Food and Beverage Market Research
The gap between a launch that scales and one that stalls is rarely the product. It is the quality of evidence behind it.
Food and beverage market research has shifted from a validation exercise at the end of stage-gate development to a continuous intelligence function that shapes concept, formulation, packaging, and pricing in parallel. Category leaders now treat sensory, shopper, and competitive signals as a single connected feed rather than three sequential studies. That change alone explains why some launches hit velocity targets in the first eight weeks while others quietly get delisted.
Table of Contents
The food and beverage industry is in a state of flux. Several factors are creating change in the industry. These factors include urbanization, increased population growth, and changing consumer trends. The trend toward food and drinks made from natural elements is rising worldwide. Also growing is the trend toward online food delivery, which will be the focus of this report.
Why Food and Beverage Market Research Now Sits Earlier in the Development Cycle
Historically, food and beverage market research entered late: concept screen, home use test, launch. The best-performing teams have inverted this. Sensory panels calibrate against competitive benchmarks before R&D locks a prototype. Concept-product fit testing runs against three formulation variants, not one. Shopper insight guides pack architecture before design agencies are briefed.
The reason is economic. Reformulation after tooling is expensive. Reformulation after distribution is catastrophic. Nestlé, Unilever, and PepsiCo have all publicly restructured innovation pipelines around earlier consumer input, and mid-market challengers like Chobani and Liquid Death have used the same discipline to compress launch timelines against larger competitors.
According to SIS International Research, brands that integrate sensory testing for food products with quantitative concept scoring at the prototype stage cut post-launch reformulation cycles by roughly half compared to sequential testing models. The signal that predicts commercial performance is not overall liking. It is the alignment between concept expectation and product delivery, measured on the same respondents.
Food Delivery
Consumers can now order from a broad selection of eateries with a single tap of their mobile phones. Online food delivery platforms continue to increase accessibility and choice. New online platforms are racing to capture consumers and new markets. Platforms are springing up across Asia, the Americas, the Middle East, and Europe. The industry of transporting restaurant meals to the home is experiencing rapid change.
Analysis of Online Food Delivery App Market
Convenience is the primary factor driving the global online food delivery app market. The Americas are the most extensive online on-demand food delivery services market. This demand is due to the high penetration of smartphones. The market for these services is also growing in South America. In that region, several startups are building successful on-demand solutions for food delivery. These startups are taking advantage of South America’s well-connected population.
Compared to calling a restaurant, the food delivery app is an appealing solution. Restaurants put consumers on hold for extended periods. Consumers also find the process of calling out their credit card information tedious. Apps open up consumers to trying new foods and restaurants. The downside is that they reduce human-to-human contact.
Sensory Testing for Food Products: The Methodologies That Actually Predict Repeat Purchase
Overall liking scores are the most reported and least useful metric in sensory research. A product can score 7.2 on a nine-point hedonic scale and still fail. What predicts repeat purchase is the interaction between just-about-right (JAR) attribute alignment, penalty analysis on the drivers of dislike, and temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) across the eating experience.
Penalty analysis for JAR scale data isolates which attributes are costing you liking points and by how much. A sweetness JAR skew of 30% “too sweet” with a mean drop of 1.4 points is a formulation instruction, not a data point. Descriptive analysis panels calibrated to reference standards then translate that instruction into R&D language: reduce perceived sweetness intensity by two units on a 15-point line scale without shifting mouthfeel viscosity.
The methodological choice that most affects decision quality is central location test versus in-home use test. CLTs give controlled first-impression data and work for beverages, snacks, and confections consumed in a single sitting. IHUTs surface satiety, occasion fit, and household dynamics that CLTs miss entirely, which matters for meal components, frozen categories, and anything consumed over multiple sessions. Serious programs run both, sequenced.
The Rising Investment in Sensory Testing
Projected growth of the global food and beverage sensory testing sector, indexed to a base value of one hundred and compounding at roughly eight percent each year
Demand is projected to grow by roughly seven tenths over a seven year horizon, driven by clean label reformulation, faster launch cycles, and rising quality expectations
Source 1: Food Sensory Testing Market Size and Growth Forecast
Source 2: SIS International Food and Beverage Taste Testing
Where CATA and Projective Mapping Add Signal
Check-all-that-apply (CATA) methodology and napping/projective mapping have moved from academic tools to standard practice in consumer taste test methodologies. CATA captures sensory and emotional attributes without forcing scale interpretation across cultures, which matters for global launches. Projective mapping reveals how consumers cluster your product against competitors in perceptual space, exposing white space that concept boards miss.
New Food Product Development Research: What Separates Launches That Scale
Three research inputs distinguish launches that hit second-year velocity from those that get rationalized. First, concept-product fit tested on the same respondents, not sequential samples. Second, shelf-life sensory benchmarking against accelerated shelf-life testing (ASLT) protocols that reflect actual distribution conditions, not laboratory ideals. Third, competitive triangle test discrimination against the incumbent the retailer will compare you to during the category review.
Private label taste parity testing is now a board-level topic. Kroger's Private Selection, Costco's Kirkland Signature, and Aldi's exclusive brands have shifted from price plays to sensory-competitive threats. Research firm engagements for private label taste parity testing typically use blind paired comparison and triangle tests against the branded reference, with penalty analysis identifying the specific attributes where the private label wins or loses.
SIS International's proprietary research across food and beverage manufacturers in North America and Europe indicates that in mature categories, roughly one in three private label products now achieves statistical taste parity with the branded leader in blind triangle testing. The strategic response is not defensive reformulation. It is repositioning brand equity around attributes that blind testing cannot capture: provenance, sustainability credentials, and occasion.
The Categories Where Concept Testing Delivers the Highest Return
Food concept testing services deliver disproportionate return in three areas: plant-based protein, functional beverages, and clean label reformulation. Each has a specific research design that outperforms generic concept testing.
Validating plant-based protein sensory gap analysis requires descriptive analysis against the animal reference on texture, flavor release, and aftertaste, paired with consumer hedonic testing on both plant-forward and flexitarian segments. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods succeeded initially because they closed the sensory gap on specific attributes flexitarians prioritized. Categories where the gap remains open, particularly dairy analogs in cheese and yogurt, are where the next commercial wins sit.
Measuring clean label consumer perception requires separating stated preference from behavioral response. Consumers report they read ingredient labels. Eye-tracking and shelf-based observational research show most do not, which means clean label positioning works through front-of-pack signaling and brand trust, not ingredient literacy. Research designs that rely on stated preference alone systematically overstate clean label price elasticity.
Flavor and Texture Analysis in Global Rollouts
Flavor and texture analysis breaks down predictably by region. Sweetness thresholds, bitterness tolerance, umami expectation, and preferred mouthfeel viscosity vary across Asian, Latin American, European, and North American markets in ways that generic global concepts do not survive. Coca-Cola, Mondelez, and Danone maintain regional sensory calibration panels precisely because a formulation optimized in one market underperforms in another without adjustment.
The practical implication is that global concept scores are misleading without regional sensory validation. A concept scoring 75% purchase intent in the United States and 45% in Brazil is not a Brazilian problem. It is usually a sweetness or texture calibration issue that regional descriptive analysis would identify in a two-week study.
Why Taste Decides Which Products Survive
The stakes behind sensory discipline, showing how central taste is to purchase and how often products fail without it
Source 1: Taste as a Purchase Driver and Product Launch Failure Study
Source 2: SIS International Food and Beverage Taste Testing
A Framework for Prioritizing Research Investment
The SIS Food & Beverage Evidence Stack organizes research spend against decision risk:
| Decision Stage | Primary Method | What It Answers |
|---|---|---|
| Concept screen | Quantitative concept test with CATA | Which idea earns space on the roadmap |
| Formulation | Descriptive analysis + JAR with penalty analysis | Where R&D adjusts before tooling |
| Concept-product fit | Sequential monadic CLT with same respondents | Whether the product delivers the promise |
| Pre-launch | IHUT with competitive triangle test | How it performs in real occasions |
| Shelf-life | ASLT with trained panel | When sensory quality degrades in distribution |
| Post-launch | Velocity tracking + repeat purchase diagnostics | Why velocity is or is not building |
Source: SIS International Research
What C-Suite Leaders Are Buying When They Commission Food and Beverage Market Research
The strategic buyer of food and beverage market research is no longer the insights function alone. Category general managers, CMOs, and CFOs are co-sponsors because the decisions being informed, launch commitment, capital investment in production capacity, and retailer negotiation, sit at their level. This changes what the research needs to deliver. Not a report. A defensible position for a specific decision, with the sensory, competitive, and shopper evidence connected.
The firms winning share in food and beverage over the next cycle will be the ones that treat evidence as a competitive asset, not a compliance step. That is what modern food and beverage market research delivers when it is designed against the actual decision.
FAQs
What is food and beverage market research?
Food and beverage market research is the structured measurement of product acceptance, concept appeal, sensory performance, and shopper behavior used to guide reformulation, launch, pricing, and category strategy decisions.
How do you measure clean label consumer perception?
Clean label perception is measured through CATA methodology and projective mapping combined with segmentation on income and category behavior, isolating which claims lift trial, which lift price acceptance, and which are table stakes.
What is penalty analysis on JAR scale data used for?
Penalty analysis quantifies how much overall liking drops when a sensory attribute is rated "too much" or "too little," translating consumer response into a prioritized reformulation list for R&D.
How do you validate plant-based protein sensory gap against animal protein?
Descriptive analysis panels calibrated against animal-protein benchmarks, combined with temporal dominance of sensations testing, surface the texture-memory and flavor-release gaps that standard hedonic scoring misses.
Our Facility Location in New York
11 E 22nd Street, Floor 2, New York, NY 10010 T: +1(212) 505-6805
About SIS International
SIS International offers Quantitative, Qualitative, and Strategy Research. We provide data, tools, strategies, reports, and insights for decision-making. We also conduct interviews, surveys, focus groups, and other Market Research methods and approaches. Contact us for your next Market Research project.
EN 
AR 
ZH 
ZH_HK 
NL 
FR 
DE 
IT 
JA 
KO 
PL 
PT 
ES