PepsiCo Says The Consumer Got Worse. Its Food Volume Held Anyway.

PepsiCo reported second-quarter results Thursday morning for the twelve weeks ended June 13. Core earnings per share came in at $2.20, one cent below the $2.21 analysts expected, according to CNBC’s survey via LSEG. Net revenue of $24.18 billion beat the $23.95 billion consensus, up 6.4% from a year ago, with organic revenue up 2.4%. The company affirmed its full-year guidance of 2% to 4% organic revenue growth and 4% to 6% core constant currency EPS growth.

Chairman and CEO Ramon Laguarta attributed the tempered quarter to moderating U.S. food and beverage category performance as consumer budgets tighten under rising inflationary pressure. He went further on the earnings call, saying “the consumer is worse than what we had anticipated” and pointing to gas prices as the main driver. CNBC noted the national average hit a four-year high of $4.56 per gallon in late May, after global oil prices swung on the U.S. war with Iran.

The topline held up because international carried it. Asia Pacific Foods grew volume 10% and organic revenue 9%. The International Beverages Franchise segment grew volume 5% and organic revenue 9%. Europe, Middle East and Africa grew organic revenue 6%, and Latin America Foods grew 4%. North America was the drag: PepsiCo Beverages North America volume fell 4%, and PepsiCo Foods North America volume was flat.

Flat Food Volume Was Bought, Not Suffered

The PepsiCo Foods North America line rewards a closer read than the headline coverage gives it. Segment organic revenue declined 2%, but the earnings release attributes that decline primarily to lower effective net pricing. Put plainly, PepsiCo took price down on purpose. CNBC reported the company cut prices on Lay’s, Tostitos, Doritos and Cheetos by as much as 15% in February, alongside brand restagings for Lay’s and Gatorade.

The cuts were not improvised. On PepsiCo’s February earnings call, Laguarta described the affordability push as a multi-vector program the company had been testing at scale since the middle of last year, aimed at the low- and middle-income consumers for whom affordability has become the biggest friction in the category, and deployed selectively by brand, format, and channel after those tests showed strong returns. This quarter is the first full scorecard on that program, and the grade is in the release: the North American convenient foods business gained volume share, a result the company credits to its innovation pipeline and the affordability program.

That trade was not free. PFNA core constant currency operating profit fell 8% in the quarter, and companywide core operating margin contracted 40 basis points. The pattern inside PepsiCo’s own disclosures is the one suppliers should sit with: the segment that invested in price held its volume and gained share in a weakening category, and paid for it in segment margin. The segment that took pricing up, PBNA, where effective net pricing added 3 points, watched volume fall 4%. PepsiCo does not draw that causal line explicitly, and category dynamics differ between salty snacks and beverages, but the contrast is the sharpest evidence in the release of how this shopper is responding to price.

The Volume Decline Has A Channel Address

The weakness was not evenly spread across retail either. Asked on the call about flat food volume, Laguarta said the impact is concentrated in impulse channels, where demand moves with the price of gas, and that in certain convenience stores and other independent outlets, shopper traffic has stopped translating into purchases at the usual rate. Whether that reverses in the coming months, he said, depends on where gas prices go. CFO Steve Schmitt pointed to the same place, telling analysts the convenience and gas channel needs to improve and that relief at the pump could supply the tailwind. When the marginal fill-up costs more, the impulse drink and single-serve snack attached to that trip are the first casualties. PepsiCo did not say where those purchases resurface, so suppliers should read the channel finding as directional: the impulse trip is the casualty PepsiCo can see, and the consolidated stock-up trip is the pattern worth watching for in your own POS data at mass and club.

For 1P suppliers in food and beverage, this quarter is a case study in the price-volume tradeoff that will dominate line reviews and JBP conversations for the rest of the year. One of the largest food and beverage suppliers in the ecosystem has concluded that holding shelf velocity with this shopper requires funding affordability, and it is absorbing the margin cost of that conclusion. Suppliers negotiating their own price-pack architecture against tightening budgets are running the same math with less balance sheet behind it. For 3P sellers in consumables, the mechanics differ, since Marketplace sellers set price directly instead of through trade investment, but the shopper signal is identical: velocity is migrating toward the items priced for a budget under gas-price pressure.

PepsiCo does not expect the domestic picture to snap back. Schmitt’s prepared remarks now call for “a more gradual improvement in performance trends” in North America over the balance of the year, and on the call he said the company will keep running its play, with adjustments possible based on what it is learning on value. The bet is that the recovery runs through more of what worked this quarter: Laguarta said PepsiCo will keep restaging global brands, pushing functional and portion-controlled offerings, and investing in affordability through the second half, noting that year-to-date global organic volume is growing at its fastest rate since 2022. The demand, by PepsiCo’s own accounting, is there. It is showing up where the price is right.

Winning With Walmart

Winning With Walmart is an independent platform for suppliers, sellers, solution providers, and industry experts.

Articles are developed by staff editors, contributing experts, and trusted partners.

Some are researched and drafted with the assistance of AI tools and are reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by Winning With Walmart editors before publication.

Editorial judgment, sourcing decisions, and final approval rest with the publication's human editors in every case.

We are committed to accuracy and fairness. If you believe this article contains an error, we welcome your feedback.