Executive summary of “‘Natural’ labeling and consumers’ sentimental pastoral notion”
Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Product & Brand Management, Volume 23, Issue 4/5
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.
Proliferation in such as chronic diseases and obesity are much to blame for spiraling costs in health care. Governments have responded by increasingly promoting healthy eating and nutrition as means to tackle the crisis. But certain studies have concluded that such initiatives alone are rarely enough to persuade consumers to drastically change their behaviours even when an intention to do so is evident. The focus might therefore need to be on impacting on people’s emotions and feelings.
Media spotlight on health has brought food labelling into the spotlight. One major development of this in many societies is the increase in marketing of products labelled as organic, natural or healthy. Organic in particular has become a boom sector, and marketing and research interest has risen accordingly. Consumer traits, attitudes, motivations and involvement with regard to the purchase of organic products are some of the issues examined.
Various nations have introduced certification processes to control what can be labelled as organic. Where products marketed as “natural” are concerned comparable regulations do not exist. This is despite more widespread claims of products being natural and increasing consumer demand for such offerings. Evidence suggests that natural is subject to various interpretations by consumers. A universal definition is difficult to establish, although it is widely accepted that natural products are free from various additives and subject to minimal processing.
There is a tendency for the public to perceive organic and natural as being identical. That such products are often juxtaposed in health-food stores and marketed similarly helps reinforce these perceptions.
An opinion put forward by some academics is that many people are sentimental towards nature. Nature is regarded as “benevolent and nurturing” and that these qualities are tarnished by human intervention. It is proposed that such beliefs are responsible for humans in today’s world preferring “natural entities”. Different researchers suggest that natural is regarded as being better in moral and aesthetic terms as well as offering superior performance and safety.
People associate the word “natural” with purity and thus regard natural products as being less likely to be tarnished by the intervention of humans. In essence, this term serves as an endorsement which reduces the time and effort needed to make a purchase. Its inclusion on the label signifies a product that is superior and more beneficial to health relative to mainstream alternatives.
Amos et al. conducted different studies to further examine these issues. In the first part of study one, 105 undergraduates between 18 and > 34 years of age completed a short questionnaire in which they were asked to list images evoked by seeing the word “natural” on food products. Females accounted for 62 per cent of the sample.
It was predicted that pastoral images would dominate, and this proved to be the case with virtually half the subjects linking “natural” to farm or countryside themes. Images of fruits, vegetables and grains were also frequent. In addition, the vast majority of respondents listed image relating to positive instrumental benefits of food labelled as natural. These included health benefits, freedom from additives, pureness, freshness and taste.
The second part of this study examined consumer feelings when seeing food products labelled as “natural”. An online questionnaire was completed by 132 US respondents, all but three of which were educated to at least degree level. Subjects were aged from 18 to > 50 years, and 77 were male. As in the first part, several different ethnic groups were represented. Participants expressed emotional reactions and those indicating beliefs and judgements. More than 60 per cent of the feelings were positive, shown by the prevalence of words like “happy”, “excited”, “satisfied” and “pleased”. Other terms frequently used revealed that almost the same percentage of subjects consider products to be healthier if labelled as “natural”. However, smaller numbers of respondents conveyed negative feelings and others were cynical about the authenticity of such products and claims made about them. But the expectation that positive feelings would outnumber negative feelings was supported overall. Both parts of the study also corroborated the view of Amos et al. that more instrumental advantages than disadvantages would be evoked when a food-product label was labelled this way. Both positive and negative opinions about the taste of such products were reported.
Different participants were used to complete the online task in study two, although the sample profile closely reflected that of the one in part two of the first study. The purpose here was to compare a convention product with one labelled as “natural”. Two packets of Lays Potato Chips were selected, which were closely comparable in terms of nutrition information. Subjects answered questions about instrumental attributes of the food and estimated the potato chips’ calorie and fat content. Results showed that the Lays chips labelled as “natural” were rated superior in all respects relating to perceived healthiness and nutritional value. Based on the findings of other researchers, it was hypothesized that the natural chips would be perceived as being less tasty than the conventional option. This was not supported though.
Study three repeats study two, and the sample was again different yet demographically similar. The focal product this time was a chewable multivitamin tablet and a fictional brand, VitaChoice, was used. Subjects were exposed to one bottle of multivitamins either with or without an “All Natural” label. Questions related to perceptions of the tablet containing the various instrumental attributes specified and the health consciousness of respondents. In addition, subjects were asked to comment on their impressions of the respective product’s safety and likelihood of containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients.
Participants regarded the All Natural pills as safer and containing fewer artificial ingredients compared with the conventional multivitamin. However, belief that the latter would be more likely to contain GM ingredients was not indicated. The authors suggest general unawareness of GM organisms could explain this finding. That there was also little perception that the two products differed in vitamin content might be due to some assumption that both had to meet a minimum criteria being multivitamins.
The consistent indication across these studies of the perceived superiority of “natural” products supports the notion the term “natural” serves to simplify and endorse the choices that some consumers make. But Amos et al. note the lack of standards governing the use of this label and the tendency for consumers to make wider and often unwarranted assumptions about products marketed as “natural”. This was illustrated in the experiment involving potato chips when subjects assumed that the “natural” version was superior, even though it was almost nutritionally identical to its conventional counterpart. The authors suggest that firms could aid interpretation by providing details on labels of each product to explain precisely what makes it natural. Introduction of certification practices is likewise seen as an additional means of protecting consumers.
Future research could seek to identify which perceived health benefits most influence purchase behavior. Another possibility is for researchers to explore the extent of bias in favour of natural products and against those developed by humans, even when the addition of certain ingredients can markedly enhance the quality of the processed version. Conducting similar research in other product categories and nations is recommended too.
To read the full article enter 10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0516 into your search engine.
(A précis of the article “‘natural’ labeling and consumers’ sentimental pastoral notion”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
