A recent survey involving 2,100 consumers in the US reveals that only a small percentage fundamentally oppose the consumption of plant-based meat alternatives. This research published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) was conducted by marketing experts from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU), Humboldt University Berlin, and Georg August University Göttingen. According to the findings, the cost of meat alternatives significantly influences their acceptance, while their likeness to meat is less impactful. Interestingly, when both options were priced similarly, many respondents preferred the traditional meat product.
The rising levels of meat consumption globally, especially in wealthier nations, is a contentious issue. “Although the availability of plant-based options has been increasing for years, the demand for meat remains strong. Sadly, we lack substantial data regarding the overall acceptance of meat alternatives, the conditions needed to enhance their appeal, and whether these alternatives are merely a trend,” states economist Steffen Jahn, who serves as interim professor at the Chair of Marketing & Innovation at MLU.
Jahn collaborated with researchers from Humboldt University Berlin and Georg August University Göttingen to investigate consumer preferences regarding meat and its substitutes. Approximately 2,100 Americans participated in the online survey. “The United States stands out for its high meat consumption rates, with individuals consuming around 25 kilograms of beef per person in 2023,” Jahn notes.
In the initial phase of the research, participants selected from four types of burger options, each presented with images and descriptions: a traditional beef burger, a plant-based burger designed to mimic meat (analogue), a vegetarian burger that resembled meat without replicating its taste or texture (semi-analogue), and a falafel burger (non-analogue). Unsurprisingly, three-quarters opted for the meat burger. “However, we were surprised to find that the falafel burger emerged as the most favored meat alternative, while the analogue burger ranked last. This challenges the common belief that meat substitutes only succeed if they closely resemble the original,” Jahn explains. The data also indicates that most consumers would choose a meat alternative if a meat option wasn’t available, with only one-third outright rejecting plant-based substitutes.
The subsequent part of the study investigated the impact of price on consumer choices. “Currently, meat alternatives tend to be pricier than traditional meat, sparking discussions about aligning prices. Our findings indicate that matching prices does not significantly affect choices,” Jahn reveals. A notable shift in consumer behavior was observed only when meat substitutes were priced considerably lower than their animal counterparts. For instance, reducing the price of the analogue burger by 10% resulted in an anticipated 14% boost in sales. If the alternatives were priced at about half that of the meat burger, the likelihood of choosing a plant-based option doubled. Interestingly, despite men being more consistent meat consumers, the survey indicated they were more inclined than women to change their purchasing habits in response to attractive pricing. Even individuals with no previous experience with meat substitutes expressed willingness to try them if offered a compelling price advantage.
“To potentially boost sales of vegetarian or vegan options, restaurants and food producers could benefit from pricing meat substitutes lower than traditional meat offerings. Our study suggests that achieving an exact replica of meat isn’t essential; perhaps this is linked to the negative perception of highly processed foods,” suggests Jahn. Based on their findings, the researchers recommend providing a diverse range of alternative products to cater to various consumer preferences.
