Consumers can be a tough bunch to please. We hear they want their fruit and veg to be the best quality, available year-round, British but in season, cheap but with growers paid fairly, and ideally produced without any use of pesticides or artificial production methods. In short, they want the impossible.
Today’s supermarket shelves have a range of produce to cater for every whim and wallet size, with a diversity of produce on offer that was unthinkable two decades ago. But the global economic meltdown has made everyone re-evaluate their shopping habits. So what are the real drivers behind consumer buying motivation in 2010? FPJ commissioned England Marketing to carry out an exclusive shopper survey to find out.
Backing British
Consumers overwhelmingly want to see more British produce on shelves and crucially, claim that they are prepared to pay more for it. An overwhelming 81 per cent of shoppers polled consider it important or very important that the amount of fresh produce grown in the UK is increased, a figure that reflects increasing public concern over food security and the provenance of staple groceries.
“I am delighted by the findings, but they do not surprise me as far as the demand side goes,” says Adrian Barlow, chief executive of English Apples & Pears. “In fact, we have seen a real renaissance in the fruit industry in response to consumer demand. It continues what we have seen and confirms the trend that has taken off over the last five years of consumers becoming increasingly concerned about the distance that food travels and the increase in demand for local supplies.”
Perhaps more pertinently, three in five respondents claimed they would be prepared to pay a small price premium on their fruit and veg if that meant helping secure the long-term future of the British horticulture industry. Asked in more detail how much extra they would be willing to pay, 56 per cent suggested two to five per cent would be acceptable and a quarter said six to 10 per cent was an appropriate figure.
Communication issues
However, despite such strong support for domestic fruit and veg, only 38 per cent feel that supermarkets keep them well informed of what is in season, with more than half claiming that they do not. That suggests a significant opportunity for better in-store communication on seasonality, which has become a big deal for shoppers. Some 52 per cent of respondents said it was an important or very important issue for them.
On the same theme, improved communication on the storability of fresh produce would appear to be in order, with nearly two-thirds of respondents (63 per cent) admitting that they throw away fruit and vegetables. Of those, nearly half (43 per cent) throw away more than 10 per cent and as many as a quarter waste over 20 per cent of all the produce they buy.
The major reason cited for throwing away produce was shelf life not being as expected. While breeders continue to produce varieties that last longer, this suggests there may be an unrealistic level of public expectation over how long fruit and veg will remain in peak condition. The other main reasons given were buying more than is needed and a change of eating/menu plans.
Supplier support
One of the most startling statistics to emerge from the survey surrounded consumer perception of how supermarkets treat their suppliers. Only 16 per cent of respondents believe that retailers pay their suppliers a fair price for their fresh produce, with more than double that (36 per cent) of the view that they do not. Some 49 per cent were unsure.
That statistic shows that a “better communication job is needed”, according to Nick Scrase, managing director of Asda’s International Produce (IPL). “It’s easy to look at something that’s ever present in your life - we [supermarkets] become an easy target. But I recognise the responsibility to give a return that enables growers to have a margin and invest in the future. I welcome debating with growers about returns. Our [IPL’s] model should satisfy the needs of shareholders, customers and growers.”
However, another supermarket insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, says that retailers are “media fodder” for the tabloids that make them mistrusted in the eyes of consumers. “In the last few years, supermarkets have got tougher with suppliers and maybe they have started to go over the boundaries of what is acceptable,” the source says. “But consumers cannot really complain because the prices are being passed on to them - they can’t have it both ways.
“Unless you are a supplier to Waitrose, where consumers pay more for the products, all the supermarkets are paying the same and act in the same manner. The supermarkets are not holding a gun to these people’s heads. People want to supply, but it’s a question of how much money they want to take out of the business for their own wages rather than reinvesting. If you look at the big produce suppliers, they have all got there by investing in their businesses. All the businesses that have failed due to supermarkets pulling out have been poorly run businesses in the first place. Don’t forget, when produce supplies are tight, retailers can end up paying six or seven times over the normal price to keep the shelves full so it is not always the supermarkets who have control and I think that’s not talked about enough.”
The great GM debate
Elsewhere, the issue of the role genetically modified produce could play in the future of food supply is one of the hottest and most emotive topics in the industry. According to the British Retail Consortium, supermarkets are not yet ready to embrace GM as consumers remain far from convinced about the value and safety of food produced in that way. But there are signs that shoppers are not entirely rejecting the subject out of hand.
According to the England Marketing survey, a third of consumers would be somewhat or greatly encouraged to consider GM produce if it was cheaper than conventionally produced alternatives, 42 per cent would be encouraged if it tastes better than conventional, and 44 per cent would back GM if it was better quality than conventional.
Almost half of respondents (45 per cent) said their doubts would be assuaged if it could be proven that GM was safe to eat.
Scrase believes it is further evidence that an open debate is needed on the subject. “My personal view is there’s no demand for GM, but there is a mood change,” he says. “People understand a bit more about GM food and the more extreme views are starting to subside. At some point, there needs to be a more mature debate on the advantages and risks. That would be helpful.”
However, the Soil Association argues that the results show the majority are still against GM. “This research highlights there is strong consumer concern over GM and that most consumers don’t want GM in their food,” says a spokeswoman. “And they are right to be cautious - GM is an inherently risky and uncertain technology. As well as potential risks to wildlife and human health, GM technologies have consistently underperformed, despite claims from the biotech industry that they are necessary to meet the ‘perfect storm’ of climate change, resource depletion and a growing global population.”
Deal or no deal?
At the end of the day though, consumers still love a bargain. An overwhelming 87 per cent of shoppers said that more promotions and special offers would encourage them to buy more fruit and vegetables, suggesting the supermarkets’ strategy of regular multi-buys and discounted lines in the category is set to continue.
With price always a major driver - despite shoppers’ best intentions - the push towards more premium products and varieties could be the way to meet the needs of everybody in the supply chain.
Satisfying the needs of today’s consumer is certainly no easy task, and it’s not one that’s going to get easier any time soon.
No comments yet