Sugar and Sweeteners - US - December 2010

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
Sugar and sweeteners ride out the recession
Product versatility and health attributes will prove distinguishers
Health issues a core concern
Four widely divergent segments comprise the category
Greatest competition comes from within the category
Integrated marketing campaigns the norm
Sugar and sweeteners used by the majority of consumers
Low-calorie sweeteners are used with greatest frequency
Use at home is most evident
Usage remains stable from last year
Unpleasant taste and/or aftertaste greatest deterrent when choosing sweeteners
Natural products have a distinct advantage
INSIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Highlight product versatility
Figure 1: Interest in at-home cooking, by gender, July 2010
Figure 2: Preference for sweetened coffee drinks, by age, June 2010
Figure 3: Choice of additives in iced tea, by age, February 2010
Parlaying the success of the stevia into more
Figure 4: Selected brand sales of stevia products in the U.S., 2009 and 2010
HFCS backlash
Taking social media to the next step
Figure 5: How social networking sites function for the users, January 2010
INSPIRE INSIGHTS
Trend—A Simple Balance for Health
MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Key points
Market relatively robust in recession
Future reliant on versatility of products and product use
Sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 6: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2005-15
Figure 7: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2005-15
Fan chart forecast
Figure 8: Total U.S. retail sales and fan chart forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2005-15
Walmart sales
MARKET DRIVERS
The economics of sugar
Figure 9: Sugar prices, May-October 2010
Figure 10: Incidence of cooking more at home to save money, July 2010
Health and wellness
Sugar’s impact on Glycemic Index
The obesity epidemic
Figure 11: Age-adjusted overweight/obesity rates among adults aged 20+, 1988-2008
Figure 12: Age-adjusted overweight/obesity rates among adults aged 20+, by race/Hispanic origin and gender, 1988-2006
Diabetes and cancer
Figure 13: Incidence of diabetes, by age, trended, 1994-2006
Figure 14: Incidence of diabetes, by race/ethnicity, trended, 1994-2006
Diet trends shift consumer demand away from sugar toward sugar substitutes
Figure 15: Interest in food/diet trends, February 2010
Demographics
Figure 16: Population, by age, 2005-15
COMPETITIVE CONTEXT
Competition from within mounting
HFCS casts a pall on “sweet stuff”
No need to add sugar or sweetener
Figure 17: Household usage of instant iced tea mixes, by type, by age, April 2008-June 2009
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Key points
Sugar retains largest market share with healthy sales
Molasses and honey also benefit from those cooking at home
Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by segment
Figure 18: Sales of sugar and sweeteners segmented by type, 2009 and 2010
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—SUGAR
Key points
Sugar holds strong with bakers
Sales and forecast of sugar
Figure 19: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar, at current prices, 2005-15
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—SYRUPS
Key points
Syrup bucks opportunity for sales gains
Sales and forecast of syrups
Figure 20: Total U.S. sales and forecast of syrups, at current prices, 2005-15
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—SUGAR SUBSTITUTES
Key points
Stevia sales help to bolster segment
Sales and forecast of sugar substitutes
Figure 21: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar substitutes, at current prices, 2005-15
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—MOLASSES AND HONEY
Key points
Honey scores on health; home baking boosts segment
Sales and forecast of molasses and honey
Figure 22: Total U.S. sales and forecast of molasses and honey, at current prices, 2005-15
RETAIL CHANNELS
Key points
Nearly half of sales come through supermarket…
…however, diversity in retailers supporting the category is evident
Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel
Figure 23: U.S. retail sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel, 2009 and 2010
RETAIL CHANNELS—SUPERMARKETS
Key points
Supermarket sales stable
Embrace additional shelf space opportunities
Supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 24: U.S. supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2005-10
RETAIL CHANNELS—SUPERCENTERS AND WAREHOUSE CLUBS
Key points
Buying in bulk popular among penny pinchers
Use packaging to promote added savings
Supercenters and warehouse clubs channel sales of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 25: U.S. supercenters and warehouse clubs channel sales of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2005-10
RETAIL CHANNELS—OTHER
Key points
Sugar and sweeteners available at a wide range of retailers
Other channel sales of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 26: U.S. other channel sales of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2005-10
LEADING COMPANIES
Key points
Small manufacturers and private label dominate market
Potential exists for growth through product consolidation
Manufacturer sales of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 27: Select manufacturer FDMx sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2009 and 2010
BRAND SHARE—SUGAR
Key points
Leading brands lose sales and share to private label
Florida Crystals’ success reveals trend shifts
Manufacturer and brand sales of sugar
Figure 28: Selected brand FDMx sales and market share of sugar, 2009 and 2010
BRAND SHARE—SYRUPS
Key points
Widespread declines for syrups
Producers slow to embrace market trends
Manufacturer and brand sales of syrups
Figure 29: Selected brand FDMx sales and market share of syrups, 2009 and 2010
BRAND SHARE—SUGAR SUBSTITUTES
Key points
Stevia—The market Cinderella story
Leading low-calorie sweeteners losing favor
Manufacturer and brand sales of sugar substitutes
Figure 30: Selected brand FDMx sales and market share of sugar substitutes, 2009 and 2010
BRAND SHARE—MOLASSES AND HONEY
Key points
Private label dominates
Manufacturer and brand sales of honey and molasses
Figure 31: Selected brand sales and market share of honey and molasses at FDMx, 2009 and 2010
INNOVATION AND INNOVATORS
New product trends
Figure 32: New sugar and sweetener product launches, 2005-10*
Figure 33: Sugar and sweetener new product claims, 2005-10*
New product examples
Environmental impact
Combination products
Natural sweeteners
Packaging for a variety of purposes
Added nutrition and flavor
Partnering with CPG
Private label
BRANDS AND MARKETING STRATEGY
Overview of the brand landscape
Brand analysis—Truvia
Figure 34: Brand analysis of Truvia, 2010
Truvia online
Truvia television advertising
Figure 35: Truvia, television ad, 2010
Figure 36: Truvia, television ad, 2010
Brand analysis—In The Raw
Figure 37: Brand analysis of In The Raw, 2010
In the Raw in print
Brand analysis—Splenda
Figure 38: Brand analysis of Splenda, 2010
Splenda online
Splenda television
Figure 39: Splenda, television ad, 2010
Figure 40: Splenda with Fiber, television ad, 2010
Splenda print
Brand analysis—Sun Crystals
Figure 41: Brand analysis of Sun Crystals, 2010
Sun Crystals television
Figure 42: Sun Crystals with Fiber, television ad, 2010
Sun Crystals print
Additional online initiatives
The Sugar Association
Domino Sugar
TV presence
Ideal
Figure 43: Ideal, television ad, 2010
SUGAR AND SWEETENER USAGE
Key points
Sweetener use
Figure 44: Types of sweeteners used, by gender, August/September 2010
Figure 45: Types of sweeteners used, by age, August/September 2010
Sweetening food and drinks versus use in baking
Figure 46: Types of sweeteners used when added to food/drink vs. used for baking, August/September 2010
Figure 47: Types of sweeteners added to food/drinks, by age, August/September 2010
Figure 48: Sweeteners used in baking, by age, August/September 2010
FREQUENCY OF SWEETENER USE
Key points
Low-calorie sweeteners used most frequently
Figure 49: Frequency of using sweeteners, by type of sweetener, August/September 2010
Among heaviest sweetener users, older users trade sugar for sweeteners
Figure 50: Use of sweeteners several times a day, by age, August/September 2010
Among daily users—women use a wider range of products daily
Figure 51: Use of sweeteners about once a day, by gender, August/September 2010
Less frequent users—highest income earners show lowest frequency
Figure 52: Use of sweeteners less than once a day, by household income, August/September 2010
LOCATION OF USE
Key points
Home sweet home
Figure 53: Sweetener location of use, by type of sweetener, August/September 2010
Use at home
Figure 54: Types of sweetener used—use at home, by age, August/September 2010
Bring from home to use at work, restaurants, or some other place
Figure 55: Types of sweetener used—bring from home to use at work, restaurants, or some other place, by age, August/September 2010
Use at restaurants/coffee shops when they are supplied by restaurant
Figure 56: Types of sweetener used—use at restaurants/coffee shops when they are supplied, by age, August/September 2010
CHANGE IN USAGE HABITS
Key points
Stevia has most significant increase in use
Figure 57: Change in usage habits, by type of sweetener, August/September 2010
Sugar usage
Figure 58: Change in sugar usage habits, by age, August/September 2010
Honey, molasses or syrup
Figure 59: Change in honey, molasses or syrup usage habits, by age, August/September 2010
Figure 60: Change in honey, molasses or syrup usage habits, by household income, August/September 2010
Agave
Figure 61: Change in agave usage habits, by gender, age and HH income, August/September 2010
Low-calorie sweeteners
Figure 62: Change in low-calorie sweetener usage habits, by household income, August/September 2010
Stevia
Figure 63: Change in stevia usage habits, by gender and age, August/September 2010
CHOOSING A SWEETENER
Key points
Sweetener selection criteria
Figure 64: Sweetener selection criteria, by gender, August/September 2010
Figure 65: Sweetener selection criteria, by age, August/September 2010
Interest in sweeteners
Figure 66: Interest in various new types of sweeteners, by gender, August-September, 2010
Figure 67: Interest in sweeteners, by age, August-September, 2010
Organic interest
Figure 68: Organic sweetener purchase, by gender, August/September 2010
Figure 69: Organic sweetener purchase, by age, August/September 2010
THE HEALTH OF SWEETENERS
Key points
Respondents are sweet on honey for health
Figure 70: Health rating of sweeteners, August/September 2010
Figure 71: Average health rating of sweeteners, by gender, August/September 2010
Figure 72: Average health rating of sweeteners, by age, August/September 2010
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
Add to food/drinks
Figure 73: Types of sweeteners added to food/drinks, by race/Hispanic origin, August/September 2010
Use in baking
Figure 74: Sweeteners used in baking, by race/Hispanic origin, August/September 2010
Heaviest users mostly found among Hispanics
Figure 75: Use of sweeteners several times a day, by race/Hispanic origin, August/September 2010
Selection criteria
Figure 76: Sweetener selection criteria, by race/Hispanic origin, August/September 2010
Interest in new types of sweeteners
Figure 77: Interest in new types of sweeteners, by race/Hispanic origin, August-September, 2010
Health ratings
Figure 78: Health rating of sweeteners, by race/Hispanic origin, August/September 2010
CUSTOM CONSUMER GROUPS—PRESENCE OF CHILDREN
Use in baking
Figure 79: Sweeteners used in baking, by number of children in the household, August/September 2010
Several times a day (or several food/drinks a day)
Figure 80: Use of sweeteners several times a day, by presence and number of children in the household, August/September 2010
Using more sweeteners than a year ago
Figure 81: Change in usage habits—using more than a year ago, by presence and number of children in the household, August/September 2010
Interest in new types of sweeteners
Figure 82: Interest in new types of sweeteners, by presence and number of children in the household, August-September, 2010
SYMPHONYIRI GROUP BUILDERS PANEL—KEY HOUSEHOLD PURCHASE MEASURES
 OVERVIEW OF SUGAR
 WHITE GRANULATED SUGAR
Consumer insights on key purchase measures
Brand map
Figure 83: Brand map, selected brands of white granulated sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 84: Key purchase measures for the top brands of white granulated sugar, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
 BROWN/POWDERED/FLAVORED SUGAR
Consumer insights on key purchase measures
Brand map
Figure 85: Brand map, selected brands of brown/powdered/flavored sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 86: Key purchase measures for the top brands of brown/powdered/flavored sugar, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
 SUGAR SUBSTITUTES
Consumer insights on key purchase measures
Brand map
Figure 87: Brand map, selected brands of sugar substitutes buying rate, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 88: Key purchase measures for the top brands of sugar substitutes, by household penetration, 52 weeks ending June 27, 2010
APPENDIX—SYMPHONYIRI/BUILDERS PANEL DATA DEFINITIONS
SymphonyIRI Consumer Network Metrics
APPENDIX—TRADE ASSOCIATIONS