Marketing Alternative Meat To Mainstream Consumers
Research continues to show that alternative proteins can help address the climate, health, and animal welfare issues of industrial animal farming. However, while alternative dairy in the U.S. makes up 8% of the volume of dairy sold, alternative meat has struggled to achieve the same success.
This report proposes four marketing strategies to attract mainstream consumers:
- Limiting vegan and vegetarian labels
- Displaying the protein source
- Where applicable, highlighting indulgent eating experiences
- Where relevant and applicable, highlighting health benefits
Trends in alternative protein consumption reveal a need for better marketing. Between 2019 and 2020, both alternative meat (46% growth) and alternative dairy (20% growth) retail sales grew faster than overall groceries (13%). These rates may have been driven by the novelty of alternative products, the emergence of the brand Impossible Foods, and COVID-19 lockdowns. However, between 2020 and 2021, the retail growth rates for alternative proteins stagnated, with alternative meat sales falling slightly.
Because of the high inflation rate, consumers may have avoided expensive alternative meats. Nevertheless, between 2021 and 2022, alternative protein sales grew almost as quickly as overall grocery sales, which was driven entirely by alternative milks. Alternative meat sales continued to fall.
The authors suggest that marketing partially explains the difference between the sales of alternative dairy and meats. Most alternative dairy products employ the four marketing strategies the authors recommended. In contrast, only 56% of alternative meat brands employ two or more. Across both alternative meat and alternative dairy, companies that implement two or more of the recommendations tend to outperform those that don’t.
The strategies may be effective because they respond to multiple important consumer desires rather than single selling points. For example, marketing only sustainability, which strongly motivates only about 20% of consumers, would likely fail to compel the mainstream. Surveys reveal that consumers’ priorities are taste and health — marketing must account for that.
First, the authors recommend limiting vegan and vegetarian labels. Such markers may alienate the 95% of the population that don’t identify that way. Non-identity-based labels — for example, “does not contain animal products“ or “suitable for a vegan diet” — may engage more consumers. Second, the authors recommend identifying the alternative protein source, such as potatoes or peas, on the product itself. In particular, images of the protein sources can make the products appear more natural, familiar, and unambiguous.
The two remaining strategies should only be used when relevant. A product that can deliver on promises of a wonderful eating experience should advertise this quality. Wording such as juicy, tender, rich, or zesty encourages consumers to buy. Similarly, products aimed at health-conscious people should emphasize health benefits. Language should emphasize a presence of healthy traits rather than a lack of unhealthy ones: “high in protein” and “healthy fats” often attract more interest than “low sodium” or “no calories.” Research suggests that consumers are becoming less likely to associate alternative meat with tastiness and healthiness, which makes these strategies more important.
Marketing that focuses on consumer priorities may bring alternative proteins to mainstream consumers. However, the authors argue that these approaches must also work in tandem with others. Innovations to improve taste, texture, and price are important. So is conducting rigorous testing to learn what packaging and products attract the most consumers. Ultimately, a concert of approaches must work together to build a better food system.