Ignoring consumers is one of the main reasons why start-ups fail or don’t even make it out of the founder’s garage.

Our founder, Durk Bosma, has spent the past five years specialising in consumer behaviour, specifically in the field of sustainable food. In that time, he has spoken to many food start-ups, investors, marketers and innovation managers. One thing never ceases to amaze him time and again. And that is how little they listen to their end users, the consumers.

The modus operandi in the start-up and investment world seems to be: develop a minimum viable product as quickly as possible, put it on the market, learn from what happens and iterate. There are a number of arguments that seem to support this modus operandi, such as speed and gathering real feedback in the market.

But there are also many arguments against this way of working. For instance, it is a very risky way of working, the chances of success are low and, moreover, it often turns out to be not very fast at all. You may collect feedback from users, but it comes at a time when you may not be able to do anything with that feedback anymore (because your product is already on the market).

But aren’t all successful companies that have grown from zero to multinational this way? That is what the biographies of their founders tell us and it may seem true, but it is probably a case of survivor bias: Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data. Survivorship bias is a form of selection bias that can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because multiple failures are overlooked, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property. 

In other words: To really understand what makes a start-up successful, you should NOT just look at the companies that are successful and learn from how they did it. Instead, you should compare successful companies with unsuccessful ones, or failed ones. And then you might get a totally different view of what a successful start-up is. And my hypothesis is that the companies that are successful outperform their less successful peers on one very important point. And that is how well they understand their market, the end users and the dynamics in the market.

All start-ups are based on a number of fundamental hypotheses. If these turn out to be true, great success lies ahead. We can summarise these with what we call The Big Assumption:

• There is a substantial target market
• who has an unmet need,
• and who sees my solution as an attractive way to fulfil this need.

Every entrepreneur (and marketer) should have a very clear idea about who his or her target audience is and how the product will fulfil the needs of this target audience. Some constantly validate their hypotheses. But many entrepreneurs I have met have only a vague idea. Or even no idea at all.

Many start-ups do not become as successful as the founders imagined. Why? Because they solve a non-existent problem. Or solve an existing problem in a way that is no better than solutions already on the market. A hard and expensive, but also an avoidable lesson.

Ignoring consumers is one of the main reasons why start-ups fail or don’t even make it out of the founder’s garage. And think about investors. There are many investment funds and incubators that support sustainable food start-ups. They want their money to be invested in start-ups that have the highest chance of success. Therefore, the first question an investor should ask is: who is going to buy this? Immediately followed by: and why? In other words, what is your Big Assumption? A founder who has a well-reasoned answer will be much more likely to get funding.

There is a simple and feasible way to come up with clear and well-researched answers to these fundamental questions. It is as simple as presenting your idea to the target audience and gathering structured, honest and unbiased feedback. This is called a concept test and it gives you a good idea of your start-up’s potential. By listening to your future target group at an early stage, you can innovate faster and reduce risks. You can validate your idea with real, honest consumers while it is still just an idea.

Testing your idea with real consumers is going to help you develop the right product and tell the right message. And thus increase your chances of success. OR, instead of finding out the hard way, you might learn that your idea is not as good as you thought after all.

Learning fundamentals

Every time we run a concept test, we find valuable insights that can fundamentally change the way entrepreneurs market their products. And we can uncover these insights in weeks rather than years. By engaging with real consumers from real audiences.

Some examples:

• The description of the ‘tropical flavour’ of a soft drink actually sounded very chemical and very sweet (while the drink itself is natural and not sweet at all).
• The chosen name for a vegan caterer was not associated with healthy and conscious eating, but with abundance and too much food.

A concept test is a proven way to achieve this. This is what market research companies and big brands have been doing for years. But start-ups and investors often seem to think it is not feasible for them or perhaps overlook the opportunity. May I suggest you just give it a try? The affordability and speed may surprise you.

Contact us for a concept-test, or for other solutions for your products or business

• Marketing Facts: Innovation and marketing

In order to stop the ‘plastic soup’ from expanding at the rate it has been, the Dutch government has imposed a mandatory surcharge on consumers for disposable plastic packaging. From the 1^st of July onwards, consumers have had to pay either € 0.25 extra for a non-reusable cup, € 0.50 for a meal that consists of one or more non-reusable plastic components, and € 0.05 for a small container with condiments (such as sauces). This surcharge applies when consumers buy plastic-packaged take-away meals, have food delivered, as well as ready-to-eat meals that can be bought in supermarkets. 

We asked consumers in our online community what they thought of this new governmental measure. Discussions were lively but dominated by negativity. In short, the members of the community were angry,  and not convinced that this monetary “punishment” would stimulate the rejection of disposable plastic.

However, with some improvements, the plastic surcharge measure may yet become succesful. Consumers must be aware of the measure and its consequences and need time to make new behaviours a habit. We’ve learned from previous studies that for a policy measure to be acceptable, people need to recognize that there is a problem to be solved and the measure needs to be ‘proportionate’ to that problem. In other words, it needs to be effective at solving the problem but also fair. 

There was no debate on the negative consequences of plastic waste on the environment; participants generally believe that everyone should play a part in limiting single-use plastic. The few that were somewhat positive about this imposed measure therefore mentioned the urgency of the climate crisis and that any measure aiming to help the environment should be seen as a positive effort.

“Plastic is so incredibly bad for everything and everyone. the use of plastic really needs to be reduced or eliminated.” Hester, 53

“I find it somewhat excessive myself, but I do understand it. In the end it’s about the environment and therefore everyone now and in the future.” Peter, 32

However, many were unaware that this measure was taking effect. Lack of campaigns and communication from the government beforehand meant that consumers were mentally and physically unprepared and taken aback by the measure. With direct communication to consumers (through campaigns on social media for example), consumers can learn how to prepare to change their lifestyles in a gradual manner. 

In theory, this measure is meant to promote the use of re-usable plastic containers as an alternative to disposable plastic packaging. However, participants have said that they have often not been offered such alternatives in reality. Food businesses need to offer re-usable options to give consumers a choice. As long as consumers do not have a choice for an alternative packaging, this measure will not be effective.

“You can’t choose a plastic-free option as a consumer.” Layla, 35

While consumers are urged to bring their own re-usable packaging options, this does take more effort and planning from consumers. Like with re-usable cloth bags instead of plastic bags, consumers need time to get used to the idea, and it will take time before it becomes a habit to bring their own re-usable options. In the meantime, campaigns can act as reminders for consumers, nudging them to not forget bringing their own reusable containers. 

At the same time the fact that the end-users bear the cost for plastic food packaging, at a time where prices have increased, is experienced as extremely unfair.

“The retail price already includes the plastic container or bag. Retailers should split the prices instead of raising what they like to do if there is even a possibility.” Claudia, 59

Participants also brought up how this new measure disproportionally disadvantages those with a lower income compared to those with a higher income. The surcharge on plastic packaged products can make certain food products unattainable for some, whilst others may not even bat an eye at the price difference and continue to consume the same products and amount of plastic as they did before.

“The idea is good the execution is very poor. I understand that we need to reduce plastic, but people really won’t let that 25 cents stop them.” Ruud, 33

Currently certain supermarkets do not always declare the extra cost for plastic separately on the receipt. This makes the extra cost untransparent. Participants mention that they can’t tell for which products they have to pay more for plastic and for which they do not.

At the same time, what happens with the extra income is unclear. The participants feel like retailers now have a valid excuse from the government to increase their product prices further, enabling retailers to disadvantage consumers even more, while also believing that retailers are the sole benefactors of the imposed measure.

“Personally I think it’s just another way to generate extra revenue, impose extra costs on the consumer.” Liza, 27

Some participants believe that it is extra profit for manufacturers.

“In addition, all the money earned from the extra plastic surcharge is all pocketed by the manufacturer.” Ruud, 33

Participants suggested that this tax should not be added to all foods indiscriminately and that healthy foods should be exempt. For example, pre-cut and packaged vegetables, which are much more convenient and need less to no preparation, are a low-barrier way for time-poor consumers to eat healthily. Participants believe that people should not be discouraged to make this choice, and an exemption will stimulate people to opt for the healthier choice.

“Mandatory reusable options and bring your own stuff, fine. But I’ve also already seen supermarket warnings that prepackaged food you can consume right away (like sliced fruit) also costs extra, and there are no alternatives to that.” Micha, 42

Participants also questioned why the government does not push retailers, businesses, or the producers of food packaging, to produce and sell products with non-plastic food packaging. Participants feel that incentives are needed closer to the beginning of the food supply chain to promote the production of more innovative materials that are less damaging to the environment.

The surcharge is seen as a punishment that is ineffective in the larger picture as well as unfair, particularly to consumers with a tighter budget. As long as no real alternative is offered to single-use plastic packaging, consumers feel that they are being cheated by the system.

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company. 

The Eco-score is a sustainability logo developed in France that shows the combined environmental score of a food product. Its concept is similar to that of the Nutri-score logo (about how healthy a food product is) and the Energy-label (about how energy efficient an electrical appliance is). The Eco-score ranges from an A to an E (from green to red), where products get a score on the basis of a life-cycle assessment. The four indicators in this assessment are: how it is produced, origin of the ingredients, packaging, and how the product impacts endangered species. This Eco-score label is meant to help consumers identify products with a less harmful impact on the environment more easily and quickly.

On our Food Forum, we asked 56 Dutch members what they think of this eco-score.

The Eco-score has the potential to offer consumers a helping hand in identifying sustainable products more quickly, but is not a replacement for already existing logos. Consumers are exposed to too many visual cues, potentially causing confusion between the different logos. Additionally, it is important for consumers that they still have the freedom to make consumption decisions regarding sustainability. Factors that are important for the consumer may be ones the assessment criteria of the Eco-score does not account for. All in all, the Eco-score is unlikely to turn consumers away from their favourite snacks even if that snack had a low Eco-score. It is also unlikely to be the main motivator for a purchasing decision.    

It is difficult for consumers to estimate how sustainable a food product is and many of our Food Forum members have said so in multiple discussions.  A handful of our members have said that the Eco-score could be helpful to make it easier for them to identify sustainable products on food packaging. The same group find that the logo is clear and easy to understand.

“I find the eco-score to be a useful helping tool because I find it difficult with many products to estimate how sustainable it is and then the eco-score would give a quick overview. That’s why I would like to see it on packaging” Bianca (47)

However, many participants see the Eco-score as one of too many visual cues. Many expressed strong feelings of annoyance at the number of (sustainability) logos. Rather than functioning as a logo to simplify sustainable decision making, the Eco-label makes decision making even harder. Our members even questioned the authenticity of the label, and wondered whether the Eco-label could be better than the other environmental labels (e.g., Rainforest Alliance, MSC, etc.)

“I don’t see the point, yet another logo on the packaging. Completely overwhelming” Linda (44)

“No, I don’t want more logos on packaging. There’s already so much on the packaging of a product, more than even about the CONTENT. For me, I don’t want it.” Vanja (29)

Therefore, for the Eco-label to have maximum impact, it would need to be a universal label that renders other labels redundant. To simplify decision making for consumers, less deciding factors are needed. At the moment, the Eco-score label only adds to the already prevalent confusion about food sustainability.

The Eco-label may even be counterproductive. Some participants discussed the healthiness level of products, confusing the Eco-label with the Nutri-score label. The traffic light system, while easy to identify is therefore already associated with the Nutri-score label, and consumers may in the future choose products based on the wrong motivation for them, believing something to be healthy when it may only be sustainable, or vice versa. For instance, when asked about the Eco-label, one of the many answers from our members resembled the following:

“I think this is a practical score to look at how healthy a product is. I don’t use it for all products” Ellen (55)

While many admitted that the Eco-score label would benefit society, the majority are not sold on the idea yet. Members mentioned that the logo does not provide a ‘complete picture’ of how sustainable something is, question whether this logo can be trusted, and commented on how the label does not take into account the different personal priorities different consumers have regarding sustainability. Additionally, participants expressed that the explanation behind the workings of the Eco-label would need to be more extensive, while remaining understandable.

“The idea in theory is alright. It potentially offers more useful information than the Nutri-score (because you can also look at the ingredients and nutritional value and decide for yourself). But then it has to be explained, in a way that the score would become clearer” Micha (42).

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company. 

A local food ingredient, like Dutch shrimps, can sometimes travel half-way around the world to be processed (e.g., peeled), to another country to be packaged, just to end up on your plate*. With our current food system, supply chains are long and complicated. What if you could trace the food you’re eating back to its origins? 

On the packaging of a food product, it is sometimes possible to see what the origin of a product or ingredient is. For instance, when you buy an organic product, the packaging may give information about whether an ingredient is from one specific country, or whether multiple ingredients from many countries are involved. This, however, does not explain the product or ingredients’ journey.

In the study summarised below, we explored what information consumers are hungry for when they look at food packaging, how much they trust the information they see, and recommendations for food traceability.

University of Reading, supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union.

Understand Dutch consumers’ attitudes towards information on food packaging and their desire to trace foods back to its origins.

A qualitative study took place in the Citizen Participation Forum with 56 participants across 17 different countries in Europe. The participants were recruited through a professional panel. Participants completed a range of activities, including a questionnaire and took part in multiple interactive discussions. 

Most of the participants trust the information that they read on food packaging, but not completely. On the one hand participants believe that food packaging information is controlled and checked following EU regulations and rules, so their perception is that information can never deviate too much from the truth. On the other hand, participants believe that marketing claims can cause packaging information to be untruthful, so one should not fully believe what they read.

Many want to know where their food comes from. Participants believe that local foods are more sustainable, and sometimes even that local foods are healthier. So, traceability is a product attribute that participants greatly value.

However, how much information participants crave, does depend on the category of products they are looking at. For fast foods, participants are not keen on traceability information. But, for fresh products like milk and eggs, participants find traceability and transparency very important, and even more so if they are sustainability minded.

So, the traceability of food (ingredients) is important for consumers. Food items that are marketed as sustainable would benefit most from making the product as traceable as possible.

*For the article about Dutch shrimps and their journey, click here.

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company. 

Would you like a sugar in your tea? Or maybe a sweetener instead? Perhaps you have chosen to cut out refined sugar from your diet altogether and only use natural sweeteners like honey or date syrup. 

There has long been a debate among consumers about sugar. How much sugar is healthy? What kinds of sugars taste the best? Which sugars are healthiest? 

We addressed these questions in the study summarised below from the perspective of the consumer, to understand their experiences and opinions surrounding the topic of all things sweet.

University of Reading, supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union. 

To understand the consumers’ perspective on sugar consumption and sugar alternatives. 

A qualitative study took place in the Citizen Participation Forum with 56 participants across 17 different countries in Europe. The participants were recruited through a professional panel. Participants completed a range of activities, including a questionnaire and took part in multiple interactive discussions. 

The majority of the participants indicated that they feel like they consume too much sugar. Over half of the participants were (or actively are) trying to reduce their sugar intake for their health, but also admit that they find sugar difficult to avoid.

Participants perceived ‘refined’ sugar as a bad type of sugar and ‘natural’ sugars present in fruit or other ‘natural’ ingredients as good. So, when participants were asked how they reduce their sugar intake, most of them indicated that they try to avoid refined sugar and replace it with natural sugars like honey, date syrup, or fruits. 

Even though artificial sweeteners aim to help consumers reduce refined sugar intake, participants preferred to sacrifice sweet taste over having to use an artificial ingredient. The majority had a negative perception of any form of ‘artificial’ sugar or sweetener, with many  equating ‘artificial’ with unhealthy. Participants also perceived any product with artificial sweeteners as a marketing claim, rather than a health benefit.

From the perspective of the consumer, sugar reduction cannot be achieved via the promotion of sweeteners that consumers perceive as artificial. Instead, consumers would benefit most from food products with reduced refined sugar, as they are willing to sacrifice sweet taste for the reduced health consequences. 

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company. 

You needed some cream for a Christmas dessert and put the carton back in the fridge only to forget it for a week. Now you realise you could use it for today’s breakfast, but it is expired. Do you throw it away?

Many of us bin expired food even when there is a chance that it may still be good. Perfectly good food is often wasted because we would rather trust a printed date than our own sense of taste and smell. Could expiry dates do more harm than good?

We wanted to know how consumers deal with printed expiry labels and how these labels influenced their food shopping behaviour. For instance, do people pay attention to labels for frozen foods? Or dried foods? Are people as cautious with expiry labels at home as they are in the supermarket? These are questions we addressed in our study.

University of Reading, supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union.

To understand consumers’ attitudes towards expiry labels and explore consumer behaviour surrounding expiry dates with foods in supermarkets compared to at home. 

A qualitative study took place in the Citizen Participation Forum with 56 participants across 17 different countries in Europe. The participants were recruited through a professional panel. Participants completed a range of activities, including a questionnaire and took part in multiple interactive discussions. 

The large majority of participants find expiry dates important and pay attention to them when buying food. They pay particular attention to the expiry dates of dairy products, meat products, seafood, eggs and bread. 

Mostly, participants say they are wary of eating expired food for their health. So, out of caution they dispose of food, even if they believe that the food item likely is not yet spoilt. Furthermore, participants will purchase the item with the furthest expiry date, even if they are planning to use it right away. All in all, participants believe that expiry labels are there for their safety, while also admitting that they find expiry dates exaggerated, and that these labels therefore contribute to increased food waste. 

Expiry labels can help consumers avoid unnecessary food waste, for example by indicating how they can use their senses to judge the safety of their food in addition to indicated dates.

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company. 

Environmentally, yes. Food waste and packaging waste are large sustainability concerns. If food packaging could be composted, we would substantially reduce the amount of waste that enters into landfills. However, from the perspective of the consumer, the end-user of food products, merely making food packaging compostable does not seem to be the answer to these problems. 

Consumers are responsible for the correct disposal of food (packaging) waste, and are therefore crucial in food sustainability efforts. This is why we studied consumers’ attitudes towards sustainability, food waste, and food packaging.  

University of Reading, supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), a body of the European Union.

We set out to better understand consumer attitudes toward food sustainability, food waste, food packaging, and how these factors influence their food choices. Also, two different ways of communication aimed at increasing the recycling of food packaging at public events were evaluated. 

A qualitative study took place in the Citizen Participation Forum with 61 participants across 18 different countries in Europe. The participants were recruited through a professional panel. Participants completed a range of activities, including a questionnaire, photo-challenges, and took part in multiple interactive discussions. 

We found that visual cues on food packaging is crucial for consumers to assess the sustainability of food products and how they should handle packaging waste.  Still, many consumers appear to mistrust these labels. Additionally, it seems that many participants are able to identify plastic packaging that can be recycled. Many participants express that they find recycling important and claim that they recycle on a daily basis. However, when participants were asked about compostable packaging, a large group of consumers seemed to not be entirely sure about what that means, or how it works. Furthermore, many of them expressed that they currently prefer packaging that is recyclable, rather than compostable, for a big part because they are unfamiliar with the latter. This study has made it clear that there is a knowledge gap when it comes to compostable packaging. If we want compostable packaging to become more widely accepted, we will need to help consumers better understand how it works, what the environmental benefit is over recycling, and how they can most conveniently and effectively dispose of it.  

Contact us to find out more about the results, or how we can tailor consumer insights to your product or company.