No its not, I’ll give you that, but i feel it would be more environmentally friendly then most people in terms of the amount if waste produced. Although i suppose it would be much better if H&S could use recyclable packaging.
We’ve had this discussion with Matt already 
2 Likes
Yes you have. Gen-z hate me for killing the planet, but baby boomers complain that i ride my bike instead of driving to work.
Well, that was just a suggestion from someone who has never seen the new product. If you already tried it you know more about the texture or what the product is like in reality.
Just tried to help…Perhaps you will find a better way to lower the costs.
The price per 400 cal meal, as well as the minimum order of meals, are both less than RTD and yet there seems to be a disproportionately high level of complaints on both counts for H&S compared to other products? it’s also cheaper than bars for a 400 cal meal. So given that its really intended to be used as an occasional product in the range – not overly sure why that is a deal breaker for existing customers.
1 Like
I kind of like that idea too - not sure how practical it could be though, as the flavourings and specific dried ingredients for each H&S flavour make up more than 10-12% of the dry weight so much more than you see in a soup flavour sachet or even a Huel flavour boost. Could have some merit on improving manufacturing efficiencies - but couldn’t say for sure.
Maybe just because it’s new? We got the complaints about the other products out of our systems. It’s also more recognisable as “normal” food for humans and not weird sciencey stuff, so it gets compared to other normal food.
Bars and RTD are ultraconvenient, and the price reflects that. For H&S we have to put the kettle on, and wash up afterwards. Y’know, a ridiculous amount of work.
2 Likes
Outrageous! Expressed in my best entitled faux outrage voice 
1 Like
When comparing H&S to RTD, I can immediately point to packaging:product ratio being higher for RTD. You only get 1 meal per packaging in RTD whereas H&S gets you 7. That’s a significant 700% difference. The same is true for bars. How much should this ratio influence the resulting price? I don’t know though, and that’s part of why I’m curious about the pricing.
RTD and bars seem to sacrifice that packaging:product ratio for convenience relative to Powders. To me, it is more relevant to compare H&S to the Powders because they’re not positioned the same as RTD and bars. That brings me to my original question: what explains the difference between Powders and H&S? So far, I feel like the most compelling reason is that Huel have got a monopoly on the specific niche that H&S has (savoury and resembles “regular” food compared to powders) and good for them. I hope it opens competition for our sakes but maybe the process to make something like H&S is such a difficult barrier to entry for others. It’s entirely possible that the cost to manufacture H&S is that much higher to Powders, right?
Maybe H&S are positioned as luxury items you don’t eat very often. Did people really complain about H&S pricing more than RTD or bars? Dunno but if I had to guess why: H&S feels like it’s meant to be more of a more frequently used item like the Powders than RTD and bars. That’s how I felt about it at least. Does that happen to align with Huel’s vision for H&S? Something I only buy rarely compared to Powders? Seems like it. That’s how I’m reacting to the pricing, at least. I wouldn’t be consuming the Powder at least two times a day if it was priced like H&S either, that’s for sure.
1 Like
Hey guys, I’m so sorry for not responding to this thread, honestly I just missed it. The answer is far, far more simple than most of you have postulated. The ingredients we’ve used in Hot & Savoury are more expensive than those in Powder
The ingredients are freeze-dried, there are more processes here because most of the grains and vegetables are cooked then freeze-dried. Freeze-drying is an expensive process that maintains nutrition and the integrity of the ingredient, and also means it can be rehydrated quickly by adding boiling water, as opposed to simmering for 10mins or so. Freeze-dried ingredients are very expensive.
We also use pea protein nuggets to make up the protein content, which is more expensive than our pea protein powder.
Many of the points raised here are also kind of separate to the issue of price differences.
This wouldn’t reduce costs, if anything it would increase them as we’d need a separate machine to add the powdered ingredients to a sachet.
The same goes for individual pots/servings - this would increase the cost per serving.
We all want our food cheaper, Huel Hot & Savoury is way cheaper per meal than many options people have for their lunch - meal deals, pots of posh soup, takeout and eating out. We’re trying to hit a new group of people who wouldn’t opt for a powder or RTD, something more mainstream so have wanted to hit ‘Real food’ and convenience but also complete nutrition - we did it, but those ingredients are expensive.
2 Likes
Ah, understood. I’m ignorant of freeze-drying and its prices; I don’t think I’ve ever eaten other freeze-dried food.
Any comment on potential discount options like bigger bulk discounts? I get it’d be completely unprecedented in Huel history and I might be a minority in wishing for it though.
Yes but one could perhaps have generic dried veggies already in the simple base (peas, carrots, leek, cabbage, cauliflower, beans), or none, and then just add the peanut sauce, minted pea, Dutch curry, mustard cress, fruited korma or French onion flavouring from the packet. Or add your own.
Deffo, the flavours were not for making each meal cheaper. Just perhaps for making choices available more easily and the need-to-shake problem.
1 Like