Qualitative Interview Results The relatively low proportion of respondents saying that any of the MM positions were outright unacceptable and in need of regulation is consistent with what was observed in the qualitative research. In the in-situ interviews, respondents tended to feel that products which made it difficult for them to find the MM when they wanted it were not per se, but rather just putting “unacceptable” themselves at a competitive disadvantage. If they couldn’t easily assess a product, then they would just buy something else. Net Benefit to the Consumer A net benefit measure for food products and non-food products was calculated by subtracting overall confusion (Test 2 score) from overall acceptance of the MM (Test 3 score) at each of the eight position variations. As some of the confusion measures were negative (ie: performance on Test 2 was above the benchmark score), the proportions in some circumstances exceed 100%. They have been converted into an index score to simplify interpretation. The net benefit measure therefore represents the proportion of people who are accepting and not confused by the MM location and format, for each of the positions tested (1 representing the status quo, and 7 alternative positions under the principles-based approach). This means that larger numbers represent higher net benefit (larger numbers of people accepting and not confused by the MM location). The absolute value of the net benefit score has little objective meaning, and it is more the relative score compared to the status quo and to other positions that is of interest. Note that these net benefit scores evaluate the relative positions of the MM compared to the status quo position, but do not factor in the potential benefit to consumers of other types of information that might replace the MM on the front of pack if it was moved to another location. Net consumer benefit associated with different MM displays benefit” based purely on the variations in confusion (Test 2) and acceptability (Test 3) “Net associated with each position showed that overall, the status quo position scores higher than any of the variations tested. For food products, due to their better performance on Test 2, the back of pack variants had the highest net benefit scores other than the status quo. For non-food products there was no one factor that seemed most related to net benefit.
Qualitative Interview Results The relatively low proportion of respondents saying that any of the MM positions were outright unacceptable and in need of regulation is consistent with what was observed in the qualitative research. In the in-situ interviews, respondents tended to feel that products which made it difficult for them to find the MM when they wanted it were not “unacceptable” per se, but rather just putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. If they couldn’t easily assess a product, then they would just buy something else. Net Benefit to the Consumer A net benefit measure for food products and non-food products was calculated by subtracting overall confusion (Test 2 score) from overall acceptance of the MM (Test 3 score) at each of the eight position variations. As some of the confusion measures were negative (ie: performance on Test 2 was above the benchmark score), the proportions in some circumstances exceed 100%. They have been converted into an index score to simplify interpretation. The net benefit measure therefore represents the proportion of people who are accepting and not confused by the MM location and format, for each of the positions tested (1 representing the status quo, and 7 alternative positions under the principles-based approach). This means that larger numbers represent higher net benefit (larger numbers of people accepting and not confused by the MM location). The absolute value of the net benefit score has little objective meaning, and it is more the relative score compared to the status quo and to other positions that is of interest. Note that these net benefit scores evaluate the relative positions of the MM compared to the status quo position, but do not factor in the potential benefit to consumers of other types of information that might replace the MM on the front of pack if it was moved to another location. Net consumer benefit associated with different MM displays “Net benefit” based purely on the variations in confusion (Test 2) and acceptability (Test 3) associated with each position showed that overall, the status quo position scores higher than any of the variations tested. For food products, due to their better performance on Test 2, the back of pack variants had the highest net benefit scores other than the status quo. For non-food products there was no one factor that seemed most related to net benefit.
ORIMA%20Report.docx