Thanks for both of your responses (@Jacob_Peacock and @abrahamrowe). I was going to analyse the podcast in more detail to resolve our different understandings, but I think @BruceF âs response to the piece clarifies his views on the ânegative/âpositiveâ PTC hypothesis. The views that he would defend are: (negative) âFirst, if we donât compete on price and taste, the products will stay niche, and meat consumption will continue to grow.â and (positive) âSecond, if we can create products that compete on price and taste, sales will go up quite a lot, even if other factors will need to be met to gain additional market share.â
I expect that these two claims are less controversial, albeit with âquite a lotâ leaving some ambiguity.
My initial response was based on my assumption that everyone involved in alt protein realises that PTC-parity is only one step towards widespread adoption. But I agree that itâs worth getting more specific and checking how people feel about Abrahamâs âhow much of the work is PTC doing- 90% vs 5%?â question.
I assume if you surveyed/â interviewed people working in the space, there would be a fairly wide range of views. I doubt if people have super-clear models, because weâre expecting progress in the coming years to come on multiple fronts (consumer acceptance, product quality, product suitability, policy, norms), and to mutually reinforce each other, but it would be worth clarifying so that you can better identify what youâre arguing against.
From my own work on alt-protein adoption in Asia I sense that PTC-parity is only a small part of the puzzle, but it would also be far easier to solve the other pieces if we suddenly had some PTC-competitive killer products, so PTC interact with other variables in ways that make it difficult to calculate.
Overall, I stand by my criticism that I donât think the positive PTC-hypothesis as you frame it is commonly held. But Iâd like to understand better what the views are that youâre critiquing. It would be interesting to see your anecdotal evidence supported- what people actually think when they say they (previously) bought into PTC, and who these people are. It could be true, for example, that people who work in PBM startups tend to believe more strongly that a PTC-competitive product will transform the market, but people working on the market side tend to realise how many barriers there are to adoption beyond these factors.
Thanks! My subsequent reply to Bruce might be helpful hereâwhile Bruce doesnât defend the claim here, I do think he says things that strongly resemble it elsewhere.
Thanks for both of your responses (@Jacob_Peacock and @abrahamrowe). I was going to analyse the podcast in more detail to resolve our different understandings, but I think @BruceF âs response to the piece clarifies his views on the ânegative/âpositiveâ PTC hypothesis. The views that he would defend are: (negative) âFirst, if we donât compete on price and taste, the products will stay niche, and meat consumption will continue to grow.â and (positive) âSecond, if we can create products that compete on price and taste, sales will go up quite a lot, even if other factors will need to be met to gain additional market share.â
I expect that these two claims are less controversial, albeit with âquite a lotâ leaving some ambiguity.
My initial response was based on my assumption that everyone involved in alt protein realises that PTC-parity is only one step towards widespread adoption. But I agree that itâs worth getting more specific and checking how people feel about Abrahamâs âhow much of the work is PTC doing- 90% vs 5%?â question.
I assume if you surveyed/â interviewed people working in the space, there would be a fairly wide range of views. I doubt if people have super-clear models, because weâre expecting progress in the coming years to come on multiple fronts (consumer acceptance, product quality, product suitability, policy, norms), and to mutually reinforce each other, but it would be worth clarifying so that you can better identify what youâre arguing against.
From my own work on alt-protein adoption in Asia I sense that PTC-parity is only a small part of the puzzle, but it would also be far easier to solve the other pieces if we suddenly had some PTC-competitive killer products, so PTC interact with other variables in ways that make it difficult to calculate.
Overall, I stand by my criticism that I donât think the positive PTC-hypothesis as you frame it is commonly held. But Iâd like to understand better what the views are that youâre critiquing. It would be interesting to see your anecdotal evidence supported- what people actually think when they say they (previously) bought into PTC, and who these people are. It could be true, for example, that people who work in PBM startups tend to believe more strongly that a PTC-competitive product will transform the market, but people working on the market side tend to realise how many barriers there are to adoption beyond these factors.
Thanks! My subsequent reply to Bruce might be helpful hereâwhile Bruce doesnât defend the claim here, I do think he says things that strongly resemble it elsewhere.