Soup - US - April 2013

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
Figure 1: Total U.S. retail sales and fan chart forecast of soup, at current prices, 2007-17
Market segmentation
Figure 2: Total U.S. retail sales of soup, by segment percent, at current prices, 2012
Figure 3: Total U.S. retail sales of soup, by segment, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
Leading companies
Figure 4: MULO sales of soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
Retail channels
Figure 5: Total U.S. retail sales of soup, by channel, at current prices, 2010-12
Innovation
Figure 6: Soup launches, by launch type, 2008-12
The consumer
Figure 7: Soup purchase for self, by age, December 2012
Figure 8: Soup purchase for self, December 2012
Soup’s on, for lunch
Figure 9: Top five soup consumption occasions, December 2012
Price rises to the top of important attributes
Figure 10: Important attributes, December 2012
What we think
ISSUES IN THE MARKET
How can the category overcome sales stagnation?
How can the category combat a poor perception of health?
How can the category grow sales among young consumers?
How can the category grow participation among non-white consumers?
INSIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Expand product lines to meet consumer needs
Increase consumption occasions
Figure 11: Canned or packaged soup, broth, and stock, by gender, August 2011-August 2012
Providing options for snacking and full meals
Specify soup options for various day parts
Develop a range of all-in-ones as well as soup starters
Soup for health
Present soup as a weight loss aid
Figure 12: Watching your diet (for health or weight), August 2011-August 2012
Figure 13: Watching your diet (for health or weight), August 2011-August 2012
Address sodium concerns
Put the focus on adding flavor, not reducing salt
Inspire a soup renaissance
Soup brings people together
Figure 14: Per household expenditures on soup, at current prices, 2007-12
Soup tells the story of people…
… and their history
TREND APPLICATIONS
Trend: Carnivore, Herbivore...Locavore
Trend: The Nouveau Poor
Figure 15: Canned or packaged soup and broth, April 2007-June 2012
MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Key points
Soup slowly recovers from recession
Sales and forecast of soup
Figure 16: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of soup, at current prices, 2007-17
Figure 17: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of soup, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2007-17
Fan chart forecast
Figure 18: Total U.S. retail sales and fan chart forecast of soup, at current prices, 2007-17
COMPETITIVE CONTEXT
Key points
Expanded foodservice offerings challenge category appeal
Restaurant sales on the upswing
Convenient foodservice options expand
Cooking at home
Difficult climate for soup sales
Figure 19: Soup behavior, by gender, December 2012
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Key points
Category leaders lead category losses
Sales of soup, by segment
Figure 20: Total U.S. retail sales of soup, by segment, at current prices, 2010 and 2012
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—READY-TO-SERVE WET SOUP
Key points
RTS wet soup leads category sales and category declines
Sales of RTS wet soup
Figure 21: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of ready-to-serve wet soup, at current prices, 2007-17
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—CONDENSED WET SOUP
Key points
Condensed wet soup struggles, sales decline by 12% from 2007-12
Sales of condensed wet soup
Figure 22: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of condensed wet soup, at current prices, 2007-17
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—DRY SOUP
Key points
Dry soup sales grow 19% from 2007-12 to reach $1.6 billion
Sales of dry soup
Figure 23: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of dry soup, at current prices, 2007-17
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—WET STOCK/BROTH
Key points
Wet broth/stock sales grow 37% from 2007-12 to reach $968 million
Sales of wet broth/stock
Figure 24: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of wet broth/stock, at current prices, 2007-17
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—REFRIGERATED FRESH SOUP
Key points
Refrigerated soup sales grow 36% from 2007-12 to reach $206 million
Sales of refrigerated fresh soup
Figure 25: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of refrigerated fresh soup, at current prices, 2007-17
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE—FROZEN SOUP
Key points
Frozen soup sales grow 39% from 2007-12 to reach $54 million
Sales of frozen soup
Figure 26: Total U.S. retail sales and forecast of frozen soup, at current prices, 2007-17
RETAIL CHANNELS
Key points
Supermarkets lead soup sales
Sales of soup, by channel
Figure 27: Total U.S. retail sales of soup, by channel, at current prices, 2010-12
Supermarkets find strength in selection
Supermarket sales of soup
Figure 28: U.S. supermarket sales of soup, at current prices, 2007-12
Drug stores struggle with soup sales
Drug store sales of soup
Figure 29: U.S. drug store sales of soup, at current prices, 2007-12
“Other” channels see strong growth
“Other” channel sales of soup
Figure 30: U.S. sales of soup, through other retail channels, at current prices, 2007-12
RETAIL CHANNELS—NATURAL SUPERMARKETS
Key points
Natural channel sales showing strong growth, reach $71.1 million
Sales of soup in the natural channel
Figure 31: Natural supermarket sales of soup, at current prices, 2010-12*
Figure 32: Natural supermarket sales of soup, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2010-12*
Natural channel sales of soup by segment
Figure 33: Natural supermarket sales of soup, by segment, 2010 and 2012*
Brands of note
Natural channel sales of organic soup
Figure 34: Natural supermarket sales of soup, by organic, 2010 and 2012*
Natural channel sales of gluten-free soup
Figure 35: Natural supermarket sales of soup, by gluten-free, 2010 and 2012*
LEADING COMPANIES
Key points
Campbell leads soup sales, dwarfs all others
Manufacturer sales of soup
Figure 36: MULO sales of soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—RTS WET SOUP
Key points
Progresso gains on Campbell’s in RTS wet soup sales
Leading companies' MULO sales of RTS wet soup
Figure 37: MULO sales of ready-to-serve wet soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—CONDENSED WET SOUP
Key points
Campbell represents 81.4% of condensed wet soup sales
Leading companies' MULO sales of condensed wet soup
Figure 38: MULO sales of condensed wet soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—DRY SOUP
Key points
Maruchan leads dry soup segment with 38.9% of MULO sales
Leading companies' MULO sales of dry soup
Figure 39: MULO sales of dry soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—WET BROTH/STOCK
Key points
Campbell brands represent half of MULO sales of wet broth/stock
Leading companies' MULO sales of wet broth/stock
Figure 40: MULO sales of wet broth/stock, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—REFRIGERATED SOUP
Key points
Private label dominates refrigerated soup sales
Leading companies' MULO sales of refrigerated soup
Figure 41: MULO sales of refrigerated soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
BRAND SHARE—FROZEN SOUP
Key points
Small size of frozen soup category lends to sales volatility
Leading companies' MULO sales of frozen soup
Figure 42: MULO sales of frozen soup, by leading companies, rolling 52 weeks 2012 and 2013
INNOVATIONS AND INNOVATORS
Packaging leads soup innovation
Figure 43: Soup launches, by launch type, 2008-12
Convenience and natural ingredients top list of new product claims
Reduced sodium
Natural/organic
Figure 44: Soup launches, by top 10 claims, 2008-12
Flavor
Ethnic-inspired
Regional
Inspiration from other food
Homestyle
Campbell’s aims to attract attention by offering more…
Figure 45: Soup launches, by top 10 companies, 2008-12
…while store brands go beyond the basics
MARKETING STRATEGIES
Overview of brand landscape
Brand analysis: Campbell’s
Figure 46: Brand analysis of Campbell’s, 2013
Online initiatives
Figure 47: Campbell’s Kitchen Page, 2013
TV presence
Figure 48: Campbell’s Soup TV ad, “Simple Beginnings,” 2012
Brand analysis: Campbell’s Chunky
Figure 49: Brand analysis of Campbell’s Chunky, 2013
Online initiatives
Figure 50: Campbell’s Chunky Twitter Page, 2012
Figure 51: Campbell’s Chunky Facebook Page, 2012
TV presence
Figure 52: Campbell’s Chunky TV ad, “Perfect For Two,” 2012
Brand analysis: Progresso
Figure 53: Brand analysis of Progresso, 2013
Online initiatives
TV presence
Figure 54: Progresso TV ad, “White Lie,” 2012
Brand analysis: Progresso Light
Figure 55: Brand analysis of Progresso Light, 2013
TV presence
Figure 56: Progresso Light TV ad, “It Fits,” 2012
Online initiatives
Figure 57: Progresso Facebook Post, 2013
Figure 58: Progresso Light TV ad, “AMAZING,” 2012
SOCIAL MEDIA—SOUP
 SOCIAL MEDIA METRICS
Figure 59: Key performance indicators, March 2013
Market overview
Brand usage and awareness
Figure 60: Personal awareness of soup brands, December 2012
Interaction with soup brands
Figure 61: Interaction with soup brands, November 2012
Online conversations
Figure 62: Selected soup brands’ share of conversations, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 63: Conversations on selected soup brands, by brand by day, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Where are people talking about soup brands?
Figure 64: Selected soup brands’ share of brand conversations, by page type, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
What are people talking about?
Figure 65: Topics of conversations concerning soup brands, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 66: Topics of conversation regarding selected soup brands, by day, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 67: Types of conversation regarding selected soup brands, by type of website, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
 ANALYSIS BY BRAND
Progresso
Figure 68: Progresso—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Campbell’s Go
Figure 69: Campbell’s Go—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Campbell’s Chunky Soup
Figure 70: Campbell’s Chunky Soup—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Campbell’s Condensed Soup
Figure 71: Campbell’s Condensed Soup—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Swanson
Figure 72: Swanson—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
College Inn Broth
Figure 73: College Inn Broth—key social media indicators, March 1, 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
PURCHASE AND CONSUMPTION
Key points
Women are more likely soup shoppers/eaters, men favor convenience
Figure 74: Soup purchase, by gender, December 2012
Figure 75: Soup purchase for self, by gender, December 2012
Consumption highest among 45+, young shoppers like convenience
Figure 76: Soup purchase for self, by age, December 2012
Soup equal opportunity, kinds vary by income
Figure 77: Soup purchase, by household income, December 2012
Soup hot among singles
Figure 78: Soup purchase for self, by household size, December 2012
Soup starters may be place to start for nonparticipants
Figure 79: Reasons for not purchasing soup, December 2012
CONSUMPTION OCCASION
Key points
Women turn to soup as a meal replacement, men as snack/meal part
Figure 80: Soup consumption occasion, by gender, December 2012
Figure 81: Soup behavior, by gender, December 2012
Young consumers are soup snackers, want little fuss
Figure 82: Soup consumption occasion, by age, December 2012
Figure 83: Soup behavior, by age, December 2012
Higher income earning HHs open to cooking with soup
Figure 84: Soup behavior, by household income, December 2012
Large households more likely to use soup as meal replacement
Figure 85: Soup consumption occasion, by household size, December 2012
Figure 86: Soup behavior, by household size, December 2012
IMPORTANT ATTRIBUTES
Key points
Price rises to the top of important attributes, men want meat
Figure 87: Your attitudes, opinions and interests, August 2011-August 2012
Figure 88: Important attributes, by gender, December 2012
Young consumers drawn to health/convenience, sodium concerns 55+
Figure 89: Important attributes, by age, December 2012
Figure 90: Soup behavior, by age, December 2012
Price especially a factor among lowest income earners
Figure 91: Important attributes, by household income, December 2012
Wet RTE seen as affordable
Figure 92: Important attributes, by soup purchase, December 2012
ATTITUDES TOWARD SOUP
Key points
Convenience
Older consumers value soup at-home, young consumers on-the-go
Figure 93: Attitudes toward soup, by age, December 2012
Canned soup is a pantry staple for older consumers, women, and small HHs
Figure 94: Soup behavior, by age, December 2012
Figure 95: Soup behavior, by gender, December 2012
Figure 96: Soup behavior, by household size, December 2012
Health
Health attributes more prominent among women
Figure 97: Attitudes toward soup, by gender, December 2012
Figure 98: Soup behavior, by gender, December 2012
Young consumers critical about soup health
Figure 99: Attitudes toward soup, by age, December 2012
Figure 100: Soup behavior, by age, December 2012
Soup meets health needs of low income households
Figure 101: Attitudes toward soup, by household income, December 2012
Flavor
Flavor expansion represents opportunity for growth
Figure 102: Attitudes toward soup, by gender, December 2012
Expanded international offerings should appeal to young consumers
Figure 103: Attitudes toward soup, by age, December 2012
Soup starters may be affordable meal option for low income households
Figure 104: Attitudes toward soup, by household income, December 2012
Price
Men slightly more price conscious than women
Figure 105: Attitudes toward soup, by gender, December 2012
Under 45s least swayed by brand
Figure 106: Attitudes toward soup, by age, December 2012
Lower income earners driven by price, open to store brands
Figure 107: Attitudes toward soup, by household income, December 2012
IMPACT OF RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
Key points
Room for growth among non-white consumers
Figure 108: Soup purchase, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Figure 109: Soup purchase for self, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Alternative consumption occasions may grow soup appeal
Figure 110: Soup consumption occasion, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Family focus may resonate with Hispanic shoppers
Figure 111: Soup behavior, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Blacks drawn to health, while Asians are swayed by quality
Figure 112: Important attributes, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Hispanics are warm on soup, Asians drawn to packaging innovation
Figure 113: Agreement with attitudes toward soup, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
Figure 114: Soup behavior, by race/Hispanic origin, December 2012
CUSTOM CONSUMER GROUP: HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
Key points
Soup appears as a convenience among HHs with children
Figure 115: Soup purchase, by presence of children in household, December 2012
Teens and older children more likely candidates for soup consumption
Figure 116: Soup purchase, by parents with children and age, December 2012
Figure 117: Soup, by age, April 2011-June 2012
HHs with children over index across most consumption occasions
Figure 118: Soup consumption occasion, by presence of children in household, December 2012
Product claims important among HHs with children
Figure 119: Important attributes, by presence of children in household, December 2012
HHs with children OK with convenience/health/price, want more flavor
Figure 120: Agreement with attitudes toward soup, by presence of children in household, December 2012
IRI/BUILDERS—KEY HOUSEHOLD PURCHASE MEASURES
 OVERVIEW OF SOUP
 CONDENSED WET SOUP
 CONSUMER INSIGHTS ON KEY PURCHASE MEASURES—CONDENSED WET SOUP
Brand map
Figure 121: Brand map, selected brands of condensed wet soup, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 122: Key purchase measures for the top brands of condensed wet soup, by household penetration, 2012*
 RTS WET SOUP
Consumer insights on key purchase measures—RTS wet soup
Brand map
Figure 123: Brand map, selected brands of RTS wet soup buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 124: Key purchase measures for the top brands of RTS wet soup, by household penetration, 2012*
 DRY SOUP
Consumer insights on key purchase measures—dry soup
Brand map
Figure 125: Brand map, selected brands of dry soup buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 126: Key purchase measures for the top brands of dry soup, by household penetration, 2012*
APPENDIX: FOOD AND DRINK MARKET DRIVERS
Consumer confidence
Figure 127: University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment (ICS), 2007-13
Unemployment
Figure 128: U.S. Unemployment rate, by month, 2002-13
Figure 129: U.S. Unemployment and under-employment rates, 2007-13
Figure 130: Number of employed civilians in U.S., in thousands, 2007-13
Food cost pressures
Figure 131: Changes in USDA Food Price Indexes, 2011 through 2013, Feb. 25, 2013
Obesity
Figure 132: U.S. Obesity, by age group, 2008 and 2012
Childhood and teen obesity—highest in decades
Figure 133: Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents aged 2-19, 1971-2010
Racial, ethnic population growth
Figure 134: Population, by race and Hispanic origin, 2008, 2013, and 2018
Figure 135: Households with children, by race and Hispanic origin of householder, 2012
Shifting U.S. demographics
Figure 136: Population, by age, 2008-18
Figure 137: Households, by presence of own children, 2002-12
APPENDIX: SOCIAL MEDIA
Brand usage or awareness
Figure 138: Brand usage or awareness, November 2012
Figure 139: Campbell’s condensed soup usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 140: Progresso usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 141: Swanson usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 142: College inn usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 143: Campbell’s chunky soup usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 144: Campbell’s go usage or awareness, by demographics, November 2012
Activities done
Figure 145: Activities done, November 2012
Figure 146: Campbell's condensed soup – Activities done, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 147: Progresso – Activities done, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 148: Swanson's – Activities done, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 149: College inn – Activities done, by demographics November 2012
Figure 150: Campbells' Chunky soup – Activities done, by demographics, November 2012
Figure 151: Campbell's Go – Activities done, by demographics, November 2012
Online conversations
Figure 152: Selected soup brands’ share of conversations, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 153: Conversations on selected soup brands, by brand by day, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 154: Topics of conversations concerning soup brands, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 155: Topics of conversation regarding selected soup brands, by day, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
Figure 156: Types of conversation regarding selected soup brands, by type of website, Jan. 27-Feb. 26, 2013
APPENDIX: OTHER USEFUL CONSUMER TABLES
Purchase and consumption
Figure 157: Soup purchase for self, by gender and age, December 2012
Figure 158: Soup purchase, December 2012
Consumption occasion
Figure 159: Soup consumption occasion, by gender and age, December 2012
Figure 160: Soup consumption occasion, by household income, December 2012
Figure 161: Soup behavior, by household income, December 2012
Figure 162: Soup behavior, by household size, December 2012
Important attributes
Figure 163: Important attributes, December 2012
Attitudes toward soup
Figure 164: Attitudes toward soup, December 2012
Figure 165: Agreement with attitudes toward soup, by household size, December 2012
Figure 166: Agreement with attitudes toward soup, by parents with children and age, December 2012
Figure 167: Agreement with attitudes toward soup, by soup purchase, December 2012
APPENDIX: TRADE ASSOCIATIONS