Steak Out

The emotional leverage changing the food industry.

PERHAPS THE biggest surprise about Burger King selling Impossible Whoppers is not that the Whopper has turned vegetarian, but that it uses the same egg-based mayonnaise as its beef-filled brethren. In the shift towards sustainable foods, Burger King has pointedly rejected defining their halo product ‘vegan’. In fact, neither v-word exists in their marketing. Instead Burger King tags their product ‘100% Whopper. 0% Beef’: bold, swaggering terms that intensify the Whopper image and leverage the appeal of the word ‘beef’. It also costs more than a beef burger, making it higher in perceived quality, according to Consumer Research. In short, Burger King is doing everything it can to preserve the emotional indulgence of eating a burger.

The key insight behind why a vegetarian Whopper can stand alongside standard beef is the understanding that the emotional quotient is as vital as the flavour and the rationale behind opting out of meat. The browning of a burger and bleeding of steak can now be imitated by non-meat foods. Such is the augmentation of the flavour and texture of meat, Impossible even refers to their products not as vegetarian, but as meat. This is controversial. Even the imagery targets meat-eaters over vegetarians. Just as Botticelli’s ‘Birth of Venus’ can serve as an allegory to sell lingerie, so Impossible Foods’ website employs a barbecue to suggest the sizzle-factor of fat on flames.

Yet V-burgers do not exist in isolation, but as part of a broader shift in eating habits. As one wave propels consumer attention towards the damage inflicted on the planet by cattle so another raises the flag on processed foods. The environment closer to home is also evolving. Three square meals a day is off the table for many; Deliveroo is replacing cooking; and food is eaten on the go: on foot, at the desk and potentially in traffic as autonomous cars beckon to disrupt our domestic routine. Not only our diets need changing, but that of livestock too. Trials in Australia show that when added to animal feed, sea-weed reduced methane emissions of cattle by 99%.

Vegetarians know how delicious vegetarian food can be; meat-eaters are still prone to suspicion. So what is it about the v-words that is considered unappealing? The World Resources Institute offers a clue. In their two year study, marketing food as 'vegan' or 'vegetarian' was found to depress product sales. Consumers consider vegan means ‘different from me’, and the term had twice as many negative connotations on social media as 'plant-based'. 'Meat-free' is also no-go, conspicuously identifying what is absent, while 'vegetarian' fares little better, representing heath, but to the detriment of flavour. Trials show that identical products labelled ‘healthy’ and unhealthy’ were rated unequally for taste. No prizes for guessing which was preferred.

McDonald’s is not being so coy, and this year introduced the Big Vegan TS burger to Germany. The sandwich is centred around the Nestle-sourced ‘Incredible Burger’ patty, with the hyperbole dialed down on the menu for more matter-of-fact, brand-you-can-trust appeal. This ethos follows Ray Kroc, who franchised McDonald’s in the 1950’s and described the first appeal of the brand“[McDonalds is a] typical English-American word, it flowed. ‘McDonald’s’: I liked the sound of it, it sounded wholesome and it sounded genuine… I don’t like these gimmick-type names, y’know, ‘Burger this’ and ‘Burger that’ and all that kinda stuff. ‘McDonald’s’ has got a nice sounding name.”

That same decade, DuPont developed soy-based meat-substitutes, described by one former employee as looking and tasting like balsa wood. It was clear then that to turn it into something marketable would demand additives, including salt, sugar and other flavourings. Today, the Impossible Burger contains four times as much sodium as a beef patty. Ironically Kroc rejected using soybean filler in hamburger patties, considering it a cost-cutting measure which didn’t fully deliver on customers’ expectations.

Change the context, and over the past decade we have witnessed similar patterns in the automotive sector. Like Burger King rejecting the potentially divisive ‘vegan’ term, so the car-industry has shunned ‘green’ in favour of BlueTec (Daimler), AdBlue (diesels) and Frozen Blue (BMW i) to elevate more efficient products. The steak-juice and browning is the ride and handling, where much emotional appeal is derived from the experience: feel the texture of tarmac through the steering-wheel, and hear the revs soar as you drop down for a corner. Yet driver aids and simplified electric drivetrains risk eroding this engagement. In the next ten years, even the role of the steering wheel could diminish. How, then, will brands promising driver-involvement engage the customer when all functions have been automated? Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat suggest a direction, not by switching product concept -cars are for now as culturally intrinsic as burgers - but by finding sustainable methods to hit those emotional triggers. The ingredients might change, but the food industry shows how with the right investments in innovation and smart branding, technology can drive new experiences of desirability.