Cracking the Code on
Food Issues
Insights from Moms, Millennials & Foodies
2015 NASDA Winter Policy Conference
Washington, D.C.
J.J. Jones
[email protected]
CFI’s Mission
To build consumer trust and confidence in today’s food system
We accomplish our mission by:
• Designing and developing models that fundamentally define and
communicate trust
• Research consumer attitudes and new approaches to building trust
• Engage stakeholders across the food system to work together on
building trust
• Develop programs and messages that create better understanding of
today’s food system resulting in enhanced consumer trust
FoodIntegrity.org
BestFoodFacts.org
CFI Research and Observations on
Communicating with Consumers
Historical Perspective
History: The Decline of Trust
History: The Decline of Trust
Significant Social Shifts
THEN
•
•
•
•
NOW
Authority is granted
•
primarily by office
Broad social consensus •
driven by WASP males
Communication is formal, •
indirect (mass
communication)
Progress is inevitable
•
Authority is granted primarily
by relationship
No single social consensus,
great diversity, many voices
Communication is informal,
direct (masses of
communicators)
Progress is possible
Consolidate, Integrate, Industrialize
Compounding Factors
•
•
•
•
•
The public senses a change in the way
food is produced but doesn’t know why
Social media quickly amplifies issues
Online influencers skew information
Media focuses on dramatic stories
Food is necessary, traditional &
emotional
CFI Trust Model
What Drives Consumer Trust?
Sustainable Balance
Why Facts Alone Don’t Drive Decisions
Cultural Cognition
• Tendency for people to conform
beliefs about controversial
matters to group values that
define their cultural identities.
Why Facts Alone Don’t Drive Decisions
Confirmation Bias
• Tendency for people to favor
information that confirms
existing beliefs.
Online Communication is Tribal/Insular
Online
Friends
Traditional
Communication
Model
Family
Neighbor
Consumer
Friend
Family
Consumer
Tribal
Communication
Model
Expert
Consumer
Online
Friends
Family
Blogs
The “Mom” Tribe
What information sources have you used to come to your
conclusion that GMOs are dangerous?
Heidi: “I’m part of a moms
group. When there is a big
consensus, I think ‘there’s
something here.’ You don’t
need doctors or scientists
confirming it when you have
hundreds of moms.”
Tribal Shunning
Lisa: “I think mom guilt is a huge
factor. If someone is telling you
something is dangerous, for
example, fructose, and you hear
the message more than once, you
owe it to yourself to research it or
quit consuming it. I can’t keep
giving my kids fructose if there’s a
potential problem. We have to do
our best job.”
We are All Exposed to Complex Issues We’re
Not Qualified to Evaluate
• We make decisions and process
information based on bounded
rationality (our access to
information, our cognitive ability to
understand the information and the
time we allocate to the
information/decision process).
• This leads to confusing correlation
with causation, drawing
conclusions from anecdotes, etc.
• Not being expert does not
preclude having a strong opinion
Bad News Bias
• Negative information weighs
more heavily on our decisions
than positive information.
• A single item of negative
information is capable of
neutralizing five similar pieces of
positive information
Big is Bad
Shared Values = Trust
Big is Bad
Inverse relationship between size and
the perception of shared values
The Decision-Making Maze
Cracking the Code on
Food Issues
Insights from Moms, Millennials & Foodies
Thank You 2014 Research Sponsors
National Sponsors
Thank You 2014 Research Sponsors
State Sponsors
Mom, Millennials and Foodies
Moms 30%
Millennials 37%
Note: These groups are
not mutually exclusive.
Respondents can qualify
as more than one (i.e. a
Mom who is a Foodie).
Just less than half did not
fall into one of these
three categories.
Foodies 21%
N=2005
Millennials … Who are they?
Millennials 37%
• Range in age from 19-34
currently
• Relatively unattached to
organized politics and
religion
• Linked by social media
• Burdened by debt
• Distrustful of people
• In no rush to marry
• And … optimistic about
the future
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts
Foodie Behaviors/Classification
General Population
Seek out info on ingredients used in
food eaten (6.56)
Share info about cooking (6.47)
Share info about food safety (5.75)
Share nutrition info (6.04)
Foodies
Seek out info on ingredients used in
food eaten (9.26)
Share info about cooking (9.09)
Share info about food safety (9.05)
Share nutrition info (9.02)
To be classified a Foodie, respondents had to rate their
agreement as 8 or higher on a battery of 29 questions
related to attitude and behavior.
Numbers are mean scores on a 0-10 agreement scale.
Consumer Concerns About
Life and Current Events
All of the Most Concerning Life Issues are Beyond the
Consumer’s Direct Control
Women were more
concerned than men
about most issues
Early Adopters
Additional Food System Concerns*
• Imported Food Safety (63%)
• Food Safety (62%)
• Enough to Feed U.S. (55%)
• Humane Treatment of Farm Animals (49%)
• Environmental Sustainability in Farming (49%)
• Access to Accurate Info to Make Healthy Food Choices
(49%)
Earlier Adopters were more
concerned about all issues than
later adopters
Lowest concern was for having
enough food to feed people
outside the U.S. (33%)
*Top Box ratings (8-10)
Consumers Less Concerned About All Top Issues in 2014
Change in Top
Concerns
2013 vs. 2014
No Increase
in Top
Concerns
U.S. Economy (same)
Change in Food
Concerns
2013 vs. 2014
No Increase
in Top
Concerns
Environmental
Sustainability in Farming
(same)
Rising Cost of Food (same)
Rising Healthcare Costs (-3%)
Rising Energy Costs (-4%)
Safety of Imported Food
(-3%)
Food Safety (-1%)
Enough to Feed U.S. (-1%)
Humane Treatment of
Farm Animals (-2%)
Top Concerns About Issues by Segments
Moms
• Rising Cost of Food
(8.71)
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (8.65)
• Rising Healthcare Costs
(8.51)
• Rising Energy Costs
(8.35)
• Food Safety (8.29)
• U.S. Economy (8.28)
Millennials
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (8.18)
• Rising Cost of Food
(8.13)
• Rising Healthcare
Costs (8.09)
• U.S. Economy (8.01)
Foodies
• Keeping Healthy Food
Affordable (9.27)
• Food Safety (9.18)
• Rising Cost of Food (9.10)
• Rising Healthcare Costs
(9.08)
• U.S. Economy (9.08)
Right Direction/Wrong Track
42% 34%
Right Direction
27% 28%
Unsure
30% 38%
48%
Right
Direction
Wrong Track
Early Adopters
36%
believe the
food system is
on the wrong
track
32%
Wrong
Track
Right Direction/Wrong Track
Right/Wrong
Moms
Millennials
Foodies
Right
Direction
36%
41%
49%
Wrong
Track
35%
33%
35%
Unsure
29%
26%
16%
Where Consumers go for
Information
Consumers Search Online and Watch Local TV for Info
on Food System Issues
Ranked First as Info Source
on Food System Issues
Websites
20%
(Highest %
of Top
Source
Mentions
for Early
Adopters)
Local TV
Station
16%
FriendsNot
Online
12%
FamilyNot
Online
12%
Google
10%
2014 Research … Communicating
with Today’s Consumer
Science Denied: The Challenge of Introducing
Complex, Controversial Issues
• Breaking down communication barriers is critical
to fostering informed decision making
When Science and Consumers Collide
How do we connect?
• 2014 CFI Consumer Trust Research
• Better understand how to introduce science and
technical information about agriculture and food, so
they are considered in the social decision-making
process.
When Science and Consumers Collide
How do we connect?
• 2014 CFI Consumer Trust Research
• Better understand communication channels and
processes used by Moms, Millennials, Foodies and Early
Adopters when forming attitudes and opinions about
issues in agriculture and food.
2014 Research: Making Science Relevant
• Consumer concern and skepticism is
understandable.
• Consolidation, integration and application of
technology prompts concerns about who
benefits.
• Goal – not to win scientific or social argument
but to find more meaningful and relevant ways to
introduce science and technology.
2014 Research: Making Science Relevant
• Asked consumers to rate their trust in 11
different messengers
• Focused more in-depth research on three
messengers – A Mom Scientist, A Federal
Government Scientist and A Peer (shared
interests)
• Measured messenger trust prior to sharing key
messages/scenarios and after.
Theoretical Approach to Measurement
• Scenarios were developed using Fundamental Message
Elements (included in all scenarios) and Outrage Factors
(different sets included in each scenario).
• Scenarios were also written in different “voices” to test the
trust in the messenger: Mom Scientist, Federal Government
Scientist and a Peer “who shares my interest about food.”
Mom Scientist
Govt. Scientist
Peer
Theoretical Approach to Measurement
(Continued)
• Two food industry topics were chosen to serve as the vehicle for testing the
impact of the Fundamental Message Elements and the Outrage Factors
(Antibiotic Resistance, GM Ingredients in Food).
Please note that the intent of the research is to identify elements in
technical messaging that promotes consumer believability in the message
and trust in the messenger—not to identify specific messages to promote
the two topics.
What Promotes
Messenger Trust?
Predicting Trust in the MESSENGER
Overall Message
Believability
Messenger
Competence
Messenger Trust
Overall Message
Promotes
Comfort
Messenger
Confidence
Which Elements Most
Promote Believability of the
Message?
Predicting MESSAGE Believability
Fundamental Message Elements
Outrage Factors
Voluntary
Unifying
Message
Accurate
Presentation
of Risks
Openness/
Transparency
Trusted
Sources
Familiar
Morality
Process
Overall Message
Believability
Control
Fairness
Memorable
Dread
Most Impactful Elements for Believability
Fundamental Message Elements
Accurate Presentation of Risks: Present known risks since known risks
“trump” unknown risks by accurately communicating safety facts
Openness/Transparency: Acknowledge both sides of the story,
provide level of depth so it does not look like “holding back,” avoid
oversimplification
Unifying Message: Singular, compelling message that touches the
deeper drivers of human behavior - values
Outrage Factors
Control: Government agencies address risks competently
Process: Company/Organization/Agency is listening, engaging and
providing information
All Messages are NOT Created Equally
Antibiotic resistance is a
less controversial and
less complex issue and
most message elements
predict believability of
the message.
All Messages are NOT Created Equally
GM Foods is a highly controversial and
complex issue and the elements predicting
believability of the message were different
for each messenger.
Which Messengers are
Most Trusted?
Most Trusted Messengers
Overall
• Mom Scienctists were most trusted of the three messengers before
the scenarios AND they were most trusted in 2 of 3 Antibiotic
Resistance scenarios and both GM Food scenarios
• Government Scientists were the least trusted of the three
messengers before the scenario but gained trust in every scenario,
showing the highest trust in 1 of 3 Antibiotic Resistance scenarios
and second highest trust in both GM Food scenarios
• Peers were second of the three messengers before the scenarios
but lost their trust status in favor of more informed sources; they
were the least trusted messenger in all Antibiotic Resistance and all
but one GM Food scenarios
Most Trusted Messengers (continued)
• Mom Scientists have universal appeal to Moms, Millennials,
Foodies and Early Adopters
– Mom Scientists showed the highest Trust scores on 2 of 3 Antibiotic Resistance
scenarios for Moms, Millennials, Foodies and Early Adopters
– Mom Scientists showed the highest Trust scores for both GM Food scenarios
for Moms and Early Adopters, 1 of 2 scenarios for Millennials
• Government Scientists are a strong supporting messenger to Mom
Scientists
– Government Scientists showed the highest Trust scores on the remaining
Antibiotic Resistance scenarios for Moms, Millennials, Foodies and Early
Adopters
– Government Scientists also showed the highest Trust score for the remaining
GM Food scenario for Millennials and Foodies
Trust in Specific Sources
Level of Trust in Sources of Information About Antibiotic
Resistance by Segment
Sources of Information
(Base)
Total
(A)
(2005)
My family doctor
7.22
A university scientist
6.78
A scientist who is a mom
6.64
A veterinarian who treats animals raised for food
6.54
A farmer who raises animals for food
6.39
A peer who shares my interests about food
6.24
A state government scientist
5.82
A federal government scientist
5.77
Someone who is a mom
5.76
A well-known food blogger
5.26
Dr. Oz
5.12
Level of Trust in Sources of Information About
Genetically Modified Foods by Segment
Sources of Information
(Base)
A university scientist
Total
(A)
(2005)
6.66
A scientist who is a mom
6.41
A farmer
6.31
A peer who shares my interests about food
5.86
A state government scientist
5.83
A federal government scientist
5.82
An advocacy group
5.52
Someone who is a mom
5.39
A well-known food blogger
5.07
Dr. Oz
5.00
A celebrity chef
4.92
Putting the Research to Work
1. Believability is a key driver in creating
information that is trusted.
2. Identify the groups you would like to engage.
3. Meet Them Where They Are.
4. Develop a values based engagement strategy
that starts with listening and embracing
skepticism.
5. Commit to engaging over time.
Cracking the Code on
Food Issues
Insights from Moms, Millennials & Foodies
2015 NASDA Winter Policy Conference
Washington, D.C.
J.J. Jones
[email protected]