No Standards For Taste

By Jim Prevor, Editor-in-Chief, Produce Business

About 15 years ago, Produce Business did a major consumer focus group series that analyzed consumer attitudes toward taste. During a session in Los Angeles, one woman insisted she would shop only at Ralph’s as she knew they had the best-tasting produce. As the moderator, I asked her how she knew which retailer had the better-tasting produce. After hemming and hawing, she ’fessed up. She had a pet rabbit that rejected, so she claimed, vegetables from anyplace but Ralph’s!

Say what you will…at least this consumer had a way of ascertaining who sold better tasting produce — which is more than we can say about almost everyone else.

Although the issue of taste is often presented as a breeding problem, in which we have selected varieties for high yield and ease of transport — and there is truth in that — it is better thought of as a marketing problem.

We can accept that taste is “somewhat to extremely” important to 92+ percent of consumers and a factor in selecting a store — even that consumers would pay more for good taste. But then we realize this is an unactionable abstraction. How are consumers to ascertain which product tastes better? How are they to know which retailer sells better-tasting produce? On what basis could they decide to pay more for product A and not product B?

We have USDA grade standards for many items, but is not one is taste a criterion for earning a USDA grade; these standards can’t really help consumers select product by taste.

We have well-known consumer brands, but the criteria for branding rarely relate to the flavor. Even where producers have proprietary varieties, most market proprietary, and non-proprietary varieties. The consumer, who can’t rely on the brand or label for superior flavor, would have to be an expert on the individual variety of each produce item. Even with proprietary items, some marketers may imply better flavor or taste but few have done, and fewer still promote, any consumer research indicating their items do, in fact, taste better.

Most branded product operates under relative, not absolute, quality standards. After the recent freeze, Sunkist was the exception that proves the rule. Withdrawing its branded oranges until the new crop, it announced no oranges met the criteria to be branded Sunkist.

Sunkist is virtually the only company to have done this — and it took a catastrophic freeze to do so. Normally branded marketers relax quality standards if necessary to have a product to sell. A good brand may sell a relatively top quality product but varying standards mean consumers can’t rely on the brand.

Those brands that highlight flavor do so without making a clear commitment to the consumer. Some firms will mention that they offer “a more intense (fill in the produce item) flavor” — which sounds like puffery more than a commitment to the consumer.

Even when a specific measurement is used — such as a brix level — companies will promote that, on average, the brix level of their product is greater than standard industry product — a very bland warranty to consumers who don’t care about averages, especially when an entire season’s crop might be shipped below average if weather went wrong. Consumers want to know the item they are buying tastes good — warranty shippers so far don’t seem to want to make.

Retailers are also involved, but the way most handle product makes them not very useful to the consumer buying for taste. Few supermarkets make the commitment to handle one brand of an item. For example, there are loads of mini-melons out there, with dramatic variance in flavor and taste. Yet it is common for retailers to switch brands based on price.

These products look the same but are genetically distinct. Even if a particular brand of melons was better tasting and even if the consumer knew it, in most cases the consumer could not count on that brand being at any particular store. Even a willingness to switch stores wouldn’t help, because the consumer wouldn’t know what store to switch to.

When the retailer does make a commitment to handle a better-tasting item, it is usually classified as a secondary item and marked up to an extent that dissuades consumers from buying it. In other words, the mainstream item is not replaced with the better-tasting item. Instead, the new item is relegated to small displays at premium prices.

There are plenty of issues regarding taste. Notably, how do we define flavor? On many fruits, brix level seems a reasonable proxy but what criteria do we use for broccoli? Locally grown being better tasting is unsubstantiated. Riper peaches or melons are better tasting, and picking later can lead to riper fruit. But we just have no evidence iceberg lettuce picked locally tastes better than that picked far away.

There is much retailers can do without the perfect knowledge or total reform of the system: Don’t worry about being first to market; develop a reputation for selling only what meets a chain’s flavor tests. Most consumers will appreciate not buying items not yet ready.

Retailers can also treat items with respect. Items, such as apples, that require refrigeration need to be refrigerated and not put on dry tables so consumers buy mealy apples.

Ironically, the trade’s problems with food safety may yet contribute to a solution on the flavor front. Food safety and flavor depend on supply chain commitment to deliver that end result. As long as a retailer buys a product from whomever is cheaper that day, the retailer can’t know if it is getting flavor or food safety.

At the other extreme, if the retailer has a completely aligned supply chain, it can arrange for the planting of only the most flavorful varieties to be grown in the safest way.

What is clear is this: If consumers can’t identify what is the most flavorful produce by label or where it is sold, we will continue to disappoint our customers. That is discouraging and unnecessary.