Consumer Trends and Consumer Behaviour Where are the opportunities for Dairy? Dr Sinéad McCarthy Teagasc Food Research Centre, Dublin, Ireland Dairy Innovation Summit 2017, 6 th April, Amsterdam sinead.mccarthy@teagasc.ie
Irish for Knowledge Teagasc is the agriculture and food development authority in Ireland. Mission is to support science-based innovation in the agri-food sector and the broader bioeconomy that will underpin profitability, competitiveness and sustainability
Teagasc Locations Food Research Centre, Dublin Dairy Research Centre, Moorepark Advisory Offices Research Farms Colleges Food Research Centres Agricultural Research Centres HQ, Oak Park, Carlow
CONSUMER AND MARKET TRENDS 4
Consumer Trends & NPD Trends can act as a catalyst to provoke new ideas Many contemporary consumer trends such as sustainability, aging population, health and protein can be applied to dairy Sustainability and nutritional guidelines feeding more people with les resources while maintaining health Aging population changing health and food format requirements snacking, nutrient density to prevent malnutrition Young, fit and protein powered gym bunnies protein foods rather than powders Health Managers parents, carers providing diet for disease prevention
Product Claims & Trends These trends and many others have already been reflected in the dairy product categories launched to market Snacking, packaging, clean label, health, protein Operates differently in each of the categories 6
Top Claims in spoonable yogurt Global 2015 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 * % * * * * Clean label 30%
Yoghurt Snacking
Source: Mintel
Using cheese to explore some of the contemporary trends TEST DRIVING THE TRENDS 11
CheeseBoard Survey May 2016 Initial qualitative research for concept generation Representative online survey of adult consumers of cheese from Ireland and UK (n=600) Statements regarding attitudes to and usage situations of cheese Presented with a range of 8 full fat and 8 low fat cheese concepts to determine if the concepts were acceptable in a large scale survey Rate on a scale of 1-7 Perceived health: 1 very unhealthy to 7 very healthy Willingness to try: 1 definitely not try to 7 definitely try
General attitudes regarding cheese Cheese in Fridge 95 Prefere full fat 63 Cook with cheese 47 Sprinkle on food 38 Consume fortified foods 33 Choose low fat 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % always or frequently response to statements
Attitudes regarding cheese: shopping, health and usage Confidence in advertised product Compare labels Enjoy shopping Check price 13 19 40 50 High in salt No additives Cheese a health food Natural ingredients 18 38 43 46 Only a sandwich filler Never Crave cheese Cheese as snack 6 8 28 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 % strongly agree & agree with statements
Perceived health and willingness to try FULL FAT CHEESE CONCEPTS
Benefit Claim Full Fat Cheese Concept No benefit Vitamins No claim No claim Protein and vitamins No claim Protein No claim Protein and vitamins Muscle claim Protein No benefit Vitamins Muscle claim Child development Child development Full fat cheese Full fat cheese with added vitamins Full fat cheese with added protein and vitamins Full fat cheese with added protein Full fat cheese with added protein and vitamins to support muscle maintenance and recovery Full fat cheese with added protein to support muscle maintenance and recovery Full fat cheese to support child development and growth Full fat cheese with added vitamins to support child development and growth Perceived health: 1 very unhealthy to 4 neutral to 7 very healthy Willingness to try: 1 definitely not try to 4 neutral to 7 definitely try
Full Fat Cheese Concepts: Willing to use and perceived healthiness Benefit Claim Willing to try Perceived health No benefit No claim 5.27 3.90 Vitamins No claim 4.45 4.32 Protein & vitamins No claim 4.42 4.41 Protein No claim 4.39 4.18 Protein & vitamins Muscle claim 4.38 4.49 Protein No benefit Muscle claim Child development 4.34 4.35 4.16 4.55 Vitamins Child development 4.03 4.53
Perceived health and willingness to try LOW FAT CHEESE CONCEPTS
Benefit Claim Low Fat Cheese Concept No benefit No claim Low fat cheese Vitamins No claim Low fat cheese with added vitamins Protein No claim Low fat cheese with added protein Protein and vitamins No claim Low fat cheese with added protein and vitamins No benefit Vitamins Protein Protein and vitamins Muscle claim Muscle claim Child development Child development Low fat cheese to support muscle maintenance and recovery Low fat cheese with added vitamins to support muscle maintenance and recovery Low fat cheese with added protein to support child development and growth Low fat cheese with added protein and vitamins to support child development and growth Perceived health: 1 very unhealthy to 4 neutral to 7 very healthy Willingness to try: 1 definitely not try to 4 neutral to 7 definitely try
Low Fat Cheese Concepts Benefit Claim Willing to try Perceived health Willing to use and perceived healthiness No benefit No claim 5.01 4.71 Vitamins No claim 4.95 4.45 Protein No claim 4.87 4.39 Protein and vitamins No claim 4.99 4.49 No benefit Muscle claim 4.87 4.32 Vitamins Muscle claim 4.94 4.38 Protein Child development 4.86 3.97 Protein and vitamins Child development 4.91 3.98
Implications for new cheese product development Regular Full fat cheese is the most favoured cheese Presence of a claim diminishes willingness to try but increases the perceived healthiness Clear and effective communication of less familiar concepts From a TRUSTED source Health benefits most positively received among those with a carer role such as parents Gender differences An established and accepted concept from another food type can be used in cheese e.g. Super Cheese with added vitamins and minerals
Great minds think alike or.
DAIRY, SUSTAINABILITY & HEALTH 23
Sustainability: A global trend and diary issue GHG GWP Carbon dioxide 1 Nitrous oxide 298 Methane 25 88% of emissions 12% of emissions 24
Sustainability & Carbon Foot print Carbon footprint can be used as a support to management and decision making in value chains Better management practices in general Cost savings and performance Strengthen relationships with suppliers Market and trade advantages Enhanced brand image and reputation Products differentiation and access to niche markets A unique selling point
Consumer awareness of environmental food choice Biannual review of food attitudes in adults from ROI/GB/Continental Europe and USA conducted by the Irish Food Marketing Group Bord Bia Environmental motivation measured using the following statements I am more conscious of environmental issues in my choice of products today. I prefer to buy from companies that are aware of the impact of environmental issues.
Consumers motivated by environmental issues GB ROI Germany Motivated Neither/Nor Not Motivated France USA 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
I try to buy foods that are natural I always try to eat a balanced diet 60% Motivated Neither/Nor Not Motivated 60% Motivated Neither/Nor Not Motivated 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% Applies to me a lot Applies to me a little Does not apply to me 0% Applies to me a lot Applies to me a little Does not apply to me
How likely are you to buy functional foods Dairy foods (milk/cheese) are an important part of my diet 50% Motivated Neither/Nor Not Motivated 60% 45% 40% 50% 35% 30% 40% 25% 30% 20% 15% 20% 10% 10% 5% 0% Likely Not Sure Unlikely 0% Applies to me a lot Applies to me a little Does not apply to me
Sustainable diets FAO calls for the recognition that the health of humans cannot be isolated from the health of ecosystems. Sustainable diets have been defined as: diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimizing natural and human resources
Sustainability and Nutritional guidelines Germany and Sweden are the only two European countries that feature messages about sustainability in their food guidelines The Netherlands and UK have also begun working to incorporate environmental considerations into their food guidelines, according to the report
Individual dairy food groups contribution towards dietary emissions in Irish adults GHGE (g CO 2 eq/d) Intake (g/d) Energy (kcal) Whole milk 230 115 76 Low fat/skimmed milk 205 102 47 Other milk 35 18 9 Creams 9 1 5 Cheese 140 15 55 Yogurt 69 34 29 Butter 46 4 28 Total Dairy 732 289 248 Red Meat 1646 47 100
Population segmentation of patterns of dietary greenhouse gas emissions Distinguishing food groups: Processed meat Savoury snacks Alcohol Total: 7.4 kg CO 2 eq Unsustainable 25% Distinguishing food groups: Fruit & veg Fish Low red meat Total:6.4 kg CO 2 eq Nutritionally Sustainable 26% Distinguishing food groups: Red meat Dairy Starchy staples Total: 6.3 kg CO 2 eq Culturally Sustainable 48%
Food Patterns of Greenhouse dietary emissions across patterns of emissions in adult Irish men Unsustainable Starchy staples 657 Dairy 607 Vegetables 36 Fruit 28 Red meat 2131 Eggs, poultry, pork 707 Fish 96 Processed meat 685 Savoury snacks 606 Alcohol 1749 Total (kgco 2 eq) 9.0 Nutritionally Sustainable 817 925 111 155 1603 735 486 248 188 328 7.7 Culturally Sustainable 764 877 56 54 2263 680 212 327 142 605 7.4
Implications 1 In terms of NPD, there is a considerable proportion of consumers are who are motivated by environmental issues as well as health etc. Potential to promote a bundle of products attributes as being part of a sustainable and healthy diet. Advantage could be taken of existing connecting motivations between healthiness and environmentally friendliness of foods to provide a combined set of product attributes. The greater importance attached to health by consumers offers an attractive pathway. Health should remain the overarching principle in communication to consumers, as this has a greater potential to support behaviour change towards healthy and sustainable diets. Point of sale difference
Implications 2 Ireland dietary GHGE (6.5kg CO 2 eq/d) are comparable to UK (7.3kg CO 2 eq/d) and EU (7.1kgCO 2 eq/d). National dietary guidelines can be combined with environmental recommendations to a achieve a sustainable diet Need to look at overall diet rather than individuals foods Alcohol and discretionary foods can contribute significantly towards higher dietary emissions. Total food intake also has an impact on overall emissions. Dairy as a food group in isolation may have a high climatic impact but Diary has pivotal a role in sustainable and healthy diets GHGE mitigation strategies to substitute or replace of animal based foods with plant based foods may not have the desired effects Requires consumer behaviour change Land use change
CONSUMER CONSIDERATIONS FOR NPD 37
Consumer insights for marketing of reformulated products Not all consumers were created equally at least not in terms of motivations for food choice One size does not fit all Can be overcome by different marketing approaches for different target segments
High importance to low Ranking of food choice motives in Irish Adults *
Impact of food choice motives on dietary behaviour n EI (kcal) %EFat BMI F&V Cost Ranked 1st/2nd 210 2052 35,2 28,1 * 202 * Ranked >3rd 979 2042 34,4 26,6 280 Convenience Ranked 1st/2nd 233 2059 35,1 27,4 210 * Other rankings 956 2040 34,4 26,7 279 Health Ranked 1st/2nd 502 2024 34,0 * 26,6 311 * Other rankings 687 2058 35,0 27,1 232 Nutrition Ranked 1st/2nd 503 2017 34,4 26,4 * 312 * Other rankings 685 2063 34,7 27,2 232 Taste Ranked 1st/2nd 637 2103 * 34,9 * 26,8 250 * Other rankings 552 1974 34,1 27,0 284
Impact of food choice motives on food intake Motive Ranking Fats and oils Meat, protein Dairy Fruit & veg Cereals, potatoes Cost 1st and 2nd ranking 76,3 NS 235,8 NS 255,8 NS 201,6 (b) 337,3 NS Other rankings 75,1 NS 225,5 NS 281,3 NS 279,6 (a) 358,3 NS Convenience 1st and 2nd ranking 77,9 NS 233,0 NS 266,0 NS 210,4 (b) 330,9 (a) Other rankings 74,7 NS 226,0 NS 279,1 NS 279,4 (a) 360,3 (b) Health 1st and 2nd ranking 74,5 NS 224,4 NS 300,1 (a) 311,2 (a) 373,4 (b) Other rankings 75,9 NS 229,4 NS 259,3 (b) 232,7 (b) 340,6 (a) Nutrition 1st and 2nd ranking 75,4 NS 222,1 NS 293,5 NS 312,1 (a) 376,4 (b) Other rankings 75,2 NS 230,9 NS 264,5 NS 232,3 (b) 338,5 (a) Taste 1st and 2nd ranking 78,0 NS 231,5 NS 267,6 NS 250,0 (b) 350,3 NS Other rankings 72,2 NS 222,3 NS 287,0 NS 284,3 (a) 359,3 NS Feel good 1st and 2nd ranking 77,4 NS 236,0 NS 263,1 NS 217,1 (b) 346,3 NS Other rankings 75,1 NS 226,3 NS 278,2 NS 271,2 (a) 355,4 NS Weight control 1st and 2nd ranking 63,0 (a) 210,9 NS 244,2 (b) 234,5 (b) 313,3 (a) 41 Other rankings 76,8 (b) 229,3 NS 280,9 (a) 270,0 (a) 359,8 (b)
NPD Considerations Younger consumers and men motivated to choose foods based on sensory and convenience attributes NPD focusing on healthy foods and targeted at younger male segment would benefit from focusing on taste and convenience as core product attributes. Older and female consumers food choices are more frequently guided by health, nutrition and taste. Foods designed for older and female consumers should seek to support their pre-existing health orientation. This research highlights a potential source for collaboration and negotiation between the food industry and public health bodies all consumers are not motivated to buy healthy food and are unlikely to purchase the healthy option unless it is convenient and low cost etc. Public health bodies and food companies can mutually benefit from incentives and supports to provide healthy options.
Go raibh míle maith agaibh! sinead.mccarthy@teagasc.ie Research Funding: Dept of Agriculture & Food, Dublin Collaborators: Dr Mary McCarthy UCC Colleagues: Dr John Hyland, Dr Maeve Henchion