Can supermarkets increase sales of plant-based meat alternatives by changing their shelf positioning? Specifically, will placing meat substitutes next to conventional meat products increase their sales and potentially decrease meat consumption? A group of researchers set out to investigate these questions through a series of three experiments.

The study involved two large supermarket chains in the Netherlands and included sales and loyalty card data analysis, as well as in-store interviews with shoppers.

The first experiment was a field study. The researchers positioned all meat substitutes in the meat shelf in seven stores of one of the supermarket chains. This unexpectedly led to a decrease in meat substitute sales.

In the second experiment, the researchers explored the effect of merging meat substitutes into the meat shelf through an online study. Participants were asked to rate how similarly they viewed the products, and the results indicated that a shared shelf shifted meat substitutes toward the meat category in consumers’ minds.

For the third experiment, the researchers conducted another field study in 144 stores of the other supermarket chain. They placed only a selection of meat substitutes in the meat shelf while maintaining a separate vegetarian shelf. This positioning led to an increase in meat substitute sales over the long term. The effect was particularly strong among meat-eaters and flexitarians who might otherwise not consider these products.

However, meat sales didn’t decrease in either field study, suggesting that people were adding meat substitutes to their shopping rather than replacing meat.

Maintaining a separate vegetarian shelf proved important to keep serving meat-reducers (veg*ns and flexitarians) who were already familiar with plant-based products. The first experiment revealed that completely removing the vegetarian shelf actually had negative consequences as veg*ns had difficulty finding their preferred products when integrated with meat. The research indicates that changing shelf organization from an attribute-based presentation (plant-based versus animal-based) to a goal-derived positioning (providing protein) can change consumers’ categorization strategies, helping them consider plant-based alternatives they might otherwise overlook.

This research offers several valuable insights for animal advocates working to increase the consumption of plant-based foods. Dual shelf strategies work best — placing meat substitutes in both meat and vegetarian sections reaches different consumer groups. The presence in meat sections introduces these products to conventional meat-eaters, while maintaining dedicated vegetarian sections serves those already committed to meat reduction.

Targeting flexitarians is particularly effective as they represent a key demographic for plant-based advocacy. They’re open to trying alternatives but may not seek them out in dedicated vegetarian sections. Choice architecture significantly influences purchasing behavior, so advocates working with food retailers should emphasize the business case for strategic placement of plant-based alternatives.

The positive effects of product placement persisted over time, suggesting this approach creates lasting changes in purchasing habits rather than just novelty-based trial purchases. However, advocates should note that complete integration of plant-based products with conventional offerings can alienate core veg*n consumers, so maintaining dedicated plant-based sections while also promoting strategic placement within conventional sections is recommended.

So, for advocates, the main takeaways of this study include:

• Placing meat substitutes in the meat section increased their sales, especially among meat-eaters and flexitarians.
• Completely removing the vegetarian section backfired and decreased meat substitute sales.
• Maintaining both sections (meat alternatives in both the meat and vegetarian sections) was the most effective strategy.
• The positive effects of strategic product placement persisted over the long term.
• Meat sales didn’t decrease despite increased purchases of meat substitutes.
• Approximately half of consumers didn’t consciously notice the meat substitutes in the meat section.
• Supermarket shoppers generally viewed the mixed placement positively when they noticed it.

This research adds to growing evidence that retail environment modifications can be powerful tools for increasing plant-based food consumption, potentially reducing animal suffering through market-based approaches rather than relying solely on changing individual attitudes and beliefs.