Are Consumers Confused About Packaging vs. Processing?

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

The issue of packaging and fresh produce gets confusing fast. Partly this is because the terminology is awkward. When consumers tell researchers that the key attribute of packaged produce is its ability to preserve freshness and taste, or that convenience is the main reason they select packaged produce, one doesn’t know if they are reporting on reality (the produce that is packaged is selected to be packaged precisely because packaging has these attributes — thus salads are placed in packages and not sold as bulk products) or if they actually are expressing a preference for the kind of products consumers prefer to see packaged.

Suggestions that things such as recipes are important attributes of packaging seem to be general statements that, in reality, are likely to vary substantially with the novelty of the product in question. It does not seem accidental that companies such as Frieda’s and Melissa’s use a lot of recipes as they sell many specialty items that consumers would not know what to do with otherwise.

Consumer responses are somewhat cryptic because the responses seem to be referring to different things. The chart on page 18 indicates that the No. 1 thing holding consumers back from purchasing more packaged produce is a “higher price,” which leads one to think that consumers are responding not to the issue of packaging but the issue of processing. After all, lower priced items are often packaged — bagged apples, potatoes, onions — and are generally sold cheaper, at least on a per pound basis, than bulk items.

Although many pricey items say gourmet varieties of tomatoes, may be packaged, these are not the same items as are sold more cheaply in bulk. One can only imagine that consumers are referring to packaged salads and cut vegetables and, perhaps, cut fruit, and comparing these items to uncut versions of these products, noting that the cut versions are comparatively pricey. This is true, but not really a function of packaging. Costco sells a lot of packaged produce and because it sells multi-packs, it often can sell less expensively than if it were selling bulk.

Consumer research is often problematic because consumers may know what they want, but they don’t always know the real choices that have to be made. For example, it is unlikely that the one recipe on a package is going to be the one for each individual consumer. Even if they express a preference — in abstract — for recipes on the package, consumers may actually be saying they would like all the information desired — such as the perfect recipe — spoon-fed right on the package. But if that can’t be delivered, if the recipe won’t change frequently enough or is likely to be too bland and generic to appeal to the tastes of many, then maybe space is better spent driving people to a website where what they really want can actually be made available.

This research project is impressive, but the missing link is obvious as well. The Perishables Group has access to an incredible data pool: actual scan data from loads of supermarkets. One wonders if there is any data that indicates that, for instance, giving information beyond the legal requirement detailing “where the product is grown,” for example, actually produces higher sales?

In the absence of such hard data, we would speculate that consumer attitudes toward packaging are likely to be heavily influenced by the marketing that goes along with it. The farmstand look is appealing, but it is not obvious to us that some retailer couldn’t gain an edge by washing all its produce, selling it in bags, trays or clamshells and promoting it as “sanitized.”

Another approach is to worry less about the attributes that consumers report they want on packaging and more about value perception. Black labels and trays with gold type create an upscale image that might justify premium prices. The sturdy nature of the certain packaging, say, a clamshell, tends to imply to consumers that the item inside is of value and importance.

The packaging also seems likely to influence a sale when it can substantively solve a problem. So a resealable bag, for example, can lengthen shelf-life in a consumer’s home.

Obviously, the best packaging is that which creates value for the consumer, yet value can be created in unexpected ways. For example, there is almost no possibility that Clementine sales would have reached the levels they have, save that Clementines are mostly sold boxed or bagged with minimum quantities. That packaging creates a minimum purchase level that catapulted the item out of a specialty niche and into a mass market. Many a family would never have realized that they would regularly consume three or five pounds of the fruit if that had not been the only purchase option.

Health-conscious consumers certainly want nutrition information. But, unlike manufactured products, most marketers of produce sell items with identical nutritional attributes. So it is difficult to get a competitive edge by providing nutritional information. Maybe the real idea is that labels and packaging provide a tool to promote attributes if breeding programs can produce a competitive nutritional edge.

The whole issue of asking consumers about the packaging is constrained by the difficulty of consumers imagining things that don’t exist. Imagine consumers saying that they wanted a bag that would be able to control gas intake and output so that produce could be cut, yet still stay fresh. Yet it was that technological advance in packaging that spawned the fresh-cut salad industry. One wonders what consumers aren’t asking for that they would really like?