What’s in a name? Everything.

Words matter. They create images and ideas. And ideas have consequences.

Almost 10 years ago, the pork industry was under the gun. Animal activists were pressuring restaurants and retailers to pledge to only buy pork from farms that didn’t use gestation crates.

Yet, while some brands did make pledges, the activist campaign on pork never reached the success of their campaign seeking cage-free egg pledges.

Why? One of the first steps to turning the tide was to rebrand.

“Gestation crates” is not a particularly consumer-friendly term. “Gestation” is not commonly used, and unless you’re a dog owner, a “crate” may seem like an odd place to keep an animal for extended periods of time.

Instead, we rebranded them as “individual maternity pens.” “Maternity” is a more positive term than gestation. “Pen” is a more positive word than “crate.”

The rebranding of a technical industry term to something more consumer-friendly was the first step to having a conversation. The campaign pushing back against the activists had other important elements, such as veterinarians going on film to talk about why the use of maternity pens is important for animal welfare. But all of that goes out the door if whoever you’re talking to enters the conversation with a negative impression of the subject matter.

Rebranding also had another benefit. Changing the conversation to a new term allowed a fresh start on search engine optimization. While many top search results for “gestation crates” were negative, the same wasn’t true for “maternity pens.”

With this anecdote in mind, consider the opportunity that now exists on meat alternatives.

What do you call the stuff? Its proponents prefer the term “plant-based meat.” The adjective “plant-based” conjures up a health halo. “Meat” indicates that the product is familiar and has the same great taste of real meat.

Why cede this territory? The terms “fake meat” and “synthetic meat” are catch-alls with a much more favorable starting point for conventional agriculture.

Here’s another example. There’s a growing number of firms producing “mycoprotein.” Mycoprotein is a protein made by fermenting fungi spores with nutrients. The resulting product looks like a large white slab of dough that can be sliced. All told, firms using fermentation to produce meat alternatives raised $587 million last year.

Why not brand this stuff “fungus strips” or “fungus meat”?

Similarly, the alt-meat industry prefers the term “cell-cultured” or “cultivated” to describe meat that is grown from stem cells. It’s easy to see why. “Cultured” and “cultivated” are positive words.

Why not brand it “lab-grown meat”, factory meat or even “frankenmeat” instead?

The annals of food fights are full of instances in which bad branding played into activist hands.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) may be a scientifically accurate name, but it’s not consumer-friendly. Who wants to be eating “organisms”? What marketing department came up with that term? It sounds alien. “Genetically enhanced food” or “super food” are better alternatives.

Some years ago I was in a meeting with Monsanto in which they were explaining consumer reaction and resultant difficulty selling ”bovine growth hormone” additives to milk co-ops to to induce higher production. When I asked why call it that, I was told “because that’s what it is.”

Lesson #1: Don’t let scientists run marketing campaigns.

“High fructose corn syrup” was the subject of a public campaign a little more than a decade ago. Feeling consumer pressure, some companies switched to sugar from cane or beets. The irony is that these sugars are all nutritionally the same. How much easier would it have been if “high fructose corn syrup” had simply been called “corn sugar” from the get go? There is no rule that prevents you from naming yourself (except when it comes to packaging).

Outside of food, we see branding in politics all the time. “Partial birth abortion” versus “reproductive healthcare.” “Gun rights” versus “gun safety.” And so forth.

There’s an old rule in politics that if you’re explaining you’re losing. You want your message to fit on a bumper sticker and force detractors to explain their disagreement. That’s Step One.

The next step is repetition. Activists are often successful when they create an “echo chamber.” Many groups are organized to repeat the same message. Over time, the message takes hold.

It’s not rocket science; it just requires an early intention to manage public opinion. That starts with defining the product or concept before someone else defines it for you.

With fake meat, the opportunity still exists to change the debate. Will we take it?

The importance of names

Join for free* to continue reading.