Trends in the Marketing of
Download
1 / 88

Trends in the Marketing of - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 619 Views
  • Updated On :

Trends in the Marketing of Fresh Produce and Fresh-cut Products. DR. ROBERTA COOK University of California Davis September 2004. TOTAL 2003 U.S. FOOD * SYSTEM: $943.3 BILLION. $498.3 billion food retailing (excluding non-food grocery store sales) 53% of total

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Trends in the Marketing of' - EllenMixel


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Slide1 l.jpg

Trends in the Marketing of Fresh Produce and Fresh-cut Products

DR. ROBERTA COOK

University of California DavisSeptember 2004


Slide2 l.jpg

TOTAL 2003 U.S. FOOD* SYSTEM: $943.3 BILLION

  • $498.3 billion food retailing (excluding non-food grocery store sales)

    • 53% of total

  • $445 billion food service (including $17.8B foodservice sales made by food retailers)

    • 47% of total

    • around 844,000 outlets

*Excludes alcoholic beverages and other grocery

Sources: ERS/USDA and The Food Institute


Slide3 l.jpg

U.S. FOOD EXPENDITURES as a SHARE of DISPOSABLE PERSONAL INCOME, 1970-2003

13.8

13.4

At-home Away-from-home

12.0

11.8

11.7

11.5

11.5

11.6

11.6

11.2

11.1

11.3

11.0

10.8

11.1

11.0

10.3

10.1

10.2

10.1

10.1

Source: ERS/USDA



Slide5 l.jpg

US Foodservice Segment Shares, 2003

1%

Fast-Food

Full-Service

Restaurant

Source: ERS/USDA 2004


Slide6 l.jpg

FOODSERVICE OPPORTUNITIES FOR FRESH PRODUCE

  • Since 1992 consumer spending at restaurants is up 56%

  • Consumers are trading up, contributing to higher sales in full service restaurants and fast casual (like Baja Fresh, Chipotle, Panera)

  • Consumers search for VALUE, 62% say they are “willing to spend more time and money for better quality food.”

  • 91% of consumers say “It’s worth it to wait a little for food customized to my liking.”

  • Foodservice fresh produce and fresh-cut demand rising.


Slide7 l.jpg

Sources of Takeout* Food in the US, Supermarkets Gaining!

1996

2004

Fast-food rest.

Fast-food rest.

Restaurant

Restaurant

Supermarket

Super-

market

Source: FMI Trends in the Supermarket 2003, 2004

*Takeout only, not all foodservice


U s fresh fruit and vegetable value chain 2002 estimated billions of dollars l.jpg
U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Value Chain, 2002 Estimated Billions of Dollars

$40.0

institutional wholesalers

food service establishments

produce and general-line wholesalers

$5.9

imports

$39.7

supermarkets and other retail outlets

$81

farms

shippers

consumers

integrated wholesale-retailers

$19.2

$3.4

farm& public markets

exports

Source: Estimated by Dr. Roberta Cook, UCDavis

$1.3


Competing in a value driven market l.jpg
Competing in a Value-Driven Market

  • Channel blurring has caused the retail landscape to be overstored.

  • Plus, foodservice channels compete with all forms of food retailing which tend to offer ingredients to prepare instead of meals to eat.

  • Retail Home Meal Replacement helping somewhat and fresh produce value-added products benefiting.


Competing in a value driven market10 l.jpg
Competing in a Value-Driven Market

  • Grocery retailers have been losing share to foodservice for decades, now to value retailers

  • Conventional grocery retailers must identify value propositions they can own if they are to remain competitive! (fresh produce can be a point of differentiation)

  • Bottom line: more structural change expected in the US grocery industry and more pressure on suppliers!


U s grocery retail concentration l.jpg
U.S. Grocery Retail Concentration*

58

47

Percent of U.S. grocery store sales

33

*Includes grocery-equivalent supercenter sales ONLY. Excludes sales of c-stores with gas. Excludes the portion of any grocery chain’s sales corresponding to their drug store, jewelry store or other non-grocery store sales.

Sources: ERS/USDA; US Retail

Census and co. annual reports


Conventional retail chains reconsidering their models l.jpg
Conventional Retail Chains Reconsidering their Models

  • The experience from the merger trend of the late 1990’s has shown that getting bigger wasn’t enough to meet the new competitive benchmark imposed by Wal-Mart’s success in logistics, data management and cost reduction.

  • President of Safeway just announced a move to net, net pricing, moving away from allowances, following on the Wal-Mart model. But, as always, fresh produce lags grocery.


Conventional retail chains reconsidering their models13 l.jpg
Conventional Retail Chains Reconsidering their Models

  • The challenge for retailers is to effectively utilize scanner, customer loyalty card and other data in order to identify the right product mixes at the individual store level.

  • Food retailing is inherently local, and as retailers get larger and consumers more diverse, intensive data management is critical!


The future l.jpg
The Future

Wal-Mart will be the mainstream retailer for the foreseeable future but there will also be lots of new winners.

New price driven retailers will increase competition for Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart’s growth may slow as it tackles issues faced with expansion in urban areas (high land costs, unions, local regulatory policies).

Consumer research conducted by The Hartman Group indicates that consumers don’t express excitement or devotion about shopping at Wal-Mart. Many just view it as a way to save on staples without taking over their shopping lives. Lukewarm support creates opportunities for competitors.


The future15 l.jpg
The Future

The winners will compete on various dimensions of value: price, product, service, and selection.

There are a number of formats successfully defining “white space” market opportunities. Examples include Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Dollar Stores, and conventional chains like Wegman’s and HEB, as well as independents.

Retailers can deliver value to consumers at both the high and low ends of the price spectrum, depending on product selection and quality levels, and format design, by understanding the needs and wants of target segments for specific shopping occasions.

The middle, unclearly defined ground – retailers with no clear value proposition – will be increasingly challenged.


Slide16 l.jpg
Products Distinguishing Themselves More Through Aesthetics, Adding Emotional Value to Practical Use – Food Especially!

  • “Quality is yesterday’s news. Today we focus on the emotional impact of the product.” (Dilbert comic strip)

  • Research from Cornell and U of Colo. show that income level is positively associated with experiential over material possessions. (Van Boven and Gilovich)

  • Ego – Starbuck’s – an affordable luxury for all income levels


Slide17 l.jpg
Products Distinguishing Themselves More Through Aesthetics, Adding Emotional Value to Practical Use – Food Especially!

  • Travel; eating out, increasingly in restaurants providing more memorable experiences; and differentiated foods purchased at retail are gaining. “Upscale” positioning may be bundled with several perceived emotional values - organics benefit. Fresh produce is a part of the trend.

  • But, to afford these “extras” people are often making a greater effort to economize in their routine grocery purchases, hence, growth in value retailers.


Us estimated fresh cut produce sales all marketing channels billion l.jpg
US Estimated Fresh-cut Produce Sales, All Marketing Channels, $ Billion

$ billion

$4

at retail

At least 60% estimated to be sold via foodservice channels

Sources: IFPA and IRI

Source: Dole


Slide19 l.jpg

U.S. Channels, $ Billion SUPERMARKET FRESH-CUT SALAD SALES, Million $

*12 months ending July 11, 2004, AC Nielsen, includes coleslaw

Sources: IRI; AC Nielsen


Us fresh cut vegetable facts l.jpg
US Fresh-Cut Vegetable Facts Channels, $ Billion

  • Fresh-cut veggies represented 31% of all pre-packaged produce retail sales in 2003.

  • Carrots were about half the $1.3 billion fresh-cut veggie category, followed by spinach ($108 million), potatoes ($87 million), celery ($85 million) and mixed vegetables ($69 million)

  • 77% of consumers purchase fresh-cut veggies, but on average, only once every 9 weeks

Source: IRI


Us fresh cut fruit facts l.jpg
US Fresh-Cut Fruit Facts Channels, $ Billion

  • Fresh-cut fruit is still a small share of total fresh-cut sales, retail sales were estimated by IRI at $238 million in 2002, with total fresh-cut sales (incl. foodservice) estimated at at least $600 million. Forecast by IRI to reach $1 billion by 2008. Household penetration of only 17% in 2003.

  • Great potential for fruit in both retail and foodservice channels

  • McDonald’s offering apple slices as alternative to French fries in Happy Meals

  • Quick-service restaurants and fast casual segment keep adding fresh produce, including fresh-cut


Slide22 l.jpg

Fresh-Cut Fruit Market Shares Channels, $ Billion

52 Weeks

12 Weeks

Brand Share

Brand Share

% change vs YAG

% change vs YAG

Ready Pac 23.0% +217% 28.3% +205%

Private Label 31.0% -16% 27.0% -30%

Del Monte 13.0% +24% 12.3% -1%

Country Fresh 7.5% +33% 9.0% +84%

Club Fresh 3.0% -43% 1.5% -70%

Fresh Express 1.0% N/A 1.3% N/A

Source: Information Resources, Inc. Latest 52 weeks ending July 6, 2003



Slide24 l.jpg

Share of US Produce Dept. Sales, Key Items, 2000/01 2003

Source: The Perishables Group


Us sales of salads by type for 2002 03 in million l.jpg
US Sales of Salads by Type for 2002/03 in million $ 2003

Fresh-cut Salads$ volumeSegment share %

Total $2,357,987 100%

Blends 1,039,86344%

Garden (IBB) 702,95030%

Kits 283,65312%

Organic 144,9276%

Romaine hearts 107,2785%

Slaw 79,3163%

Plus bagged spinach, $108 M, excluding baby spinach which

is included in kits

Source: IRI, 52 weeks ending July 6, 2003


Slide26 l.jpg

Fresh-Cut Salad Segments, 2002/03 2003

  • Salad Blends continue to be the largest segment in the category accounting for 44% of total dollar sales.

+9.2%

Number above bar represents $ sales change vs. prior yr

+19%

-3%

+6%

+18%

+11%

+7%

$ Sales (in millions)

Source: IRI 52 weeks ending July 6, 2003


Slide27 l.jpg

Fresh-Cut Salad Segments, 2002/03 2003

Sales change vs. 1 yr ago

Source: IRI, 52 weeks ending July 6, 2003


Slide28 l.jpg

Monterey County Head Lettuce Shipments 1990 vs 2003 2003

Million Cartons* Percent Share

Product Form 1990 2003 1990 2003

Bulk to Process 6.9 21.74 15% 38%

Wrapped 14.2 24.17 30% 43%

Naked 26.1 10.93 55% 19%

TOTAL 47.2 56.84 100% 100%

Source: Monterey County Ag Commissioner

* 50 lb carton-equivalent units


Slide29 l.jpg

U.S. Per Capita Consumption of 2003

Lettuce, 1985-2004f

32.3

31.3

28.7

21.3

Lbs. Per Capita

Fresh-cut doesn’t necessarily stimulate consumption, may just cannibalize bulk product volume.

‘04

f=forecast

Source: USDA/ERS, July 2004 Vegetable Yearbook


Slide30 l.jpg

U.S. Per Capita Utilization of Fresh Bell Peppers and Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)

Pounds per capita

Source: USDA/ERS, July 2004 Vegetable Yearbook; Cook and Calvin estimated ’98-’03 tomato consumption

to reflect unaccounted for US GH tomato production.


Ave item number in the ave us fresh produce department l.jpg
Ave. Item Number in the Ave. US Fresh Produce Department Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)

400

350

350

300

250

173

200

150

100

50

0

Pma study:

574 SKU’s in 2001

Number of items

Source: Supermarket

Business, Oct. 1999 and

Progressive Grocer Oct. 2002

1987

2001


Us p er c apita v egetable c onsumption p ounds 1976 2004 f l.jpg
US Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)PER CAPITA VEGETABLE CONSUMPTION, POUNDS, 1976-2004F

438

359

126

(Excl. potatoes)

119

90

Pounds per capita

76

46

49

176

150

115

‘04

Source: USDA/ERS, Vegetables and Specialties Outlook, July 2004


Us p er c apita f ruit c onsumption p ounds 1976 2002 l.jpg
US Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)PER CAPITA FRUIT CONSUMPTION, POUNDS 1976-2002

283

264

87

102

96

Pounds per capita

78

24

29

76

55

Source: USDA/ERS, Oct. 2003


Salad category unit share 2002 and change vs 1998 l.jpg
SALAD CATEGORY UNIT SHARE (%) 2002 Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)and % Change vs. 1998

Source: Dole


Slide35 l.jpg

U.S. Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)Market Shares ofFresh Cut Salad Firms, Dollar Sales

Other share 2.7%

Private label share 9.7%

Other share 6.4%

Private label share 2.4%

Top 5 firms91.2%

Top 5 firms87.6%

1994

1999

*Private label share ranked third in 1999 vs. 6th in 1994. Source: IRI


Types of fees services requested l.jpg
Types of Fees & Services Requested Tomatoes, 1985-2003 (with and without estimated US GH tomato production added to field grown as of 1998)

Slotting EDI

Volume Rebates Displays

Non-volume Rebates Private Labels

Promotional Ads Returnable Containers

E-commerce fees Special Packs

Capital Improvements Food SafetyCertification


Slide37 l.jpg

  • Fees are increasing for all fresh produce but commodities are still different

  • Commodities

    • No slotting fees

    • Other fees well under 2 percent of sales

    • Volume incentives, promotional allowances and rebates

  • Fresh-Cut

    • All fees approximately 1 to 8 percent of sales

    • Slotting fees, promotional allowances, volume incentives, and rebates – firms offer options

    • Can cost up to $2 million to acquire the business of a national chain; $500,000/division



S helf c aptains l.jpg
S ProcessorHELF CAPTAINS

  • Leading, technologically savvy

    vendors—sometimes brokers

  • Take category interface responsibility for section

  • May work in retailers’ headquarters

  • Recommend shelf sets, product placement

  • Very influential to category management


Slide40 l.jpg

Key Drivers and Effects Processor

Changing Consumers

Higher incomes, ability to pay for convenience, variety/choice, aging baby boomers, ethnic diversity, safety/traceability from farm to fork, healthfulness and growing interest in the environmental effects of ag, all join forces to stimulate new product development and branding, even in traditionally unbranded categories like fresh produce.


Segmentation target markets l.jpg
SEGMENTATION/TARGET MARKETS Processor

  • Variables commonly used to categorize consumer differences to focus marketing activities

    • geographic

    • demographic

    • psychographic--based on attitudes & activities

      • STATUS SEEKERS, CHASE & GRABITS, ENVIRONMENTALISTS

        • Mass individualization!

        • Problem solving is key!

        • Understanding needs and constraints in individual eating occasions essential!


Slide42 l.jpg

U.S. ProcessorDEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS, 2002

  • 111.3 million households

  • 289 million inhabitants

  • 2.6 persons average household size

  • Average household income of $57,852

  • Median household income of $42,409

  • Average household food spending of $5,375 (including $3,099 at-home and $2,276 away-from-home)

Sources: US Bureau of Census; Food Institute Demographics of Consumer Spending 2004 for food spending only


Slide43 l.jpg

C ProcessorOOKING: STILL aFEMALE DOMAIN

Usually play a role in % males % females

Meal planning 23 93

Food shopping 36 88

Meal preparation 27 90

Source: Journal of the American Dietetic Assn., Sept. 1998


Slide44 l.jpg

S ProcessorALAD MIX PURCHASE FREQUENCY byINCOME LEVEL, among those purchasing in prior 12 months(% of each income group accounted for by frequency level, may not sum to 100 due to non-respondents)

income in $1,000sfrequency$20 $20-29.9 $30-59.9 $60.0-84.9 $85.0

2x/wk 5 3 3 7 7

1x/wk 21 21 17 24 20

1X/2-3wk 32 15 30 21 23

1X/mo 11 18 33 28 17

1x/mo 29 42 33 21 33

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Slide45 l.jpg

The Processor Salad Mix Variety Purchased Most Often byINCOME LEVEL, among those purchasing salad mixes in prior 12 months(% of each income group accounted for by frequency level, may not sum to 100 due to non-respondents)

income in $1,000sType$20 $20-29.9 $30-59.9 $60.0-84.9 $85.0

Produce 82 91 89 86 93

Only mix

Kit 13 3 9 14 7

Other - - 3 - -

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Slide46 l.jpg

L ProcessorETTUCE PURCHASE FREQUENCY byINCOME LEVEL, among those purchasing in prior 12 months(% of each income group accounted for by frequency level, may not sum to 100 due to non-respondents)

income in $1,000sfrequency$20 $20-29.9 $30-59.9 $60.0-84.9 $85.0

2x/wk - - - 7 8

1x/wk 19 32 28 23 42

1X/2-3wk 33 20 28 52 28

1X/mo 30 24 22 3 14

1x/mo 19 20 22 16 8

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Slide47 l.jpg

The Processor Lettuce Variety Purchased Most Often byINCOME LEVEL, among those purchasing lettuce in prior 12 months(% of each income group accounted for by frequency level, may not sum to 100 due to non-respondents)

income in $1,000sType$20 $20-29.9 $30-59.9 $60.0-84.9 $85.0

Iceberg 85 84 64 71 44

Leaf 11 4 17 19 19

Romaine - 12 8 7 31

Boston 4 - 4 - 3

Other - - 8 - -

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Slide48 l.jpg

SPINACH ProcessorPURCHASE FREQUENCY byINCOME LEVEL, among those purchasing in prior 12 months(% of each income group accounted for by frequency level, may not sum to 100 due to non-respondents)

income in $1,000sfrequency$20 $20-29.9 $30-59.9 $60.0-84.9 $85.0

2x/wk 6 6 6 - -

1x/wk 6 6 20 23 13

1X/2-3wk 25 31 25 20 33

1X/mo 25 13 22 30 10

1x/mo 38 44 30 27 41

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Purchase frequency for fresh cut produce l.jpg
Purchase Frequency for ProcessorFresh-cut Produce, %

Every Vegetables NeverFew Mos.1-3/mo. Once/wk+

Lettuce 13 8 43 36 Carrots 15 11 51 23 Broccoli 31 13 43 13 Onions 65 5 19 12

Potatoes 69 5 18 8

Slaws 56 18 20 3

Source: IFPA Fresh Focus 2000


Purchase frequency for fresh cut fruit l.jpg
Purchase Frequency for ProcessorFresh-cut Fruit, %

Every Fruit Never Few Mos. 1-3/mo. Once/wk+

Melons 39 17 31 12 Fruit salads 46 13 32 12 Apple slices 77 4 12 6 Pineapple 47 21 27 4

Source: IFPA Fresh Focus 2000


Slide51 l.jpg

Product Form Consumers Report Preferring for Selected Fresh Produce Items

:

Commodity: Bulk Pre-Cut/ Packaged

Washed/Packaged Whole

Spinach 25% 75% 0%

Carrots 0% 60% 40%

Strawberries 14% 10% 77%

Cauliflower 58% 42% 0%

Mushrooms 24% 32% 45%

Potatoes 32% 2% 66%

Source: Fresh Trends 2004


Slide52 l.jpg

User vs. Non-User Perceptions about Fresh-cut Produce Produce Items

:

POSITIVE: Users Non-Users Gap

Convenient 83% 59% 24%

Nutritious 76% 40% 36%

Great taste 67% 34% 33%

Fresh in store 64% 35% 29%

Wide variety 56% 39% 17%

Stays fresh 49% 25% 24%

after purchase

Source: IFPA Fresh Focus 2000


Slide53 l.jpg

User vs. Non-User Perceptions about Fresh-cut Produce Produce Items

:

NEGATIVE: Users Non-Users Gap

Expensive 52% 58% -6%

Unfamiliar 15% 20% -5%

Source: IFPA Fresh Focus 2000


Us household composition 2002 ave household size 2 5 people l.jpg

Other Produce Items

15%

50%

Husband & Wife

Husband & Wife with Children under 18

19% of Total Households

29%

6%

Single

Single

Parent

US Household Composition, 2002Ave. Household Size: 2.5 People

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


U s per capita food expenditures 2002 by household size small households spend more per capita l.jpg

Food at home Produce Items

Food away from home

U.S. Per Capita Food Expenditures, 2002,by household size – Small households spend more per capita!

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


Consumer age segments l.jpg
Consumer Age Segments Produce Items

  • Traditionalists: born prior to 1946

    • Brand and retail store loyal, like classic items with a new twist

  • Baby Boomers: born 1946-64

    • Love to experiment but are strapped for time, many into upgraded kitchens and gourmet food

  • Generation X: born 1965-81

    • They hate to be “sold to” but they want to be educated

  • Millenials: born 1982-2000

    • Like to make buying decisions over the web

Source: David Stillman, Bridgeworks, Wash. DC


Age distribution of us population 2005 l.jpg
Age Distribution of US Produce ItemsPopulation, 2005

Source: US Census


U s consumer food expenditures 2002 households by age group l.jpg

Food at home Produce Items

Food away from home

U.S. Consumer Food Expenditures, 2002(households by age group)

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


Slide59 l.jpg

US Households, 2002 Produce Items

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


Slide60 l.jpg

D Produce ItemsISTRIBUTION ofUSHOUSEHOLDS, SHARE ofTOTAL AT HOMEFOOD EXPENDITURES/INCOME LEVEL andFRESH PRODUCE EXPENDITURES, 2002

$520 /32%

$235 /13%

Share of households

Average fresh produce expenditures per income group $

$384 /16%

% of total at home food expenditures contributed by each income group

$303 /18%

$342/21%

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


Consumer food expenditures by household income level 2002 l.jpg
Consumer Food Expenditures, by Household Income Level 2002 Produce Items

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


Us fresh produce consumption by race 2002 per household l.jpg
US Fresh Produce Consumption by Race Produce Items2002,$ Per Household

Vegetables

Fruits

Vegetables

Fruits

Vegetables

Fruits

Source: Demographics of Consumer Food Spending 2004, The Food Institute


U s hispanic population projections millions l.jpg
U.S. Hispanic Produce ItemsPopulation Projections, Millions

Source:US Bureau of Census


Slide64 l.jpg

Hispanic Population Boom, Produce Items

2050

(Projected)

2000

(U.S. Census)


Slide65 l.jpg

"I am so busy and in such a hurry all day that by dinner I'm too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.

Breakdown by Household Income Level

Source: ACNielsen Consumer Preview Study, Fall 2002


Shopper s eating habits 1997 and 2004 l.jpg
Shopper’s Eating Habits – 1997 and 2004 too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.

Pretty Much Every Time or Fairly Often

Percent of Shoppers1997 2004

Eat home cooked meals at home 87 93

Dine out at full-service restaurants 24 35

Eat meals at home that aren’tprepared at home – takeoutand delivery 15 31

Eat out at fast-food establishments 20 35

Source: FMI Trends in the Supermarket, 2004 and earlier issues


Shopper s eating habits 2004 l.jpg
Shopper’s Eating Habits – 2004 too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.

3+ 1-2 1-3 < than times times times once aPercent of Shoppers weekly weekly mo’ly month

Eat home cooked meals 84 9 4 1 at home

Dine out at full-service 9 26 42 18 restaurants

Eat meals at home that aren’t 8 23 34 21

prepared at home – takeoutand delivery

Eat out at fast-food 10 25 32 20 establishments

Ethnic meals at home or out 9 26 33 17

Source: FMI Trends in the Supermarket2004


M ost u sed s upermarket m eal s olutions by us c onsumers l.jpg

M too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.OST USED SUPERMARKET MEAL SOLUTIONS byUSCONSUMERS

Source: FMI Trends in the United States

Consumer Attitudes & the Supermarket 2000


Brands of fresh cut produce people are familiar with 2000 l.jpg
Brands of Fresh-cut Produce People are Familiar With, 2000 too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.

Source: IFPA, Fresh Focus 2000

Source: Dole


Do you feel branded produce is more or less likely than nonbranded produce to be fresher l.jpg
Do you feel branded produce is too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.more or less likely than nonbranded produce to be fresher?

Less likely or don’t know

11%

Somewhat or much more likely29%

About the same57%

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Do you feel branded produce is more or less likely than nonbranded produce to be better quality l.jpg
Do you feel branded produce is more too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.or less likely than nonbranded produce to be better quality?

Less likely or don’t know

7%

Somewhat or much more likely43%

About the same48%

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Do you feel branded produce is more or less likely than nonbranded produce to have a higher price l.jpg
Do you feel branded produce is more too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.or less likely than nonbranded produce to have a higher price?

Less likely or don’t know

4%

About the same12%

Somewhat or much more likely82%

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Slide73 l.jpg

Factors indicated by US consumers too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.as influencing fresh produce purchases, 1990 vs. 2000

Rating of extremely or very important %

Factor1990 2000

Taste/flavor 96 87

Ripeness 96 70

Appearance/condition 94 83

Nutritional value 65 57

Price 63 47

In-season 38 41

Growing region/country of origin 17 14

Organically grown 17 12

Brand name 9 n/a

n/a = Not available

Source: Fresh Trends '90 and 2001


How confident are you that the food in your supermarket is safe l.jpg
How confident are you that the food too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.in your supermarket is safe?

82%

Completely or mostly confident

Source: FMI Trends in the US Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket 2004


Do you feel branded produce is more or less likely than nonbranded produce to be safer l.jpg
Do you feel branded produce is more too worn out to fix a meal that requires much in the way of time or effort." - So Say 50% of respondents over 18.or less likely than nonbranded produce to be safer?

Less likely or don’t know

7%

Somewhat or much more likely32%

About the same57%

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Should fresh produce items packages or displays be labeled to identify summary yes responses l.jpg
Should fresh produce items, packages, or displays be labeled to identify. . .?Summary “yes” responses

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Which food related items constitute a serious health risk l.jpg
Which food-related items constitute a serious health risk? to identify. . .?

Source: FMI US Consumer Trends and the Supermarket, 2004 and earlier issues


U s consumers views of where food safety problems occur l.jpg
U.S. consumers’ views of where to identify. . .?food safety problems occur

Source: FMI


Shoppers concern about nutritional content and evaluation of diet l.jpg
Shoppers’ concern about nutritional content to identify. . .?and evaluation of diet

62

45

Source: FMI Trends in the US Consumer Attitudes and the Supermarket 2004


Nature of concern about nutritional content l.jpg
Nature of concern about nutritional content to identify. . .?

Source: FMI 2004. Carbohydrates not measured until 2004


Nutrition l.jpg
Nutrition to identify. . .?

31% of US adults between 20 and 74 are obese* – a 100% increase from 1976-80

33% of adults are classified as overweight

15% of youth between ages 6-19 are overweight, up from 5% in 1980

Ave. daily calorie consumption is now 300 calories (12%) more than in 1985

*Defined as 30+ pounds overweight

Source: USDA January 2003, Food Review


Changes for healthier diet l.jpg
Changes for healthier diet to identify. . .?

Source: FMI US Consumer Trends and the Supermarket 2004


Nutrition and fruits and vegetables l.jpg
Nutrition and Fruits and Vegetables to identify. . .?

  • In 2000 Americans consumed 3.83 (4 are recommended) servings per day of vegetables including 2.03 servings in fresh form; this compares to 2.04 total servings in 1970-74

  • 1.23 of the vegetable servings were potatoes; .13 were fresh tomatoes while .25 were processed tomatoes

  • Americans consumed 1.36 servings per day (3 are recommended) of fruit, including .64 fresh; this compares to 1.11 total servings in 1970-74

Source: USDA January 2003, Food Review


Us organic food sales 1990 2003 billion us l.jpg
US Organic Food Sales, 1990-2003 (Billion US$) to identify. . .?

Source: Organic Trade Association, Consumer facts and market information, 4-05-2001 for 1990-1996; The Food Institute Report, May 10, 2004 for 1997-2003


Organic fresh produce purchases among those having purchased l.jpg
Organic Fresh Produce Purchases, among those having purchased

don’t usually purchase it

prefer it but also consider other factors

buy if available

only buy organic fresh produce

Other (mainly no answer)

sometimes purchase but don’t necessarily prefer it

Source: Fresh Trends 2003


Us organic consumption of consumers having purchased in the prior 6 months by region l.jpg
US Organic Consumption, % of Consumers Having Purchased in the Prior 6 Months, by Region

Source: Fresh Trends 2002


Streamlining the distribution channel l.jpg
Streamlining the Distribution Channel the Prior 6 Months, by Region

How best practice retailers are

using information:

  • Identifying and merchandising product affinities associated with popular items.

  • Grooming vendor capability to provide useful insights.

Source:Willard Bishop Consulting, Ltd.


Streamlining the distribution channel88 l.jpg
Streamlining the Distribution Channel the Prior 6 Months, by Region

New tools using data-mining capabilities

are entering the market to provide:

  • Cost-effective consumer-centric business processes

    • Customer purchase patterns

    • Product promotions

Source:Willard Bishop Consulting, Ltd.


ad