Ugly Produce is Not ‘Ugly’

When you come across the term, “ugly produce,” you may associate it with vegetables and fruits that don’t meet the cosmetic standards set by food retailers. While customers tend to shop with their eyes first, there is no reason to suggest that produce’s appearance has any association with its taste, flavor and quality.

As living costs go up, selling less-than-perfect produce can help make fresh vegetables and fruits more affordable and accessible. Some produce businesses have set up a business model where they gather the odd-looking veggies and fruits from farms and retail grocers, and deliver produce boxes with mixed varieties directly to customers’ doors.

So, I can’t help but ponder, why can’t both unattractive and attractive produce coexist in the same retail space? Can we change retail customers’ perceptions so they see that produce of the same variety is equally good, regardless of differences in appearance?

GIVE CUSTOMERS MORE OPTIONS

In the grocery store, you can easily spot the day-old produce from its fresh counterparts, because the former is either packaged with a discounted sticker or placed in a separate area designated for discounted items in the produce section.

However, it is nearly impossible to find odd-looking fresh produce, whether it is a carrot, apple, or potato, you name it. So, it is unsurprising that consumers prefer produce that looks perfect and associate this attribute with quality, taste and nutritional value.

To bridge this gap in perception, produce retailers could consider presenting the unattractive varieties right next to the perfect-looking produce as a separate SKU, normalizing and sharing with customers that variations exist as part of the produce’s natural growth.

THE NAME MATTERS

In addition to giving customers more options, strategizing on the ideal name for these aesthetically imperfect produce is key, according to a 2021 study published in the Journal of Marketing. This ties into how marketing and product presentation can impact buying decisions.

In one of the experiments, the researchers labeled the cosmetically flawed produce as “ugly” with displays and advertising, while placing them next to the cosmetically perfect produce. This name caught the eyes of some customers, which might have contributed to the boost in sales for the misshapen produce.

Another 2022 study published in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services indicated that when cosmetically flawed produce was paired with messaging that described the environmental and sustainability benefits and debunked the myth that only perfectly looking produce was acceptable, customers were more likely to buy the unconventional produce.

PRICING ALSO MATTERS

Still, giving these unattractive veggies and fruits a catchy name and educating customers is only one strategy. Most customers want good quality at an affordable price, so figuring out the right price point for odd-looking produce will require some thought and consideration.

The same research study from the Journal of Marketing showed that if the price of the aesthetically flawed produce was marked far too low from the conventional, such as offering the former a 60% discount instead of 25%, customers might relate that produce with a 60% discount would be likely to be of lower quality and more inclined to avoid it.

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES

From an organizational perspective, especially for mid- to large-sized grocers, adding cosmetically flawed produce into the retail landscape may require administrative and policy changes.

Changing the status quo, though, may shift customers’ perception and acceptance of ugly produce, simply because ugly produce is not ugly at all. They should be a conventional commodity just like their industry-acceptable counterparts — they offer the same taste and health attributes. Selling these items helps customers save money and reduces food waste — an ongoing issue that requires multifaceted solutions.

Plus, making these odd-looking produce more readily available to customers may also diversify farmers’ revenue and profits, giving them an additional option to sell their products as they are, aside from the current strategies that involve selling this produce as animal feed and ingredients for added-value products, and donating their unwanted produce to gleaning programs.

The downside to including “ugly” produce in the mainstream market would be posing challenges to produce businesses that are already in this niche market. If retail grocers, such as a neighborhood grocery store, decide to sell ugly produce as an additional SKU as part of their offerings, along with their conventional fresh produce, would this put existing produce businesses in this niche market at risk and drive them out of business? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Another consideration for retail grocers may be their company’s mission and vision. While assessing the profit margin is important for some businesses, others may focus on their environmental impact, and some may consider both or more factors. Ultimately, knowing what your customers value and aligning your values with theirs while keeping in mind your business goals is important.

All in all, providing customers with every opportunity to enjoy produce — no matter how it looks — ensures that quality options are always within reach.

Novella Lui, RD, MHSc is a registered dietitian and a freelance food, nutrition, and health writer in Canada who combines her interest in food science, evidence-based nutrition, and health education through content creation. She is passionate about seeking new ways to bridge the communication gap between the business and the health side of food. As a foodie, she loves to travel to learn about how food connects with people’s culture and way of life. Connect with Novella at [email protected] for work samples and collaboration opportunities.