- Split View
-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
Helena H. Laroche, Christopher Ford, Kate Hansen, Xueya Cai, David R. Just, Andrew S. Hanks, Brian Wansink, Concession stand makeovers: a pilot study of offering healthy foods at high school concession stands, Journal of Public Health, Volume 37, Issue 1, March 2015, Pages 116–124, https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu015
- Share Icon Share
Abstract
Concession stands at high school events are exempt from the US Department of Agriculture regulations for school foods. Concessions are generally stocked with unhealthy foods since healthy foods are believed to have lower sales and profit margins.
Concession stand sales for two seasons of high school fall sports in Muscatine, Iowa were compared. In between seasons, two types of changes were made: (i) addition of new healthier concession options and (ii) substitution of healthier ingredients (less saturated fat, no trans fat). Satisfaction surveys of students and parents were conducted before and after the changes. Data were collected in 2008 and 2009 and analyzed in 2012–13.
Revenue per game was similar between years, even with the introduction of healthier items and ingredient changes. In 2009, the new healthy foods comprised 9.2% of total revenue and sales of some new items increased with each game. The ‘healthy makeover’ had no influence on student satisfaction but it improved parent satisfaction (P < 0.001).
This compelling test of concept shows that offering healthier items can be good for both sales and satisfaction. While this study was conducted with concession stands, the principles can be carried over into other food retail settings.
Background
Concession stand food sales across America—from professional and college athletics to high school football games—are big business. For most high schools Booster clubs, parent-led volunteer organizations, run concession sales to raise money for student organizations and sports teams. Such groups may be resistant to changing concession stand offerings because of the general fear that this would hurt both sales and customer satisfaction.1–6 The executive director of the National Booster Club Training Council said, ‘We know that cutting back on some of those traditional product groups is going to make revenue go down’.5 The 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study found that 23 state policies recommended prohibiting selling junk food at concession stands, but only 4 states required them.7 Given current trends in childhood obesity8 and potential links to foods high in sugar and solid fats,9–12 there is need to encourage consumption of healthier options. This research examines whether a gradual targeted approach to healthy change can be made without hurting sales and satisfaction.
For some people, concession food may be a snacking indulgence, but for others it may be their evening meal.13,14 School lunches and competitive foods have been targeted by the USDA as an important area for change in the fight against childhood obesity,15 but their policies do not apply to concession stands. The inclusion of healthier foods in school cafeterias has proved to be popular when combined with other ‘smarter lunchroom’ techniques that have made them more convenient,16 attractive17 or normative.18 Similarly, there may be a market for healthier foods at concession stands, but this is not evident if the foods are not offered.
One approach to making concession stands healthier would be to simply replace the less healthy foods, such as pizza and nachos, with healthier foods such as chicken sandwiches and carrots. Unfortunately, replacements and restrictions can backfire due to reactance while other changes may avoid such behavior.19–21 A less restrictive approach would be to offer new, healthier options and serve healthier versions of popular items. In partnership with booster club members two changes were chosen to test which were most feasible and acceptable to the booster club: (i) offer a critical mass of healthier foods and display them prominently and (ii) improve the ingredients of certain items ( less saturated fat and no trans fat).
This research involved a unique partnership between the parent booster organization of a large high school in Muscatine, IA (1700 students) and a research team from a public university. The aim of this partnership was to involve stakeholders in the implementation of concession stand changes while evaluating the effect of these changes on concession sales and consumer satisfaction. The partnership also aimed to describe barriers to and solutions for making changes to inform others interested in adopting similar changes.
By making these changes and testing them over the course of two seasons in this high school, this research makes four contributions. First, it offers a pilot test of a concession stand makeover. Secondly, it illustrates some specific changes that were more successful than others. Thirdly, it documents sales effectiveness and satisfaction across both students and their parents. Fourthly, it provides an example of a win–win idea that can be championed by Health and Wellness boards, parent–teacher associations or booster organizations.
Methods
Following the tenets of Community-Based Participatory Research,22 academic and community partners worked as equal partners in all phases of the research. The research team worked with Booster club members—parent volunteers—to choose concession stand changes, design surveys and gather sales data. Booster club members contributed expertise in running concession stands and ties to community resources, including businesses and media.
Intervention
This team of researchers and Booster club members reviewed the nutritional content of current items served at the concession stand ( based on nutrition labels, manufacturer information and published values23) and compared them with the 2007 Team Nutrition USDA guidelines for competitive foods [total fat (<35%), saturated fat (<10%) and sugar content (≤35% sugar by weight)]. These guidelines are used to recognize school food programs for healthy changes.24 Additionally, the Boosters decided to eliminate trans fats and introduce fruits and vegetables.
When determining which foods to introduce, the team contacted food distributers and local grocery stores, and used on-line resources to gather information on the nutritional content, cost and availability of possible new concession items. After generating a list of possible new items, student and parent opinions of these items were gathered through the baseline survey. Using all available information, the team generated a final list of additional healthier foods and foods that could be modified to improve their nutritional content. Many new items were first sold during the winter 2008–09 season. In the fall sports season of the 2009–10 school year, all of the final new concession items were available for sale along with the all items sold in fall 2008–09 (Table 1).
Product . | Serving size . | Calories . | Calories from fat . | Protein (g) . | CHO (g) . | Sugar (g) . | Fat (g) . | Saturated fat (g) . | Trans fat (g)a . | Fiber (g) . | Chol (mg) . | Na+ (mg) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hot dog with bun—Bar S classic jumbo | 1 hot dog | 440 | 278 | 13 | 30 | 6 | 31 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 110 | 740 |
Pizza—cheese | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 13 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 30 | 260 |
Pizza—pepperoni | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 25 | 340 |
Candy bars (example snickers) | 1 bar | 250 | 110 | 4 | 33 | 27 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 120 |
Other candy (i.e. laffy taffy rope) | 1 piece | 80 | 10 | 0 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 40 |
Other candy (i.e. caramel apple sucker) | 1 sucker | 60 | 5 | 0 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 15 |
Pork sandwich—6 oz | 1 sandwich | 280 | 100 | 25 | 21 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 520 |
Modified products | ||||||||||||
Super nachos with meat (previous) | 1 container | 905 | 500 | 25 | 69 | 6 | 58 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 2695 |
Super nachos with meat (improved) | 1 container | 830 | 450 | 25 | 67 | 3 | 50 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 2895 |
Nachos (previous) | 1 container | 350 | 176 | 4 | 35 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 73 | 718 |
Nachos (improved) | 1 container | 320 | 156 | 4 | 34 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 85 | 798 |
Popcorn (previous)—large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 20 | 3 | 15 | NA | 617 |
Popcorn (improved) —large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 15 | NA | 617 |
New products | ||||||||||||
Baby carrots | 14 pieces | 35 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 65 |
Grocer's garden lite ranch dressing | 2 tbsp | 60 | 50 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 350 |
Apples | 1, 3 oz | 90 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 18 | <1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Super pretzel (a large soft pretzel) | 1 pretzel | 160 | 10 | 5 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 920c |
Chicken breast sandwich w/bun | 1, 5 oz. | 264 | 30 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 80 | 230 |
Pickle | 1 l g pickle | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 928 |
Frigo string cheese | 1 cheese | 80 | 50 | 6 | <1 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 200 |
Nature Valley granola bars (oats 'n honey) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 4 | 29 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 160 |
Nature Valley granola bars (peanut butter) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 180 |
Kars yogurt apple nut mix (trail mix) | 1 bag | 220 | 130 | 5 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 130 |
Product . | Serving size . | Calories . | Calories from fat . | Protein (g) . | CHO (g) . | Sugar (g) . | Fat (g) . | Saturated fat (g) . | Trans fat (g)a . | Fiber (g) . | Chol (mg) . | Na+ (mg) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hot dog with bun—Bar S classic jumbo | 1 hot dog | 440 | 278 | 13 | 30 | 6 | 31 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 110 | 740 |
Pizza—cheese | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 13 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 30 | 260 |
Pizza—pepperoni | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 25 | 340 |
Candy bars (example snickers) | 1 bar | 250 | 110 | 4 | 33 | 27 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 120 |
Other candy (i.e. laffy taffy rope) | 1 piece | 80 | 10 | 0 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 40 |
Other candy (i.e. caramel apple sucker) | 1 sucker | 60 | 5 | 0 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 15 |
Pork sandwich—6 oz | 1 sandwich | 280 | 100 | 25 | 21 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 520 |
Modified products | ||||||||||||
Super nachos with meat (previous) | 1 container | 905 | 500 | 25 | 69 | 6 | 58 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 2695 |
Super nachos with meat (improved) | 1 container | 830 | 450 | 25 | 67 | 3 | 50 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 2895 |
Nachos (previous) | 1 container | 350 | 176 | 4 | 35 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 73 | 718 |
Nachos (improved) | 1 container | 320 | 156 | 4 | 34 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 85 | 798 |
Popcorn (previous)—large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 20 | 3 | 15 | NA | 617 |
Popcorn (improved) —large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 15 | NA | 617 |
New products | ||||||||||||
Baby carrots | 14 pieces | 35 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 65 |
Grocer's garden lite ranch dressing | 2 tbsp | 60 | 50 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 350 |
Apples | 1, 3 oz | 90 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 18 | <1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Super pretzel (a large soft pretzel) | 1 pretzel | 160 | 10 | 5 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 920c |
Chicken breast sandwich w/bun | 1, 5 oz. | 264 | 30 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 80 | 230 |
Pickle | 1 l g pickle | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 928 |
Frigo string cheese | 1 cheese | 80 | 50 | 6 | <1 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 200 |
Nature Valley granola bars (oats 'n honey) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 4 | 29 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 160 |
Nature Valley granola bars (peanut butter) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 180 |
Kars yogurt apple nut mix (trail mix) | 1 bag | 220 | 130 | 5 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 130 |
aNA, information not available.
bPopcorn numbers based on ingredients used to make the popcorn—actual values may be slightly less due to oil in the bottom of the popper and unpopped kernels not eaten.
cOne hundred and thirty without the salt and customers were given the option of no or less salt.
Product . | Serving size . | Calories . | Calories from fat . | Protein (g) . | CHO (g) . | Sugar (g) . | Fat (g) . | Saturated fat (g) . | Trans fat (g)a . | Fiber (g) . | Chol (mg) . | Na+ (mg) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hot dog with bun—Bar S classic jumbo | 1 hot dog | 440 | 278 | 13 | 30 | 6 | 31 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 110 | 740 |
Pizza—cheese | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 13 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 30 | 260 |
Pizza—pepperoni | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 25 | 340 |
Candy bars (example snickers) | 1 bar | 250 | 110 | 4 | 33 | 27 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 120 |
Other candy (i.e. laffy taffy rope) | 1 piece | 80 | 10 | 0 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 40 |
Other candy (i.e. caramel apple sucker) | 1 sucker | 60 | 5 | 0 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 15 |
Pork sandwich—6 oz | 1 sandwich | 280 | 100 | 25 | 21 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 520 |
Modified products | ||||||||||||
Super nachos with meat (previous) | 1 container | 905 | 500 | 25 | 69 | 6 | 58 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 2695 |
Super nachos with meat (improved) | 1 container | 830 | 450 | 25 | 67 | 3 | 50 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 2895 |
Nachos (previous) | 1 container | 350 | 176 | 4 | 35 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 73 | 718 |
Nachos (improved) | 1 container | 320 | 156 | 4 | 34 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 85 | 798 |
Popcorn (previous)—large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 20 | 3 | 15 | NA | 617 |
Popcorn (improved) —large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 15 | NA | 617 |
New products | ||||||||||||
Baby carrots | 14 pieces | 35 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 65 |
Grocer's garden lite ranch dressing | 2 tbsp | 60 | 50 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 350 |
Apples | 1, 3 oz | 90 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 18 | <1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Super pretzel (a large soft pretzel) | 1 pretzel | 160 | 10 | 5 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 920c |
Chicken breast sandwich w/bun | 1, 5 oz. | 264 | 30 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 80 | 230 |
Pickle | 1 l g pickle | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 928 |
Frigo string cheese | 1 cheese | 80 | 50 | 6 | <1 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 200 |
Nature Valley granola bars (oats 'n honey) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 4 | 29 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 160 |
Nature Valley granola bars (peanut butter) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 180 |
Kars yogurt apple nut mix (trail mix) | 1 bag | 220 | 130 | 5 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 130 |
Product . | Serving size . | Calories . | Calories from fat . | Protein (g) . | CHO (g) . | Sugar (g) . | Fat (g) . | Saturated fat (g) . | Trans fat (g)a . | Fiber (g) . | Chol (mg) . | Na+ (mg) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hot dog with bun—Bar S classic jumbo | 1 hot dog | 440 | 278 | 13 | 30 | 6 | 31 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 110 | 740 |
Pizza—cheese | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 13 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 30 | 260 |
Pizza—pepperoni | 1 slice | 300 | 100 | 12 | 36 | 3 | 11 | 6 | NA | 2 | 25 | 340 |
Candy bars (example snickers) | 1 bar | 250 | 110 | 4 | 33 | 27 | 12 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 120 |
Other candy (i.e. laffy taffy rope) | 1 piece | 80 | 10 | 0 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 1 | 0 | NA | NA | 40 |
Other candy (i.e. caramel apple sucker) | 1 sucker | 60 | 5 | 0 | 15 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 15 |
Pork sandwich—6 oz | 1 sandwich | 280 | 100 | 25 | 21 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 60 | 520 |
Modified products | ||||||||||||
Super nachos with meat (previous) | 1 container | 905 | 500 | 25 | 69 | 6 | 58 | 15 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 2695 |
Super nachos with meat (improved) | 1 container | 830 | 450 | 25 | 67 | 3 | 50 | 16 | 0 | 7 | 10 | 2895 |
Nachos (previous) | 1 container | 350 | 176 | 4 | 35 | 1 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 73 | 718 |
Nachos (improved) | 1 container | 320 | 156 | 4 | 34 | 1 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 85 | 798 |
Popcorn (previous)—large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 20 | 3 | 15 | NA | 617 |
Popcorn (improved) —large boxb | 1 container | 597 | 310 | 13 | 78 | 1 | 27 | 3 | 0 | 15 | NA | 617 |
New products | ||||||||||||
Baby carrots | 14 pieces | 35 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 65 |
Grocer's garden lite ranch dressing | 2 tbsp | 60 | 50 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 350 |
Apples | 1, 3 oz | 90 | 0 | 0 | 23 | 18 | <1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
Super pretzel (a large soft pretzel) | 1 pretzel | 160 | 10 | 5 | 34 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 920c |
Chicken breast sandwich w/bun | 1, 5 oz. | 264 | 30 | 30 | 23 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 80 | 230 |
Pickle | 1 l g pickle | 20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 928 |
Frigo string cheese | 1 cheese | 80 | 50 | 6 | <1 | 0 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 200 |
Nature Valley granola bars (oats 'n honey) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 4 | 29 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 160 |
Nature Valley granola bars (peanut butter) | 2 bars | 190 | 60 | 5 | 28 | 11 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 180 |
Kars yogurt apple nut mix (trail mix) | 1 bag | 220 | 130 | 5 | 20 | 7 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 130 |
aNA, information not available.
bPopcorn numbers based on ingredients used to make the popcorn—actual values may be slightly less due to oil in the bottom of the popper and unpopped kernels not eaten.
cOne hundred and thirty without the salt and customers were given the option of no or less salt.
New items were priced based on the lowest profitable price. The price of candy bars increased from 75¢ in 2008 to $1 in 2009 to reflect the increased cost for candy bars.
Sales data
Baseline sales data were collected during the fall 2008 sports season. Post-intervention sales data were collected in the fall 2009 season. Receipts for all concession-related purchases were collected during both fall seasons. A designated inventory manager, who was trained by the project's researchers, kept counts of food items in the concession inventory both before and after each fall sports season. This manager also kept a log of food discarded due to perishability. The Booster club's treasurer kept detailed income and expense data. From these data, total concession revenues were calculated for both seasons. These inventories, receipts and income records were used to generate Table 1. In the 2009–10 fall season, trained researchers took pre- and post-game concession inventory counts during four football games for verification purposes. Nachos and popcorn were estimated using an algorithm based on the amount of individual components used during the season. Unfortunately, the necessary data were not available for this analysis in 2008 after an alternative plan to count these difficult items proved unfeasible.
Survey data
Satisfaction surveys were administered at the end of the fall season in 2008 and 2009 to both parents and students. Respondents were asked, ‘Thinking about your most recent experience with the concessions stands at Muscatine High School during sports events, please indicate your overall level of satisfaction with food and drinks offered’. This question was modeled after validated satisfaction questions and uses standard validated Likert answer choices (very unsatisfied; unsatisfied; neither satisfied nor unsatisfied; satisfied; very satisfied).25,26 The question was pilot tested with parents and students to gage understanding of the questions. The surveys also asked other questions about the concession stand and included respondent's gender, sports attended and frequency of concession purchases.
Email notifications including the survey link were sent to a random sample of parents. This sample was generated from the email list that school administrators used to send announcements. Respondents were given a coupon for food or merchandise sold by the Booster club. The same list was used for the follow-up survey after parents of graduated students had been removed.
A convenience sample of students completed paper surveys. Surveys were handed out in the high school cafeteria during lunch. Survey collection ceased once we ran out of prizes for completion (300 items). In both years, almost all surveys were completed during the first lunch period. Thus, ∼585 and 559 students had the opportunity to complete surveys.
Analysis
Data were analyzed in 2012 and 2013. Item-specific revenue amounts were generated for both years by multiplying the number of items sold by the item's respective selling price. Percentages of total revenue were calculated by dividing item-specific revenue by total revenue. Because prices increased for candy bars and soft drinks in 2009, we also adjusted 2009 revenue data to reflect this price increase by decreasing the total revenue by that generated by the increase and using 2008 prices for item revenue calculations.
Comparisons between years were based on revenue per game and an item's respective percentage of total revenue. Since sales data collected for both years were mainly aggregate values, with the exception of four football games in 2009, statistical comparisons cannot be made. Nonetheless, differences in magnitude provide suggestive evidence of the impact of the concession makeover.
Responses to the satisfaction surveys were compared between the 2 years. This comparison was done using a Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann–Whitney U ) test since the data were ordinal, not normally distributed, and unpaired.27 A sensitivity analysis showed that 2009 respondents who reported completing the survey in 2008 did not differ in their level of satisfaction from other respondents. Power calculations show 80% power to detect a difference as small as 0.07 in average satisfaction in the 2008 and 2009 student samples and the 2008 parent sample, and a 0.13 difference in the 2009 parent sample.
Results
Sales data
The fall sports season in 2008 included five varsity football games and three freshman only football games. 2009 included four varsity football games and five freshman only. Both years included five swim meets and seven volleyball games. Concession item descriptions and their nutritional content are shown in Table 1. In 2009 Booster members used canola oil for popping popcorn (instead of coconut oil bars), which decreased the amount of saturated fat and eliminated the trans fats. Nachos were changed to a cheese that did not contain trans fats. Unit sales of specific items in all sporting events during the fall 2008 and 2009 sports season are reported in Table 2, along with each item's share of total revenues.
. | Food sales pre-concession makeover (2008)b . | Food sales post-concession makeover (2009) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Adjusted % total revenuec . | |
Standard items sold in both years | |||||
Candy—suckers ($0.25) | 5344 | 3.5 | 4430 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Hot dogs ($2.00) | 942 | 4.9 | 1138 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
Candy bars ($0.75–$1.00)d | 2823 | 5.5 | 2861 | 7.7 | 6.3 |
Pork sandwiches ($3.00) | 1455 | 11.4 | 1261 | 10.2 | 11.2 |
Pizza ($2.50) | 2608 | 17.0 | 1978 | 13.3 | 14.6 |
Items modified in 2009 | |||||
Nachose,f ($2 plain, $3 with meat) | NA | NA | 3067 | 20.6 | 22.9 |
Popcorne,f,g ($1.00) | NA | NA | 1827 | 4.9 | 5.5 |
New items in 2009 | |||||
String cheese ($0.50) | — | — | 100 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Apples ($0.75) | — | — | 115 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Carrots with dip ($1.25) | — | — | 60 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Granola bars ($1.00) | — | — | 118 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Trail mix ($1.25) | — | — | 136 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Pickles ($1.00) | — | — | 172 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Pretzels ($1.00) | — | — | 978 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
Chicken ($3.00) | — | — | 600 | 4.9 | 5.3 |
Otherh (2008 includes nachos, popcorn) | 57.7 | 25.0 | 19.4 |
. | Food sales pre-concession makeover (2008)b . | Food sales post-concession makeover (2009) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Adjusted % total revenuec . | |
Standard items sold in both years | |||||
Candy—suckers ($0.25) | 5344 | 3.5 | 4430 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Hot dogs ($2.00) | 942 | 4.9 | 1138 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
Candy bars ($0.75–$1.00)d | 2823 | 5.5 | 2861 | 7.7 | 6.3 |
Pork sandwiches ($3.00) | 1455 | 11.4 | 1261 | 10.2 | 11.2 |
Pizza ($2.50) | 2608 | 17.0 | 1978 | 13.3 | 14.6 |
Items modified in 2009 | |||||
Nachose,f ($2 plain, $3 with meat) | NA | NA | 3067 | 20.6 | 22.9 |
Popcorne,f,g ($1.00) | NA | NA | 1827 | 4.9 | 5.5 |
New items in 2009 | |||||
String cheese ($0.50) | — | — | 100 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Apples ($0.75) | — | — | 115 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Carrots with dip ($1.25) | — | — | 60 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Granola bars ($1.00) | — | — | 118 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Trail mix ($1.25) | — | — | 136 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Pickles ($1.00) | — | — | 172 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Pretzels ($1.00) | — | — | 978 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
Chicken ($3.00) | — | — | 600 | 4.9 | 5.3 |
Otherh (2008 includes nachos, popcorn) | 57.7 | 25.0 | 19.4 |
aStudy was conducted in Muscatine, Iowa in 2008–09.
bData for 2008 sales were incomplete.
cAdjusted total revenue—total revenue adjusted down by subtracting out the increase revenue from the $0.25 increase in the candy bars and drinks in 2009 Candy then calculated based on $0.75 price equivalent to 2008.
dPrice increase to $1.00 in 2009. Unadjusted total revenue 2009 based on increased price, adjusted the $0.75 price.
eThere were no sales records for nachos and popcorn in 2008.
fModified to contain no trans fats.
gModified to contain less saturated fat.
hPredominantly beverages, occasionally extra cheese for $0.25 and items specific to morning events (bagels, donuts, bananas). 2008 includes nachos and popcorn.
. | Food sales pre-concession makeover (2008)b . | Food sales post-concession makeover (2009) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Adjusted % total revenuec . | |
Standard items sold in both years | |||||
Candy—suckers ($0.25) | 5344 | 3.5 | 4430 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Hot dogs ($2.00) | 942 | 4.9 | 1138 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
Candy bars ($0.75–$1.00)d | 2823 | 5.5 | 2861 | 7.7 | 6.3 |
Pork sandwiches ($3.00) | 1455 | 11.4 | 1261 | 10.2 | 11.2 |
Pizza ($2.50) | 2608 | 17.0 | 1978 | 13.3 | 14.6 |
Items modified in 2009 | |||||
Nachose,f ($2 plain, $3 with meat) | NA | NA | 3067 | 20.6 | 22.9 |
Popcorne,f,g ($1.00) | NA | NA | 1827 | 4.9 | 5.5 |
New items in 2009 | |||||
String cheese ($0.50) | — | — | 100 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Apples ($0.75) | — | — | 115 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Carrots with dip ($1.25) | — | — | 60 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Granola bars ($1.00) | — | — | 118 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Trail mix ($1.25) | — | — | 136 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Pickles ($1.00) | — | — | 172 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Pretzels ($1.00) | — | — | 978 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
Chicken ($3.00) | — | — | 600 | 4.9 | 5.3 |
Otherh (2008 includes nachos, popcorn) | 57.7 | 25.0 | 19.4 |
. | Food sales pre-concession makeover (2008)b . | Food sales post-concession makeover (2009) . | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Units sold . | % Total revenue . | Adjusted % total revenuec . | |
Standard items sold in both years | |||||
Candy—suckers ($0.25) | 5344 | 3.5 | 4430 | 3.0 | 3.3 |
Hot dogs ($2.00) | 942 | 4.9 | 1138 | 6.1 | 6.7 |
Candy bars ($0.75–$1.00)d | 2823 | 5.5 | 2861 | 7.7 | 6.3 |
Pork sandwiches ($3.00) | 1455 | 11.4 | 1261 | 10.2 | 11.2 |
Pizza ($2.50) | 2608 | 17.0 | 1978 | 13.3 | 14.6 |
Items modified in 2009 | |||||
Nachose,f ($2 plain, $3 with meat) | NA | NA | 3067 | 20.6 | 22.9 |
Popcorne,f,g ($1.00) | NA | NA | 1827 | 4.9 | 5.5 |
New items in 2009 | |||||
String cheese ($0.50) | — | — | 100 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Apples ($0.75) | — | — | 115 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Carrots with dip ($1.25) | — | — | 60 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
Granola bars ($1.00) | — | — | 118 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
Trail mix ($1.25) | — | — | 136 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
Pickles ($1.00) | — | — | 172 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Pretzels ($1.00) | — | — | 978 | 2.6 | 2.9 |
Chicken ($3.00) | — | — | 600 | 4.9 | 5.3 |
Otherh (2008 includes nachos, popcorn) | 57.7 | 25.0 | 19.4 |
aStudy was conducted in Muscatine, Iowa in 2008–09.
bData for 2008 sales were incomplete.
cAdjusted total revenue—total revenue adjusted down by subtracting out the increase revenue from the $0.25 increase in the candy bars and drinks in 2009 Candy then calculated based on $0.75 price equivalent to 2008.
dPrice increase to $1.00 in 2009. Unadjusted total revenue 2009 based on increased price, adjusted the $0.75 price.
eThere were no sales records for nachos and popcorn in 2008.
fModified to contain no trans fats.
gModified to contain less saturated fat.
hPredominantly beverages, occasionally extra cheese for $0.25 and items specific to morning events (bagels, donuts, bananas). 2008 includes nachos and popcorn.
. | Overall satisfactiona . | |
---|---|---|
2008 . | 2009 . | |
Students | 3.83 (0.95) | 3.79 (1.06) |
Parents | 3.83 (0.82) | 3.99** (1.08) |
. | Overall satisfactiona . | |
---|---|---|
2008 . | 2009 . | |
Students | 3.83 (0.95) | 3.79 (1.06) |
Parents | 3.83 (0.82) | 3.99** (1.08) |
aParents and students were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfaction with food and drinks offered. Five responses: very unsatisfied; unsatisfied; neither satisfied nor unsatisfied; satisfied; very satisfied; not applicable. Responses from the last choice were omitted from the analysis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Mann–Whitney U) was used for analysis.
*P< 0.05,
**P < 0.01,
***P < 0.001.
. | Overall satisfactiona . | |
---|---|---|
2008 . | 2009 . | |
Students | 3.83 (0.95) | 3.79 (1.06) |
Parents | 3.83 (0.82) | 3.99** (1.08) |
. | Overall satisfactiona . | |
---|---|---|
2008 . | 2009 . | |
Students | 3.83 (0.95) | 3.79 (1.06) |
Parents | 3.83 (0.82) | 3.99** (1.08) |
aParents and students were asked to indicate their overall level of satisfaction with food and drinks offered. Five responses: very unsatisfied; unsatisfied; neither satisfied nor unsatisfied; satisfied; very satisfied; not applicable. Responses from the last choice were omitted from the analysis. Wilcoxon rank-sum test (Mann–Whitney U) was used for analysis.
*P< 0.05,
**P < 0.01,
***P < 0.001.
Of the new items sold in 2009, the chicken sandwich accounted for nearly 5% of all revenues and soft pretzels accounted for 2.6%. All of the other new items—apples, carrots with dip, granola bars, pickles, string cheese and trail mix—accounted for 1.7% of all revenues. When comparing revenue across the 2 years, the data suggest that a portion of pizza revenue may have been replaced by revenue from the new chicken sandwich. Overall, the newer, healthier options accounted for 9.2% of total revenue in 2009, which amounted to $3405. Of note, 2009 had one less varsity football game resulting in fewer total items sold, though per cent revenue values can still be compared between years.
After adjusting for price increases in candy and soda, average revenue per varsity football game was $6599 in 2008 and $6849 in 2009 (P = 0.88). The average profit margin for the standard items was $1.01 versus $0.78 for the healthier new items. Nachos and popcorn had a combined profit margin of $1.19 prior to the ingredient modification and $1.28 afterwards. Of the eight new items offered, six had a profit margin above candy bars ($0.50). On average, profit margins of the healthier items were lower yet average sales per varsity football game were up by 4% in 2009.
Unit sales from four varsity football games were kept during the fall 2009–10 season. Figure 1 shows sales of items which were individually packaged or easily counted and thus could be inventoried accurately from game to game. Granola bars and trail mix each sold <5 per varsity game and thus were left out of the figure. Game-by-game data in 2009 show gradual increases in purchases of string cheese, apples and carrots (Fig. 1a). Quantities of candy bars sold demonstrate strong preferences for these food items. Data in Figure 1b represent sales as a percentage of total revenue. Over the four games, revenue percentages for many of the healthier items increased, as well as for the unhealthy items. Inclement weather during the last game inhibited the sale of chicken and pork, thus boosting sales of other items, such as pizza and hot dogs. While these unit sales data are incomplete, they support the evidence from total sales in the 2009–10 fall season that there was moderate though increasing interest in the new food items.
Survey data
In 2008, 303 students and 213 parents filled out the survey compared with 314 students and 104 parents in 2009. In 2008 51% of student respondents were female compared with 40% in 2009 (P = 0.013). Samples were not different regarding percentage attending football games (74%), rating of the importance of having healthy foods at concession stands or frequency of concession stand purchases. Estimates of response rates indicate that 51 and 56% of students took the survey in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Estimates show that in 2008, ∼19% of emailed parents responded, compared with 12% in 2009 (estimates are low secondary to households with multiple different emails in the list). Students show no change in overall satisfaction (3.83–3.79, P = 0.99) but were more satisfied with the healthy foods offered (3.42–3.56 P = 0.049). Parents were more satisfied overall with the foods offered (3.83–3.99, P = 0.005).
Discussion and implications
Main findings of the study
Whereas concession stand food has generally been criticized for not being healthy, this pilot study shows two types of changes that can successfully improve the general healthfulness of concession foods. The first change was the introduction of a critical mass of eight healthier foods, which in this study, accounted for 9.2% of sales. Secondly, ingredients were altered to eliminate the trans fat in the nacho cheese sauce, and switch from coconut oil to canola oil in the popcorn.
The general concern that a concession stand makeover would be unwanted by students and parents and would result in lost sales appears unfounded. Indeed, satisfaction remained stable or improved. Although per capita sales are not possible to determine because of this school's record keeping system, average revenue per varsity football game remained unchanged. The sales of healthier items went on to comprise 9.2% of the total sales within 1 year, and modified items still generated 25.5% of revenue. In a number of categories, sales of healthier items increased game after game suggesting growing demand for healthier foods as customer awareness increased. Even though the new items on average had a slightly smaller profit margin (due to high profit margins on nachos and pork), the most popular new item (chicken) had profit margin equivalent to or better than all older items, six of eight new items had profit margins better than the candy bars, and modifications to popcorn and nachos increased their profit margin by 7.6%.
What is already known on this topic
There are no published comparable studies on school concessions, though results from a few case studies shaped sentiment regarding offering healthier foods. For example, in Canada a study of one recreation facility showed that after implementation of new healthy food guidelines, only 16% of concession items offered met criteria for being healthy.2,3 No satisfaction data were collected. Limited sales data provided by the vendor suggested decreased sales, though there was no thorough analysis to determine what drove down sales. Unpublished research examining concessions for 6 parks and recreation sites compared before and after sales data to determine whether branding healthier items with a ‘smart choices’ logo would improve sales of water and fruit.28 Three sites that consistently used the promotional signs, combined with serving and prominently displaying fresh fruit, experienced increased fruit sales, though overall fruit sales remained flat. School-based studies have examined whether or not increasing the amount of healthy foods in vending machines would increase sales of these items.29–31 These studies revealed no change or a decline in sales. There is evidence, however, that holding menu items constant in a school lunchroom, making foods more convenient, attractive and normative, nudges children to eat healthier lunches.18
What this study adds
This study is the first to evaluate the results on satisfaction and sales of making changes to concession stand offerings in school settings. This study provides preliminary evidence that altering offerings and adding healthy options can be done by working in concert with parent groups. Furthermore, these modifications can provide reasonable revenue and profit margins without negative effects on customer satisfaction. Data also suggest that overall revenue is not substantially impacted. This study provides support for groups advocating changes in concession offerings and suggests evaluation methods that may be used to trial future changes to concessions. Future research can investigate a wider range of questions, such as how the sales between healthy and less healthy foods shift depending on the weather, the type of sporting event or whether a team is winning or losing. There is also opportunity to examine how the signage and convenience of food packages and presentation can influence sales.16,32
Limitations of this study
While the results for this pilot study are promising, it is important to note key limitations. First, robust sales data for some items were missing and per-game sales data were not collected in 2008. In addition, concession stands at the high school did not have registers and so it was impossible to track individual level purchases, leaving only aggregate data for analysis. With this lack of data, valid statistical tests for revenue could not be constructed and results are based on magnitude comparisons only.
Next, all changes to concession foods were implemented simultaneously, eliminating the chance to identify the impact of new offerings versus favorite foods with healthier ingredients. Also, there were no control sites for the study, thus unmeasured external factors may bias results.
Survey response data collected were sufficient for this study's purposes, though response rates for parents were low. This may have led to selection bias, especially in 2009. Furthermore, limited demographic information was collected on both the students and parents.
Conclusion
As a test of concept, these results show there is great promise in improving the nutrition at a concession stand. A key understanding is that this was not accomplished by replacing less healthy foods with healthier ones; rather, it was accomplished by making ingredient substitutions and offering a critical mass of fun and healthier foods. These results offer a compelling test of concept for concession stand operators as well as food suppliers. Moreover, this has relevance for concession operators for professional and college sports as well as music and other entertainment events.
Funding
This research was supported by a grant from the Wellmark Foundation of Iowa and by a Cooperative Agreement Number U48/CCU 720075 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The article's contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Laroche was supported by a NHLBI career development award (K23HL093354).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Muskie Boosters for their enthusiasm and incredible work on this project, Christine Hradek for research assistance and Julia Hastings-Black, Kelsey Gatto and Rosemarie Hanson for editorial assistance.