Hacker News Reader

Comment by autokad | Hacker News Reader

I believe thinking of it only as a 'meat substitution' might be missing a larger trend in that a new segment is being created.

View on HN

I think they should not call it meat anything. They should just create a new thing, so people can appreciate it for what it is, rather than expect meat and get an uncanny valley effect.

Nobody is confused when they buy this product that it’s animal based meat. The packaging is very clear about what it is.

It’s called meat because it tastes and feels like meat. It’s a perfectly cromulent word to use because it describes what the product is.

When you give it a name that alludes to it being meat you're setting the product up for failure because people will ofcourse compare it to meat and since its not meat they will judge it as "worse."

So, what could we call Turkey Burgers?

Better question: What do we call veggie burgers that predate impossible and beyond meat?

I imagine it's easier to compare it to a burger than it is to spend marketing dollars on a new plant-based sandwich. I also imagine that because it's comparable to a burger, you're not alienating those who are on the margin that still like meat, but are open to trying a plant-based "burger".

I think "burger" is diversified enough that people can accept it not being meat and not compare it directly to meat. When you name a specific meat though like "plant based chicken" you can't think of anything else.

Soy milk is an entirely different product than animal milk and they don't taste at all similar, yet I'm ok with it being called "soy milk" because "soy-based beverage that looks similar to milk" just doesn't roll off the tongue.

The use of "milk" for e.g. almond milk dates back to the medieval era. Despite big dairy's current propaganda run, the term doesn't belong to cow juice.

Call it soy juice.

Soy beans don't have nipples.

The eventual goal is to get past the uncanny valley, isn't it?

This would be a sure fire way to ensure failure of any attempt to transition society off of meat. The framing of impossible meat as meat is very intentional and key to the persuasion/marketing strategy towards transitioning meat eaters to it. If you think of it as a vegetarian option, not “meat that doesn’t hurt animals”, you will see less people choosing it because you are making it less appealing to them, since people who eat meat associate vegetarian food as less enjoyable (since otherwise they’d be preferring it.)

Once the difference between real meat and artificial meat is closed in terms of flavor and texture (to the point where most meat eaters will not have a huge preference) then the framing being taken now will pay dividends.

Exactly, this is the real reason for the name. It's not marketing. It is social manipulation of the 1984 newspeak variety.

But, do all these anti-meat people not care about all the cows and chickens that got to exist because people love eating their tasty flesh?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com