Singing Pastures and new meat stick brands carve white space while Chomps hits $200M in sales

Singing Pastures launched grass-fed venison sticks in 2023 while Chomps crossed $200 million in annual revenue, according to Modern Retail. The meat snack category is growing fast—adding roughly $100 million per year—but new entrants are avoiding head-on competition with incumbents by positioning around ingredient purity, single-species sourcing, and narrower claims than the broad "better-for-you" messaging that built the segment.

The play: position against the category leader's weaknesses, not its strengths. Chomps and Archer built distribution with grass-fed beef, simple ingredients, and clean labels. New brands like Singing Pastures and others profiled by Modern Retail are winning shelf space by going tighter—venison instead of beef, no-beef-at-all turkey or pork sticks, regenerative farming certifications, or single-ranch sourcing. The positioning isn't "better than Slim Jim"; it's "different from Chomps."

This works because the meat snack buyer is fragmenting. The shopper who wants convenient protein is now subdividing into the carnivore dieter, the sustainability-first consumer, the game meat enthusiast, and the parent seeking cleaner kids' snacks. A brand that tries to speak to all four dilutes its message. A brand that picks one and positions hard can own that micro-niche while the category grows around it. Modern Retail notes that retailers are allocating more shelf space to meat snacks, which means room for multiple brands if each has a defensible story.

The mechanism is category maturity. Early in a product category, the winner is the brand that builds the category—Chomps did this by making grass-fed beef sticks a grocery staple. But once the category is established and growing, the next wave wins by splintering it. The customer base is large enough that a 5 percent slice of a $100 million annual growth category is a $5 million brand—enough to fund operations and prove traction for retail or investment.

The steal for a small physical-product brand: find a high-growth category where the leader has scaled on a broad claim, then position against a single ingredient, sourcing method, or customer segment the leader doesn't own. If you're launching a meat stick, don't compete on "grass-fed beef." Go elk, bison, or single-ranch lamb. If you're in another category—say, coffee or skincare—apply the same logic. The leader built the market with "organic"; you position on "single-origin Ethiopia, woman-owned co-op." The leader says "clean ingredients"; you say "one ingredient, nothing else."

Cost line: this doesn't require a media budget. It requires a tighter product story and the discipline to say no to retailers or customers who want you to be more general. Your first 1,000 units go to the customer who cares deeply about your specific claim—carnivore subreddit, hunting forum, regenerative ag Slack. You win by being the only option for that buyer, not a better option for the Chomps customer. Once you own that segment, you expand adjacently. Modern Retail's reporting shows this is working: new brands are getting placement because retailers see differentiated SKUs as category expansion, not substitution.

The broader pattern: in any growing category, the second wave of winners doesn't out-muscle the incumbent—they out-position it. The leader's scale becomes a liability because scale requires appealing to the middle. You win the edge, and the edge is where the growth comes from once the middle is served.