The easiest claim to read wins at shelf.
· Canopy Brand Group
Whether AI changes that depends on the proof brands are willing to publish.
In consumer goods, the claim that wins the shelf is usually the one that’s easiest to read, not the one that took the most work to prove.
A big number on pack, a short ingredient callout, a badge. Shoppers scroll fast, and attention is short, and the digital shelf is making this truer every year. That puts honest products in an awkward spot. The evidence behind a claim is often slower, harder, and more expensive to build than the claim itself, and none of that work shows on the front of the pack. Here is one example of who has to do that work, and why AI could make this better or worse.
Take probiotics…
Two products may show impressive numbers on pack for the live bacteria inside, but those numbers don’t necessarily tell you how much will still be there when the consumer actually uses the product. The bigger number tends to win, and sometimes it reflects the day the product was made. Live bacteria die over time, so the amount in the bottle at home is lower. Industry best-practice guidelines from trade groups like the Council for Responsible Nutrition and the International Probiotics Association say the label count should reflect the end of shelf life, not the day of manufacture. The shortcut is common. It gives shoppers a rosier picture than they get at home, and it makes other products look weaker online.
Doing it right happens at the bench and in the pilot plant, long before anyone writes a label.
Scientists have to design a formula that keeps live bacteria alive. Engineers have to understand what pressing a tablet or filling a capsule does to them. Then comes testing over time to see how many survive on the shelf, extra bacteria added up front to make up for the ones that die, and packaging that protects them without wrecking the cost. Operations and supply chain have to protect that life all the way to the store.
In my experience, partnerships with the suppliers who develop the strains pay off more than some would expect, and regulatory needs a seat at the table from the start.
The result can look like a disadvantage: a smaller number, a higher price, a longer timeline. It’s the right work and the right offering, and the shelf struggles to show it.
Now add AI.
The September issue called this the AI Shelf. These days, more shopping starts with an assistant instead of a search bar. I don’t know yet whether that fixes the problem or scales it.
An assistant that reads “50 billion” exactly as printed, with no idea whether it’s the count at manufacture or at expiry, repeats that rough read faster. Does it even read the small print or disclaimers? One that can weigh evidence could finally reward the product that did the work. What we get depends largely on what brands are willing to publish.
That gives R&D, regulatory, and marketing a shared job. The proof must exist, and it has to be clear enough that a person or a machine can find it and compare it.
Two questions for your next leadership meeting.
1. Does each claim on your digital shelf or front of pack authentically represent the work and value your product delivers?
2. And who owns the proof from bench to shelf, so R&D, regulatory, and marketing work from the same file?
About Maria Eugenia Fumagalli
Sr. Director, Product Development North America, Ontex
Eugenia leads product development in North America at Ontex and has spent 20 years in consumer goods. Her R&D career spans personal care, home care, and vitamins, minerals, and supplements, including probiotics, giving her a view of how claims are built and proven across consumer categories. The views expressed are her own.
Want to be featured in Inside the Industry? Schedule a call.