Out of Home Digital Market Food Promotions Research in Scotland report

This chapter focuses on the experience of consumers when ordering from the OOH Digital Market. It addresses the following research objectives: 

• To understand if, and why, promotions and other marketing strategies result in consumers ordering a greater volume of food, and therefore more calories. 
• To understand whether different types of promotions/marketing strategies within the OOH Digital Market influence consumer behaviours in different ways. 

The evidence used to answer these objectives was drawn from participants’ recordings of online orders placed during the fieldwork period (to identify prevalence and uptake of promotions) and qualitative data from depth interviews with these participants (to further understand the impact of promotions on behaviour). 

At the start of the order, participants generally reported having had some idea in advance of what type of food they wanted to order, although some said they did not know before they started browsing. Participants who said they knew exactly what they were going to order, and the outlet they were going to use, were usually ordering from an outlet they had used previously and had liked. Some who approached their order in this way described themselves as a ‘creature of habit’, always ordering the same items from the same outlets. Others recalled knowing ‘more or less’ what type of food they wanted, or the outlet they were going to order from, but said they were planning to browse through menus before deciding what to order. While less typical, there were also participants who recalled not knowing at all at the outset what they wanted to order. 

Awareness of available promotions going into the ordering process was mixed. On some occasions, participants did not recall having seen any promotions. On others, they did not recall seeing anything specific, but were aware of regular promotions through receiving emails/notifications about them, or from seeing adverts (e.g. at bus stops). While promotions did not tend to directly influence the decision to order (see previous chapter), they could be a factor in the decision of where to order from. In particular, those who did not have a firm idea of what they wanted to order, were more likely to consider promotions offered by different outlets or aggregator apps/websites to help them decide. 

Prevalence 

A range of promotions and other marketing strategies were present when participants were placing online orders. Across 106 orders, a total of 652 promotions or other marketing strategies were observed, averaging six per order. These were spread across 93 of the 106 orders (87%), with no offers present in the remaining 14 orders. As shown in Figure 4.1, the most prevalent strategies in the 106 orders participants made were price promotions. These included discounts with a minimum spend (e.g. 10% off when spending over £10, or £5 off orders over £20) and meal deals (e.g. main and side dish, or main plus a side and drink for a lower price than purchasing the items individually). Upselling (such as prompts at the checkout to add items to an order) and product placement strategies (menus with dedicated sections for offers, featured items and specials) were also widespread.

Promotions typically appeared throughout the ordering process, including on the homepage, while browsing, and at the checkout. The types of promotions and other marketing strategies differed across these stages of ordering, and typically included:

On the homepage: discount with a minimum spend, dedicated menus for offers, featured items or specials, and meal deals. 

• On the browsing pages and when adding items to the basket: suggestions to add items to the order, meal deals, and items marked as ‘new’ on the menu. ▪
• At the basket and checkout stage: suggestions to add items to the order. 

Overall, the average number of promotions was higher when participants ordered from chain outlets (seven per order) compared with independent outlets (five per order). The average number of promotions was also higher when participants ordered using aggregator apps and websites (seven per order) compared with an outlet’s own app or website (four per order). 

Uptake 

Promotions were taken up in 78 of the 106 (74%) orders made, and by 27 of the 29 participants. There were 15 orders where promotions or other marketing strategies were present but not taken up and 14 orders where no promotions were present. 

The rate of uptake of promotions during the ordering process also varied by type. Figure 4.2 below summarises the prevalence of different types of promotions and the rate of uptake. Promotion types where prevalence is below 10 have been removed from uptake calculations and are not discussed in the remainder of the chapter. Upsizing codes (‘larger size by default and being asked if you would like a larger size) have been grouped together (prevalence = 10) and have been included. 

As well as being the most prevalent, price promotions were the most frequently taken up by consumers. These included discounts with a minimum spend (of 86 instances where it was presented, the uptake rate was 47%), general discounts when ordering a specific item or from a specific outlet online (38 instances, 42% uptake), meal deals (80 instances, 40% uptake), and offers with a subscription (59 instances, 39% uptake). 

Although less prevalent, upsizing strategies had a higher uptake rate. These included being offered a larger size and larger sizes being selected by default (ten instances, 60% uptake). Other price promotions also had lower prevalence but higher uptake, including free or cheaper delivery (24 instances, 46% uptake). 

Upselling strategies, despite being among the more prevalent promotion types, tended to have lower uptake. Suggestions to add items at checkout were common (82 instances), but uptake was low (6%). Suggestions to add items while browsing (52 instances) had a higher uptake rate (23%) but this was still lower than other promotion types. Some price promotions had both a lower prevalence and uptake rate, including loyalty card or reward schemes (23 instances, 30% uptake), free items (34 instances, 15% uptake) and multibuy offers (14 instances, 14% uptake). Promotions on specific products also had lower prevalence and uptake (20 instances, 15% uptake). 

Product placement strategies (including menus with dedicated offers, featured items or specials sections, items marked as recommended or popular, and items marked as new) were coded as part of researcher observations of orders recorded on Indeemo and high levels of prevalence 2 were observed. However, initial analysis of these types of promotions highlighted the difficulty in measuring their effect, as participants reported that much of their engagement with these messages was incidental (i.e. they did not tend to notice that items were new, popular or recommended). As no evidence of any product placement strategies influencing the volume of food was found, they have not been included in the prevalence/uptake analysis.

The rest of this chapter includes more detailed discussion of the range of promotion strategies in order of prevalence and uptake. It explores how consumers interacted with them, the extent to which they influenced behaviour, and any impact on volume of food (and therefore calories) ordered. 

In interpreting the findings, it should be borne in mind that it was not possible to be certain, in all instances in which promotion was taken up, whether it resulted in more food being ordered than would otherwise have been. This is largely due to the fact that not all orders were explored in the follow-up interviews (58 of 106 were covered). While this has been mitigated to an extent by including data from the discussions with participants about their wider ordering behaviour, it is still possible that there are occasions where participants ordered more food than planned, due to a promotion or marketing strategy, that are not included below.

The strategies with both highest prevalence and highest uptake were all price promotions. These included: 

• Discounts with a minimum spend 
• General discounts on the total order from a specific restaurant, or on a specific item 
• Meal deals
• Offers with a subscription

The findings in relation to each price promotion are discussed in turn.

Discounts with a minimum spend 

The offer of a discount with a minimum spend could appear at any stage of the ordering process (and in some cases appeared multiple times within a single order), but was most commonly observed on the homepage when participants started an order. Discounts included a fixed sum or a percentage off the total order value with a minimum spend, which typically ranged from £10 to £30. This type of promotion was predominantly offered through aggregator apps/websites. However, some restaurants (both chains and independent outlets) offered it via their own app or website. In total, there were 86 instances of this type of promotion, with a 47% uptake. 

Among participants who used this discount, some recalled knowing about it in advance and said that this impacted their choice of outlet. They felt that it represented good value for money, particularly when ordering for several people, and that it helped to offset other costs like delivery and service fees. Participants also described a conscious effort to configure their order to hit the minimum spend and maximise savings.

There was evidence of this type of promotion having an impact on the volume of food ordered. In three cases, it prompted the addition of side dishes to consumers’ orders and, in one case, prompted the addition of a dessert. Of these four additional items, two were thrown out and two were eaten as part of the meal. 

Participants who did not eat the additional food used the ‘eyes bigger than belly’ expression to describe the feeling that they had ordered too much food as a result of both being hungry at the time of ordering and wanting to meet the minimum spend to receive the discount. Participants who did eat the additional food felt that it was the right amount, but also acknowledged that they would not have ordered the additional side had the discount not been available. In another case, where the discount prompted a consumer to order more food, the participant could not identify specific items that they ordered as a result, but said that they deliberately ‘over-ordered’ to have enough food to cover a future meal as well as the one they were ordering for. In two cases, this type of promotion resulted in a higher volume of calories being ordered with the addition of side dishes (see Appendix F).

Case study and journey map 2: Tracy, influenced to order more food

Tracy lives with her husband in Aberdeen. Both her and her husband work 9-to-5 jobs and tend to follow set schedules and a regular routine. Neither Tracy nor her husband enjoy cooking but they make an effort to prepare and plan food for a few days ahead. However, when days are particularly busy or she is too tired, she doesn’t always manage this and would usually order a takeaway instead. This normally happens around once a week. Tracy orders from independent Indian outlets or chain pizza restaurants through aggregator apps and receives emails from them about discounts and promotions. 

Although financial considerations do not play a significant role in her decisions around food, Tracy is frequently influenced by promotions on takeaway food. Time-limited promotions, such as discounts on multiple orders within one month, can sometimes prompt her to order food more often than she otherwise would. Promotions become particularly influential when she has already decided to order and agreed with her partner on what type of food they would like. At this point, she would go on the aggregator app to check what discounts are available for outlets offering their desired cuisine type and choose the outlet with the best value for money. 

“We usually discuss out loud when one of us suggests takeaway. We then say, ‘okay, what sort of, takeaway?’ So, we make a decision – Indian, pizza or burritos, or something like that, before we start looking. Then, I would look within that category. I would go on [aggregator app] because that is where the majority of the places that we like to order from are. I would look at the pizza category or the pizza places we order from. If I did see that there was one place that did pizza that had an offer on, I might suggest, okay, we will go for this. But if no pizza place has offers then we would just go for pizza regardless.” 

She spends a long time browsing the menu page and promotions on offer, comparing the prices of items and “playing the game” of making the best out of available discounts. 

“Once we decided ‘this is what we're going to go for’, then I started playing the game of getting the most out of it.” 

“I spent more time, and I remember this, the majority of the seven minutes [of the screen recording] is me, sort of, looking at how to make the best use of it. You know, how to order most, or least money, sort of, thing. So, the majority of it is just me scrolling and clicking and going back and removing things from our basket.” 

Certain types of promotions can sometimes lead to her ordering more items than she would otherwise have done, for example when trying to reach the minimum spend amount for a discount. 

“I think I would have ordered less [if the offer wasn’t on]. If something might end up being the same price but it is more food, I will go for that even though I don't need more food. Here, I think I only ordered this [item] because it was part of a good price deal. If I was paying separately, I probably would have gone for far less food.” 

“I would say a discount if you spend a certain amount might [influence me the most], like you saw there that was a part in my decision making, deciding that since I was going to be spending that money, I would try to reach the minimum. So, it wasn't necessarily [encouraging to order] more often, but perhaps ordering more food than I would have otherwise.” 

The decision process for Tracey is summarised in Figure 4.3.

Others who used the discount said they did not know it was available until they started their order and reported that it did not affect what they chose to order. This was either because they weren’t aware that a minimum spend had to be reached, or because they knew what they wanted and would have ordered the same type and volume of food regardless. The discount was therefore considered to be a bonus and did not influence the behaviour of participants on these occasions.

However, in one case, a participant removed items (a side dish and a dip) from their order once they realised they had reached the minimum spend and did not need the additional items to receive the discount.

Case study and journey map 3: James, has used promotions but they don’t  influence food ordered 

James is a professional in his 30s living in Glasgow with his partner Louise. He works from home, enjoys regular exercise and tends to follow a consistent routine. James and his partner enjoy cooking and do a weekly food shop, but struggle to plan meals in advance. James is financially well off and doesn’t have to worry about the cost of food. His choices are based more around health and food quality. 

James orders takeaways around once per week on average, usually when feeling ‘lazy’ or tired after a busy working day, especially in the winter. Occasionally, he enjoys ordering in as a post-gym treat. He unsubscribed from receiving promotional communications from delivery apps and restaurants as he found them ‘irritating’ and his takeaway decisions are rarely influenced by seeing promotions beforehand. Instead, the main driver is craving a particular type of food. 

James uses aggregator apps to order from local independent restaurants that him and Louise know and love. When browsing delivery apps, he picks a cuisine first and then selects a restaurant. While he notices some prominently featuring promotions, these don't tend to sway his choices – if there is a promotion available for his desired outlet, he would use it, but it is not a major factor for him. 

“It [free delivery] doesn’t matter that much. Obviously, it is a nice form of getting however much off, but I think I would base it [my decision] more on the food rather than [promotions].” 

When browsing the outlet menu, he tends to initially select as many items as appeal to him and before narrowing down his choices in the basket for the final order. 

"I tend to go through the menu with gluttony in mind, thinking ‘I will have that, I will have that, I will have that’, and then realising it is a bit too much food coming in so [I remove some]." 

His final choices are guided by personal cravings and things he enjoyed in the past. Promotions have a minimal influence on his decisions. 

“I don't remember noticing it [a promotion], I think that [item] was what I fancied eating at the time, so it was a happy coincidence [that there was a discount on it].” 

Because James is generally curious about food, seeing new or free items marked on the menu can sometimes catch his eye if the items look appealing to him. While he finds that promotions such as discounts or free delivery can be a nice perk, he does not seek them out or feel compelled to order more than usual to take advantage of offers. 

“I think I would tend to eat the same amount of food and whether it costs less or not is a benefit, but I wouldn't say I order more food because of having to save the money.” 

The decision process for James is summarised in Figure 4.4.

Where this promotion was available but not used, a range of reasons for this were reported. In two cases, participants said that they had not noticed the availability of the discount at the time and were just under the spend threshold. Had they noticed it, they said they might have added an item to receive the discount. In other cases, participants recalled that they had noticed the discount but would not have got to the minimum spend with what they were planning to order, and they were not interested in changing or adding to their order just for the sake of it. 

Some participants ordering for fewer people (e.g. two adults and a child) felt that the minimum spend was too high and therefore did not use the discount. A couple of participants had reached the minimum spend and tried to apply the discount code but it did not work for them, so they proceeded to order without the discount. Others reported that the outlet they wanted to order from, within the aggregator app, was not offering the discount and they chose to order from their preferred outlet anyway. 

General discounts on total order or specific item or restaurant 

General discounts that could be applied, or were automatically applied, without meeting any minimum spend were commonly used. These discounts were typically based on a range of other criteria, such as specific outlets, selected items, or days of the week (e.g. Monday to Thursday). In total, there were 38 instances of this type of promotion, and the uptake rate was 42%. 

The general discounts tended to be a percentage discount which was automatically applied when ordering from a specific outlet or selecting a specific item. Some participants recalled being aware of it in advance, and said they had selected outlets on this basis, while others were not aware until they were making their order. The presence of the discount did not affect most decisions, but it was generally considered to be a ‘good’ offer. While not actively looking for them, one participant described noticing the discounts on certain items and opted for them instead of other non-discounted items to save money. 

In one case, this type of promotion prompted the selection of a larger portion size, although the participant later explained that this was intended to cover two meals and was not consumed in one sitting. In another case, the discount prompted a higher volume of food (and therefore calories) to be ordered, which was reported to be consumed in one sitting (see Appendix F). When reflecting on this order in an interview, the participant said they would not have ordered the additional items had it not been for the discount.

Meal deals

The offer of a meal deal was most prominent during the browsing stage of an order, but also appeared on the homepage. Meal deals typically included several items (e.g. a main dish, side and drink) for one person, but also ‘bundles’ of mixed mains, sides and drinks for groups (advertised to feed 2 or 4 people). This type of promotion was widespread across different types of outlets. In total, there were 80 instances of a meal deal being promoted, and the uptake rate was 40%. 

In some cases, it was difficult for participants to explain why they chose a meal deal, as it was described as a habit, an automatic choice, or something they would always choose. Meal deals were generally considered to offer good value for money. For some, this meant being able to get the same food but for less money while, for others, it was more food for less money. Parents, in particular, mentioned meal deals offering smaller portion sizes for children, and also the convenience of sharing meal deals when ordering for a family.

This automatic behaviour in relation to meal deals also made it difficult for participants to consider the impact of such price promotions on what they ordered. However, when reflecting on it, the prevalence of meal deals was felt to have impacted on the volume of food and drink ordered to some extent. For instance, the combination of a main dish, side and drink was deemed to offer better value than ordering those same items separately. Therefore, had the meal deal not existed, some participants said they might have just ordered the main dish. Others said they might have ordered the main and side, but not the drink.

There were also cases where additional items were ordered as part of a meal deal, including side dishes and/or drinks (see Appendix F). However, participants later reported that these had been intended to be shared with others. 

Where this promotion was available but not used, this was typically because a meal deal was not offered by the chosen outlet or for the meals being ordered. 

Offers with a subscription 

The promotion of offers with a subscription typically appeared throughout the ordering process when participants ordered through an aggregator app or website. On the homepage, these promotions encouraged consumers to ‘try out’ a subscription before starting their order which would give them free delivery, discounts, or credit back. During the browsing process, subscriptions would continue to be promoted with messaging to highlight what the consumer might save if they sign up, or what they would have saved on their previous order had they subscribed then. These types of messages would appear again at the checkout to alert consumers to the potential for saving money if they subscribed. In total, there were 59 instances of this type of promotion, and the uptake rate was 39% (all of which were pre-existing subscriptions being utilised). 

The main reason participants gave for having a subscription was that they had received it as a perk of another subscription (e.g. for a streaming service). While free delivery was identified as a benefit of certain subscriptions, on its own, it was generally not considered to be worth paying for. There were also cases where participants had opted for a free trial of a subscription but were not intending to keep it. There was no evidence that the discounts offered through a subscription had any impact on the volume of food ordered based on the recordings reviewed for this research.

Where offers with a subscription were presented but not taken up, this was based on a broad view that subscriptions did not represent good value for money. Subscribing to one food delivery service was considered a limitation in terms of the number of outlets that would be available to choose from, and some felt that they would not order frequently enough to make it worthwhile. Others described trying to be more ‘health conscious’, and felt that having a subscription would prompt them to order more often than they would otherwise.

The strategies with lower prevalence but a higher uptake rate included upsizing, as well as price promotions. These types of promotions, while observed less often, were taken up more frequently where available.

Upsizing

Prevalence of upsizing was low overall (10), but the uptake rate was relatively high (60%). During the browsing stage, there were a small number of instances where larger size portions were selected by default. In one instance, where the larger size selected by default, the participant recalled not noticing this but said it had been their intention to order a larger portion anyway. There was no evidence that the larger size by default prompted a higher volume of food to be ordered than intended. 

Messages asking if consumers wanted a larger portion size were mainly prevalent at the browsing/item selection stage. Reasons for uptake included an intention to get a larger size anyway (out of habit), a perception that it would result in substantially more food for relatively little extra cost, and to combine with another offer. In some cases the decision to get a larger portion was habitual, while in others - such as when combining with another offer - it was prompted.

When thinking more generally about types of promotions, views on upsizing were mixed. On the one hand, there was a view that consumers will order what they intend to order and that larger sizes, whether by default or offered, would not influence them either way and in some cases were considered off-putting as they made participants feel “hassled”. Another view was that larger sizes - particularly if selected by default rather than offered - could result in consumers ordering more food unintentionally. 

Price promotions

The price promotions with lower prevalence but higher uptake included:

• Fee or cheaper delivery (24 instances, 46% uptake rate). This was typically offered as part of a minimum spend. However, on aggregator apps/websites, some outlets were promoted as having no delivery fee.
• Loyalty card or reward schemes (23 instances, 30% uptake rate). Such schemes included free items after a certain number of orders, or a range of different awards for account holders (e.g. discounts on specific items or being able to purchase items using points).

Free or cheaper delivery was prevalent throughout the order process. Participants generally did not recall knowing that beforehand or at the time of ordering. While one participant suggested that this might have resulted in a “slight push” towards choosing an outlet, no evidence was found that free or cheaper delivery had impacted on the amount of food ordered. Some participants recalled not reaching the minimum spend to qualify for free or cheaper delivery, but this did not prompt them to order more food. When discussing types of promotions more generally, views were mixed. Some said that the offer of free or cheaper delivery was not something they had or would take notice of, while others said that this would have some influence. Where free or cheaper delivery did have an influence, it was in relation to the frequency of ordering and choice of outlet, rather than the volume of food ordered on any given occasion.

There were several instances of participants redeeming free items (e.g. a coffee) through a loyalty card or reward scheme that they were already part of, although in general these types of promotions were ignored. When reflecting on the impact of these schemes, where taken up, participants did not feel that they had influenced them to order any differently to how they would normally and getting the item for free was simply a perk. When discussing types of promotions more generally or in a hypothetical way, a similar range of views were captured. Some participants mentioned that loyalty schemes might encourage them to choose a specific outlet, but not to order more frequently overall. However, the potential for this type of promotion to influence behaviour was evident, with some participants saying that a loyalty scheme might encourage them to order more food or larger portions, depending on the type of loyalty scheme and rewards were being offered.

Upselling

Upselling strategies were prevalent at particular points in the ordering process. There were 52 instances where participants were offered additional items while browsing and selecting items. These were sometimes presented as items to add as part of the dish selected (e.g. extra toppings) or as separate items (e.g. side dishes, dips or drinks). The rate of uptake was 23%. Where taken up, the types of items that were added to orders included toppings to pizzas, dips and side dishes like fries. However, when asked about these additions later, participants generally reported that they intended to order them anyway and so this reflected individual preferences and tastes, rather than the influence of upselling prompts. 

Where suggestions to add items were presented but not used, there was a broad sense among participants that these extras were “unnecessary”, “overpriced” or easy to ignore.

The prevalence of upselling at the checkout stage was higher than at the browsing stage, with 82 instances of participants being offered the option to add items while trying to complete their order. These included a range of items such as side dishes, snacks, dips, drinks and desserts. They were also framed in different ways, for instance asking if consumers had forgotten anything, if they fancied anything extra, or suggesting what others had added to similar orders. However, uptake was much lower than at the browsing stages (6%).

Participants who added items at the checkout reported that the prompts had reminded them to add items that they had forgotten to include. Although they could be considered helpful, checkout prompts were also described as a “tease” that encouraged them to add items that they didn’t need and wouldn’t have otherwise ordered. A calorie analysis of these items could not be undertaken as nutritional information was not available from these outlets, but included soft drinks, dips and snacks.

Those who encountered an upselling promotion at the checkout, but did not respond, reported that it was easily ignored and not something they would typically consider. This was largely based on the view that once at the checkout stage, the ordering decisions had been made and were considered final. Some participants also described finding these types of promotions off-putting, annoying, and an obvious ploy to encourage more purchasing.

Price promotions

There were several price promotions that had a lower prevalence and lower uptake. These included:

• Free items (34 instances, 15% uptake rate). These typically included drinks or snacks after a minimum spend or as part of a loyalty scheme or subscription.
• Multibuy offers (14 instances, 14% uptake rate). These typically included buy one get one free offers on a range of items, or buying a certain number of items and getting one free.

The free items observed were mostly drinks and, where taken up, participants reported that the free drink came with meals that they were already planning to order. A participant who was ordering for a family of four said that, had it not been included for free, they would not have chosen to order a drink on that occasion (although on other occasions they might have done so as a treat). Where available but not taken up, participants said it was because the free item was not something they wanted to eat or drink, or that it required a minimum spend that they did not reach.

When discussing this type of promotion more generally, free items were appealing. Uptake of such an offer was generally seen as contingent on the item being something they would normally choose, and did not require changing or increasing an existing order. However, one participant said that a desirable free item would prompt them to order more food if a minimum spend was required to qualify for the free item.

The multibuy offers taken up were on dips, which influenced some participants to order a higher volume than they would have otherwise (see Appendix F).

Product promotions

Product promotions typically included new or limited-edition items being promoted as banners on the homepage, menu pages, or as pop ups. There were 20 instances of this and an uptake rate of 15%. Uptake was largely incidental, as participants said that they were already intending to order the item. Where available but not taken up, a range of reasons were given for this, including: dietary restrictions meaning that the item was not appropriate, having already decided what to order before encountering the promotion, and not noticing the item being promoted. Although not of interest on that occasion, some participants said that they would pay attention to product promotions and have been prompted to take them up in the past. The main factors that participants said would influence this decision were whether it’s something they fancy and whether it represented good value for money.

A range of product placement strategies were also observed in the orders reviewed for this research. These included menus with dedicated offers, featured items or specials sections, items marked as recommended or popular, and items marked as new. When asked about these in interviews, participants reported having intended to order such items regardless and that they had either not noticed that it was highlighted as new, popular or recommended, or that it did not influence their decision. There was also no evidence found that these product placement strategies had any impact on the volume of food ordered. Given the ubiquity of these types of product placement strategies and coincidental nature with which they were taken up, they were not included in the prevalence/uptake analysis.

As noted in Chapter 2, reasons of convenience and wanting a treat were the main reasons giving for ordering takeaways. Once making an order, the main factors that participants said had influenced their decisions included:

• Getting what they wanted, whether that be a favourite dish or to try something new.
• Hunger, and wanting to get the order completed as swiftly as possible.
• Minimising spend, and getting the best value for money out of the order as possible.

Although promotions were used in almost three quarters of all orders (73%), participants did not, on the whole, cite them as having significant influence over decisions. Those who tended to order based on habit, and who had a clear idea of what they wanted to order, tended not to notice or be swayed by the promotions they encountered. However, some promotions did influence decision making. Price promotions were the most influential in terms of impact on the volume of food ordered, and were typically linked to the motivation to minimise spend. Discounts (including with a minimum spend, with a subscription or as part of a loyalty scheme) were found to have prompted a higher volume of food to be ordered on some occasions. As noted in Chapter 2, the cost of takeaways was felt to have increased in recent times and so, for some, price promotions were considered a way of making a takeaway more affordable (rather than an opportunity to increase the amount of food ordered).

Participants generally felt that they had ordered the right amount of food and did not have any leftovers, or had intended to have leftovers for a future meal. Where there were unplanned leftovers, these were either thrown out or eaten the next day. Those who had been influenced by offers, and ordered more food than normal, were more likely to feel that they had ordered too much food.