Package size, portion size, serving size. market size: The unconventional case for half-size servings

Marketing Science

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 54-57

  Wansink, Brian ^a  

^a Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857164662     PISSN: 07322399     EISSN: 1526548X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1110.0699b     Document Type: Note

References (10)

1. Chandon, P., N. Ordabayeva. 2009. Supersize in one dimension, downsize in three dimensions: Effects of spatial dimensionality on size perceptions and preferences. J. Marketing Res. 46(6) 739-753.
2. Chandon, P., B. Wansink. 2002. When are stockpiled products consumed faster? A convenience-salience framework of postpurchase consumption incidence and quantity. J. Marketing Res. 39(3) 321-335.
3. Chandon, P., B. Wansink. 2011. Is food marketing making us fat? A multi-disclipinary view. Foundations Trends Marketing 5(3) 113-196.
4. Inman, J. J. 2001. The role of sensory-specific satiety in attributelevel variety seeking. J. Consumer Res. 28(1) 105-120.
5. Jain, S. 2012. The marketing of vice goods: A strategic analysis of the package size decision. Marketing Sci. 31(1) 36-51.
6. Just, D. R., B. Wansink. 2011. The flat-rate pricing paradox: Conflicting effects of "all-you-can-eat" buffet pricing. Rev. Econom. Statist. 93(1) 193-200.
7. Wansink, B. 1996. Can package size accelerate usage volume? J. Marketing 60(3) 1-14.
8. Wansink, B. 2012. (Healthy) restaurant confidential. Working paper, Cornell Food and Brand Lab, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
9. Wansink, B., M. Huckabee. 2005. De-marketing obesity. Calif. Management Rev. 47(4) 6-18.
10. Wansink, B., C. R. Payne, M. Shimizu. 2011. The 100-calorie semisolution: Sub-packaging most reduces intake among the heaviest. Obesity 19(5) 1098-1100.