What interests consumers and how can brands address concerns
The concept of personalised nutrition itself is loosely defined and differs from brand to brand. While the market serves a heterogeneous consumer group, the reason an individual gravitates to a product or service is, of course, personal. Marco Iotti, CSO and CTO of Mixfit, segregates the pool, saying the silent majority are in it for the emotional appeal that personalised nutrition promises: the fact that someone is ‘listening’ to the consumer’s needs. Iotti notes this is the low spending portion of the consumer group, but also the less demanding. “On the opposite side, we have the early adopters, who are invested in tracking their improvement over time. They want to see and feel results; they spend more, but they are also the more demanding clients,” he adds.
But how does interest start? Nard Clabbers, co-owner and chief scientific officer at Happ, believes people become interested in improved nutrition for specific health reasons, such as weight management, diabetes, and now immunity, considering COVID-19. More niche reasons for seeking personalised advice include performance-related questions for athletes or other high-performers.
Improved insights, support and data analytics has contributed to the growth of personalised nutrition. “Reasons for the surging interest are advances in technology—allowing for easy access to increased amounts of biometric information from consumers anywhere and anytime, and the consumer’s demand for outcome-based solutions,” says Jonathan Jones, chief scientific officer at Monteloeder. As technology and science advance, this important data becomes more accessible for the consumer, who realises the potential benefits in self-managing their health, especially in this ‘new normal’ that favours social distancing and ‘DIY’ solutions, he adds.
On the back of the pandemic and at the height of consumer action, personalised nutrition brands shouldn’t neglect two significant factors that influence long-term commitment and repeat purchasing: clear benefit and appropriate cost. Consumers are less likely to choose solutions that are very expensive and where benefits are not clearly communicated or, in some cases, where effects take too long, says Mariette Abrahams, founder and CEO of Qina. Clabbers echoes this, adding in order to reach the mass market, personalised nutrition should be very low threshold and high benefit. Often, the gap between effort and result is too great for large groups of consumers to participate, he says.
Scientific proof is becoming increasingly important and products with recognisable ingredients and their benefits are more likely to be selected. Abrahams notes: “Products and solutions that are supported by experts such as registered dietitians are also more trusted and build a level of safety.” Practitioners are also customers, who, of course, suddenly had to go digital, and are also looking for solutions to help their clients adopt healthy behaviours that are science-based, reliable and accurate. Research shows practitioners are more likely to recommend solutions to their clients and patients based on peer reviews, scientific validity, usability and price,1 says Abrahams.
Many personalised nutrition services rely heavily on data collection and analytics in order to deliver customised solutions to consumers. Over the years, people have become more conscious of the fact that their data has value and are concerned about privacy implications, says Marcus Stripf, founder of Spoon Guru. “Reputable service providers ensure that data is handled securely and, most importantly, that consumers understand the value they receive in exchange for their data,” he says. While brands should never neglect their privacy protection practices, experts have noted that attitudes toward data sharing are relaxing.
Abrahams highlights a recent survey by Deloitte revealing that consumers have become less concerned about data sharing in 2020; however, this differs by age groups, with younger generations more willing to share—unsurprisingly. “Another trend we see is personalised nutrition companies partnering with non-competing brands to have access to wider population groups. Finally, data banks and a move toward consumers owning their own data is certainly on the rise,” she shares. Trust in the provider remains an important issue when it comes to data-sharing, with consumers being more trusting of their healthcare providers versus technology companies.
Iotti resonates with these findings, stating that consumers have shown, especially in this year of pandemic, that the value of their privacy is indirectly proportional to the benefit of sharing data. Personalised nutrition can have an enormous impact on people’s health but this has to be shown and consumers need to be convinced. Companies, at the same time, need to be more transparent about what they do with the data with which they are entrusted, he says.
Data protection continues to see updates, reflected through changes in European and even U.S. policies on data and privacy. “I predict future opportunities for companies to enable full data ownership for their consumers,” Clabbers says. “This would allow for a very concise, flexible and informed relationship between the company and customer. This should give the user the flexibility to decide who is going to use their data and what they will stand to gain from that use.”
The pandemic has been the ultimate demonstration that health, lifestyle and wellbeing choices can impact individual susceptibility to illness and minimisation of disease risk. At the same time, social distancing and lockdowns are driving consumers to take more personal responsibility for their health, says Jones.
Reflecting on consumer behaviour, Stripf shares that his company’s research found 50% of UK shoppers are purchasing more health consciously; one in five Brits have cut down on meat consumption over the pandemic period. Stripf also notes three big trends observed: the move toward plant-based, growing interest in ‘healing’ foods, and greater demand for long-life/shelf-stable products.
Abrahams highlights that consumers have made the connection between nutrition and health, including the important role the microbiome plays in immune health. Additionally, the rapid adoption of digital tools has meant more people are proactively tracking, monitoring and self-managing their health concerns using their smartphone or accessing experts via telehealth platforms. She explains this awareness and convenience in accessing healthcare and engaging with digital tools means that future prevention opens the doors widely for personalised nutrition solutions, and to equip consumers with digital and nutrition literacy.
Abrahams further observes that COVID-19 has exposed inequality when it comes to specific groups disproportionately affected with death rates. She states: “It is known that black men in the UK are three times more likely to die from the disease than any other ethnic group. This has demonstrated the lack of research, resources allocated to prevention, and tailored healthcare provision made for these specific groups, who would benefit greatly from personalised nutrition solutions.” In a bid to benchmark solutions across the industry that benefit society as a whole, Abrahams mentions Qina’s recently launched platform that consolidates all known companies and scores them according to a variety of factors.
Finally, when observing the positive personalised nutrition opportunity on the back of a pandemic, Iotti warns industry to be very careful with placing nutrition and disease in the same sentence. While the general population has indeed become more aware of the role of vitamins, minerals and extracts, he says: “Nutrition is not a remedy to illness; it is not medicine, and it is our responsibility to keep marketing departments of companies clean of dubious statements.”
The rapid adoption of digital tools has meant more people are proactively tracking, monitoring and self-managing their health concerns using their smartphone or accessing experts via telehealth platforms