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
-
- Lunch meat sales creep higher, fueled by inflation
-
- Figure 1: Total U.S. sales and fan chart forecast of lunch meat market, at current prices, 2007-17
- Lunch meat segment performance
-
- Figure 2: Total retail sales of lunch meat, segmented by type, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
- Health concerns and higher prices squelch demand
-
- Figure 3: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by change in lunch meat eating habit in past 12 months, February 2013
- Kraft Foods’ Oscar Mayer leads market but loses sales along with others
-
- Figure 4: MULO sales of refrigerated sliced lunch meat, by leading companies, 52 weeks ending March 24, 2013
- Expanding the ways consumers use lunch meat may grow sales
-
- Figure 5: Household usage by type of meat, June 2013
- Nearly one in four consumers are eating less lunch meat this year
-
- Figure 6: Lunch meat usage, February 2013
- Consumers most interested in natural, nutritional attributes
-
- Figure 7: Important lunch meat attributes, February 2013
- What we think
Issues and Insights
-
- How can companies increase usage in an already saturated market?
- Insight: Redefine lunch meat for more varied usage
- How can companies overcome price increases and drive sales?
- Insight: Enhance consumers’ perception of lunch meat value
- How can lunch meat brands address consumer health concerns?
- Insights: Create a better-for-you image
Trend Applications
-
- Trend: Factory Fear
- Trend: Extend My Brand
- Mintel Futures: Old Gold
Market Size and Forecast
-
- Key points
- Meat consumption down; availability, price, and health concerns to blame
- Widespread health concerns encourage meat reduction
- Economic recovery could stifle growth prospects
- Sales and forecast of lunch meat market
-
- Figure 8: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-17
- Figure 9: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of lunch meat, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2007-17
- Fan chart forecast
-
- Figure 10: Total U.S. sales and fan chart forecast of lunch meat market, at current prices, 2007-17
Market Drivers
-
- Key points
- Higher retail prices discourage lunch meat usage
-
- Figure 11: Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers: Meats, poultry, fish, and eggs, March 2008-13
- Negative health perceptions may discourage increased usage
-
- Figure 12: Consumer attitudes on lunch meat, by age, February 2013
- Figure 13: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 14: Reasons cosumers might eat more lunch meat, by household income, February 2013
- “Brown bag it” trend motivates some to bring lunch from home
Competitive Context
-
- Eating out presents a convenient alternative to homemade lunch
- Meals, frozen and homemade, offer more food at competitive price
-
- Figure 15: Lunch meat competition, February 2013
- Snacking culture eats into lunch meat usage
Segment Performance
-
- Key points
- Prepackaged lunch meats show biggest growth during 2010-12
- Sales of lunch meat, by segment
-
- Figure 16: Total retail sales of lunch meat, segmented by type, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
Segment Performance—Deli Counter Lunch Meat
-
- Key points
- Deli counter lunch meat sales recover from dip in 2011
- Sales and forecast of deli counter lunch meat
-
- Figure 17: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast for deli counter lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-17
Segment Performance – Refrigerated Sliced Lunch Meat
-
- Key points
- Refrigerated sliced lunch meat sales driven by price increases
- Improving economy may have negative effect, innovation needed
- Sales and forecast of refrigerated sliced lunch meat
-
- Figure 18: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast for refrigerated sliced lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-17
Segment Performance – Refrigerated Unsliced Lunch Meat
-
- Key points
- Refrigerated unsliced lunch meat floundering
- Sales and forecast of refrigerated unsliced lunch meat
-
- Figure 19: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast for refrigerated unsliced lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-17
Retail Channels
-
- Key points
- Supermarkets dominate sales but small drug store channel growing
- Sales of lunch meat, by channel
-
- Figure 20: Sales of lunch meat, by channel, 2010 and 2012
Retail Channels – Supermarkets
-
- Key points
- Supermarket sales struggle for volume sales growth
- Supermarket sales of lunch meat
-
- Figure 21: Supermarket sales of lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-12
Retail Channels – Drug Stores
-
- Key points
- Drug stores’ share of lunch meat market tiny but growing
- Drug store sales of lunch meat
-
- Figure 22: Drug store sales of lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-12
Retail Channels – Other Channels
-
- Key points
- Value sales growth sluggish in other channels
-
- Figure 23: Other channels sales of lunch meat, at current prices, 2007-12
Retail Channels – Natural Supermarkets
-
- Key points
- Insights
- Sales of lunch meats in the natural channel
-
- Figure 24: Natural supermarket sales of lunch meats, at current prices, 2010-12*
- Figure 25: Natural supermarket sales of lunch meats, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2010-12*
- Natural channel sales of lunch meats by segment
-
- Figure 26: Natural supermarket sales of lunch meats, by segment, 2010 and 2012*
- Natural channel sales of lunch meats by organic
-
- Figure 27: Natural supermarket sales of lunch meats, by organic, 2010 and 2012*
Leading Companies and Brands
-
- Key points
- Two of top three companies lose sales in 2012 to 2013
- Private label remains relevant but not gaining market share
-
- Figure 28: Lunch meat launches, by private label, 2008-13*
- Manufacturer sales of refrigerated lunch meat
-
- Figure 29: MULO sales of refrigerated lunch meat, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
- Manufacturer sales of refrigerated sliced lunch meat
-
- Figure 30: MULO sales of refrigerated sliced lunch meat, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
- Manufacturer sales of refrigerated unsliced lunch meat
-
- Figure 31: MULO sales of refrigerated non-sliced lunch meat, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
Innovations and Innovators
-
- Lunch meat innovation down from five-year high in 2011
-
- Figure 32: New lunch meat product introductions, 2008-13*
- Bold flavors may ignite sales
- New product claims targeting a variety of consumer needs
-
- Figure 33: New lunch meat product claims, according to number of launches, 2008-13*
Marketing Strategies
-
- Overview of brand landscape
- Brand analysis: Oscar Mayer (Kraft Foods)
-
- Figure 34: Brand analysis of Oscar Mayer, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 35: Oscar Mayer Facebook Cover Photo, 2013
- Figure 36: Oscar Mayer YouTube Channel, 2013
- TV presence
-
- Figure 37: Oscar Mayer TV ad, “Transparency,” 2013
-
- Figure 38: Oscar Mayer TV ad, “Secret Recipe,” 2013
- Print and other
-
- Figure 39: Oscar Mayer Print Ad, 2012
- Brand analysis: Boar’s Head
-
- Figure 40: Brand analysis of Boar’s Head, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 41: Boar’s Head Facebook Post, 2013
- TV presence
-
- Figure 42: Boar’s Head TV ad, “International Flavor,” 2012
- Print and other
-
- Figure 43: Boar’s Head Ad, 2012
- Brand analysis: Hillshire Farm (Hillshire Brands Co.—formerly Sara Lee Corp.)
-
- Figure 44: Brand analysis of Hillshire Farm, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 45: Hillshire Farm Facebook Post, 2013
- TV presence
-
- Figure 46: Hillshire Farm TV ad, “Timing Is Everything,” 2013
- Figure 47: Hillshire Farm Facebook Post, 2012
- Brand analysis: Land O’Frost
-
- Figure 48: Brand analysis of Land O’Frost, 2013
- Online initiatives
-
- Figure 49: Land O’Moms Website, 2013
- TV presence
-
- Figure 50: Land O’Frost TV ad, “Wrapped Convenience,” 2011
- Print and other
-
- Figure 51: Land O’Frost Website, 2013
Social Media – Lunch Meat
-
- Key points
- Key social media metrics
-
- Figure 52: Key performance indicators, May 2013
- Market overview
- Brand usage and awareness
-
- Figure 53: Usage and awareness of selected lunch meat brands, February 2013
- Interaction with lunch meat brands
-
- Figure 54: Interaction with selected lunch meat brands, February 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 55: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
-
- Figure 56: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, by day, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
- Where are people talking about lunch meat brands?
-
- Figure 57: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, by page type, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
- What are people talking about?
Lunch Meat Usage by Type of Meat
-
- Key points
- High penetration means growth relies on increasing frequency of usage
-
- Figure 58: Household usage by type of meat, February 2013
- Potential to encourage more varied usage of lunch meat
-
- Figure 59: Usage of lunch meat/deli meat in household, by age, February 2013
Correspondence Analysis
-
- Methodology
- Recipe sharing, new product innovation may attract more diverse use
-
- Figure 60: Correspondence analysis, June 2013
- Figure 61: Household usage by type of meat, June 2013
Change in Lunch Meat Usage
-
- Key points
- Almost a quarter of consumers using less lunch meat in 2013
-
- Figure 62: Changes in lunch meat usage, February 2013
- Family households increase their usage of lunch meats
-
- Figure 63: Lunch meat usage—Eating more, by presence of children in household, February 2013
- Low-income households are more inclined to have cut back
-
- Figure 64: Lunch meat usage—Eating less, by household income, February 2013
- Figure 65: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by household income, February 2013
- Health concerns discourage usage
-
- Figure 66: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by any lunch meat, February 2013
- Lunch meat is losing appeal to its older audience
-
- Figure 67: Lunch meat usage—Eating less, by age, February 2013
Important Lunch Meat Attributes
-
- Key points
- Nutritional attributes and transparency top consumers’ priorities
-
- Figure 68: Important lunch meat attributes, February 2013
- Consumers eating less lunch meat prioritize nutritional attributes
-
- Figure 69: Important lunch meat attributes, by change in lunch meat eating habits, February 2013
Consumer Lunch Meat Purchase Behavior
-
- Key points
- Value for money is a key purchase trigger for men
-
- Figure 70: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by gender, February 2013
- Women more concerned with nutrition, low processing
-
- Figure 71: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by gender, February 2013
- Older consumers engage more with deli counter meat
-
- Figure 72: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by age, February 2013
- Younger consumers less likely to trust private label
Positioning Opportunities for Lunch Meat
-
- Key points
- Position lunch meat as valuable protein source for older consumers
-
- Figure 73: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by age, February 2013
- Snacking is popular among those eating more lunch meat
- Larger households use lunch meat for entertaining
-
- Figure 74: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by household size, February 2013
Impact of Race and Hispanic Origin
-
- Key points
- Poor nutritional perceptions, cost concerns dissuade Asian consumers
-
- Figure 75: Any usage, by race, February 2013
- Figure 76: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by race, February 2013
- High prices prove offputting to Asian or Pacific Islander consumers
-
- Figure 77: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by race, February 2013
- Black consumers less concerned about most product attributes
-
- Figure 78: Important lunch meat attributes, by race, February 2013
- Yet, snacking and child-friendly concepts should appeal
-
- Figure 79: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by race and presence of children, February 2013
IRI/Builders – Key Household Purchase Measures
-
- Overview of luncheon meats
- Refrigerated sliced lunchmeat
- Consumer insights on key purchase measures – refrigerated sliced lunchmeat
- Brand map
-
- Figure 80: Brand map, selected brands of refrigerated sliced lunchmeat, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brand leader characteristics
- Key purchase measures
-
- Figure 81: Key purchase measures for the top brands of refrigerated sliced lunchmeat, by household penetration, 2012*
- Refrigerated non-sliced lunchmeat
- Consumer insights on key purchase measures – refrigerated non-sliced lunchmeat
- Brand map
-
- Figure 82: Brand map, selected brands of refrigerated non-sliced lunchmeat buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brand leader characteristics
- Key purchase measures
-
- Figure 83: Key purchase measures for the top brands of refrigerated non-sliced lunchmeat, by household penetration, 2012*
Appendix – Food and Drink Market Drivers
-
- Consumer confidence
-
- Figure 84: University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment (ICS), 2007-13
- Unemployment
-
- Figure 85: U.S. Unemployment Rate, by month, 2002-13
- Figure 86: U.S. Unemployment and underemployment rates, 2007-13
-
- Figure 87: Number of employed civilians in U.S., in thousands, 2007-13
- Food cost pressures
-
- Figure 88: Changes in USDA Food Price Indexes, 2011 through April 25, 2013
- Obesity
-
- Figure 89: U.S. Obesity, by age group, 2008 and 2012
- Childhood and teen obesity—highest in decades
-
- Figure 90: Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents aged 2-19, 1971-2010
- Racial, ethnic population growth
-
- Figure 91: Population, by race and Hispanic origin, 2008, 2013, and 2018
-
- Figure 92: Households with children, by race and Hispanic origin of householder, 2012
- Shifting U.S. demographics
-
- Figure 93: Population, by age, 2008-18
-
- Figure 94: Households, by presence of own children, 2002-12
Appendix – Other Useful Consumer Tables
-
-
- Figure 95: Change in lunch meat usage—More, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 96: Change in lunch meat usage—More, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 97: Change in lunch meat usage—More, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 98: Change in lunch meat usage—Less, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 99: Change in lunch meat usage—Less, by presence of children in household, February 2013
-
- Figure 100: Change in lunch meat usage—Less, by employment, February 2013
-
- Figure 101: Important lunch meat attributes, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 102: Important lunch meat attributes, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 103: Household usage—Ham, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 104: Household usage—Ham, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 105: Household usage—Ham, by presence of children in household, February 2013
-
- Figure 106: Household usage—Turkey, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 107: Household usage—Turkey, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 108: Household usage—Turkey, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 109: Household usage—Beef, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 110: Household usage—Beef, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 111: Household usage—Beef, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 112: Household usage—Beef, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 113: Household usage—Salami, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 114: Household usage—Salami, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 115: Household usage—Salami, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 116: Household usage—Pastrami, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 117: Household usage—Pastrami, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 118: Household usage—Pastrami, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 119: Household usage—Bologna, Wursts, and Loaves, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 120: Household usage—Bologna, Wursts, and Loaves, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 121: Household usage—Bologna, Wursts, and Loaves, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 122: Household usage—Bologna, Wursts, and Loaves, by race and age, February 2013
-
- Figure 123: Household usage—Chicken, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 124: Household usage—Chicken, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 125: Household usage—Chicken, by race and age, February 2013
-
- Figure 126: Household usage—Corned beef, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 127: Household usage—Corned beef, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 128: Household usage—Corned beef, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 129: Any type, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 130: Any type, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 131: Any type, by presence of children in household, February 2013
-
- Figure 132: Any usage, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 133: Any usage, by gender and age, February 2013
-
- Figure 134: Any usage, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 135: Any usage, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 136: Any usage, by presence of children in household, February 2013
-
- Figure 137: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, February 2013
-
- Figure 138: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 139: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 140: Reasons consumers might eat more lunch meat, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 141: Lunch meat competition, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 142: Lunch meat competition, by gender and age, February 2013
-
- Figure 143: Lunch meat competition, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 144: Lunch meat competition, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 145: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 146: Consumer lunch meat purchase behavior, by presence of children in household, February 2013
-
- Figure 147: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by gender, February 2013
-
- Figure 148: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 149: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, February 2013
-
- Figure 150: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by age, February 2013
-
- Figure 151: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by household income, February 2013
-
- Figure 152: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by race, February 2013
-
- Figure 153: Consumer attitudes toward lunch meat, by any lunch meat, February 2013
-
Appendix: Social Media – Lunch Meat
-
- Brand usage and awareness
-
- Figure 154: Oscar Mayer usage or awareness, by demographics, February 2013
- Figure 155: Hillshire Farm usage or awareness, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 156: Land O’Frost usage or awareness, by demographics, February 2013
- Figure 157: Hebrew National usage or awareness, by demographics, February 2013
- Interaction with lunch meat brands
-
- Figure 158: Activities done, February 2013
- Figure 159: Oscar Mayer—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 160: Oscar Mayer—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 161: Hillshire Farm—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 162: Hillshire Farm—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 163: Land O’Frost—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 164: Land O’Frost—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 165: Hebrew National—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
-
- Figure 166: Hebrew National—Activities done, by demographics, February 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 167: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
- Figure 168: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, by day, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
- Figure 169: Online conversations on selected lunch meat brands, by page type, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
-
- Figure 170: Types of conversations around selected lunch meat brands, Feb. 23 14-May 22
- Figure 171: Types of conversations around selected lunch meat brands, by day, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
-
- Figure 172: Types of conversations around selected lunch meat brands, by page type, Feb. 23-May 22, 2013
Appendix – SymphonyIRI Builders Panel Data Definitions
-
- SymphonyIRI Consumer Network Metrics
Appendix – Trade Associations
Back to top