I contend that for many brands, the way information is communicated via the Nutrition Facts label is as much a facet of that brand's marketing mix as are any other attributes of the product's packaging. For example, a box of General Mills Cocoa Puffs claims that it is both a "Good" Source of Calcium and Vitamin D", and that the product is "Whole Grain Guaranteed". Both claims appear very boldly on the front of the box. Many consumers, when greeted with such bold claims of healthfulness, will turn the box to take a look at the Nutrition Facts. This panel is overloaded with information, percentages, units of measure, vitamins, minerals, ingredients - many of which cannot be pronounced by your average American, non-chemist consumer. How much of these Nutrition Facts labels do people really read? My guess is, maybe 2-3 lines. For a product like Cocoa Puffs, consumers may take a quick glance at the sugar content, calories, and maybe one of the five lines that address the fat content of the product. Any more close observation than that, and we are dealing with a real outlier of a customer - at least by my estimation.
Let's not leave this subject of the "outlier consumer" just yet. What if he or she does in fact take a longer than average look at the Nutrition Facts? He or she may take a look at every line from calories down to protein and all the way through the sometimes giant list of vitamins and minerals. This consumer may even take the time to read through the (also often times lengthy) list of ingredients. Would this particular consumer have a pretty good grasp on the general healthfulness of Cocoa Puffs after all of this time spent on the side of the box? I contend, "No" - because if one tiny aspect of this Nutrition Facts label is overlooked, then almost all of the rest is moot. What is this often overlooked nugget of information? Serving size.
Let's be honest with ourselves. In general, we are rushed during our usual super market excursions. We either just got off of work and are anxious to get home, or we flat-out hate shopping for groceries. We've already established that most consumers wouldn't spend the time to look over the ENTIRE Nutrition Facts label, or even more than a few lines. When we glance at the plethora of percentages, we view these percentages as portions of our recommended daily allowance for each nutrient - once again, we assume that these percentages apply to each of us. Should each of us base our individual diets on the same generic number of daily calories? Obviously not, but let's assume for a second that these recommended daily allowances do apply to us. The question remains - "how many Cocoa Puffs actually make up these percentages printed on the side of the box?
It says 2% of my daily total fat intake - so how many Cocoa Puffs is that? Again, an ordinary person eats a bowl of cereal at a time, and since we are Americans, our bowls and plates are more often than not, super-sized. We are after all the culture that views food as fuel, and what is the point of a meal? To "fill up". And how do we fill up? We use bowls and plates large enough to cut down on the amount of times we have to refill that bowl or plate. With that said, most American consumers make the assumption that a serving size of Cocoa Puffs is a bowl-full (using whatever large sized bowl he or she is accustomed to). Sure, this consumer may think for a split second, that the serving size alluded to by General Mills may not be EXACTLY the same as their own cereal bowls, but it can't be that big of a difference can it? Think again.
The serving size for Cocoa Puffs is 3/4 of a cup or about 27 grams. Personally, I don't think in terms of grams. If someone asks me to pour 27 grams of Cocoa Puffs into a bowl I am going to have a rough time knowing when to stop pouring. 3/4 of a cup is a little bit more of a manageable way to phrase it, but could that amount of Cocoa Puffs really be eyeballed? Not likely - unless you are someone who measures foods for recipes multiple times weekly. If we are looking at these Nutrition Facts and assigning any kind of relative importance to them, then we better know how many to eat at a time - so the percentages and numbers of calories are actually valid. I was curious to see what one serving of Cocoa Puffs actually looks like in one of my "large American"cereal bowls. I used a measuring cup and began to pour. Before I could stop the flow of chocolate-flavored goodness into the measuring cup, I had already over-poured the 3/4 cup mark. I made the proper adjustment and then poured this serving of cereal into one of my cereal bowls. I knew it was going to look like a pathetic, puny amount of cereal, and I was right.
If I had to approximate the amount of servings (as General Mills had defined it) that the average 24 year old American eats per bowl of cereal, I would say 3-4 servings could potentially be conservative. Just to be clear, I am saying that the real American serving size for Cocoa Puffs could realistically be around 4 times the 3/4 printed on the side of the box. How does this translate in terms of nutrition facts? A bowl of Cocoa Puffs goes from 110 calories to 440 calories, from 12 to 48 grams of sugar, and from 1.5 grams of total fat to 6 grams.
The moral of the story is that General Mills and hundreds of other food and drink companies maintain serving sizes that when compared to actual consumer behavior, are flat-out unrealistic. I don't believe that this is by mere coincidence. General Mills marketing managers know that their idea of a serving size is a mere fraction of the average American bowl of cereal, and they also know that when a consumer takes his or her usual 4-second glance at the Nutrition Facts, 110 calories looks a lot more appealing than a robust 440 calories.
There is an entire set of underlying psychological evaluations that go on as a consumer eyeballs the Nutrition Facts of a box of cereal. If the person sees relatively low numbers for all of the "bad stuff" like fats, calories, carbs, and sugars, then the cereal has likely passed the test. Into the shopping cart you go, Sonny the Cocoa Puffs mascot. But if the method by which these small numbers and percentages were derived is misleading or flawed, then the entire basis by which Nutrition Facts are communicated is a sham. This is the same kind of dishonesty that I have observed when drinking a small bottle of juice. By simply looking at the size of this bottle, it would be obvious to 99.999% of consumers that it should be labeled as one serving - given that most people will drink it with a meal. But when the juice bottle has "servings per container: 2" printed on the side, that is just plain dishonest - in my opinion. Of course, the producer of this product could say that technically they didn't do anything wrong, given that all nutrition facts are printed on the side of the bottle, for everyone to see. But these companies make these decisions about what numbers to print, knowing whether or not they will be read and interpreted by consumers. When a relatively small bottle of apple juice says 120 calories, I am going to logically assume that after I finish with the entire bottle, I will have downed 120 calories. I don't expect to have had the wool pulled over my eyes by Juicy Juice because I didn't dedicate an extra 3 seconds to take a look at the 'servings per container'.
No wonder consumers are becoming so paranoid about the purchase decisions they make. The companies preparing and packaging their food are on a mission to take advantage of every single bit of ignorance or laziness that a consumer will dare to let show. As an MBA candidate who is perhaps about to enter this industry, I wish that companies could all begin to be a little more transparent with their customers. I realize that it is very unrealistic to think that companies like General Mills will decide one day to suddenly be more honest when their primary competitors have yet to make such a conscious commitment. It will likely take the iron fist of the FDA to enforce new laws. Everyone eats food and therefore everyone is a consumer. Why should the vast majority of consumers have these types of vital insights consciously held from them, while a small percentage of industry insiders - like the ones responsible for the 'serving size trickery', actually know what numbers to focus upon when at the grocery store. I say that marketing teams in these relevant food industries need to begin packaging their products and structuring their Nutrition Facts in more honest and intuitive ways. Like I stated at the beginning of this blog post; Nutrition Facts are as much of an influence on purchase decisions as the brand name itself, so why is it that marketing decision makers are allowed to uphold such misleading labeling without any repercussions or backlash from the FDA?
In looking at other brands of cereal, I have found that many (but not all) use the same 3/4 cup serving size - so at the very least, consumers can compare the nutrition facts of one to the other. But no matter whether I choose Golden Grahams or Cocoa Puffs, if I end up pouring 4 servings into my bowl without realizing it, then I will have become the victim of labeling deception.
*******
My assertions throughout this blog post have been based purely upon my own assumptions of American consumer behavior and common sense. I know how I consume and I have spent years of my life observing how others do, as well. If you have any comment as to whether or not you believe marketing managers or other business executives bear any responsibility to be transparent or at least to not mislead their customer bases, please leave a comment at the bottom of the page. I am also interested to hear whether or not you believe that marketing managers are or should be the ones making decisions about information that appears on the Nutrition Facts label.
No comments:
Post a Comment