What Sticks When the Jabs Stop?

Applying Our 6S Change Model for GLP-1

Your GLP-1 strategy is probably built on the wrong question.

Most senior leaders in marketing, brand, category and strategy are currently asking some version of: “How big is the GLP-1 opportunity?” or “Should we be launching a GLP-1 product range?” “How much of a risk is this to my business?” “Am I overexposed?”.  These are all reasonable questions; however, they are not the most important ones.

The question that will actually determine the commercial impact is this: which behaviour changes driven by GLP-1 will last and which will not?

That question matters because the answer is not the same for every user, every category or every brand. Get it right and you can position ahead of a genuine shift in how a significant and growing segment of the population relates to food, shopping and cooking. Get it wrong by either over-investing in a short-term blip or under-investing in what turns out to be a structural change and that cost could be significant.

This article applies Shoppercentric’s Six S behavioural change model to the GLP-1 evidence we have gathered. It does not offer reassurance. It offers a framework for thinking more precisely about who is changing, what is changing and whether it will stick.

We know that shifts in behaviour typically take longer than envisaged, even when technology or carefully developed pharmaceutical solutions are there to enable them. We also know that changes happen more quickly when ‘shocks’ are introduced to a system. Fourteen years of rationing during and beyond World War II forced a fundamental shift in the nation’s relationship with food and created deeper cultural changes. A widely documented sense of sharing, co-operation and community that embedded itself for a generation.

GLP-1 is a different kind of shock. And that difference matters enormously for how we think about what comes next.

The Six S Framework: A Brief Reminder

The Six S Framework was developed by Shoppercentric with an academic collaborator during Covid-19 to answer four key questions: how much has shopper behaviour changed, what's driving it, how lasting will it be and how can marketeers respond? 

Our quest was to understand what drives and creates the core shopper blueprint, how it is shaped and how it can change over time.  It is true that Covid was the catalyst at the time, but the model stands the test of time as it relates to core human behaviour and therefore has many applications.  GLP-1 is one of the most revealing we have encountered.

What are the 6 constructs in the model? A reminder of what the original constructs were...

Stickiness is the critical output or ‘answer’: how much does change endure?

Our model's key insight is that the more learning required and the greater the satisfaction, the stickier the change. If a new style AND a new script must be written, the behaviour is most deeply embedded. If someone just switches between existing styles/scripts, it's far less sticky.

The Four Stickiness Outcomes:

These describe the degree of change: Sidestep, Readjust, Pivot and Full Reset all arranged on a spectrum of increasing effort.

•        Sidestep: Shock experienced but existing style and existing script used → Minimal effort, minimal stickiness

•        Readjust: Existing style but a script change is required → Moderate effort and moderate stickiness

•        Pivot: New style but able to maintain same scripts → High effort, high stickiness

•        Full Reset: New style AND new script simultaneously required → Maximum effort, maximum stickiness - if the person is also satisfied with the change.

An example of a ‘Full Reset’ in behaviour during Covid was the increased engagement of +55yrs shoppers with online grocery shopping. The ‘shock’ of the pandemic had a greater impact on this group, prompting a meaningful shift in behaviour. The relative benefits of online shopping both enticed them and built confidence in a process they may not have adopted without such a nudge. This traditionally hard-to-engage segment has contributed significantly to the compressed growth we see in online shopping today. That said, many within this group have since returned to in-store shopping, because their shopper blueprint ‘style’ and the satisfaction to be gained from social experience of shopping outstrips that delivered by the convenience. And so, the blueprint has returned (slightly reshaped) closer to pre-Covid days.

As businesses we need to understand not just did behaviour change, but who changed, why they changed, how often they're doing it and how happy they are with the change. Together, those four questions determine customer momentum and therefore the direction of travel that underpins future planning.

NOW: Applying Six S to GLP-1

With that framework as the foundation, let us walk through each construct and examine what it reveals about the GLP-1 evidence.

Shocks and Why GLP-1 Is a Different Kind

In Six S, shocks are typically episodic: something happens, it jolts you into System 2 and behaviour changes. GLP-1 is unusual because the shock is continuous, pharmacological and intentional.  It doesn't just jolt the system once; it sustains a state of altered ‘food noise’ for as long as the person is on the medication. The drug doesn't just create the shock - it maintains it.

The screening mechanism itself - the preconscious biological and psychological drive to eat - is being dampened at source. That is categorically different from any macro shock the model has previously encountered.

The side effects (nausea, constipation, vomiting which are experienced by a significant proportion of users) function as a secondary wave of micro-shocks that further reinforce dietary switching.  Someone who was sick after eating rich food or crisps doesn't just decide cognitively to avoid them; they develop an aversion that gets written into their script very quickly.

This helps people make wilful, positive dietary changes. The impact of a failure to adapt can be imprinted physiologically. It is unpleasant. Our Six S model would predict the change to be very sticky indeed - at that time.

SCREENING: The Most Fundamental Disruption

Pre-GLP-1, most eating decisions are deeply System 1. Snacking in particular is almost entirely preconscious - triggered by hunger cues, habit, the visual excitement of seeing product in-store, boredom, stress.  GLP-1 users in the words of our research ‘biologically opted out of the reward (dopamine) loop.’  This is not a nudge or a style shift.  It is an intervention at the level of the ‘screen’ or ‘screening’ (or shopper in practice: saccadic eye movements) itself.

This matters enormously for the stickiness question.  In Six S, the screen is what subsequent behaviour loops back into. If users are genuinely developing new screens - new preconscious defaults around what food is for, how much is enough, what hunger means - that is the most durable form of change possible.  

That is not just a metaphor.  It's describing what Six S would call a reframing of the screen. The critical and unanswered question is whether that rewiring survives when the pharmacological support is withdrawn.

STYLES: A New Attitudinal Identity Around Food

Six S defines ‘styles’ as predispositions and behavioural signatures - attitudinal patterns that shape how someone approaches decisions. In our findings we talk about six user mindsets and approaches: Reprogramming, Lightbulb, Meal Skipping, Tactical dosing, Last Chance and Maintenance which are essentially ‘styles’, they have very different stickiness implications.  We explicitly talk about the fact that there is not one particular GLP-1 mindset or user type.  Shopper research must fully understand shoppers’ mindsets and we believe analysing behaviour alone doesn’t take you all the way. This is a discipline that we have always been very mindful of when truly understanding shopper outcomes. Let’s explore these mindsets and approaches in more detail, as this is an important factor.

The Reprogramming mindset: "more mindful, educated eating approach for a healthier lifestyle" represents a genuine ‘style’ shift. These users are constructing a new identity as an eater. "My relationship with food is just different. And that changes everything, positively." That is a satisfaction-driven style change of the highest order and by the model's logic, highly sticky.

The Lightbulb moment group: "portion size reality check, no lifestyle changes" represents the opposite. No new style has been adopted; the drug has simply provided a temporary recalibration without the user internalising a new approach to food. When the drug stops, the old style is likely to reassert.

Tactical dosing (switching usage on and off) is the most interesting style through a Six S lens. These users are actively refusing to write a single new script they are maintaining optionality and switching between their existing style and a GLP-1-mediated style. Six S would predict this is the least sticky cohort of all, because no new learning is being embedded; they are cycling between scenarios rather than committing to one.  However, maybe the shock comes back into play to commence the jabs again if the signifier is “I am putting on weight again.” It’s complex.

SCRIPTS are where we see the most extensive rewriting the model has encountered

This is where GLP-1 is most dramatic through the Six S lens. ‘Scripts’ are plans of action or sequences of expected behaviour across familiar social scenarios. The ‘script’ changes being driven by GLP-1 are comprehensive and simultaneous across multiple domains and here are some strong examples we are observing:

• When to eat: Breakfast disappearing for 25% of users, delayed eating becoming the new norm.

• How to shop: 84% of GLP-1 users shopping online vs 50% of non-users; 75% creating shopping lists vs 64%; 64% using meal subscriptions vs 22%.

• How to cook: Slow cooker use more than doubling vs non-users; planning and preparing ahead; batch cooking.

• What to buy: Protein-first thinking, macro-nutrient framing replacing calorie-counting, certain categories and product types higher on the agenda.

  
  

This is not a ‘Sidestep’ or a ‘Readjust’. For many users this is a ‘Full Reset’.  New style AND new scripts simultaneously.  By Six S logic, this is the highest stickiness territory. The learning cost has been enormous; the cognitive effort of writing entirely new cooking and shopping routines has been genuinely expended and that investment creates inertia in its own right.

The social dimension is also worth noting. The presentation shows users sharing their new scripts publicly: the GLP-1 fridge post, the "treats that count get shared" behaviour, the community forming around these new routines.  In Six S terms, scripts become stickier when they are social and shared.  Moving from personal plans into a ‘sharing state’ highlights commitment in quite a public way.  GLP-1 communities are actively creating a collective script that will outlast individual medication use.

SWITCHING: calibration not substitution and what that tells us

The overall sentiment we are learning is that GLP-1 dietary change as "calibration, not substitution". Users still want familiar foods, just done differently, in smaller portions, with more intentionality.  Through a Six S lens this is a crucial distinction.

Substitution would suggest switching between established scripts, moving from one known script to another.  Calibration suggests something harder to reverse: the script itself has been rewritten rather than replaced. You cannot unlearn a new portion norm the way you can stop shopping at a new store. The recalibration of what a normal portion looks and feels like is a script change that has a physical anchor (satiety) and even if the drug stops, the stomach has genuinely changed in what it can comfortably hold.

The switching data tells a story the presentation doesn't quite join up: these users are not just changing what they buy, they are changing how they relate to the entire decision-making process around food.  Fewer impulse purchases, more pre-store planning, less in-store browsing this is a System 1 to System 2 shift that has created new System 1 defaults. By definition, that is a sticky switch in Six S.

STICKINESS, so what does the model tell us? 

The model says stickiness is determined by two things: how much learning was required and how satisfied the person is with the change.

On learning effort, many GLP-1 users are in the highest stickiness scenarios: They have written new styles AND new scripts simultaneously, often under significant physiological pressure (side effects, hunger disruption, social awkwardness). This is ‘Full Reset’ territory and the model would predict high stickiness.

On satisfaction, we have uncovered that "success now, doesn't breed long-term self-confidence or self-trust in eating behaviour."  This is our satisfaction variable doing its work.  Users who attribute their success to the drug rather than to themselves have low ownership of the new script.  When the drug stops, their satisfaction narrative could collapse and there is a huge risk that the interpretation is "it was the medication, not me" and with it, the motivation to sustain the new behaviour.

This is the single most important stickiness insight the Six S model adds to the findings. The users who will retain GLP-1 behaviours post-medication are precisely those whose satisfaction is attached to the new version of themselves as eaters, not to the drug as an external agent. The Reprogramming mindset scores high on both counts. The Lightbulb mindset scores low on both. The Tactical dosing group has never fully committed to either. 

There is also a structural factor Six S would flag: the drug is both the shock AND the ongoing enabler for the new scripts. When it is withdrawn, the shock ends simultaneously with said enabler.  This is unlike Covid, where the shock ended but some of the scripts that had been written or adopted during it, remained because the world had also changed.  For GLP-1 lapsers, neither the biological prompt nor the social context necessarily persists. Unless the new scripts have become genuinely self-sustaining - unless the person has truly owned the change - the old screen reasserts.

With many long-term learnings yet to come through, it is very unclear if this is the alternative answer to other dieting models, programmes and approaches to losing weight.  How long will people stay with ‘it’ at this very moment in time, we already have a leaky bucket.  We know that the market will also continue to evolve - built around trust, information and support to the users & considerers, the press, the further pharmaceutical led developments and of course legislative and regulatory changes.

So, what are the fundamental learnings through our Six S lens?

The question is not "will GLP-1 behaviour stick?" but rather "for which users, under which conditions?" Our model predicts a clear segmentation:

• High stickiness is most likely where users have experienced the drug as a catalyst for becoming a different kind of person around food.  So, when the satisfaction is at an identity-level, not an outcome-level.  

  
  

• Low stickiness is most likely where the drug was experienced as an external agent doing the work, with little active script-writing by the user themselves.

The behaviours that will ripple outward (the Butterfly Effect) and persist are the ones that have been genuinely internalised: intentional eating, planned shopping, portion awareness, protein-first / fibre-first thinking.  Those are scripts that a growing portion of the population is writing with or without the drug.  GLP-1 is accelerating and amplifying a script-writing process that was already underway.

While the observed impact is meaningful, long-term growth will hinge on whether behavioural change becomes embedded rather than episodic. Today, retention remains the key challenge. Early attrition rates suggest we are filling a leaky bucket (our data shows more lapsed than current users). However, the broader opportunity lies in the fact that many individuals have begun to reconsider their relationship with food: reshaping both how they consume and how they shop.  This creates a foundation that can be built upon. 

As we are learning, a further wave of usage growth when tablets (and lower cost of entry) rather than jabs are available, the scale and rate of adoption could change.

The right question is not how big the GLP-1 opportunity is.  It is…

Which of the changes, now underway, will genuinely outlast the medication and are YOUR plans built for that world or the one before it?

Jamie Rayner

Managing Director, Shoppercentric

Assumptions cost money. Understanding behaviour makes it.

Sign up to our LinkedIn Newsletter here.