Page 19 - 0519

COMMENTS & ANALYSIS
How Do We Define Convenience?
by jim prevor, editor-in-chief, produce business
The whole definition of convenience is always evolving. A few generations back, if you wanted a chicken you had
to go in the back and kill one; jump ahead and a butcher provided a whole chicken defeathered and cleaned. Ahead a few more generations, and there was no need for a separate trip to the butcher — you could buy a sectioned chicken at the supermarket where you were shopping anyway. Today, the Buffalo wings will come already breaded and flavored to taste, and they will come delivered to your house. It is a continuing path of convenience not necessarily defined by the food as much as by where and how one accesses the food.
It is important to understand the real life tradeoffs between consumer aspirations around quality and the exigencies of budget, time shortage and other factors. That 78% of consumers in this study say convenience shouldn’t mean they have to sacrifice quality is aspirational. It is what consumers hope for. But, in fact, if consumers have set an ante on purchases — that they must meet a certain quality level or they won’t buy — it seems likely this level is not at the level of maximal quality.
McDonald’s is the biggest restaurant chain in the world. One can easily see why — consis- tent quality and cleanliness, convenient loca- tions and service with reasonable speed at an economical price. Many would say that the quality at, say, Shake Shack, is better, yet executives at the company think there might be potential for 450 units in the United States as opposed to more than 14,000 McDonald’s. This is fairly strong evidence consumers make trade-offs against quality all the time.
One of the things to be wary of is the bifur- cation in consumer purchasing behavior. Yes, there is a portion of consumers willing and able to pay more for convenience and quality and health — to actuate the aspirations expressed in this study. But for many consumers, they have to choose, and if sacrificing some quality means being able to pay the mortgage or being able to save money to take the kids on a trip to Disney- land once in their lives, the issue switches from aspiration to priorities. That is why McDonald’s sells a lot more food than Shake Shack.
It is important to understand the real life tradeoffs between consumer aspirations around quality and the exigencies of budget, time shortage and other factors.
When it comes to the produce industry, there is a need to confront quality issues: There is great inconsistency and unpredictability of taste. You can buy a clamshell of blueberries, and they can be sweet or bitter. One can buy a peach, and it can be luscious or taste like cardboard; that fresh-cut melon seems conve- nient, but if no minimum brix level is set, no taste tests done, then, it is not very convenient if your breakfast is tasteless.
The definition of quality is also unclear. Taste and flavor to be sure — but what about shelf life? If the open bag of fresh-cut lettuce or peeled apples won’t last as long as consumer expectations — is that quality?
Convenience also relates to package size and type. With household sizes on the decline, has the industry done a good job of making items convenient? We have seen, for example, single-serve packages of blueberries — Natu- ripe developed them for McDonald’s — but are these actually available to consumers in retail stores?
Health is another issue with unclear defini- tions. When 70 percent of consumers in this study say they are trying to eat healthier — yet obesity continues to grow apace — what does this healthy quest mean? Consumers are committing to eat more dark chocolate?
Certainly, the produce industry has bene- fited from the attention to health. We know sales of individual items, such as blueberries, pomegranates and kale, have all grown from associations with health-oriented associa- tions. There is little evidence, though, that health marketing has done anything to boost produce consumption. It seems as if a consumer, having heard of health benefits,
might switch from a spinach salad to one with kale — but there is little evidence consumers who were planning to get a steak now move to a kale salad.
Specialty diets have enormous power — if people actually follow them. There is a lot of evidence that people who claim to be vege- tarian or, even, vegan, are — except for when they are not. The low-carb or keto diets also can make it hard to sell items such as potatoes and fruit.
There is no question that, in surveys, people express the desire to cook for their families and can feel guilty when they don’t. The Betty Crocker story ties in with products, such as Hamburger Helper, in which marketers under- stand there is a place for making mothers feel engaged and important. But, it is worth noting that, for the most part, what people do in response to feeling guilty about not cooking is to accept their feelings of guilt. Sure, in some affluent families, someone may quit his or her job to be a full time stay-at-home parent and cook more.
It is certainly a good idea for the produce industry to make items available that are cleaned, peeled and cut so consumers will find cooking with produce easier. If we can keep quality high, that can only be a plus. Smaller package sizes can help here too, so that cooking with produce is not associated with so much waste.
This author has a couple of teenage boys. They define convenience as having a Delivery Dudes app on their phones tied to their Dad’s credit card. I can’t help but think that making cooking easier may be a plus, but it may not be the future the produce industry needs.
PRODUCE BUSINESS / MAY 2019 / 19