Speaker
Description
Keywords
Consumer behaviour, Information abstraction, Plant-based alternatives
Introduction
Production and consumption of meat and dairy products have long held a pivotal role in discussions on how to make current food systems more sustainable. There is general agreement that a reduction in consumption of animal-based products bodes well for improving both planetary and human health (Willett et al. 2019). The food industry, in developed markets especially, has steadily increased the accessibility of plant-based meat and dairy substitutes. Nonetheless, the mere availability of these alternatives does not directly translate to consumer acceptance and uptake, as scepticism and negative perceptions persist among many (Collier et al. 2023). To address this, manufacturers have recognised the importance of strategic communication. Beyond offering certified labels, the language used to describe these products to consumers has been an important mechanism in enhancing the appeal of plant-based meat and dairy alternatives. Descriptors vary in abstraction, ranging from simply indicating the absence of animal-based ingredients (e.g. meat-free burger, dairy-free milk) to identifying the presence of plant-based ingredients in general (e.g. plant-based burger, plant-based milk), or highlighting the primary ingredient (e.g. lentil-based burger, soy-based milk). These different types of product descriptors trigger various expectations and perceptions amongst consumers.
Objective
The objective of the study was therefore to understand how British consumers rationalize semantic differences for meat and dairy alternatives. We explore the underlying appeal, willingness to try, taste, health and sustainability expectations that food products carry across three different levels of information abstraction: broad (meat/dairy free), intermediate (plant-based), and specific (ingredient-based).
Method
To meet our objective, data were collected through an online survey in January 2024. 1073 British participants were recruited via a panel provider. To improve data quality, quality checks were implemented with those who failed them, along with speeders and straight-liners, removed before analysis. Four meat substitutes (burger patty, nuggets, sausage rolls, mince) and four dairy substitutes (milk drink, yoghurt, cheese, margarine) which are commonly found on the British market were selected. Within each of these categories, two products were soy-based (sausage roll, mince and milk drink, yoghurt) and two were pulse-based for the meat alternatives (chickpea-based burger patty, lentil-based nuggets), or oil-based for the dairy alternatives (coconut oil-based cheese, rapeseed oil-based margarine). To firstly explore attributes associated with meat/dairy-free, plant-based or ingredient specific foods a ‘Check-All-That-Apply’ approach was used. This was supplemented by a correspondence analysis to identify which words are most closely related to the three different levels as well as further analyses based on comparisons of means between the products and their different levels of information. Descriptive statistics as well as ANOVAS were used to test appeal, willingness to try, as well as taste, health and sustainability expectations.
Findings & conclusions
We found that overall respondents had more experience with purchasing dairy alternatives than meat alternatives, with milk, margarine and yoghurt being the most purchased products from the given categories. Except for margarine, consumers consistently found products presented under the broadest category (meat/dairy-free) most appealing. Although the effect sizes are small, this also transferred to taste expectations, where meat and dairy-free products were deemed as being the tastiest. This was followed by products labeled as plant-based. Products with the least levels of abstraction, namely those referring to individual ingredients were perceived as being least tasty. More variability exists between sustainability and health expectations. Sustainability expectations are more strongly shaped depending on the ingredients used. Soy as an ingredient fares poorly for both meat and dairy alternatives, with the abstract (meat/dairy free) and intermediate (plant based) conditions perceived as being more sustainable. This heterogeneity is even more pronounced with regards to health expectations.
Our findings are relevant as they show that consumers generally do not place much emphasis on the ingredients of products when assessing appeal of substitutes. Instead they tend to prefer meat and dairy alternatives which are broadly identified under high levels of abstraction. However, in contrast to other studies (Fenko et al. 2015), when alternatives are presented by their ingredient and these (such as soy) carry pre-existing strong emotional and heuristic aversions, these can negatively influence product perceptions. In this way, our findings also support the literature on the ‘free-from’ halo (Asioli et al. 2017, Cao and Miao, 2022), which is a phenomenon where products gain desirability by virtue of being labelled as being ‘free from’ certain ingredients. Hence, products presented as ‘meat-free’ or ‘dairy-free’ alternatives, could prove to be more successful in enhancing the appeal for plant-based substitutes. For meat alternatives especially, manufacturers can leverage these findings by taking advantage of the most economical or healthy ingredients which suit their needs and have the highest marketing potential. With consumer preferences towards higher degrees of abstraction in terms of composition, they can then market their products with greater flexibility. This trend is also evident amongst dairy alternatives, albeit not as prominent. Hence, considering what type of information granularity the consumer prefers can be important in encouraging an increase in the consumption of plant-based meat and dairy products.
