Source: The Atlantic
I came across this Sauder study on my feed the other day and I immediately thought about COMM484. The simple fact that produce labelled as “ugly” or “unattractive” is able to sell more intrigued me. When I first came across this concept of “imperfect” produce I thought it was such a niche idea. The fact that produce that was bruised, mis-shapen, and did not fit the picture perfect advert was not sellable in groceries automatically meant an immense amount of food wastage. According to SPUD, 30% of fruits and vegetables in North America are rejected in super markets because they are not attractive enough. I had learned about SPUD, a local Vancouver social enterprise, in my first year when working under the UBC Social Enterprise Club, so this wasn’t a new idea to me.
However, what UBC Sauder found and what surprised me was that as long as the label was applied, this produce was in fact able to sell more. Once the label was applied, any hesitancy was eliminated, despite there not being any difference in nutritional value or taste. According to UBC Sauder PhD student Siddhanth Mookerjee, the label notifies consumers of their bias which increases willingness to buy, effectively de-biasing the consumer. I thought this was extremely interesting and closely related to our class – especially our Sustainable Consumer Behaviour and Communications class. Grocers are further able to target consumer behaviour, especially those who truly value sustainability, and in some cases charge a commanding premium. The study mentions that even though “ugly” produce was sold at a 25% discount, it was actually more profitable since the acquisition cost was lower than the conventional produce. By labelling produce as “ugly,” super markets are able to effectively communicate and make a credible sustainability claim since it is evidenced right away with the physical appearance of the produce. Furthermore, I believe that this process of communicating to consumers that produce that are misshapen taste the same and have the same nutritional value is part of the education process in that grocers are able de-myth any misconceptions. I found this study to be really interesting! What are your thoughts?
Hey Simon! That was such an interesting post, thank you so much for sharing!
I had heard about “imperfect” labeling some time ago and it seems that it was not as effective as “ugly” labeling is now, so I am glad that they have found another word to help increase sales of this type of product. At the end of the day, what consumers value is the transparency that products offer. We cannot expect perfection but we can demand honesty.
I hope that more and more companies will follow suit so that waste can be minimized considerably, since as you rightly say there is a huge waste of products that are not even as bad as people think they are.
Hi, Simon. this is a really interesting post and I really like it. I like the market strategies that the producer sells the ugly product at a discount and actually brought them more profit. I think sometimes it’s really important for the producer to understand what do customers really want, they just want some nice and cheap fruit and vegetable, not fancy labelling. and as soon as you notice what the need is, you can make a profit. I really like this post, thank you for sharing!
Hey Simon! I find this so intriguing. It’s amazing how such a small change can have such a large impact on consumer behaviour. What I find really interesting is that this clearly defines the business case for selling ‘ugly’ produce. Im not sure if this was mentioned in the study but I wonder if you would get the same results in a large superstore versus a small local vendor. I’d be curious to know, if the business case is so evident, what some of the barriers are for larger retailers to adopt this model. My guess would be the complex supply chain required to access ‘ugly’ foods. What do you think?
Hi Simon, I actually got to hear Sid (the researcher) present this study in my Consumer Behaviour class (COMM 362)! This study was super interesting to learn about because it offers such a simple marketing communication strategy that can be easily implemented to increase the appeal of unattractive produce, while reducing the amount of food waste. What stood out to me from his presentation was how important the word choice was. They learned “ugly” labeling was way more effective than “imperfect” labeling which was remarkable, given that the majority of the grocery store managers they interviewed overwhelmingly preferred “imperfect” labeling over “ugly” labeling. So it’s necessary to note that, yes, more groceries should start selling unattractive produce, but it’s equally important to do it right. If you want to learn more, I can connect you to Sid (he’s also my TA for the course)!