Trust Is the Way to a Consumer’s Heart
While challenges linger for CPG food manufacturers, including supply chain issues, inflation, and record private label sales, marketers are rightly turning their attention to how best to engage consumers in a post-COVID 19 environment. Specifically, we are hearing much discussion about how to connect with health-conscious consumers in 2023 and beyond. The question being asked is, quite simply, does marketing health & wellness to consumers after the pandemic require a different approach?
This article from FoodNavigator covering a recent IRI/Boston Consulting Group webinar suggests that at least some food companies believe the answer is yes.
In discussing what will set his company up for success in the future, Anton Vincent, COO of Upfield said:
“People want to be involved in [a] conversation about your brands and the role that brand and product is playing in their life.”
This quote touches on much of what we have been helping healthy brands focus on for more than 20 years—engaging consumers in a conversation about their health and wellness, and highlighting how your brand can be a trusted partner in achieving their healthy lifestyle goals.
Unfortunately, many companies may be jumping to the quick (and specious) conclusion that the post-pandemic world will be a purely digital one, where consumers predominantly discover and engage with brands wherever they spend time online. You might call this the “chocolate in the peanut butter” approach, inserting healthy brands into online spaces where consumers that meet a certain profile are spending their time.
While in some respects, the world is more digital than ever, the risks for healthy brands in this approach–and the digital space in general–are also greater than ever before.
Consistently, we see healthy brands run into challenges when relying almost exclusively on digital and social media to reach health-conscious consumers. Here are a few:
Context is everything. Inserting your healthy brand into digital and social media spaces these days can be fraught with peril if the context is wrong. Are you reaching consumers when they are seeking health and wellness information, or simply when they are engaged in online conversations with other like-minded people? Are you adding value to the conversation or is your brand just “along for the ride.” Even when your intentions are good, the context of your marketing messages can be misinterpreted or used in ways you never intended. Just ask M&Ms.
The company you keep. One of the biggest dangers for healthy brands in relying upon social media influencers and bloggers is the control they cede over their brand. Too frequently, a healthy brand may find itself alongside pseudoscience or controversy they would never endorse. Brands always have to consider: “What’s the next thing this influencer or blogger may post? You can’t control your brand message if you don’t know what surrounds it. This leads us to the most critical challenge that the digital and social media landscape presents healthy brands…
Is the information trusted? According to IFIC, the least-trusted sources of nutrition information for consumers are social media influencers and bloggers. Health professionals on TV and in digital spaces also receive low trust scores. So, who are the most trusted sources of nutrition information for consumers? Quite simply, their own health professionals, whether that’s a doctor, a dietitian, or a health coach.
Ultimately, it all comes down to trust. We live in a trust economy–that may be the most defining characteristic of the post-pandemic world. Consumers want to engage with brands they can trust, so to have the conversations with consumers that Mr. Vincent craves, brands need to build a relationship with consumers based on trust and credibility.
To be effective at this, healthy brands need to focus on sources of information that consumers trust, and then deliver health and wellness messages that are meaningful, compelling, and actionable. It makes no sense to invest dollars and resources into reaching consumers through sources that they readily tell researchers they simply do not trust.