Prior to COVID-19 and the price hikes of manufacturers, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were darlings of the food world. Beyond Meat products were mainly sold at retail. Impossible Foods products were at restaurants. Fast food outlets put plant-based offerings on their menus. Finally, there were actually tasty alternatives to animal proteins, mimicking the mouth feel and texture of ground beef, sausages and chicken.
From the start, both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods made marketing mistakes. Neither brand differentiated itself from the other. Both brands behaved as if the idea of “plant-based protein that mimics animal protein” was enough of a breakthrough that people did not need information. Both companies adopted pricing strategies that were not in line with consumer expectations for non-animal offerings. In fact, it is still the case that plant-based offerings are nearly twice what a shopper would pay for an animal protein offering.
This article is part of Branding Strategy Insider’s newsletter. You can sign up here to get thought pieces like this sent to your inbox.
But, the most troubling issue was that both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were not as insightful as they could be about the way people think about and speak about food. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were both blind-sided by the previous, persistent power of the organic, natural food wave’s food education and food language.
Ironic.
Both Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods designed offerings based on an understanding of the future of food. Both brands focus on non-animal protein substitutes that are sustainable, animal-friendly, anti-industrial food, wellness-oriented, organic, and available in a variety of places.
Sure, we have moved on from macrobiotics, grow-your-own communes, natural, low-fat, fewer calories, less sugar, less sodium, low cholesterol, organic, and a plethora of diets such as Keto, Atkins, Paleo, vegetarian and vegan. But, our food language reflects the ideas generated by these passing food waves. How we talk about food affects our perceptions of food.
Unfortunately for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, the language we use for food puts these brands in a precarious position—and not just from a marketing standpoint. All the ecological and humane benefits of non-CAFO or non-factory-farmed animals that these brands epitomize do not appear to overcome the dreaded idea of “processed.”
Our food vocabulary changed years ago into “good words” and “bad words.” All-natural, unprocessed, raw, organic, natural, clean, real, raw, pure, not genetically modified, unprocessed foods: these are the best words. Just take a look at the peanut butter section at your local grocery store. Peanut butter brands attempt to differentiate by using “all-natural,” “organic,” “non-GMO.” The bad words are the alternatives: unnatural, unclean, unreal, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted, impure, processed foods.
“Processing” is a bad word. When processing is what makes food convenient, increases safety and value, how did “processed” become a bad idea?
People say they want prepared foods that are not processed. But, prepared is processing.
The “movements” – natural, organic, 1960’s, vegan, vegetarian and so forth co-opted the best words decades ago. The “movements” trained us – regardless of our diets – to want organic, whole food, natural foods, clean foods, real foods, raw, unprocessed, not genetically modified, pure foods versus unnatural, processed, genetically tampered, chemically-tainted foods with free range all-the-time versus caged pigs, confined cows and crowded chickens.
The Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline, “Imitation Meat is Facing concerns About Processing.” The wording is: Imitation Meat. We define imitation as artificial, synthetic, simulated, manufactured, ersatz, substitute. Surely, “imitation” is not a desirable descriptor for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods.
And, Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should have known better, at their beginnings, that there might be a tough road ahead. “Processing” is not a fight that should be waged now. It is too late to fight “processing.” There is probably no definition of processing that can overcome processing’s already ruined rep.
There are continuing discussions about the word “processing.” The CEO of Impossible Foods told The Wall Street Journal, “Processed, if you really want to look at it from a food perspective, means highly artificial and very little nutritional value. We are a nutrient-dense product. That’s not the traditional definition of processed.”
On the other hand, Marion Nestle, NYU professor emeritus, nutrition, food studies and public health and the author of many widely read and highly respected books told The Wall Street Journal that “plant-based products were still ultra-processed and that long-term studies on their impacts were needed.” Ms. Nestle did state that from an environmental perspective, plant-based is better than animal. She added that “everything is better than beef.”
It is important to note that neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made consistent, compelling brand-based propositions relative to processing. It is as if these two brands never thought about the concept. Many 60’s vegetarian and vegan constituencies understand the arguments from multiple angles having spent time thumbing through the bible of the eco-conscious, healthful dietary primer of the 1970’s, Diet for A Small Planet. Younger cohorts need this learning. Yet neither Beyond Meat nor Impossible Foods made processing into acceptable (appealing?) messaging.
So, where are we in the future of food? Not so far off from where we were 20 years ago. However, there are still valuable opportunities for Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, brands that should have broader audiences by now. What are consumers looking for in products and services and in life?
Fresh Is Fabulous
Prepared fresh every day. Made fresh. Fresh is still the be all and end all of food.
Fresh and chilled continue to be the growth opportunities
Subway has made fresh a core attribute of their brand even though many might say some of the ingredients are not that healthful.
Of course, “Fresh” is relative. Food travels. Plus, there are food miles and shelf lives to consider. Food distribution is a race against time.
For example, in a large supermarket with its own distribution system, broccoli undergoes a journey like this: farm to local warehouse to regional distribution center to refrigerated truck to regional distribution center at destination to another truck to local supermarket to backroom stocking area to floor and finally to shelf. That “fresh” broccoli can take a week to 10 days.
To allow fruits and vegetables to endure the trip, some are picked green, and chilled then warmed and treated with gases to ripen.
Packaging can be an option. Packaging is not just for ease of use but a good step for freshness. Packaging that makes food look fresh longer is good. Farmers’ markets are increasingly popular.
Convenience Is Critical
Convenience foods: What is convenience?
Convenience is not the same today as it was fifty years ago. Convenience used to just mean “ease of use.” Make it easy to prepare; make it fast to prepare. TV dinners, cake mixes, Jello.
Many of today’s consumers do not cook, do not know how to cook, and do not want to learn. Not having to cook is a commodity claim. Today’s definition of cooking a meal is really assembling a meal… putting together already-made foods. Or the paint-by-numbers approach of meal kits such as Blue Apron.
The food industry knows that consumers want hot food on the table no more than five minutes after they begin preparing and never more than 20 minutes.
And, then, there is the powerful triplet of Ease of choice, Ease of use, and Ease of Mind. Food must be easy to choose. That means all the information must be understandable and believable and, preferably, with all ingredients recognizable. Food must be easy to use. Only the brave choose Julia Childs. And, finally, there is Ease of Mind. What am I eating? What am I serving to my family? Should I worry about these added ingredients? Should I worry about the added sugars?
Convenience is not just convenience any more. Today “convenience” means more than making life easy. it also means putting the consumer’s mind at ease.
No functional and no emotional hassles. No time, no fuss, no worry. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods should own this idea of ease of mind. But, they do not. In fact, their ingredient lists and manufacturing procedures belie any ease of mind. The CEO of Impossible Foods may think his products are not processed in the traditional sense. But, for consumers, these are processed foods. Convenience means quick-fix entrees and side dishes requiring little preparation. But also flavors, exotic, do-it-yourself doctoring with diets aimed at reducing blood pressure or cholesterol, and farm friendliness – a preference for foods deemed closer to the farm and less processed.
For those who made it through high school Latin, the original Latin meanings for “convenient” are utilitas or commoditatis, meaning advantageous to me, fitness, benefit, comfort. Therefore, convenient will no longer just mean fast and easy. If the food is organic and available, if it is healthful and clean and locally grown, my food is to my advantage.
Ease of mind is a critical component for the future of food. We want to be comfortable with our choices.
Comfort
This ever-changing world in which we live is also an uncertain and volatile world. The events that happen around us cause stress and social tension. In an increasingly fast-paced, out of control, disordered, uncertain and often confusing world… there is a need for comfort.
We need security, as well. We have a desire for physical and emotional safety and food security. We are aghast at the number of food recalls we face every day. People are asking to be insulated from the scares. Not just food safety but the unknown.
Two decades ago, US health officials said that bacteria, viruses and parasites in foods cause approximately 76 million cases of illness, 325,000 hospitalization cases and 5,000 deaths each year. Who can imagine what these numbers look like now?
So, comfort on all dimensions physical comfort, mental comfort and even intellectual comfort are all desired. We want to avoid feeling stressed out or out of control. We want to feel relaxed, reassured, recharged and revitalized.
Comfort means feeling safe, having knowledge, well-being, sustainable, authentic.
It is comforting to know that we can feel comfortable with the food and beverage products we consume. It is comforting to know that our food and beverage products are safe.
Can technology make food safer? Is more technology, more processing? Should we fix the food or fix the way the food is grown or processed? Does my food/beverage come from nature or is it man-made?
Sustainability
People are becoming more concerned about what we are doing to our planet and its populations. People want to believe that they are helping to keep things going without degrading what is around them:
We live in an age when processed food is made to be better than the whole food on which it is based.
Modern industrial agriculture is incredibly good at the mass production of low-priced commodities. There is incredible single-minded efficiency. But, to many, this industrialization is at a significant cost. Maximizing production at all costs. And, yet, the smallness of production cannot fill our needs.
Production for the sake of production, processed production, mass production for mass markets, we wind up asking ourselves, “when did the modern ways we produce our food become a negative?”
For example, the meat industry is all about efficiency. Yet many see these behaviors as shortening the animal’s life on earth. Further, issue such as hog farms adding toxic wastes to our landscapes is a negative.
Specialization, monocultures and the increasing urbanization of society means that farming is seen as just one more service industry. So, we are witnessing the decline of the small family farm.
There are movements to reduce the use and waste of non-renewable resources in the growing and processing of foods. Some concerns remain such as toxic clean-up, safer pest control
We also want to eliminate genetic pollution and disease resistance. But, these take methods contrary to safety perceptions.
Climate change issues such as frosts, hurricanes, fires, mud slides, long, colder winters with hotter summers also affect our views on food.
Social Responsibility
Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods can combat the misinformation and correct their messaging information by truly understanding that consumers want to feel confident. Consumers want all three dimensions of ease. Consumers want to feel confident that they are doing the right thing for themselves and for their families. They want quality, convenient food choices that are great value and they expect the food they eat to be safe. Consumers want to know where their food comes from and what has happened to it on the way to purchase. Consumers want assurances. Ease of choice, Ease of Use, Ease of Mind.
When Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods communicate to customers, the goal should be to arm them, not alarm them. That is arm consumers with the proper knowledge about the offerings so consumers can be comfortable without being cautious. So consumers can enjoy what they choose to eat, knowing they have made the right choices. The future of food is ever-changing. Brands have to keep up by keeping on the evolving definition of ease: ease of choice, ease of use and ease of mind.
Contributed to Branding Strategy Insider by: Joan Kiddon, Partner, The Blake Project, Author of The Paradox Planet: Creating Brand Experiences For The Age Of I
At The Blake Project, we help clients worldwide, in all stages of development, define and articulate what makes them competitive and valuable. Please email us to learn how we can help you compete differently.
Branding Strategy Insider is a service of The Blake Project: A strategic brand consultancy specializing in Brand Research, Brand Strategy, Brand Growth and Brand Education
Post Views: 0
