cross-posted from: https://vegantheoryclub.org/post/1255890
cross-posted from: https://vegantheoryclub.org/post/1244702
Horizontal market segmentation is a strategy that allows a company to create and market products tailored to different consumer segments without necessarily changing its core business practices or cannibalizing their own sales. In the context of a large meat producer such as Tyson Foods, this means offering plant-based (or otherwise animal-free) product lines alongside its traditional meat products. By adding a vegan-friendly offering to their portfolio, the company can appeal to conscious consumers seeking plant-based alternatives, all while continuing to invest heavily in, and profit from, the more lucrative animal-exploitation side of their operations.
https://www.crmbuyer.com/story/howard-moskowitzs-horizontal-segmentation-secret-sauce-70817.html
https://stevebizblog.com/how-to-crush-the-competition-with-horizontal-segmentation/
At the heart of this approach is the desire to capture as large a share of the overall market as possible. Rather than risk losing vegan or flexitarian consumers, meat producers roll out vegan product lines. To the average shopper, this might suggest that the company is evolving toward a more sustainable or ethical model. In reality, however, these new "vegan" brands function primarily as a safeguard: they protect the company’s bottom line against a growing demographic that avoids or reduces meat consumption.
Crucially, companies deploying this tactic rarely allow plant-based offerings to substantially affect, let alone undermine, the primary business model—raising and killing animals for food. Instead, they leverage profits from both segments, using revenue from their new vegan products to offset any dips in meat sales, while still expanding their existing meat-focused infrastructure. As a result, these companies maintain (and often grow) their overall market share and keep the broader system of animal exploitation firmly in place.
For vegans, this underscores a fundamental challenge: relying on non-vegan brands to “fix” the problems inherent in animal agriculture often falls short. While a new vegan product range launched by a big meat company may be convenient or widely accessible, it usually does not represent a philosophical or operational shift away from exploiting animals. Instead, it reinforces the company’s goal of capturing every possible consumer segment to bolster its profits. Those funds can then be reinvested in the company’s meat operations as well as its plant-based lines. The net effect is that rather than truly diminishing the market for animal-based foods, this horizontal expansion effectively allows the firm to profit from both sectors simultaneously—maintaining and growing the status quo in the process.
Consequently, the rise of “vegan lines” from traditional animal-based companies can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, more plant-based products reach more people—especially in mainstream venues—potentially normalizing a vegan diet for a wider audience. On the other hand, because the underlying corporate structure remains unchanged, the profits generally feed back into large-scale animal exploitation. In light of this, vegans should argue that genuine progress requires direct action and rebuilding supply chains dedicated to dismantling the animal agriculture system at its roots—rather than expecting established meat corporations, venture capital and start ups with the intent to sell out to transform entrenched businesses simply by adding a vegan label.