Generated Summary
This document presents findings from the Better Buying Lab, focusing on how food companies can boost the sales of plant-based menu items by strategically choosing names for their dishes. The research aims to understand how language can influence consumer perception and appetite for plant-rich foods, particularly among meat-eaters and flexitarians. The methodology involves a combination of studies, including an examination of consumer responses to different food labels and names, and a market test that observed sales changes after renaming menu items. The scope of the research includes studies conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom, analyzing consumer behavior in relation to plant-based food choices.
Key Findings & Statistics
- In a study with Sainsbury’s supermarket in the United Kingdom, sales of two dishes increased by 76% when “meat-free” was removed from the dishes’ names and replaced with a more appealing one.
- A study in the United States asked consumers to rank the relative appeal of 21 different labels used to describe food and beverages, with the “vegan” label emerging as the least appealing of all options.
- Meat eaters are 56% less likely to order a plant-rich dish if it’s contained within a “vegetarian” box on a menu, compared to vegetarian options being spread across the menu.
- In a U.S. study, respondents rated a mango lassi labeled “healthy” as 55% less enjoyable than those who drank the “unhealthy” version.
- Panera Bread switched the name of its “Low Fat Vegetarian Black Bean Soup” to “Cuban Black Bean Soup,” which resulted in a 13% increase in sales.
- Vegetables with flavor-focused names such as “Rich Buttery Roasted Sweet Corn” and “Zesty Ginger Turmeric Sweet Potatoes” were chosen 41% more often over identically prepared vegetables with “healthy-restrictive” names and 25% more often than those with “basic” names.
Other Important Findings
- The document identifies specific language to avoid when naming plant-based menu items, including “meat-free,” “vegan,” “vegetarian,” and “healthy restrictive.” These terms can negatively impact consumer perception and reduce the appeal of plant-based dishes.
- The research highlights that “meat-free” can be counterproductive, as it communicates what a food *lacks* rather than what it *offers*, potentially deterring meat-eaters.
- The “vegan” label is associated with negative perceptions, creating an “us-them” mentality that alienates non-vegans.
- The “vegetarian” label, while associated with health, is often perceived as less satisfying.
- Highlighting provenance (e.g., “Cuban Black Bean Soup”) and spotlighting flavor can significantly enhance the appeal of plant-based dishes.
- Emphasizing a food’s look and feel by using terms like “creamy,” “warming,” “crunchy,” “smooth,” and “sticky” can also increase appeal.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- The document primarily focuses on a limited number of studies conducted in specific geographical locations (the United States and the United Kingdom), which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other regions and cultural contexts.
- The studies cited may have specific methodologies, such as surveys and market tests, that could be subject to biases or limitations. For instance, consumer responses can be influenced by factors beyond just the name of a dish.
- The study provides insights into consumer preferences regarding names, but it does not necessarily address the broader factors that influence food choices, such as price, accessibility, and personal values.
- The document’s focus on language may overlook the importance of other marketing strategies, such as product placement and promotional efforts, in driving sales.
- The research is limited to the context of restaurant menus and food companies’ marketing efforts, and may not apply directly to other areas, such as packaged goods or home cooking.
Conclusion
The research presented emphasizes the critical role of naming conventions in shaping consumer perceptions and influencing the success of plant-based menu items. It reveals that certain terms, such as “meat-free,” “vegan,” “vegetarian,” and “healthy restrictive,” can inadvertently deter consumers, particularly meat-eaters, by conveying a sense of limitation or difference. The study highlights the need for strategic language that appeals to a broader audience, focusing on flavor, provenance, and sensory experiences. The findings suggest that food companies can significantly enhance the appeal of plant-based dishes by using descriptive language, highlighting the food’s origin or unique traits, and focusing on the positive aspects of taste and texture. For example, by rebranding dishes and using evocative descriptions, companies can shift consumer perceptions and encourage greater acceptance and consumption of plant-rich foods. This approach moves beyond simply labeling a dish as “vegetarian” and instead embraces creativity and culinary innovation to boost sales. These findings provide valuable insights for food businesses looking to capitalize on the growing trend toward plant-based eating and to broaden the appeal of their offerings. The strategic use of language is not just a matter of semantics but a key component in creating a more welcoming and appealing dining experience for all consumers.