Science Says You Shop Differently If You’re Looking Up At Products


Just about everyone knows that the vital shelf space on a supermarket shelf is right below eye level, where your eyes are naturally drawn to products and you don’t have to crouch or crane your neck to see. A new study claims that vertical positioning on a shelf doesn’t just impact whether or not we see a product, but what kinds of purchasing decisions we make.

This is according to a study published in the Journal of Consumer Research that looks at whether we perceive items differently based on whether we’re looking up or down at them.


The idea tested by researchers from Ghent University in Belgium is that humans process different stimuli when looking down versus up. More precisely, that because we so often look downward at detailed items that are within close proximity — books, computers, watches — humans seek out more concrete information than when we turn our view upwards to take a more generalized look at things in the distance.


“Consumers may be so used to paying detailed and focused attention when they are looking down that they

might also do this when selecting a product from a low shelf,” suggests the report. “Similarly, consumers may be so used to taking a broader perspective when looking up that they will also do this when selecting a product from a higher shelf.”


In one experiment, college students were blindfolded and seated in a chair that positioned their heads at either 30% upward or 30% downward while someone described a scene at a lake with a boat on it. When asked afterward to estimate how far away they imagined the boat to be, subjects with downward-tilted heads said around 29 feet on average, while those whose heads had been tilted up estimated an average of 83 feet, more than 2.5 times as far away.


The researchers believe this shows that, because the subjects were blindfolded, the perception difference has more to do with the body movement of looking up or down than the actual seeing of these items.


A later study more directly related to retail involved making a purchase decision with subjects heads at different angles.


Subjects were instructed to keep their heads tilted upward, downward, or keep them level while responding to a series of questions. One question asked them to make a decision about buying a printer between two models.


Printer A was described as “higher in reliability (with a score of 9 out of 10) and slightly lower in quality (with a score of 8 out of 10)” while Printer B was “lower in reliability (scoring 8 out of 10) but higher in quality (scoring 9 out of 10).” So Printer A, according to the researchers, is a product that scores higher in a more concrete aspect — reliability — while Printer B outscores the other product in the more generalized “quality” aspect.


Test subjects were asked to decide on a printer by dividing 100 points between the two competing items then rate the quality and reliability of each product on a 9-point scale.


The results show that subjects who looked up were more likely to choose Printer B (the “higher quality” but less reliable model) than either those who looked down or looked straight ahead. And those who looked down were the least likely to select Printer B.


“[E]ngaging in bodily movements that enable consumers to look down increases the importance of feasibility attributes over desirability attributes,” explain the researchers, “while engaging in bodily movements that enable consumers to look up increases the importance of desirability attributes over feasibility attributes.”


In terms of how their findings can impact the marketing of retail products, the researchers believe that established brands with large market shares may benefit from shelf positions that require the consumer to look down a bit, as their study found subjects more often selected their most preferred brands when looking down.


“Consequently, when all competitive brands appear in low positions, the market share of the market leader (which is often the most preferred brand) is likely to become even larger when all competitive brands appear in low rather than high positions,” explains the report. “Similarly, our results suggest differences in the processing of in-store ads that hang from the store ceiling, floorboards attached to the store floor, and eye-level ads on shelves.”


The research may also impact online commerce, as most of us are looking downward at our laptop and smartphone screens when we shop at Amazon and the like. In fact, a consumer’s purchase-related decision making may be influenced by whether they’re browsing a site at work, where they are more likely to be looking straight ahead at their monitor, or on a tablet or phone, which is usually positioned much lower.


The study authors believe that more research on the actual retail implications of their findings is needed.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Dick’s Sporting Goods: Relax, There Will Still Be Plenty Of Adidas Stuff On Shelves


Yesterday we heard that Dick’s Sporting Goods stores would be ditching some Adidas and Rebook merchandise in order to make room for the chain’s new women’s workout line Calia, with Carrie Underwood as the face of the brand. And now the company is reassuring customers who were apparently worried this meant the store would be dropping the other brands completely.

Perhaps Adidas was a bit worried that Dick’s didn’t love it anymore, as the retailer’s CEO Ed Stack said today that the Germany company “Is a large and important partner,” reports the Wall Street Journal (warning: paywall in place).


Yesterday during an earnings call Dick’s CEO Ed Stack said that the space for the Calia line “would be coming out of primarily Adidas and Reebok,” but then stressed the fact today during an investor conference that those brands wouldn’t disappear completely by any means.


“The idea that we are kicking Adidas off the shelves, nothing could be further from the truth,” Stack said Wednesday. “For all the Adidas fans, there will be plenty of Adidas product.”


Dick’s Sporting Goods Says There Will Be Plenty of Adidas Products [Wall Street Journal]




by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Prairie Farms Introduces Peeps-Branded Easter Milks And Easter Egg Nog

easter milkLast year, we brought you the news that Prairie Farms sells Easter-themed dairy beverages: specifically, jellybean milk and Easter egg nog. Now the company has partnered with Just Born, creators of Peeps marshmallow-shaped holiday treats, to sell Peep-flavored milk. Yes, that just means sugar, artificial flavors, and food coloring. That’s what Peeps are.


Whether you think this is a neat cross-branding opportunity or a holiday mashup nightmarescape, it doesn’t matter what your opinion is. Peeps milk will continue to exist. Last year, when we learned that Easter egg nog was a thing, we learned that it wasn’t a new thing: spring nogs have been on the market since the ’90s.


Of course, nothing stops anyone from making their own egg nog at any time of year. The more important question is whether we really need heavily-sugared milk beverages to encourage milk-drinking in children. Jelly beans and sugar-coated marshmallows are great foods in moderation, but that doesn’t mean we ought to mix every beverage up with them. It’s like wrapping every food in bacon.


Prairie Farms and PEEPS® Team Up to Bring You America’s Newest Milk Flavors! [Prairie Farms] (Thanks, JT!)




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Alamo Drafthouse Won’t Join Theater Chain Boycott Of Netflix Movie

Though Netflix is giving Beasts of No Nation a simultaneous release in theaters and on its subscription service, the film will have limited early theatrical screenings to qualify for awards consideration.

Though Netflix is giving Beasts of No Nation a simultaneous release in theaters and on its subscription service, the film will have limited early theatrical screenings to qualify for awards consideration.



Yesterday, Netflix announced that it would be releasing a new movie, Beasts of No Nation, later this year simultaneously on its streaming service and in theaters, leading the nation’s biggest exhibitors to cry boycott and say they will refuse to show the film. But not Alamo Drafthouse, which doesn’t seem fazed by having to compete for consumers who can just stay home and see the movie.

The four largest theater chains — AMC, Regal, Cinemark, and Carmike — have all said they won’t show the movie about child soldiers in Africa from True Detective director Cary Fukunaga, because Netflix is violating the traditional minimum 90-day window between theatrical release and appearing online.


But Tim League, CEO and founder of the growing Texas-based Alamo Drafthouse chain tells Variety he’s “agnostic” about these long-observed divisions between theatrical and home video releases.


“I look at films I want to play and I play them regardless of the release strategy,” he explains, saying that he’s had success with films like last year’s hyper-violent sci-fi flick Snowpiercer, which did well for Alamo while it was simultaneously available on-demand for home viewers.


“I don’t look at myself as a competitor to Netflix,” explains League. “I think that argument is a little bit of a red herring. I watch a lot of movies at home, but there comes a time where I want to get out of the house. I look at cinemas as one of those options that compete with restaurants or baseball games or all of those things I can’t do in my living room.”


There have been a growing number of films hitting on-demand video services like Amazon Instant Video, Google Play, or iTunes while they were still in theaters, but many have been very small art-house productions that get poor theatrical distribution outside of the major metropolitan markets.


And even though Beasts boasts a hot young director and the starpower of lead actor Idris Elba, it probably still wouldn’t have played more than a few hundred theaters during its theatrical release.


What seems to have raised exhibitors’ ire is that Netflix itself is releasing the movie and that the film will be available for no additional cost to Netflix subscribers.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

McDonald’s To Use Chickens Raised Without Controversial Antibiotics


Last week we expressed hope that new McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook would do more than pay lip service to concerns about over-use of medically important antibiotics in farm animals, and today there appears to be some not-bad news coming out of the Golden Arches. The fast food mega-chain says it will only source chickens raised without the use of antibiotics that are important to humans and will offer milk that doesn’t contain artificial growth hormone.

“Our customers want food that they feel great about eating,” explains McDonald’s U.S President Mike Andres in a statement, “all the way from the farm to the restaurant – and these moves take a step toward better delivering on those expectations.”


Antibiotics are commonly added to animal feed, primarily for their growth-promoting effects. While this is good for farmers, scientists and public health advocates have long warned that over-use of antibiotics — especially those deemed medically important to humans — can engender the development and spread of drug-resistant pathogens.


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that more than 2 million people in America become ill with drug-resistant infections every year; about 430,000 of them from food-borne bacteria.


McDonald’s restaurants buy a significant chunk of chicken raised in the U.S. It joins the ranks of other chain eateries like Chipotle, Panera, and Chick fil-A that have either already stopped sourcing chickens raised on medically important antibiotics or are in the process of phasing those birds out.


Additionally, two of the country’s biggest poultry companies — Perdue and Tyson — have each agreed to curb antibiotic use in their birds.


“McDonald’s believes that any animals that become ill deserve appropriate veterinary care and our suppliers will continue to treat poultry with prescribed antibiotics, and then they will no longer be included in our food supply,” said Marion Gross, senior vice president of McDonald’s North America Supply Chain.


The news is being welcomed by advocates who have called for reductions in the use of antibiotics in farm animals, which currently account for around 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S.


The group Keep Antibiotics Working labels McDonald’s decision an important first step.


“While we know that change won’t happen overnight, we’re committed to working with the company as it moves forward with its implementation plan,” reads a statement from KAW senior analyst Steve Roach. “Antibiotic resistance is an urgent public health threat and the fast food industry has an important role to play in driving change, especially given the inability of Congress to address pressing problems and the weak response from the regulatory agencies.”


The Natural Resource Defense Counsel’s Jonathan Kaplan writes that, “The battle between humans and antibiotic resistant bacteria shifted favorably toward the humans today,” and the fast food giant’s decision is “good news for McDonald’s customers and anyone else who might someday need an effective antibiotic.”


The second announcement from today involves milk from cows treated with the artificial growth hormone rbST.


The company contends that “no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows,” but acknowledges that some customers simply don’t want it.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Telemarketers Accused Of Using Political Robocalls To Pitch Caribbean Cruise Packages

A diagram from the FTC complaint showing how millions of automated marketing robocalls were made each day under the guise of a political survey.

A diagram from the FTC complaint showing how millions of automated marketing robocalls were made each day under the guise of a political survey.



While people at various points on the political spectrum may disagree about many topics, one sentiment many of them share is a distaste for prerecorded phone calls from political organizations. Like them or not, they’re generally legal even if the recipient is on the federal Do Not Call list. But when you use a supposedly political telemarketing call to ultimately shill for a cruise line, you’ve crossed over into the dark side.

In a complaint [PDF] filed yesterday in a federal court in Florida, the Federal Trade Commission and the attorneys general of ten states (Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington), accuse Florida-based vacation-seller Caribbean Cruise Line Inc. and various telemarketing operations of violating federal and state laws related to telemarketing.


Between Oct. 2011 and July 2012, the defendants allegedly made between 12 to 15 million calls per day, according to the complaint, resulting in billions of calls made during the 10-month period.


A typical prerecorded message would go something like:


“Hello, this is John from Political Opinions of America. You’ve been carefully selected to participate in a short 30 second research survey and for participating you’ll receive a free two day cruise for two people to the Bahamas, courtesy of one of our supporters. Gratuities and a small port tax will apply. To begin the survey, please press 1 now. To decline the survey and be removed from our list, press 9. Thank you.”


Those who didn’t hang up immediately and actually took the survey were eventually instructed to press 1 if they were interested in receiving the “free” cruise. This directed the caller to a human telemarketer who informed that there were $59/person “port taxes” for the cruise. They would also try to upsell the consumer on hotel stays, cruise excursions, enhanced accommodations, and other travel packages.


At the same time, other telemarketing services companies were allegedly aiding in these illegal calls by helping the callers spoof their Caller ID information so that fake numbers appeared on recipients’ phones. Spoofing is not illegal — except when used in an effort to defraud or deceive someone. These companies are also accused of hiding the identity of the cruise line and the telemarketers when subpoenaed by law enforcement and attorneys in civil cases.


Caribbean Cruise Line and two other companies, Linked Service Solutions LLC and Economic Strategy LLC, are accused of violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule by either making robocalls for marketing purposes or using robocalls to generated sales leads.


These three companies and their various principals have agreed to settle with the FTC. The deal proposes a civil penalty of $7.73 million against CCL, which will be partially suspended after CCL pays $500,000. Linked Service Solutions faces a partially suspended civil penalty of $5 million upon payment of $25,000, while Economic Strategy only has to fork over $2,000 to suspend the rest of its $295,000 penalty.


The FTC has not reached a deal with the operator of the interrelated companies accused of assisting and facilitating the illegal calls.


“Marketers who know the ropes understand you can’t steer clear of the do not call rules by tacking a political or survey call onto a sales pitch,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Target To Cut Headquarters Jobs, Put Up Some Mannequins


Earlier this week, we shared the news that Target plans to make some changes to its food offerings to appeal to a different group of consumers, especially millennials. Changes at Target will go beyond the grocery department. The company announced a $2 billion cost-cutting effort over the next two years that will result in layoffs and a reorganization at the company’s headquarters in Minneapolis.

In a different part of their balance sheet, though, Target plans to invest more money in other parts of their business. CEO Brian Cornell announced yesterday that they plan more than $2 billion in capital expenditures, investing in stores and infrastructure. A big part of that infrastructure will be technology. More of that money will go toward technology than in past years, since Target hopes to increase online sales in the next year. That’s what their change to a $25 minimum for free shipping was about, of course.


While expanding store grocery sections in the last few years has been great for getting people into the store, those customers haven’t been buying more profitable non-food items.


Target to cut $2B in costs, including several thousand jobs [Associated Press]




by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

Sling Users Get More Streaming TV Today With Addition Of AMC, IFC

AMC is now live on Sling, several weeks in advance of the April 5 start of Mad Men's final season.

AMC is now live on Sling, several weeks in advance of the April 5 start of Mad Men’s final season.



One of the most common knocks against Dish’s Sling TV streaming service is that it just doesn’t offer you enough channels for the $20/month subscription, but today Sling will get more attractive to some as AMC and IFC are added to the base package of channels at no additional cost, while users also have the option of a $5 premium bundle from Epix.

It’s good timing for Sling to add AMC as users will still be able to catch some of the current season of The Walking Dead and Better Call Saul, and there are several weeks to go before the final season of AMC’s flagship show Mad Men kicks off.


IFC is a much smaller fish, especially since the former Independent Film Channel has long since moved away from its mostly commercial-free beginnings. But hey, it’s another option and it doesn’t cost Sling users any more money.


While AMC and IFC have been added to Sling, neither allows users to employ the service’s online rewind or pause functionality, and neither currently offer an archive of recently aired shows, so if you missed the Walking Dead you’ll have to wait until it airs again live.


For ad-free movies, you’ll need to ante up another $5 for the EPIX bundle we told you about a few weeks back. The “Hollywood Extra” package will give subscribers access to EPIX, EPIX2, EPIX3, EPIX Drive-In and SundanceTV. That last channel is an interesting inclusion as, like IFC, it’s part of the AMC Networks family and is not really considered a premium channel by many viewers, even though movies are shown without ads.




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

FDA Warns: If Your “Low T” Is Just From Getting Older, Don’t Use Prescription Testosterone

In recent years, makers of prescription testosterone treatments like AndroGel began throwing around the term “Low T” in TV ads, blaming low levels of the hormone for various problems — sex drive, flagging energy, moodiness — that have long been associated with simply growing older. But the FDA is now acknowledging that these drugs pose “a possible increased risk of heart attack and stroke” and are warning against their use for the treatment of anything other than very specific medical conditions.


Prescription testosterone is only FDA-approved for men with low testosterone levels due to disorders of the testicles, pituitary gland, or brain that cause a condition called hypogonadism.


But in an announcement made Tuesday afternoon, FDA notes that “testosterone is being used extensively in attempts to relieve symptoms in men who have low testosterone for no apparent reason other than aging.”


Citing the possible increased cardiovascular risk, FDA is requiring labeling changes for all prescription testosterone products to “reflect the possible increased risk of heart attacks and strokes associated with testosterone use.”


The agency is asking doctors and other health care professionals to alert patients of the risks associated with testosterone. Patients using testosterone should seek medical attention immediately if symptoms of a heart attack or stroke are present, such as: chest pain, shortness of breath or trouble breathing, weakness in one part or one side of the body, or slurred speech.


“We are also requiring manufacturers of approved testosterone products to conduct a well-designed clinical trial to more clearly address the question of whether an increased risk of heart attack or stroke exists among users of these products,” reads the announcement.


The FDA first announced that it was investigating the potential cardiovascular risks of these gels in Jan. 2014 after two studies raised safety questions.


The first study, published in 2013 in the Journal of American Medical Association, looked at a group of men (average age: 60) with low serum testosterone. The results of the research indicated that men undergoing testosterone treatment may be at a 30% increased risk of stroke, heart attack, and death.


A second study observed an increased risk of heart attack in both older men and in younger men with pre-existing heart disease, who filled a prescription for testosterone therapy. For men over the age of 65 who were being treated with testosterone, researchers claimed a twofold increase in the risk of heart attack in the first 90 days after beginning treatment. For younger men with a pre-existing history of heart disease, the study found a two- to threefold increased risk of heart attack in the first 90 days. The study did not see any increased risk for heart attack in younger men.


In Feb. 2014, health safety advocates at Public Citizen petitioned the FDA for a “black box” warning on testosterone packaging about cardiovascular risks, or at least a patient medication guide. In June 2014, FDA rejected the petition, claiming “insufficient evidence.”


Around the same time, regulators in Canada concluded that studies on testosterone treatments “provide evidence in support of this possible association when considered as a whole.”


“In the seven and a half months since the Canadian action, approximately four million [testosterone] prescriptions have been filled in the U.S.,” reads a statement from Public Citizen. “Had the FDA made this announcement last summer when the Canadian government acted, it would have reduced the number of U.S. prescriptions for and damage from testosterone, a medication of questionable effectiveness for a large proportion of users and one that increases the risk of heart attacks and strokes.”




by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Unprofesor: aprender con vídeos para primaria y secundaria





via Educación tecnológica http://ift.tt/1DTF6pr www.bscformacion.com