What makes meat substitutes (un)attractive for Dutch consumer segments?

Abstract

The livestock sector accounts for 14-15% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the current meat consumption patterns are associated with multiple health risks and are unsustainable in the long term. Therefore, the shift to a more plant-based diet and reduced animal-source intake is desired from a societal perspective. One attempt to fuel this evolution is the new wave of meat alternatives that are designed to successfully replace meat in everyday meals. However, the current market share of meat alternatives in the Netherlands remains around 4.5%. Section 1 demonstrates that in-depth knowledge about the heterogeneity of Dutch consumer preferences regarding meat alternatives is currently lacking. This thesis contributes to identifying the sources of consumer heterogeneity regarding meat alternatives, focusing on both product-related attributes and person-related characteristics. In addition, this thesis explores and proposes strategies for the manufacturers of meat alternatives with the knowledge of consumer heterogeneity in the Netherlands. The main research question defined for this thesis is: What are the consumer profiles of the sub-segments within the potential meat alternative adopter segment, and what trade-offs do those segments make when choosing between meat and meat alternatives? As explained in Section 2, A Latent Class Choice Model (LCCM) is estimated to examine the trade-offs made when choosing between meat alternatives and conventional meat by individuals from the different consumer segments of Dutch society. Sociodemographics and psychographics are included in this model to identify the consumer profiles of these segments. The LCCM is estimated using data derived from an online stated choice experiment. In this experiment, respondents were asked to choose between two vegetarian mince options that varied in Eco-score, Nutri-score, price, taste, texture, appearance and animal-welfare label. These attributes were identified through a literature review presented in Section 3 and validated by means of a focus group. To examine the trade-offs that are made when choosing between conventional mince and vegetarian mince, one base alternative was added to each choice set that represented the average conventional mince. The person-related characteristics were selected based on the literature review of Section 3 and measured using 5-Point Likert-scales. The product-related attributes were combined to present unique alternatives based on an experimental design, as demonstrated in Section 4. The choice situations were designed to be as real as possible by presenting them as online shopping experiences. Filter questions were added to ensure that the sample population consisted of only potential adopters of meat alternatives. In total 260 complete valid responses were collected as demonstrated in Section 5. The psychographics were aggregated into 9 factors through explanatory factor analysis. The 9 resulting factors are pro-meat attitude, foodneophilia, pro-meat-alternative attitude, sustainable behaviour, foodneophobia, health consciousness, environmental concern, pro-animal attitude and preparation skills. By comparing the LCCM estimation with a multinomial logit model that completely ignores consumer heterogeneity as shown in Section 6, there can be concluded that heterogeneity exists in meat alternative preferences. Heterogeneity was best captured by estimating a three-class LCCM. The resulting classes presented in Section 7 are Price Sensitive Consumers, Health and Environment Lovers and Taste Driven Consumers. The Price Sensitive Consumers segment is unique due to the high relative importance of the price and the non-linear relationships of utility with both the Eco-score and the Nutri-score. The individuals from this segment are generally meat avoiders, students and do not have a pro-animal attitude. The preferences of the Health and Environment Lovers segment stand out because of the high importance of the Eco-score and the Nutri-score, and the low importance of taste. Individuals from this segment tend to be meat avoiders or reducers, have a university Master’s or PhD background, have a pro-animal attitude, have high objective knowledge and score low on foodneophobia. The last segment is the Taste Driven Consumers segment, this segment is only sensitive to the taste and appearance of an alternative. This segment consists predominantly of omnivores with lower educational backgrounds, individuals with low objective knowledge, foodneophobic individuals and individuals who disagree with a pro-animal attitude. In Section 8, product alteration strategies and marketing advice is proposed. In addition, a threefold of foreseeable futures are explored with expected market shares, revenues and environmental impact. If the Price Sensitive Consumers segment is chosen as the target segment, it is advised to keep the selling prices low, keep the Nutri-score above C and the Eco-score above D. In addition, it is advised to produce products that qualify for a future animal-welfare label. Marketing experts should focus on tailoring their marketing to reach the student population and aim marketing at improving objective knowledge. When targeting the Health and Environment Lovers, it is advised to optimize both the Eco-score and the Nutri-score. In addition, it is advised to keep the price low. Marketing strategies should aim at highlighting what makes a certain alternative unique as compared to other alternatives. Furthermore, it is advised to frame the alternatives as exciting and new and accentuate the animal-friendly benefits of the product. When deciding on the Taste Driven Consumers segment, it is advised to focus on producing alternatives that taste and look similar to meat. As for marketing strategies, it is advised to take the foodneophobic character of this segment into account and aim at familiarizing the individuals with meat alternatives. To conclude, there are three segments within the Dutch potential adopters of meat alternative segment. All three segments have different preferences when it comes to meat alternatives. Therefore, manufacturers of meat alternatives should decide on which of the three segments they want to target and alter their products and marketing strategies accordingly. Further research recommendations based on the current study are 1) further investigating the influence of psychographic characteristics on consumer heterogeneity regarding meat alternatives, 2) identifying the potential adopters of meat alternatives segment in the Netherlands 3) determining the generalizability of these findings to other meat alternatives and 4) developing detailed marketing strategies based on the finding of this research.