Kroger’s AI Revolution: 3,000 Job Cuts—but What’s in It for the Consumer?

Kroger plans to eliminate 3,000 corporate jobs over the next three years while expanding its use of artificial intelligence. Here is the question CEO Greg Foran must answer: How much of the money Kroger saves will actually reach consumers through lower grocery prices—and how will shoppers know?

Reducing payroll and automating work may lower Kroger's operating expenses, but those savings do not automatically translate into lower prices at checkout. Management controls what happens next. Savings could be reinvested in price cuts, better fresh-food offerings, improved service, new technology or other corporate priorities. They could also help offset expenses and strengthen profitability.

Consumers deserve a clear answer about which path Kroger intends to take.

Shoppers don't buy algorithms. They buy groceries, meals and value. They care about what they pay, whether the food is worth the price and whether Kroger gives them a compelling reason to return. If AI makes the company more productive, management should demonstrate how that productivity improves the shopping experience and delivers measurable value.

The Grocerant Guru® challenge is straightforward: Publish the savings, identify how those savings will be used, and measure the results shoppers actually experience.

Track prices on a consistent basket of everyday groceries. Demonstrate improvements in fresh-food availability and prepared-meal value. Report whether those improvements follow the company's technology investments and restructuring.

This is not a demand that every dollar saved must become a price reduction. Kroger has legitimate operating costs and financial obligations. It is a demand for accountability. If management promotes AI as a way to build a better grocery business, consumers should be able to see evidence of the benefit.

Cutting costs is a corporate decision. Passing value to shoppers is a management choice. Until Kroger demonstrates that its savings are producing measurable consumer benefits, lower grocery prices remain a possibility—not a promise the company has earned the right to make.

The facts behind Kroger’s announcement

According to reporting published October 12, 2026, Kroger plans to eliminate approximately 3,000 corporate positions over the next three years. The company has about 8,200 corporate employees, meaning the announced reduction represents roughly 37% of that workforce. Kroger employs more than 400,000 people across its broader enterprise and operates more than 2,700 stores under banners including Ralphs, King Soopers, Smith's and Fred Meyer.

The announced cuts concern corporate positions. They are not an announcement that Kroger will eliminate 3,000 store-level jobs.

CEO Foran says technology is changing how work gets done and that Kroger must reduce duplication, adopt new capabilities and reconsider where work is best performed.

That language matters. Kroger is not describing AI as an isolated software upgrade. It is positioning technology as part of a broader organizational restructuring.

There is a business case for eliminating redundant work. But there is also a fundamental distinction between removing unnecessary bureaucracy and eliminating people who understand how to serve customers, manage suppliers, maintain product quality and solve operational problems.

The outcome depends on which work disappears—and what Kroger does with the money it saves.

1. What role is AI really playing in these cuts?

AI is an important part of Kroger's strategy, but the available evidence does not establish that AI alone accounts for all 3,000 announced job cuts.

In September 2026, Kroger outlined an AI strategy designed to improve shopping, simplify tasks for employees and produce better business results. The company's plans include tools to help shoppers plan meals, discover recipes, build shopping carts around budgets and preferences, and identify relevant savings. Other tools are intended to help frontline employees prioritize tasks and reduce information overload.

These applications have genuine potential.

AI can improve demand forecasting, help buyers anticipate changing preferences, identify inventory discrepancies, personalize promotions and automate repetitive administrative tasks. It can also make online grocery shopping more convenient.

But AI does not have to replace a person to change that person's job. It can reduce the number of people needed to perform a task, consolidate departments, eliminate reporting layers or allow one employee to supervise workflows previously handled by several people.

That is where the distinction between AI adoption and corporate restructuring becomes important.

AI can enable workforce reductions, but Kroger must explain which cuts are specifically attributable to AI and which reflect broader organizational changes.

Kroger's financial history also provides important context. During fiscal 2025, the company recorded approximately $2.5 billion in impairment and related charges associated with its automated fulfillment network. The experience is a reminder that technology investments do not always produce the anticipated financial or operational results.

The lesson is not that automation should be abandoned. It is that technological ambition must be matched by sound execution and measurable results.

Kroger management must demonstrate that its new strategy improves the operating model, rather than simply using technology as a justification for reducing expenses.

2. Will grocery prices go down—or will the savings simply keep Kroger afloat?

This is the most important question for consumers.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that grocery prices, measured by its food-at-home index, were up 2.2% over the 12 months ending August 2026. That is a national inflation measure, not a Kroger-specific price change.

Against that backdrop, Kroger's promise to become more efficient will not be enough to win consumers' confidence. Shoppers need tangible results.

There are three principal destinations for savings generated by AI and restructuring.

First, lower shelf prices. Kroger could use efficiency gains to reduce prices on frequently purchased staples, strengthen private-label value and offer more competitive meal solutions.

Second, better operations. Savings could support improved product availability, fresher produce, more reliable pickup and delivery, better staffing during busy periods and stronger prepared-food offerings.

Third, financial repair and profitability. Savings could help absorb restructuring costs, offset previous investment losses, improve profitability or support other corporate priorities.

All three outcomes may be commercially rational. But they are not interchangeable from the consumer's perspective.

A company can become more profitable without lowering prices. It can also improve value without cutting every shelf price, for example by reducing waste, improving food quality, offering better meal bundles or making pickup more reliable.

The public announcement does not establish how much the 3,000 job cuts will save, what portion of any savings will be reinvested in lower prices or whether shoppers will receive a measurable price reduction attributable to AI.

That is the missing accountability.

Kroger reported $4.9 billion in adjusted FIFO operating profit for fiscal 2025, alongside $1.9 billion in reported operating profit after significant impairment and related charges. These figures reflect different accounting measures and illustrate why the financial picture must be examined carefully rather than reduced to a single profit number.

The Grocerant Guru® is not arguing that Kroger should ignore profitability. A financially healthy grocer can invest, compete and serve customers for the long term.

The issue is whether cost reductions will translate into consumer value or primarily strengthen the company's financial position.

A lower corporate expense line is not the same thing as a lower grocery bill.

Kroger management should answer five straightforward questions:

·       How much will the planned workforce reductions save annually once fully implemented?

·       How much of those savings, if any, will be invested in lowering prices on frequently purchased grocery items?

·       Will Kroger publish a consistent price comparison that allows consumers to measure its performance against competing retailers?

·       How will the company demonstrate that AI improves fresh-food availability, prepared-food quality, pickup accuracy and customer service?

·       How will Kroger ensure that eliminating corporate positions does not weaken the operational support stores need to serve shoppers?

Until management provides measurable answers, claims that AI will make groceries cheaper remain a possibility—not a demonstrated result.

3. The employee undercurrent: efficiency for management, uncertainty for workers

There is another side to the announcement that deserves attention.

When a company tells employees that it needs fewer layers, less duplication and a different way of working, those still employed must consider what the changes mean for their jobs, responsibilities and career prospects.

It would be inappropriate to assume that every Kroger employee is unhappy or that every corporate position is unnecessary. The announcement does not establish the feelings of the affected workforce.

Nevertheless, a restructuring of this scale creates understandable uncertainty. Employees may wonder whether institutional knowledge will be lost, whether workloads will increase, whether decisions will become more centralized and whether today's surviving role will be tomorrow's redundant position.

There is a business risk here that executives can underestimate.

Employees who understand suppliers, regional customers, store-level realities and the nuances of food merchandising carry knowledge that is not always captured in a database. AI can analyze historical sales, but it cannot guarantee that management will interpret local circumstances correctly or respond effectively to every unexpected problem.

Consider a regional merchandising team that understands why a particular prepared-food offering succeeds in one market but fails in another. Reducing duplicate reporting may be sensible. Removing the people who understand those customers, without transferring their knowledge, may not be.

The same concern applies to food manufacturers. If sales, category management and customer-service teams are reduced too aggressively, suppliers may struggle to understand changing retailer requirements and respond to consumer needs.

The lesson is not that companies should preserve every job. It is that labor savings can become false economies when they destroy the knowledge, accountability and customer relationships needed to generate sales.

Kroger must demonstrate that its restructuring makes the organization more capable—not merely smaller.

Employee confidence also matters to customers. If a restructuring leaves remaining employees overwhelmed, weakens store support or slows responses to customer problems, the financial savings could come with an operational cost.

That is a risk management should measure, not dismiss.

4. Will every food company reduce staff because of AI?

No. AI will change work across the food industry, but it does not follow that every company will make layoffs or that every position affected by AI will disappear.

The impact will vary by function, business model and the quality of implementation.

Grocery retailers

Grocers can apply AI to forecasting, inventory management, promotion planning, online shopping, scheduling and customer-service workflows.

Corporate functions with repetitive administrative processes may face pressure to consolidate. Store operations, fresh-food preparation, merchandising execution and customer-facing work still require physical activity, judgment and accountability.

The opportunity is to use technology to help employees do more valuable work—not simply to reduce headcount.

Food manufacturers and consumer packaged goods companies

Manufacturers can use AI to forecast demand, improve production planning, analyze product feedback, optimize marketing and support sales teams.

However, food safety, product formulation, manufacturing quality, regulatory compliance and supplier management require appropriate human oversight. Automating a report is different from accepting responsibility for a product that reaches millions of consumers.

Restaurants and convenience stores

Restaurants and convenience stores can use AI for ordering forecasts, labor scheduling, inventory control, personalized offers and customer support. These tools may reduce waste and administrative burdens.

But preparing food, maintaining service standards, keeping equipment operating and serving customers during a busy meal period still require people or physical automation systems.

A restaurant can automate ordering but still lose customers if the kitchen cannot deliver accurate orders promptly. A convenience store can forecast demand more effectively but still lose sales if fresh food is unavailable when customers want it.

AI can change the labor equation. It cannot make poor execution irrelevant.

For some companies, AI will mean fewer administrative roles. For others, it will mean retraining, redeployment, new jobs or better productivity without an overall reduction in staff.

AI creates choices for management. It does not dictate a single employment outcome for the entire food industry.

5. Legacy food companies face a relevance problem—not just a cost problem

Kroger is competing in a market where consumers can choose among traditional supermarkets, Walmart, Aldi, Lidl, Amazon, convenience stores, restaurant takeout and prepared meals.

The competitive boundary is no longer defined solely by where customers buy groceries. It increasingly reflects where they can find the right food, at the right price, at the right time, with the least friction.

This is the Grocerant Niche: consumers increasingly assemble meals from multiple channels rather than thinking in the traditional categories of grocery, restaurant or convenience store.

The challenge is especially significant for prepared foods.

A shopper deciding what to eat tonight might compare a supermarket rotisserie chicken and sides with a restaurant family meal, a convenience-store hot-food offer or a ready-to-eat meal delivered to the door. Each competes for the same occasion, even when the businesses operate under different formats.

If Kroger uses AI to improve its understanding of that occasion, it could develop more relevant meal bundles, reduce food waste, target discounts more precisely and improve the availability of fresh-prepared foods.

But if AI merely helps the company send more digital promotions for products that remain too expensive, the competitive advantage will be limited.

The consumer does not care how sophisticated the retailer's algorithms are. The consumer cares whether the meal is appealing, affordable, convenient and available.

That is why the Price Value Service Equilibrium matters. Price is important, but value also includes quality, convenience, service and the experience of getting dinner on the table.

A legacy food company that focuses exclusively on reducing costs risks overlooking the reason consumers choose one retailer over another.

The same principle applies to restaurants, convenience stores and food manufacturers. Cost control is essential, but relevance comes from understanding what consumers want and delivering it at a price they consider worthwhile.

6. The real danger: companies change faster than customers see a benefit

Kroger's restructuring comes after its proposed merger with Albertsons was blocked in 2024 following legal challenges by the Federal Trade Commission and states. The failed merger demonstrated that scale alone is not a guaranteed solution to grocery competition.

Kroger now has to pursue competitiveness through its operating model, merchandising, pricing, technology and customer experience.

That is a substantial challenge. And the company's history with automated fulfillment offers a cautionary lesson: technological ambition must be matched by operational and financial discipline.

The same principle applies to AI.

A company may announce a new platform, eliminate jobs and report improved productivity. Yet the customer may still encounter empty shelves, confusing promotions, expensive prepared meals or an online order that does not meet expectations.

If that happens, the transformation has not solved the consumer's problem.

There is also a long-term risk to employee engagement. Workers who see repeated restructuring without clear improvements in the customer experience may become skeptical of the next corporate initiative. That is not a claim about how Kroger employees currently feel; it is a management risk that leadership should monitor through retention, engagement, service and operating-performance measures.

The strongest food companies will be those that align employee confidence with customer confidence. They will explain why work is changing, train people for new responsibilities and demonstrate that productivity gains improve the business customers actually experience.

The burden of proof belongs to management. Consumers should not have to assume that layoffs will benefit them. Kroger should demonstrate the relationship between its cost savings and measurable improvements in prices, products and service.

7. The Grocerant Guru® test: three measures Kroger should publish

If Kroger wants consumers to believe AI is improving the business, it should make the results measurable.

1. A price-value scorecard.

Track prices on a consistent basket of frequently purchased items, disclose meaningful price investments and demonstrate whether efficiency savings are contributing to lower prices. National inflation figures cannot substitute for company-specific evidence.

2. A customer-experience scorecard.

Measure in-stock rates, fresh-food quality, pickup accuracy, delivery reliability, prepared-food availability and customer satisfaction. AI should improve the outcomes that matter to shoppers.

3. A workforce-and-productivity scorecard.

Explain how the company is redeploying resources, training employees and measuring productivity. Report whether corporate reductions are accompanied by improvements in frontline support, service quality and operating execution.

These measures would help distinguish a real transformation from a financial restructuring dressed in technological language.

They would also give shareholders a better view of whether the strategy creates durable growth rather than short-term expense reductions.

Most importantly, they would allow consumers to judge Kroger by results instead of promises.

Three Grocerant Guru® Insights

1. AI does not automatically lower prices. It creates the opportunity to lower costs. Management decides whether the benefits reach consumers, support better operations or remain within the company's financial structure. Shoppers will judge Kroger by the price they pay—not the technology it deploys. Kroger should demonstrate measurable consumer benefits before claiming its AI strategy delivers them.

2. Employee discontent and customer discontent can reinforce each other. A company that removes unnecessary bureaucracy may become stronger. A company that removes essential knowledge, weakens service or leaves employees uncertain about their future can undermine the customer experience it is trying to improve. Workforce changes must be measured against the business outcomes they are supposed to deliver.

3. The next generation of food retailing will be won at the intersection of meals, menus, price and convenience. Grocery stores, convenience stores, restaurants and food manufacturers are competing for the same eating occasions. AI can help companies understand and serve those occasions more effectively—but it cannot replace relevant products, competitive prices and reliable execution.

The bottom line: Show consumers the savings

Kroger's planned elimination of 3,000 corporate positions is a major organizational change, and AI is an important part of the company's transformation. But the announcement does not prove that every cut is caused by AI, that grocery prices will fall or that every food company will follow the same path.

The more important question is what Kroger builds with the resources it frees up.

If the company delivers lower prices, better fresh food, more relevant prepared meals and stronger service, customers may reward the transformation. If the savings primarily improve the company's financial position while shoppers continue to struggle with the cost of dinner, the company will have missed a larger opportunity.

The Grocerant Guru® is not asking Kroger to promise that every efficiency gain will become a price reduction. Businesses have legitimate operating costs and financial obligations. The challenge is to make the relationship between technological investment, workforce restructuring and consumer value transparent.

That means publishing meaningful benchmarks, tracking results over time and being accountable for the outcomes.

Technology should make food companies more relevant to consumers, not merely less expensive to operate.

Kroger's leadership has announced what it plans to change inside the company. Now management must demonstrate what changes outside the company—in the shopping cart, at the checkout and on the dinner table.

Until that evidence exists, lower grocery prices are a possibility, not a proven outcome.

And in a food marketplace where consumers can choose among supermarkets, discount grocers, convenience stores and restaurants, the company that earns trust through demonstrable value will have an advantage over the company that simply announces another round of cost cutting.

Do your food marketing ideas look more like yesterday than tomorrow? Interested in learning how our Grocerant Guru® can edify your retail food brand while creating a platform for consumer convenient meal participation, differentiation and individualization?  Email us at: Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us or visit: us on our social media sites by clicking one of the following links: Facebook,  LinkedIn, or Twitter 

The Grocery Aisle Is Not One Demographic: Baby Boomers Put the Wrench in the Favorite-Grocer List

 

Why Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z Can Walk Into the Same Grocery Store Looking for Four Different Things. Leave it to Baby Boomers to say, “Ah, not so fast.”

A new look at grocery-store preferences by generation demonstrates something food marketers have known for years but too often forget: there is no such thing as the American grocery shopper. There are American grocery shoppers according to Steven Johnson Grocerant Guru® at Tacoma, WA based Foodservice Solutions®.

And they are not necessarily shopping for the same reasons, responding to the same messages, discovering food in the same places or defining value the same way.

The latest YouGov grocery research provides an excellent example. Overall, Aldi ranked No. 1 in the referenced study, while the generations disagreed about their favorite grocers. Millennials and Generation X put Aldi at the top, while Baby Boomers selected Trader Joe's.

That difference is not a footnote.

It is the story.

Food retailers and food marketers that lump four generations into one demographic are potentially marketing to an imaginary consumer.

The four major generations—Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials and Generation Z—may share the same grocery aisle, but they don't necessarily share the same shopping journey.

And the data from 2024, 2025 and 2026 makes that increasingly clear.

1. BABY BOOMERS: TRUST, VALUE AND THE POWER OF THE FAMILIAR

Baby Boomers deserve to go first because they are the demographic that most clearly demonstrates why brand trust still matters.

In YouGov's 2025 grocery research, Baby Boomers were particularly responsive to special offers: 84.7% said they are always on the lookout for special offers, compared with 80.5% of consumers overall. At the same time, 74.7% said they are usually looking for the lowest prices.

But Boomers aren't simply "cheap shoppers."

In fact, the same research showed that Boomers were more loyal to their primary store than younger consumers. Research from RRD found 61% of Baby Boomers said they tend to stay loyal to the store they shop at most often, compared with 55% overall.

That is important.

Price matters. Value matters. But trust can turn value into loyalty.

The 2026 YouGov research on brand values makes that even more compelling. Among Baby Boomers, 84% said honesty is the most important brand value, compared with 66% of Gen Z. Across all Americans, honesty and trustworthiness ranked as the two most important brand values.

And Boomers aren't technologically disconnected shoppers, either.

FMI reported in 2024 that 57% of Boomers use smartphones to look for grocery deals, while 52% use digital coupons.

So the stereotype of the Boomer who simply walks into the neighborhood supermarket and buys the same brands every week is increasingly outdated.

The better description is:

A value-conscious, trust-sensitive shopper who is perfectly willing to use technology—but doesn't necessarily need technology to discover everything.

FMI's 2026 beverage research found that 41% of Boomers discover new beverages through in-store shelf signage and 35% simply notice products while shopping.

For Boomers, the store itself remains a media channel.

That helps explain why Trader Joe's can resonate differently with Boomers than Aldi does with younger generations. The issue isn't simply price. It can be the combination of familiarity, perceived authenticity, discovery, product uniqueness and trust.

 

2. GENERATION X: THE VALUE-HUNTING BRIDGE GENERATION

Generation X may be the most interesting demographic sitting between the traditional supermarket shopper and the digitally enabled consumer.

YouGov's 2025 data found 78% of Gen X shoppers said they are usually looking for the lowest prices, the highest percentage among the four generations in that measurement. And 82.1% said they are always on the lookout for special offers.

Gen X also isn't waiting for the retailer to tell them where the deal is.

FMI's 2024 research found 67% of Gen X shoppers use smartphones to look for deals, while 66% use digital coupons.

That creates an important marketing lesson:

Gen X can be reached digitally, but the message still has to make economic sense.

They are also highly capable of switching among channels.

The 2025 grocery research showed consumers increasingly shop multiple retailers to optimize value, while FMI reported that 44% of shoppers were shopping at multiple stores to obtain the best value.

For Gen X, the grocery store is less likely to be a single destination and more likely to be part of a shopping portfolio.

 

3. MILLENNIALS: PRICE IS IMPORTANT, BUT VALUE HAS MORE DIMENSIONS

Millennials are where traditional food marketing gets particularly complicated.

They are highly price-conscious—but price isn't necessarily the entire definition of value.

The 2024 FMI research found that shoppers increasingly define value beyond price and quality to include relevance, convenience and experience.

And Millennials are particularly open to switching.

RRD's 2024 research found 50% of Millennials were willing to change stores for greater savings, compared with 45% overall.

That matters enormously to legacy brands.

A 30-year relationship with a retailer or food brand doesn't automatically protect it when consumers can discover another product, another retailer or another price with a few taps.

The 2025 EY Future Consumer Index found that U.S. consumers were increasingly prioritizing price and quality over brand familiarity. The same research found that 55% of consumers who try private-label products eventually switch back to national brands—but nearly half of those returning cite better quality, taste or performance.

That tells food marketers something important:

Private label isn't merely a cheap substitute anymore.

It can become a legitimate competitor to the national brand on the very dimensions—quality, taste and performance—that legacy brands traditionally used to defend their premium.

 

4. GENERATION Z: DISCOVERY HAS LEFT THE AISLE

If Baby Boomers demonstrate the continuing power of trust and in-store discovery, Gen Z demonstrates what happens when discovery begins before the shopping trip.

FMI's 2024 research found Gen Z shoppers were significantly more likely than average to seek additional information about products and stores before shopping. Forty-five percent of Gen Z used their phones to make grocery lists, compared with 29% overall.

By 2026, the behavior had accelerated.

FMI reported that 92% of Gen Z beverage shoppers use social media to discover new beverages, with 58% using TikTok and 55% Instagram.

And FMI's broader 2026 grocery research found that Gen Z shoppers visit an average of 6.7 retailers per month, more than any other generation. Nine out of 10 use at least one digital tool to plan grocery trips.

That is not traditional brand loyalty.

That is continuous discovery.

The product doesn't necessarily have to be discovered on the shelf. It can be discovered through a recipe, creator, social video, search result, AI tool, friend, review or digital promotion—and then purchased somewhere else.

The implications for legacy food brands are enormous.

 

BUT HERE IS THE BIG DEMOGRAPHIC COMMON DENOMINATOR: PRICE MATTERS TO EVERYBODY

This is where the data gets particularly interesting.

Food marketers sometimes talk about younger shoppers as though they are driven by experiences while older shoppers are driven by price.

The data doesn't support such a simple division.

Price matters across generations.

YouGov's 2025 grocery research found that 75.9% of U.S. consumers said they are usually looking for the lowest prices. The generational numbers were:

·       Gen X: 78.0%

·       Millennials: 75.7%

·       Gen Z: 76.4%

·       Baby Boomers: 74.7%

That's remarkably close.

And FMI's 2026 research reinforces the point: low pricing was the most frequently cited influential factor in choosing a grocery store, at 71%. Seventy-three percent of consumers reported adopting new shopping habits during the previous year to cope with rising costs, while 42% regularly visited multiple grocery stores to find lower prices.

So, yes:

Food discovery matters to every generation.

Price matters to every generation.

But how consumers discover and how they define value can be radically different.

That is the demographic opportunity.

 

FOOD DISCOVERY IS UNIVERSAL—THE DISCOVERY ENGINE IS NOT

This may be one of the most important findings for food marketers.

The consumer wants discovery.

But the discovery mechanism changes with age.

Boomer discovery:
Shelf signage, in-store merchandising, familiarity, trusted recommendations and the physical shopping experience.

Gen X discovery:
In-store merchandising combined with digital coupons, smartphone research, promotions and practical value.

Millennial discovery:
Digital information, social media, convenience, recommendations, price comparison, new products and experiences.

Gen Z discovery:
Social media, TikTok, Instagram, creators, digital communities, recipes, reviews, AI and peer recommendations.

FMI's 2026 research says shoppers still visit stores because they want to select products themselves: 48% said that is what they would miss most if they couldn't grocery shop in person. Discovery itself was cited by 17%.

So the physical store isn't dead.

Digital discovery simply means the shopping journey starts earlier.

 

TRUST MAY BE THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN FOOD MARKETING IN 2026

Now comes the bigger issue.

TRUST.

YouGov's 2026 research found that 74% of Americans consider honesty an important brand value and 71% cite trustworthiness, while 60% value consistency between what a brand says and what it does.

For Baby Boomers, trust is even more powerful.

But trust isn't simply an emotional concept.

In food marketing, trust can mean:

Is the price honest?

Is the package honest?

Is the portion honest?

Is the promotion honest?

Is the food what the brand says it is?

Is the quality consistent?

Is the retailer treating the shopper fairly?

And in today's economic environment, consumers are scrutinizing those questions more closely.

FMI's 2025 research found 70% of shoppers were extremely or very worried about rising grocery prices, while 44% were shopping multiple stores to find better value. Another FMI report said 90% of shoppers expressed concern about rising food prices and 78% were concerned about the impact of tariffs.

That is where economic uncertainty and government-policy uncertainty intersect with brand value.

Consumers don't need a political lecture from a food brand.

They need something much more basic:

Tell me what it costs. Tell me what I'm getting. Give me a fair value. And then deliver what you promised.

That is trust.

 

LEGACY BRANDS: THE REAL RISK ISN'T THAT CONSUMERS HATE YOU

The real risk is that consumers no longer need you.

For decades, legacy food brands benefited from familiarity.

Consumers knew the name.

They knew the package.

They knew where to find it.

They knew what it tasted like.

They trusted it.

But today's consumer has dramatically more opportunities to discover alternatives.

FMI's 2026 private-brand research found that 92% of U.S. grocery shoppers currently have store-brand products in their homes, while private-brand dollar sales increased 2.8% year over year, ahead of national-brand growth. Nearly half of shoppers increased their private-brand purchases during the previous year.

That changes the competitive equation.

The question for a legacy brand is no longer:

"Does the consumer know us?"

The consumer probably does.

The better question is:

"Why should the consumer choose us today?"

That's a very different marketing question.

And the answer can't simply be:

"Because we've been around for 75 years."

 

THE GROCERANT GURU® VIEW: THERE ARE NO DEMOGRAPHIC SILOS IN THE CONSUMER'S MIND

From my perspective as the Grocerant Guru®, the biggest mistake food marketers can make is assuming that demographic differences mean consumers live in separate marketing silos.

They don't.

A 72-year-old Baby Boomer may buy a prepared meal at a grocery store.

A 45-year-old Gen Xer may grab dinner at a convenience store.

A 34-year-old Millennial may order restaurant delivery and pick up groceries on the same trip.

A 22-year-old Gen Zer may discover a food product on TikTok, compare its price online and buy it at a mass retailer.

That's the Grocerant consumer.

The consumer doesn't care which organizational silo produced the food.

They care about price, quality, taste, convenience, portability, discovery, trust and the experience.

And that means the real competition isn't simply Kroger versus Aldi or Trader Joe's versus Whole Foods.

It is every food occasion competing for the consumer's next food dollar.

Three Insights from the Grocerant Guru®

1. DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER—BUT CONSUMER OCCASIONS MATTER MORE.

Boomers, Gen X, Millennials and Gen Z clearly behave differently. But they can all want the same thing at 6:00 p.m.: "What's for dinner?"

The winning retailer or foodservice operator will understand the demographic without allowing the demographic to become a silo.

2. PRICE GETS YOU INTO THE CONSIDERATION SET. TRUST KEEPS YOU THERE.

The data shows that price matters across generations. But price alone is not a sustainable brand strategy.

Consumers increasingly want proof that the value equation is fair: price + quality + convenience + experience + trust.

3. LEGACY FOOD BRANDS SHOULD STOP MARKETING TO THEIR HISTORY AND START MARKETING TO THE CONSUMER'S PRESENT.

Your brand's history may explain why consumers know you.

It doesn't necessarily explain why they should buy you tomorrow.

In an environment of economic uncertainty, expanding private label, digital discovery, AI-assisted shopping and increasingly sophisticated consumers, trust has to be earned at every transaction.

The grocery consumer isn't disappearing.

The old definition of the grocery consumer is.

And that may be the most important demographic fact in food marketing today.

 

Success Leaves Clues—Are You Ready to Find Yours?

One key insight that continues to drive success is this: "The consumer is dynamic, not static." This principle is the foundation of our work at Foodservice Solutions®, where Steven Johnson, the Grocerant Guru®, has been helping brands stay relevant in an ever-evolving market.

Want to strengthen your brand’s connection with today’s consumers? Let’s talk. Call 253-759-7869 for more information.

Stay Ahead of the Competition with Fresh Ideas

Is your food marketing keeping up with tomorrow’s trends—or stuck in yesterday’s playbook? If you're ready for fresh ideations that set your brand apart, we’re here to help.

At Foodservice Solutions®, we specialize in consumer-driven retail food strategies that enhance convenience, differentiation, and individualization—key factors in driving growth.

Email us at Steve@FoodserviceSolutions.us Connect with us on social media: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter