July 17, 2008
Consumers Want More/Different Info on Labels
A survey of 1,110 consumers from across the U.S. by Deloitte found that respondents see plenty of room for improvement when it comes to product labeling.
Consumers are looking to make informed decisions when they go shopping and in many cases they rely on labels for the information they need. More than 40 percent of consumers in the survey say they do not believe current labels provide them with the information they need to be completely comfortable in their decision to buy.
“Today, consumers have more access to food information than ever before,” said Pat Conroy, vice chairman and US Consumer Products group leader at Deloitte. “Still, it’s clear that what they are getting is not enough. Consumers are spending more time checking labels and are often overwhelmed by a flood of contradictory nutrition ‘facts’. They seek clear, straightforward information they can understand so they can make more informed choices and better protect themselves and their families.”
Getting the right information is important enough to consumers that nearly three in four said they would be willing to pay a little extra, for example, to have products contain country of origin information.
Discussion Questions: Can labeling information on a product give it a competitive edge on the shelf? What information needs to be communicated on food and other product labels that is either not done or not done well?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
When I buy food or meds, I want to know where it’s made. Many times labels will say “distributed by” “marketed by” “sold by” that raises warning bells that it’s probably made in China.
For a long time I felt like one of the few consumers, along with other people who have family members with food allergies, seriously reading labels because of my son’s food allergies. Today there are many more people reading labels to determine levels of sugar, salt, preservatives, carbs, or fat. The information is often in small print; a variety of formats are used; different reporting systems are used. Making the labels easier to read would provide a service for very many consumers.
I am no food scientist. I’d like to know what I am eating but, don’t have the time to research every scientific name and check every product. Straightforward labeling, language and marketing would be nirvana. Of course more straight forward labels mean more cost and less marketing space on products and other issues for some product manufacturers. I’d rather pay a little more and be more informed.
My main reason for wanting clear labeling is for consumers to be able to make informed decisions. There is far more that it would be useful to know than is now available although I do understand the problem of fitting it all on AND making sure it is in plain, clear language rather than codes and scientific descriptors.
The health-related points made by Camille and Anna are particularly important but details of salt, sugar and fat content, additives, preservatives, flavorings etc even if they are “natural” and, I strongly feel, country or state of origin. I’m not so concerned about carbon footprints and calculations of food miles because I think the formula is far too complex and inaccurate, particularly for processed foods. As and when it happens, food from cloned animals should also be specified and, although I realise it’s far too late in the US, consumers should know how much of what they are eating has been genetically modified or made from a range of genetically modified ingredients. Also, definitions need to be agreed once and for all e.g. organic, natural etc.
Some people couldn’t care too hoots about much of this but they should be able to decide for themselves.
Well of course there’s a competitive advantage available via good use of labels. One observation on this country of origin issue: I’ve seen polls go both ways for many years, depending on who’s paying for the survey and how the questions are asked.
I routinely see people checking nutritional today; hardly did at all 20 years ago. My biggest gripe: the amazing number of manufacturers who use black ink on a dark red background, for their nutrition info. People who are color-blind or partly color-blind (like me) can’t read it at all, and just buy something else.
I appreciate the article, survey responses and personal comments from my colleagues. However, I’ve yet to meet a marketer who wanted to withhold information that would help sell a product.
Consumers do not care, or read what is on the back of the label of a jar or can. Instead, they want to see its benefits on the front. This is why manufacturers and marketers put key words (like low-fat, low-sodium, organic, etc.) on the front of their product packages. These are all subjective terms that really have no relationship to the rest of the consumer’s intake (since there is an entire meal built around the product being used) that has to be accounted for. Studies like these are slanted from their inception, since they usually do not include basic questions like “Do you read labels?” and then include these as a “no” response to all of their other questions to more accurately reflect the needs of the test group.
I think looking at this survey might be enlightening. How were the questions asked? What would the response have been to “Do you ever think about label information?” “Have you thought about label information in the last 30 days?” You and I both know that consumers, when prompted, will complain about everything.
The trick here is to determine if this will translate into sales. Did they ask “Would you be willing to pay $1 per package more to have better label information?” or “Would you be willing to pay 10 cents more to have better label information?” Our consumer product giants are experts in determining what the consumer will and will not pay for. Based upon their actions, it would appear that labeling is not something consumers find so valuable that they are willing to pay any type of premium to receive. Do consumers want more? Sure they do, but they want it for free!
I think the biggest issue is the changing of what is good and what is bad for me. I read that HFCS is part of the evil empire and then I read a statement from a major university that is really not bad for you. Are added vitamins really absorbable or do they just create expensive urine? Can I eat carbs and fat or not? What replaced trans fat and what are its long term effects?
Manufactures want the trust and decision making to fall with marketing, not true science. I think clear, clean call outs of what is in the product and what is not might help. Ask the customers to rank what is most important on the label by category and I believe it will be cost first.
More, more, more! There’s a lot more interest in what’s on the label these days (How much sugar? How many grams of fat?). And teens, who’ve been raised with increased awareness of nutrition, are avid label readers. But let’s not stop there; I keep talking to women who think that a single number, like 12, cannot adequately describe what size an item of clothing is. How about some guidance on the hang tag?
I believe that this might help certain consumers choose Product A over Product B on the margin. But I get nervous when I read stats like “three in four consumers say they’d spend a little bit more for better labels.” It’s very easy for consumers to say they will spend more money on anything. These types of survey-based stats do little to distinguish the situations where consumers really will spend more and where they won’t. Marketers beware!
Many of the comments in this forum have concerned food labeling, however the issue is acute in consumer products packaging as well. As a former retail buyer concerned with helping consumers make a product selection at the shelf, I am constantly appalled at the confusing, busy, overly technical and downright conflicting product claims and verbiage on the products I review.
Now that I influence packaging, I have been looking for best practices in packaging communication–particularly ways of conveying consumer benefits (what it does) as opposed to features (what it is). Manufacturers tend to get overly passionate about the geeky features of their products without considering what information the customer needs to differentiate and decide.
There is no question in my mind that better packaging communication helps customers choose–and buy.
I too have label reading issues, as a result of life threatening food allergies in the household, and plenty of experience with 911 calls and Epi-Pen usage! But beyond that, I now want to be able to estimate food miles and have been very focused on local/state/regional sourcing of food. Aside from trust in our farmer’s market, where I do truly know the growers after ten years, it is almost impossible to find any consistency in labeling on fresh foods. It’s not that I won’t ever again buy produce trucked in from the West Coast, I just want some choice and control over my decisions. For those reasons, I support more stringent requirements for labeling country and state of origin.
More Discussions
As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…Is Supply Chain Volatility Here To Stay?
Can we expect an ongoing volatility to remain in terms of retail supply chain?Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?
When I buy food or meds, I want to know where it’s made. Many times labels will say “distributed by” “marketed by” “sold by” that raises warning bells that it’s probably made in China.
For a long time I felt like one of the few consumers, along with other people who have family members with food allergies, seriously reading labels because of my son’s food allergies. Today there are many more people reading labels to determine levels of sugar, salt, preservatives, carbs, or fat. The information is often in small print; a variety of formats are used; different reporting systems are used. Making the labels easier to read would provide a service for very many consumers.
I am no food scientist. I’d like to know what I am eating but, don’t have the time to research every scientific name and check every product. Straightforward labeling, language and marketing would be nirvana. Of course more straight forward labels mean more cost and less marketing space on products and other issues for some product manufacturers. I’d rather pay a little more and be more informed.
My main reason for wanting clear labeling is for consumers to be able to make informed decisions. There is far more that it would be useful to know than is now available although I do understand the problem of fitting it all on AND making sure it is in plain, clear language rather than codes and scientific descriptors.
The health-related points made by Camille and Anna are particularly important but details of salt, sugar and fat content, additives, preservatives, flavorings etc even if they are “natural” and, I strongly feel, country or state of origin. I’m not so concerned about carbon footprints and calculations of food miles because I think the formula is far too complex and inaccurate, particularly for processed foods. As and when it happens, food from cloned animals should also be specified and, although I realise it’s far too late in the US, consumers should know how much of what they are eating has been genetically modified or made from a range of genetically modified ingredients. Also, definitions need to be agreed once and for all e.g. organic, natural etc.
Some people couldn’t care too hoots about much of this but they should be able to decide for themselves.
Well of course there’s a competitive advantage available via good use of labels. One observation on this country of origin issue: I’ve seen polls go both ways for many years, depending on who’s paying for the survey and how the questions are asked.
I routinely see people checking nutritional today; hardly did at all 20 years ago. My biggest gripe: the amazing number of manufacturers who use black ink on a dark red background, for their nutrition info. People who are color-blind or partly color-blind (like me) can’t read it at all, and just buy something else.
I appreciate the article, survey responses and personal comments from my colleagues. However, I’ve yet to meet a marketer who wanted to withhold information that would help sell a product.
Consumers do not care, or read what is on the back of the label of a jar or can. Instead, they want to see its benefits on the front. This is why manufacturers and marketers put key words (like low-fat, low-sodium, organic, etc.) on the front of their product packages. These are all subjective terms that really have no relationship to the rest of the consumer’s intake (since there is an entire meal built around the product being used) that has to be accounted for. Studies like these are slanted from their inception, since they usually do not include basic questions like “Do you read labels?” and then include these as a “no” response to all of their other questions to more accurately reflect the needs of the test group.
I think looking at this survey might be enlightening. How were the questions asked? What would the response have been to “Do you ever think about label information?” “Have you thought about label information in the last 30 days?” You and I both know that consumers, when prompted, will complain about everything.
The trick here is to determine if this will translate into sales. Did they ask “Would you be willing to pay $1 per package more to have better label information?” or “Would you be willing to pay 10 cents more to have better label information?” Our consumer product giants are experts in determining what the consumer will and will not pay for. Based upon their actions, it would appear that labeling is not something consumers find so valuable that they are willing to pay any type of premium to receive. Do consumers want more? Sure they do, but they want it for free!
I think the biggest issue is the changing of what is good and what is bad for me. I read that HFCS is part of the evil empire and then I read a statement from a major university that is really not bad for you. Are added vitamins really absorbable or do they just create expensive urine? Can I eat carbs and fat or not? What replaced trans fat and what are its long term effects?
Manufactures want the trust and decision making to fall with marketing, not true science. I think clear, clean call outs of what is in the product and what is not might help. Ask the customers to rank what is most important on the label by category and I believe it will be cost first.
More, more, more! There’s a lot more interest in what’s on the label these days (How much sugar? How many grams of fat?). And teens, who’ve been raised with increased awareness of nutrition, are avid label readers. But let’s not stop there; I keep talking to women who think that a single number, like 12, cannot adequately describe what size an item of clothing is. How about some guidance on the hang tag?
I believe that this might help certain consumers choose Product A over Product B on the margin. But I get nervous when I read stats like “three in four consumers say they’d spend a little bit more for better labels.” It’s very easy for consumers to say they will spend more money on anything. These types of survey-based stats do little to distinguish the situations where consumers really will spend more and where they won’t. Marketers beware!
Many of the comments in this forum have concerned food labeling, however the issue is acute in consumer products packaging as well. As a former retail buyer concerned with helping consumers make a product selection at the shelf, I am constantly appalled at the confusing, busy, overly technical and downright conflicting product claims and verbiage on the products I review.
Now that I influence packaging, I have been looking for best practices in packaging communication–particularly ways of conveying consumer benefits (what it does) as opposed to features (what it is). Manufacturers tend to get overly passionate about the geeky features of their products without considering what information the customer needs to differentiate and decide.
There is no question in my mind that better packaging communication helps customers choose–and buy.
I too have label reading issues, as a result of life threatening food allergies in the household, and plenty of experience with 911 calls and Epi-Pen usage! But beyond that, I now want to be able to estimate food miles and have been very focused on local/state/regional sourcing of food. Aside from trust in our farmer’s market, where I do truly know the growers after ten years, it is almost impossible to find any consistency in labeling on fresh foods. It’s not that I won’t ever again buy produce trucked in from the West Coast, I just want some choice and control over my decisions. For those reasons, I support more stringent requirements for labeling country and state of origin.