The Power of Meat study conducted by 210 Analytics on behalf of FMI and the Meat Institute made possible by Cryovac, a division of Sealed Air, was presented by 210 Analytics’ principal Anne-Marie Roerink at the recent Annual Meat Conference. I didn’t attend but did glean a little tidbit from Roerink’s presentation as reported in Steve Kay’s March 22 edition of Cattle Buyers Weekly.

This was the 19^th edition of the study, and the information presented, at least from what I could deduce, is indeed voluminous and prescient. Toward the study’s conclusion, Kay reported this little tidbit, “…92% of shoppers agree that meat/poultry can be a great price but if it does not taste good, they will not buy it again.”

This lends credence to my mantra that taste is the final arbiter in food purchases and beef must certainly comply. If it doesn’t meet some preconceived purchaser perception of what the particular beef item should taste like, beef will not continue to be purchased. A palette flavor explosion may not be necessary, but something akin is desirable.

“Well, tell us something we don’t know,” may be your reply to this little tidbit. I agree with your assessment. I know you know, but what are we doing about it?

Beef tastes like beef no matter how you prepare it, right? You can broil it, fry it, sear it, roast it, marinate it, bread it, deep fry it, stew it, and on and on. I am beginning to sound like Bubba from the movie Forest Gump telling Forest that there are 21 kinds of shrimp they can serve in their restaurant.

And, it’s true. Beef can be prepared in a myriad of ways, which is another great attribute, but it still must taste good, or no one buys. However, from my observations, the beef industries’ marketing mavens, in their somewhat limited communication efforts, emphasize just about everything but taste.

These days, social media, in its many forms, are the communication vehicles of choice for the largest segment of beef consumers—Gen Xers, Millennials and Gen Zers. Mainstream TV is passé, having been usurped by streaming services with the iPhone (even with the DOJ chasing them, they still are ubiquitous) being the venue of choice. So, how is this taste message to be communicated?

Certainly, there is a lot of support for telling current and future beef consumers of all the things the industry is doing to improve its effect on climate change as well as the land stewardship that cattle ranchers practice for that good “feeling” consumers crave. But how about some good old-fashioned taste comparisons to prove what Roerink stated was so necessary in convincing consumers to buy more beef?

What do I mean by “good old-fashioned taste comparisons?”

I don’t think I have to convince the readers of this blog of the taste superiority of a steak versus, let’s say, a chicken breast, do I? In a side-by-side taste comparison, the steak will win out just about every time. At least it will in my mind.

I am suggesting a switch in beef consumer communication education. Let’s lead with taste. Sure, beef is nutritious and good for you, not bad for you, as more scientific studies are proving.

Beef’s nutrition and environmental enhancement attributes are laudable reasons for raising food animals. The consumer will feel good about those attributes, rather than be disinclined to buy beef so readily if they are not present.

But if taste is the final arbiter, and I think the Power of Meat study showed that it is, then it should be the first thing we tell consumers and not be buried in a mixed message of how wonderfully the beef industry treats the environment.

To those beef marketing gurus out there, taste is the beef attribute to be touted and flouted. That’s what consumers want and why they buy. Get with it!

A beef marketing tidbit

Join for free* to continue reading.