Table of Contents
Scope and Themes
-
- What you need to know
- Definition
- Data sources
- Sales data
- Mintel Menu Insights
- Consumer survey data
- Advertising Creative
- Abbreviations and terms
- Abbreviations
- Terms
Executive Summary
-
- Sales growth remains slow during economic recovery
- The economy and health concerns discourage some from snacking
- QSRs most effective at leveraging snack menu
- Consumer snack definition and usage
- QSRs and coffee houses most popular snacking destinations
- Afternoon and early evening popular snacking times
- Most buying fewer snacks but demand remains strong among young adults
- Drinks most popular snack items; portable items that are indulgent in high demand
- Attitudes towards on-premise snacking
Insights and Opportunities
-
- Use snacks priced less than $3 to drive foot traffic
- Consider offering a delivery service to maximize convenience
- Promote snacks during off-peak hours
-
- Figure 1: Time periods for snacking, March 2010
- Offer snack options add-ons to drive up average spend
Inspire Insights
-
- Inspire Trend: Snack Society
- Snacking reflects how we live now
-
- Figure 2: On-premise snacking attitudes, by gender, March 2010
- Restaurants in action
- Implications
Market Size and Forecast
-
- Key points
- Sales growth lags in weak economy
-
- Figure 3: U.S. sales of snacks at restaurants, in current terms, December 2004-14
- Figure 4: U.S. sales of snacks at restaurants, in inflation-adjusted terms, December 2004-14
Competitive Context
-
- Key point
- Some continue to eat more at home to save money
-
- Figure 5: Influence of the economy and cooking and healthy eating patterns, by household income, April 2009
- Figure 6: Spending at restaurants compared to last year, by household income, October 2009
- Retail taking share from foodservice
-
- Figure 7: FDMx sales of salty snacks, by segment, 2007 and 2009
- Key points
- QSRs driving growth
-
- Figure 8: Comparisons of U.S. snack sales at full-service restaurants, vending and mobile operations and QSRs, in current terms, December 2004-14
Segment Performance—Quick Service Restaurants
-
- QSRs drive overall sales growth
-
- Figure 9: U.S. sales of snacks at quick service restaurants, in current terms, December 2004-14
Segment Performance—Full Service Restaurants
-
- Full-service lags in part because of under-developed offering
-
- Figure 10: U.S. sales of snacks at full-service restaurants, in current terms, December 2004-14
Segment Performance—Vending Machines and Mobile Vendors
-
- Vending machines and mobile decline as more turn to QSRs and healthier options
-
- Figure 11: U.S. sales of snacks from vending machines and mobile vendors, in current terms, December 2004-14
Market Drivers
-
- Persistent unemployment drives some to seek inexpensive snacks
-
- Figure 12: U.S. unemployment and underemployment rate, January 2007-May 2010
- Disposable income remains limited in many households
-
- Figure 13: Real disposable personal income, January 2007-April 2010
- Consumer confidence remains at historically low level
-
- Figure 14: Consumer Sentiment Index, January 2007-May 2010
- As obesity debate heats up, some take steps to avoid excess calories
-
- Figure 15: Trended Nationwide (States, D.C., and Territories) incidence of overweight and obesity, 1995-2007
- Slow growth of young adults segment undermines growth
-
- Figure 16: Population by age, 2005-15
- Restaurant Performance Index reflects increased optimism among operators
-
- Figure 17: Restaurant Performance Index, January 2009-April 2010
Menu Insights Analysis
-
- QSRs have the most developed snack offerings, for now
-
- Figure 18: Number of snacks offered, by restaurant segment and quarter, Q1 2008-Q1 2010
- Sandwiches and beverages most common, and popular with consumers
-
- Figure 19: Snacking prevelance among menu sections, Q1 2010
- Snacks go beyond the dollar menu
-
- Figure 20: Snacking average price by restaurant segment and quarter, Q1 2008-Q1 2010
- But the dollar menu is still important
-
- Figure 21: Top 10 dollar menu food options, Q1 2008-Q1 2010
-
- Figure 22: Top 10 dollar menu beverage options, Q1 2008-Q1 2010
Advertising and Promotion
-
- Overview
- Television advertisements
- McDonald’s snack wraps appeal to desire for highly portable, salty afternoon snacks
-
- Figure 23: McDonald’s ad, 2009
-
- Figure 24: McDonald’s Mac Snack Wrap ad, 2010
- Tim Hortons launches snack wrap that competes directly with McDonald’s
-
- Figure 25: Tim Hortons Wrap Snackers ad, 2010
- KFC appeals to young adults with snacker ad
-
- Figure 26: KFC Ultimate Cheese Snacker ad, 2005
- Culver’s SnackPak appeals to demand for large snacks that can be consumed as a meal
-
- Figure 27: Culver’s snackpak ad, 2009
- Chili’s emphasizes “handmade” and freshness to attract those looking for a premium product
-
- Figure 28: Chili’s (Chili’s Grill & Bar), 2010
- Websites
- McDonald’s
- Burger King
- KFC
Consumer Snack Definition and Usage
-
- Key points
- Women more likely than men to define a variety of items as snacks
-
- Figure 29: Consumers define snack, by gender, March 2010
- Young adults more likely than older counterparts to have a broad definition of “snack”
-
- Figure 30: Consumers define snack, by age, March 2010
- Sandwiches and appetizers often purchased as snacks
-
- Figure 31: Typical snack order at restaurant, by age, March 2010
Restaurants where Consumers Snack
-
- Key points
- QSRs and coffee houses especially popular, particularly with young adults
-
- Figure 32: Channel preferences, by age, March 2010
Incidence of Snacking at Various Times of Day
-
- Key points
- Afternoon is peak snacking time; young adults big evening snackers
-
- Figure 33: Time periods for snacking, by age, March 2010
- The 25-34 segment somewhat more likely to pay premiums
-
- Figure 34: On-premise snacking spend, by age, March 2010
-
- Figure 35: On-premise snacking spend, by household income, March 2010
Changes in Snacking Behavior
-
- Key points
- Most report buying fewer snacks in the last year; value pricing critical driver of usage
-
- Figure 36: On-premise snacking behavior compared to last year, by gender, March 2010
- Young adults most likely to be buying more or using same amount
-
- Figure 37: On-premise snacking behavior compared to last year, by age, March 2010
- Blacks most likely to report snacking less; BFY options could drive spend
-
- Figure 38: On-premise snacking behavior compared to last year, by race/Hispanic origin, March 2010
- Financial and health concerns drive down incidence of snacking
-
- Figure 39: Reasons for reduced on-premise snacking compared to last year, by age, March 2010
-
- Figure 40: Reasons for reduced on-premise snacking compared to last year, by household income, March 2010
- Convenience and price are key behavioral drivers
-
- Figure 41: Reasons for increased on-premise snacking compared to last year, March 2010
Rating Snack Qualities
-
- Key points
- Beverages and portable, indulgent snacks most popular
-
- Figure 42: Desired on-premise snack attributes, by age, March 2010
Attitudes Toward On-Premise Snacking
-
- Key points
- Women more likely to snack socially and throughout the day
-
- Figure 43: On-premise snacking attitudes, by gender, March 2010
- Young adults more likely than older consumers to snack throughout the day
-
- Figure 44: On-premise snacking attitudes, by age, March 2010
Cluster Analysis
-
- Occasionals
- Demographics
- Opportunity
- Salters
- Demographics
- Opportunity
- Snackensteins
- Demographics
- Opportunity
- Cluster characteristics
-
- Figure 45: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, March 2010
- Figure 46: Snacking mean usage, by foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, March 2010
-
- Figure 47: Snack spend and mean spend, by foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, March 2010
- Figure 48: Snacking attitudinal and behavioral drivers, by foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, March 2010
- Cluster demographics
-
- Figure 49: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, by gender, March 2010
- Figure 50: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, by age group, March 2010
- Figure 51: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, by household income group, March 2010
-
- Figure 52: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, by race, March 2010
- Figure 53: Foodservice snacking opportunities clusters, by Hispanic origin, March 2010
- Cluster methodology
Custom Consumer Groups
-
- Men and African Americans less likely to curtail snacking
-
- Figure 54: On-premise snacking attitudes, by gender and age, gender and household income, and age and race, March 2010
- Fathers represent a key segment for many operators
-
- Figure 55: Channel preferences, by fathers vs. men with no children, March 2010
- Frequent snackers more likely to pay a premium
-
- Figure 56: On-premise snacking attitudes, by usage, March 2010
-
- Figure 57: On-premise snacking attitudes, by Hispanic, age and married with children, March 2010
- Frequent snackers often consume during the afternoon and early evening
-
- Figure 58: On-premise snacking attitudes, by usage, March 2010
- Frequent snackers tend to snack across channels
-
- Figure 59: On-premise snacking attitudes, by usage, March 2010
Appendix: Additional Consumer Tables
-
- Household income
-
- Figure 60: Consumers define snack, by household income, March 2010
-
- Figure 61: Typical snack order at restaurant, by household income, March 2010
-
- Figure 62: On-premise snacking behavior compared to last year, by household income, March 2010
-
- Figure 63: On-premise snacking attitudes, by household income, March 2010
-
- Figure 64: Desired on-premise snack attributes, by household income, March 2010
- Gender
-
- Figure 65: Typical snack order at restaurant, by gender, March 2010
-
- Figure 66: Time periods for snacking, by gender, March 2010
-
- Figure 67: On-premise snacking spend, by gender, March 2010
-
- Figure 68: Reasons for reduced on-premise snacking compared to last year, by gender, March 2010
-
- Figure 69: Desired on-premise snack attributes, by gender, March 2010
- Age
-
- Figure 70: Time periods for snacking, by age, March 2010
Appendix: Trade Associations
Back to top