Survey Reveals People Prefer Cheaper Meat Alternatives Over Authentic Meat

A recent survey indicates that consumers may choose plant-based meat alternatives if priced significantly lower than real meat. Conducted by German universities, the study reveals insights into pricing’s impact on meat consumption habits and offers strategies for promoting meat substitutes.

In a new study, researchers have discovered that cost is the most significant factor influencing consumer acceptance of plant-based meat alternatives. Conducted by marketing researchers from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (MLU), Humboldt University Berlin and Georg August University Göttingen, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study surveyed 2,100 U.S. consumers.

Despite a growing market for plant-based products, meat consumption remains high globally, especially in affluent regions.

“Even though the supply of plant-based alternatives has been growing for years, the demand for meat persists. Unfortunately, there is very little reliable data on the general acceptance of meat alternatives, what conditions are required to make them more attractive, and whether or not they are just a fad,” Steffen Jahn, an economist and interim professor at MLU’s Chair of Marketing & Innovation, said in a news release.

The survey revealed surprising trends.

When presented with four types of burgers — real beef, a plant-based meat imitation (analogue), a vegetarian option mimicking only the appearance of meat (semi-analogue) and a falafel burger (non-analogue) — the majority chose the meat option.

However, the falafel burger emerged as the most popular meat alternative, contrary to common assumptions that meat substitutes must closely resemble their meat counterparts to be accepted.

“However, we did not expect to find that the falafel burger was the most popular meat alternative, while the analogue burger came in last place. This contradicts the widespread assumption that meat substitutes are only competitive if they are as close as possible to the original,” added Jahn.

Consumer behavior shifted significantly when price differences were introduced.

“Meat alternatives are currently more expensive than meat, which is why there are discussions about adjusting the prices into alignment. However, we found that price parity has no real effect on people’s choices,” Jahn added.

Only when plant-based options were notably cheaper did consumers show a consistent preference for these alternatives. For instance, a 10% price reduction for an analogue burger predicted a 14% sales increase, while halving the price could potentially double its preference among consumers.

The survey also highlighted gender differences, showing men, who generally consume more meat, are more likely to choose a cheaper alternative over women.

“Restaurants and food manufacturers might actually be able to increase their sales of vegetarian or vegan alternatives if they offered meat substitutes at lower prices than the meat options. A truly faithful imitation is not the goal here, our study suggests. Maybe it’s because many people associate them with ultra-processed foods, which have a bad reputation,” added Jahn.

To capitalize on these findings, the study’s authors recommend a broad range of alternative products to cater to diverse consumer groups, emphasizing that an exact replication of meat is less crucial than offering a financially attractive and varied selection.

This revelation heralds a significant opportunity for food manufacturers and restaurants to promote sustainable eating habits through pricing strategies, addressing the environmental and ethical concerns associated with high meat consumption. As discussions around sustainable food sources continue, this study provides tangible direction on how to enhance the appeal of plant-based diets.