Table of Contents
Issues in the Market
-
- Main Report Themes
- Definition
Insights and Opportunities
-
- Educate me
- No compromise
- We want more
- Low-sin snacks
- Full range offerings
Fast Forward Trends
-
- Trend One: I-Sculpting
- Definition
- What is it?
- Market Implications
- Trend Two: Golden Bullet
- Definition
- What is it?
- Market Implications
Market in Brief
-
- RFCS market grows
- Healthy eating is here to stay
- Changing food concerns
- The focus will be snacks
- A challenging future
Internal Market Environment
-
- Key Points
- Most people are overweight
-
- Figure 1: Incidence of being overweight or obese among men and women, 1994 and 2003
- The problem with men
- People don’t admit to being overweight
-
- Figure 2: Adults who have felt overweight in the last year, 2004 and 2006
- Careful positioning claims needed
- RFCS only one part of a healthy diet
- Food labelling guiding consumer choice
- Scepticism
- Read all about it
Broader Market Environment
-
- Key Points
- Older, larger consumers – a profitable target
-
- Figure 3: Incidence of being overweight or obese among men and women, by age group, 2003
- Market will grow as population ages
- More RFCS-consuming C1C2 households
-
- Figure 4: Forecast adult population trends, by socio-economic group, 2002-12
- Official advice ambivalent to RFCS
Competitive Context
-
- Key Points
- Where do RFCS products compete
- The easy option
-
- Figure 5: Market size and growth for RFCS and slimming foods, 2001-06
- Healthy versus weight loss
- Same price, lower fat
-
- Figure 6: Market size and growth for RFCS and naturally healthy foods, 2001-06
-
- Figure 7: Membership of gym clubs, 2000-05
Strengths and Weaknesses
-
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
Who’s Innovating?
-
- Key Points
- RFCS claims lag behind additives
-
- Figure 8: Health claims made during the last 12 months, major food categories, 2007
- RFCS claims running out of steam?
- Ready meals account for most RFCS introductions
- Weight Watchers the most active
- Own-label health ranges
- Extending health-oriented brands
- Reducing rather than eliminating
Market Value and Forecast
-
- Key Points
-
- Figure 9: The UK estimated retail market for processed RFCS foods, 2002-07
- A market of size – how it’s been growing
- …but now it’s slowing
- Segments of the RFCS Market
-
- Figure 10: Estimated value share of RFCS foods, as a percentage of selected total markets, 2006
- Forecast
-
- Figure 11: Forecast of the UK retail market for processed RFCS foods, 2007-12
- Factors used in the forecast
Segment Performance
-
- Key Points
- Biscuits running out of steam?
-
- Figure 12: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS biscuits, by segment, 2002-06
- RFCS cakes make gains
- Salad accompaniments
-
- Figure 13: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS salad cream, dressings and mayonnaise, by segment, 2002-06
- Take-home ice cream
-
- Figure 14: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS ice cream, by segment, 2002-06
- Ready meals
- Chilled ready meals
- Frozen ready meals
- Confectionery
- Chocolate
- Sweets
- Mints and Gum
-
- Figure 15: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS confectionery, by segment, 2002-06
-
- Figure 16: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS jams and marmalade, by segment, 2002-06
-
- Figure 17: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS desserts, by segment, 2002-06
- Yoghurts
- Cheese
- Yellow fats – spreads
-
- Figure 18: UK estimated retail sales of RFCS spreads, by segment, 2002-06
- Fresh and frozen red meat
- Cooking sauces
- Soups
Companies and Products
-
- Key Points
- Common strategies
- Single-category RFCS Products
-
- Figure 19: Major RFCS brands offered within categories, 2007
- Müller Dairy UK
- Walkers
- Multi-category brands
- Weight Watchers International
-
- Figure 20: Selected licensees of Weight Watchers brand, 2007
-
- Figure 21: Weight Watcher NPD, by category, 2002-06
- Unilever
- Cadbury
- United Biscuits McVitie’s
Brand Communication and Promotion
-
- Key Points
- RFCS yoghurts lose out to functional food
-
- Figure 22: Main monitored media advertising expenditure on yoghurt, Müller and Danone, 2002-06
- Hellmann’s shift promotional spend to extra light
-
- Figure 23: Main monitored media advertising expenditure, Hellmann’s, 2002-06
- Kraft push light cheeses
-
- Figure 24: Main monitored media advertising expenditure on yoghurt, Kraft, 2002-06
Channels to Market
-
- Key Points
- Supermarket domination
-
- Figure 25: Estimated retail distribution of RFCS foods, by sector, 2002-06
- Driving force
- Tesco
- Sainsbury’s
- Asda
- Morrisons
- Waitrose Perfectly Balanced
The Consumer – Usage
-
- Key Points
- Reducing market
- Spread thin
-
- Figure 26: Categories of reduced fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, December 2006
- The Winners
- Future in snacking
-
- Figure 27: Percentage point change in consumption, 2005-06
- In the bag
- Time for lunch
- The sweetest thing
- The losers
- Ready meals lose ground
- Favourites are not safe
- Number of categories eaten from
- Love ‘em or hate ‘em
-
- Figure 28: Repertoire of low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, December 2006
- The Enthusiasts
- RFCS avoiders
- Make it fun for kids
- A daily habit
- Not a man thing
- Light Users in the majority
The Consumer – How to Lose Weight
-
- Key Points
- RFCS versus exercise – a surprising winner
-
- Figure 29: How consumers would go about losing weight, December 2006
- A light regime?
- Food controllers
- Diet enthusiasts a minority
Consumer Attitudes
-
- Key Points
-
- Figure 30: Consumer attitudes towards reduced fat and calorie foods, December 2006
- Lack of trust
- Naturally healthy has more general appeal
- RFCS supporters could be wooed away
-
- Figure 31: Attitudes to RFCS products, percentage point difference of heavy users (4+) compared to all consumers, December 2006
The Consumer – Further Analysis
-
- Key Points
- Consumer typologies
-
- Figure 32: Consumer typologies, December 2006
- Calorie Confused (15%)
- Who are the Calorie Confused?
- Low Cal Cynics (28%)
- Unmotivated (40%)
- Who are the Unmotivated?
- No Low Cal (17%)
Appendix
-
- Consumer Research
- ACORN
- Advertising data
- Abbreviations
- Internal market environment - Detail
-
- Figure 33: Incidence of being obese among men and women, by age group, 1994 and 2003
- Figure 34: Incidence of being overweight or obese among men and women, by age group, 1994 and 2003
- Figure 35: Adults who have felt overweight in the last year, 2004 and 2006
-
- Figure 36: How often diet, 2004 and 2006
- Figure 37: Agreement with selected lifestyle statements, 2002-06
- Market segments - Detail
-
- Figure 39: Estimated value share of RFCS foods, as a percentage of selected total markets, by sector, 2002-06
- Usage of RFCS products – Detailed consumer demographics
-
- Figure 40: Trend data of categories of lower-fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, 2005 and 2006
- Figure 41: Repertoire of low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, by gender, age and socio-economic group, December 2006
- Figure 42: Repertoire of low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, by types of low-fat/low-calorie foods that have been consmed in the last six months, December 2006
-
- Figure 43: Categories of lower-fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
- Figure 44: Categories of lower-fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
-
- Figure 45: Categories of lower-fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
- Figure 46: Categories of lower-fat/sugar/calories/light versions eaten in the last six months, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
- Attitudes towards diet, health and RFCS products – Detailed consumer demographics
-
- Figure 48: How consumers would go about losing weight, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
- Figure 49: How consumers would go about losing weight, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
-
- Figure 50: Repertoire of low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, by potential methods of losing weight, December 2006
- Figure 51: Consumer attitudes regarding buying and use of reduced calorie/far/sugar/light categories, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
-
- Figure 52: Consumer knowledge regarding labelling and nutrition, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
- Figure 53: Consumers’ concerns and attitudes towards reduced calorie/fat/sugar light categories, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, age of own children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used, household size and car ownership, December 2006
-
- Figure 54: Repertoire of low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, by attitudes towards low-fat/low-calorie foods, December 2006
- Further analysis – Detailed consumer demographics
-
- Figure 55: Typologies of attitudes towards low-fat/low-calorie foods consumed in the last six months, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, ACORN categories, media usage, commercial TV viewing, supermarket used and household size, December 2006
- Figure 56: Consumer typologies, by potential methods of losing weight, December 2006
-
- Figure 57: Consumer typologies, by types of low-fat/low-calorie foods that have been consmerd in the last six months, December 2006
- Figure 58: Consumer typologies, by repertoire of types of low-fat/low-calorie foods that have been consumed in the last six months, December 2006
-
- Figure 59: Consumer typologies, by attitudes towards low-fat/low-calorie foods, December 2006
Back to top