Diversifying in coffee – is the trend your friend?
Sarah Charles
February 10, 2026
Coffee cups on a truck in an article about diversifying in coffee.
RTD and functional drinks promise relevance, but they also add cost, complexity and risk in an already crowded market
In saturated coffee scenes, a strong, well-defended core can stand out more than chasing every new craze
Big legacy brands can afford to flirt with trends, while smaller brands survive by choosing experiments that strengthen their identity
FOR consumer brands, trends arrive like tides. Some lift all boats, while others swamp those who aren’t ready.
In coffee, the current waves are clear at just a glance: the matcha craze, ready-to-drink cans multiplying, and functional add-ons creeping into menus and bottles. Industry chatter on social media reveals some debate – and even anxiety, for some – around whether to adopt these trends. Coffee influencer Dritan Alsela has been ruffling feathers by loudly and categorically rejecting matcha in coffee shops, for example.
Is sticking stubbornly to coffee the safer bet?
The answer, inconveniently, depends on who you are, how big you want to be, and how much risk you can afford.
Coffee is an unusually saturated market. In mature regions such as the UK, Western Europe and parts of the US, consumers are spoiled for choice. Many brands that once thrived as strong independents now find themselves indistinguishable from the café next door. In that context, trends can look like lifelines. They become a way to signal relevance and attract younger consumers while creating new revenue streams.
Matcha is the clearest example. Once niche, it is now a global category with serious supply chains, price volatility and cultural capital. In the US especially, matcha has become shorthand for wellness, aesthetic taste and generational identity. Ignoring it can feel like opting out of the conversation altogether.
Yet in the F&B sector, jumping on trends comes at a cost. New ingredients require new suppliers, training, equipment and quality control. Ready-to-drink products bring manufacturing complexity, shelf-life risk and capital intensity. For small operators, these can weigh heavy. To keep up, companies need a steep improvement curve and active product development processes.
Some brands choose discipline instead. Successful legacy brands, for example, tend to defend a clear core while allowing limited, seasonal experimentation around it. Take Nike as an example: its foundation in athletic performance remains intact, but it continually refreshes how that core is expressed – through design, technology, sustainability, and timely cultural cues.
This logic explains why companies that have lasted decades often appear boring – but can appear to be boredom is sometimes just focus. In some cases, large multinationals that have the capital to diversify and innovate can lose their identity with too many styles and offerings. This is a criticism often levied at Starbucks, and the reason why it pivoted to its current “Back to Starbucks” strategy.
In a low-margin industry like coffee, being good at one thing can still be a competitive advantage – provided the market values it.
“For me, the key question is not ‘Is this trend popular?’ but ‘Why does this trend matter to customers right now?’ says André Eiermann, Global Product Manager Coffee at Melitta Professional Coffee Solutions. “Trends like matcha or RTD become unavoidable because they answer real needs – for example, energy without stress, convenience without compromise, or new rituals without complexity that fit modern lives. If a trend helps a brand express its strengths in a new and relevant way, it can add real value.”
“The challenge starts when trends are treated like costumes. If following a trend means changing your values, your beliefs, or pretending to be something you are not, customers feel that very quickly. Especially Gen Z, who are very sensitive to brands that borrow relevance instead of building it. Good trend adoption should feel ‘additive.’ It should make what you stand for clearer, and certainly not more confusing.”
When consumer tastes genuinely shift, refusal to adapt can look less like principle and more like denial.
Scale changes everything
What works for a small café rarely works for a multinational – and vice versa. In Europe, where markets are fragmented and growth is incremental, brands can survive by deepening loyalty rather than chasing scale. In the US, where distribution is vast and competition brutal, standing still is often not an option.
From an investment perspective, trends are double-edged. On the one hand, they can offer growth narratives, but on the other, they can dilute margins and focus. Launching products outside a company’s expertise is expensive, and the payback uncertain. Many trend-led launches fail over time – Starbucks’ incongruous olive oil latte being a case in point – absorbing cash and attention that could have strengthened the core business.
Big brands may afford this, but small ones cannot. Now, with inflation at an all-time high, even big brands are playing it safe too. According to Vestbee, food giants spend just 0.4% of revenue on R&D, compared with about 18% in software and 12% in pharmaceuticals. This means established legacy brands, comfortable in their success, can afford to take risks.
Smaller brands copying this behaviour often misread the lesson. They adopt the surface – new drinks, new format – without the structural insulation. When a trend fades, they are left with sunk costs and confused customers.
“Scale should not decide if a brand experiments, but how it experiments,” says André. “Big brands can run many trend tests – or consumer insight tests – at the same time and absorb failure financially more easily. But they often struggle with something smaller brands are very good at: staying close to their community and moving with cultural sensitivity.
“For smaller brands, experimentation works best when it is not about expansion, but about participation. Limited drops, collaborations, seasonal menus, or test formats are ways to invite customers into the process while limiting the risk of failure. I am personally a firm believer in co-creation – where experience, community, and co-creation come together. Ambition is about choosing experiments that extend your core identity, without losing what made people care in the first place.”
A matcha latte in an article about diversifying coffee trends.
When trends help – and when they don’t
Research on consumer behaviour shows that factors like product quality, pricing, and brand reputation enhance consumer trust, fostering repeat purchases. Novelty attracts attention, but trust drives brand loyalty.
In categories tied to daily ritual – coffee included – consumers tolerate experimentation at the margins but expect reliability at the centre. A café can sell matcha; it still needs to make good coffee. A roaster can sell cold brew; its beans must still justify the brand.
Generational dynamics complicate this further. Younger consumers are more open to crossover categories, less loyal to formats, and more responsive to cultural signals than product pedigree. For brands with ambitions to scale, ignoring that cohort is risky. Many specialty coffee shops are getting on board with trends. But catering exclusively to it is equally dangerous, as tastes shift fast and brand memories are short.
The deeper question, then, is not whether to follow trends, but why. Is the move anchored in a clear commercial logic, or is it a reflex born of fear? Too many brands confuse visibility with viability.
“Long-term success comes from being consistent in who you are, not from constantly reinventing yourself,” says André. “Strong legacy brands do not change their identity every time culture moves. Instead, they translate the same core values into new moments, formats, and behaviours. The problem starts when brands confuse reinvention with relevance. They change products, visuals, or tone faster than they update their point of view and beliefs.”
Cultural consistency is the anchor – reinvention is the movement around it. Most brands get the balance wrong when trends start leading strategy, instead of strategy filtering trends. When everything becomes flexible, nothing feels trustworthy anymore. And in a world full of choice, noise, and uncertainty, trust is often the most valuable thing a brand can build.”
There is also a timing problem. By the time a trend is obvious, it is often already crowded. Late entrants may face higher costs and thinner differentiation. On the flipside, early movers bear more risk but reap more upside. Most brands arrive somewhere in the uncomfortable middle.
The coffee industry’s current hesitation reflects this bind. Matcha and RTD are neither fads nor guarantees. They are adjacent markets with their own economics, and entering them requires humility as much as ambition. The paradox is that in a world obsessed with trends, durability has become a form of differentiation.
Coffee Intelligence