Sugar and Gum Confectionery - UK - December 2012

INTRODUCTION
Definition
Abbreviations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The market
Figure 1: Total UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2007-17
Figure 2: Total UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2007-17
Segment performance
Figure 3: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery, by sector, 2012 (est)
Market factors
One in two adults indulges in unhealthy treats
Growth of over-65s poses a challenge to the market
Companies, brands and innovation
The share of NPD in sugar confectionery is on course to reach a five-year high in 2012
Haribo is leading individual brand in sugar confectionery
Wrigley remains untouchable as leading gum manufacturer
The consumer
Mints are the most typically-used type of sugar confectionery
One in two users eats sweets to satisfy a craving
Jelly-style sweets are seen as fun and indulgent, yet suffer from poor health image
Figure 4: Attributes associated with sweets, September 2012
Six in ten users want healthier sweets and more natural sugar alternatives
Figure 5: Attitudes towards sugar confectionery, September 2012
Six in ten trust chewing gum’s health benefits, though official accreditation is less of a prerequisite
Figure 6: Attitudes towards chewing gum, September 2012
Chewing gum suffers from an image problem among non-users
Figure 7: Attitudes towards chewing gum, September 2012
What we think
ISSUES IN THE MARKET
Which NPD areas offer potential in sugar confectionery?
What NPD areas can manufacturers explore to engage the growing over-65s population?
What deters consumers from using chewing gum?
Is there significant demand for ‘healthier’ sweets?
TREND APPLICATION
Trend: Sense of the Intense
Trend: Carnivore, Herbivore...Locavore
2015 Trend: East Meets West
MARKET DRIVERS
Key points
One in two adults indulges in unhealthy treats
Figure 8: Agreement with the selected lifestyle statements, 2008-12
Figure 9: Agreement with the statement ‘I like to treat myself to foods that are not good for me,’ by gender and age groups, 2012
Sugar prices soar
Older generation set for growth
Figure 10: Projected trends in population growth, by age, 2012-17
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Strengths
Weaknesses
WHO’S INNOVATING?
Key points
NPD in sugar confectionery is on course to reach a five-year high in 2012
Figure 11: Share of new sugar confectionery, mints and gum * product launches in NPD in the UK food market, 2008-12**
Soft appeal: chewy sweets continue to account for biggest chunk of NPD
Figure 12: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by type, January-November 2012
Figure 13: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by type, 2008-11
Tesco leads NPD in sweets in 2012
Figure 14: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by company (top ten), January-November 2012
Figure 15: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by company (top ten), 2008-11
Swizzels Matlow goes soft and oversized with its old favourites
Rowntree rolls out new Wonka line and returns to put spotlight on Randoms
NPD inspiration from abroad in sugar confectionery
Mint remains the most popular flavour in gum, but strawberry increases in profile
Figure 16: Share of new product launches within the UK chewing gum and bubble gum market, by most popular flavour, January-November 2012
Figure 17: Share of new product launches within the UK chewing gum and bubble gum market, by flavour (including blend) (top ten), 2008-11
Mentos ups its level of innovation to account for majority of gum NPD in 2012
Figure 18: Share of new product launches within the UK gum market, by leading companies, January-November 2012
Figure 19: Share of new product launches within the UK gum market, by company (top ten), 2008-11
Low/no/reduced sugar claims reach a four-year high in 2012
Tesco accounts for the bulk of mint NPD activity in 2012
Figure 20: Share of new product launches within the UK mint market, by leading companies, January-November 2012
Figure 21: Share of new product launches within the UK gum market, by company (top ten), 2008-11
Heritage provides an NPD theme for mints
Wrigley updates its mints packaging
MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Key points
Commodity inflation fuels value growth in sugar confectionery
Figure 22: Total UK retail value and volume sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2007-17
The future of the sugar confectionery and gum market
Figure 23: Total UK retail value and volume sales of sugar confectionery, 2007-17
Figure 24: Total UK retail value and volume sales of gum, 2007-17
Market forecasts
Figure 25: Total UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2007-17
Figure 26: Total UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2007-17
Forecast methodology
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Key points
Sweets bags on course for a 2.6% volume decline in 2012
Figure 27: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by format, 2009-12
Figure 28: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by format, 2009-12
Singles, sharing bags and multipacks all outperform the market
Kids sweets are fuelling growth
Figure 29: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by sector, 2011-12 (est)
Figure 30: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by sector, 2011-12 (est)
Gum volumes continue to slide
Figure 31: UK retail value and volume sales of gum, by sector, 2010-12
MARKET SHARE
Key points
Haribo is the leading individual brand in sugar confectionery
Figure 32: Leading brands’ sales and shares in the UK sugar confectionery market, by value, 2011*-12**
Figure 33: Leading brands’ sales and shares in UK sugar confectionery market, by volume, 2011*-12**
Wrigley Extra reinforces market leadership with volume growth
Figure 34: Leading brands’ sales and shares in UK gum market, by value, 2011*-12**
Figure 35: Leading brands’ sales and shares in UK gum market, by volume, 2011*-12**
Wrigley rivals Trebor and Mentos suffer volume crashes
COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS
Figure 36: Selected leading companies in the UK sugar confectionery and gum market and their brands, 2012
Mars
Mondelez International (formerly Kraft)
Haribo
Nestlé
Swizzels Matlow
Perfetti Van Melle
Leaf
Tangerine Confectionery
BRAND RESEARCH
Brand map
Figure 37: Attitudes towards and usage of brands in the sugar and gum confectionery sector, October 2012
Correspondence analysis
Brand attitudes
Figure 38: Attitudes by sugar and gum confectionery brand, October 2012
Brand personality
Figure 39: Sugar and gum confectionery brand personality – macro image, October 2012
Figure 40: Sugar and gum confectionery brand personality – micro image, October 2012
Brand experience
Figure 41: Sugar and gum confectionery brand usage, October 2012
Figure 42: Satisfaction with various sugar and gum confectionery brands, October 2012
Figure 43: Consideration of sugar and gum confectionery brands, October 2012
Figure 44: Consumer perceptions of current sugar and gum confectionery brand performance, October 2012
Figure 45: Sugar and gum confectionery brand recommendation – Net Promoter Score, October 2012
Brand index
Figure 46: Sugar and gum confectionery brand index, October 2012
Figure 47: Sugar and gum confectionery brand index vs. recommendation, October 2012
Target group analysis
Figure 48: Target groups, October 2012
Figure 49: Sugar and gum confectionery brand usage, by target groups, October 2012
Group One – Conformists
Group Two – Simply the best
Group Three – Shelf stalkers
Group Four – Habitual shoppers
Group Five – Individualists
BRAND COMMUNICATION AND PROMOTION
Key points
Total adspend remains steady
Figure 50: Total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, 2008-12
Kraft slashes adspend in 2012
Figure 51: Total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by top 10 advertisers, 2008-12*
Wrigley focuses on its Extra Chewing Gum range
Haribo continues to boost investment
Werther’s moves away from grandfather imagery
Brands engage with consumers through social media
CHANNELS TO MARKET
Key points
Multiple grocers continue reinforce growth
Figure 52: UK retail sales of sugar confectionery and gum, by outlet type, 2009-11
Independent channel returns to growth in 2011
CONSUMER USAGE OF SUGAR CONFECTIONERY AND GUM
Key points
Mints are the most typically eaten type of sugar confectionery
Figure 53: Usage of sugar confectionery and gum, by type, September 2012
Women are biggest users of sweets
Figure 54: Usage of sweets and chewing gum, by gender, September 2012
Usage of sweets broadly declines with age
Figure 55: Usage of selected sweet types, by age group, September 2012
Gum appeals mainly to younger consumers
Figure 56: Usage of chewing gum, by age group, September 2012
One in two users eats sweets to satisfy a craving
Figure 57: Usage of sweets by occasion, September 2012
One in five users eats sweets to lift energy levels and when at work
Figure 58: Usage of gum by occasion, September 2012
CONSUMER –ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH SWEETS
Key points
Jelly-style sweets are seen as fun and indulgent, yet suffer from a poor health image
Figure 59: Attributes associated with sweets, September 2012
Old-fashioned yet unhealthy: boiled sweets require a more vibrant image to appeal to younger users
Figure 60: Attributes associated with boiled sweets, ‘Old-fashioned,’ and ‘Bad for your health,’ by age group, September 2012
Mints enjoy positive health image, but lack indulgent appeal
Figure 61: Attributes associated with mints, ‘Good value for money,’ and ‘Bad for your health,’ by age groups, September 2012
CONSUMER ATTITUDES TOWARDS SUGAR CONFECTIONERY
Key points
Six in ten want healthier sweets and more natural sugar alternatives
Figure 62: Attitudes towards sugar confectionery, September 2012
Resealable packaging holds appeal for six in ten
Energy ingredients, unusual and extreme flavours offer growth opportunities
Figure 63: Agreement with statements regarding flavours and ingredients of sweets, by selected user group, September 2012
Hard sweets are blighted by a poor health reputation
Figure 64: Agreement with the statement, ‘Hard sweets are worse for your teeth than soft, chewy sweets,’ by gender and age groups, September 2012
Gelatine-free sweets appeal to nearly one in four users
ATTITUDES TOWARDS CHEWING GUM
Key points
Six in ten trust chewing gum’s health benefits, though official accreditation is less of a prerequisite
Figure 65: Attitudes towards chewing gum, September 2012
NPD opportunities lie in longer-lasting flavour and teeth-whitening benefits
Figure 66: Agreement with the statements ‘Teeth-whitening chewing gum is worth paying more for,’ and ‘I’d pay more for a gum with longer-lasting flavour,’ by age groups, September 2012
Only two fifths of users are keen to try new gum flavours although added vitamins appeal
Chewing gum suffers from an image problem among non-users
Figure 67: Attitudes towards chewing gum, September 2012
Disposal of gum is a deterrent – especially among the young
CONSUMER – TARGET GROUPS
Key points
Three target groups
Figure 68: Target groups, September 2012
Sour Fans (30%)
Healthy Eaters (32%)
Disengageds (38%)
APPENDIX – MARKET ENVIRONMENT
Figure 69: Agreement with selected lifestyle statements, by demographics, 2012
APPENDIX – MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Figure 70: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery and gum, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
Figure 71: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery and gum, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
Figure 72: Total UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery, 2007-17
Figure 73: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
Figure 74: Total UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery, 2007-17
Figure 75: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
Figure 76: Total UK retail value sales of gum, 2007-17
Figure 77: UK retail value sales of gum, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
Figure 78: Total UK retail volume sales of gum, 2007-17
Figure 79: UK retail volume sales of gum, best- and worst-case forecast, 2012-17
APPENDIX – BRAND RESEARCH
Figure 80: Brand usage, October 2012
Figure 81: Brand commitment, October 2012
Figure 82: Brand momentum, October 2012
Figure 83: Brand diversity, October 2012
Figure 84: Brand satisfaction, October 2012
Figure 85: Brand recommendation, October 2012
Figure 86: Brand attitude, October 2012
Figure 87: Brand image – macro image, October 2012
Figure 88: Brand image – micro image, October 2012
Figure 89: Profile of target groups, by demographics, October 2012
Figure 90: Psychographic segmentation, by target groups, October 2012
Figure 91: Brand usage, by target groups, October 2012
Brand index
Figure 92: Brand index, October 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER USAGE – SUGAR CONFECTIONERY AND GUM
Figure 93: Usage of sugar confectionery and gum, September 2012
Figure 94: Most popular types of sugar confectionery and gum used, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 95: Next most popular types of sugar confectionery and gum used, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 96: Other types of sugar confectionery and gum used, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 97: Repertoire of usage of sugar confectionery, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 98: Repertoire of usage of gum confectionery, by demographics, September 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – USAGE BY OCCASION
Figure 99: Usage of sweets and gum by occasion, September 2012
Figure 100: Usage of sweets and gum by occasion, September 2012
Figure 101: Usage of sweets and gum by occasion, September 2012
Figure 102: Most popular occasions for using sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 103: Next most popular occasions for using sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 104: Usage of chewing gum by occasion, by demographics, September 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTRIBUTES ASSOCIATED WITH SWEETS
Figure 105: Attributes associated with sweets, September 2012
Figure 106: Most popular attributes associated with jelly-style sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 107: Next most popular attributes associated with jelly-style sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 108: Most popular attributes associated with boiled sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 109: Next most popular attributes associated with boiled sweets, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 110: Most popular attributes associated with mints, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 111: Next most popular attributes associated with mints, by demographics, September 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS SUGAR CONFECTIONERY
Figure 112: Attitudes towards sugar confectionery, September 2012
Figure 113: Agreement with the statements ‘Hard sweets are worse for your teeth than soft, chewy sweets’ and ‘I would like to see more sweets with extreme flavours’, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 114: Agreement with the statements ‘There are not enough healthy sweets available’ and ‘I am interested in trying sweets with natural sugar alternatives’, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 115: Agreement with the statements ‘I feel less guilty about eating sweets than chocolate’ and ‘Gelatine-free sweets are more appealing than standard sweets’, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 116: Agreement with the statements ‘I would try sweets with energy-boosting ingredients’ and ‘I would try sweets with unusual flavours’, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 117: Agreement with the statements ‘I tend to buy whatever sweets are on promotion’ and ‘There is a lack of sweets with resealable packaging’, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 118: Agreement with the statement ‘My children prefer sweets to chocolate’, by demographics, September 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS CHEWING GUM
Figure 119: Attitudes towards chewing gum, September 2012
Figure 120: Users’ Attitudes towards chewing gum, by demographics, September 2012
Figure 121: Non-users’ attitudes towards chewing gum, by demographics, September 2012
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – TARGET GROUPS
Figure 122: Attitudes towards sugar confectionery, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 123: Attitudes towards sugar confectionery, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 124: Usage of sugar confectionery and gum by type, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 125: Usage of sweets and gum by occasion, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 126: Attributes associated with sweets, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 127: Attitudes towards chewing gum, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 128: Attitudes towards chewing gum, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 129: Factors influencing choice of snack, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 130: Grocery shopping habits, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 131: Attitude towards health and healthy lifestyles, by target groups, September 2012
Figure 132: target groups, by demographics, September 2012