IN Brief:
- “Value 3.0” pushes beverage teams to justify price through performance.
- GLP-1 usage keeps pulling formulations toward satiety and density.
- Brands face a tighter brief: cheaper inputs, cleaner labels, fewer calories.
The Institute of Food Technologists’ “What Consumers Want in 2026” report is not subtle about the commercial reality facing food and drink brands: value still wins, and consumers are looking for more than “on promotion” and a bigger bottle.
IFT points to “Value 3.0” as the emerging frame — value judged not only by shelf price, but by how well a product fits a consumer’s budget, health priorities, and day-to-day convenience. Mike Kostyo, vice president at Menu Matters, put it bluntly: “Value 3.0 will be a constant focus for companies — and for consumers — in 2026.” The report also cites survey work showing that 81% of consumers rank value as the most important driver in food purchasing decisions, a number that explains why beverage renovation briefs keep arriving with the same two-line instruction: make it better, and also make it cheaper.
Where this lands in beverages is predictable, but still technically awkward. Formulators are being pushed toward protein and fibre additions, sugar reduction, and “functional” positioning that does not collapse under label scrutiny. At the same time, packaging formats and portion sizing are back under the microscope — not because anyone suddenly loves shrinkflation, but because smaller servings can be framed as intentional when paired with satiety cues, nutrient density, and clearer consumption occasions.
GLP-1 weight-loss drugs are the accelerant. IFT’s report treats GLP-1 impact as ongoing rather than speculative, with Innova Market Insights’ Lu Ann Williams noting: “Weight management has already impacted new product launches — and that impact is only expected to increase.” In practical terms, GLP-1-driven appetite suppression, plus a broader cultural tilt toward weight management, keeps nudging beverage innovation toward lower-calorie, higher-protein, and more explicitly “meal-adjacent” propositions — shakes, shots, fortified RTDs, and anything that can plausibly claim to do more than hydrate.
The tension, of course, is that these upgrades cost money. Protein isolates, functional fibres, flavour-masking systems, and stabilisation for high-protein RTDs are not free, and neither is the process engineering required to keep texture and shelf life consistent. “Value 3.0” is a consumer thesis; for manufacturers, it is a margin problem with a PowerPoint wrapper.
The companies that do well in 2026 will be the ones that can translate the thesis into repeatable engineering: stable supply on key inputs, realistic claims, and products that still taste like something people want a second time.
