Why Cheap Toilet Paper Sets Off Alarm Bells Among Some Investors
Companies selling everyday goods say lower-income consumers are struggling, but better-off households are spending freely
Companies selling everyday goods say lower-income consumers are struggling, but better-off households are spending freely
Sellers of everyday consumer goods are experiencing a growing divide in their customer base between the more and less affluent. How they respond depends in part on where their products sit in the pecking order.
Both packaged-food companies and makers of household goods such as cleansers and paper towels are describing a bifurcation whereby higher-income consumers are spending freely, but those with lower incomes are feeling increasingly pinched by the cumulative impact of years of inflation.
“I think there’s certainly been much more bifurcation of the market, and it’s been creeping up over time. I wouldn’t say it’s been a sudden change,” Bank of America analyst Anna Lizzul said in an interview. Companies that are more exposed to low-income consumers “have mentioned the word bifurcation many times over the last 12 months,” she added.
Yet things appear to have come to a head recently. For food companies in particular, discounts and promotions are now back on the table after years of price increases—a significant concern for their investors. General Mills , during its latest quarterly earnings conference call, said it would step up coupon offerings in the current fiscal year and described the intensity of promotions in the industry as back to pre-Covid levels. The company’s stock fell 4.8% in response.
But for those targeting better-off households, the imperative is to keep investing and innovating to continuously improve their products, justifying still-higher prices in a process referred to as premiumisation.
This has long been the strategy of Procter & Gamble , which tends to occupy the premium tier of the categories in which it operates, from Gillette razors to Bounty paper towels. “The consumer within our categories, the consumer that represents our consumption base is actually holding up very well,” P&G Chief Financial Officer Andre Schulten said at an investor conference in June.
Most consumer-staples companies, however, have products targeting various income levels. General Mills, for instance, boasts organic Annie’s mac and cheese and high-end Blue Buffalo pet food among its brands. Kimberly-Clark competes with P&G at the high end in many categories, while also offering value-tier brands such as Scott toilet paper and paper towels.
The premium tier of products “continues to grow very, very robustly,” Kimberly-Clark Chief Executive Michael Hsu said on the company’s first-quarter conference call in April. “That all said, clearly, I would say, middle- to lower-income households look like they are becoming more stretched.”
“I think the growth driver for us over the long term is by making products better, premiumising, elevating our categories. But we want to serve the value-oriented consumer as well, too,” Hsu said.
Compared with P&G and Kimberly-Clark, Clorox stands out as more exposed to low-income consumers thanks to the categories it plays in, such as cleansers that face more competition from private-label goods, said Bank of America’s Lizzul. This is the case even though Clorox too often occupies the higher end of those categories, such as with its Glad-brand trash bags.
The company “is returning to pre-COVID levels of promotion to support a return to volume growth,” she wrote in a recent note. While much of that promotion spending will go to things such as displays as well as discounts, she still sees it having an impact on pricing and sales mix in the near term. Many other companies in the household-goods space are preferring for now to spend on stepped-up marketing and other investments in their brands instead of discounts, she said.
To be sure, lower-income American households are in aggregate still better off than they were before the pandemic, even accounting for inflation. Goldman Sachs forecasts that real, inflation-adjusted incomes for the bottom 20% will rise 1.8% this year. They also expect the top 20% to earn 2.7% more. At the same time, cash cushions built up during the pandemic have declined. The percentage of Americans who say they have enough cash to cover an unexpected $400 expense fell to 63% in 2023, equivalent to 2019 but down from 68% in 2021, according to Federal Reserve surveys.
Among those living paycheck to paycheck, there have been other shocks as well. Notably, the expiration of higher pandemic-related Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in March 2023 hit the food budgets of certain households by hundreds of dollars a month. Speaking on an earnings conference call in April, Nestlé CFO Anna Manz said that benefit change plus years of cumulative inflation had together reduced the purchasing power of lower-income American households by about 50% as of the first quarter.
“Now those are the consumers that predominantly buy in the frozen-food category, which is why we see a continued ongoing impact there,” Manz said. The Swiss food company owns frozen brands such as DiGiorno, Stouffer’s and Lean Cuisine. In its first-quarter earnings report , it said real internal growth, its measure of underlying sales volume, fell 5.8% year-to-year in North America, “primarily driven by a decline in frozen food.”
Yet even here, the company expects product innovation to be part of the solution. “There’s a lot to come, particularly on frozen actually, which is a high-innovation category. Consumers like seeing new stuff coming through; they want new meals,” Manz said.
Over time, premiumisation is a fundamental growth driver for all consumer-staples companies. The unit volume growth of diapers, for instance, is essentially just a function of birth rates. Only by making them better over time and charging more for that improvement can companies really drive revenue growth.
When lower-income consumers are feeling pressured, however, that long-term imperative might conflict to a degree with near-term necessities. So while it is understandable that companies often say they prefer to invest in marketing and innovation, many will also capitulate on price.
Investors could punish them for that.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
A 30-metre masterpiece unveiled in Monaco brings Lamborghini’s supercar drama to the high seas, powered by 7,600 horsepower and unmistakable Italian design.
A divide has opened in the tech job market between those with artificial-intelligence skills and everyone else.
There has rarely, if ever, been so much tech talent available in the job market. Yet many tech companies say good help is hard to find.
What gives?
U.S. colleges more than doubled the number of computer-science degrees awarded from 2013 to 2022, according to federal data. Then came round after round of layoffs at Google, Meta, Amazon, and others.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts businesses will employ 6% fewer computer programmers in 2034 than they did last year.
All of this should, in theory, mean there is an ample supply of eager, capable engineers ready for hire.
But in their feverish pursuit of artificial-intelligence supremacy, employers say there aren’t enough people with the most in-demand skills. The few perceived as AI savants can command multimillion-dollar pay packages. On a second tier of AI savvy, workers can rake in close to $1 million a year .
Landing a job is tough for most everyone else.
Frustrated job seekers contend businesses could expand the AI talent pipeline with a little imagination. The argument is companies should accept that relatively few people have AI-specific experience because the technology is so new. They ought to focus on identifying candidates with transferable skills and let those people learn on the job.
Often, though, companies seem to hold out for dream candidates with deep backgrounds in machine learning. Many AI-related roles go unfilled for weeks or months—or get taken off job boards only to be reposted soon after.
It is difficult to define what makes an AI all-star, but I’m sorry to report that it’s probably not whatever you’re doing.
Maybe you’re learning how to work more efficiently with the aid of ChatGPT and its robotic brethren. Perhaps you’re taking one of those innumerable AI certificate courses.
You might as well be playing pickup basketball at your local YMCA in hopes of being signed by the Los Angeles Lakers. The AI minds that companies truly covet are almost as rare as professional athletes.
“We’re talking about hundreds of people in the world, at the most,” says Cristóbal Valenzuela, chief executive of Runway, which makes AI image and video tools.
He describes it like this: Picture an AI model as a machine with 1,000 dials. The goal is to train the machine to detect patterns and predict outcomes. To do this, you have to feed it reams of data and know which dials to adjust—and by how much.
The universe of people with the right touch is confined to those with uncanny intuition, genius-level smarts or the foresight (possibly luck) to go into AI many years ago, before it was all the rage.
As a venture-backed startup with about 120 employees, Runway doesn’t necessarily vie with Silicon Valley giants for the AI job market’s version of LeBron James. But when I spoke with Valenzuela recently, his company was advertising base salaries of up to $440,000 for an engineering manager and $490,000 for a director of machine learning.
A job listing like one of these might attract 2,000 applicants in a week, Valenzuela says, and there is a decent chance he won’t pick any of them. A lot of people who claim to be AI literate merely produce “workslop”—generic, low-quality material. He spends a lot of time reading academic journals and browsing GitHub portfolios, and recruiting people whose work impresses him.
In addition to an uncommon skill set, companies trying to win in the hypercompetitive AI arena are scouting for commitment bordering on fanaticism .
Daniel Park is seeking three new members for his nine-person startup. He says he will wait a year or longer if that’s what it takes to fill roles with advertised base salaries of up to $500,000.
He’s looking for “prodigies” willing to work seven days a week. Much of the team lives together in a six-bedroom house in San Francisco.
If this sounds like a lonely existence, Park’s team members may be able to solve their own problem. His company, Pickle, aims to develop personalised AI companions akin to Tony Stark’s Jarvis in “Iron Man.”
James Strawn wasn’t an AI early adopter, and the father of two teenagers doesn’t want to sacrifice his personal life for a job. He is beginning to wonder whether there is still a place for people like him in the tech sector.
He was laid off over the summer after 25 years at Adobe , where he was a senior software quality-assurance engineer. Strawn, 55, started as a contractor and recalls his hiring as a leap of faith by the company.
He had been an artist and graphic designer. The managers who interviewed him figured he could use that background to help make Illustrator and other Adobe software more user-friendly.
Looking for work now, he doesn’t see the same willingness by companies to take a chance on someone whose résumé isn’t a perfect match to the job description. He’s had one interview since his layoff.
“I always thought my years of experience at a high-profile company would at least be enough to get me interviews where I could explain how I could contribute,” says Strawn, who is taking foundational AI courses. “It’s just not like that.”
The trouble for people starting out in AI—whether recent grads or job switchers like Strawn—is that companies see them as a dime a dozen.
“There’s this AI arms race, and the fact of the matter is entry-level people aren’t going to help you win it,” says Matt Massucci, CEO of the tech recruiting firm Hirewell. “There’s this concept of the 10x engineer—the one engineer who can do the work of 10. That’s what companies are really leaning into and paying for.”
He adds that companies can automate some low-level engineering tasks, which frees up more money to throw at high-end talent.
It’s a dynamic that creates a few handsomely paid haves and a lot more have-nots.
Now complete, Ophora at Tallawong offers luxury finishes, 10-year defect insurance and standout value from $475,000.
A luxury lifestyle might cost more than it used to, but how does it compare with cities around the world?