IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/19-08.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Testing an Information Intervention: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Jamie Oliver on Fizzy Drinks Demand

Author

Listed:
  • John Gibson

    (University of Waikato)

  • Steven Tucker

    (University of Waikato)

  • Geua Boe-Gibson

    (University of Waikato)

Abstract

We conducted a salient purchasing experiment to test if an information intervention alters fizzy drinks demand. Subjects in our experiment initially made five rounds of purchases, for 14 items (energy drinks, colas, and lemonades) selected from a stratified sample of retailers. Subjects faced seven pricing environments, reflecting baseline prices, two ad valorem taxes, two specific taxes, and ad valorem and specific price cuts to reflect retailer discounting. Subjects then watched a video presentation by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver, which highlighted adverse health effects of sugary drinks. The five rounds of choices were then repeated, to generate within-subject before and after demands that show an overall 25 percent reduction in purchases due to the information intervention. Demand for one sugar-free option, Diet Coke, rose 36 percent after the intervention. The impacts under baseline prices were little different to those seen in conjunction with tax-induced price rises. Effects of the information intervention were larger for females, for the young, for the less educated, for those usually spending more on soft drinks, and for those who usually ignore sugar content when making purchases.

Suggested Citation

  • John Gibson & Steven Tucker & Geua Boe-Gibson, 2019. "Testing an Information Intervention: Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Jamie Oliver on Fizzy Drinks Demand," Working Papers in Economics 19/08, University of Waikato.
    • Handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:19/08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.its.waikato.ac.nz/wai/econwp/1908.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca L. C. Taylor & Scott Kaplan & Sofia B. Villas‐Boas & Kevin Jung, 2019. "Soda Wars: The Effect Of A Soda Tax Election On University Beverage Sales," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(3), pages 1480-1496, July.
    2. Emily Yucai Wang, 2015. "The impact of soda taxes on consumer welfare: implications of storability and taste heterogeneity," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 409-441, June.
    3. Taylor, Rebecca & Kaplan, Scott & Villas-Boas, Sofia B & Jung, Kevin, 2016. "Soda Wars: Effect of a Soda Tax Election on Soda Purchases," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt0q18s7b7, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    4. John Gibson & Alessandro Romeo, 2017. "Fiscal-Food Policies are Likely Misinformed by Biased Price Elasticities from Household Surveys: Evidence from Melanesia," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 405-416, September.
    5. Anurag Sharma & Katharina Hauck & Bruce Hollingsworth & Luigi Siciliani, 2014. "The Effects Of Taxing Sugar‐Sweetened Beverages Across Different Income Groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(9), pages 1159-1184, September.
    6. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Pimbucha Rusmevichientong & Wansopin Amatyakul & Harry M. Kaiser, 2014. "Taxes, Subsidies, and Advertising Efficacy in Changing Eating Behavior: An Experimental Study," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 146-174.
    7. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Wiesen, 2017. "Behavioural experiments in health: An introduction," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 3-5, December.
    8. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Harry M. Kaiser, 2014. "Reply to Comment on Taxes, Subsidies, and Advertising Efficacy in Changing Eating Behavior: An Experimental Study," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 722-726.
    9. Alastair J. Fischer, 2014. "Some Comments on "Taxes, Subsidies, and Advertising Efficacy in Changing Eating Behavior: An Experimental Study"," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 36(4), pages 717-721.
    10. Andalón, Mabel & Gibson, John, 2018. "The ‘soda tax’ is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter or healthier: New evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda," MPRA Paper 86370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Rusmevichientong, Pimbucha & Streletskaya, Nadia A. & Amatyakul, Wansopin & Kaiser, Harry M., 2014. "The impact of food advertisements on changing eating behaviors: An experimental study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 59-67.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lusk, Jayson L. & Weaver, Amanda, 2017. "An experiment on cash and in-kind transfers with application to food assistance programs," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 186-192.
    2. Jakina Debnam, 2017. "Selection Effects and Heterogeneous Demand Responses to the Berkeley Soda Tax Vote," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1172-1187.
    3. Alyssa J. Moran & Yuxuan Gu & Sasha Clynes & Attia Goheer & Christina A. Roberto & Anne Palmer, 2020. "Associations between Governmental Policies to Improve the Nutritional Quality of Supermarket Purchases and Individual, Retailer, and Community Health Outcomes: An Integrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Andalón, Mabel & Gibson, John, 2018. "The ‘soda tax’ is unlikely to make Mexicans lighter or healthier: New evidence on biases in elasticities of demand for soda," MPRA Paper 86370, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Fabrice Etilé & Sébastien Lecocq & Christine Boizot-Szantai, 2021. "Market heterogeneity and the distributional incidence of soft-drink taxes: evidence from France [Regressive sin taxes, with an application to the optimal soda tax]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 915-939.
    6. Jonathan Pincus, 2018. "Grattan Institute's Case for Sugar Tax Is Not Proven," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 51(1), pages 41-51, March.
    7. Emily Wang & Christian Rojas & Francesca Colantuoni, 2017. "Heterogeneous Behavior, Obesity, and Storability in the Demand for Soft Drinks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(1), pages 18-33.
    8. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Wansopin Amatyakul & Pimbucha Rusmevichientong & Harry M. Kaiser & Jura Liaukonyte, 2016. "Menu‐Labeling Formats and Their Impact on Dietary Quality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 175-188, April.
    9. Julio C. Arteaga & Daniel Flores & Edgar Luna, 2021. "The effect of a soft drink tax in Mexico: evidence from time series industry data," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(2), pages 349-366, April.
    10. SERSE Valerio,, 2019. "Do sugar taxes affect the right consumers ?," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2019017, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Christian Rojas & Emily Wang, 2021. "Do Taxes On Soda And Sugary Drinks Work? Scanner Data Evidence From Berkeley And Washington State," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(1), pages 95-118, January.
    12. Chen, Xiu & Kaiser, Harry M. & Rickard, Bradley J., 2015. "The impacts of inclusive and exclusive taxes on healthy eating: An experimental study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 13-24.
    13. Gustafson, Christopher R., 2023. "Comparing the impact of targeted subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," Staff Papers 330132, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    14. Hoy, Kyle A. & Wrenn, Douglas H., 2020. "The effectiveness of taxes in decreasing candy purchases," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Goncalves, Judite & Merenda, Roxanne & Pereira dos Santos, João, 2023. "Not So Sweet: Impacts of a Soda Tax on Producers," IZA Discussion Papers 15968, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Gustafson, Christopher R., 2023. "Comparing the impact of subsidies and health prompts on choice process variables and food choice: The case of dietary fiber," OSF Preprints u4v5c, Center for Open Science.
    17. repec:osf:osfxxx:u4v5c_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Christoph Bauner & Debi Prasad Mohapatra & Nadia Streletskaya & Emily Wang, 2024. "Unhealthy food, regulations, and consumer welfare: The US microwaveable popcorn market," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 62(4), pages 1558-1578, October.
    19. Pierre Dubois & Rachel Griffith & Martin O'Connell, 2020. "How Well Targeted Are Soda Taxes?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(11), pages 3661-3704, November.
    20. Ertian Chen, 2025. "Model-Adaptive Approach to Dynamic Discrete Choice Models with Large State Spaces," Papers 2501.18746, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2025.
    21. Sriparna Ghosh & Joshua C. Hall, 2018. "The Political Economy of Soda Taxation," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(2), pages 1045-1051.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    experiment; health; information; Jamie Oliver; soda taxes; sugar;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wai:econwp:19/08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Geua Boe-Gibson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dewaknz.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.