Does negative information on conventional meat work as an effective communication strategy to promote plant-based meat consumption?

Purpose This study aims to explore the efficacy of three different information interventions (negative information highlighting the negative impacts of conventional meat consumption, positive information emphasizing the benefits of plant-based meat alternative (PBMA) consumption, and a combination of these two types) for enhancing consumers’ preference for PBMA. Design/methodology/approach In this study, we use a hypothetical choice experiment and a between-subject design to empirically investigate the effects of different types of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for PBMA. Findings The results indicate that consumers are unwilling to pay for PBMA, but they are willing to pay a high premium for PBMA labeled as low fat and high protein. We find that negative information, either alone or in combination with positive information, successfully increased consumers’ preference for PBMA. Conversely, the use of positive information alone failed to have the same impact. Practical implications Our findings provide important implications for stakeholders in designing effective communication strategies to encourage consumers towards the consumption of PBMA. Originality/value This research is the first attempt to explore the effectiveness of negative information (i.e. information on the negative impacts of conventional meat consumption) on consumers’ preference for plant-based meat.