Product Substitution: Plant-Based Protein Largely Fails the Test

It is a truism that substitute products, such as plant-based proteins that mimic meat, must have some obvious value that induces consumers to switch. That might be lower price, clear product advantages or something else.

Technology-driven substitution

New Product	Replaced Product	Why It Succeeded
Smartphones	Feature phones, standalone cameras, MP3 players, GPS devices	Combined multiple devices in one; convenience outweighed cost
Streaming services (Netflix, Spotify)	DVD rentals, CDs, broadcast TV, radio	On-demand access, personalization, lower friction
LED lighting	Incandescent & CFL bulbs	Lower energy use, longer lifespan, better performance
Digital photography	Film cameras & film processing	Instant review, no film cost, easy sharing

Price/value substitution

New Product	Replaced Product	Why It Succeeded
Private-label grocery brands	National branded packaged goods	Comparable quality at lower price; retail shelf control
Refurbished enterprise IT hardware	New OEM hardware	Lower capex; acceptable reliability for many workloads
Budget airlines (Southwest, Ryanair)	Full-service carriers	Lower fares, point-to-point routes

Performance/feature substitution

New Product	Replaced Product	Why It Succeeded
Cordless power tools	Corded power tools	Mobility, convenience, battery improvements
Electric vehicles	Internal combustion engine vehicles (for some segments)	Lower running costs, performance, environmental positioning
Solid-state drives (SSD)	Hard disk drives (HDD) in laptops	Faster performance, lower power, durability

Business process / B2B substitution

New Product / Service	Replaced Product / Service	Why It Succeeded
Cloud computing (AWS, Azure)	On-premise servers	Elastic scaling, reduced capex, speed of deployment
SaaS CRM (Salesforce)	Installed CRM software	Lower IT overhead, constant updates, remote access
E-procurement platforms	Paper-based or email-based purchasing	Speed, transparency, auditability
VoIP telephony	Traditional PBX systems	Cost savings, integration with software platforms

Material & ingredient substitution

New Product	Replaced Product	Why It Succeeded
Aluminum cans	Glass bottles for beverages	Lighter, cheaper to transport, unbreakable
Synthetic rubber	Natural rubber	Stable supply, price stability, performance in varied conditions
Plant-based milks (soy, almond, oat)	Dairy milk (for some buyers)	Lactose-free, perceived health/environmental benefits

So far, though advocates might be repeat buyers, the typical shopper has not found the expected product advantages, not any cost advantage. And even if all other attributes were similar, the cost premium seems excessive. 

Plant-based meat has carried a large price gap versus conventional meat of as much as 80 percent. Not many product alternatives with comparable characteristics or value to the target product are going to succeed with a price premium that large. 

But for many buyers, product attributes are not “equal.” Taste and texture seem to discourage buyers.  

Macro pressures (inflation, cost sensitivity) do not help, either. 

Many would-be buyers arguably still would prefer to substitute plant-based protein for meat. But product improvements and price issues have to be addressed. 

Year	Plant-based meat & seafood retail sales (USD)	Unit sales (million units)	Total plant-based retail food sales (USD)	Household penetration (% of U.S. households buying plant-based meat & seafood)
2022	$1.43 B (approx.) — industry retail estimate. The Good Food Institute	270 million units (GFI/SPINS). The Good Food Institute	$8.2 B (GFI/SPINS dataset for 2022). The Good Food Institute	19% (household penetration, 2022). The Good Food Institute
2023	$1.26 B (approx., derived from reported year-over-year change). The Good Food Institute	— (category showed declines vs 2022; SPINS/GFI tracked a drop but official 2023 unit number is in the GFI dataset). The Good Food Institute	$8.1 B (GFI/PBFA reporting for 2023). The Good Food Institute	15% (penetration, 2023). The Good Food Institute
2024	$1.17 B (GFI market overview / SPINS-based figure). The Good Food Institute	195 million units (GFI report: 195M units sold in 2024). The Good Food Institute	≈ $8.1 B (category roughly stable overall; plant-based meat & milk declines offset other growth). The Good Food InstituteThe Food Institute	13% (penetration, 2024). The Good Food Institute

But work continues on a number of fronts, experts say. 

Category	Method	Purpose	Example Brands / Products
Taste	Protein purification & low-heat processing	Remove off-flavors (beany, grassy, bitter) from pea/soy proteins	Ripple Foods (pea milk), Beyond Meat’s pea protein refinement
	Enzymatic treatment of proteins	Break down bitter peptides, improve solubility	Ingredion (Versawave proteins), Burcon NutraScience
	Yeast & mushroom extracts	Boost umami and savory meat-like flavor	Quorn (mycoprotein), Unilever The Vegetarian Butcher
	Maillard reaction precursors	Create cooked-meat aroma during cooking	Impossible Burger uses amino acids + sugars for aroma
	Cultured fats for flavor release	Provide authentic meat fat flavor during cooking	Mission Barns, Lypid
Texture	High-moisture extrusion (HME)	Align protein fibers to mimic muscle	Beyond Meat, MorningStar Farms Incogmeato, Nestlé Sensational Burger
	Shear-cell technology	Create long fibrous structures without high temp/pressure	Nutreco / Rival Foods partnership
	Blending multiple proteins	Adjust chewiness & elasticity	Gardein (pea + wheat + soy), Lightlife
	Encapsulated fats & emulsions	Simulate marbling & juiciness	Lypid PhytoFat, Beyond Meat marbling
	Layered component assembly	Build steak/chicken textures with different layers	Meati (mycelium-based “whole cut”), Juicy Marbles (plant-based steak)
Visual realism	Natural colorants	Raw-to-cooked color shift	Impossible (soy leghemoglobin), Beyond (beet juice extract)
	Visible marbling inclusions	Mimic animal fat streaks	Juicy Marbles, Chunk Foods
	Heat-reactive appearance	Browning/grill mark simulation	MorningStar Grillers, Beyond Cookout Burger
Advanced / Hybrid	Precision fermentation	Produce animal-identical proteins (heme, whey, casein)	Impossible Foods (heme), Perfect Day (whey protein)
	Cultured fat inclusion	Use real animal fat grown in bioreactors	Mission Barns, Hoxton Farms
	3D food printing	Layer plant proteins for whole-muscle cuts	Redefine Meat, NovaMeat
	Enzyme cross-linking	Modify protein gels for bite & elasticity	Enzymtec, R&D at Kerry
	Hybrid plant + cultivated meat	Improve taste & realism while reducing animal content	Eat Just GOOD Meat, Upside Foods (future planned blends)

Consumers might well prefer such product substitutes, but suppliers have to create substitutes that are close enough, in quality and price, to compete. So far, that is not the case. 

Is Ride Sharing a Consumer Staple or Consumer Discretionary Purchase?

As some observers watch for signs of a possible U.S. economic growth slowdown, product substitution and spending on consumer staples compared to discretionary items will come under examination, as a slowdown would tend to favor the former and harm the latter.

It might be intuitive that product substitution is higher for discretionary purchases such as airline tickets than for ride shares, which arguably more essential than leisure travel. And studies tend to support that notion. 

For ride sharing, surge pricing seems to result in relatively modest rates of rider substitution. 

Study	Context / Location	Main Findings on Rider Substitution
Transportation Research Part C (Singapore)	Singapore—Grab vs. taxi services (ScienceDirect)	Estimated cross‑price elasticity ≈ 0.26 → a 10% surge in ride share price is associated with a 2.6% increase in traditional taxi bookings. Suggests modest substitution.
Rice University / Kinder Institute (NYC)	Uber during concert event in New York City (Kinder Institute)	Surge pricing doubled driver supply and led some riders to avoid booking entirely; higher‑valuation riders remain. Indicates some riders choose alternatives or delay.
Uber “Under the Hood” case study (NYC)	After sold‑out concert (Madison Square Garden) vs. NYE surge glitch (Medium, Uber)	Without surge pricing many requests go unfulfilled; with surge, demand dampens—a takeaway is that some riders choose not to request rides in surge conditions.
“On Rider Strategic Behavior…” (theoretical/experimental)	Modeling rider relocation and spillovers (arXiv)	Riders walk out of surge zones or shift to adjacent cheaper zones, redistributing demand and lowering peak prices in equilibrium.
Dynamic pricing consumer welfare (China)	Nanjing, China—citywide ride‑hailing data (ScienceDirect)	Surge pricing reduces consumer surplus significantly; spatial/temporal heterogeneity shows riders avoid surges—some choosing other travel modes or forgoing trips.
Reddit anecdotal evidence	US urban areas	Frequent reports of users switching to taxis, waiting, or canceling Uber when surge rates are high:

As you might expect, substitution is quite a bit higher for leisure travelers considering buying an airline ticket, compared to ride sharing purchases. Business travel, as you also would expect, features much less substitution, compared to leisure travel. 

Study & Year	Context / Location	Method or Data	Findings on Passenger Substitution or Demand Response
Meyer et al. (2024)	One Western short‑haul route, anonymous airline	(SAGE Journals)	Price elasticity varies over time-to-departure and passenger segment. Leisure segment is highly elastic—larger drop in demand when fares rise—suggesting those passengers delay or cancel, potentially shifting modes when prices high.
ProQuest cross‑modal elasticities (US)	Traffic on multiple U.S. corridors (e.g. Chicago–Orlando; LA–SF)	Cross-elasticity analysis of air, road, and rail demand (ProQuest)	A 10% fare increase reduces air travel ~ 6–7%, and leads to small rail uptake (~ 14% on specific routes), modest substitution to road/rail.
Puller & Taylor (2012)	US airline markets, business vs leisure	Day-of-week and advance-purchase discount experiments (Transport Research A) (Wikipedia, pitjournal.unc.edu)	Leisure demand highly elastic (~ –1.9), whereas business ~ –0.38. High fares deter leisure travelers substantially—some may choose alternatives.
Luttmann (2019)	U.S. airlines, fare differences by origin income endpoints	Analysis of directional price discrimination by income (ScienceDirect, ResearchGate)	Higher fares from wealthier endpoints lower elasticity—richer markets absorb price rises with less substitution; poorer markets more likely to switch modes or forego travel.
Zhang & Cooper / Fiig et al. (2009–2018)	Models incorporating substitutable flight itineraries	Choice-model simulation (MNL, PODS) (ResearchGate)	When high-fare itineraries surge, some passengers switch to lower-priced flight alternatives (off-time, different stops) rather than modes, indicating internal substitution within airline offerings.
Gatti‑Pinheiro et al. (2022)	Airline revenue management simulations	“Earning-while-learning” RL‑type models comparing revenue-maximizing fare experimentation vs static YM (arXiv)	Frequent price experimentation yields better revenue long-term—but excess fluctuation can harm demand prediction quality, implying passengers may delay buying or avoid volatile fares.

Though some amount of ride sharing might not happen if an economic slowdown happens, the impact will likely be muted, compared to discretionary consumer airline travel, which is highly elastic.