I started trying to google for research on this, but didn't find much.
But I'm pretty sure you're wrong -- I doubt that these companies would be selling these premium meat-replacement products with the word meat if they didn't have lots of market research on it.
It tells you what you can use the things for -- the impossible and beyond products can be used to replace ground beef in pretty much any recipe, and will do the job. People can use it immediately with the recipes and cooking techniques they are familiar with, it makes the product comfortable and familiar instead of a new thing that requires them to adjust their palettes and learn new cooking techniques.
I think you're right that someone who has committed to a meat-free diet doesn't want or need the label meat. (but they'll buy the stuff anyway if they like it and can afford it, they are kind of a captive market). But when you say "meat consumption reduction" -- if every meat eater replaces say 20% of their meat consumption with this stuff, it would be a gigantic reduction in animals killed (for those who care about that). Assuming there is less greenhouse gas and other ecological damage from these meat replacements, a gigantic reduction in that too.
I dont think you can lump together committed vegetarians with ominivores who may replace a portion of their consumption with these products. Perhaps an ever-increasing portion, perhaps eventually they will become vegetarians. But calling the non-animal-based stuff "meat" is squarely aimed at current omnivores -- and it seems hard to argue that it won't work when it is literally working, as the OP outlines in talking about market share and grocery space. Burger king is selling impossible burgers because they can sell them as burgers; and if they tried instead introducing some new product that isn't meant to resemble a beef burger but is just some kind of "vegetarian food", I guarantee it would sell less not more.