Beyond Meat is dropping ‘Meat’ from its name and focusing on shorter ingredients lists and nutrient-dense products. Gill Wilson weighs up the pros and cons.
I’ve been using Beyond in a case study in class for about five years now, so we have been following the marketing over the years and to be honest I think they have struggled to define the brand and are lacking consistent messaging (which is not their only problem of course).
For example, they started out with black masculine packaging to appeal to meat eaters – the message was around good for the planet and imitating meat (Impossible was doing the same so there was not much between the two brands). Beyond then signed up Kim Kardashian as their ‘chief taster’ (moving the focus on taste), which then evolved to a focus on protein and health. This year’s UK campaign resulted in another shift: ‘All taste, no worries’ features a sad baby calf (so now moving onto animal welfare), while in the US this year ‘There is goodness here’ focused on spotlighting farmers.
They don’t know who they are targeting or what message to focus on and the brand lacks identity and recognition overall.
Impossible on the other hand has a clearer and consistent message around meat from plants (even though they don’t use meat in the name). The company – which is the other big player in the meat alternatives space currently – also plays up the meat side of things, which Beyond seems to have moved away from. For example, last year Impossible refreshed the brand going from green packaging to red McDonald’s-type semiotics.
Impossible is clear about who its market is: meat eaters and flexitarians (which make up about 90% of their customer base according to the brand). This has not resulted in Impossible turning a profit but it has a 50% repeat purchase rate and is doing better than Beyond – which implies it can’t only be down to the product or the concept.
For Beyond, the name change will likely not make a difference: the problem is the whole package, including the product, the pricing, the targeting and the messaging.
Behind all of this branding talk there is a category that is on shaky ground.
The wider problem for meat alternatives has to do with language and perceptions: people don’t trust plant based propositions enough in general to make them part of their daily diet and the language – from non-GMO to meat-free – isn’t making them appealing. Indeed, there is a lot of focus on what they don´t have rather than what they do.
Personally, I would rather eat a miso mushroom burger as it sounds more appealing (and to meat eaters too). I think restaurants have stepped up their game by developing their own propositions so processed meat alternatives have lost their footing in restaurants and catering.
The industry assumed these products would be incorporated into daily diets. However, many people who were keen to try them just prefer a plate of legumes and veggies. There is hope in driving growth and dietary change if manufacturers and their customers are brave enough.
The Bold Bean Co in the UK is doing amazing stuff growing the bean category, attracting new consumers that wouldn’t normally touch what’s on offer – let alone at a premium. The company doesn´t go on about being good for the planet or being plant-based – their focus is on good quality, healthy, filling and convenient food.
Of beans in general, Jamie Oliver recently told The Times: “They are really good for the planet, setting nitrogen back into the soil, and really good for our gut and people. The average Brit is majorly deficient in fibre every day. If we should be pushing anything, it should be beans.”
Gill Wilson is a sustainability and marketing consultant and adjunct professor of sustainability and sustainable marketing at IE Business School in Madrid, Spain.
