Here's some trends noted from the 2016 NCDT, which they do admit have only appeared within the past few years: "Behaviors that are slowly growing include lighter coffee consumption (slightly fewer drinkers and slightly lighter cups per drinker per day), drinking espresso-based coffee and drinking coffee out-of-home. Behaviors that are slowly declining include drinking traditional coffee and drinking coffee at home. Note that most of these shifts are occurring over the last few years."
Some other figures based on satisfaction of brewing methods found later in the report include:
86% very satisfied/satisfied with their drip coffee maker in 2016
94% with espresso
90% with single-cup
89% with instant
88% with coffee vending
It seems to me like there is a growing trend of more conspicuous consumption, as well as already high satisfaction across the board with people's status quo brewing methods.
It also seems to me like you're trying to make an instant coffee that carries with it the sort of branding that Philz, Blue Bottle, Stumptown, Starbucks, etc. have with physical locations which have the ability to foster certain groups of people, as well as convey aesthetic or ethical sensibilities through branding within the stores. It seems to me that this kind of branding is somewhat reliant on physical locations. I just don't buy into the assumption you make that you can target the same consumer that these places can.
Like, come on, the title of the NYT review on your coffee is: "Instant Coffee You’ll Actually Want to Drink", if that is any indication as to the mismatched conceptions people already have about instant coffee. It seems like you're climbing an uphill battle, considering the fact a cup of any other regular coffee costs about 7 cents, you're trying to sell instant coffee, but 36 times more expensive, based on branding and convincing people