Tenerife, the most populous of the Canary Islands, is the site for this year’s edition of the meeting of the Global Organization of EPA and DHA Omega-3s. The biannual event brings together scientists, formulators, brand holders and researchers to share about the latest developments in business strategies, research, regulatory affairs and market analysis.
During a session titled “The Omega 3 Trust Paradox” market analysts Judy Taylor and Gill Ereaut discussed what they’ve learned about the omega-3 category using the methods of social science research. Taylor looked at what consumers understand about the ingredients using traditional tools such as focus groups as well as other mechanisms, while Ereaut conducted a linguistic analysis of omega-3 packaging and what labels are saying to end users. The elevator pitch version: Core consumers are dedicated to the category, some fanatically so, even if they don’t understand much about its scientific backing, but marketers don’t seem to trust that loyalty and bombard them with a plethora of edgy, nervous label declarations.
Crowded, nervous, anxious labels
Ereaut said that she was struck during the course of her analysis of the labels of hundreds of omega-3 products just how much designers sought to cram into these small spaces. While the effect was striking, it did not leave her with a favorable impression of the effectiveness of the labels or even of the self assuredness of the companies that commissioned them. To expand a bit on Ereaut’s comments, its almost as if omega-3s are the fast-talking, sideways-glancing, sharkskin-suit-wearing carnival barkers of the supplement sphere, judging solely on how the labels are designed.
“My overall impression is it’s really noisy out there,” Ereaut said. “It’s rare to see large amounts f empty space on packages. It’s not very sophisticated, in comparison the skin care category where many packages are spare and bare.”
“The effect is it starts to feel a little anxious. The language is full of intensifiers, words like ‘more,’ ‘critical,’ ‘ultra’ and ‘max.’ It’s a bit like a street market, where with the best of intentions all these brands are shouting at me from all sides. If you have to say something so much there has to be an underlying anxiety that people don’t believe you,” she said.
Ereaut and Taylor both said a complicating factor in communicating the benefits of omega-3s to consumers is that the molecules have good evidence of benefit in a variety of health indications. They could be seen, in effect, as being too good for their own good.
“Some of the problem might be that omega-3s do so much, that it’s hard to tell one story well. It’s difficult to make something that is so panaceaic into something that is specific for the consumer,” Taylor said.
“There is a kind of ‘sciency-ness’ without the science. Brands are seeking to differentiate, some based on a different body part or conditions. Joints, or heart health, for example. The category doesn’t have a single understanding,” Ereaut said.
Pure as the driven snow, or no?
Ereaut said in particular that there is little agreement among marketers and package designers about what makes one product better than another. “Purity” is a big buzz word, for example, and many brands want to assume that image. But what does ‘pure’ mean when talking about omega-3s?
“There is a race to see who can be the purest of the pure. But there are two non-complementary ways of defining purity out there. Does ‘pure’ mean highly refined, where as much has been removed from the oil as possible, or does it mean an oil that is close to nature, where the oil comes from the fish and as little as done to it as possible before it goes to market?” she said.
Ereaut also said there is a jarring contrast between the urge to be as bombastic as possible on the front of the label and the constrained, hemmed-in nature of the approved qualified health claims on the back that feature phrases such as ‘supportive but not conclusive research.’
“If you can connect in a more streamlined way with how consumers are thinking it helps move away from that confusion. Right now there is a tension between the shouty bits on the front and the oh-I-didn’t-really-mean-it messages on the back,” Ereaut said.
Streamlining through symbolism
Both Taylor and Ereaut suggested that by reining the messaging in a bit, marketers could come out ahead. Piling on intensifiers, specifications such as dosages, and claims for health benefits all into a label measuring perhaps two inches on its long dimension might be losing the forest for the trees.
“I suggesting a mode suggesting and symbolizing things rather than outright saying them. It’s a mode of communication that does not come naturally to scientists. It’s a matter of having confidence not to say certain things,” Ereaut said.
Taylor offered some examples of how the approach could work. Rather than saying “from cold water fish species” or wordy descriptions of the purity of the environment from which the fish came, she suggested showing mountains overlooking seacoasts or columns of blue, sunlight-infused water with the suggestive, silver forms of fish coursing through them. This could resonate with consumers, a significant core demographic of whom believe that omega-3s support their health at a profound level, she said.
Ereaut said it’s a matter of focusing the messages on the ultimate goal of improving consumer’s health, and doing so in a simple, clear way, rather than trying to tell a consumer all the things a brand holder might think is good about the product. It’s akin to a car repair shop telling its customers it will improve their lives by ensuring their continued access to trouble-free transportation rather than detailing all the individual solutions it might offer for all of the problems a car might have.
“It comes from a place of radiating deep wellness,” she said.