that said, no, I don't know of any data. we're going a little bit anecdotal, and a little bit off the menu. Even their "refreshers", which seem pretty light, are pretty rough. A frozen strawberry acai lemonade, grande size, has 35g of sugar. that's probably ~half the daily recommended value, depending on the drinker. The frappucinos are much worse (60g-plus). So I'd guess the shift to cold probably does include an increase in the average amount of sugar consumed per customer.
But one of the problems with GLP-1 impacts more broadly, I think, is that the data really isn't available, at least in the form we'd like. Starbucks (or McDonald's or whoever) isn't going to come out and say "we get 37% of revenue from drinks with greater than 40% of the recommended daily intake of added sugar, and 80% of those sales come from people who visit 3x a week or more". If you're trying to model GLP-1 impacts, you're really flying blind, and kind of the best possible for now is back of the envelope estimates.
I would certainly assume that, perhaps starting in Q3, we'll get some data from management teams that tries to disprove the GLP-1 narrative. On Twitter, we talked about the Abbott Labs CEO arguing on the Q3 call that investors were overestimating GLP-1 uptake. I bet we get A LOT of that in food, and some data points from a few companies discussing their possible exposure.
The question then, of course, is to what extent those data points can be trusted. And if you want to get a little crazy, perhaps one way to look at it is that if companies DON'T really provide a rebuttal to GLP-1 fears, then that itself is a tacit admission that there's real risk ahead.
That's actually on the list, though not sure if it will make the final cut, as it were. Pretty amazing that LFMD and AMWL now have basically the same market cap - pretty wild to chart the two market caps over the years.
Any data showing SBUX drinks are sugary/milkshakes? Thought it was just a preference change to cold…
we were exaggerating a bit for effect there.
that said, no, I don't know of any data. we're going a little bit anecdotal, and a little bit off the menu. Even their "refreshers", which seem pretty light, are pretty rough. A frozen strawberry acai lemonade, grande size, has 35g of sugar. that's probably ~half the daily recommended value, depending on the drinker. The frappucinos are much worse (60g-plus). So I'd guess the shift to cold probably does include an increase in the average amount of sugar consumed per customer.
But one of the problems with GLP-1 impacts more broadly, I think, is that the data really isn't available, at least in the form we'd like. Starbucks (or McDonald's or whoever) isn't going to come out and say "we get 37% of revenue from drinks with greater than 40% of the recommended daily intake of added sugar, and 80% of those sales come from people who visit 3x a week or more". If you're trying to model GLP-1 impacts, you're really flying blind, and kind of the best possible for now is back of the envelope estimates.
I would certainly assume that, perhaps starting in Q3, we'll get some data from management teams that tries to disprove the GLP-1 narrative. On Twitter, we talked about the Abbott Labs CEO arguing on the Q3 call that investors were overestimating GLP-1 uptake. I bet we get A LOT of that in food, and some data points from a few companies discussing their possible exposure.
The question then, of course, is to what extent those data points can be trusted. And if you want to get a little crazy, perhaps one way to look at it is that if companies DON'T really provide a rebuttal to GLP-1 fears, then that itself is a tacit admission that there's real risk ahead.
Hi, you might check out $LFMD!
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4628828-lifemd-a-derivative-beneficiary-of-the-demand-for-anti-obesity-pharmaceuticals
That's actually on the list, though not sure if it will make the final cut, as it were. Pretty amazing that LFMD and AMWL now have basically the same market cap - pretty wild to chart the two market caps over the years.