The 62.7% Signal for THC Drinks

Why Cannabis Beverage Consumers Will Pay More for Products Backed by Real Data

What 3,775 consumers told us about the price of evidence in the infused beverage category

There's a number that should be reframing how every cannabis and hemp beverage brand thinks about marketing, pricing, and the conversation they're having with consumers and retail buyers. It came out of the largest real-world infused beverage study conducted to date, and it's been one of the most consistent signals we've measured across two independent cohorts.

62.7% of consumers said yes — they'd pay more for an infused beverage if they were shown scientific data on the positive effects and outcomes that product delivers.

That's not a soft preference. It's not a hypothetical lift in an A/B test. It's a stated willingness from nearly two-thirds of consumers in a study that pooled 3,775 real infused beverage users across two cohorts. And when we asked Cohort 2 consumers to put an actual dollar amount on it, they did — to the tune of a 50% premium, at both the median and the mean.

For a category drowning in lookalike claims, "natural ingredients," and copy that could be swapped between any three brands on the shelf, this finding has serious implications. Not just for what consumers want to see, but for how brands like 23rd State should be thinking about the long-term defensibility of pricing, the credibility of retail pitches, and the future of the infused beverage market.

Here's what the data actually says, and how we're reading it at 23rd State.

The Study: Real-World Infused Beverage Research at Scale

The findings come from the MoreBetter Real-World Infused Beverage Study, an ongoing research project measuring how consumers actually use cannabis and hemp beverages across motivations, outcomes, occasions, and product preferences. Unlike the controlled-environment studies that dominate cannabis research, MoreBetter's methodology captures real-world consumption patterns — what people drink, when, why, and what they experience.

23rd State products have been included in both Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 of the study, alongside other leading brands in the infused beverage space. The dataset offers something the industry has badly needed: large-sample, methodologically consistent evidence about how consumers engage with the category — not anecdotes, not focus groups, not survey panels skewed by recruitment bias.

Across both cohorts, we asked a deceptively simple question:

"Would you be willing to pay more for this product compared to other infused beverages if you were shown scientific data on the positive/beneficial effects and outcomes it provides?"

The answers were striking. And they were almost identical in both cohorts independently — which is the part most people skip when they read the headline number.

The Cross-Cohort Consistency: Why This Number Should Be Trusted

Here's what makes the 62.7% finding more than a one-off datapoint.

Cohort 1: 62.8% said yes
Cohort 2: 62.5% said yes
Combined (n=3,775): 62.7% said yes

That kind of cross-cohort consistency is rare in consumer research. In most studies, you'll see meaningful drift between waves — sometimes 5, 10, even 15 percentage points apart. That drift typically reflects methodology issues, sample composition changes, or the natural noise of real-world consumer attitudes.

Two independent cohorts landing within three-tenths of a percentage point of each other isn't noise. It's signal. It tells us that the willingness to pay more for evidence-backed cannabis beverages is a stable, repeatable consumer preference — not a fluke of one survey wave, not an artifact of a particular sample, not a function of where the question landed in the questionnaire.

When two large samples produce nearly identical results, what you're looking at is a feature of the market, not a feature of the study. And the feature here is unmistakable: nearly two-thirds of infused beverage consumers want evidence, and they're willing to put their dollars behind that preference.

The 50% Premium: When Consumers Put a Number on It

In Cohort 2, we went a step further. For the 1,156 consumers who said yes to paying more for an evidence-backed beverage, we asked them to enter an actual dollar amount.

Almost all of them did.

That detail matters. There's a meaningful gap between consumers who say "yes" to a vague premium question and consumers who'll actually type a number into a box when prompted. The first is an attitude. The second is closer to a behavior — at minimum, a stated intention specific enough to be operationalized.

Here's what those numbers said:

The typical consumer would pay approximately 50% more for the same product if shown scientific data on its effects.
Both the median and the mean uplift land at roughly 50% — meaning this isn't a long-tail artifact driven by a handful of high-willingness outliers. It's the middle of the distribution.

When median and mean converge that tightly, you're looking at a distribution that's symmetric and centered. The 50% premium isn't a fringe response from passionate consumers willing to pay anything. It's the typical view of the typical consumer. Half of consumers would pay even more.

For a $5 single-can SKU, that's a stated willingness to pay closer to $7.50. For a $20 four-pack, that's $30. For a premium-positioned product like 23rd State SHAKE 24K Gold, the implications scale accordingly.

But here's where most brands get this analysis wrong.

This Isn't About Raising Your Sticker Price

The instinct when you see a stat like "consumers will pay 50% more for evidence-backed products" is to start thinking about price increases. That's the weakest application of this finding, and it's the one that misses what the data is actually telling you.

The stronger reading: scientific data gives brands permission to defend the price they're already at.

Walk through any retail set in the infused beverage category right now and read the shelf-talkers. Pull up the product detail pages on D2C sites. Sit through a distributor pitch. The language is nearly identical across the category. Every brand claims natural ingredients. Every brand claims fast onset. Every brand claims a clean, predictable effect. Every brand has the words "wellness," "balance," and "elevate" somewhere on the can.

When everyone says the same thing, buyers and consumers can't tell who's serious. The category collapses into a price war by default, because price is the only variable that actually distinguishes one product from another. That's the trap most functional beverage brands are sitting in right now.

Real performance data — not marketing claims, not adjectives, not aspirational language, but actual consumer outcomes measured at scale in a methodologically rigorous study — is the differentiator that doesn't need a copywriter. It either exists or it doesn't. A brand either has the receipts or it has more adjectives.

And when consumers see real receipts attached to a specific product, they stop comparing prices. They start evaluating evidence. That's a fundamentally different conversation, and it's one your competitors can't enter unless they've done the work.

Where This Lands Operationally for 23rd State

There are two places this finding shows up in how we're approaching the business at 23rd State.

1. D2C Pricing Power and Conversion

Whether a customer is landing on the 23rd State site for the first time or returning to reorder, the conversation they're entering is increasingly shaped by the evidence we can put in front of them. When a consumer reaches the product page for FRESH PRESS, SHAKE, or any of our core SKUs and sees performance data tied to that specific product — onset times, duration outcomes, satisfaction metrics, comparison data against alcohol, wellness use case validation — they're no longer in a pure price-comparison frame.

Price comparison is what happens in the absence of differentiation. Evidence evaluation is what replaces it.

This is why 23rd State has invested heavily in dedicated science and research pages for our core products. The FRESH PRESS study results page exists because consumers — and particularly the canna-curious consumer crossing over from alcohol — want to know what they're actually drinking and what it's likely to do. The same logic applies to SHAKE's science page, and to our broader research hub that consolidates the credibility claims, study methodology, and outcome data behind the brand.

The 62.7% number tells us this isn't a nice-to-have. It's a feature consumers actively want before they buy. And the 50% stated premium tells us they're willing to pay for it — which, in practical terms, means we can hold our price against lookalike competition without sacrificing conversion.

2. Retail and Distributor Leverage

The second place this finding shows up is in B2B. Anyone who's pitched a distributor or sat through a category review meeting at a chain account knows the room. Buyers are looking at a deck of brands that all claim the same things. They're trying to decide which SKUs deserve premium shelf placement, which earn the chain's promotional support, and which get rotated out next reset.

Brand-named performance data is the kind of evidence buyers approve premium SKUs on. It's what retailers use to justify the floor price and merchandise around the product. It's the substance of a category-review one-pager that doesn't look like every other category-review one-pager.

When 23rd State walks into a buyer conversation with MoreBetter study findings attached to specific SKUs — not generic category claims, not industry-wide aggregate data, but real outcome metrics tied to FRESH PRESS, SHAKE, and the rest of the lineup — we're operating in a different category of pitch than most of the brands they see.

The same logic extends down the chain. Shelf-talkers backed by named performance data move product off the shelf differently than shelf-talkers backed by marketing copy. Distributor sell sheets carrying outcome metrics get worked harder by the rep network than sell sheets carrying generic claims. And in a category where every SKU is fighting for the same fingers on the same cooler door, the brands carrying actual evidence have a leverage point the rest of the category doesn't.

The Bigger Picture: Why the Cannabis Beverage Industry Needs This Conversation

Step back from 23rd State for a moment and look at the category as a whole. Cannabis and hemp beverages are entering a maturation phase. The first wave of growth came from novelty, distribution wins, and the rise of social and functional alternatives to alcohol. The second wave — the one we're entering now — will be defined by who can earn and keep consumer trust.

The 62.7% finding is, in many ways, a referendum on where the industry is failing consumers right now. Two-thirds of infused beverage consumers are saying, in effect: give me real information about what this product does, and I will reward you for it. The fact that most brands aren't able to answer that ask is the credibility gap that defines the current moment in cannabis beverage.

Other functional beverage categories have already navigated this transition. Probiotics moved from "supports gut health" claims to specific strain research and trial data. Sports drinks moved from broad hydration claims to specific electrolyte ratios and absorption metrics. Plant-based protein moved from "complete protein" claims to amino acid profiles and bioavailability data. In every case, the brands that invested early in real evidence emerged with the pricing power, the retail leverage, and the consumer loyalty that defined the next phase of the category.

Cannabis and hemp beverages are now at the same inflection point. The brands that recognize this — the ones investing in real-world consumer research, the ones publishing actual outcome data tied to specific products, the ones willing to put their results on paper rather than relying on adjectives — will be the brands that define the next decade of the category.

The brands that don't will continue to compete on price, watch margins compress, and wonder why retail buyers keep asking for trade spend instead of premium placement.

What 23rd State Is Doing With This Finding

The MoreBetter study data is shaping how we communicate about our products across every channel — D2C, retail, distributor, press, and partner. A few specific applications:

Product detail pages carry direct links to outcome research, including the FRESH PRESS study results page and the science behind SHAKE, so consumers don't have to take our word for the effects.
Wholesale and distributor materials lead with brand-named performance data, not category claims, so buyers can evaluate 23rd State on evidence rather than copy.
Press and editorial outreach ties our brand story to the broader research conversation in the industry, including coverage of the consumer wellness motivations, alcohol substitution patterns, and sleep and wind-down outcome data that have emerged from the study.
Retail and shelf-level marketing assets are being rebuilt around evidence claims that we can substantiate, not generic functional beverage language.

This is the work behind the credibility consumers are asking for in the 62.7% number. It's also the work that turns a stated willingness into actual sales.

What This Means If You're a Consumer

If you're reading this as a consumer rather than a buyer or industry observer, the most useful takeaway is this: you're not alone in wanting real information about the cannabis and hemp beverages you're drinking. Nearly two-thirds of consumers in the largest real-world study to date said the same thing. You have a right to know what these products are likely to do, how they compare to alcohol, what the actual outcomes look like in real-world use, and what the science actually says.

That's the standard 23rd State is built around. Every product in the lineup — from our flagship FRESH PRESS to SHAKE 24K Gold and the rest of the portfolio — exists inside a framework of real research, transparent methodology, and outcomes you can verify rather than just trust. The science pages on our site are there because we'd rather show you the data than ask you to take our word for it.

That's also why the 62.7% number matters to us. It's a confirmation that the consumers we built this brand to serve want exactly what we're building toward — and a reminder that the work of putting real evidence in front of every product is the work that actually earns the trust this category has been asking for.

The Bottom Line

The headline finding is simple: 62.7% of consumers in a 3,775-person real-world study said they'd pay more for an infused beverage backed by scientific data on its effects. The follow-up number is even more specific: a 50% stated premium, with median and mean converging tightly enough to confirm that this is the middle of the distribution, not the tail.

But the strategic reading goes deeper than pricing. In a category where every brand sounds the same, real performance data is the differentiator that doesn't need a copywriter. It's what gives a brand the permission to hold its price against lookalike competition. It's what gives a buyer the rationale to approve premium placement. It's what turns a D2C visitor from a price comparison into an evidence evaluation.

For 23rd State, this is the work. For the cannabis and hemp beverage industry, this is the next inflection point. And for consumers, this is the standard the category is finally being held to.

The brands that meet that standard will define what comes next. The ones that don't will keep trying to win a price war they were never going to win.

The 62.7% number tells us which way this is going. The 50% premium tells us what consumers are willing to pay for the brands that get there first.

Item added to your cart