The Value of Flavor

BY JIM PREVOR, ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN JUNE 2015

Here is the story: The produce director for a major retailer gets called into the chief executive’s office. The chief executive has laid out a blind taste test. Three samples of strawberries are presented. Sample #1, which is sold at this particular chain, finishes last in the taste test. A more upscale competitor carries the other two berries. Berry #2, part of a lower price range, comes in second place for taste; and Strawberry #3, also from this upscale chain — but this time from a top-end range — is clearly most delicious.

The chief executive wants this situation fixed. The head of produce thinks attention must be paid to the fact that the most delicious of the berries costs more than double what the least tasty berries cost.

Adding complexity to the story, this real-life event took place in England among two stores that market virtually exclusively under private labels. None of the berries in any of the stores was marketed as a particular kind of proprietary branded variety.

The existence of such a wide variety in flavor of products — marketed as essentially the same — poses large challenges for the industry. Generic promotion efforts seem likely to be less effective if retailers and produce marketers can’t vouch for the consistency of the product.

The existence of such a wide variety in flavor of products — marketed as essentially the same — poses large challenges for the industry.

The immediate response of retailers presented with this scenario is an appeal to consumer sovereignty: “We will sell a broad range of products and let consumers make the choice!”

Yet this resolution is somewhat problematic, too. One can sell many different types of cars, for example, at many different price points. But the price differential is supported either functionally — car A is a subcompact and car B is an extra-large SUV — or by appeals to status and exclusivity — car A is a Chevrolet and car B is a Ferrari.

Yet, the flavor of the strawberries seems closer to the essential nature of the product. Surely, everyone buys a strawberry in anticipation of a quintessential strawberry flavor or taste.

Consumer sovereignty may be a successful justification, but one wonders if consumers really make the choices inferred in this idea of offering consumers a wide range of products. Do consumers actually say to themselves, “I’m going to buy the cheaper strawberry. I know it is not delicious and flavorful like the more expensive one, but I will sacrifice flavor and taste to stay within my budget.”

Isn’t it just as likely, maybe even more likely, that consumers assume the higher price point may represent luxury branding (black packaging and so forth) or social and environmental positioning (organic, non-GMO, higher paid labor, etc.) but do not think the core flavor proposition is any different?

Certainly, the industry does not do much to encourage the notion that products have flavor differentiation based on price. British supermarkets will simultaneously carry many types of strawberries. These would be labeled in words that vary from chain to chain, but retailers would use words, such as Organic Strawberries, Specialty Strawberries, Essential Strawberries and King Strawberries, or with a geographic/provenance reference, such as Essential British Strawberries, Dutchy Organic Strawberries, Tiptree English Strawberries, etc.

In the United States, there is often even less description. Certainly, none of these descriptors would lead a consumer to realize that he or she is buying substandard strawberries.

Retailers seem willing to acquiesce in the marketing of distinct branded concepts — say Pink Lady, Kanzi or Jazz apples, or Sun World’s Sable Seedless or Scarlotta grapes — where the brand heralds a distinct taste experience. Yet retailers seem hesitant to acquiesce in the consumer marketing of tranches of flavor, perhaps because such marketing inherently disparages the less flavorful lines.

In a world of apps, one wonders if the trade shouldn’t question the whole idea of selling substandard products without qualification. Almost all the online services can now make a point of ranking produce items available, acknowledging, for example, that the product should only be purchased if absolutely necessary — say as a minor ingredient in a recipe.

Abstractly, the idea that retailers give consumers choices is appealing. But the deeper we dive into this subject, the more it seems that retailers — and retailers are the face of the industry to consumers — are not giving consumers the tools needed to allow them to make informed choices. So, consumers often buy products and find the flavor disappointing.

We don’t really know whether strawberry consumers would pay more if they understood the options, or would switch to another produce item if they saw themselves as making flavor trade-offs. Would they switch to frozen products or non-produce items? Once again, we don’t know.

It does seem, though, that robust flavor is a reasonable expectation, and if we are going to disappoint, we probably should make that clear by providing choices. After all, building a brand is about building trust. And we want an industry brand in which consumers feel safe buying fresh produce and knowing they will have an excellent eating experience.

Produce industry icon Jim Prevor, who founded Produce Business magazine in 1985, died Nov. 7, 2022. To honor his legacy as a maverick thought-leader, this space spotlights the best of Prevor’s “Fruits of Thought” column, which garnered more than 200 awards in business journalism.