Consumer Confusion

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

The good news for Bryan Silbermann is that his research report this month reminds me of Ernest Hemingway. The bad news for the produce industry is that the specific line it reminds me of is the final one in The Sun Also Rises: “Isn’t it pretty to think so.”

The most important claim regarding the produce industry and its future growth is: “Consumers say they want more fresh produce options for their meals.” This is doubtless correct, but the key word is “say.”

It may be possible to do survey research on a matter of taste and get a valid response: “Which flavor ice cream do you prefer: chocolate or vanilla?” In research, however, there is something known as the “social desirability bias” in which people gild the lily to make themselves look better. To put it in non-scientific language, respondents lie.

On a matter such as produce consumption, which has been widely communicated as a healthful option, the social desirability bias is very high. People know the “right answer,” and the desire to look good controls the response. Only a person who is ignorant or who doesn’t mind being perceived as being ignorant would answer a survey by saying something like, “No, I would like to see less healthful stuff like fresh fruits and vegetables in my meals and more artery-clogging saturated fats.”

The real question is what do people actually do, and here the capitalist system is pretty darn efficient. The reason all those rotisseries are roasting chicken and not eggplants is because that is what sells.

Now it may still be a good idea to offer more options that contain fruits and vegetables, but that is not the same as thinking that all we need is more produce options and consumers will buy a lot more produce, eat more produce or that consumers will be healthier.

The whole issue of take-out, grab-n-go, home meal replacement and ready-to-eat is clouded by ambiguity in the research. It is not even clear what these words mean to consumers. It is one reason a lot more money needs to be invested in qualitative research to ascertain consumer definitions and perceptions in this area.

A great example of the limitations of survey research is the response to the question, “What percentage of the following meals is made up of fruits or vegetables?” which analyzes what consumers report about the fruit and vegetable content of various meals: Ready-to-eat Supermarket Meals, Take-home Restaurant Meals, and Dine-in Restaurant Meals. First of all, what in the world is a “ready-to-eat supermarket meal?” If I buy a rotisserie chicken in the deli, did I buy a meal? Or to make it a meal, do I have to buy a salad, a starch, a vegetable, a beverage, etc.? If I pick up one of Ready Pac’s Bistro salads, is that one? What if I just buy a bag of fresh-cut salad, a baguette from the bakery and a bottle of water and sit in a park and eat my lunch? How about a frozen TV dinner?

These terms are so vague that it is difficult to ascertain the actual meaning of what consumers report. In addition, it is not clear if the question is asking consumers to evaluate meal categories that they never purchase or asking them to report on their actual experience with these meals. If consumers are talking about things they haven’t bought, we have a real reason to doubt the accuracy of their perceptions, and if they are reporting on things they have actually experienced, then the results are skewed by the patterns of their own lives. For example, a person who eats a home-cooked breakfast and dinner every day but buys a salad from a supermarket for lunch might report that ready-to-eat supermarket meals are composed heavily of fruits and vegetables.

Although PMA should be commended for its investment in survey research, this study presents a perfect example of the need for more varied research. It is very interesting to survey consumer perceptions regarding produce content of meals. Then we as an industry should follow up by actually going out and buying meals on a nationally representative basis, doing an analysis of each meal and determining the actual proportions. Then we could contrast consumer perception with reality.

My anecdotal take is that true supermarket meals — those from supermarkets that offer true meal programs with entrées, sides, etc. — do generally offer a higher percentage of produce, but not necessarily more produce in ounces. Restaurants are used to dressing up the plate, so they tend to fill it up with less expensive starches, which reduce the percentage of everything else, but not the actual volume of protein or produce served.

Finally, we come back to where we started, the contention that consumers want more produce options. Much marketing research has shown that consumers want options. Max Brunk, for years an esteemed professor at Cornell and a founding columnist of Produce Business, did extensive research showing that to increase the sales of bulk apples, one should also offer bags; to increase the sales of roses, offer varieties of flowers, and on and on with different products. So PMA is safe in urging foodservice operations, whether parts of supermarkets or restaurants, to offer more produce options. Still, there is something vaguely unsettling about basing an appeal on such thin gruel. There is much research — and much thinking — to be done.