From availability to sustainability

Editor's note: Erik Olsen is senior director, client development at research firm Behaviorally. 

We are now more than a full calendar year into a pandemic which has redefined “normal.” As COVID-19 gripped societies across the globe, consumer behavior evolved in lockstep. Availability quickly became the primary driver of choice for many categories – many of us would like to forget the endless (and largely unsuccessful) searches for toilet paper, disinfectant wipes, pasta and other household staples throughout last spring and summer. 

It was unlike anything most have experienced as consumers and with that uncertainty came a shift away from browsing, looking for something new to try and perhaps bigger-picture societal initiatives (e.g., sustainability) that might influence our decisions. Our behaviors were focused on simply finding what we needed and leaving the store as quickly as possible. In New York City for example, an eco-friendly switch to paper or reusable bags – implemented just before the outbreak – was suspended to minimize further virus transmission, allowing retailers to bring back plastic bags at checkout. sustainability concept green recycling sign with bottles around it

But as we gradually emerge from the worst of the pandemic, concerns about the long-term health of our planet are resurfacing. After a long year of challenges trying to keep supply chains intact and meet overwhelming demand, brands are once again turning their strategies and efforts toward sustainability. 

Fit within the larger story 

So, what does that mean for marketers with a sustainability story to tell? How does this narrative fit within the larger brand and product story? Let’s try and unpack things a bit.

At its core, the idea of sustainability can encompass a wide range of questions for shoppers during their purchase journey:

  • Is the product itself sustainable in terms of how materials are sourced? 
  • Is the packaging made in a sustainable way (i.e., from recycled materials)? 
  • Can the packaging be recycled once the product is removed?
  • Can the packaging be reused in the home for another purpose? 

These are all fair questions that can impact the strength of any sustainability message. But we must also consider how perceived answers to these questions might compete with potential trade-offs tied to the end-user experience:

  • Will it impact satisfaction (e.g., taste, efficacy, etc.)?
  • Will it impact functionality (e.g., portability, durability, safety, etc.)?
  • Am I getting less product or paying more for the same (e.g., a weaker value)?

The implication from a packaging standpoint is clear but challenging. And a classic case of what shoppers say vs. what they actually do.

On one hand, ever-dwindling attention spans and endless choices means our System 1 thinking will be hard at work narrowing our focus to what is truly important. As a result, brands must leverage packaging to deliver a clear and compelling story to potential buyers about their products. Remember the five Ws of journalism? Packaging must help shoppers investigate their options: Who is it made by? What benefit does it provide (and when)? Where can I find it? Why is it relevant?

If unsuccessful at any of these most fundamental levels, a product is at risk of being de-selected – the ultimate purchase barrier – well before any sustainability message can impact behavior. We know from watching shoppers scan thousands of packages across categories that most only engage with two or three primary messages on the label before moving on. So, these answers need to resonate quickly.

Of course, some brands were developed with an eco-friendly positioning from day one (e.g., Seventh Generation). But the large majority of products must delicately fold this message into an already cluttered brand promise. 

Virtually no mentions 

To further support this idea, our firm analyzed online search data from shoppers visiting grocery retailer websites to understand what is top-of-mind when forming their consideration sets. The most common search terms are many of the usual suspects we all have on our weekly shopping lists – cheese, chicken, beef, milk, bread, butter, chips, eggs, etc. Meanwhile, there were virtually no mentions tied to sustainability – including “eco-friendly” or “environmentally-friendly” searches.

While not surprising, this reinforces the functional mind-set of shoppers at this stage of their purchase journey. 

On the other hand, sustainability is a more rational and thought-provoking concept, a longer-term goal that goes against the grain of the System 1 behavior driving so many of our immediate purchases. All else being equal, most consumers do not question the positives tied to brands pursuing more sustainable offerings and would favor a product that is better for the environment. 

But in competitive product categories (e.g., FMCG), rarely is there a level playing field. Brands are endlessly competing for attention and awareness no matter their shelf footprint (i.e., facings) and placement. And beyond those important variables, we must also factor in the impact of the global pandemic.

Studies before COVID-19 revealed as high as 50% of shoppers in the U.S. (and even higher numbers globally) claimed they were ready to change shopping habits to reduce negative impact on the environment. But recently more cost-conscious consumers are raising doubts that they would make sustainable choices if the value equation changed (e.g., paying more for the same amount or the same amount for less product). One study recording priorities in U.K. shopper considerations reported that only 4% of shoppers said they would switch brands because of a more sustainable packaging option.

And in the world of shopper marketing, perception is very much reality. If a potential buyer perceives they are getting less bang for their buck, regardless of the actual equation, an additional barrier now sits between them and making that purchase. And as many shoppers are not experts in sustainability terminology (down to the legends and symbols of the regulating bodies who authenticate what thresholds must be met), those quick interpretations will play an even greater role at the point of sale. Essentially, brands need to make sure that the benefits outweigh the barriers – a delicate balance across the entirety of the marketing mix.

At Behaviorally, we’ve tracked shopper sentiment over the last six-plus months to gauge overall perceptions about how well brands are succeeding at being environmentally sustainable. Across countries and categories this amounted to over 85,000 shoppers spanning ages 18-69.

The most noteworthy insight we uncovered is the skepticism of younger shoppers – particularly those under age 40. Across categories and countries (U.S. and U.K.) this audience is significantly more likely to disagree that brands are doing a great job with their existing sustainability practices. In most cases, these negative levels range between 35-40% of this age group, while older age targets exhibit a more positive (or at least neutral) perception. 

So, what does all this mean? As brands further emphasize sustainable practices within their marketing efforts, consider these three key points:

1. Younger shoppers would be receptive to a compelling sustainability message…

The consistent sentiment across categories and countries suggests the negative perception among the under-40 audience is less about the kind of product/brand in question and more about the shopper mind-set. Younger consumers are more skeptical or perhaps looking at brand values more critically and as a result hold brands to a higher standard when it comes to sustainability. They believe brands can – and should – do better.

As younger generations have grown up through the emergence of social media, they are more likely to be using these platforms than older consumers. Brand websites, Instagram profiles and Twitter, among others, provide an effective vehicle to deliver these narratives and interact with their potential buyers.

If compelling, generating traffic to these messages can give brands a leg up on competitors as shoppers think about brands that are relevant to them. While it may not be the ultimate decision driver the next time they shop the category, it will at minimum raise awareness and possibly create a more “active search” for this brand.

2. …and these messages should focus on clear, tangible benefits.

This amounts to a terrific opportunity for brands to celebrate their efforts at creating sustainable products. For example, Waste Management uses its sponsorship of the Phoenix Open golf tournament to showcase its ability in diverting 100% of the waste associated with the tournament away from the landfill. It’s as much about the optics and how it is communicated – the wow factor of seeing “100%” of something is a pretty rare feat – as it is about the actual accomplishment.

3. Packaging must remain focused on the fundamentals.

Digital touchpoints are a convenient and relevant tool for brands to communicate sustainable benefits to consumers – especially those in the younger demographic. But more importantly, they can help minimize added stress on the already heavy workload expected of packaging.

Even for shoppers who have a specific brand or variety in mind, packaging will have a major influence on the ultimate choice. The ability to successfully stand out, be recognized and provide a compelling benefit when surrounded by similar items (regardless of physical or digital context) is the primary role packaging must achieve to minimize the friction between the shelf and basket.

Utilizing secondary panels of the pack (e.g., top, side, back) and/or linking messages to digital platforms outlined previously can help create a well-rounded story for consumers – allowing packaging to fulfill its System 1 responsibilities but also allowing easy access to sustainability credentials for those interested.

Here’s to greener pastures.