[PretzelPirate]

Many consumers want the taste of pork, and perhaps this will help them get it without causing the death of an animal.

People don't seem to want recipes for new flavors, they want to eat what they already like and in a more sustainable and less harmful way.

[JoeAltmaier]

That flies in the face of so much evidence. People don't want new flavors? Every snack food in the store is all about the new flavor. Every restaurant that opens downtown is about new recipes, new fusions and on and on.

You can get people to eat delicious things pretty easily. The fewer that eat pork the more expensive it becomes. Luring them to the cheaper, tastier alternative is an obvious ploy. Better than disappointing folks again and again with false claims of 'tastes just like pork' or whatever.

[PretzelPirate]

When I go to the store, I see the same old flavors rebranded as something new and maybe put on a new medium (ex: casava chips). When I see people grocery shop, they aren't looking for exotic meats, they want chicken breasts and ground beef. People attach themselves to specific products and specific flavors for life (some people are lifelong coke drinkers and hate Pepsi).

People like what's familiar and they find comfort in it. Unless you have a killer marketing plan to get consumers to try your new flavors, betting on comfort and familiarity and differentiating on something the consumer is passionate about, such as cost or climate impact, is a winning strategy.

[JoeAltmaier]

Until you build contempt by repeated failure. Like so many dismiss meat substitutes now, since they have disappointed for so long. That's the environment 'new meat' enters regardless of wishes and well-reasoned defenses.

I suggest the other approach will yield better results. It's a matter of marketing, which can change choices and preferences given time.