SHOCKER: Company That Sells ‘Plant-Based Meat’ Is In A Stock Freefall
Analysis Summary
This article tries to convince you that plant-based meats are a failure and that 'real meat' is what true Americans prefer. It does this by creating a sense of 'us vs. them,' pitting traditional American values and 'real meat' against 'powerful leftists' and 'globalist NGOs' who supposedly push plant-based alternatives. The article uses emotional language and focuses narrowly on one company's stock performance while ignoring broader market trends or the reasons people might choose plant-based options.
FATE Analysis
Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.
Focus signals
"This week, one share of Beyond Meat dropped to 70 CENTS. Yes, 70 pennies for one share of the “plant-based meat” company."
The dramatic drop in stock price to '70 CENTS' and the emphatic restatement 'Yes, 70 pennies' is presented as a novel and financially shocking event to capture and hold the reader's attention, emphasizing the perceived failure.
"That’s not much better than if you had invested in Blockbuster in 2000. (RIP, Blockbuster.)"
This comparison to a famously failed company (Blockbuster) is a clever and novel way to illustrate the extreme failure, creating a 'novelty spike' that makes the situation seem extraordinary and memorable.
Authority signals
"Remember when powerful leftists like Bill Gates assured us that it would be good for the world if we stopped eating real meat and transitioned to consuming lab-grown alternatives?"
While portrayed negatively, mentioning Bill Gates (a figure associated with significant influence and expertise in several fields) is an appeal to a perceived authority, even if it's to contrast or dismiss his views. It implicitly acknowledges his status as someone whose opinions on global issues carry weight for some audiences.
"Or when globalist NGOs argued that eating bugs is totally normal and would save the planet?"
Referring to 'globalist NGOs' leverages the perceived institutional weight of these organizations, positioning them as authoritative bodies making claims about global solutions, again, even if the article's intent is to dismiss their propositions.
Tribe signals
"most Americans still want meat — real meat, like steaks, burgers, and tenderloins, not the plant-based alternatives sold by companies such as Beyond Meat."
This immediately establishes an 'us vs. them' dynamic: 'most Americans' who want 'real meat' versus those who consume 'plant-based alternatives.' It creates a clear division.
"The market has spoken, most Americans still want meat — real meat..."
The phrase 'most Americans still want meat' presents a widely held consensus, suggesting that anyone who prefers plant-based alternatives is outside this majority view.
"The market has spoken, and it decided against a processed echo of America’s beloved beef."
This weaponizes identity by linking 'America's beloved beef' to national identity and traditional values, subtly suggesting that preferring alternatives is un-American or at odds with these values.
"Well, if they can’t take the hint — freedom-loving Americans aren’t going to give up their juicy steak."
This explicitly reinforces an 'us vs. them' narrative, pitting 'freedom-loving Americans' against unspecified 'they' (implied to be 'leftists' and 'globalist NGOs'), conflating dietary choices with political identity and freedom.
"Every dollar you spend at Jeremy’s Razors is one less dollar in the pockets of woke CEOs who only care about your money."
This overtly weaponizes identity, framing purchasing decisions as a tribal act against 'woke CEOs,' turning consumer choice into a political and social statement that aligns with a specific 'tribe.'
Emotion signals
"This week, one share of Beyond Meat dropped to 70 CENTS. Yes, 70 pennies for one share of the “plant-based meat” company. That means if you invested $10,000 when things were going well back in 2021, you would be left with $41 today."
The stark financial loss described here, especially the transformation of $10,000 to $41, is designed to elicit shock and outrage, particularly among potential or actual investors, and broadly, to mock the failure of the company.
"Remember when powerful leftists like Bill Gates assured us that it would be good for the world if we stopped eating real meat and transitioned to consuming lab-grown alternatives? Or when globalist NGOs argued that eating bugs is totally normal and would save the planet? Well, if they can’t take the hint — freedom-loving Americans aren’t going to give up their juicy steak."
This passage uses a sarcastic tone to mock opposing viewpoints, positioning 'freedom-loving Americans' as having common sense and moral clarity in their preference for 'real meat,' thereby fostering a sense of intellectual and moral superiority among readers who share this view.
"Every dollar you spend at Jeremy’s Razors is one less dollar in the pockets of woke CEOs who only care about your money."
This statement is designed to provoke outrage against 'woke CEOs,' implying they are exploitative and morally bankrupt. It calls readers to action (buying Jeremy's Razors) out of this emotional response rather than purely rational consideration of product quality or price.
Narrative Analysis (PCP)
How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).
The article aims to instill the belief that plant-based meat alternatives are a failed and undesirable product, associated with 'powerful leftists' and 'globalist NGOs', and that rejecting them is a demonstration of 'freedom-loving American' values. It promotes the idea that 'real meat' is what 'most Americans still want' and that the market has definitively rejected alternatives.
The article shifts the context from a discussion about dietary choices, environmental concerns, or health benefits of plant-based foods to a cultural and political battleground. The failure of Beyond Meat's stock is presented not as a market fluctuation or business challenge, but as a victory against a 'woke' agenda, making rejection of plant-based foods a stand for 'freedom' and 'values'.
The article omits broader market trends in plant-based food beyond Beyond Meat's stock performance, the complexities of investment markets that can lead to stock downturns unrelated to product quality or consumer desire, or the continued growth and consumer interest in plant-based products in general. It also omits the health, ethical, or environmental arguments typically made for plant-based consumption, focusing solely on a caricatured, politically-charged framing.
The article subtly encourages readers to embrace and defend traditionally masculine and 'American' consumer choices, specifically 'real meat', and by extension, other 'real' products from companies like Jeremy's Razors, viewing these choices as acts of defiance against 'woke CEOs' and 'globalist NGOs'.
SMRP Pattern
Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.
"Remember when powerful leftists like Bill Gates assured us that it would be good for the world if we stopped eating real meat and transitioned to consuming lab-grown alternatives? Or when globalist NGOs argued that eating bugs is totally normal and would save the planet?"
Red Flags
High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.
"freedom-loving Americans aren’t going to give up their juicy steak."
Techniques Found(7)
Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.
"The market has spoken, most Americans still want meat — real meat, like steaks, burgers, and tenderloins, not the plant-based alternatives sold by companies such as Beyond Meat."
This statement appeals to a shared preference for 'real meat' among 'most Americans,' positioning it as a desirable and popular choice, aligning with the values of traditional American consumption.
"This week, one share of Beyond Meat dropped to 70 CENTS. Yes, 70 pennies for one share of the “plant-based meat” company. That means if you invested $10,000 when things were going well back in 2021, you would be left with $41 today."
While factually showing a drop, the emphasis on '70 CENTS' and '70 pennies' coupled with the stark contrast of 'invested $10,000' and 'left with $41' exaggerates the failure of Beyond Meat to create a strong negative impression.
"The market has spoken, and it decided against a processed echo of America’s beloved beef."
The phrase 'processed echo' is loaded language used to describe plant-based alternatives negatively, implying they are an inferior imitation. 'America’s beloved beef' uses loaded language to foster a positive emotional connection to traditional meat.
"Remember when powerful leftists like Bill Gates assured us that it would be good for the world if we stopped eating real meat and transitioned to consuming lab-grown alternatives? Or when globalist NGOs argued that eating bugs is totally normal and would save the planet?"
This technique invokes figures like Bill Gates and 'globalist NGOs' as authorities or proponents of plant-based/alternative diets, but it does so in a way that implies their positions are untrustworthy or out of touch, rather than citing them for actual evidence.
"Remember when powerful leftists like Bill Gates assured us that it would be good for the world if we stopped eating real meat and transitioned to consuming lab-grown alternatives? Or when globalist NGOs argued that eating bugs is totally normal and would save the planet?"
The terms 'powerful leftists' and 'globalist NGOs' are used as negative labels to discredit the proponents of alternative meat products and their ideas, rather than addressing the arguments themselves.
"Well, if they can’t take the hint — freedom-loving Americans aren’t going to give up their juicy steak."
This statement uses 'freedom-loving Americans' to evoke national pride and identity, linking the consumption of 'juicy steak' to American values of freedom and resistance to external influence.
"Every dollar you spend at Jeremy’s Razors is one less dollar in the pockets of woke CEOs who only care about your money."
The term 'woke CEOs' is loaded language, used to create a negative association with competing companies and frame Jeremy's Razors as an alternative that aligns with the reader's presumed values.