7 ms·
Almost as important as the technology is the marketing. They need to get on message for this even at this early stage. Calling it "Artificial Meat" is already c
by gfodor 15y ago
Almost as important as the technology is the marketing. They need to get on message for this even at this early stage. Calling it "Artificial Meat" is already conceding the battle. It's not artificial, it's real meat.
"Cultured"? Conjures up images of lab coats. "Man-made"? Not much better.
I'd say some better ideas:
- Humane meat
- Painless meat
- Slaughterless meat
- Guiltless meat
- Pure meat
To me, pure meat probably wins. It's meat, but without all the ugly impurities introduced by having an animal grow it in the wild. See how much of a difference successful framing can make to how you "feel" about a product?
- maxerickson 15y agoMake it cheap enough and the branding matters a lot less. Just cycle through brands until once sticks. The meat products industry is already full of potentially disturbing stuff that people think is delicious (hotdogs and chicken nugget goo (really, mechanically separated chicken) come to mind).
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y agoPure meat seems a little ambiguous, i would call it post-meat (yeah, with the hyphen included); because it sounds like and advanced version of meat and also to honour Dr. Post, one of the leaders of this invention.
- nodata 15y agoPost-meat sounds like it was meat, and now it's something undefined. "But it was meat!"
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y agoWell, is not technically meat because it was never part of an animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meat http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meat).
- sliverstorm 15y agoIf you want to make it sound advanced, you got to do what the masses will understand. I am loath to suggest it, but: Meat 2.0
- gavinballard 15y agoThat naming scheme for food products doesn't seem to work out well in practice: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6128164/vegemite-abandons-isnack2-0-name http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/6128164/vegemi...
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- latch 15y agoYou can look at the gemstone industry for insight into how to market this. There are definitely positive angles you could push (just like conflict-free stuff). As for names, cultured pearls, created emeralds, cultivated diamonds, ...
- MaysonL 15y agoMeat even vegetarians can eat.
- hellweaver666 15y agoVeggie-meat
- TomAnthony 15y agoIsn't that cooked vegetarians?
- westicle 15y agoDepends on the reasons they have for being vegetarian I suspect.
- anigbrowl 15y agoSee how much of a difference successful framing can make to how you "feel" about a product? I like knowing what I'm eating, not how you want me to feel about it. I am just fine eating artificial meat, cultured in a lab by people in white coats.
- csallen 15y agoI like knowing what I'm eating, not how you want me to feel about it. To be fair, a name is just a name. Marketing isn't meant to educate you about the product's details.
- davidw 15y agoAnd you're in the minority, which is why marketing campaigns are not aimed at people like you.
- biot 15y agoHave you petitoned McDonald's to rename its Big Mac to Bovine Tissue Sandwich yet?
- dansingerman 15y agoI'd go for 'True Meat' (c.f. True Blood - the drink from the TV show - artificially created human blood for vampires)
- jonnathanson 15y ago"- Humane meat - Painless meat - Slaughterless meat - Guiltless meat" The problem with these names is that, subconsciously, they conjure up the very things you're trying to avoid. The term "slaughterless" calls to mind visions of slaughter. The word "painless," especially in an unfamiliar context -- like that of food -- gives a queezy feeling in the pit of the stomach. (One thinks: "Is this food going to hurt me?") And the word "humane" is close enough to "human" to cause discomfort, even in people who are well aware of the difference between those words. Far better, IMO, to go with phrasing that draws no attention to negatives. "Sustainably raised," "sustainably grown," or even just "sustainable" would be interesting choices. (Though even the word "grown" might evoke the wrong idea for a lot of consumers). This phrasing says "green" without implying "Soylent Green." Alternatively, you borrow a page from the tuna industry, who wisely chose "dolphin-safe" over the more psychologically onerous "dolphin-free," and go with "animal-safe" or some variant thereof. Of your suggestions, "guiltless" also seems pretty effective. I'm on the fence about "pure," inasmuch as it forces the mind to wander to the meat's origins. Furthermore, it could backfire in a big way -- especially with the Christian crowd, who would see cultured meat as "unnatural" in comparison to traditional meat.
- mike-cardwell 15y agoMarketing for this particular product is irrelevant. Only cost matters. If it becomes cheap to mass produce, governments around the World will slowly start legislating [1] to either make meat from animals illegal to produce, or prohibitively expensive (through taxes) for the majority of people to buy. Meat from animals would become a luxury item. If it's cheap and it tastes nice, most people wont care where it came from. [1] Given the state of politics in the US, it would probably be incredibly difficult for such legislation to come into existence there. I suspect Europe would lead.
- jerf 15y agoLong term, I agree, but the short and medium term can be heavily affected by marketing, and that can still add up to a lot of money/animals/pollution/etc. before the cost advantage wins out.
- onemoreact 15y agoYou don't need to raise taxes to kill the cattle industry just remove the gigantic subsidies and force it to compete with something that costs 1/3 as much.
- gerggerg 15y agoDon't worry, when costs go down there will be plenty of marketers giving it plenty of 'appetizing' names. Let the scientists stick to the science.