866-997-4948(US-Canada Toll Free)

Sugar and Sweeteners - US - September 2013

Published By :

Mintel

Published Date : Sep 2013

Category :

Sugar & Supplements

No. of Pages : 181 Pages


Fears about the safety of some sweeteners continue to plague the sugar substitute segment, suggesting that synthetic sweetener brands still have more to do to settle concerns about potential negative side effects. Ads that transparently chronicle the origins of these products, their ingredients, and how they are produced may help diminish the aura of concern that sometimes surrounds them.
TABLE OF CONTENT

Scope and Themes
What you need to know
Definition
Data sources
Sales data
Consumer survey data
Abbreviations and terms
Abbreviations
Terms

Executive Summary
A flatlining market due to declining sugar prices
Figure 1: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18
Obesity and other sugar-linked health conditions negatively impact the market
Demographics play into sales
Sugar dominates among four segments
Diverse national brand companies cannot keep pace with private label
The consumer
Household penetration of sugar twice that of substitutes
Figure 2: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, January 2012-March 2013
Most use low-/no-calorie artificial sweeteners for concerns about weight
Figure 3: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes, by gender, July 2013
A third of respondents are interested in all-natural products
Figure 4: Interest in sweetener products, by age, July 2013
A quarter do not use sweeteners because food/drinks already contain enough
Figure 5: Reasons for not adding sweeteners to food/dinks or using them in cooking/baking, July 2013
What we think

Issues and Insights
Can sweetener brands assuage consumer fears about product safety?
Issues
Insight: Face the issues head-on
Will consumers go for sweeteners with added health benefits?
Issues
Insight: Sweeteners as supplements
Would flavored sugar/sugar substitutes take hold in the market?
Issues
Insight: Replicating the café experience for home users

Trend Applications
Trend: The Real Thing
Trend: Prove It
Mintel Futures: Old Gold

Market Size and Forecast
Key points
Market growth slows in 2012 and 2013
Sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 6: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18
Figure 7: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at inflation-adjusted prices, 2008-18
Fan chart forecast
Figure 8: Total U.S. sales and fan chart forecast of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2008-18

Market Drivers
Key points
Sugar commodity economics
Figure 9: Sugar commodity monthly price – U.S. cents per pound, July 2012-July 2013
Figure 10: Sugar retail monthly price – U.S. cents per pound, July 2012-July 2013
Health considerations may limit usage
Figure 11: Types of pancake and table syrups used in household, by age, January 2012-March 2013
Obesity rate
Households with kids more likely to use sugar and sweeteners
Figure 12: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by presence of children in household, July 2013
Seniors least likely to use sugar, very likely to use substitutes
Figure 13: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, by age, January 2012-March 2013
Blacks, Asians report highest use of sugar
Figure 14: Household usage of sugar, pancake and table syrups, and sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners, by race/Hispanic origin, January 2012-March 2013

Competitive Context
Presweetened tea and coffee drinks eliminate need for added sweeteners
Sweet spreads and nut spreads used for a range of eating occasions

Segment Performance
Key points
Market depends heavily on sugar sales
Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by segment
Figure 15: Sales of sugar and sweeteners, segmented by type, 2011 and 2013

Segment Performance – Sugar
Key points
Sugar sales remains a staple pantry item
Sales and forecast of sugar
Figure 16: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar, at current prices, 2008-18

Segment Performance – Syrups and Molasses
Key points
Brands widen the scope for maple syrup uses
Sales and forecast of syrups and molasses
Figure 17: Total U.S. sales and forecast of syrups and molasses, at current prices, 2008-18

Segment Performance – Sugar Substitutes
Key points
As consumer tastes shift to natural substitutes, sales lag slightly
Sales and forecast of sugar substitutes
Figure 18: Total U.S. sales and forecast of sugar substitutes, at current prices, 2008-18

Segment Performance – Honey
Key points
Honey represents a growth opportunity
Sales and forecast of honey
Figure 19: Total U.S. sales and forecast of honey, at current prices, 2008-18

Retail Channels
Key points
Supermarkets edge out other channels
Sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel
Figure 20: U.S. retail sales of sugar and sweeteners, by channel, 2011 and 2013
Supermarket sales slip in 2012 and 2013
Figure 21: U.S. supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2008-13
Other channels
Figure 22: U.S. other channel sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2008-13

Retail Channels – Natural Supermarkets
Key points
Honey remains the sweet spot for natural retailers
Sales of sugar and sweeteners in the natural channel
Figure 23: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, at current prices, 2011-13*
Figure 24: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners at inflation-adjusted prices, 2011-13*
Natural channel sales of sugar and sweeteners by segment.
Figure 25: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, by segment, 2011 and 2013*
Brands of note
Natural channel sales of sugar and sweeteners by organic
Figure 26: Natural supermarket sales of sugar and sweeteners, by organic, 2011 and 2013*
Natural channel sales of granulated cane sugar by fair-trade
Figure 27: Natural supermarket sales of granulated cane sugar, by fair-trade, 2011 and 2013*

Leading Companies
Key points
National brand companies hold small share compared to private label
Domino gains 1.8% while top competitor J&J declines 8.4%
Other players individually account for less than 5% of the market
Manufacturer sales of sugar and sweeteners
Figure 28: MULO manufacturer sales of sugar and sweeteners, 2012-13

Brand Share – Sugar
Key points
Private label accounts for nearly 60% of the segment
Domino and C&H register similar gains but comprise small share
Manufacturer sales of sugar
Figure 29: MULO brand sales of sugar, 2012-13

Brand Share – Syrup and Molasses
Key points
Aunt Jemima far outsells all other brands
Mrs. Butterworth’s Original sold only at H-E-B
Karo is the only leading syrup made with corn
Hungry Jack innovates with microwaveable “stay-cool” handle
Maple Grove Farms is the lone real maple syrup among top brands
Private label comprises 29% share
Manufacturer sales of syrup and molasses
Figure 30: MULO brand sales of syrup and molasses, 2012-13

Brand Share – Sugar Substitutes
Key points
Splenda outsells other MULO brands by a large margin
Truvia sales growth attests to demand for natural substitutes
Sweet’N Low drops as Stevia Extract In The Raw gains
Equal declines 6.7%
Manufacturer sales of sugar substitutes
Figure 31: MULO brand sales of sugar substitutes, 2012-13

Brand Share – Honey
Key points
Private label has the biggest footprint in the honey segment
Sue Bee spurs 16.5% growth for Sioux Honey Association
Other honey brands individually comprise small share
Manufacturer sales of honey
Figure 32: MULO brand sales of honey, 2012-13

Innovations and Innovators
All-natural and low-calorie products rank high among respondents
Figure 33: Trends in sugar product claims, 2009-13
All-natural popular among sweetener users
Blends offer the best of both worlds
Green positioning attracts eco-conscious sweetener users

Marketing Strategies
Overview of the brand landscape
Trend: Sugar substitute brands highlight natural halo
Trend: Syrup brands leverage presence in pancake mix market
Trend: Social media expands the presence of sweetener brands
Mrs. Butterworth’s
Domino
C&H
Splenda
Sue Bee
TV presence
Splenda
Figure 34: Splenda television ad, 2013
Splenda Nectresse
Figure 35: Splenda Nectresse television ad, 2013
Sweet’N Low
Figure 36: Sweet’N Low television ad, 2013
Truvia
Figure 37: Truvia television ad, 2013

Social Media – Sugar and Sweeteners
Key points
Key social media metrics
Figure 38: Key brand metrics, sugar and sweeteners, August 2013
Market overview
Brand usage and awareness
Figure 39: Usage and awareness of selected sugar and/or sweetener brands, July 2013
Interaction with brands
Figure 40: Interaction with selected sugar and/or sweetener brands, July 2013
Online conversations
Figure 41: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Where are people talking about sugar and sweetener brands?
Figure 42: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by page type, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
What are people talking about?
Figure 43: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Figure 44: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Brand analysis
Splenda
Figure 45: Splenda key social media indicators, Aug. 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Aunt Jemima
Figure 46: Aunt Jemima key social media indicators, August 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Truvia
Figure 47: Truvia key social media indicators, August 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Mrs. Butterworth’s
Figure 48: Mrs. Butterworth’s key social media indicators, August 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Domino
Figure 49: Domino key social media indicators, August 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think
Florida Crystals
Figure 50: Florida Crystals key social media indicators, August 2013
Key online campaigns
What we think

Sugar and Sweetener Usage
Key points
Sweetener use is nearly universal
Figure 51: Usage of sugar and sweeteners, July 2013
Seniors report least usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink
Figure 52: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by age, July 2013
Women most apt to use sugar and honey in cooking/baking
Figure 53: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by gender, July 2013
18-24 most apt to use natural and synthetic substitutes in baking/cooking
Figure 54: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by age, July 2013

Usage of Sugar and Sweeteners Compared to a Year Ago
Key points
More than a third are using more stevia than they were a year ago
Figure 55: Usage of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago, July 2013

Usage of Sugar and Sweeteners Away from Home
Key points
More than a quarter use low-/no-calorie substitutes away from home
Figure 56: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by gender, July 2013
55+ most likely to report bringing no sugar/sweeteners from home
Figure 57: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by age, July 2013
Households with children most apt to bring sugar/sweeteners from home
Figure 58: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by presence of children, July 2013

Reasons for Using Low-/no-calorie Sugar Substitutes
Key points
Calorie and weight concerns drive use of low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes
Figure 59: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by gender, July 2013
55+ most concerned about calories
Figure 60: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes, by age, July 2013
Least affluent most likely to want to avoid HFCS
Figure 61: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by household income, July 2013

Interest in Sweetener Products
Key points
Nearly a third report interest in all-natural sugar substitutes
Figure 62: Interest in sweetener products, by age, July 2013
Households with kids report most interest in a range of sweetener products
Figure 63: Interest in sweetener products, by presence of children in household, July 2013

Reasons for Not Using Sugar and Sweeteners
Key points
A quarter do not use sweeteners because food/drinks already have enough
Figure 64: Reasons for not adding sweeteners to food/dinks or using them in cooking/baking, July 2013

Race and Hispanic Origin
Key points
Blacks report most likelihood to use sugar in food and drink
Figure 65: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
Blacks and Hispanics most likely to use sugar and honey away from home
Figure 66: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
Hispanics report using substitutes for a range of reasons
Figure 67: Reasons for using low-/no-calorie sugar substitutes , by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013
Blacks, Hispanics most interested vitamin/mineral-enriched sweeteners
Figure 68: Interest in sweetener products, by race/Hispanic origin, July 2013

Key Household Purchase Measures – Information Resources Inc. Builders Panel Data
Overview of sugar
White granulated sugar
Consumer insights on key purchase measures – white granulated sugar
Brand map
Figure 69: Brand map, selected brands of white granulated sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 70: Key purchase measures for the top brands of white granulated sugar, by household penetration, 2012*
Brown/flavored/powdered sugar
Consumer insights on key purchase measures – brown/flavored/powdered sugar
Brand map
Figure 71: Brand map, selected brands of brown/flavored/powdered sugar buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 72: Key purchase measures for the top brands of brown/flavored/powdered sugar, by household penetration, 2012*
Sugar substitutes
Consumer insights on key purchase measures – sugar substitutes
Brand map
Figure 73: Brand map, selected brands of sugar substitutes buying rate, by household penetration, 2012*
Brand leader characteristics
Key purchase measures
Figure 74: Key purchase measures for the top brands of sugar substitutes, by household penetration, 2012*

Appendix – Market Drivers
Consumer confidence
Figure 75: University of Michigan’s index of consumer sentiment (ICS), 2007-13
Unemployment
Figure 76: U.S. Unemployment Rate, by month, 2002-13
Figure 77: U.S. unemployment and underemployment rates, 2007-13
Figure 78: Number of employed civilians in U.S., in thousands, 2007-13
Food cost pressures
Figure 79: Changes in USDA Food Price Indexes, 2011-14
Obesity
Figure 80: American adults by weight category as determined by body mass index (BMI), 2008-June 20, 2013
Childhood and teen obesity – highest in decades
Figure 81: Prevalence of obesity among children and adolescents aged 2-19, 1971-2010
Shifting U.S. demographics
Figure 82: U.S. population, by age, 2008-18
Figure 83: U.S. households, by presence of own children, 2002-12
Racial, ethnic population growth
Figure 84: U.S. population by race and Hispanic origin, 2008, 2013, and 2018
Figure 85: Households with children, by race and Hispanic origin of householder, 2012

Appendix – Social Media – Sugar and Sweeteners
Brand usage or awareness
Figure 86: Brand usage or awareness, July 2013
Figure 87: Domino sugar usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 88: Florida crystals usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 89: Truvia usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 90: Aunt Jemima usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 91: Mrs. Butterworth’s usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 92: Splenda usage or awareness, by demographics, July 2013
Activities done
Figure 93: Activities done, July 2013, July 2013
Figure 94: Domino Sugar – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 95: Truvia – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 96: Aunt Jemima – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 97: Mrs. Butterworth’s – Activities Done, by demographics, July 2013
Figure 98: Splenda – Activities done, by demographics, July 2013
Online conversations
Figure 99: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Figure 100: Online conversations on selected sugar and sweetener brands, by page type, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Figure 101: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013
Figure 102: Types of conversations around selected sugar and sweetener brands, by day, Aug. 2, 2012-Aug. 1, 2013

Appendix – Other Useful Consumer Tables
Sugar and sweetener usage
Figure 103: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by gender, July 2013
Figure 104: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by household income, July 2013
Figure 105: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by household income, July 2013
Figure 106: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in food/drink, by household size, July 2013
Figure 107: Usage of sugar and sweeteners in baking/cooking, by race, July 2013
Use of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago
Figure 108: Usage of sugar and sweeteners compared to a year ago, by more/same amount, by gender, July 2013
Use of sugar/sweeteners away from home
Figure 109: Usage of sugar and sweeteners away from home, by household income, July 2013
Interest in sweetener products
Figure 110: Interest in sweetener products, by gender, July 2013
Figure 111: Interest in sweetener products, by household income, July 2013
Brands used
Figure 112: Brands of sugar used in household, January 2012-March 2013
Figure 113: Brands of pancake and table syrups used in household, January 2012-March 2013
Figure 114: Brands of sugar substitutes/artificial sweeteners used in household, January 2012-March 2013

Appendix – Information Resources Inc. Builders Panel Data Definitions
Information Resources Inc. Consumer Network Metrics

Appendix – Trade Associations

Make an enquiry before buying this Report

Please fill the enquiry form below.

  • Full Name *
  • Your Email *
  • Job Title
  • Company
  • Phone No. * (Pls. Affix Country Code)
  • Message
  • Security Code *