Table of Contents
Scope and Themes
-
- What you need to know
- Definition
- Data sources
- Sales data
- Consumer survey data
- Advertising creative
- Abbreviations and terms
- Abbreviations
- Terms
Executive Summary
-
- The market
- Sales of meat alternatives reach $553 million in 2012
-
- Figure 1: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales of meat alternatives, at current prices, 2010-12
- Market segmentation
- Burgers lead meat alternatives sales
-
- Figure 2: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales of meat alternatives, by segment, 2012
- Leading brands
- MorningStar Farms represents 60.7% of category sales
-
- Figure 3: Sales of meat alternatives, by top six leading brands, Q1 2012 and Q1 2013
- Innovation
- Vegan claims heat up
-
- Figure 4: Meat alternatives launches, by top five claims, 2008-12
- The consumer
- 18-44s appear as target audience for meat alternatives
-
- Figure 5: Use of meat alternatives, by age, March 2013
- Health leads reasons for use of meat alternatives
-
- Figure 6: Top six reasons for use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Less than half of participants in the category are using products as substitutes
-
- Figure 7: Select ways in which meat alternatives are used, March 2013
- What we think
Issues and Insights
-
- Can meat alternatives become primary offerings rather than substitutes?
- Insight: Meat alternatives should boast about what they have, not simply what they lack
- Are meat alternatives meeting the health needs of consumers?
- Insight: Being explicit and specific about health benefits will assist in attracting users
- What can the category do to grow sales among current users?
- Insight: Vastness of product offerings allows room for targeted positioning
- What can the category do to attract the attention of nonusers?
- Insight: Consumers need to be reminded of the existence and value of meat alternatives
Trend Applications
-
- Trend: The Real Thing
Market Size
-
- Key points
- Sales of meat alternatives reach $553 million in 2012
- Areas of growth point to importance of health and wholeness
- Diverse product range allows category to appeal to greatest number of consumers
- Sales of meat alternatives
-
- Figure 8: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales of meat alternatives, at current prices, 2010-12
Market Drivers
-
- Key points
- Young consumers and lower-income HHs
-
- Figure 9: Opinions, by age, October 2011-November 2012
- Figure 10: Opinions, by household income, October 2011-November 2012
- Consumers cut back on meat for health, earth, wallet
-
- Figure 11: Reasons for not eating meat or limiting meat consumption, by gender, March 2013
- Young consumers appear to be more environmentally conscious
- Green consumers represent outlet for product promotion
-
- Figure 12: Reasons for not eating meat or limiting meat consumption, by age, March 2013
- Lower-income earners appear more discerning about how their money is spent
-
- Figure 13: Reasons for not eating meat or limiting meat consumption, by household income, March 2013
- Meat reduction becomes a public affair
- Meat alternatives in foodservice boost products into mainstream
Competitive Context
-
- Key points
- Nine in 10 consumers eat meat/fish/poultry
- Taking a hint from the competition
-
- Figure 14: Meat, fish, poultry (fresh/frozen), October 2011-November 2012
- Boast about the benefits
- Going rogue may be the best approach
Segment Performance
-
- Burgers lead meat alternatives sales
-
- Figure 15: Reasons for use, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Figure 16: Reasons for use, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Sales of meat alternatives, by segment
-
- Figure 17: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales and forecast of meat alternatives, by segment, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
Retail Channels
-
- Key points
- Conventional channels represent 89% of category sales
- Sales of meat alternatives, by channel
-
- Figure 18: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales and forecast of meat alternatives, by channel, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
Leading Companies and Brands
-
- Key points
- Kellogg’s MorningStar Farms commands 61% of category sales
- Leading companies' sales of meat alternatives
-
- Figure 19: Conventional channel, natural supermarket, and specialty supermarket sales of meat alternatives, by leading companies, Q1 2012 and 2013
- Brand analysis: MorningStar Farms
-
- Figure 20: Brand analysis of MorningStar Farms, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 21: MorningStar Farms website, 2013
- Figure 22: MorningStar Farms website, 2013
- TV presence
-
- Figure 23: MorningStar Farms TV ad, “Tasty Grill,” 2012
- Print and other
-
- Figure 24: MorningStar Farms website, 2013
- Figure 25: MorningStar Farms print ad, 2013
- Brand analysis: Boca Foods
-
- Figure 26: Brand analysis of Boca Foods, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 27: Boca Facebook Page, 2013
- Print and other
-
- Figure 28: Weight Watchers website, 2013
- Figure 29: Boca website, 2013
- Brand analysis: Beyond Meat
-
- Figure 30: Brand analysis of Beyond Meat, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 31: Beyond Meat Pinterest, 2013
- Print and other
-
- Figure 32: Beyond Meat Facebook Post, 2013
Innovations and Innovators
-
- Category growth may be limited by cautious innovation
-
- Figure 33: Meat alternatives launches, by launch type, 2008-12
- Vegan claims heat up
- GMO-free claim likely to resonate in this health-focused category
-
- Figure 34: Meat alternatives launches, by top 10 claims, 2008-12
- Ethnic-inspired offerings on-trend, expand consumer base
- Spicy trend also finds a place in meat alternatives
- Distancing products from meat
- Focus on vegetables
- Focus on protein
Social Media – Meat Alternatives
-
- Key points
- Key social media metrics
-
- Figure 35: Key brand metrics, May 2013
- Market overview
- Brand usage and awareness
-
- Figure 36: Usage and awareness of selected meat alternative brands, March 2013
- Interaction with brands
-
- Figure 37: Interaction with selected meat alternative brands, March 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 38: Percentage of consumer conversation, by selected meat alternative brands, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
-
- Figure 39: Online mentions, selected meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, by day, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Where are people talking about meat alternative brands?
-
- Figure 40: Mentions, by page type, selected meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- What are people talking about?
-
- Figure 41: Mentions, by type of conversation, selected meat alternative brands, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
-
- Figure 42: Major areas of discussion surrounding meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, by day, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Figure 43: Major areas of discussion surrounding meat alternative brands, by page type, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Brand analysis
- MorningStar Farms
-
- Figure 44: MorningStar Farms key social media indicators, May 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Quorn
-
- Figure 45: Quorn key social media indicators, May 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Lightlife
-
- Figure 46: Lightlife Key social media indicators
- Key online campaigns
-
- Figure 47: Selected Lightlife Twitter mentions, Oct. 1, 2012
- What we think
- Tofurky
-
- Figure 48: Tofurky key social media indicators, May 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Boca
-
- Figure 49: Boca key social media indicators, May 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Amy’s Kitchen
-
- Figure 50: Amy’s Kitchen key social media indicators, May 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
Use of Meat Alternatives
-
- Key points
- More than one third of consumers use meat alternatives
- Meatless burgers are a popular choice
- Meatless breakfast alternatives are tops among high frequency users
-
- Figure 51: Use of meat alternatives, by any usage frequency, March 2013
- Variety appears as a path to growth in the category
-
- Figure 52: Repertoire of usage of meat alternatives, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Women exhibit slightly higher usage, but men seek variety
-
- Figure 53: use of meat alternatives, by gender, March 2013
- Figure 54: Repertoire of usage of meat alternatives, by gender, March 2013
- 18-44s appear as target user group
-
- Figure 55: Use of meat alternatives, by age, March 2013
- Young consumers are also high frequency users
-
- Figure 56: Use of meat alternatives, by age, March 2013
- High usage among lower income earning HHs implies affordability
-
- Figure 57: Use of meat alternatives, by household income, March 2013
- Figure 58: Use of meat alternatives, by household income, March 2013
- Households with children may view products as convenient
-
- Figure 59: Any use of meat alternatives, by presence of children in household, March 2013
Reasons for Use
-
- Key points
- Health and taste rise to the top of reasons for eating
- High-frequency users want variety
- Category can appeal to curiosity of low-frequency users
-
- Figure 60: Reasons for use, by usage frequency, March 2013
- Men curious about products, women attracted to health attributes
-
- Figure 61: Reasons for use, by gender, March 2013
- Young consumers show preference for flavor, points to future growth
-
- Figure 62: Reasons for use, by age, March 2013
Ways in Which Meat Alternatives are Used
-
- Key points
- Less than half of consumers are using products as a meat substitute
-
- Figure 63: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Women more likely to make products the center of attention
-
- Figure 64: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by gender, March 2013
- Meatless burgers stand as mains, crumbles work for improvisation
-
- Figure 65: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Figure 66: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
Attitudes Toward Meat Alternatives
-
- Key points
- The majority of consumers want details about meat alternatives
- Women want to know what’s inside, men are interested in variety
-
- Figure 67: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by gender, March 2013
- Clear product messaging may attract older consumers
-
- Figure 68: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by age, March 2013
- Higher income earners willing to pay more for health, want variety
-
- Figure 69: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by household income, March 2013
- Opportunity exists to expand tempeh/seitan offerings
-
- Figure 70: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Figure 71: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
Reasons for Not Using Meat Alternatives
-
- Key points
- Nonusers prefer real meat, pointing to need for repositioning
- Men criticize product taste, likely due to comparison to meat
-
- Figure 72: Reasons for not using meat alternatives, by gender, March 2013
- Stronger promotion needed to grow consumption among core audience
- Category can represent opportunity, not limitation, for older consumers
-
- Figure 73: Reasons for not using meat alternatives, by age, March 2013
Impact of Race and Hispanic Origin
-
- Key points
- Asians and Hispanics over index in use of meat alternatives
- Focusing outreach efforts on Asians and Hispanics will be key in growing sales
-
- Figure 74: Any use of meat alternatives, by race/Hispanic origin, March 2013
-
- Figure 75: Use of meat alternatives, by race/Hispanic origin, March 2013
- Non-whites select for taste over health, open to variety of promotion
-
- Figure 76: Reasons for use, by race/Hispanic origin, March 2013
- Figure 77: Opinions, by race/Hispanic origin, October 2011-November 2012
- Asian and Hispanic shoppers use products alongside meat
-
- Figure 78: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by race/Hispanic origin, March 2013
- Hispanic shoppers interested in more variety
-
- Figure 79: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by Hispanic origin, March 2013
Appendix – Food and Drink Market Drivers
-
- Consumer confidence
-
- Figure 80: University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment (ICS), 2007-13
- Unemployment
-
- Figure 81: U.S. Unemployment Rate, by month, 2002-13
- Figure 82: U.S. Unemployment and underemployment rates, 2007-13
-
- Figure 83: Number of employed civilians in U.S., in thousands, 2007-13
- Food cost pressures
-
- Figure 84: Changes in USDA Food Price Indexes, 2011 through April 25, 2013
- Obesity
-
- Figure 85: U.S. Obesity, by age group, 2008 and 2012
- Childhood and teen obesity—highest in decades
-
- Figure 86: Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents aged 2-19, 1971-2010
- Racial, ethnic population growth
-
- Figure 87: Population, by race and Hispanic origin, 2008, 2013, and 2018
-
- Figure 88: Households with children, by race and Hispanic origin of householder, 2012
- Shifting U.S. demographics
-
- Figure 89: Population, by age, 2008-18
-
- Figure 90: Households, by presence of own children, 2002-12
Appendix – Other Useful Consumer Tables
-
- Use of meat alternatives
-
- Figure 91: Use of meat alternatives, March 2013
-
- Figure 92: Any use of meat alternatives, by gender and age, March 2013
-
- Figure 93: Any use of meat alternatives, by age and household income, March 2013
-
- Figure 94: Use of meat alternatives, by gender, March 2013
-
- Figure 95: Use of meat alternatives, by gender and age, March 2013
-
- Figure 96: Use of meat alternatives, by age and household income, March 2013
- Reasons for use
-
- Figure 97: Reasons for use, by household income, March 2013
- Ways in which meat alternatives are used
-
- Figure 98: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by household income, March 2013
-
- Figure 99: Ways in which meat alternatives are used, by repertoire of usage of meat alternatives, March 2013
- Attitudes toward meat alternatives
-
- Figure 100: Attitudes toward meat alternatives, March 2013
-
- Figure 101: Agreement with attitudes toward meat alternatives, by any use of meat alternatives, March 2013
Appendix – Social Media
-
- Brand usage and awareness
-
- Figure 103: Brand usage or awareness, March 2013
- Figure 104: MorningStar farms usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
-
- Figure 105: Boca usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
- Figure 106: Tofurky usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
-
- Figure 107: Amy’s Kitchen usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
- Figure 108: Lightlife (e.g., Smart Dogs, Smart Deli) usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
-
- Figure 109: Quorn usage or awareness, by demographics, March 2013
- Interaction with brands
-
- Figure 110: Activities done, March 2013
- Figure 111: MorningStar farms—Activities done, by demographics, March 2013
-
- Figure 112: Boca—Activities done, by demographics, March 2013
-
- Figure 113: Amy’s kitchen—Activities done, by demographics, March 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 114: Percentage of consumer conversation, by selected meat alternative brands, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Figure 115: Online mentions, selected meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, by day, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Figure 116: Mentions, by page type, selected meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
-
- Figure 117: Mentions, by type of conversation, selected meat alternative brands, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
- Figure 118: Major areas of discussion surrounding meat alternative brands, percentage of daily mentions, by day, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
-
- Figure 119: Major areas of discussion surrounding meat alternative brands, by page type, Feb. 16-May 15, 2013
Appendix – Trade Associations
Back to top