There's so much research out there that points to much the same thing - products that communicate nutrition claims have increased expectations of healthiness but decreased perceptions of taste. In just one example, a study that compared taste expectations of chicken soup based on front-of-pack communications, showed that consumers expected the product labelled as 'lower salt' to be less tasty*.

For every food brand we've worked with, taste usually appears in the top three purchase drivers. It's a finding that itself should be taken with a pinch of salt - not least because taste is so subjective. How we experience taste depends on many physical factors such as our age, our sense of smell, whether we have a cold or other illness, or the physical characteristics of the food such as its viscosity or the temperature it's eaten at.

Taste and expectations of taste are also different things. Irrespective of actual flavour delivery, we generally expect those foods for which we feel we're making a compromise to be less tasty than the no-compromise alternative. For most food categories, the 'better for you' option is expected to be less tasty than its 'full fat' counterpart.

So, if the expectation already exists, how do 'better for you' products overcome the purchase intent barrier that lower taste expectations create?

Here are just some of the ways we've seen brands tackling this issue:

• Appetite appeal
  Borrow from the language of indulgence. Halo Top Ice Creams don't give the impression that there's any compromise in their products - in fact, their ice cream tubs look every bit as indulgent as Haagen Daz. Yet, at around half the calorific content of their competitors, they are occupying a 'better for you' positioning within the market.
  
  
• Fuel expectations
  The words we use to describe foods on packaging and in comms, establish consumer expectations of taste. The superbly named Simply Roasted crisps (after all, who doesn't love a roast potato?) are described as triple cooked for a crunchier crisp. Again, they can boast 50% less fat than standard counterparts yet overcome any concerns we may have about taste expectation by linking to more indulgent ideas around triple cooked and roasting.
  
  
• Flavourful colour
  Research on the psychology of colour has its supporters and detractors, but there are times when leaning into colours that have assumed certain connotations in consumers' memory structures can help overcome diminished taste expectations. Take Arla BOB, for example. It's playful and bold and hits you in the face with its bright yellow. Linking with this rich, buttery colour increases expectations of creaminess, tackling head-on one of the challenges of communicating that the product is skimmed milk that tastes like semi-skimmed.
  
  
• Communicate a positive rather than negative
  Trying to directly tackle low taste expectations in comms, like Vita Coco did with their 'impossible to hate' campaign means, you're starting from a negative. Whilst you may want to take an enemy when it comes to your comms, your enemy should come from without - for example, standing against mediocrity or being the antidote to complicated. When you start your comms by highlighting your own weakness, you simply draw attention to it. Vita Coco's insight is likely to have shown them that taste expectation is a major barrier to purchase, but saying 'it's not as bad as you think' is unlikely to break down those barriers, even if it does make for a fun campaign.
  
  Weetabix, by contrast, focuses on their strength (literally and metaphorically) in their brand building. Their comms focus on a message around 'giving you the energy to go about your day'. As consumers, we are encouraged to think about this rather than 'worrying' about expectations of taste. In their activation comms, they focus on showing us how we can create a tasty breakfast through the addition of other ingredients from fruit and yogurt to baked beans!