Table of Contents
Issues in the Market
-
- Key themes
- Definitions
- Moisturisers
- Cleansers
- Others
- Excluded
- Definitions of Premium and Mass
Insights and Opportunities
-
- Exploiting the potential of natural skincare
- Cutting through the clutter
Fast Forward Trends
-
- Trend 1: No Middleman
- What it is
- Market touchpoints/implications
- Trend 2: Cool Vending
- What it is
- Market touchpoints/implications
Market in Brief
-
- Anti-ageing trend
- Men’s skincare comes of age
- Science versus natural
- Importance of moisturisers
- Big brands dominate
- Future
Internal Market Environment
-
- Key points
- Attitudes towards appearance
-
- Figure 1: Attitudes towards personal appearance and skincare use, by all women and skincare users, 2007
- Age concern
- Trends in skin type
-
- Figure 2: Trends in women’s skin type, 2003-07
- Impact of diet on acne
- Power of the media
- Does plastic make perfect?
Broader Market Environment
-
- Key points
- Gender difference
-
- Figure 3: Structure of the UK population, by age and gender, 2003-13
- Working women
-
- Figure 4: Working status of women, 2003-07
- Ethnic population
-
- Figure 5: The UK ethnic population, 2003-13
- Legislation
- REACH
- Nanotechnology
Competitive Context
-
- Key points
- Healthy eating: how beneficial is it?
- Nutricosmetics and functional foods
- Beauty salons and medispas
- Multipurpose products
Strengths and Weaknesses in the Market
-
- Strengths
- Weaknesses
Who’s Innovating?
-
- Key points
- In a European context
-
- Figure 6: New product development in facial skincare, by country, 2003-07
- Anti-ageing focus influences category development
-
- Figure 7: New product development in facial skincare, by sub-category, 2003-07
- Trend towards doctor/cosmeceutical brands
- Wonder ingredients
- Trend in naturals/organics
- Green chemistry
Market Size and Forecast
-
- Key points
-
- Figure 8: UK value sales of women’s facial skincare, 2003-13
- Scientific claims may lead to confusion
- Alternatives to salon procedures/surgery
- Premiumisation plumping up average spend
-
- Figure 9: Average annual spend on women’s facial skincare by women aged 16+, 2003-08
- Facing up to the future
- Factors used in the forecast
Segment Performance
-
- Key points
- Segmentation of facial skincare
-
- Figure 10: UK retail value sales of facial skincare products, by sub-category, 2006-08
- More sub-categories for skincare
- Moisturisers
- Cleansers
- Serums and facial oils
- Facemasks
- Toners, astringents and fresheners
- Looking ahead
-
- Figure 11: Projected UK retail value sales of facial skincare products, by segment, 2008-13
- Premium versus mass
-
- Figure 12: UK retail sales of women’s facial skincare, by market positioning, 2006-08
- Men’s skincare
-
- Figure 13: UK value sales of men’s and women’s facial skincare, 2003-08
Market Share
-
- Key points
- Shares within mass-market skincare
-
- Figure 14: Manufacturers’ shares in mass-market facial skincare, 2006-08
- Shares within premium skincare
-
- Figure 15: Manufacturers’ shares in premium facial skincare, 2006-08
Companies and Products
-
- Brand map
- L’Oréal
- Lancôme
- Vichy
- Boots
- Procter & Gamble
- Beiersdorf
- Unilever
- Accantia Health and Beauty
- Avon
- Johnson & Johnson
- Estée Lauder Companies
- Clarins
- Elizabeth Arden
- Other brands
Brand Elements
-
- Brand Map
-
- Figure 16: Attitudes and usage of skincare brands, April 2008
- The Body Shop
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 17: Attitudes towards The Body Shop brand, April 2008
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 18: Attitudes towards the Yves Rocher brand, April 2008
- Dove
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 19: Attitudes towards the Dove brand, April 2008
- Garnier UltraLift
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 20: Attitudes towards the Garnier UltraLift brand, April 2008
- Botanics (Boots)
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 21: Attitudes towards the Botanics brand, April 2008
- RoC
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 22: Attitudes towards the RoC brand, April 2008
- NIVEA
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 23: Attitudes towards the NIVEA brand, April 2008
- L’Oréal Age Re-Perfect
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 24: Attitudes towards the L’Oréal Age Re-Perfect brand, April 2008
- Clearasil
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 25: Attitudes towards the Clearasil brand, April 2008
- No7 (Boots)
- What the brand is trying to achieve
- What the consumer thinks
-
- Figure 26: Attitudes towards the No7 brand, April 2008
- Brand qualities in skincare
- Body Shop is ethical and differentiated; Dove is reliable, friendly, caring
-
- Figure 27: Personality of various skincare brands, April 2008
- Experience of skincare brands
- Dove every day; only occasionally, Botanics and Body Shop
-
- Figure 28: Usage of various skincare brands, April 2008
- Intentions for skincare brands
- Dove and NIVEA lead retention; Boots Botanics and RoC lack knowledge
-
- Figure 29: Consideration of various skincare brands, April 2008
- Momentum of skincare brands
- Dove rampant gaining most ground with half the sample
-
- Figure 30: Momentum of various skincare brands, April 2008
- Brand satisfaction for skincare brands
- Dove has by far the most excellent satisfaction, L’Oréal Paris watch out!
-
- Figure 31: Satisfaction with various skincare brands, April 2008
- Brand motivation for skincare brands
- Clearasil and NIVEA most associated with skincare
-
- Figure 32: Satisfaction with various skincare brands, April 2008
- Brand commitment to skincare brands
- Boots No7 and Clearasil have most loyalty; little-known RoC worth the premium
-
- Figure 33: Commitment to various skincare brands, April 2008
- Round-up
Brand Communication and Promotion
-
- Key points
- Media spend
-
- Figure 34: Main monitoried media above-the-line advertising spend on facial skincare, 2004-08
- Split by media spend
-
- Figure 35: Above-the-line spend on facial skincare, by media type, January - June 2008
- Is it worth it for L’Oréal?
-
- Figure 36: Above-the-line spend on facial skincare, by advertiser, 2005-08
- The celebrity factor
- Young versus older
- Focus on problem solving
Channels to Market
-
- Key points
- Skincare distribution
-
- Figure 37: UK retail sales of facial skincare, by outlet type, 2006-08
- Hero products and exclusivity
- Retailer development of non-food
- Upgrading offerings
- Retail vs e-tail
Skincare use amongst European Women
-
- Key points
- Use of skincare products
-
- Figure 38: Penetration of skincare products – women, by country, 2007
- Frequency of use
-
- Figure 39: Penetration and frequency of using skincare – women, by country, 2007
- Demographic profile of British women’s skincare usage
Consumer Usage
-
- Key points
- Beauty concerns
-
- Figure 40: Beauty concerns for which facial skincare is used, by gender, February 2008
- Age of opportunity
- Older women have more skincare concerns
- A skincare routine for work
- Environmental damage
- ‘Skincare?’ men don’t care
-
- Figure 41: Use of facial skincare, by gender, February 2008
- Men have fewer concerns
Influences on Use of Facial Skincare
-
- Key points
- Gender differences
-
- Figure 42: Reasons for using skincare products, by gender, February 2008
- Reviews influence choice
- Trial through promotion and gifting
Attitudes Towards Facial Skincare
-
- Key points
-
- Figure 43: Interest in ingredients used in facial skincare, by gender, February 2008
- A major irritation
- Men’s skincare is performance-driven
- Protected development
- That old line
- Repertoire analysis
- Importance of age
-
- Figure 44: Number of concerns, by reasons for purchasing facial skincare, February 2008
- Men versus women
-
- Figure 45: Number of concerns versus reasons for purchasing facial skincare – women, February 2008
- Typologies of skincare users
-
- Figure 46: Consumer typology groups of skincare users, February 2008
- Skin Carers
- Science Seekers
- Green and Ethical Explorers
- Ingredient Ignorers
Appendix
-
- Consumer research
- GfK NOP Education Level
- ACORN
- Advertising data
- Abbreviations
Appendix – Skincare Use amongst European Women
-
-
- Figure 47: Penetration of using skincare products – women, by age, household income, working status, region, presence of children and household size, 2007
- Anti-ageing and anti-wrinkle creams
-
- Figure 48: Penetration and frequency of using anti-ageing/anti-wrinkle creams – women, by age, household income, working status, region, presence of children and household size, 2007
- Other face creams and lotions
-
- Figure 49: Penetration and frequency of using other face creams and lotions – women, by age, household income, working status, region, presence of children and household size, 2007
- Cleansing cream, milk, lotion, toner and wipes
-
- Figure 50: Penetration and frequency of using cleansing cream, milk, lotion, toner and wipes – women, by age, household income, working status, region, presence of children and household size, 2007
- Facial washes, scrubs and masks
-
- Figure 51: Penetration and frequency of using facial washes, scrubs and masks – women, by age, household income, working status, region, presence of children and household size, 2007
-
Appendix – Consumer Usage
-
-
- Figure 52: Reasons for using skincare, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
- Men
-
- Figure 53: Men’s use of skincare, by age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
- Women
-
- Figure 54: Women’s use of skincare, by age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
-
Appendix – Influences on use of facial skincare
-
-
- Figure 55: Reasons for using skincare, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
-
Appendix – Attitudes towards Facial Skincare
-
-
- Figure 56: Most common attitudes towards ingredients used in skincare, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
- Figure 57: Attitudes towards ingredients used in skincare, by gender, age, socio-economic group, marital status, lifestage, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, household income, tenure, region, ACORN category, media usage, supermarket usage, household size, car ownership, detailed lifestage groups, age/socio-economic group and education level, February 2008
- Repertoire demographics
-
- Figure 58: Number of skincare concerns, by gender, age, socio-economic group, lifestage, household income, tenure, ACORN category, commercial TV viewing, marital status, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, media usage, supermarket usage, detailed lifestage groups and age/socio-economic group, February 2008
- Cluster typology
-
- Figure 59: Cluster typology, by gender, age, socio-economic group, lifestage, household income, tenure, ACORN category, commercial TV viewing, marital status, presence of children, Mintel’s Special Groups, working status, region, media usage, supermarket usage, detailed lifestage groups and age/socio-economic group, February 2008
- Figure 60: Cluster group, by number of skincare concerns held, February 2008
-
- Figure 61: Cluster group, by type of skincare concerns held, February 2008
- Figure 62: Cluster typology, by attitudes towards ingredients, February 2008
-
Back to top