SPECIAL ISSUES: BIOTECH

April 16, 2001

Selling Biotechnology Requires Putting Aside False Assumptions About Consumers
By Brian Wansink, Associate Professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois and director of the U of I's Food and Brands Lab.

Both proponents and opponents of biotechnology claim that their goal is to educate consumers so they can make informed decisions. Opponents focus on the risks of biotechnology, and proponents focus on the benefits. Neither side has generated a majority of support, and many consumers are still confused about the issue. Yet a large part of the confusion consumers have about biotechnology can be attributed to misguided communication efforts by both sides. Both these groups have inaccurate assumptions about consumers that limit their effectiveness as communicators.
Contrary to what proponents think, the biotechnology controversy will not be forgotten, nor will all people become advocates once they "see the science." Contrary to what opponents think, many people do not care to be informed about the details of biotechnology, and the risks associated with biotechnology will not keep them from enjoying the personal benefits it can offer.

Many of the proponents of biotechnology in the agricultural community continue to operate on the assumption that the controversy will eventually "blow over." This belief – or hope – was a critical mistake made by British firms. In 1994, public sentiment toward biotechnology was neutral if not moderately positive. The industry, therefore, took no real efforts to build public support or enthusiasm for biotechnology because attitudes toward it appeared to be improving each month.

Although attitudes were improving, they were neither fully-formed nor stable. As a result, when "mad cow disease" became an issue, the industry had not generated the appropriate level of education nor a solid enough basis of support to keep the issue in perspective and to keep biotechnology moving forward. Some proponents in the United States also believe that improving sentiments among the non-vocal majority indicate that the biotechnology controversy will pass. The fallacy of their assumption is that they are only one "mad cow disease" episode away from losing all the biotechnological ground that has been gained.

Another major fallacy is that "science sells" and that, if consumers are given the facts, they will come to the proper conclusions. Yet even with identical information and beliefs, different people can arrive at opposite conclusions. With relatively low awareness and knowledge of biotechnology, the attitudes of people can be easily swayed by peripheral cues such as public opinion, publicity, sound bites, source credibility, labeling, and emotion and fear. For those person, careful scientific reports and expertly articulated third party testimonials will have little direct impact on their attitude toward biotechnology.

Some religious groups also oppose the use of biotechnology on the ground that experimenting with lives is "playing God." These religious and ethical concerns will become even more vocal as further advances in gene technology bring fear of human gene selection and cloning. Phrases or sound-bites, such as "playing God," can lead at least some people to label biotechnology as wrong without considering its benefits.

Many proponents still think that Biotechnology education is a trade association issue. Yet, the first step of biotechnology education is partly a branding issue. Before people will listen to a proponent's perspective, biotechnology must provide a clear and focused message that is important to consumers. In the biotechnology marketing battle, the opponents of biotechnology clearly have the upper hand. The powerful "brand" visuals that are associated with names such as "FrankenFoods" leave little wonder why the public is able to latch on to "bumper-sticker logic" and be swayed toward skepticism or opposition.

Trade associations, scientific organizations, and the government probably cannot effectively brand biotechnology in a way that leaves it clear in a consumer's mind. The majority of trade association efforts in this regard have not been as effective as hoped for or claimed. If firms are to compete with the "spin" that opponents of biotechnology create, they need to realize that branding biotechnology deserves some of their best marketing minds. It is too important to be out-sourced or trusted to a risk-aversive trade association or government agency.

For proponents of biotechnology, continuous education is critical even if appears that many consumers are not interested in the issue. Although a person might be uninterested in biotechnology today, windows of potential influence frequently open and close. Continuous education keeps informed consumers informed and offers disinterested consumers the opportunity to learn. The more effort that is invested in education, the less risk there is that consumers will some day overreact to biotechnology on the basis of emotion, fear, memorable phrases, or unfounded benefits.

-30-