the
samples themselves or the cost of coupon

redemption.

This total is for food samples and coupons.
When those for soaps and other cleaning com—
pounds are added in, the total soars even

higher.

Coupons and samples introduce you to the
product at the manufacturer's expense in
hopes you'll become a steady customer.

They are a very direct form of promotion.

Coupon values range from a low of 5¢ to a
high of 39¢, yet studies show that re—

demption rates are very low.

Coupon redemption rates by distribution

method average...

1’)

SLIDE 47
(Lion & cage)

3. Cents—Off Deals

 

SLIDE 48
(Cents-off deal)

SLIDE 49
(Saw & penny)

SLIDE 50
(Disclaimer)

15% Mail

10% In—product
6% Magazine
3%% Newspaper

Retailers believe that coupons and giveaways
move merchandise and build store traffic.
For these reasons, thousands of retail
stores now issue their own coupons in ad-

dition to those issued by manufacturers.

Cents—Off Deals are another direct method of
getting you to try the product at the manu-

facturer's expense.

The price stamped or printed on the package
should be the stated number of cents lower
than the price on the shelf strip. You
should check to be sure that the price
really has been reduced. With 6,000 to
8,000 prices to keep track of, markets pgp

make mistakes.

Approximately 58% of all food shoppers tabs
advantage of some kind of promotion...cents—
off labels, cash-value coupons, or retailers

price specials.

The USDA reports that if a homemaker could
take advantage of all the specials offered
in a supermarket, she could save up to 10%
on her food bill.

Since it is probably never possible to take
advantage of ALL specials and promotions, a

more realistic figure might be 6%”

The use of brand names or registered trade—
marks as illustrations does not imply en—
dorsement of these products by Michigan
State University.

14

#44
#-

 

 

 

 

VI. PSYCHOLOGY OF ADVERTISING

1. What, Where, When, How Often
Certainly, ad men utilize principles of psychology in per-
suading you to buy...just as you do when you persuade your husband to
buy you a new winter coat.
The first law of advertising is to start where the audience is
and shape the message accordingly.
The advertiser can control just four things:
What he will say
Where he will say it
When he will say it...and
How often.
As an example of how these factors can be artfully combined, let's
consider one ad per day on the Captain Kangaroo TV Show (what, when,

how often) followed by a display at child's eye level on the super-

market shelf (where and what); and before you know it, you've bought

a can of Big-Shot or Jack-Frosted.

2. "Good" Ads Vs. ”Poor" Ads

It's when we get involved in what our advertiser will say
about his product that a discussion of advertising tends to become
controversial.

Since advertising, like the knife,

is only a tool in the
hands of men,

and Since men are not always governed by the highest
motives, how do we distinguish between the good and the bad — the

right and the wrong — the ad which benefits the consumer and the ad
that cheats society?

Probably we do this by looking at the ads themselves...and
PrObably we have developed a rather high degree of s0phistication as
our daily quota of 1,500 ads pass within range of our conscious
Observation.

We've learned to ignore many of them.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies reports that,
in a recent test, consumers were given a counter, and asked to click
it each time they were conscious of seeing or hearing an ad.

Out of the possible 1,500 (billboards, packages,

bus—cards,
store-windows, direct mail, etc.

in addition to such common media as

radio, TV, and newspapers), the average consumer counted just 79.8
ads per day!
Most - 85% of the ads made virtually no impression on the
consumer.
These same women were then asked to evaluate the ads that did
catch their attention.
They classed 37% as informative
34% as enjoyable
24% as annoying
5% as offensive

(If audience was asked to bring examples of ads it
liked, consider them here.)

There's no doubt that some ads breach the bounds of good taste
and good sense——even, in some cases, the bounds of honesty in at—
tempting to persuade you to buy the product.

This is less true in the field of food advertising than in
most others.

It may be that food distributors are more conservative than
others. It may also be that while you buy a new mattress or a major
appliance only about once in 15 years, you buy food several times a
week. If you, as a food shopper, are dissatisfied, action or re-
action is swift and sure. You stop buying the product altogether or

you take your business elsewhere.

(If audience was asked to bring examples
of ads it didn't like, consider them here.)

Classification of advertising as "liked" or "diSliked" varies

by media and by products.
Television and radio advertising have a higher number in the

objectionable category, while magazines and newspapers rated higher

in informative and enjoyable advertising.

VII. MEDIA FOR ADVERTISING

Advertising supports our mass media...our newspapers and

magazines, our radio and TV stations.

1. Newspapers and Magazines

Newspapers and magazines are the most important media for

advertising. Without advertising, they would triple in price.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Newspapers estimate that two-thirds of their revenue comes
from their ads, and there is some evidence that without advertising
you might refuse to buy the paper at all.

Several years ago, a newspaper was launched in New York City
that carried no advertising. People just didn't buy it, and ob-
servers felt that the lack of advertising contributed to the failure
of that newspaper.

Few things are so logically and so lucidly tied together as
NEW products and NEWspapers. The element of NEW is the key in each.

Newspapers, unlike the entertainment media (magazines and
television) mean things NEW to the customer...new political trends,
new births, new taxes, new products, and new prices.

Nine out of 10 American families buy a newspaper every day to
find out "What's new,” and most of them ascribe news value to the

advertising.

2. Radio and Television

 

Radio and television which comprise the second most important
media for advertising get their entire income from advertising.

Altogether, about a million peOple depend entirely or in part
on advertising for their livelihood. Most of these people can be
found working in four major groups:

advertising agencies

- the mass media

— advertising departments of firms

— service agencies such as printers,
artists, film makers...even your own

son, if he is a paper boy.

VIII. REGULATIONS AND CONTROLS

There are three types of controls over advertising...three

ways to make sure it's honest. And, for the most part, it is.

1. Legal Controls

 

First there are legal controls. These are the federal, state,
and local laws governing what an advertiser can and cannot say about
his product.

The Federal Trade Commission is the major federal body re—

sponsible for regulating national advertising. This agency reports

1"]

that it has found only 3% of the advertising it has investigated to be
in any way cause for legal action. In other words, 9T% of the adver-
tising complaints reaching the FTC are dismissed.

In the area of food advertising, the Food and Drug Admini-
stration sets up standards of identity, quality, and fill of con—
tainer for food products in line with the congressional mandate to
"promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers."

In 1961, the Intergovernmental Relations subcommittee of the
House Government Operations Committee initiated a study to determine

how many federal agencies were concerned with activities that:

1. directly protected the consumer
2. advanced the interest of the consumer
3. indirectly involved the consumer or

protected the general public
The results? Out of 35 departments and agencies of the federal
government, only two perform no activities in the consumer field.
One hundred eighteen different activities were listed as directly
protecting and advancing consumer interests.
In Michigan, there are comprehensive statutes to protect con—
sumers against dishonest or misleading advertising.

See CMI leaflet: ”Food in the Light of the Law”

2. Voluntary Control

The second type of control for advertising is voluntary con-
trol. This category includes the action of such groups as the
American Association of Advertising Agencies, the National Associ-
ation of Broadcasters, and the Better Business Bureau.

Here advertising agencies and businessmen band together to
police their own ranks. Seldom do you find reputable business firms
violating the codes of honest advertising.

Most radio and television stations subscribe to the codes of
the National Association of Broadcasters. The code forbids the
advertising of hard liquor, fortune telling, and offensive medical
products. It sets standards for the number and length of commercials

per hour of broadcast time.

3. Informed and Active Consumers

The third protection against dishonest advertising is supplied

by you—-as an informed and active consumer who has the final word

18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

when you vote your dollars in the market place for or against the
advertiser.

If, in spite of all the laws and regulations set up for your
protection, you feel you have been misled by a deceptive ad - what
should you do?

First inform the seller. The possibility of honest error al-
ways exists; in most cases, the seller will be anxious to make good
in order to keep you as a customer.

If this doesn't solve the problem, then write a note to the
manufacturer. The law requires that the name of manufacturer,
packer, or distributor appear on all food labels. Because reliable
business firms value their reputations, they should be quick to act
on your complaint.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies has stated
publicly that ”The consumer as a defenseless being-—subject un—
critically to the commands of advertising--is a myth."

In the long run she is, perhaps, her own best protector.
Given guarantees of purity and safety, much of the rest is dependent
on what she wants, how much she can spend for it, and other factors
of very personal preference.

And as every businessman knows, when the lady of the house

votes ”No Sale," there is no recount!

1n

 

VII. QUIZ (Optional)

On your last major food shopping trip:

1. Did you look at newspaper food ads before you made your
shopping list or left for the store?
Did this influence WHERE you shOpped?

 

 

2. How many foods, new to you, did you buy as a direct result of

seeing or hearing an ad for them?

 

Where did you see or hear the ads?

 

3. Did you NOT buy any food products because an ad offended or

annoyed you?

 

4. Did you NOT repeat a food purchase because the product did

not live up to its advertising?

 

5. Did you decide against buying any items on your list because

your usual brand was not available?

 

6. Did you cash in any coupons?

 

Where did they come from?

 

 

...——

How does advertising score with you:

7. How many ads were you exposed to yesterday? ___
8. What does an ad tell you? y#_

9. How much do you think advertising costs your family annually?

 

"lllllllllllllllllls