Table of Contents
Scope and Themes
-
- What you need to know
- Definition
- Data sources
- Sales data
- Consumer survey data
- Abbreviations and terms
- Abbreviations
- Terms
Executive Summary
-
- A flatlining market due to declining sugar prices
-
- Figure 1: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18
- Obesity and other sugar-linked health conditions negatively impact the market
- Demographics play into sales
- Sugar dominates among four segments
- Diverse national brand companies cannot keep pace with private label
- The consumer
- Household penetration of sugar twice that of substitutes
-
- Figure 2: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, January 2012-March 2013
- Most use low-/no-calorie artificial sweeteners for concerns about weight
-
- Figure 3: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes, by gender, July 2013
- A third of respondents are interested in all-natural products
-
- Figure 4: Interest in sweetener products, by age, July 2013
- A quarter do not use sweeteners because food/drinks already contain enough
-
- Figure 5: Reasons for not adding sweeteners to food/dinks or using them in cooking/baking, July 2013
- What we think
Issues and Insights
-
- Can sweetener brands assuage consumer fears about product safety?
- Issues
- Insight: Face the issues head-on
- Will consumers go for sweeteners with added health benefits?
- Issues
- Insight: Sweeteners as supplements
- Would flavored sugar/sugar substitutes take hold in the market?
- Issues
- Insight: Replicating the café experience for home users
Trend Applications
-
- Trend: The Real Thing
- Trend: Prove It
- Mintel Futures: Old Gold
Market Size and Forecast
-
- Key points
- Market growth slows in 2012 and 2013
- Sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners
-
- Figure 6: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18
- Figure 7: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2008-18
- Fan chart forecast
-
- Figure 8: Total U.S. sales and fan chart forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18
Market Drivers
-
- Key points
- Sugar commodity economics
-
- Figure 9: Sugar commodity monthly price – U.S. cents per pound, July 2012-July 2013
-
- Figure 10: Sugar retail monthly price – U.S. cents per pound, July 2012-July 2013
- Health considerations may limit usage
-
- Figure 11: Types of pancake and table syrups used in household, by age, January 2012-March 2013
- Obesity rate
- Households with kids more likely to use sugar and sweeteners
-
- Figure 12: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by presence of children in household, July 2013
- Seniors least likely to use sugar, very likely to use substitutes
-
- Figure 13: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, by age, January 2012-March 2013
- Blacks, Asians report highest use of sugar
-
- Figure 14: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, by race/Hispanic origin, January 2012-March 2013
Competitive Context
-
- Presweetened tea and coffee drinks eliminate need for added sweeteners
- Sweet spreads and nut spreads used for a range of eating occasions
Segment Performance
-
- Key points
- Market depends heavily on sugar sales
- Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by segment
-
- Figure 15: Sales of sugar and sweeteners, segmented by type, 2011 and 2013
Segment Performance – Sugar
-
- Key points
- Sugar sales remains a staple pantry item
- Sales and forecast of sugar
-
- Figure 16: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar, at current prices, 2008-18
Segment Performance – Syrups and Molasses
-
- Key points
- Brands widen the scope for maple syrup uses
- Sales and forecast of syrups and molasses
-
- Figure 17: Total U.S. sales and forecast of syrups and molasses, at current prices, 2008-18
Segment Performance – Sugar Substitutes
-
- Key points
- As consumer tastes shift to natural substitutes, sales lag slightly
- Sales and forecast of sugar substitutes
-
- Figure 18: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar substitutes, at current prices, 2008-18
Segment Performance – Honey
-
- Key points
- Honey represents a growth opportunity
- Sales and forecast of honey
-
- Figure 19: Total U.S. sales and forecast of honey, at current prices, 2008-18
Retail Channels
-
- Key points
- Supermarkets edge out other channels
- Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel
-
- Figure 20: U.S. retail sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel, 2011 and 2013
- Supermarket sales slip in 2012 and 2013
-
- Figure 21: U.S. supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2008-13
- Other channels
-
- Figure 22: U.S. other channel sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2008-13
Retail Channels – Natural Supermarkets
-
- Key points
- Honey remains the sweet spot for natural retailers
- Sales of sugar and sweeteners in the natural channel
-
- Figure 23: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2011-13*
- Figure 24: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners at inflation-adjusted prices, 2011-13*
- Natural channel sales of sugar and sweeteners by segment.
-
- Figure 25: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, by segment, 2011 and 2013*
- Brands of note
- Natural channel sales of sugar and sweeteners by organic
-
- Figure 26: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, by organic, 2011 and 2013*
- Natural channel sales of granulated cane sugar by fair-trade
-
- Figure 27: Natural supermarket sales of granulated cane sugar, by fair-trade, 2011 and 2013*
Leading Companies
-
- Key points
- National brand companies hold small share compared to private label
- Domino gains 1.8% while top competitor J&J declines 8.4%
- Other players individually account for less than 5% of the market
- Manufacturer sales of sugar and sweeteners
-
- Figure 28: MULO manufacturer sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2012-13
Brand Share – Sugar
-
- Key points
- Private label accounts for nearly 60% of the segment
- Domino and C&H register similar gains but comprise small share
- Manufacturer sales of sugar
-
- Figure 29: MULO brand sales of sugar, 2012-13
Brand Share – Syrup and Molasses
-
- Key points
- Aunt Jemima far outsells all other brands
- Mrs. Butterworth’s Original sold only at H-E-B
- Karo is the only leading syrup made with corn
- Hungry Jack innovates with microwaveable “stay-cool” handle
- Maple Grove Farms is the lone real maple syrup among top brands
- Private label comprises 29% share
- Manufacturer sales of syrup and molasses
-
- Figure 30: MULO brand sales of syrup and molasses, 2012-13
Brand Share – Sugar Substitutes
-
- Key points
- Splenda outsells other MULO brands by a large margin
- Truvia sales growth attests to demand for natural substitutes
- Sweet’N Low drops as Stevia Extract In The Raw gains
- Equal declines 6.7%
- Manufacturer sales of sugar substitutes
-
- Figure 31: MULO brand sales of sugar substitutes, 2012-13
Brand Share – Honey
-
- Key points
- Private label has the biggest footprint in the honey segment
- Sue Bee spurs 16.5% growth for Sioux Honey Association
- Other honey brands individually comprise small share
- Manufacturer sales of honey
-
- Figure 32: MULO brand sales of honey, 2012-13
Innovations and Innovators
-
- All-natural and low-calorie products rank high among respondents
-
- Figure 33: Trends in sugar product claims, 2009-13
- All-natural popular among sweetener users
- Blends offer the best of both worlds
- Green positioning attracts eco-conscious sweetener users
Marketing Strategies
-
- Overview of the brand landscape
- Trend: Sugar substitute brands highlight natural halo
- Trend: Syrup brands leverage presence in pancake mix market
- Trend: Social media expands the presence of sweetener brands
- Mrs. Butterworth’s
- Domino
- C&H
- Splenda
- Sue Bee
- TV presence
- Splenda
-
- Figure 34: Splenda television ad, 2013
- Splenda Nectresse
-
- Figure 35: Splenda Nectresse television ad, 2013
- Sweet’N Low
-
- Figure 36: Sweet’N Low television ad, 2013
- Truvia
-
- Figure 37: Truvia television ad, 2013
Social Media – Sugar and Sweeteners
-
- Key points
- Key social media metrics
-
- Figure 38: Key brand metrics, sugar and sweeteners, August 2013
- Market overview
- Brand usage and awareness
-
- Figure 39: Usage and awareness of selected sugar and/or sweetener brands, July 2013
- Interaction with brands
-
- Figure 40: Interaction with selected sugar and/or sweetener brands, July 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 41: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
- Where are people talking about sugar and sweetener brands?
-
- Figure 42: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by page type, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
- What are people talking about?
-
- Figure 43: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
-
- Figure 44: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
- Brand analysis
- Splenda
-
- Figure 45: Splenda key social media indicators, Aug. 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Aunt Jemima
-
- Figure 46: Aunt Jemima key social media indicators, August 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Truvia
-
- Figure 47: Truvia key social media indicators, August 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Mrs. Butterworth’s
-
- Figure 48: Mrs. Butterworth’s key social media indicators, August 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Domino
-
- Figure 49: Domino key social media indicators, August 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
- Florida Crystals
-
- Figure 50: Florida Crystals key social media indicators, August 2013
- Key online campaigns
- What we think
Sugar and Sweetener Usage
-
- Key points
- Sweetener use is nearly universal
-
- Figure 51: Usage of sugar and sweeteners, July 2013
- Seniors report least usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink
-
- Figure 52: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by age, July 2013
- Women most apt to use sugar and honey in cooking/baking
-
- Figure 53: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by gender, July 2013
- 18-24 most apt to use natural and synthetic substitutes in baking/cooking
-
- Figure 54: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by age, July 2013
Usage of Sugar and Sweeteners Compared to a Year Ago
-
- Key points
- More than a third are using more stevia than they were a year ago
-
- Figure 55: Usage of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago, July 2013
Usage of Sugar and Sweeteners Away from Home
-
- Key points
- More than a quarter use low-/no-calorie substitutes away from home
-
- Figure 56: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by gender, July 2013
- 55+ most likely to report bringing no sugar/sweeteners from home
-
- Figure 57: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by age, July 2013
- Households with children most apt to bring sugar/sweeteners from home
-
- Figure 58: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by presence of children, July 2013
Reasons for Using Low-/no-calorie Sugar Substitutes
-
- Key points
- Calorie and weight concerns drive use of low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes
-
- Figure 59: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by gender, July 2013
- 55+ most concerned about calories
-
- Figure 60: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes, by age, July 2013
- Least affluent most likely to want to avoid HFCS
-
- Figure 61: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by household income, July 2013
Interest in Sweetener Products
-
- Key points
- Nearly a third report interest in all-natural sugar substitutes
-
- Figure 62: Interest in sweetener products, by age, July 2013
- Households with kids report most interest in a range of sweetener products
-
- Figure 63: Interest in sweetener products, by presence of children in household, July 2013
Reasons for Not Using Sugar and Sweeteners
-
- Key points
- A quarter do not use sweeteners because food/drinks already have enough
-
- Figure 64: Reasons for not adding sweeteners to food/dinks or using them in cooking/baking, July 2013
Race and Hispanic Origin
-
- Key points
- Blacks report most likelihood to use sugar in food and drink
-
- Figure 65: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
- Blacks and Hispanics most likely to use sugar and honey away from home
-
- Figure 66: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
- Hispanics report using substitutes for a range of reasons
-
- Figure 67: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
- Blacks, Hispanics most interested vitamin/mineral-enriched sweeteners
-
- Figure 68: Interest in sweetener products, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
Key Household Purchase Measures – Information Resources Inc. Builders Panel Data
-
- Overview of sugar
- White granulated sugar
- Consumer insights on key purchase measures – white granulated sugar
- Brand map
-
- Figure 69: Brand map, selected brands of white granulated sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brand leader characteristics
- Key purchase measures
-
- Figure 70: Key purchase measures for the top brands of white granulated sugar, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brown/flavored/powdered sugar
- Consumer insights on key purchase measures – brown/flavored/powdered sugar
- Brand map
-
- Figure 71: Brand map, selected brands of brown/flavored/powdered sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brand leader characteristics
- Key purchase measures
-
- Figure 72: Key purchase measures for the top brands of brown/flavored/powdered sugar, by household penetration, 2012*
- Sugar substitutes
- Consumer insights on key purchase measures – sugar substitutes
- Brand map
-
- Figure 73: Brand map, selected brands of sugar substitutes buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
- Brand leader characteristics
- Key purchase measures
-
- Figure 74: Key purchase measures for the top brands of sugar substitutes, by household penetration, 2012*
Appendix – Market Drivers
-
- Consumer confidence
-
- Figure 75: University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment (ICS), 2007-13
- Unemployment
-
- Figure 76: U.S. Unemployment Rate, by month, 2002-13
- Figure 77: U.S. unemployment and underemployment rates, 2007-13
-
- Figure 78: Number of employed civilians in U.S., in thousands, 2007-13
- Food cost pressures
-
- Figure 79: Changes in USDA Food Price Indexes, 2011-14
- Obesity
-
- Figure 80: American adults by weight category as determined by body mass index (BMI), 2008-June 20, 2013
- Childhood and teen obesity – highest in decades
-
- Figure 81: Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents aged 2-19, 1971-2010
- Shifting U.S. demographics
-
- Figure 82: U.S. population, by age, 2008-18
-
- Figure 83: U.S. households, by presence of own children, 2002-12
- Racial, ethnic population growth
-
- Figure 84: U.S. population by race and Hispanic origin, 2008, 2013, and 2018
-
- Figure 85: Households with children, by race and Hispanic origin of householder, 2012
Appendix – Social Media – Sugar and Sweeteners
-
- Brand usage or awareness
-
- Figure 86: Brand usage or awareness, July 2013
- Figure 87: Domino sugar usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
- Figure 88: Florida crystals usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
-
- Figure 89: Truvia usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
- Figure 90: Aunt Jemima usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
-
- Figure 91: Mrs. Butterworth’s usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
- Figure 92: Splenda usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
- Activities done
-
- Figure 93: Activities done, July 2013, July 2013
- Figure 94: Domino Sugar – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
-
- Figure 95: Truvia – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
- Figure 96: Aunt Jemima – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
-
- Figure 97: Mrs. Butterworth’s – Activities Done, by demographics, July 2013
- Figure 98: Splenda – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
- Online conversations
-
- Figure 99: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
- Figure 100: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by page type, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
- Figure 101: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
-
- Figure 102: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Appendix – Other Useful Consumer Tables
-
- Sugar and sweetener usage
-
- Figure 103: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by gender, July 2013
-
- Figure 104: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by household income, July 2013
-
- Figure 105: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by household income, July 2013
-
- Figure 106: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by household size, July 2013
-
- Figure 107: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by race, July 2013
- Use of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago
-
- Figure 108: Usage of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago, by more/same amount, by gender, July 2013
- Use of sugar/sweeteners away from home
-
- Figure 109: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by household income, July 2013
- Interest in sweetener products
-
- Figure 110: Interest in sweetener products, by gender, July 2013
-
- Figure 111: Interest in sweetener products, by household income, July 2013
- Brands used
-
- Figure 112: Brands of sugar used in household, January 2012-March 2013
-
- Figure 113: Brands of pancake and table syrups used in household, January 2012-March 2013
-
- Figure 114: Brands of sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners used in household, January 2012-March 2013
Appendix – Information Resources Inc. Builders Panel Data Definitions
-
- Information Resources Inc. Consumer Network Metrics
Appendix – Trade Associations
Back to top