Ice Cream Toppings
description
Transcript of Ice Cream Toppings
Ice Cream ToppingsNathan Pugh
Kaleah Thomas
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Demographic trends have not changed much from 2003 to 2007
HH Demo 52 wks ending 12/27/03
52 wks endings 12/29/07
SIZE - 3-4 MEM 126.7 126.8
SIZE - 5+ MEM 205.1 188.7
AGE FH - UNDER 35 138.7 140.6
AGE FH - 35-44 149.0 132.5
KIDS - ANY < 18 160.5 154.7
KIDS - ANY < 6 184.8 178.2
KIDS - ANY 6-12 167.6 172.2
KIDS - ANY 13-17 159.7 155.8
START UP FAMILIES 141.8
YOUNGER BUSTLING FAMILIES 194.6
OLDER BUSTLING FAMILIES 161.6
EMP - FH EMP. PART TIME 142.8 126.6
ED - FH HIGH SCH GRAD 128.3 122.7
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Demo
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Demographic difference by brand
HH Demo 52 wks endings 12/29/07
INC - $20,000-29,999 125.8
INC - $30,000-39,999 133.0
CTL BRAND
HH Demo 52 wks endings 12/29/07
INC - $70,000-99,999122.6
INC - $100,000+120.0
AFFLUENT SUBURBAN SPREADS 149.7
EMPTY NEST COUPLES 120.9
ED - FH COLLEGE GRAD 149.3
HSY LITE
HH Demo 52 wks endings 12/29/07
INC - $50,000-69,999128.5
AGE FH - NO FEMALE HEAD 134.8
COMFORTABLE COUNTRY 139.9
EMP - NO FEMALE HEAD 134.8
ED - NO FEMALE HEAD 134.8
RACE - OTHER RACE137.9
SMUCKERS
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Demo
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Private Label change in trendsHH Demo
52 wks ending
12/27/03
52 wks endings 12/29/07
Change
INC - $20,000-29,999 105.2 125.8 20.63
INC - $50,000-69,999 87.3 110.8 23.51
SIZE - 5+ MEM 242.5 207.4 -35.07
KIDS - ANY 6-12 200.2 175.7 -24.48
EMP - FH EMP. PART TIME 153.9 108.8 -45.06
ED - FH NOT HIGH SCH GRAD 77.9 121.3 43.42
RACE - ASIAN 52.7 37.0 -15.66
RACE - OTHER RACE 115.6 68.7 -46.86
ETH - HISPANIC 102.9 70.6 -32.34
JOB - PROF/MANAGERIA
L85.8 70.3 -15.47
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Demo
Product Snapshot
Nielsen Answers Product Snapshot
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Hershey brand owns 70% of market
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Base
ITEM $ (000)0%
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
$119,632
$28,459
$13,622$7,658$2,369
SMUCKER'S SUNDAE SYRUP - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE
HERSHEY'S LITE - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE
NESTLE NESQUIK - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE
CTL BR - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE
HERSHEY'S - SYRUP- CHOCOLATETotal Chocolate Syrup
Market:$181.3 M
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Syrup Toppings penetrate 28% of HHs and HSY Choc Syrup 20% of HHs
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Base
Brand ITEM BUYERS (000) ITEM PENETRATION
SYRUP- CHOCOLATE 32,654.2 28.1%
CTL BR - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE 9,845.0 8.5%
HERSHEY'S - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE 21,509.5 18.5%
HERSHEY'S LITE - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE 2,025.4 1.7%
NESTLE NESQUIK - SYRUP- CHOCOLATE 3,202.6 2.8%
SMUCKER'S SUNDAE SYRUP - SYRUP-
CHOCOLATE747.5 0.6%
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Analysis shows this is a “CASH MANCHINE”
Nielsen Answers Ad Hoc Base
SYRUP TOPPINGS
Avg Margin per SKU of all retailers:
36.2%
Total Chocolate Syrup Market:
$181.3 M
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
55 total SKUs found: Syrups, Shells, Specialty
Nine Stores Audited in Fayetteville:
• Harps on Wedington - 34
• Harps on Garland - 28• Walgreens on Mission - 2• Walgreens on 6th - 2• Walgreens on Joyce - 2• Walmart on 6th - 34• Walmart on Joyce - 31• Walmart Neighborhood
Market - 21• Target on Joyce - 29
55 total SKUs found:-Syrups-Shells
-Specialty
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Harps Wed. and WM 6th had deepest assortments with 62% of SKUs available
Store # SKUs % of CategoryHarps Wedington 34 61.82%
Walgreens Joyce 2 3.64%
Walgreens 6th 2 3.64%
Walgreens Mission 2 3.64%
Walmart Joyce 31 56.36%
Walmart NHM 21 38.18%
Target Joyce 29 52.73%
Walmart 6th Street 34 61.82%
Harps Garland 28 50.91%
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Smuckers and Hershey own 74.5% of SKUs
Brand # SKUs % of CategoryNestle 2 3.6%Private Label 9 16.4%Smuckers 23 41.8%The Hershey Company
18 32.7%
Vita Specialty Foods
3 5.5%
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Smuckers has highest per ounce cost but HSY has highest unit cost, PL is cost leader
SupplierAverage Cost Per Ounce
Average Unit Cost
Nestle $0.05 $1.14Private Label $0.04 $0.94Smuckers $0.12 $1.40The Hershey Company
$0.10 $1.60
Vita Specialty Foods $0.12 $1.61
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Harps and Walgreens have the highest GM%
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Retailers dedicate majority of space to Smuckers and Hershey despite lower margins
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Facing proliferation is driven not by GM% but rather velocity
Harps Wedington GM%Harps Wedington (Facings) Mean N1 41.63% 6
2 41.65% 18
3 39.96% 7
4 45.81% 1
5 33.09% 2
Total 40.92% 34
Walmart NHM Margin %Walmart NHM (Facings) Mean N1 35.92% 2
2 42.61% 4
3 31.31% 4
4 32.64% 6
5 31.01% 4
8 17.58% 1
Total 33.57% 21
Target Joyce Margin %Target Joyce (Facings) Mean N
1 32.60% 14
2 31.99% 14
3 8.54% 1
Total 31.48% 29
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Facing proliferation is driven not by GM% but rather velocity
1 2 3
32.6 31.99
8.54GM%
# of Facings
1 2 3 4 5 8
35.9242.61
31.31 32.64 31.01
17.58GM%
# of Facings 1 2 3 4 5
41.63 41.65 39.9645.81
33.09
GM%
# of Facings
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Suppliers control this category Each retailer approaches category
differently
Reoccurring theme: Small Private Label presence
Walgreens does not compete heavily in this category (2 SKUs)◦ Average margins high at 42.5%
Other Retailers use category as “Cash Machine” with moderate to heavy depth and generous margins
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Focus on category optimization No flavor innovation will overcome
major category players Retailers need to focus on depth
optimization. ◦ Secondary players in category can
increase GM% Walgreens has opportunity to expand
depth and be more competitive in the market
Size/Price innovation: introduction of smaller offerings◦ Lower price points instead of lower
price/oz. Category locations
◦ WM needs to locate near ice cream
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Walmart #144 (MLK)
Grocery Stores High Comp Mkt High Both High
LifeStyle
BehaviorStage
3.0% 3.6% 11.0% 17.5%Younger FamiliesHHs with Children, HOH <40
3.9% 17.4%
2.4% 2.0% 10.6%
3.8% 12.9% 11.0%
14.7%
25.2%
100.0%15.4% 26.1% 58.5%
2.4% 3.7% 8.6%
3.9%
94
95
108
99
100
53 96 134
14.9%
27.7%
Index
Total
Mature Couples2+ Person HHs, No Children, 45+
Mature Singles1 Person HHs, No Children, 45+
Evolving AdultsAny Size HHs, No Children, <45
Older FamiliesHHs with Children, HOH 40+
TotalTown and Rural
Mid-Downscale
City and
Mid-Upscale City and
Surrounds
WAL MART SUPERCENTER 144 Grocery Stores & Competitive Market - Top 50% HHs BehaviorScape Framework
Index
Dollars at Risk in % of Competitor's ACV
51.2%43.7%55.0%13.3%88.9%92.5%94.5%79.2%87.5%69.8%17.9%93.8%32.1%77.4%44.6%61.6%
% Dollars at Risk to Competitor
51.8%29.9%12.7%11.5%
7.5%6.8%6.0%5.8%5.5%4.4%4.1%3.6%3.4%3.3%2.3%2.1%
Retail Channel Classification
Mass MerchandiserMass Merchandiser
ClubMass MerchandiserMass MerchandiserMass Merchandiser
GroceryGroceryGroceryGroceryGroceryGroceryGroceryGroceryGrocery
Chain DrugChain Drug
Total Store ACV
$123,500,000$124,800,000
$84,500,000$28,600,000
$106,600,000$10,400,000
$9,100,000$7,800,000$9,100,000$7,800,000$7,800,000
$28,600,000$4,680,000
$13,000,000$5,200,000$6,500,000$4,160,000
Distance (Miles)
5.74.95.88.63.62.02.12.72.33.35.13.05.08.32.10.1
Total Dollars at Risk to
$63,922,508$36,919,376$15,724,592$14,163,032
$9,247,732$8,414,848$7,368,504$7,202,988$6,827,808$5,444,660$5,120,284$4,391,920$4,178,148$4,022,668$2,897,960$2,563,236
Top Competitors
WAL MART SUPERCENTER 144WAL MART SUPERCENTER 359SAMS CLUB 8209TARGET STORE 1470WAL MART SUPERCENTER 54WAL MART STORE 2997HARPS FOOD STORE 124MARVINS GROCERS 220MARVINS GROCERS 221HARPS FOOD STORE 176OZARK NATURAL FOODSWAL MART NEIGHBORHOOD MKT 2745MARVINS GROCERS 219HARPS MARKETPLACE 177HARPS FOOD STORE 125WALGREENS 7847WALGREENS 11781
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Walmart #144 (MLK)
% HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs IndexRace White (Non-Hispanic) 71.3% 100 74.5% 104 82.3% 115 Black (Non-Hispanic) 11.4% 100 7.7% 68 6.1% 54 Hispanic 11.2% 100 7.8% 70 4.8% 42 Other (Non-Hispanic) 6.0% 100 9.9% 164 6.8% 113Householder Income Under $10,000 7.6% 100 19.7% 259 12.9% 169 $10,000 - $19,999 9.6% 100 18.6% 195 13.7% 143 $20,000 - $29,999 10.4% 100 17.0% 164 14.0% 134 $30,000 - $39,999 10.4% 100 11.6% 111 11.7% 112 $40,000 - $49,999 9.8% 100 9.3% 95 10.0% 103 $50,000 - $74,999 19.5% 100 12.6% 65 18.2% 93 $75,000 - $99,999 12.5% 100 5.3% 42 8.7% 69 $100,000 or More 20.1% 100 5.8% 29 10.8% 54Householder Age Age 18 - 24 4.4% 100 15.1% 346 13.6% 313 Age 25 - 34 15.8% 100 24.0% 152 23.3% 148 Age 35 - 44 19.2% 100 20.5% 107 20.4% 106 Age 45 - 54 21.4% 100 15.4% 72 16.7% 78 Age 55 - 64 17.7% 100 12.4% 70 13.3% 75 Age 65 or More 21.7% 100 12.6% 58 12.7% 59Age and Presence of Children Children < 6 8.6% 100 8.2% 96 8.5% 99 Children 6 - 17 20.2% 100 10.8% 53 13.9% 69 Children < 6 & 6 - 17 7.4% 100 5.6% 75 5.8% 78 No Children 63.8% 100 75.4% 118 71.8% 113Number of Persons 1 Person 26.0% 100 38.8% 149 32.5% 125 2 Persons 32.4% 100 33.3% 103 34.9% 108 3 Persons 16.8% 100 13.8% 82 16.3% 97 4 Persons 13.9% 100 8.7% 63 10.5% 75 5+ Persons 10.8% 100 5.5% 51 5.8% 54Householder Education Grade School 6.0% 100 5.4% 91 4.3% 72 Some High School 8.3% 100 9.5% 115 7.7% 93 High School Graduate 27.3% 100 20.8% 76 21.4% 79 Some College 28.3% 100 26.6% 94 27.4% 97 College Graduate 30.2% 100 37.7% 125 39.2% 130Housing Tenure Own 66.8% 100 28.8% 43 44.1% 66 Rent 33.2% 100 71.2% 215 55.9% 169Spectra LifeStyle Cosmopolitan Suburbs 5.3% 100 6.8% 128 15.1% 287 Midscale Suburban Mix 3.8% 100 0.0% 0 1.3% 35 Midscale Minipolitan 3.3% 100 0.0% 0 3.6% 110 Midscale Fringe Towns 4.2% 100 0.0% 0 2.1% 51 Midscale Working Towns 6.1% 100 0.0% 0 18.3% 300 Striving Urban Melting Pot 5.5% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Striving Suburban Mix 3.6% 100 38.9% 1089 11.0% 307 Striving Small City Living 3.2% 100 0.0% 0 7.8% 243 Struggling Small City Mix 3.1% 100 18.2% 597 22.6% 741 Struggling Minipolitan 4.6% 100 28.9% 624 7.1% 153 Struggling Country Living 4.0% 100 7.2% 177 8.3% 205 Struggling Rural Mix 2.9% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Struggling Backroad Living 4.1% 100 0.0% 0 0.0% 0
Reference 3 mile Ring 5 mile RingDemography
Low Income HHsAge 18 – 34 HHs
1 person HHsRenting HHs“Struggling
HHs”
DemographicsRoleAssessmentStrategyRecommendations
Walmart #144 (MLK)