Oct ‘07- Jan ’08 tracking presentation Prepared for MLA, March 10 th 2008. By: Sam Almutair, Huw...

Oct ‘07- Jan ’08 tracking presentation

Prepared for MLA, March 10th 2008. By: Sam Almutair, Huw Williams, Trina Leigh

What we are covering….

• Initial results on ‘Australia Day ‘08’ Lamb campaign− Response to the advertising− Implications of media strategy

• Snapshot of Beef’s position in the lead up to the Feb ’08 campaign

• Update on Red Meat− What was the impact of the WCRF report on Red Meat measures?− Has Red Meat been able to sustain KPIs in the absence of ATL support

(Oct ’07- Jan ’08)?

Lamb

• How has the 2008 Australia day campaign performed?• How has the 2008 Australia day campaign performed?

Summary of Australia Day Campaign 2008

Poster + On-pack + OnlineTV

90 sec TVC

Sam’s Serves

Appearances on Australian Open coverage + 7 News

Exclusively on

0

20

40

60

80

100

29

34

9

4540

23

63

192532

5

Communication Awareness -LambBased on Total sample Rolling 4 weekly data

MEAT kpim01A S O N D

2007J F M A M J J A S O N D

2008J F

27% In butchers32% In supermarkets

14% On the radio

45% On television50% TBCA

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416

Red Meat- TotalTARPS

0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

Strong uplift in Lamb advertising awareness through January driven by the ‘Australia Day’ TV activity

Increased awareness of radio activity for lamb also a function of Sam’s radio program?

How has the 90” ad performed (’08 vs ’07)?

53 51 48

61

878689

896555

28

10

%

MB AustraliaTV

Norms%

Branding:There are some ads that people remember but never know what they are for. Which one of these phrases applies best to this ad?

I would definitely remember the ad was for Lamb

I wouldn’t be sure which meat the ad was for

I wouldn’t even be sure that it was an ad for meat

Base: (128 ads)(n=297)

Recognition:Have you seen this advert on TV?

The 2008 Australia Day has achieved equally high levels of recognition as the ’07 ad and branding remains strong

Base: (n=200) (n=301)

(n=146)

339 TARPs

2007(15 sec)

TV%

2008(90 sec)

TV%

305 TARPs

(n=299)

2007(3 min)

TV%

Australia Day:

(n=153)

2007(15 sec)

TV%

2007(3 min)

TV%

Australia Day:

2008(90 sec)

TV%

‘Australia Day 07’ (3 min) (mean 7.80)

‘Australia Day 08’ (90 sec) (mean 8.44)

MB CAWI Norm (mean 4.88)Distinctive

Interesting

Soothing

Pleasant

Gentle

Weak

Ordinary

Boring

I rritating

Unpleasant

Disturbing

Involving

The campaign still has the capacity to generate high levels of involvement with no negativity seen

Involvement diagnosis

Based on those that recognise ad

67

58

57

55

21

10

9

n/a

73

59

53

52

26

26

14

11

Response to the ad is remains strong - funny and enjoyable, with no build in wear out

It was funny

You enjoyed watching it a lot

It made lamb seem more appealing

It's the sort of ad you would talk about with friends

You're getting fed up with seeing it

I thought the ad was too long

It was confusing

I found it offensive

67

68

60

59

24

18

14

9

‘Australia Day 07’

(3 min)TV%


(90 sec)TV%

51

51

27

29

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

MB Norm

(n=146) (n=297) (128 ads)Base:Based on those that recognise ad

%


(15 sec)TV%

83

64

62

54

49

44

28

27

The 08 work continues to be seen as different while relevancy builds versus 07 - choice of topical content hitting the mark more this year?

Is different to other food ads

Is better than other food ads

The points made in the ad were believable

The points made in the ad were relevant to me

It made me more likely to choose to eat lamb on Australia Day

It made you more likely to eat lamb

It made you think differently about lamb

It contained new information about lamb

90

61

63

44

48

48

33

24


(3 min)TV%


(90 sec)TV%

49

37

35

30

38

n/a

n/a

n/a

MB Norms

(n=146) (n=153) (128 ads)Base:Based on those that recognise ad

85

61

60

40

48

38

33

26

%

(n=297)


(15 sec)TV%

Key messages are delivered successfully, giving a strong sense of patriotism

96

97

96

86

83

80

A patriotic choice for Australia Day

Our national meat

Great on the barbeque

Key Message NormStrongly Suggest

56% (n=182 ads)

Australia Day 07

3 min ad%

Base: (n=153)

96

95

96

84

81

79

Australia Day 08

90 sec ad%

(n=146)

Based on those that recognise ad

Strongly Suggest

Strongly / Slightly Suggest

95

95

93

85

80

73

Australia Day 07

15 sec ad%

(n=157)

How has the poster copy performed?

Recognition of the poster ads are just below average, but they are strongly branded to Lamb

Yes17%

Yes83%

Do you remember having seen any of these posters in supermarkets or butcher’s shops?

Base: (301)

69

23

8

%

I would definitely remember the ad was for lamb

I wouldn’t be sure which type of meat the ad was for

I wouldn’t even be sure that it was an ad for meat

(301)Base:

MB Australia Average

22%

MB UK online norms

Top Box branding: 58% (n=82 ads)

81

63

59

57

52

50

46

44

42

32

24

19

11

Good response to the poster ads, from an impact point of view, and also deliver good levels of persuasion

They are eye-catching

They made lamb seem more appealing

They are different to other food ads

The points made in the ads were believable

They are funny

They are better than other food ads

They made me more likely to eat lambThey made me more likely to choose

to eat lamb on Australia DayThe points made in the ads were relevant to me

They made me think differently about lamb

They contained new information about lamb

I'm getting fed up with seeing them

They are confusing

Base: (301)

Australia Day ’08 Posters

%

MB UK Average

%

69

43

39

55

30

34

31

40

19

How effective has the media placement (Australian Open) been in delivering reach and reinforcing

communication?

The media placement’s opportunity to deliver reach is supported by the popularity of the Australian Open, albeit there is a sizable majority not watching the tennis who still need to be hit

3

16

44

38

Interest in Australian Open

%

Been to see a live match

Watch most of the matches on TV

Watch the occasional match on TV

Not watched the Australian Open at all

Base: (n=302)

82

78

76

57

41

Channel 7

Channel 9

Channel 10

ABC

SBS

TV channels watched regularly

%

Tennis fans

63%

While the 90” ad is the main driver of campaign recognition, ‘Sam’s serves’ delivering some incremental reach

52

39

15

67

Campaign Recognition

%

Seen Any Lamb ‘Australia Day’ activity

TV 90 sec

Sam’s Serves

Poster Ads

Base: (206)

Neither38%

90 sec only23%

Serves only10%

Seen both30%

(206)

Seen Any Lamb ‘Australia Day’ activity ’07: 66% (n=299)

The different elements of the campaign cut through successfully to those who were exposed, especially amongst Tennis fans

Total

%

Base:

Watch channel 7 regularly

%

(172)(206) (132)

Interested in Australian Open

%

Seen both30%

Seen neither38%

TV only23%

Serves only10%

Seen both34%

Seen neither32%

TV only24%

Serves only10%

Seen both45%

Seen neither27%

TV only14%

Serves only14%

81

53

45

48

27

66

49

7.87

Being exposed to both TV elements of the campaign makes a significant difference to response, without increasing wear out

Branding Top Box

Involvement Mean Score

Enjoyed watching it a lot

Appeal

Talk about with friends

Fed up with seeing it

Funny

More likely to choose Lamb on Australia Day

95

61

64

58

24

84

51

8.87

90 sec + Serves

%

90 secTV only

%

(n=85) (n=61)Base:Based on those that recognise ad

The campaign remains popular albeit signs of a little more polarization than we saw in 07

69

33

39

46

16

I really like the ads and would like to see more of them

I liked the ads in the past but am getting bored with them now

I liked the earlier ads more than these ones this year

This year's are the best I have seen of these ads

I have never liked these ads

75

23

41

38

8

(90) (77)Base:

2008%

2007%

34% recalled the campaign in ’07 (n=299)

34% recalled the campaign in ’08 (n=299)

How efficient is the cut through potential of the ’08 Australia Day campaign?

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Ad Awareness

GRPs

5

60

40

20

0250

0

Camp aign A2000 G RPs

Ca mp aign B2000 G RPs

Cam paign C1500 GRPs

Modelling Ad Awareness is all about how we relate this….

The aim is to disentangle quality from quantity to see how well each campaign has leveraged the media spend.

….to this.

..so we can understand the efficiency of your creative in cutting through

Initial indications that this years campaign has achieved an AI of 14, slightly down on last year but a very strong result

Lamb - tvr

Red Meat in general - tvr

Beef - tvr

0 9 18 8 140 9 18 8 14413 339 434 305

TA

RPS

0

250 AI

0

50

11616 681 416

TA

RPS

0

250 AI

0

50

0 3 00 3 0577 560 427

TA

RPS

0

250 AI

0

50

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar2006 2007 2008

BaseModelLamb

AI reported per 100 TARPS



…However, if we include TARPs from Sam’s serves the AI is reduced to 6 (as TARPs double). Given the free air time, Sam’s serves delivered, however a watch out if a cost was attached to them efficiency would be impacted

Lamb - tvr

Red Meat in general - tvr

Beef - tvr

%

0

20

40

60

80

%

0

20

40

60

80

0 3 1 00 3 1 0577 560 427

TA

RPS

0

250 AI

0

50

11616 681 416

TA

RPS

0

250 AI

0

50

09

188 6

09

188 6

413 339 434 716

TA

RPS

0

250

500

AI

0

25

50

Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar Apr May J un J ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J an Feb Mar2006 2007 2008

BaseModelLamb




Early days on brand response but we are seeing a build in spontaneous awareness and past 7 day consumption

21

52

21

62

Top of mind awareness

Past 7 day consumption

4

5

3

8

Change from Pre- Australia Day

%

Post- Australia Day%

Change from Pre- Australia Day

%

Post- Australia Day%

More to come…

Total Mums with kids 5-17yrs

Time periods: Pre- Australia Day (10th December- 13th January); Post- Australia Day (14th January-3rd February)

(n=302) (n=300)Base: (n=77) (n=65)

Overall performance of ‘Australia Day’ activity

• The Australia Day campaign continues to work hard for Lamb in ’08− Generates strong levels of cut through- branding and engagement are

on par with the high levels achieved in ’07 and response to the ad remains funny, different and enjoyable

− Communication take out is strong and in line with objectives− The poster copy is strong and helps to supplement persuasion

• The integrated media strategy has been effective− Attaching the campaign to a big event (i.e. Australian Open) has been

beneficial> Sam’s serves adding some incremental reach but more obviously response

improves when both elements of the campaign are seen

Going forward…

• The campaign remains a very popular one, albeit first signs this year of a little wear out − However, not to the extent that suggests 09 will not be successful

• In terms of media efficiency, the number of Tarps versus the response we are seeing is down slightly on last year− A function of a 90” execution, consider when cut downs (to 45/60”)can

start to play a role without detracting from engagement with the creative

Click to edit Master title styleBeef

Snapshot of Beef’s position in the lead up to the Feb ’08 Kids campaign:

• How has Beef performed in the long term?• Is there a difference in the response amongst Mums with

kids of different ages?

Snapshot of Beef’s position in the lead up to the Feb ’08 Kids campaign:

• How has Beef performed in the long term?• Is there a difference in the response amongst Mums with

kids of different ages?

Read on Beef- pre February burst of Beef Kids

0

20

40

60

80

100

3642 42

2532

Communication Awareness -BeefBased on Total sample Rolling 16 weekly data



2008J

26% On television

36% TBCA

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

Advertising awareness of Beef has plateaued over the past few months in the absence of ATL activity

0

20

40

60

80

100

8570

77

87

82

66

Imagery - Easy to cook and prepareBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old

Rolling 16 weekly data

MEAT ex1029A S O N D


2008J

84% Chicken

67% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508

Red Meat- Mums w kidsTARPS

0

500 540 531 533

Beef- Mums w kidsTARPS

0

500 357 333 593 324

Lamb- Mums w kids

Perceptions around beef’s ease of cooking and preparation have decayed without advertising reinforcement

0

20

40

60

80

100

87

72

89

84

67

Imagery - Is well liked in our householdBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old




2008J

86% Chicken

67% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593 324

Lamb- Mums w kids

As has popularity in the household

0

20

40

60

80

100

85

32

79

87

37

30

Imagery - Its a childrens favouriteBased on Mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old




2008J

79% Chicken

31% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593 324

Lamb- Mums w kids

‘Children’s favourite’ status is also down slightly amongst mums

How has beef performed in the long term amongst target Mums?

In the long term, Beef has developed its association with healthy meals and kids appeal (in line with ‘Beef Kids objectives)’ and perceived expense has declined

60

50

43

35

22

63

47

46

39

27

Makes healthy meals

It's expensive

Has an irresistible aroma

Encourages the warmth of sharing and togetherness

It's a children favourite

Aug ‘06-Feb ‘07%

March ‘07-Sept ‘07%

Base: (3008) (3098)

=Significance level 95%

With the greater positive movements driven by Mums with older kids

39

40

35

33

44

39

30

35

Has an irresistable aroma


It's a children favourite

I’m willing to pay a bit more for it

0

6

1

4

7

7

-1

7

March ‘07-Sept ‘07

%

Change from Aug ‘06-Feb ‘07

%

March ‘07-Sept ‘07

%

Change from Aug ‘06-Feb ‘07

%

Mums with kids 5-12yrs Mums with kids 13-17yrs

Base: (494)(659) (405)(422)

=Significance level 95%

Click to edit Master title styleRed Meat

Update on Red Meat:

• What was the impact of the WCRF report on Red Meat measures?

• Has Red Meat been able to sustain KPIs in the absence of ATL support (Oct ’07- Jan ’08)?

Update on Red Meat:

• What was the impact of the WCRF report on Red Meat measures?

• Has Red Meat been able to sustain KPIs in the absence of ATL support (Oct ’07- Jan ’08)?

WCRF post-measures

How has the WCRF report affected consumer attitudes towards Red Meat?

Similar pattern seen amongst Mums target

Claimed awareness of Red Meat news increased through November (post-WCRF), although a similar uplift seen for all meat types at this time

0

20

40

60

16

19

38

26

30

19 20

710

14

Awareness non Advertising storiesBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



2008J

10% The meat industry in g

14% Red Meat

25% Fish

17% Chicken

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

0

20

40

60

19

11

8

2022

9

19

Awareness non Advertising storiesBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



2008J

14% Red Meat

18% Lamb15% Beef

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

No difference between the red meat types…

0

20

40

60

80

100

81

33

13

80

0.0

91

1.7 56

Impact of story - Red meat in generalBased on Total Sample Rolling 4 weekly data



2008J

86% Heard No stories

3% Neutral1.7% Negative

9% Positive

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

And no signs of a negative response to this news

Awareness of the WCRF remains unchanged following the release of this year’s report, and red meat’s perceived relationship with risk of cancer is unaffected during this time

56 53

Heard of WCRF:

Yes

Pre- releaseOct ’07

%

Post-releaseNov/Dec ’07

%

No significant change in awareness or belief in a link to cancer across segments

10 14

24

16 15

10

25

37 38

12

%

Believe a diet high in red meat is linked to cancer:

Strongly agree

Slightly agree

Neutral

Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree

Base: Pre-release Oct ’07 (n=599); Post-release Nov/Dec ’07 (n=802)

0

20

40

60

80

100

6

38

22 20

42

33

3

28

Integrity - Australian red meat industryBased on Total Sample Rolling 8 weekly data



2008J

4% Net Not very/at all et

39% Quite ethical

25% Very ethical

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

4% Net Not very/at all ethical

The red meat industry maintains its ethical and trustworthy reputation

0

20

40

60

80

100

42

60 58

68

5453

Industry Integrity- Very/Quite Ethical & TrustworthyBased on Total Sample Rolling 8 weekly data



2008J

53% Fish/seafood49% Poulty

64% Red meat

TARPS

0

500 616 440 508


0

500 540 531 533


0

500 357 333 593 324

Lamb- Mums w kids

Particularly relative to other meat types

Impressions of red meat producers driving these ethical and trustworthy perceptions

25 19

21 23

6

17 16 19

33 3434 36 34

33 3123

42 3

4

22

1 1 2

QINT2.How ethical and trustworthy do you believe the following producers are?

Australian Cattle

Producers

Australian Sheep

Producers

Australian Pork

Producers

Australian Fish/sea food

Producers

Australian Poultry

Producers

% % % % %

Very

Quite

Somewhat

Not Very

Not at all

Base: (n=1255)

How ethical and trustworthy are…

0

1

2

3

4

5

2

3

4

4

3 3

2

3

Mean serves for Red meatBased on Total sample Rolling 12 weekly data



2008J

2 Resistors

3 Acceptors4 Appreciators

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

Ultimately, the WCRF report does not have any notable impact on our key measure of serves across the segments

Overall, the release of the WCRF report does not appear to have impacted attitudes towards red meat

− Whilst there has been some growth in noise around red meat, this is mostly positive with very few people spontaneously replaying the proposed link between red meat consumption and cancer.

− There is no increase in consumers linking a diet high in red meat with cancer since the release of the report and claimed awareness of WCRF is unchanged post-release.

− Claimed usage of the CSIRO well-being diet has declined slightly (from 49% to 44% definitely aware of the diet), although this is probably more a function of time elapsed (no longer the same momentum around it) as the credibility of the diet and the CSIRO has not suffered.

How has Red Meat performed in the absence of ATL in Oct ’07- Jan ’08?

0

20

40

60

80

100

58

6760

3440

Communication Awareness -Red Meat in generalBased on Total sample Rolling 4 weekly data



2008J

38% On television

48% TBCA

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

Red meat advertising awareness has decayed in line with reduced media weight, albeit benefiting from lamb spend

0

20

40

60

514

37

43

4

4039

17

33

613

47

Attitudes to meats - Red meatBased on Total Sample Rolling 12 weekly data



2008J

6% Rejectors

13% Resistors

35% Acceptors

46% Appreciators

TARPS

0

500 616 681 416


0

500 577 560 427

Beef- TotalTARPS

0

500 413 339 434 305

Lamb- Total

The relative size of the segments has remained consistent since the last burst of red meat creative

And key imagery statements have been maintained

Foundation Food KPI’samongst mum’s with kids

Based on mums with kids aged 5-17 yrs old

Oct-Dec ’07

Awareness of Red Meat communication

56% 51% 47% 46% 46%

Red Meat serves per week (mean)

3.35 3.23 3.37 3.42 3.38

Lamb mean serves 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.96 0.98

Beef mean serves 2.19 2.04 2.27 2.23 2.16

Red Meat Essential part of a healthy diet*

50% 45% 49% 48% 51%

We are meant to eat Red Meat 3-4 times per week*

35% 39% 39% 41% 40%

Essential for a healthy mind*

32% 34% 38% 38% 40%

The richest source of nutrients*

26% 26% 25% 26% 26%

A diet including Red Meat is more important for my health than I previously thought*

25% 26% 22% 22% 27%

Total Resistors and Rejectors 22% 26% 20% 14% 16%

Oct-Dec ’06

Jan-March ’07

April-June ’07

July-Sept ‘07

Implications for Red Meat:

• Consistent communication of the nutritional benefits of red meat have helped reinforce the Foundation Foods campaign messages• Helping to maintain Red Meat KPIs in the short term despite limited ATL

spend…something we didn’t see when the campaign first launched

• The ‘Chicken’ execution is now on the tracking study, first feedback will be with you in 5 weeks (from 15th April)

Oct ‘07- Jan ’08 tracking presentation

Prepared for MLA, March 10th 2008. By: Sam Almutair, Huw Williams, Trina Leigh

Click to edit Master title styleAppendix


Lamb targets amongst

mums with kids

Top of mind awareness 23% 21% 16% 18% 21%

Very positive disposition 53% 51% 52% 57% 52%

It's normally juicy & tender 62% 57% 64% 59% 62%

Is loved by Australians 76% 75% 78% 74% 73%

It's delicious to eat 73% 67% 74% 73% 70%

Lamb KPI performance: quarter-on-quarter

Oct-Dec ’07

Oct-Dec ’06

Jan-March ’07

April-June ’07

July-Sept ‘07


Beef targets amongst

mums with kids

Beef mean serves 2.19 2.04 2.27 2.23 2.16

Beef KPI performance: quarter-on-quarter

Oct-Dec ’07

Oct-Dec ’06

Jan-March ’07

April-June ’07

July-Sept ‘07

Foundation Food KPI’samongst mum’s with kids


Oct-Dec ’07

Awareness of Red Meat communication

56% 51% 47% 46% 46%

Red Meat serves per week (mean)

3.35 3.23 3.37 3.42 3.38

Lamb mean serves 0.95 0.95 0.85 0.96 0.98

Beef mean serves 2.19 2.04 2.27 2.23 2.16

Red Meat Essential part of a healthy diet*

50% 45% 49% 48% 51%

We are meant to eat Red Meat 3-4 times per week*

35% 39% 39% 41% 40%

Essential for a healthy mind*

32% 34% 38% 38% 40%

The richest source of nutrients*

26% 26% 25% 26% 26%

A diet including Red Meat is more important for my health than I previously thought*

25% 26% 22% 22% 27%

Total Resistors and Rejectors 22% 26% 20% 14% 16%

Oct-Dec ’06

Jan-March ’07

April-June ’07

July-Sept ‘07

Beef KPI performance: quarter-on-quarter

Imagery Absolutes - Total

78

73

73

72

69

66

65

64

61

60

49

48

43

38

34

33

25

22

71

Are good for a variety of dishes

It's delicious to eat

Is loved by Australians

Is well liked in our household

Easy to cook and prepare

I trust the safety of this meat

Is an essential part of a healthy diet

It's normally juicy and tender

I'm proud to buy and serve this

Makes healthy meals

Contains a wide range of vitamins and minerals

Is consistently high quality

It's expensive



I'm willing to pay a bit more for it

Makes an everyday meal occasion a little special

It's a children's favourite

Good in a weight loss diet

87

79

50

83

47

65

53

64

77

43

46

20

40

34

22

31

72

58

83

56

70

75

63

59

43

61

60

53

43

46

50

51

44

32

41

26

16

62

Beef Chicken Lamb% % %

Oct-Dec ‘ 07, Base: (n=1401)

Imagery Absolutes - Total

49

58

36

47

41

33

38

46

43

33

32

28

34

25

19

35

12

16

51










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







49

65

41

57

42

84

31

58

86

75

37

60

22

23

45

44

20

82

65

Pork Fish% %

Oct-Dec ‘ 07, Base: (n=1401)

Imagery Profiles - Total

7

-1

12

2

12

1

10

0

-10

3

2

2

0

1

0

-9

-8

-20

-1










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







Beef

Oct-Dec ‘ 07, Base: (n=1401)

Chicken Lamb

15

4

-13

11

-12

-1

-4

-1

5

-15

-3

-27

-4

-5

-14

-12

37

15

10

-10

0

19

-3

7

-17

11

1

-13

-8

4

10

14

12

2

4

-3

-21

-5

Imagery Profiles - Total

-2

3

-4

-3

5

-11

4

3

-8

-3

4

2

10

5

1

11

-6

-8

-1










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







Pork

Oct-Dec ‘ 07, Base: (n=1401)

Fish

-20

-7

-18

-11

-13

22

-21

-3

17

21

-8

17

-18

-12

13

5

-11

43

-5

Imagery Absolutes – Mums with Kids

74

69

69

69

67

67

63

63

58

57

49

48

38

37

33

32

29

20

67










Makes healthy meals


It's expensive








87

77

45

45

86

66

49

60

75

38

17

43

36

29

19

81

33

55

83

51

70

59

73

64

45

62

60

50

37

50

46

55

47

31

33

42

15

61

Beef Chicken Lamb% % %

Oct-Dec ‘ 07, Base: (n=357)

Imagery Absolutes – Mums with Kids

40

52

33

31

40

32

34

42

39

28

29

28

33

23

14

14

31

15

42










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







43

59

39

36

47

82

23

54

84

71

58

34

18

17

43

22

39

80

60

Pork Fish% %


Imagery Profiles – Mums with Kids

7

-2

14

12

-1

2

11

1

-10

5

4

3

-3

2

1

-9

-11

-20

-2










Makes healthy meals


It's expensive








Beef


Chicken Lamb

18

4

-12

-14

16

-1

-5

-4

5

-16

-30

-4

-7

-8

-14

38

-9

13

12

-13

2

7

19

-1

-17

14

1

-15

-12

8

4

17

15

2

-4

5

-22

-5

Imagery Profiles – Mums with Kids

-4

3

1

-3

-5

-10

5

3

-7

-2

5

4

12

6

-1

-7

10

-5

-5










Makes healthy meals


It's expensive








Pork


Fish

-19

-8

-11

-16

-16

22

-23

-3

20

24

18

-6

-18

-13

16

-14

4

45

-4

-5

-4

1

-8

2

-4

-1

-1

-10

3

-5

2

-8

-4

2

-6

-2

-

-7

Beef

78

73

73

72

69

66

65

64

61

60

49

48

43

38

34

33

25

22

71










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







74

69

69

67

69

67

63

63

58

57

48

49

38

37

33

29

32

20

67

Total Oct-Dec ‘07 Difference from

Jul-Sept ‘ 07

Mums with kids Oct-Dec ‘ 07

% %

Period: Oct-Dec ‘ 07,

1

2

3

-1

2

-2

4

3

-3

-3

1

-2

-1

-

-

-

-

-

-1

Difference from Jul-Sept ‘ 07

Base: (n=1401) (n=357)

-8

-3

-1

-1

-3

3

-5

-9

-7

-3

-8

2

3

1

-3

-

-

2

-2

Lamb

56

70

75

63

59

43

61

60

53

43

46

50

51

44

32

41

26

16

62










Makes healthy meals



It's expensive







51

70

73

64

59

45

62

60

50

37

46

50

55

47

31

42

33

15

61

Total Oct-Dec ‘07 Difference from

Jul-Sept ‘ 07

Mums with kids Oct-Dec ‘ 07

% %

Period: Oct-Dec ‘ 07,

-2

2

-1

-2

2

-2

-1

1

-1

3

1

-2

-

-1

1

-2

2

-

-1

Difference from Jul-Sept ‘ 07

Base: (n=1401) (n=357)

Date post:	22-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
View:	217 times
Download:	3 times

Oct ‘07- Jan ’08 tracking presentation Prepared for MLA, March 10 th 2008. By: Sam Almutair, Huw...

Documents