What’s the longer-term impact on CPG food of the increasing popularity of GLP1 medicines?
Here goes: Based on 20 years of consumer regression-based exploration in CPG food, from sweet baked goods
to breakfast cereals
to baby foods
to confection
to diet brands
to wellness brands
to salty snacks
to soft drinks
to condiments to more than I can remember probably.
The question the speculation hasn’t addressed is the question of the presence of children (and their ages) in the home.
CPG food is typically a ‘mother’s shopping list’ plus surprise and delight spontaneous whims.
According to friends of mine who started GLP1 medicines and have become evangelists for the magical impact they provide,
the desire to be ‘naughty’ or spontaneously combust with a ‘what the hell’ YOLO moment
is virtually annihilated by the drug.
So that transgression/regret mechanism is gone.
You know the one: the sleeve of Oreos that woke them up at three in the morning.
If the person on a GLP1 is alone or with a comparably-dosed partner,
the thrill of the late night munchies is totally extinguished in the home.
In that case, the portion control of a 100-calorie pack version (thin wafer) is probably a ‘shareable’ indulgence with a partner.
Made better if the wafers are augmented with protein or some such.
So portfolio balancing time. Repackaging. Smaller sizes, better ingredients: premiumization.
However, if there are kids in the house:
The memory trace of ‘my mother loves me’ that comes with all sweet treats
is compelling.
What mother doesn’t want to have three Oreos and a glass of milk ready for her kids after school?
It’s baked into the culture.
And now, it bears no risk for the adults.
No longer interested or compelled by it.
Or afraid of it.
No risk, great reward. And hey! If the kids become addicted to the sugar/chocolate one-two punch?
Well they can resort to GLP1 later, a real safety net for indulgences in the pantry.
It’s in the more complex world of kids maturing that the food issues become more snarled:
The Jungian archetype for mother is ‘the good and terrible mother.’
That’s right.
The step-mother Disney paradigm:
In food speak:
If she loved me so much, why did she addict me to something that puts fat on my thighs?
In cereal, confections and salty snacks,
even the most careful mother loses control when the child reaches about seven-years old
when the child has her/his first sleep-over:
Johnnie’s mom lets them have Trix or their own bag of Lays or whatever transgressive indulgence that works
as an act of independence, rebellion and individualization.
Fledgling autonomy.
An important moment on the flight plan of becoming a person not an appendage.
If the GLP1-medicated household no longer sees the indulgence categories as fraught,
do those categories still carry any transgressive charge?
Can they still create lift-off for autonomy through rebellion?
Or does that force other mechanisms younger: smoking, drinking, weird rock groups, etc?
This is the foundational sociological question which tempers the cultural role of GLP1 meds for CPG food and arguably in QSR.
If the consumer isn’t tempted by McDonals’ French fries
is it a) easier to take the soccer team there after practice or b) less interesting?
Again, based on anecdotal reports of my couple friends:
they still go out to eat with friends, but now one couple shares an entree and appetizer.
And, they don’t drink as much or at all.
And increasingly they resent the ‘let’s all just split the check in the middle’ moment.
So: net-net: presence of (what age) children in the home?
That’s a line of demarcation. Would love to get under the hood of it.