MichaelAaron Flicker on How GLP-1s Change Food Industry & Household Dynamics

Welcome to Market Matters. I'm Marley Kaden. This is episode 20 and today we are looking beyond the medical headlines of GLP-1 agonists to examine what may be one of the most significant consumer behavior re-engineering events of our generation. We know these drugs regulate blood sugar and suppress appetite. But as adoption accelerates, the ripple effects are extending far beyond the individual patients. 13 out of 20 were thinking about food noise interrupting their daily routine drops to six out of 20. A 54% dis decline. And what that shows us is the mental state of how people approach buying, approach consuming is really changing. >> Joining us today is Michael Aaron Flicker, the founder of Method 1, president of Xenoai Ventures and co-author of Hacking the Human Mind. Michael Aaron sits at the direct intersection of behavioral science, brands, and business, studying not just what consumers say they will do, but what they actually do when their underlying psychology and biology shifts. Michael Aaron, welcome to the podcast. I've I've really been looking forward to this. We find a lot of our guests in our TV interviews and and we talked all about GLP1s and I've been waiting to dive in. My my love of this space and adoption is no secret. But before we get into the specifics about what GLP1s do to individual psychology and biology, let's talk macro first. We've watched usage expand so rapidly. The latest data says nearly one in eight Americans are currently taking a GLP1. It's higher if you look at people who have taken them. When a consumer shift hits this level of critical mass so quickly, how do you categorize it from a behavioral science perspective? Is this a standard health and and wellness trend? Is that what we're looking at? Or is this a structural shift in consumer adoption that's unlike anything we've seen in in recent decades? I think there's really a lot of impact that one person's change has on how the entire family eats. So, you use the stat, one in eight Americans are currently using a GLP1 uh medication, but one out of five households are have someone in the house using that medication. So it creates this situation where if one person in the family wants to eat different then every the center of gravity of that family starts to shift. Then everybody's starting to think how they're going to eat different. If you think about grocery shopping that may change what's going into the basket. And if you think about going to restaurants that may change the type of restaurant they're going to. It also may change the type of food they order when they're at the restaurant if they're sharing appetizers or sharing desserts. So, yes, there's a lot of Americans that are currently or have tried a GLP1, but the number of households the penetration uh of total families that are affected by this is even bigger. So, it really creates uh a big impact on Americans. All right, I want to unpack all of that and and the broader effect than just the user, but I want to talk specifically about the user before we do that. You spend a lot of time studying the gap between what consumers say they want and what they are actually doing. And GLP1s have a unique scenario because they actually alter the underlying biology. So when you've got millions of consumers simultaneously experiencing a biologically driven reduction in hunger, how does that then fundamentally rewrite the everyday psychology of consumer decision making around food? >> So the discussion around food noise is really interesting. There was an informed study done this year that found that the over 550 US Americans that were currently using a GLP1 medication, 13 out of 20 were thinking about food noise interrupting their daily routine drops to six out of 20. A 54% dis decline. And what that shows us is the mental state of how people approach buying, approach consuming is really changing. As a behavioral science enthusiast, someone who uses behavioral science to help brands face business problems, we're seeing a shift not just in what are the cues and triggers that bring people to food, but we're seeing the actual environment change around them. So if you don't have that desire for food in the same way, if it doesn't enter your mental state in the same way, then a lot of the tactics that restaurants and food companies have used to bring you to their product, a queue, a taco Tuesdays or something like a a you know a when you're when you're hungry, you're not you grab a Snickers. those types of insights hold a lot less weight when that's not what's happening inside the buyer's mind. I think what's so revolutionary about GLP1s is this is changing really fast. Last year uh a study showed that it was just 3% of Americans had tried a GLP1. This year it's 11%. That's your 1 and8 number. So really there's a big fast change happening and uh we're still thinking and unpacking about all the ways it changes um how consumers behave. >> All right. So let's dive more into that. When we know on its face you get a reduction in appetite, right? You you just want to eat less. That's how these drugs work in in controlling your appetite. So you talk a lot about this concept and we talked about it before when last we spoke about this return on appetite. If I have less appetite, I want to make sure that I'm getting a good return when I'm consuming less. So, when we're looking at physical consumption shrinking because of that decreased appetite, how is the calculation a consumer's making in terms of the value of a snack or or a drink or alcohol or a sitown meal come into play? So at the very basic level when you reduce the number of meal consumption occasions you will have you are looking to get a better return on each one. So I'm looking for higher protein. I'm looking for less fat. I'm looking to make sure that the smaller amount of food that enters my stomach is going to have the most amount of benefit. Lots of reports have talked about the need to continue to build muscle while you're having this rapid weight loss. So, high on everyone's mind, uh I'm sure given direction from doctors, uh and medical professionals is they need to be building muscle mass while they're while they're experiencing this extreme weight loss. And so, they're asking themselves in every meal occasion, how do I get the most out of it? So we see people like PepsiCo and Campbell bringing to market high protein items, bringing to market items that have the cues for those that are using GLP1s without saying this is our Campbell GLP-1 soup. They're instead coming in and saying this is our Campbell new can launched this year. 20 grams of protein in every can of soup. So they're thinking about how can we meet the customer, the buyer where they're at and and making sure they get them what they need. But then I think this maybe a little bit of a deeper inst in insight is that when you have less meal occasions, if you don't eat right, you feel worse. And so, not only do they want to do it for the altruistic reasons of building muscle and making sure they're keeping the weight that they're losing off, there's a real negative effect when they eat incorrectly on these on these uh on these medicines. So, it's really it's a it's a reinforcing cycle that they want to eat better and so they look for those opportunities to eat less but eat better when they're eating less. Okay. So, we've seen this surge of the functional claims of uh protein. I mean, every every time I shop, I see more of them and they're in stars or they're in metallic and they're shining at you. At what point do we start to feel like high protein or or added fiber is the new low fat of our generation? >> I think every generation goes through these changes of what's most important in the moment. What we've seen in a lot of studies is that even for those that are not on a GLP-1, they say they still want these same health benefits. So we have to say that even though the GLP1 movement is causing uh food companies to listen and act quickly, we see that all buyers, not all buyers, many buyers show that a a openness to consuming these higher protein, higher fiber uh products as well. And I think that's because generally that's seen as a healthier alternative. So, if I can get an indulgent snack and just feel a little less guilty because I know it's high in fiber, as long as it tastes just as good, I'm happy to make that trade. >> It's like a psychological permission slip for for the user. But we just talked specifically about the user, and I thought one of the most striking aspects of your research is the impact on the actual household. So, let's talk about that. I mean, it's not just limited to the person who has the prescription. Recent BCG research shows 70% of these GLP-1 users report behavioral changes with their household members and housemates are adopting 30 to 50% of those changes. So, as we look at this, how does a single user alter the shopping, the cooking, and the dining habits of the entire household? I mean, I'm thinking if you're the the mom and you're doing the shopping for the entire household, obviously that's the answer here. But if that is not your setup, how does one individual person affect the entire hole? >> So there's no research on that thesis, but I agree with you, Marley, in a situation where you have the the shopping decider as the medication user. So the person who's buying the groceries each week is on a GLP-1. you could just naturally [clears throat] assume that they're making greater changes to what's coming home in the in the grocery store each each each uh each week. But even if not, families act and move together. So you can imagine almost like a center of gravity in a family. And when one person literally cannot consume as much as everyone else, or when one person can't go and eat at the same restaurant as everyone else, it starts to move the center of gravity of that of that of that household. And and you said it, I think the striking stat from BCG is up to 50% of nonusers change their eating habits when there is a medication user in the house. Um, interestingly, BCG also looks at what happens once people stop using a GLP-1 in the family. So, if we're a brand, we're a business, we're an investor, we're asking, yes, when there's a medication used in the house, that matters. We want to know what's happening. But what about when they stop using the medication? This is early data, but what BCG says is that some changes are temporary and others become more durable after finishing a course of GLP1 and removing it from your daily activities. Some snacks and candy consumption actually rebound, but higher consumption of proteins, fruits, and vegetables appear to persist. So, we see that some behaviors change and some stick. And so we we h we need more data to really know what's going to happen in these households long term. But we have good statistically significant data right now telling us that when there's a GLP1 in the household buying and consumption habits change and even after they seem to remain uh adjusted after that fact >> and Michael I want to make a an adjustment to my previous statement. And I was speaking from my own perspective in that I am the shopper in my household. But obviously anyone in any household can be a shopper of any gender [laughter] just just to be clear. Uh but I want to talk here about this household effect because if you're a food company or a retailer and from a brand and a retail perspective, this household effect feels absolutely critical in really understanding the total addressable market. I mean you're not just speaking to the person holding the prescription, you are speaking to this broader consumer shift. So, how how does a company measure that? How does a company get ahead of that? And as you highlighted, some of these shifts stay even if the household member goes off of the medication itself. >> I think it's easier for our brands and corporations that have a wide diversity of products in their portfolio. If you are selling across many aisles of the grocery store, you can test some brands bringing out new products, other brands narrowing down their products and you can adapt to shopping across the grocery store because of your because of the breadth that you have. Same thing for restaurants. restaurant groups that have multiple restaurant chains, they can start to see how changes in the in in the visitation of restaurants may change where people are going and how they can adapt. But if you are a single branded product or if you are in a area of uh of of of restaurant where you only have one concept in market I think you as you are implying Marley you have to be really thoughtful about which changes you're going to make and which ones you're going to and which ones you're going to ride and let's see what happens. I think we've seen some really interesting recent data uh from big restaurants that are already responding. So, Olive Garden has had for a very long time their light portions menu that has had smaller versions of their favorite items of on the menu. They're expanding that lighter portions menu. McDonald's had their investor day uh in the end of September and at their investor day they said they see more people going to their fileto fish to their chicken nuggets and to their happy meals and so they're saying US president Sky Anderson she said she their company is exploring can they bring in bowls can they bring in grilled chicken can they bring in egg bites where can they bring in incremental items that can really help um that can really help meet the consumer where they're at. But we we have to watch what the consumers are doing and then react because if brands and companies don't react to what consumers are saying they want, they're just going to get deselected. So, let's talk about restaurants because overall restaurant thesis kind of across the board. I mean, from from fast food to uh some of the fast casual dining, I mean, there there has been a long period of time where we saw this, you know, you get more for you more bang for your buck. You know, you get more food for less. Now people don't want more food because they have to make the decision to eat it and not feel great or they throw it away which is also a very complicated psychological thing as well. What area in the restaurant sector is best positioned here to be successful with this increase in GLP1 adoption? William Blair put out a study in the end of September of 300 GLP1 users and they said monthly restaurant visits of those GLP uh users dropped by 50%. So I think first and foremost it's easy to say quicks service restaurants are easy to understand how they might be in the most susceptible space because they are serving uh generally uh faster food, higher fat, higher sugar food um rather than a more intentional uh full dining experience. That said, all restaurants need to be thinking about how they can create a smaller occasion that feels valuable. Things like protein we've talked about, but how can they increase better ingredients in their menu items? Or how can they make a portion that's smaller still feel like a good value to buyers? Because if all restaurants do is lower the size of their uh of their plates but keep their prices up, well, that doesn't help. People are going to start to feel, am I getting the value for my money? If they lower the size of their plates and they lower their cost, uh they're going to squeeze their margins. So, it's really a tough moment for restaurants to say, how can we make this smaller occasion, much very likely less frequent occasion feel more valuable to people? And that's something I think all restaurants need to be asking right now. >> So, Michael Eron, with that setup you just made, it makes me feel like casual dining is sort of caught in this dangerous middle ground then. They don't have the same value proposition as some of the fast food chains. They can't give you the same deal, but they're not experiential enough to override that drive not to go to the restaurant and splurge. I Is that the biggest uh potential disruption here? Is it watching this casual dining? Are they the ones who have the most potential losses? >> I think they're the ones at the front end of this issue. And so they're going to be the ones that are leading indicators how they react and what they test and try. I think we will see others in the restaurant uh in the restaurant industry try to duplicate follow or steer clear of. So I think they are at the front end of the issue because they're very the top of mind is that you are making an exchange quality for speed. But we know lots of restaurants, fine dining establishments, and plenty other are not healthy experiences when you're in there with full fat butters, whole milk, lots of very um lots of very rich and creamy menu items. And I think the challenge for that is if you deliver to someone who's on a GLP1 a very hearty and rich and large meal, they know right away it's not something they want anymore. So the ex the value exchange whether you're at a fast casual or you're at a fine dining establishment is beginning to change. You're not looking for high quantity or high indulgence just in exchange for high price. So uh I think yeah you you I agree with you Marley that quick service restaurant front end of the issue but I think all restaurants need to watch what they do and try to learn from it. And Michael Aaron, it's not just the restaurant dining experience. It's the grocery store, too. I mean, competition has heated up here. There there's a much more psychological component now to what people are putting in their bodies, not just because of GLP1s, which is this overall wellness trend right now. If you are managing a legacy snack or cereal brand, is the primary challenge right now actually reformulating your product to meet the consumer where they currently are? Or is it changing the narrative to make it feel emotionally or physically safe to consume that food while you're on this particular medical and food journey? You have to imagine they should be exploring both at the same time where they have the opportunity to reframe the value that you get by engaging with their brand as a marketing message. Every smart brand should be asking that and doing that now. Uh why? Because it takes months and years to change your product and it takes days and weeks and months to change your marketing message. But of course, they have to be telling a true story. Truth in advertising is a critically serious topic. As a marketer, we take very seriously that what claims, what things we say in market must be true. So the challenge, the creative challenge for brands is what is the true thing we can say in market that can meet the leading edge of buyers where they're at. I think there will always be a segment of the US population that looks for indulgence just for indulgence sake. The question is, does that segment of the population get smaller and smaller until it's not economically viable for a brand to only service that part of the market? And so, as brands look to grow, they say, "Okay, how can we meet consumers where they are? How can we adapt and adjust our messaging and make sure the brand stands for something that meets where the leading consumers are going?" And then on the product side, it is a balancing act. If you lose flavor, taste, appeal, then even if you get that first purchase with a with a big s, as you said, silver sign on the package that says uh high protein or high in fiber. If you lose that taste experience, you're really going to um not get the repeat purchase that you want. Um, but if you don't make changes, if you are really not meeting people with the types of things they want to buy, you're really going to be in trouble because you can't keep that flywheel of more purchasers coming into the into the brand. >> So, Michael Aaron, let's say you're you're a General Mills then. I mean, a legacy company that's known for very specific flavors and very specific brands. How do you pivot to adjust to this more healthconscious consumer who has different wants and needs while still satisfying that nostalgia and flavor profile that you just mentioned? People are not willing to sacrifice to that got them to be General Mills in the first place. I mean, that's why they have the brand equity they have. >> I think General Mills has found a way for decades and decades to be relevant to their buyers. So, I would not count out General Mills just like I wouldn't count out any of these big uh CPG companies. Nestle gives us a great brand case study. They just introduced in the last year and a half Vital Pursuits, which is a nationwide frozen food brand designed to meet GLP1 users and those that are high protein, high-fiber aare. So, they've built an entire line. It's got its own package. has got its own branding and they're bringing that to market at the same time as they're still running all their other brands. So, a General Mills, a Nestle, they have the ability to really bring new products into market, get the shelf position, get the space in the grocery store and see how much volume they can move from some of their legacy brands that may not have the brand attributes that the moment calls for to new brands or new products that do have that. And often that's what we expect of our big companies. Not no one brand can be everything to everyone. So it's better to make sure your brand keeps its real identity. Make sure your brand keeps what it's truly great at in the world and then move that and then move the company's investments and structure to new brands and new uh intellectual property that they can continue to invest in and capture where the consumers are moving. And I'm glad you brought that up about these GLP-1 specific or GLP1 companion or compatible brands because earlier you said Campbell Soup released a a new product that is GLP-1 compatible but doesn't say it on the label. It just advertises some of the things these users are told by their doctors they need to make sure that they're getting. So I want to dive into your marketing background here. How effective is it to explicitly label something as being GLP-1 compatible or GLP-1 companion or advertising specifically to that GLP-1 user? Do you run the risk of alienating someone who isn't on the medication or believes there's a clinical stigma to being on the medication even though they might have had the product without it? >> I think you're right on the money. I think people are very concerned about their current choices being presented as their identity. Just because I'm on a GLP1 doesn't mean that I want to be labeled as an identity as a GLP1 buyer. In fact, Curion, a research agency, just surveyed more than 8,500 consumers, and they showed that four in 10 Americans were not interested in menu items explicitly labeled GLP-1 friendly. But in that same set, 60% said they were still interested in smaller protein forward options. And 60% same 60% said they would be more likely to order smaller protein forward items if it was presented to them. So we have this tension. They want GLP1 friendly GLP1 adjacent food choices, but they don't want it called that. They want to focus on the positive that it's higher in protein, higher in fiber, or maybe a new creative territory we haven't seen used yet, but something that is aspirational rather than just labeling the medication they're on. >> What companies are making structural meaningful shifts already to address this rapid uptick in in user adoption and also the household effect that's at play here, too. So we have most of our large national or multinational companies making a statements and claims that either they have launched or will launch. I think most notably the largest uh food chain uh Starbucks with 38,000 locations is rolling out high protein drink options. We talked about uh Olive Garden with their lighter portions, but there's lots of restaurants who've always historically had smaller smaller uh smaller options or smaller uh restaurant menu items that they're investing more in. I think we see really exciting stuff like Nestle coming out ahead of GLP1s really being as prominent as they are now with food items that we're trying to get ahead of it. So, I think we see a lot of these brands messaging it, handling it in their own ways, and almost all of our big uh CPG brands and our big restaurants are reacting in one way or another. >> And so, we've talked a lot about the reduced appetite, the reduction overall food volume that people are going to restaurants left, I think you even said 50% less in one study. Where does that freed up wallet share go? And I saw some recent data from multiple places, PWC was one of them, suggesting the spending is shifting into apparel and fitness, uh, supplements, beauty. Are you seeing any evidence that food savings are fueling growth in non-food categories? >> So maybe un unsurprisingly, if you're losing massive amounts of weight, you have to purchase new clothes. So apparel spending in that PWC study that's just recent got a lot of press. Apparel spending is up 9.9% almost 10% in the six to eightmonth period after the medication is started. 26% of users also said they were spending on more overall on clothing. So as you say perhaps unsurprisingly if you are losing that much weight there's new clothes to buy. But we see something behaviorally change now that we're taking a medication every day. We are losing weight. It's starting to become part of our identity that because I'm losing weight, because I'm taking this medicine, I am starting to live a healthier lifestyle. You see increased spending in these studies, on gym memberships, on beauty, on self-care. And I think that's really showing that how the mind shift is changing because people are investing in their health and they're seeing a pretty immediate result with these GLP1s. But what's interesting and maybe a less talked about opportunity is for many people, they don't know where their weight's going to land. So they want to spend on apparel, but while they're still losing weight, if they're going to lose another 15 or 20 pounds, should they spend too heavily on clothing now? Should they spend too heav should they wait until they get to their to their final weight before they refill their wardrobe? So, I think this is an evolving story. We see wallet share going from GLP1s um from those that are using GLP1s to a lot of different areas. Actually, there was a very interesting study, Marley, that showed that a third of the savings that GLP-1 users had from not spending as much on restaurants and food went to the cost of paying for the GLP-1 medicine. That's a really interesting insight that these GLP1s are not inexpensive and so part of the savings that you get from eating less actually goes to funding uh the cost of the medication itself. So we see their wallet share going not just to beauty, apparel, uh gym memberships. We also see it going to pay for the actual medicine itself. >> And I'm glad you brought that up because a broad consumer sentiment has been weak. It it's it's even weaker with the data we've gotten this week. Inflation is making shoppers very budget conscious. There has been a long-standing theory that isn't proving true, at least not up till now, that low consumer confidence, if it stayed low, would cause users to drop GLP1s because they are so expensive. But what is the data showing regarding sentiment versus GLP1 retention? Because I know that's exactly what you study. >> Yeah. And that's a tension that, as you say, we have not seen proven true. Even with low consumer sentiment, even with all the pressures that Americans have on their wallet, that's not being cited as the primary reason that people are either not getting on the drug or not staying on the medication. Uh Kaiser Family Foundation just came out with a study. 56% of people who had used GLP1s said the drugs were difficult to afford. 25% said they were even very difficult to afford, but uh but side effects and cost were almost ranked equally as the reason that they're not staying on them. So, you see that people are finding a way to afford them. They're finding a lifestyle change and getting pretty immediate feedback that it's working. And so we see that even with consumer sentiment down, there's a lot of other things that are driving uh that are driving folks to the medication and staying with it. Two years ago, last year we were at 3% of US Americans have tried a GLP-1. Now we're at 11%. We don't have new data for the upcoming year or what we think it might be, but it's clearly still in an upward trend. And I don't think consumer sentiment is going to be the thing that holds back wider adoption of GLP1s. I think it'd be much more um other other things around it, whether insurance covers it more, what other things are going on, not just consumer sentiment. >> And Michael Erin, you look at all the data here alongside the behavioral science component. So, we have to talk about surveys, right? and and how accurate they are and do people actually respond with what's true versus I mean I I just said I sometimes don't order what I want on the menu because of how it might be perceived. So is there an issue in the survey data and that people may not actually be responding honestly because of that perception and the optics component? As a behavioral science marketer, we spend a lot of time thinking about this, Marley. And I think the short answer uh for our investors that are listening, for those that watch the market, I think when someone agrees to fill out a survey and they give their answers, generally they're not interested in lying, but a lot of times they don't know why they do the things they do. And if they do, they may feel social pressures. They may feel reasons that they don't like what they're going to say. and so they changed their answer on a survey. So we find as behavioral science marketers, it's much more informative to set up studies where you look at how do people react in a situation one way, change one variable, and how do they react in another way. We would be much more likely to recommend to a food brand or a restaurant. Let's do a a two-eek test, a one-mon test in your restaurant. Let's have two menus where they look exactly the same, but on the one menu we say it's low carb and low cal. And on the other one, we say it's high fiber, high high protein. And even just that change, we can see how people will more likely go to the high fiber, high protein. Uh when you say low, this is just a little marketer's trick. When you say low cal, low low carb, you kind of feel like you're giving something up. When you say high fiber, high protein, you kind of get the sense that you're getting more of something. So even in the way you position the words can really affect how people react in real time. And that's what we're really interested in as marketers. It's what every investor should really be interested in what people actually do. So yeah, claimed data research studies that ask questions on a multiplechoice study uh in a focus group room have value, but they have limited value because they don't test what people will do in a real life situation. Setting up a behavioral science study, putting two things against each other and seeing what people actually do is much more valuable and you can get a lot more out of it. So, if an investor wants to do a deep dive into the behavioral science and then they want to go further with what they've learned, they want to assess a food or consumer goods company or a restaurant brand, what metrics should they be looking at to predict whether or not that company is going to find a way to benefit and survive the GLP1 transition over the next several years. I think starting with all the classic locations of data, listening to the quarterly earnings report, listening to what the press releases come out about their new products. But here's the lens I would add. When is the customer at the center of the story? When are they doing something because they see a change in consumer sentiment? because they see a change in what the customer wants rather than we have cost pressures and so we're making these changes or rather than we see competitors doing this so we're reacting this way. We want to put the buyer at the center of the brand's decision-making. And that gives you a clue that the business leaders of that brand are following the business decisions all the way down to the to what matters most, which is where the buyer's at. And of course, really sophisticated boards, really sophisticated executives are going to package things in the mind of the consumer because we all know that's where all the money is made. But I would encourage our listeners to say, "Let me listen for it. Do I hear the customer, the buyer at the center of the brand's decisioning? And if I do, do I believe that that would have an impact on me?" And if I think it might have an impact on me, that's probably a good place to go deeper. If you hear they're changing uh the the you know, the sign from yellow to green and it makes no difference to you, that may be a good starting spot to say it may not be really rooted in a consumer insight or a consumer need state. All right. And so let's before we get to this sprint, let's try to challenge the mainstream narrative for a minute here. Is there a possibility that the market is overestimating the long-term impact of GLP1s on on food volume and consumer trends? Is it possible that this is just a fad? I think that it is possible that there is so much hype that companies are reacting fast and broadly and that we might find a smaller number of changes are what's meaningful to buyers and to and to uh and and to the US audience. That said, when you read quotes from uh doctors, from medical professionals, they've been looking their whole career for a medication that can change dramatically change the weight of their of their patients, which is the number one driver of their health problems. It does not feel like we're at too much of a fad that this is going to be an important meaningful part of how consumers continue to change what they eat and how they consume. And I think to the earlier part of our conversation, even if it's never more than 20, 30, 35% of the US population, if that covers 70, 80, 85% of American households, that may be enough to change the buying habits of almost the whole country. So because we don't act as single individuals, because we are part of a household and that household makes joint buying decisions when it comes to food, a GLP-1 user has a uh extraordinary impact on the eating and restaurantgoing habits of their families. So I I think we're not o I think we we we're we're at the very beginning of the story and there's a lot more to watch on it. And because I know you are a behavioral science enthusiast, I I did a little digging on behavioral science before our chat and we've seen throughout history that heavy cultural pushes can sometimes trigger counter movements. Do you think there's a possibility with GLP1 adoption and how rapid it has happened that people get a wellness fatigue backlash? are tired about hearing about this wellness movement and there is a counter movement to overindulge return to sugar and traditional dining as a form of consumer rebellion. I think wi- with any major mass change, we see this adoption curve and you've got your early adopters, your early majority, your late majority and your lagard. So we're we're going to watch this on a big curve. Is it possible that we see a counter mo a countercultural movement? Absolutely. And I think there's a lot of good studies and a lot of good academics on what are the ex what are the uh pre-existing or what are the most important things to be happening to create that counter movement for that to take hold. Uh I'm not an expert in that area. Do I think it's possible? I think we it might happen, but I would say we're not even in the in the first half of the adoption curve. So, I would anticipate that we have a lot more adoption to occur before we see any type of counter push back. >> All right. Well, there there's another thing for us to dive into when we uh when we get further into the curve. But we've reached the part of the podcast that we call the sprint. It's basically a rapid fire round. Michael Eron, just say whatever comes to mind. It can be a word, a sentence, a story. Uh there's no length requirement here. I'm just going to rapid fire questions off at you. Okay, >> I'm ready. >> All right. Most misunderstood GLP1 consumer trend. >> The most misunderstood consumer trend is that this is a personal decision that only affects the buyer. It affects the family and the household and we need to see it as changing the entire family's buying habits. >> What is the single most vulnerable food category over the next three years? uh truly indulgent categories. I would look at candy, high sugar soda, any of those areas where there is a high indulgence factor without a high nutrition element to it. >> Most overused marketing claim on food packaging right now? >> New. [laughter] >> Is anything new anymore? I mean, there's >> that's the question. That's a philosophical question. But yeah, I think we see a lot of claims of new and improved and uh we really have to make sure that there's actually a change happening and it's not really just a uh a signaling they they they made a small change and it's not really meaningful. >> And we talked about apparel as the obvious one, but what is the most underrated nonfood category benefiting from GLP1 adoption? >> I think we see the the free cash to pay for the medicine itself as an unexpected number one. And I think a a number two would be we see uh more going to uh transitory apparel buying, not just building out the whole wardrobe while they wait to see what their weight lands at. >> And what is something consumers consistently say that you don't believe? I don't believe that consumers really think it's a black or white choice between being healthy and enjoying their indulgences. They will say, "I'm going to choose either to indulge in this moment or to be healthy when we are all multiaceted and we can both indulge and be happy." >> How about the people who say they're doing it for their health and they don't care how they look at the end? >> [laughter] >> I would say I would say if if you have a normal amount of ego, you should you should care how you look to some degree. [laughter] >> Fair. I I'm always curious about that one. The people who say I'm doing this entirely for my health. Do we are we capable of doing anything entirely for any one pursuit? Another a conversation for another day, too. Uh but 10 years from now as we look at at GLP1s, do you think that they will be thought of primarily as a medical breakthrough or as a consumer behavior revolution? >> As they currently exist now, they are a medical breakthrough. In 10 years, uh I would I would say it's hard to imagine what 10 years from now looks like. I'm not sure what we might be in 10 years. I I mean we we may have robots and AI operating. >> That's what came to mind. >> I'm not gonna I'm not going to go into the doom and gloom scenario too that was put [laughter] on the table, but there's a lot of possibilities 10 years from now. And let's wrap one up uh with a with a your personal indulgence of choice. Are you sweet or are you savory? >> Uh unlike my wife, I am sweet, she is savory. I love my sweets. >> That's the best kind of household, right? That means you get to have everything in your pantry. But I am also on team sweets. Michael Aaron, really appreciate you joining us for the podcast today. It's been such a pleasure talking to you, taking a deep dive into this GLP1 space. It's absolutely fascinating and affecting so many different facets of the market right now. >> Thanks for the great conversation, Marley. >> Thanks again to Michael Aaron for being with us on this episode of Market Matters. We unpacked a lot there, but a few things really stand out to me. First, the brands that are doing well are those that are thinking about the customer and meeting them where they are at. He gave examples like Campbell Soup and Nestle offering higher protein or GLP1 companion specific offerings to help them attract shoppers. He also said that the companies that are more diversified with multiple brands and products in it portfolio like a PepsiCo or a General Mills, those are more easily able to adapt and test out different ideas and because of this will likely find success in this shift. Whereas companies that have fewer offerings or a specific single focus have to be very careful in the choices that they are making right now. Also this concept of the household effect. He said quote families act and move together. Hearing the data about how much having one user in a household can influence an entire group of people was fascinating. He his advice on paying attention to the companies that are focusing on that and being consume centric when you're evaluating a good investment opportunity also really stuck out to me as well. And lastly, this idea that no trend will ever fully saturate a population. He said there will always be a group looking for indulgence for indulgenc's sake. Now the question for investors, restaurants and food companies is if that group will shrink to be insignificant enough to advertise to. It still exists today, but the data shows that it is getting smaller by the day. So that's something to watch there. A lot was covered, but we're going to have to leave it there for now. I want to thank you for being with us. This has been Market Matters. You can find us wherever you get your podcasts. Please make sure to rate, review, and subscribe. I'm Marley Kaden. We hope that you'll join us again next week.