Sugar and Gum Confectionery - UK - December 2013

INTRODUCTION
Definition
Abbreviations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The market
An improved performance in 2013, but volume sales remain in decline
Figure 1: Total UK retail value sales of sugar and gum confectionery, 2008-18
Kids’ sweets account for half the spend on sugar confectionery
Figure 2: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by sector, 2013
Market factors
Sugar prices continue to rise
The ageing population presents a challenge
Figure 3: Trends in the age structure of the UK population, 2008-13 and 2003-18
HFSS food manufacturers come under scrutiny
Companies, brands and innovation
Haribo extends its lead in the sugar confectionery market
Figure 4: Leading brands’ shares in the UK sugar confectionery market, by value, 2013*
NPD in sweets reached a five-year high in 2012
Figure 5: Share of new sugar confectionery (including mints) and gum product launches in NPD in the UK food market, 2009-13
Adspend jumps in 2012, with 2013 set to be higher still
The consumer
Sweets have an ingrained place in Britons’ diets
Figure 6: Usage of sugar and gum confectionery, September 2013
Consumers’ favourite flavour is the most important factor
Figure 7: Factors considered when choosing sweets, September 2013
High interest in lower-sugar versions of favourite sweets
Figure 8: Ideal percentage of sugar to be replaced with sweeteners, September 2013
Sweets are an impulse purchase
Figure 9: Attitudes towards sweets, September 2013
Innovation opportunities for gum
Figure 10: Attitudes towards gum, September 2013
What we think
ISSUES IN THE MARKET
Are lower-sugar variants a missed opportunity for mainstream sweet brands?
How can sweets give themselves a more adult positioning?
What NPD areas can manufacturers explore in the chewing gum market?
Should chewing gum brands look beyond the fresh breath and oral health angles in their marketing?
TREND APPLICATION
Trend: Play Ethic
Trend: The Big Issue
Mintel futures: Brand Intervention
MARKET DRIVERS
Key points
Sugar prices continue to rise
Government’s Responsibility Deal invites industry to cut calories
Government maintains ad ban due to concerns on child obesity
Britons’ diet habit collides with their sweet tooth
Chewing gum offers health benefits
Figure 11: Agreement with the statements ‘Taking care of my oral health makes me feel healthier overall’ and ‘I worry that the food I eat is staining my teeth’, by age, March 2013
The ageing population presents a challenge
Figure 12: Trends in the age structure of the UK population, 2008-13 and 2013-18
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
Strengths
Weaknesses
WHO’S INNOVATING?
Key points
NPD in sweets reached a five-year high in 2012
Figure 13: Share of new sugar confectionery (including mints) and gum product launches in NPD in the UK food market, 2009-13
Figure 14: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by type, January-October 2013
Surge in NPD activity from Swizzels Matlow
Figure 15: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by company (top 10 in 2012), 2009-13
Flavours get more imaginative
Flavour-changing
Playful/interactive
Surprise element
A focus on textures
No additives/preservatives remains the top claim
Figure 16: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by claim (top 10), 2009-13
Vegetarian claims gain ground since 2009
One in 10 new launches carry reduced sugar claims in 2013
60% of gum launches from Perfetti Van Melle in 2012
Figure 17: Share of new product launches within the UK gum market, by company (top five in 2012), 2009-13
NPD in bubblegum takes off in 2013
MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Key points
The market returns to value growth in 2013 owing to rising prices
Figure 18: Total UK retail value and volume sales of sugar confectionery and gum, 2008-18
The future of the sugar confectionery market
Figure 19: Total UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery, 2008-18
The future of the gum market
Figure 20: Total UK retail value sales of gum, 2008-18
Factors used in the forecast
SEGMENT PERFORMANCE
Key points
Adult fruit sweets are fuelling growth
Figure 21: UK retail value sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by sector, 2011-13
Figure 22: UK retail volume sales of sugar confectionery (including mints), by sector, 2011-13
Kids’ and adult fruit sweets outperform
Mints and traditional sweets struggle
Volume sales of gum are down 8% year on year
Figure 23: UK retail value sales of gum, by sector, 2011-13
Figure 24: UK retail volume sales of gum, by sector, 2011-13
MARKET SHARE
Key points
Haribo extends its lead in the sugar confectionery market
Figure 25: Leading brands’ shares in the UK sugar confectionery market, by value, 2013*
Figure 26: Leading brands’ sales and shares in the UK sugar confectionery market, by value and volume, 2012 and 2013
A mixed bag for Mondelēz
Skittles and Tic Tacs are success stories
Wrigley’s dominates the gum category
Figure 27: Leading brands’ sales and shares in the UK gum market, by value and volume, 2012 and 2013
COMPANIES AND PRODUCTS
Figure 28: Selected leading companies in the UK sugar confectionery and gum market and their brands, 2013
Mars Incorporated (incl. Wrigley)
Mondelēz International (Cadbury Trebor Bassett/Kraft)
Haribo
Nestlé
Swizzels Matlow
Perfetti Van Melle
Cloetta
BRAND RESEARCH
Brand map
Figure 29: Attitudes towards and usage of brands in the sugar and gum confectionery sector, September 2013
Correspondence analysis
Brand attitudes
Figure 30: Attitudes, by sugar and gum confectionery brand, September 2013
Brand personality
Figure 31: Sugar and gum confectionery brand personality – macro image, September 2013
Figure 32: Sugar and gum confectionery brand personality – micro image, September 2013
Brand experience
Figure 33: Sugar and gum confectionery brand usage, September 2013
Figure 34: Satisfaction with various sugar and gum confectionery brands, September 2013
Figure 35: Consideration of sugar and gum confectionery brands, September 2013
Figure 36: Consumer perceptions of current sugar and gum confectionery brand performance, September 2013
Brand index
Figure 37: Sugar and gum confectionery brand index, September 2013
Target group analysis
Figure 38: Target groups, September 2013
Figure 39: Sugar and gum confectionery brand usage, by target groups, September 2013
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
Adspend jumps in 2012, with 2013 set to be higher still
Figure 40: Total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, 2009-13
Figure 41: Share of total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by sub-category, 2009-13
Wrigley keeps the adspend top spot
Figure 42: Total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by top 10 advertisers in 2012, 2009-13
Figure 43: Share of total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by top 10 advertisers in 2012, 2009-13
Brands hone in on the family audience
Nestlé brings back retro ad for Fruit Pastilles
TV gains adspend share
Figure 44: Total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by media type, 2009-13
Figure 45: Share of total advertising expenditure in the sugar and gum confectionery market, by media type, 2009-13
THE CONSUMER – USAGE OF SUGAR AND GUM CONFECTIONERY
Key points
Mints are the most popular type of sweet
Figure 46: Usage of sugar confectionery and gum, September 2013
Sweets are eaten almost universally
Mints are a favourite of over-55s
Boiled sweets hampered by old-fashioned image
Figure 47: Usage of selected sweets, by age, September 2013
Low levels of gum usage among over-55s
Figure 48: Consumers who have used any gum in the last six months, by age September 2013
Gum enjoys high-frequency usage
Figure 49: Frequency of usage of sweets and chewing gum/bubblegum, September 2013
THE CONSUMER – CHOICE FACTORS FOR SWEETS
Key points
Consumers’ favourite flavour holds the most sway
Figure 50: Factors considered when choosing sweets, September 2013
New flavours spark minority interest…
…the most from under-25s and urbanites
Parents are drawn to assortments and children’s favourites
Figure 51: Consumers who include favourite flavour, favourite brand and a flavour they have not tried before in their five most important factors considered when choosing sweets, by age, September 2013
Over-55s most concerned about sugar content and drawn to natural ingredients
Figure 52: Consumers who include reduced sugar/sugar-free, all-natural ingredients, large sharing pack and small individual pack in their five most important factors considered when choosing sweets, by age, September 2013
Low sugar and natural claims also resonate with parents
Larger packs are more popular than small ones
One in three would like to see more smaller-sized packs
THE CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS LOWER-SUGAR VERSIONS OF SWEETS
Key points
Most users would opt for lower-sugar versions of their favourite sweets
Figure 53: Willingness to buy lower-sugar versions of consumers' favourite sweet, September 2013
High interest in reduced sugar contrasts low rank of factor in driving choice
25-34s and ABs are most drawn to lower-sugar variants
Users are most likely to think 50-74% of sugar should be replaced
Figure 54: Ideal percentage of sugar to be replaced with sweeteners, September 2013
Opportunities for natural sweeteners
Stevia enjoys the media spotlight
THE CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS SWEETS
Key points
Sweets are an impulse purchase
Figure 55: Attitudes towards sweets, September 2013
Opportunities for more adult-targeted sweets
Ingredients can support a premium positioning
Chocolate market offers marketing cues
Energy provision and cocktail flavours can help brands build an adult appeal
Health remains a key issue
Strong interest in tooth-friendly sweets
Sweets positioned as healthy face a low risk of backlash
Half of users are willing to pay more for natural ingredients
Two in five new products make ‘no additives’ claims
Awareness plays a key role in capitalising on ‘no nasties’
THE CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS GUM
Key points
A large minority see chewing gum as a way to avoid snacking
Figure 56: Attitudes towards gum, September 2013
Under-35s are the most adventurous
Figure 57: Attitudes towards gum flavours and gum with energy-boosting ingredients, by age, September 2013
Energy proposition well placed to chime with under-35s
Demand for more natural gum
Minor concerns about safety for children
APPENDIX – WHO’S INNOVATING?
Figure 58: Share of new product launches within the UK sugar confectionery market, by type, 2009-13
APPENDIX – MARKET SIZE AND FORECAST
Figure 59: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of sugar and gum confectionery, by value, 2013-18
Figure 60: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of sugar and gum confectionery, by volume, 2013-18
Figure 61: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of sugar confectionery, by value, 2013-18
Figure 62: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of sugar confectionery, by volume, 2013-18
Figure 63: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of gum, by value, 2013-18
Figure 64: Best- and worst-case forecasts for UK retail sales of gum, by volume, 2013-18
APPENDIX – BRAND RESEARCH
Figure 65: Brand usage, September 2013
Figure 66: Brand commitment, September 2013
Figure 67: Brand momentum, September 2013
Figure 68: Brand diversity, September 2013
Figure 69: Brand satisfaction, September 2013
Figure 70: Brand attitude, September 2013
Figure 71: Brand image – macro image, September 2013
Figure 72: Brand image – micro image, September 2013
Figure 73: Profile of target groups, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 74: Psychographic segmentation, by target groups, September 2013
Figure 75: Brand usage, by target groups, September 2013
Brand index
Figure 76: Brand index, September 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – USAGE OF SUGAR AND GUM CONFECTIONERY
Figure 77: Usage of sugar confectionery and gum, September 2013
Figure 78: Frequency of usage of sweets, September 2013
Figure 79: Repertoire of usage of sugar confectionery and gum, September 2013
Figure 80: Frequency of usage of chewing gum/bubblegum, September 2013
Figure 81: Most popular usage of sugar confectionery and gum, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 82: Next most popular usage of sugar confectionery and gum, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 83: Other usage of sugar confectionery and gum, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 84: Repertoire of usage of sugar confectionery and gum, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 85: Frequency of usage of sweets, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 86: Frequency of usage of chewing gum/bubblegum, by demographics, September 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – CHOICE FACTORS FOR SWEETS
Figure 87: Factors considered when choosing sweets, September 2013
Figure 88: Most popular factors considered when choosing sweets, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 89: Next most popular factors considered when choosing sweets, by demographics, September 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS LOWER-SUGAR VERSIONS OF SWEETS
Figure 90: Attitudes towards lower-sugar versions of consumers' favourite sweet, September 2013
Figure 91: Ideal percentage of sugar to be replaced with sweeteners, September 2013
Figure 92: Attitudes towards lower-sugar versions of consumers' favourite sweet, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 93: Ideal percentage of sugar to be replaced with sweeteners, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 94: Ideal percentage of sugar to be replaced with sweeteners, by demographics, September 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS SWEETS
Figure 95: Attitudes towards sweets, September 2013
Figure 96: Agreement with the statement ‘Sweets tend to be an impulse purchase’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 97: Agreement with the statement ‘I would like to see more sweets which are actively good for your teeth’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 98: Agreement with the statement ‘I would like to see more sweets targeted at adults’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 99: Agreement with the statement ‘I worry about sweets being unhealthy’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 100: Agreement with the statement ‘It is worth paying more for sweets with natural ingredients’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 101: Agreement with the statement ‘Sweets are not as satisfying as chocolate’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 102: Agreement with the statement ‘Sweets with extreme flavours often don’t taste like the favour that they are meant to’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 103: Agreement with the statement ‘Sugar-free sweets taste just as good as varieties with sugar’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 104: Agreement with the statement ‘There is a lack of boiled sweets with unusual flavours’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 105: Agreement with the statement ‘There are not enough smaller-size bags of sweets available’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 106: Agreement with the statement ‘I usually look at the calorie information on the packaging of sweets’, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 107: Agreement with the statement ‘I am put off by sweets which suggest they are healthy’, by demographics, September 2013
APPENDIX – CONSUMER – ATTITUDES TOWARDS GUM
Figure 108: Attitudes towards gum, September 2013
Figure 109: Most popular attitudes towards gum, by demographics, September 2013
Figure 110: Next most popular attitudes towards gum, by demographics, September 2013