Context
“Never judge a book by its cover”, “what counts is on the inside”. While we may try to apply these sayings to our everyday relationships with family, friends and colleagues… do we still have the same attitude when it comes to our food? Apparently not. As several studies have shown, too many fruits and vegetables go to waste because of aesthetic flaws in spite of their being completely edible. In the battle against food waste, such initiatives as “Imperfect foods” propose to provide consumers with unattractive or imperfect produce that was discarded by grocery stores at a discounted price. Consumers actually report being thrilled with the experience and to make an environmental gesture by settling for “imperfect” products. In an article published in 2021 in the Journal of Marketing, Mookerjee, Cornil and Hoegg study how the wording of unattractive produce’s labels may entice consumers to buy them.
Research questions
Unattractive produce significantly derives in shape and/or color from prototypical produce, but has no damage that could affect safety, taste or nutrition. The authors believe that unattractive produce may suffer from an undeserved “ugliness penalty”, which means that, because of their aesthetic flaws, consumers may consider them as less safe, tasty or nutritious. To sell this undesirable produce, retailers often present them as “imperfect”, “with personality”, “pickuliar” or sometimes plainly “ugly”. Emphasizing the product’s deficiency intuitively seems like a poor marketing move, but since many retailers engage in such strategies, the authors propose to analyze its potential benefits. Therefore, Mookerjee, Cornil and Hoegg ask the following research question: can labeling (and, in particular, “ugly” labeling) alleviate the ugliness penalty from which unattractive produce suffer?
Method
To answer this research question, the authors conducted 6 studies:
– In Study 1, they tested the effectiveness of the “ugly” label at a farmers’ market on 113 buyers. Buyers could pick their vegetables (potatoes, carrots, and tomatoes), from 4 baskets. 2 baskets contained attractive vegetables. The 2 remaining baskets contained unattractive vegetables, were discounted and were randomly either labeled as “ugly” or without any specific label.
– Study 2 was carried out online. It involved 303 participants who were told they were entered in a lottery with a 30$ winning prize. Participants were asked what they would like to do with the prize money: receive the whole prize in cash or use part of the money to purchase a box of fruits and veggies. In the second option, they could either pick a box of attractive produce or a box of unattractive produce that was randomly either labeled as “ugly” or without any specific label.
– Study 3 and 4 focused on consumer expectations towards unattractive produce. In Study 3, 320 participants were asked to choose between 2 baskets of cucumbers (attractive vs unattractive with “ugly” label vs unattractive with no label) from pictures. In Study 4, 401 participants also had to choose between 2 baskets of cucumber, but the basket of unattractive produce was randomly assigned an “ugly” label and/or a message that stated that there was “no other difference than visual” between the attractive and unattractive baskets. Purchase intents and various consumer expectations and perceptions (notably about healthiness and tastiness) were measured.
– In Study 5, the authors studied the interaction of price discounts with the “ugly” label. 709 participants were asked to pick between an attractive and an unattractive box of oranges, apples, carrots and cucumbers. The unattractive basket was randomly assigned one out of 3 discounts (20%, 40% or 60%) and an “ugly” or no label.
– Study 6 compared the effects of the “ugly” label with other labels such as “with personality” or “imperfect” online and in real life.
Results
– When unattractive produce is labeled as “ugly” (and sold at a discounted price), purchase intent and sales revenue are higher than when unattractive produce is not labeled in any specific way (but still sold at a discounted price).
– When unattractive produce is not labeled in any specific way, it suffers from an ugliness penalty. In other words, consumers expect products with aesthetic flaws to taste bad, or at least less good than regular products. However, regarding naturalness, unattractive produce may benefit from an ugliness premium. In other words, consumers expect products with aesthetic flaws to be more natural than attractive produce.
– “Ugly” labeling improves expectations of tastiness and healthiness, because it brings “awareness of influence” to consumers. In other words, it helps consumers realize that their expectations may have been biased by the produce’s aesthetic deficiency and that they should review their expectations. Put differently, labeling the product as “ugly” makes it very clear that the produce’s flaw is purely aesthetic, from which consumers infer that tastiness or healthiness are not affected by the produce’s unattractiveness. As shown by Study 4, the “ugly” label has the same impact as warning consumers that unattractiveness is unrelated with tastiness and healthiness.
– “Ugly” labeling does not seem to affect self-perceptions, anthropomorphic perceptions, sympathy or credibility. Even though images with the “ugly” labels were judged funnier and more original, these attributes did not impact product choice.
– Purchase intent for produce with an “ugly” label is higher when they are moderately rather than steeply discounted. This is because consumers associate steep discounts with low quality.
– “Ugly” labeling is more effective than “imperfect” labeling. This stems from the fact that “imperfect” is ambiguous about the produce’s deficiency and does not directly point at aesthetic flaws. Consumers may infer that the produce does not taste good or is not healthy.
– “Ugly” labeling is not significantly more effective than “with personality” labeling. “With personality” is a phrase commonly used about people to indicate that they are nice but not attractive. In the same way, “with personality” labeling indicates that the produce’s deficiency is aesthetic, which increases perceived tastiness and purchase intent.
Why is this article relevant for researchers?
This article contributes to the literature on food unattractiveness, self-perceptions and persuasion by showing how clearly enunciating the product’s deficiency improves consumer reactions towards the product. It provides a clear example of how awareness of influence can contribute to the reduction of food waste by encouraging consumers to review their expectations towards unattractive produce.
The authors’ investigations were very thorough: they studied different types of produce (carrots, tomatoes, potatoes, oranges, cucumbers) in different contexts (mock scenarios, field experiment at a farmers’ market and online). Therefore, the external validity of this paper seems excellent. Future research could investigate if these results hold in other food categories, such as deli products or meals. Moreover, this article addresses the impacts of three labels (“ugly”, “with personality”, “imperfect”), but retailers sometimes use other wordings to describe unattractive produce (such as “inglorious” or “pickuliar”): future papers could study the effects of other labels on consumer reactions. More generally, the impact of the unattractive food business on other variables such as brand image, corporate reputation, store traffic or the image of other attractive foods sold in the same establishment could be studied.
Unattractive food may also bear other labels than those signaling their aesthetic flaws. For instance, an “ugly” label could coexist with a “biological” label or an “environmental” label or a “fair trade” label. Therefore, future research could analyze the interaction between the “ugly” label and other labels on consumer reactions.
Finally, this paper examines the impact of “ugly” labeling on such variables as perceived healthiness, tastiness, and naturalness. The authors point out that other associations deriving from the product’s attractiveness could be considered.
Why is this article relevant for professionals?
About 75% marketers believe that labeling a product as “ugly” is not a good option compared with other alternatives such as “imperfect”. The present study gives clear guidance on how to label unattractive products. Though the findings are counterintuitive, “ugly” labeling seems much more efficient than “imperfect” labeling, and unattractive produce should be moderately rather than steeply discounted. More generally, the authors advise retailers to use adjectives that are unambiguous about the product’s unattractiveness, because it will decrease the likelihood of negative consumer inferences on tastiness or healthiness. For example, French group Intermarché launched its “Les fruits et legumes moches” (which basically translates into “ugly fruits and vegetables”, though the group chose “inglorious fruits and vegetables” as the official English translation) campaign starring “the disfigured eggplant” and “the hideous orange” which turned out to be a major success. To reinforce tastiness perceptions, Intermarché even distributed soups and juices that were made from the inglorious fruits and vegetables. Consistent with the authors’ recommendation, Intermarché applied a moderate discount (30%) on the unattractive produce.
Moreover, this article helps devise more convincing campaigns in favor of the consumption of unattractive produce and the reduction of food waste. It encourages professionals to inform consumers that aesthetic deficiencies do not presage of the product’s tastiness and healthiness. For instance, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation designed an educational campaign for kids to shrink food waste, instituting a “day of the ugly food”. The video warns kids that although some food may be “unattractive”, it can be “superdelicious”. Moreover, the campaign proposes to turn “ugly vegetables” into “superheroes”, which will increase the children’s positive perceptions about the unattractive produce, and improve their own self-perceptions as they engage in eating ugly food to curb food waste.