Plant-based We committed to following guidelines and legislation about what you could and could not say, and journalists had to have two independent sources before they would report anything. That fos-tered a shared understanding of what constituted ‘truth’ because we followed similar standards. In 2004, Facebook launched and that fundamentally changed everything about how we communicate. The [leg-acy] media didn’t tell us what to think, but they told us what to think about. We had a shared understanding of what issues were important and in what order, and we had an understanding of what we would pay attention to and the conversation we would have, and our decisions were based largely on science. We’ve now transitioned from mass communication to masses of communi-cators with an infinite proliferation of microcultures supported by social media. The opportunity becomes more challeng-ing when each microculture might have its own beliefs, its own values and some-times even its own language. If you’re going to compete in the information economy, you’re not going to use the leg-acy media of mass communications. The transition creates all kinds of challenges which are then exacerbated when Meta and X decide they’re no longer going to be involved in factchecking; they’re going to leave it to each microculture to decide what is true for them. We’ve always relied on science as the foundation for how we’re going to make decisions and how we believe society should make decisions; that’s no longer the case. That causes confusion and angst across the entire food system. That was the catalyst for us to unpack what consumers believe is true in today’s environment when it relates to food and agriculture. I don’t ever want to be misinterpreted as saying science is not relevant. It is relevant. It’s just never sufficient . You certainly have the scientific facts and data that you can share, but it’s making that values-based connection in a way that’s meaningful to consumers that will ultimately be more persuasive. ARNOT: I’ll tell you a little bit about the methodology. It’s not a quantitative survey; it’s a digital ethnography, and ethnography is a social science of ob-servation rather than inquiry. So rather than ask people questions, you observe their behavior. And we do that digitally with a team of anthropologists. Imagine a consumer who’s buying meat or meat analogues, and their inter-est in and concerns about agriculture and food. We go back two years in their social media history. We study their social values, political beliefs, where they work, live and play, what they buy, what they’re reading, what they share and advocate for, and much, much more. We know what brands they like, we know what stores they shop in. We know what influencers they follow. We know what kind of con-tent they’re looking for. We know what the triggers are for them to adopt and what their triggers are to reject. In that, then, we identified the five segments: the progressive disruptor, the authenticity seeker, the rationalist, the comfort seeker, and the strategist. Alt-Meat: Alt-meat makers are getting it from a lot of different sides. There’s a huge distrust of ultra-pro-cessed foods which spills over onto alt-meat. You’re getting a lot of blow-back from legislators. A number of states have outright banned cultivated meat and its production within their state boundaries. How does the devel-opment of these micro communities land on makers of meat analogues? ARNOT: It’s an interesting phenom-enon, because the initial sampling of meat analogues was off the charts, right? But ultimately they didn’t compete on taste and price, and so, the repeat purchasing just didn’t keep up. The blowback from meat-producing states is a fairly predictable defensive positioning that you would expect from certain states. It’s a reflection of populist politics as we see them today. But I think what will be interesting is, as you look at that next generation, are [alt-meats] going to come back as center of the plate? If you are in that sector you have to understand that you have a number of folks that are supportive. You have a number of folks who are opposed. But you have a lot of folks in the middle who are undecided, right? And I think that initial sampling is a signal that there is a desire for a better-for-me, better-for-the-planet product. Alt-Meat: How do these categories reflect their trust in the system where other research does not? ARNOT: In ethnography, we uncover unspoken motivations, vulnerabilities, and how beliefs and values impact who they engage with, what they buy, and most importantly, the meanings that they associate with food and agricul-ture. We understand, then, what do they believe to be true? If science is no longer going to be the foundation of truth, what is true for each of these five different archetypes? We’ll start with the progressive dis-ruptor. They’re only 5% of the popula-tion but 12% share of voice (a measure of how often they post on the topic on social media). It’s important for them Alt-Meat August 2025 Alt-Meat: Your research broke out the consumer universe into five arche-types. How did your research give rise to these five segments? 25
Alt-Meat August 2025: Page 25
