Marketing Mechanisms Used for Summer Food Service Programs

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing ISSN: 1049-5142 (Print) 1540-6997 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20 Marketing Mechanisms Used for Summer Food Service Programs Eric D. Olson, Susan W. Arendt, E. FitzPatrick, Sonya Hauser, Alice Jo Rainville, Beth Rice & Kristi L. Lewis To cite this article: Eric D. Olson, Susan W. Arendt, E. FitzPatrick, Sonya Hauser, Alice Jo Rainville, Beth Rice & Kristi L. Lewis (2019): Marketing Mechanisms Used for Summer Food Service Programs, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2019.1589632 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2019.1589632 Published online: 11 Apr 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 10 View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wnon20 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2019.1589632 Marketing Mechanisms Used for Summer Food Service Programs Eric D. Olsona, Susan W. Arendta, E. FitzPatrickb, Sonya Hauserb, Alice Jo Rainvillec, Beth Riced, and Kristi L. Lewise a Department of Apparel, Events, and Hospitality Management, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USA; The Sage Colleges, Sage Colleges, Troy, USA; cSchool of Health Sciences, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA; dDepartment of Applied Health Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, USA; eThe Institute of Child Nutrition, Applied Research Division, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi, USA b ABSTRACT KEYWORDS The aim of this research was to determine the mechanisms/ channels used for marketing the Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), a federal program that provides free, nutritious meals to children during the summer months. This study utilized a multiple-site, exploratory case study design of 16 sites from seven states and Washington, DC. Data were gathered using various methods: conducting structured interviews with SFSP administrators, administering a short survey about the SFSP, and researchers’ observations of mealtime and marketing displays. Utilizing the Process Model for Customer Journey and Experience coding framework, we examined 107 marketing elements of SFSP on the basis of type of promotional mix, purchase phases, and interaction of consumer experience touch point types. Findings suggest SFSPs primarily use paid advertising and public relations as preferred marketing mix channels of SFSPs. Furthermore, findings suggest that SFSPs utilize a variety of promotional mix elements in the preconsumption and consumption phases of the customer journey but not in the postconsumption phase. Findings also revealed SFSP operators favor brand-owned and partnerowned customer touch points in the customer journey. Summer Food Service Program; promotional mix; customer touch point; process model The Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), a federally administered program, provides free, nutritious meals to children (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA], Food and Nutrition Service, 2019a). Given that children are generally not in school during the summer and therefore cannot receive school lunches, this summer program fills a void serving all children, especially those from low-income families. The SFSP reimburses providers (e.g., schools, church groups, and community organizations) who serve meals to children during summer months. There are currently three major partners involved in the execution of the SFSP: state agencies (who administer the program in conjunction with the CONTACT Eric D. Olson [email protected] Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/wnon. © 2019 Taylor & Francis 2 E. D. OLSON ET AL. USDA); sponsors (examples include schools, local government agencies, campuses, faith-based organizations, and other nonprofit organizations); and site locations (the places in the community in which meals are served, such as schools, parks, community centers, churches, and other centers) (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2019b). In a pure marketing context, in this relationship, the supplier is the sponsor who administers the meals on site, and the customer is the end-user of the service, the children/families who participate in the SFSP. A report by Food Research & Action Center (2017) found only 15% of eligible children participated in SFSPs. Furthermore, the SFSP does not have an established marketing infrastructure similar to other programs, such as the National School Lunch and National School Break programs. These findings underscore the critical and essential need for marketing the SFSP to end-users of the service. The literature on marketing of federally funded programs, such as the SFSP, is limited. However, the limited studies that do exist seem to be primarily focused on marketing efforts within the environment in which the program is offered (e.g., Polacsek, O’Brien, Pratt, Whatley-Blum, & Adler, 2017) or provide suggested marketing approaches for such programs (e.g., Rutten, Yaroch, Pinard, & Story, 2013). For example, market segmentation was utilized in a recently published study in identifying continued participation in a federally funded program (Panzera et al., 2017). Marketing efforts of the SFSP provide a unique perspective and a few current publications provide a brief insight into the current marketing approaches for SFSP operators. For example, a promotional toolkit from the USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2019c suggests that an “effective marketing strategy promotes school breakfast as a tasty, healthy, convenient, and ‘smart’ choice, and targets the right audience with each message” (p. 1). Marketing such a complex program is unique because numerous stakeholders of the community—operators, sites, vendors, sponsors, and the local population—are involved with SFSPs. Additionally, SFSP operates in a variety of geographical and multicultural districts, adding to the complexities of marketing a program to diverse segments of the U.S. population. Customer experience is the response that customers have with any contact or interaction with a company (Meyer & Schwager, 2007), and the Process Model for Customer Journey and Experience (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016) provides a framework for understanding how customers interact with an organization (Figure 1). A customer journey comprises all touch points, or opportunities for interaction, a customer has with an organization. In the last few decades, with the increase of enhanced interactive channels and touch points, customer experiences are now more interactive and social in nature. For example, a customer may be exposed to the organization’s advertising and marketing campaign through traditional media (e.g., television advertisement) and through new media (e.g., social media) before consuming a product or service (prepurchase stage). JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 3 Figure 1. Process model for customer journey and experience. Note. Adapted from “Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey,” by K. N. Lemon and P. C. Verhoef, 2016, Journal of Marketing: AMA/MSI Special Issue, 80, p. 77. Copyright 2016 by the American Marketing Association. During the consumption process, a customer may interact with numerous employees or organization representatives through various touch points of service delivery. Lastly, a customer may have touch points with a company after consumption, in the postconsumption stage, such as through complaint management and postpurchase evaluation. Embedded in each stage are four types of customer touch points: brand-owned, partner-owned, customer-owned, and social-/external-owned touch points (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The aim of this study was to determine the mechanisms/channels used for marketing SFSPs. Currently, there is limited research in the marketing of social programs (e.g., Gumirakiza, Curtis & Bosworth, 2017), and we know of no study that examines the current mechanisms that SFSP operators use in the marketing of their SFSP. This gap is significant and noteworthy because of the need to understand how SFSPs are currently being marketed and to identify gaps in the customer journey. Utilizing a process model for the customer journey and customer experience (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016), this study examines the current makeup of marketing efforts by SFSP operators. Although numerous factors influence the process of deciding to get a meal at an SFSP, marketing the program could be used by operators to better fulfill the need. Therefore, this research draws attention to the marketing channel efforts that have been neglected in theory and the academic literature of government nonprofit organizations. Furthermore, this research contributes to the growing marketing services field of transformative service and 4 E. D. OLSON ET AL. customer well-being (Anderson et al., 2013), given that SFSPs contribute to the impact on health and well-being in local communities. Review of literature Brief review of marketing and process model Marketing has existed as a transactional process for centuries between buyers and sellers, although the marketing discipline was not formally recognized until the late 19th century. The marketing discipline has its roots in the distribution function, and exchange has been the foundational construct in marketing for decades (Kotler & Levy, 1969). In the last several decades, the term marketing has evolved from an exchange paradigm to a new definition of marketing that focuses on the creation and delivering of value through customer relationships. The creation of value for customers has been examined profusely by academics (e.g., Grönroos, 2012; Grönroos & Ravald, 2011; Kristensson, Matthing, & Johansson, 2008; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Today, the American Marketing Association states that marketing is “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offers that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large” (American Marketing Association, 2017, p. 2). In this context, the new definition provides tribute to the importance of past attributes of exchange and includes the newer evolution concept of delivering value. Marketing mix The marketing mix paradigm (the marketing “Ps”) is considered to be a milestone of marketing theory (Dominici, 2009) since Borden introduced the terms in a speech in 1953 and since McCarthy (1964) defined the marketing mix as the factors that managers leverage to satisfy market needs. McCarthy considers the marketing “Ps” to include product, place, promotion, and price and to have been an effective tool in the teaching of marketing concepts since then. The marketing mix has evolved since the 1960s—through the marketing concept of the 1970s, the quality management paradigm of 1980s, and relationship marketing of the 1990s. Today, marketing, practitioners, and academics have adopted the marketing mix to adapt to the growing influence of the digital context. Yudelson (1999) suggests that the product definition should be expanded to include all the benefits a consumer obtains from the exchange paradigm. Place includes expanding the physical space to the virtual space in which exchange actually occurs. Promotion includes all the communication efforts exchanged among various stakeholders. Yudelson (1999) suggests the term price should be expanded to include all expenditures in addition to money, such as time, energy, and opportunity costs given up to receive a product. JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 5 Exchange Exchange is the act of giving or taking one thing in return for another (Sheth & Uslay, 2007) and has been a central concept in numerous disciplines, such as economics, sociology, psychology, management, communication, and other human sciences. Marketing scholars have perceived exchange as the underlying mechanism for desired outcomes (Houston, Gassenheimer, & Maskulka, 1992). In this relational exchange paradigm, there are two parties involved: a buyer and a seller. A buyer is a person or an organization that has a need or want to be fulfilled, and a seller is a person or an organization that can provide something of value to fulfill the need or want. A buyer and a seller must exist before an exchange can occur (Sheth & Uslay, 2007). Applying these marketing concepts to the SFSP provides a unique opportunity to further marketing research literature. Because of the unique service being offered—free meals to children during the summer—SFSPs have multiple audiences in their marketing approaches including children, parents/guardians, and the community in which the SFSP operates. The SFSP delivers value to participants to satisfy needs (e.g., physiological needs) through nutritious food in a safe environment and wants (e.g., socialization) through the interaction among SFSP participants and interaction among SFSP operators and participants. Customer touch points Customer touch points has its roots in service blueprinting, how points of contact between a customer and service provider are designed (Shostack, 1984). The increased focus on creating customer value has led to an increase of interaction with providers of value through multiple touch points in various channels and media. Customer touch can be defined as an interaction between a customer and a service provider (Clatworthy, 2011). For example, a customer may interact with an organization with a company’s physical building, the service employees embedded in the service operation, self-service technology and machines, call centers, and other elements (Clatworthy, 2011). The increased and rapid rise of the Internet and the increased usage of social media and online review systems has only multiplied the opportunities of customers to interact with an organization. A customer’s overall assessment of the customer touch points form an opinion about the service provider. Clatworthy (2011) argues that the concept of customer touch points has its roots in customer relationship marketing. Customer experience can be traced by marketers back to the 1960s when theories of marketing began to conceptualize (e.g., Howard & Sheth, 1969; Kotler, 1969). Lemon and Verhoef (2016) provide a process model for understanding a customer journey and experience. Consistent with previous research (Howard & Sheth, 1969), the customer experience can be categorized into three overall stages of the customer journey: prepurchase, purchase, and postpurchase. 6 E. D. OLSON ET AL. Within the customer experience stage, Lemon and Verhoef (2016) posit four categories of customer touch points: brand owned, partner owned, customer owned, and social/external/independent owned. General overview of the SFSP Around the world, various countries offer school meals to students in efforts to provide nutritious food, to support learning, and/or to curb obesity (Addis & Murphy, 2019; Evans & Harper, 2009; Singapore Government, n.d.). Dependent on the country, these meals can be funded through government and/or nongovernmental sources. In the United Kingdom, meals must adhere to healthy eating standards that limit deep-fried foods and foods with added sugar; in Singapore, meals are developed around four food groups (i.e., brown rice and whole meal bread group, meat and others group, fruit group, and vegetable group) (United Kingdom Government, n.d.; Singapore Government, n.d.). Child nutrition programs have formally been in existence in the United States since 1946 with the passage of the School Nutrition Act of 1946. These programs provide federal funding for the provision of nutritious meals to school-aged children during the school year and summer. One such program, the SFSP, is offered in some communities so that children do not go hungry when school is not in session. The SFSP has been offered since 1969, and in 2010, limits were lifted on the number of sites that could be operated by nonprofits (USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 2019d). These programs are run by schools, churches, government agencies, or other nonprofit organizations (https://www.fns.usda. gov/sites/default/files/sfsp/SFSP-Fact-Sheet.pdf). In 2014, an estimated 3.2 million children participated daily (Food Research & Action Center, 2017). Marketing of nutrition programs A few scholars have examined marketing of nutrition programs. Marketing in child nutrition programs is primarily focused on the product (i.e., food) or service (i.e., type of service delivery or location of service). Relevant studies have been published on salad bar usage and location (Huynh, Pirie, Klein, Kaye, & Moore, 2015; Just & Wansink, 2009; Slusser, Cumberland, Browdy, Lange, & Neumann, 2007) and on signage to promote fresh fruit and vegetable selection and/or consumption (Adams, Pelletier, Zive, & Sallis, 2005). A marketing to children report by the Institute of Medicine focused on how food companies market and promote unhealthy food and beverages to youth in the United States (Institute of Medicine, 2006). The USDA provides a few resources for marketing nutrition programs. Downloadable promotional materials such as flyers, bookmarks, and yard signs are available at the USDA website (https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/raiseawareness); however, it is not known how frequently these are used given that JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 7 “the biggest barrier to children participating in the Summer Food Service Program is knowledge that feedings sites exist” (https://www.educateiowa.gov/ pk-12/nutrition-programs-0) nor is it known how effective the promotional materials are for the marketing of nutrition programs. Despite a few scholars examining the marketing aspects of a few nutrition programs, there is little empirical work that has examined the marketing aspects and customer journey aspects of SFSP. This is surprising due to the number of touch points the SFSP has in the context of service operations through its stakeholders. Although the customer journey and customer touch points tend to be examined in the context of a for-profit business in the marketing literature, we suggest that empirically investigating these concepts for a government program, such as the SFSP, could provide a fruitful analysis and discussion. Therefore, based on the above review of literature, the following three research questions (RQs) were developed: (1) What marketing promotion (advertising, public relations, sales promotions, and direct marketing) dimensions are being used in SFSP? (2) Which purchase phases (preconsumption, consumption, postconsumption) does SFSP marketing include? (3) Which customer experience touch points (brand owned, partner owned, customer owned, social/external owned) does SFSP marketing include? Methods This study utilized an embedded, replicable, multiple-case, case-study design with a literature replication format (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2003). The SFSP was studied at multiple sites (n = 14 sites). Four university-affiliated research teams from Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, and New York were recruited and chosen through a competitive process to conduct in-depth site visits to different SFSPs in seven different states and Washington, DC. Institutional review board approval was obtained from each team’s respective university. Consistent with the case study approach, data were gathered using various methods: conducting structured interviews with SFSP administrators, administering a short survey about the SFSP, and researchers’ observations of mealtime and marketing displays. Instrument development Three data collection tools were utilized: an interview guide for use with the person in charge of the program, a short survey to obtain data about the program (e.g., numbers of children served, type of meal service, and type of organization sponsoring the program), and an observational form used to collect data about 8 E. D. OLSON ET AL. consumption and environment. The use of multiple data sources allowed for a holistic approach in assessing these SFSPs. All tools were pilot tested prior to use. Additionally, all four research teams participated in a two-day training session in advance of data collection to assure consistency in data collection procedures. Data collection Each of the four research teams identified SFSPs in at least two different states and made contact with program representatives. Site visits were scheduled on days of service and generally two or three researchers attended each site visit. Visits lasted from three to five hours at each site. Interviews were audiotaped, with consent, and transcribed. Observational data and survey data were collected on paper and then transferred to IBM Statistical Software for the Social Sciences Version 25 for all data analysis. Data analysis Simple statistics were calculated for numeric data (e.g., number of meals served). To ensure that our research questions could be properly answered, we followed a five-stage systematic qualitative research process based on a defined blueprint by Sabine and Koeszegi (2007). In Stage 1 and Stage 2, each team collected data from multiple sources with instruments identified above; all interviews were transcribed. For stages 3 and 4, researchers trained in qualitative data analysis from each team were involved in this analysis process to assure rigor in analysis. First, researchers divided the transcript data into units (word segments) for coding and analysis. A coding framework was developed which is further explained in the next section. In Stage 5, two researchers independently analyzed the first five segments of data. Next, each researcher team met to discuss needed changes to and clarifications of the coding framework based on this preliminary analysis of a small section of the data. Qualitative data analysis was completed independently. To determine intercoder reliability, a quality measure to assure rigor, Cohen’s kappa was calculated (Sabine & Koeszegi, 2007). Coding frameworks We utilized three coding frameworks to examine the underlying dimensions of marketing elements of SFSP: type of promotional mix, purchase phases, and interaction of consumer experience touch point types. Type of promotional mix Our first research question concerned what marketing promotion dimensions were currently being used in SFSPs. Promotional mix consists of the JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 9 methods used to promote and communicate an SFSP. For type of promotional mix, we used five codes of traditional marketing mix elements: advertising, public relations, sales promotion, direct marketing, and other marketing efforts. Advertising is any form of mass, sponsor-identified communication and promotion of goods identified by a sponsor (Arens, 1996). Public relations includes activities used to obtain favorable publicity with various stakeholders (Baskin, Aronoff, & Lattimore, 1997). Sales promotions are short-term incentives to stimulate demand for a product or service (Chandon, 1995). Direct marketing is a relational marketing process of prospecting, conversion, and maintenance that involves feedback and control at the individual level by using direct response advertising with tracking codes (Bauer & Miglautsch, 1992, p. 10). Other marketing promotions included additional marketing activities, such as the hiring of marketing personnel. Purchase phases Our second research question concerned which purchase phases SFSP marketing included. Purchase phase is defined as the period during which the marketing dimension occurs. For purchase phases, we used a modified coding framework of customer experience based on Lemon and Verhoef (2016). Consistent with previous research (Neslin et al., 2006; Puccinelli et al., 2009), we used three phases of customer experience to code the occurrence of the SFSP marketing element: preconsumption, consumption, and postconsumption. The preconsumption stage refers to the stage of customer interaction with the organization/product/service before consumption. The preconsumption stage includes traditional marketing efforts an organization uses to communicate with the customer. The consumption stage refers to the stage of customer interaction with the organization/ product/service during the consumption aspect. For example, a consumer visiting an SFSP site and seeing a sign advertising the SFSP happens during the consumption phase. The postpurchase stage includes interactions with the organization/product/service after consumption. Nonpurchase behaviors, such as the customer engaging in word-of-mouth activity, would happen during the postpurchase stage. Recognizing that it is possible that marketing elements occur during multiple stages, we added two additional codes: preconsumption/consumption, and preconsumption/consumption/ postconsumption. For example, an advertising campaign could commence before the start of the SFSP and during the SFSP delivery. Consumer experience touch points Our third research question concerned which customer experience touch points SFSP marketing included. A customer experience touch point can be defined as any opportunity a customer has to directly interact with the product or service or 10 E. D. OLSON ET AL. a company or third-party representative (Meyer & Schwager, 2007). We utilized four dimensions of customer experience touch points described by Lemon and Verhoef (2016) as our coding framework: brand owned, partner owned, customer owned, and social/external owned. A brand-owned marketing element is one that is designed and managed completely by the SFSP site. For example, a SFSP may create advertisements for a newspaper or create a website to host program information, such as hours, locations, and sample menus. A partner-owned touch point is a customer interaction that is jointly designed and managed by the SFSP and another partner. An example of a partner-owned touch point would be a local media firm conducting a media site visit at an SFSP site to interview and create a story that will be shown on a local news channel. A customer-oriented touch point is one wherein the consumer is in charge of the touch point and the organization or partners are not involved. Examples would be a customer uploading a testimonial about their experience to a personal blog and other customers reading the testimonial. Social/external touch points include the role of other consumers, peer influences, independent information sources, and the external environment on the customer experience. An example of a social/external touch point would be the role of word-of-mouth from one participant to another participant about the SFSP. Results Demographic results Table 1 indicates the demographic profile of the 16 sites. A majority of the SFSP sites used self-preparation of menu items (62.50%), and a majority of sites (62.50%) used a combination of meal service types, such as on site, satellite, and mobile. Half of the sites (50.00%) were located at a school district, and half of the sites (50.00%) served both breakfast and lunch. For types of meals, sites provided mixed hot and cold meals, (50.00%), cold meals only (37.50%), or hot meals only (12.50%). SFSPs serve meals in a variety of sites. Meals were served in cafeteria/dining halls (12.50%), on buses (12.50%), at community centers (12.50%), at camps/parks (6.25%), and other sites (56.25%). As shown in Table 2, a total of 107 marketing elements were retrieved from 16 sites located in five regions. Southeast region had 48 (44.86% of total) marketing elements, followed by the Midwest region (26.16%), the Mountain Plains region (14.02%), the Northeast region (11.21%), and the Mid-Atlantic region (3.74%). JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 11 Table 1. Sample Characteristics. SFSP Characteristic Type of Meal Service Preparation Self-prep Vended Other/combination Type of Meal Service Combination Satellite service On site Mobile meal service Sack/backpack meal service Type of Organization School district Non-profit organization Local government agency Religious organization Meal Served Breakfast and lunch Lunch Breakfast, lunch, and supper Other/combination Type of Meals Mixed Cold meals Hot meals SFSP Site Description Cafeteria/dining hall Bus Community center Camp/park Other Total Frequency (%) 10 (62.50) 5 (31.25) 1 (6.25) 10 3 1 1 1 (62.50) (18.75) (6.25) (6.25) (6.25) 8 5 1 2 (50.00) (31.25) (6.25) (12.50) 8 3 3 2 (50.00) (18.75) (18.75) (12.50) 8 (50.00) 6 (37.50) 2 (12.50) 2 2 2 1 9 16 (12.50) (12.50) (12.50) (6.25) (56.25) (100.00) Table 2. Regional Marketing Elements. USDA Regional Office Southeast Midwest Mountain Plains Northeast Mid-Atlantic States Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Virginia, West Virginia Total Marketing Elements Retrieved N(%) 48(44.86) 28(26.17) 15(14.02) 12(11.21) 4(3.74) 107(100.0) Note. States in boldface represent the states research teams visited. Marketing dimension Table 3 reports the results of marketing elements utilized by SFSP. Results indicate that SFSP used advertising (49.53% of all efforts), followed by public relations (36.45% of all efforts), direct marketing (2.80% of all efforts), sales E. D. OLSON ET AL. 12 Table 3. Marketing Element Results. Marketing Element Advertising Flyer Newspaper Signs Website Outdoor Television Radio Billboard T-shirts App Other advertising Public relations Flyers (Outreach) Events Media visits Writing social media Content Media interviews News releases Other public relations Sales promotions Coupons Other sales promotions Definition Act of calling attention to one’s products/services by a paid sponsor to the masses Direct marketing Direct email newsletters Direct phone calls Text Messaging Other Direct marketing Other Formed of paid advertising; communicating directly to customers Total Managing the spread of information between an organization and the public (usually free) Effort for a limited time to stimulate interest Nonadvertising/public relations/sales promotions/ direct marketing activities 53 10 10 7 7 4 3 3 2 2 1 4 39 11 5 4 4 N (%) (49.53) (18.87) (18.87) (13.21) (13.21) (7.55) (5.66) (5.66) (3.77) (3.77) (1.89) (7.55) (36.45) (28.21) (12.82) (10.26) (10.26) 2 2 9 3 1 2 (5.13) (5.13) (23.08) (2.80) (33.33) (66.77) 9 3 3 1 2 3 (8.41) (33.33) (33.33) (11.11) (22.22) (2.80) Examples We have done newspaper, radio, social media, Facebook and Twitter, website.” “We have good media support and they’ve been very good to always show our summer program in a good light and that’s been very beneficial.” “… at the Dollar Store when people go there and make a purchase that is family or kid-related, a little message prints out …” “We have hired a district marketing person.” 107 (100.0) promotions (2.80% of all efforts), and other elements (2.80% of all efforts). Figure 2 shows examples of marketing elements used by SFSP sites. For advertising, the top four elements used were fliers (18.87%), newspaper (18.87%), signs (13.21%), and websites (13.21%). Several sites used fliers to communicate the locations and hours of SFSPs to parents and guardians. For example, one site utilized fliers announcing the program and sent the fliers home with students. One SFSP operator responded, “We publicize the program through the last backpack distribution in the early summer. We sent out the fliers in the last backpack distributed through [the] school district in June.” Several operators stated that technology, including websites and app development, was becoming more critical for marketing efforts by the SFSP. When asked about important marketing initiatives, one site manager stated, “A lot of people do go on our website.” JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 13 Figure 2. Examples of SFSP marketing. To ensure confidentiality, all references to site locations have been removed. A few respondents stated that outdoor advertising was extremely important. One respondent reported, From the beginning I think the best marketing piece we have is the buses. When you see those going down Preston Highway or I65 or whatever they’re out there in 14 E. D. OLSON ET AL. the community and it sparks people’s interests. I think that has generated … Just having them parked in the parking lot is advertisement. A few respondents noted the importance of engaging in a segmentation and target marketing approach. One SFSP operator revealed a marketing strategy targeting the Hispanic community. “We had some fliers published in a publication called (name redacted), which is printed predominately for the Hispanic population.” Whereas advertising tends to be paid by the sponsor, the goal of public relations is to spread information to the public, typically so the sponsor does not have to pay for the effort. SFSPs used public relations efforts in 36.34% of all efforts, and the top three public relations elements were flyers for outreach (28.21%), events (12.82%), and media visits (10.26%), Event management was a public relations effort used by many SFSP sites. Many respondents reported that they created local “tailgating” events, conferences, and “kick-off ” events to celebrate the summer season. Hosting local media to attend a SFSP site was also used to encourage local media to create a story about the SFSP. Writing social media content, such as SFSP schedules and menus, was a tool used by SFSPs. Many participants in the study reported discussing the SFSP through dedicated social media channels (e.g., Facebook or Twitter). One respondent stated that she put the schedules on her own personal Facebook account. Another operator reported, “We have good media support and they’ve been very good to always show our summer program in a good light and that’s been very beneficial.” Sales promotions were used 2.80% of the time to stimulate SFSP interest on a limited basis. For example, one site used a partnership with a local retailer, and SFSP information was printed on the bottom of receipts after a customer transaction. Direct marketing efforts, such as direct text messaging (one time) and direct newsletters (three times) were also used by SFSP operators. Information about the SFSP was included in direct newsletters that were created for students, parents, and community partners (e.g., local YMCAs). A few SFSP sites experimented with other marketing elements, such as the hiring of a marketing professional to assist with marketing activities. Purchase phases Cohen’s kappa (1960) was used to examine interrater agreement between the coders who coded purchase phase during which the marketing element of SFSP occurred. After the initial round of coding, kappa values for the purchase phase were acceptable (K = 0.658 ~ 1.000). In fact, three categories were above 0.75, representing excellent agreement beyond chance. Kappa values, assumption standard errors, and significance levels are shown in Table 4. JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 15 Table 4. Index Reliability of Dimensions of Purchase Phases and Customer Touch Point. Category Purchase Phases Preconsumption Consumption Postconsumption Preconsumption/Consumption Preconsumption/Consumption/ Postconsumption Customer Touch Point Brand owned Partner owned Customer owned Externally owned Cohen Kappa Asymptotic Standard Error Approximate Significance 0.801 0.714 1.000 0.809 0.658 0.060 0.156 0.000 0.069 0.225 p p p p p < < < < < 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.698 0.740 1.000 0.893 0.069 0.067 0.000 0.061 p p p p < < < < 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Results indicate marketing efforts by SFSPs occur during the preconsumption stage 68.22% of the time, during the consumption stage 6.54% of the time, during the preconsumption/consumption 21.50% of the time, and during the preconsumption/consumption/postconsumption stage 3.74% of the time. There were no efforts during the postconsumption phase. Customer experience touch points Cohen’s kappa (1960) was used to examine interrater agreement between the coders of the phase of the customer experience during which the marketing element of SFSP occurred. After the initial round of coding, kappa values for the purchase phase were acceptable (K = 0.661 ~ 1.000). Kappa values, assumption standard errors, and significance levels are shown in Table 4. Results indicated that the customer touch point was completely owned and controlled by the SFSP in 45 (42.06%) of the data segments. For example, one SFSP manager stated that the SFSP was in charge of all information when sending out information to potential stakeholders of the SFSP, such as communicating information about the SFSP to potential partners (e.g., as school principals). Another respondent stated that the SFSP writes articles and tips and puts the information into newsletters and summer school brochures. Writing content for websites and SFSP social media websites would also be brand owned. In 42 of the data segments (39.25%), respondents stated that the touch points were jointly designed and managed by the SFSP and a partner. Several SFSP operators reported having strong relationships with the local media; in this partner relationship, the SFSP provides information about the SFSP and access to the SFSP for a media story. For example, one respondent stated that the local television station visited the SFSP, conducted interviews onsite with SFSP managers, and linked the story across multiple social media platforms of the local television station. Another respondent noted that there had been 16 E. D. OLSON ET AL. an increase in national news coverage in the in-depth features on the SFSP program in the past few years. In two (1.87%) data segments, marketing elements were classified as customer owned, meaning the touch point was a customer action that was part of the overall customer experience, but the SFSP was not involved nor did it own the marketing element. One respondent noted that a person wrote a letter to the editor in a newspaper about the SFSP. Lastly, 18 (16.82%) of the data segments were classified as socially/externally owned, defined as external touch points that may influence the customer experience, such as other consumers or peer influencers. One SFSP operator reported that they created brochures and fliers and sent them to managers of apartment complexes in the local community so the managers could provide information about the SFSP to the apartment’s residents. Several SFSP operators also reported that they had conducted outreach opportunities in the local community. One SFSP operator reported having engaged in outreach activities in the local community by handing out flyers to promote SFSP at local events, such as Fourth of July parades. Discussion To promote the SFSP, operators have leveraged multiple marketing mechanisms to provide timely and relevant information pertaining to free, nutritious meals and delivery sites to children and families in the United States during the summer months, when school is not in session. However, limited research has been conducted on marketing mechanisms and channels used by SFSPs. Furthermore, literature has not addressed how SFSP marketing mechanisms have been applied through customer touch points in nonprofit organizations. This study examined the marketing dimensions of SFSP in terms of promotional mix, purchase phases, and interaction of consumer experience touch point types. A few researchers have examined marketing functions of other government-sponsored programs, such as the use of the food stamp program (now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to promote health food purchases (e.g., Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010) and use of point-of-sale terminals for SNAP at farmers’ markets (e.g., Buttenheim, Havassy, Fang, Glyn, & Karpyn, 2012). Marketing functions were also examined in relationship to SNAP participants’ continuation in the program (e.g., Panzera et al., 2017). To the best of our knowledge, this paper is one of the first to examine the marketing function of SFSP. Our first research question focused on finding the marketing promotion dimensions currently being used by SFSP. Findings indicated that SFSP used a variety of marketing promotion types, including advertising, public relations, direct marketing, and sales promotions. This is consistent with JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 17 marketing academics (e.g., Kotler, 1969), who suggest that firms utilize a mix of marketing promotion activities. In fact, this research found that advertising was used in almost half (49.53%) of all marketing elements. Researchers from the advertising stream have found benefits from advertising, such as a positive effect on sales (e.g., Dekimpe & Hanssens, 1999). Unlike paid advertising, the goal of public relations is to increase an organization’s message through an objective lens such as in the news media. Public relations efforts were found in 36.34% of marketing elements. Public relations efforts can be an effective tool used by nonprofit organizations because costs for the production of such efforts are often minimal to nonprofit organizations. Interestingly, sales promotions were used the least by SFSPs. This finding is surprising because the benefits of sales promotion activities, such as point-ofpurchase displays, contests, and premiums have been documented in the literature to stimulate demand for a product or service in the short term. Additionally, Chandon, Wansink, and Laurent (2000) suggest that sales promotion activities can also provide both hedonic and utilitarian benefits for consumers. Our second research question asked which purchase phases SFSP marketing includes. Findings indicated that SFSP marketing occurs in the prepurchase and purchase stages of the customer experience. Findings indicate that SFSP marketing efforts primarily occur in the preconsumption stage (68.22% of the time). The pre-consumption stage includes the customer’s experience from the beginning of need recognition to the satisfying of that need/want (Pieters, Baumgartner, & Allen, 1995). In this regard, SFSPs appear to be using marketing efforts to get the word out about the program in advance of program launch. Interestingly, no marketing efforts were completed during the postconsumption phase, or after the SFSP participant had received food at the SFSP site. While previous research has shown that the postconsumption phase includes elements such as service recovery (e.g., Kelley & Davis, 1994), word of mouth behavior and activity (e.g., van Dooran et al., 2010), and the use of third-party websites for online reviews such as Yelp.com, findings indicate that SFSP operators currently do not employ such marketing strategies during this stage. Our third research question asked which customer experience touch points SFSPs utilize in their marketing endeavors. Customer touch points provide SFSP with a way to organize and understand the customer experience. Studies have shown that a variety of different customer touch points exist in the context of a customer’s experience with an organization (e.g., Baxendale, Macdonald, & Wilson, 2015; de Haan, Wiesel, & Pauwels, 2016). Results from this research found that SFSPs own and control their marketing element 42.06% of the time (e.g., paid advertising, creation of an app). Numerous marketing studies have examined these types of touch points on sales and market share (e.g., Hanssens, 2015). Results from this research 18 E. D. OLSON ET AL. found that the SFSPs partnered with another organizations (e.g., local media) in the creation of customer touch points. For SFSPs that operate on a limited marketing budget, the benefits of partnering with another organization could be valuable. Since the federal reimbursement does not cover marketing, these funds need to come from a third-party or in-kind donation. Customerowned touch points tend to be most critical in the postpurchase stage (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). Currently, SFSPs do not appear to be engaged in this aspect of marketing. Theoretical implications This study makes noteworthy contributions to existing theoretical framework by advancing the literature on SFSP marketing in nonprofit and public sector marketing. To our knowledge, the use of the Process Model for Customer Journey and Experience has never been applied in the marketing of social programs such as SFSP; therein, providing potential evidence of applicability in contexts in which the customer and marketing elements are unique marketing elements are unique in a social program. Managerial implications Given this research on customer journey, what should operators of SFSPs do? First, they should understand that the perspectives of both the customer and the SFSP exist within the contexts of the customer purchase journey, through key aspects of each stage. This research found that SFSP operators engage in marketing efforts during the prepurchase and consumption stages. SFSP operators should strive to provide marketing mechanisms across all phases, as this research found no marketing mechanisms in the postpurchase phase. For example, SFSP operators could follow up with SFSP users to ask about their experiences and to ensure that users of SFSPs are satisfied with their experiences. Operators could also encourage users to provide a reference to others about their experiences. Because word-of-mouth (WOM) referrals have longer carryover effects than traditional marketing (Trusov, Bucklin, & Pauwels, 2009), SFSPs may try to encourage recipients to engage in WOM activity through social media channels, such as encouraging social media contacts to participate in SFSPs. Additionally, SFSP operators could engage in marketing research to examine the overall effectiveness of marketing initiatives. The lack of any formal marketing research program was evident in our discussions with SFSP operators; therefore, SFSP operators could partner with a local university or college or local executives to assist with marketing research to examine the effectiveness of SFSP channels, SFSP brand recall, and perceptions of service delivery. JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 19 Second, SFSP operators should identify the specific elements or touch points that occur throughout the journey in any effort to leverage various customer experience touch points. For example, SFSP operators could encourage SFSP users to provide recommendations and refer others to SFSP programs through traditional and social media efforts. Having technologyequipped smartphones or tablets onsite during delivery could allow participants to provide immediate testimonials and experiences through social media platforms. Additionally, SFSP operators could continue to engage in community partnerships with governmental agencies, other nonprofit organizations, and community advocacy groups, especially those for-profit businesses in the local area that have marketing experience. Community outreach through targeted approaches and appearance in community events could also be used as outreach opportunities. Lastly, SFSP leadership at the state and federal levels could provide enhanced education and training for SFSP operators. Offering manager education on marketing may be beneficial because, generally, managers or those in charge of programs do not have education or training in the area of marketing. Resources and tools—through formal education (e.g., training and development opportunities) and nonformal education (e.g., podcasts)—can be offered to help SFSP operators develop an understanding of marketing elements and enhance their programs. The inclusion of local marketing thought leaders on boards of directors interfacing with SFSPs or hiring of marketing consultants could provide SFSP with greater insight into marketing SFSP. Limitations and future research The current study has three limitations that suggest directions for future research concerning SFSP marketing. First, data represented in this study were obtained from five out of seven USDA regions. Future studies will want to obtain data from the two regions—Southwest and West—that were not part of this study to increase generalizability of findings. Second, this study provided insight into how SFSP currently utilizes marketing to promote the SFSP, but the study does not consider the demand perspective. In other words, future studies could conduct quantitative research to examine how SFSP recipients perceive marketing or what marketing channels are most appropriate to reach future SFSP recipients. Lastly, SFSP operators should recognize that the consumer journey and customer touch points are not a linear process. Because customers can continue and discontinue their customer journey at various intervals, future research should examine SFSPs from the customer perspective. 20 E. D. OLSON ET AL. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This project has been funded at least in part with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service through an agreement with the Institute of Child Nutrition at the University of Mississippi. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. References Adams, M. A., Pelletier, R. L., Zive, M. M., & Sallis, J. F. (2005). Salad bars and fruit and vegetable consumption in elementary schools: A plate waste study. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(11), 1789–1792. doi:10.1016/j.jada.2005.08.013 Addis, S, & Murphy, S. (2019). There is such a thing as too healthy! the impact of minimum nutritional guidelines on school food practices in secondary schools. Journal Of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 32, 31-40. doi: 10.1111/jhn.12598 American Marketing Association. (2017, August 1). Definition of marketing, Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx Anderson, L., Ostrom, A. L., Corus, C., Fisk, R. P., Gallan, A. S., Giraldo, M., … Williams, J. D. (2013). Transformative service research: An agenda for the future. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1203–1210. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.08.013 Arens, W. F. (1996). Contemporary advertising (6th ed.) Chicago, IL: Richard D. Irwin. Baskin, O. W., Aronoff, C. E., & Lattimore, D. (1997). Public relations: The profession and the practice (4th ed.) Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark. Bauer, C. L., & Miglautsch, J. (1992). A conceptual definition of direct marketing. Journal Of Direct Marketing, 6(2), 7–17. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1022/dir.4000060204 doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1522-7138 Baxendale, S., Macdonald, E. K., & Wilson, H. N. (2015). The impact of different touchpoints on brand consideration. Journal of Retailing, 91(2), 235–253. doi:10.1016/j. jretai.2014.12.008 Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Buttenheim, A. M., Havassy, J., Fang, M., Glyn, J., & Karpyn, A. E. (2012). Increasing supplemental nutrition assistance program/electronic benefits transfer sales at farmers’ markets with vendor-operated wireless point-of-sale terminal. Journal of Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(5), 636–641. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2011.12.021 Chandon, P. (1995). Consumer research on sales promotions: a state-of-the-art literature review. Journal Of Marketing Management, 11(5), 419–441. Retrieved from https://doi.org/ 10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964357 doi:10.1080/0267257X.1995.9964357 Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64, 65–81. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.4.52.18075 Clatworthy, S. (2011). Service innovation through touch-points: Development of an innovation toolkit for the first stages of new service development. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 15–28. JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 21 Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 de Haan, E., Wiesel, T., & Pauwels, K. (2016). The effectiveness of different forms of online advertising for purchase conversion in a multiple-channel attribution framework. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(3), 491–507. doi:10.1016/j. ijresmar.2015.12.001 Dekimpe, M. G., & Hanssens, D. M. (1999). Sustained spending and persistent response: A new look at long-term marketing profitability. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 397–412. doi:10.1177/002224379903600401 Dominici, G. (2009). From marketing mix to e-marketing mix: a literature overview and classification. International Journal Of Business and Management, 4(9), 17–24. doi:10.5539/ ijbm.v4n9p17 Evans, C., & Harper, C. (2009). A history and review of school meal standards in the UK. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 22(2), 89–99. doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2008.00941.x Food Research & Action Center. (2017, August 1). Hunger doesn’t take a vacation: Summer nutrition status report. Retrieved from http://www.frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2017summe r-nutrition-report-1.pdf Grönroos, C. (2012). Conceptualising value co-creation: A journey to the 1970s and back to the future. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(13–14), 1520–1545. doi:10.1080/ 0267257X.2012.737357 Grönroos, C., & Ravald, A. (2011). Service as business logic: Implications for value creation and marketing. Journal of Service Management, 22(1), 5–22. doi:10.1108/09564231111106893 Gumirakiza, J. D, Curtis, K. R, & Bosworth, R. (2017). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for bundled fresh produce claims at farmers' markets. Journal Of Food Products Marketing, 23(1), 61-79. Hanssens, D. M. (2015). Empirical generalizations about marketing impact (2nd ed.) Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Houston, F. S., Gassenheimer, J. B., & Maskulka, J. M. (1992). Marketing exchange transactions and relationships. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Howard, J. A., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Huynh, L. M., Pirie, P., Klein, E. G., Kaye, G., & Moore, R. (2015). Identifying associations between format and placement of school salad bars and fruit and vegetable selection. The Journal of Child Nutrition & Management, 39(2), 1–11. Institute of Medicine. (2006). Food marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity? Retrieved from https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11514/food-marketing-to-children-and-youth -threat-or-opportunity Just, D. R., & Wansink, B. (2009). Smarter lunchrooms: Using behavioral economics to improve meal selection. Choices, 24(3). Retrieved from http://smarterlunchrooms.org/ SoftChalk_Lessons/NC_Module03/85225017-Smarter- Lunchrooms-Choices-2010.pdf Kelley, S. W., & Davis, M. A. (1994). Antecedents to customer expectations for service recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(1), 52–61. doi:10.1177/ 0092070394221005 Kotler, P. (1969). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, and control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kotler, P., & Levy, S. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33 (1), 10–15. doi:10.2307/1248740 Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., & Johansson, N. (2008). Key strategies for the successful involvement of customers in the co-creation of new technology-based services. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 19, 474–491. doi:10.1108/09564230810891914 22 E. D. OLSON ET AL. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. doi:10.1509/jm.15.0420 McCarthy, E. J. (1964). Basic marketing: A managerial approach. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. Meyer, C., & Schwager, A. (2007). Under customer experience. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/02/understanding-customer-experience Neslin, S. A., Grewall, D., Leghorn, R., Shankar, V., Teerling, M. L., Thomas, J. S., & Verhoef, P. C. (2006). Challenges and opportunities in multichannel customer management. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 95–112. doi:10.1177/1094670506293559 Panzera, A., Bryant, C., Hawkins, F., Goff, R., Napier, A., Kirby, R., … O’Rourke, K. (2017). Audience segmentation of Kentucky mothers by nonparticipation status in the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 29(1), 98–118. doi:10.1080/10495142.2017.1293585 Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chain approach to consumers’ goal structure. International in Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(3), 227–244. doi:10.1016/0167-8116(95)00023-U Polacsek, M., O’Brien, L., Pratt, E., Whatley-Blum, J., & Adler, S. (2017). Investigating how to align schools’ marketing environments with federal standards for competitive foods. Journal of School Health, 87(3), 167–173. doi:10.1111/josh.12488 Puccinelli, N. M., Goodstein, R. C., Grewal, D., Price, R., Raghubir, P., & Stewart, D. (2009). Customer experience management in retailing: Understanding the buying process. Journal of Retailing, 85(1), 15–30. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2008.11.003 Rutten, L. J., Yaroch, A., Pinard, C., & Story, M. (2013). Social marketing to promote nutrition assistance programs. Journal of Hunger and Environmental Nutrition, 8(1), 164–170. doi:10.1080/19320248.2013.786666 Sabine, K. J., & Koeszegi, S. T. (2007). From words to numbers: How to transform qualitative data and into meaningful quantitative results. Schmalenbach Business Review, 59, 29–57. doi:10.1007/BF03396741 Shenkin, J. D., & Jacobson, M. F. (2010). Using the food stamp program and other methods to promote healthy diets for low-income consumers. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1562–1564. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.198549 Sheth, J. N., & Uslay, C. (2007). Implications of the revised definition of marketing: From exchange to value creation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 26(2), 302–307. doi:10.1509/jppm.26.2.302 Shostack, L. (1984). Designing services that deliver. Harvard Business Review, 62(1), 133-139. Singapore Government. Healthy meals in schools programme. Retrieved from https://www. hpb.gov.sg/schools/school-programmes/healthy-meals-in-schools-programme Slusser, W. M., Cumberland, W. G., Browdy, B. L., Lange, L., & Neumann, C. (2007). A school salad bar increases frequency of fruit and vegetable consumption among children living in low income households. Public Health Nutrition, 10(12), 1490–1496. doi:10.1017/ S1368980007000444 Trusov, M., Bucklin, R. E., & Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: Findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 90–102. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.90 United Kingdom Government. School meals-healthy eating standards. Retrieved from https:// www.gov.uk/school-meals-healthy-eating-standards United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2019a). Summer food service program. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/summer-food-serviceprogram JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING 23 United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. (2019b). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/frequently-asked-questions United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2019c). School breakfast program. Marketing. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/sbp/marketing United States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2019d). Summer food service program: program history. Retrieved from https://www.fns.usda.gov/sfsp/programhistory van Dooran, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: Theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. doi:10.1177/1094670510375599 Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036 Yin, R. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Yudelson, J. (1999). Adapting mccarthy's four p's for the twenty-first century. Journal Of Marketing Education, 21(1), 60-67. doi:10.1177/0273475399211008