Lisa M. Keefe 2025-07-26 09:40:38
CHARLIE ARNOT
TITLE:
CEO, Look East; CEO, Center for Food Integrity
EDUCATION:
Bachelor’s degree in journalism, University of Nebraska - Lincoln
CAREER JOURNEY:
Was a news reporter for KLIN radio in Lincoln, Neb.; vice president of communication and public affairs for Premium Standard Farms before founding his agency.
Tune in monthly: 3Squares Live! is a monthly videocast about food, ag and the marketplace with Arnot and consultants Susan Schwallie and Kevin Ryan.
ALT-MEAT MARKETERS CAN CITE REAMS OF SCIENCE AND DATA THAT WON’T MOVE THE NEEDLE ON SALES. UNDERSTANDING AND CONNECTING TO DIFFERENT GROUPS’ VALUES WILL.
Alt-meat retail sales in the US have dropped consistently since 2020, and household penetration and total number of buyers have declined for the last four years. The technology and products have improved: The price gap, for example, between conventional meat products and alt-meats has dropped to a low of $3.18/lb. from $4.25/lb. in 2020. Meat analogue marketers have bragged on the number of animals their products take out of the food chain, the reduction in water and land use, the many ways that alt-meats are, as a whole, considered healthier than their animal protein counterparts.
And the vast majority of consumers have turned a deaf ear.
The alt-meat sector needs to use a different playbook altogether, one that speaks to prospective consumers’ values and emotional needs, says Charlie Arnot, CEO of Look East food and ag communications agency in Gladstone, Mo., and of the Center for Food Integrity (CFI).
New research by CFI shows how “truth,” in the case of individuals’ relationship to food, isn’t rooted in numbers, but in reassurances.
Arnot explained to Alt-Meat how the research highlights five distinct consumer groups, and how the right messaging could turn alt-meat sales trends around.
Alt-Meat: The relationship between consumers and food producers of any kind is pretty fraught and seems to be getting more confusing rather than less. Tell me how your findings might cut through some of that fog.
CHARLIE ARNOT: The catalyst for the research was exactly the increased confusion that we see from consumers and anxiety about what they should believe and what they shouldn’t believe, what they believe to be true and what they don’t believe to be true.
We started by thinking about the evolution of ‘truth.’ Truth is a social construct. We have to agree as a society what is going to constitute ‘truth’ for us, and the way we communicate influences what we consider to be true. Going back to about the 15th century, we see the first form of mass communication when Gutenberg invented the printing press. Once we had the printing press, it was the first time we began to use mass communication where there was the opportunity to encourage literacy and information could be shared broadly, and that played a key role for Galileo when he launched the scientific revolution. We’ve relied on science primarily as the foundation for what we consider to be true in Western society, and that was supported by mass communication.
When we were growing up, we had three television networks, usually one major newspaper, maybe two, in any market and a handful of radio stations. We committed to following guidelines and legislation about what you could and could not say, and journalists had to have two independent sources before they would report anything. That fostered a shared understanding of what constituted ‘truth’ because we followed similar standards.
In 2004, Facebook launched and that fundamentally changed everything about how we communicate. The [legacy] media didn’t tell us what to think, but they told us what to think about. We had a shared understanding of what issues were important and in what order, and we had an understanding of what we would pay attention to and the conversation we would have, and our decisions were based largely on science.
We’ve now transitioned from mass communication to masses of communicators with an infinite proliferation of microcultures supported by social media. The opportunity becomes more challenging when each microculture might have its own beliefs, its own values and sometimes even its own language. If you’re going to compete in the information economy, you’re not going to use the legacy media of mass communications. The transition creates all kinds of challenges which are then exacerbated when Meta and X decide they’re no longer going to be involved in factchecking; they’re going to leave it to each microculture to decide what is true for them. We’ve always relied on science as the foundation for how we’re going to make decisions and how we believe society should make decisions; that’s no longer the case.
That causes confusion and angst across the entire food system. That was the catalyst for us to unpack what consumers believe is true in today’s environment when it relates to food and agriculture.
I don’t ever want to be misinterpreted as saying science is not relevant. It is relevant. It’s just never sufficient. You certainly have the scientific facts and data that you can share, but it’s making that values-based connection in a way that’s meaningful to consumers that will ultimately be more persuasive.
Alt-Meat: Alt-meat makers are getting it from a lot of different sides. There’s a huge distrust of ultra-processed foods which spills over onto alt-meat. You’re getting a lot of blowback from legislators. A number of states have outright banned cultivated meat and its production within their state boundaries. How does the development of these micro communities land on makers of meat analogues?
ARNOT: It’s an interesting phenomenon, because the initial sampling of meat analogues was off the charts, right? But ultimately they didn’t compete on taste and price, and so, the repeat purchasing just didn’t keep up.
The blowback from meat-producing states is a fairly predictable defensive positioning that you would expect from certain states. It’s a reflection of populist politics as we see them today. But I think what will be interesting is, as you look at that next generation, are [alt-meats] going to come back as center of the plate?
If you are in that sector you have to understand that you have a number of folks that are supportive. You have a number of folks who are opposed. But you have a lot of folks in the middle who are undecided, right? And I think that initial sampling is a signal that there is a desire for a better-for-me, better-forthe-planet product.
Alt-Meat: Your research broke out the consumer universe into five archetypes. How did your research give rise to these five segments?
ARNOT: I’ll tell you a little bit about the methodology. It’s not a quantitative survey; it’s a digital ethnography, and ethnography is a social science of observation rather than inquiry. So rather than ask people questions, you observe their behavior. And we do that digitally with a team of anthropologists.
Imagine a consumer who’s buying meat or meat analogues, and their interest in and concerns about agriculture and food. We go back two years in their social media history. We study their social values, political beliefs, where they work, live and play, what they buy, what they’re reading, what they share and advocate for, and much, much more. We know what brands they like, we know what stores they shop in. We know what influencers they follow. We know what kind of content they’re looking for. We know what the triggers are for them to adopt and what their triggers are to reject.
In that, then, we identified the five segments: the progressive disruptor, the authenticity seeker, the rationalist, the comfort seeker, and the strategist.
Alt-Meat: How do these categories reflect their trust in the system where other research does not?
ARNOT: In ethnography, we uncover unspoken motivations, vulnerabilities, and how beliefs and values impact who they engage with, what they buy, and most importantly, the meanings that they associate with food and agriculture. We understand, then, what do they believe to be true? If science is no longer going to be the foundation of truth, what is true for each of these five different archetypes?
We’ll start with the progressive disruptor. They’re only 5% of the population but 12% share of voice (a measure of how often they post on the topic on social media). It’s important for them to be heard. They want to fuel a fair and sustainable food system. They get their information from alternative media and grassroots systems. Food sovereignty, Indigenous water rights, regenerative practices, immigrant labor rights — those are the kinds of issues and topics that are important to them. They skew slightly female and work primarily in nonprofits, NGOs, urban farming, journalism. They’re predominantly white, 15% African-American, 17% Hispanic.
They are mostly lower to middle class, mostly single and couples without children, largely urban and rural. You won’t find them in the suburbs. You will find about 20% of them are boomers.
The next group is the authenticity seeker. They’re 14% of the population, 18% share of voice. For them, truth is unfiltered, real and first-hand. They want that authentic first-hand information, either through social media or through personal experience. It has to be free from corporate manipulation. They want local, holistic experiences of food production and food consumption.
They, too, skew slightly female, middle class, and mostly singles and couples without children. Like the progressive disruptor, the authenticity seeker is largely urban and rural, not suburban dwellers, and predominantly white.
Now, the rationalist is a group that, historically, we really like in food and agriculture because they are grounded in science and research reason. They want to look for information. They want to see what’s behind your conclusions. They’re 19% of the population, 15% share of voice. It’s important to understand they will avoid sensationalism or politicized narratives so if you want to scare them about something, you will turn them off. They understand the need for a more industrialized food system to provide what we need in ways that help us preserve the environment. They are not opposed to it, they simply want to see the science behind it. They’re 54% male, 46% female, middle class and above, largely urban and suburban. They are 65% white, 10% African-American, 13% Hispanic.
This next group is new, and I think it really reflects what we’ve seen in terms of the anxiety and the confusion that we’ve talked about before: The comfort seeker. They are 43% of the population. When we did this research in 2017, this cohort did not exist. So what we’ve seen is that rise in anxiety and confusion. They’re looking for reassurance. They want information that is simple, safe and familiar. They trust labels, USDA, FDA, but they’ll also trust their nutritionist or grandma’s advice.
For this group, credible information does not require deep scrutiny. They trust online influencers, and they look for data that confirms their own food preferences. They are equally divided between male and female, they are middle class, mostly married with children, including empty nesters. You do find the comfort seeker in suburbs, medium-sized towns or rural areas. They are not urban dwellers.
It’s interesting to note that the largest percentage of Hispanic consumers — 21% — that we’ve seen in any of these categories are comfort seekers. Just over half are white, 16% are African-American.
Finally, the strategist is kind of at the other end of that spectrum, representing 19% of the population and 28% share of voice. Like the progressive disruptor, they want to be heard. They see truth as leverage and a tool they can use to secure advantage.
They only want sources that align with their agenda. They dismiss sustainability and community welfare, and are focused on profit, efficiency and market dominance. They are highly educated. They work in corporate management, are small business owners, a few have blue collar jobs. They span the age generations, including a lot of millennials and a lot of boomers. They’re middle class and above, two-thirds are urban and suburban. They are predominantly white, 11% African-American and 14% Hispanic.
[At CFI] we don’t focus on the progressive disruptor or the strategist because they’re ideologues. You’re not going to have much success engaging with them. We tend to focus on the three cohorts in the middle: the authenticity seeker, the rationalist and the comfort seeker.
I think it’s important to remind people that the loudest voice isn’t always the most important voice. In social media, it’s important to listen and then ask, ‘How important is this particular group of consumers or stakeholders to our business? Do we need to moderate them? Do we need to mitigate their impact? Or is this a group with whom we need to actually engage?’
Alt-Meat: Consumers have been surveyed to death about alt-proteins. How does your research surface other qualities about consumers that are particularly related to alt-proteins or other novel foods?
ARNOT: It depends on which consumer group you want to engage. This is all about engaging in a way that’s going to be authentic to that group. So let’s take the authenticity seeker, because I think that’s a group that might be particularly interested in alternative options for meat. Give them that experiential learning so they can see what’s behind the curtain. How is this being made? Why is it being made? What are the benefits? What are the risks? And it’s important to not sugarcoat it, because marketing turns them off. They want to see the good, the bad, the ugly. They want to be engaged in authentic conversation and dialogue, but they are interested in looking for alternatives that they see as better for them and better for the planet.
The progressive disruptor is probably likely to be engaged and supportive of alt-meat already, but they’re so politically charged that they don’t have a lot of influence because it’s so important for them to be heard and to fly the flag, that they can only have influence over other progressive disruptors.
The authenticity seeker presents the opportunity to engage, and then with the rationalist, it’s going to be about sharing information, giving them the data that gives them permission to believe.
I’m sorry for the comfort seeker; how do you make the novel familiar? How do you integrate products or brands or experiences so that they feel familiar to them? You can introduce it as a potential alternative to this or that protein, or something you could use in a recipe that’s familiar.
Those are going to be likely strategies you could use with a particular group. There isn’t going to be an overall strategy and you need to understand what needs to be true for each of these groups to understand what the benefits might be to them of alternative proteins.
©Marketing & Technology Group. View All Articles.
STOP MAKING SENSE
https://library.alt-meat.net/articles/stop-making-sense