APPLE SAUCE RETAIL BUYING AND MERCHANDISE FALL 2014 By Ashley Cates and Alyssa Mueller

APPLE SAUCERETAIL BUYING AND MERCHANDISE

FALL 2014

By Ashley Cates and Alyssa Mueller

Product SnapshotTotal Apple Sauce Category Demographics

% Volume

Index

77.7% 113

8.4% 71

9.3% 74

2.7% 64

1.9% 86

17.0% 63

31.7% 98

17.5% 108

18.0% 137

15.8% 142

6.9% 89

9.9% 89

9.4% 87

9.7% 96

9.0% 100

21.5% 120

12.7% 107

12.9% 105

7.9% 88

3.0% 70

15.7% 104

18.0% 104

17.9% 89

18.6% 96

13.9% 105

13.0% 121

11.1% 150

20.3% 109

10.0% 152

58.7% 87

70.4% 108

29.6% 85

Housing Tenure

Own

Rent

Age 75 or More

Age and Presence of Children

Age < 6

Age 6 - 17

Age < 6 & 6 - 17

No Children

Age 18 - 24

Age 25 - 34

Age 35 - 44

Age 45 - 54

Age 55 - 64

Age 65 - 74

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or More

Age of Head of Household

5+ Persons

Household Income

Under $10,000

$10,000 - $19,999

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

Other

Number of Persons

1 Person

2 Persons

3 Persons

4 Persons

Variables and Measures

Demographic Variables

Race of Head of Household

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Apple Sauce is considered a normal category• Increases as number of people

increases• Increases as income increases

• Primarily in leading brands such as Motts and Musselmans

Most likely found in older households or households that have young children.• Senior Couples• Younger Bustling Families (HOH<40)• Older Bustling Families (HOH>40)

Presence and age of children is the dominate factor is apple sauce category

Product Snapshot

Affluent Suburban Spreads

Cosmopolitan Centers

Young TransitionalsAny size HHs, No Children, < 35

Older Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH 40+

Younger Bustling FamiliesLarge HHs with Children (6+), HOH <40

Small Scale FamiliesSmall HHs with Older Children 6+

Start-Up FamiliesHHs with Young Children Only < 6

TotalPlain Rural

Living

Modest Working Towns

Struggling Urban Cores

Comfortable Country

Total

Senior Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 65+

Empty Nest Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 55-64

Established Couples2+ person HHs, No Children, 35-54

Senior Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 65+

Independent Singles1 person HHs, No Children, 35-64

74

114

156

100109 130 112 88 93 73

97

107

139

61

53

71

175 186 179 186 132 113

183 130 113 91 93 84

62 104 81 72 69 55

67 88 52 109 91 41

49 42 62 105 41 31

70 74 59 42 72 49

195 172 154 78 109 102

161 124 145 69 59 110

106 113 113 74 102 72

Motts (Fruit-Canned : Apple Sauce) Oz. Total Consumption BehaviorScape Framework

LifeStyle

BehaviorStage

115 201 105 93 205 70 135








TotalPlain Rural

Living



Comfortable Country

Total






80

119

184

10060 121 143 65 83 112

114

115

123

56

45

73

142 180 243 266 145 154

81 145 155 56 94 123

35 72 127 34 78 107

16 78 92 31 58 120

18 63 55 35 45 56

36 48 91 57 55 70

133 140 165 43 133 92

97 150 145 67 83 137

48 149 136 52 76 175

Musselmans (Fruit-Canned : Apple Sauce) Oz. Total Consumption BehaviorScape Framework

LifeStyle

BehaviorStage

48 130 129 50 85 64 87

Product Snapshot








TotalPlain Rural

Living



Comfortable Country

Total






83

105

130

10070 100 123 69 100 123

92

143

127

56

53

88

93 101 150 129 126 155

103 99 107 50 97 138

54 69 93 89 70 112

74 100 90 60 82 106

28 41 56 64 62 63

41 46 95 29 54 101

88 125 150 76 141 161

103 168 174 62 180 149

80 75 156 62 70 96

Private Label (Fruit-Canned : Apple Sauce) Oz. Total Consumption BehaviorScape Framework

LifeStyle

BehaviorStage

107 173 180 105 181 151 153

% Volume Index % Volume Index % Volume Index

75.2% 109 81.5% 118 79.0% 115

11.2% 94 5.9% 49 7.1% 60

9.8% 78 8.5% 68 8.9% 71

2.0% 46 2.3% 55 3.0% 70

1.8% 82 1.8% 80 2.0% 88

15.8% 58 13.7% 50 17.7% 65

33.6% 104 37.7% 116 30.6% 94

17.4% 108 17.9% 111 17.1% 106

18.8% 143 15.1% 115 18.8% 143

14.4% 130 15.6% 140 15.8% 142

4.8% 62 3.3% 43 8.3% 109

8.8% 79 6.3% 56 10.5% 94

8.4% 77 9.5% 88 9.9% 91

9.0% 89 8.8% 86 10.3% 102

8.1% 90 10.0% 112 9.3% 103

20.6% 115 22.0% 123 21.8% 121

14.7% 123 14.2% 119 11.8% 99

17.4% 141 12.4% 101 11.3% 92

8.4% 93 13.4% 149 6.8% 76

3.2% 76 2.6% 63 2.2% 51

13.3% 88 9.0% 60 17.2% 114

16.6% 96 17.0% 98 18.7% 107

19.0% 95 18.1% 90 17.6% 88

19.8% 102 20.3% 105 18.7% 97

13.7% 104 19.7% 150 12.8% 97

14.5% 135 13.3% 124 12.9% 120

10.6% 144 7.1% 96 11.5% 156

21.0% 114 21.5% 116 20.1% 109

8.9% 135 7.2% 110 10.3% 157

59.4% 88 64.2% 95 58.1% 86

10.7% 144 7.0% 95 11.6% 157

11.2% 120 9.0% 96 12.0% 127

18.5% 118 20.3% 129 18.2% 116

59.6% 88 63.7% 94 58.3% 86

12.7% 63 8.8% 44 11.7% 58

63.5% 131 66.7% 138 61.3% 126

23.8% 75 24.5% 78 27.1% 86

29.2% 144 27.9% 138 30.0% 148

34.7% 123 38.7% 138 30.9% 110

6.8% 95 4.6% 64 6.6% 92

1.6% 67 1.5% 62 2.0% 85

11.7% 78 13.4% 90 12.6% 84

16.1% 59 13.9% 51 17.9% 66

Musselmans Private LabelDemographic Variables

Marital Status of Head of Household

Age 12 - 17

No Children

Single

Married

Female Head Only with kids

Male Head Only with kids

Multi-Person Household without kids

1 Person Household

Divorced, Separated & Widowed

Household Composition

Married Family with kids

Married Family without kids

Age 6 - 11

Age of Oldest Child

Age Under 6

Age 25 - 34

Age 35 - 44

Age 45 - 54

Age 55 - 64

Age 65 - 74

$40,000 - $49,999

$50,000 - $74,999

$75,000 - $99,999

$100,000 - $149,999

$150,000 or More

Age of Head of Household

Hispanic

Asian

Other

Number of Persons

1 Person

2 Persons

Race of Head of Household

White

Black

3 Persons

4 Persons

$20,000 - $29,999

$30,000 - $39,999

5+ Persons

Household Income

Under $10,000

$10,000 - $19,999

Age < 6 & 6 - 17

No Children

Motts

Age 75 or More

Age and Presence of Children

Age < 6

Age 6 - 17

Age 18 - 24

Brand SnapshotDifferences between Brands

◦ Across most national brands there are not large differences in consumers. ◦ Large household item◦ Senior Buyers or Large households with

children ◦ White is the primary race of all consumers

◦ Private label is bought and consumed more frequently in families with young children

◦ Leading brands are more popular with senior couples/married families without children

How category management is affected

◦ Because there is not a much of a demographic difference in apple sauce consumers (between various brands) category management is not heavily affected.

◦ More time could be spent allocated to a different category of need

◦ There are little differences in assortment between retailers. Further proving category management is a minimal in this particular category.

◦ Most stores care 1 or 2 leading brands then a private label.

◦ Target- GoGo and Private Label

◦ Harp’s- Musselmans and Private Label

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TOTAL U.S.

WEST SOUTH CENTRAL

TREE TOP - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

LUCKY LEAF - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

MOTT'S - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

MOTT'S ORGANICS - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

MUSSELMAN'S - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

SANTA CRUZ ORGANIC - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

SENECA - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

APPLESNAX - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

CTL BR - CANNED FRUIT - APPLE SAUCE

ITEM $ (000) DOLLAR SHARE ITEM BUYERS (000)

ITEM PENETRATION

ITEM $ PER ITEM BUYER

PURCHASE CYCLE (IN ELAPSED

DAYS)

% REPEAT BUYERS (% 2+ TIME BUYERS)

LOYALTY (SHARE OF $ REQ.)

% ITEM $ ON DEAL

183,517.2 100.0 31,890.3 27.5 5.8 55.1 53.3 100.0 22.7

9,845.5 100.0 2,282.1 17.6 4.3 58.7 45.6 100.0 7.8

590.9 0.3 225.0 0.2 2.6 62.3 30.9 45.9 10.2

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

75,276.6 41.0 18,334.5 15.8 4.1 55.8 45.5 68.2 21.0

5,334.0 54.2 1,416.4 10.9 3.8 59.6 42.5 81.6 5.9

4,287.7 2.3 1,309.2 1.1 3.3 53.8 22.8 36.1 14.9


46,919.2 25.6 10,030.4 8.6 4.7 64.0 36.1 61.8 27.8

1,825.4 18.5 513.1 4.0 3.6 69.7 26.5 62.4 10.6

1,419.3 0.8 310.1 0.3 4.6 45.8 32.2 57.6 11.2


31,380.6 17.1 6,506.5 5.6 4.8 57.5 34.4 58.6 22.5

2,032.9 20.7 561.9 4.3 3.6 60.0 25.4 69.7 12.3

1,060.8 0.6 157.7 0.1 6.7 49.6 36.3 51.4 23.1


3,317.6 1.8 746.0 0.6 4.5 66.4 33.9 62.1 23.8


8,527.0 4.7 1,404.3 1.2 6.1 63.3 30.8 66.6 19.9

A.C. Nielson Data from 2007

Category RoleUsing Nielson Data from ‘07…

◦ The apple sauce as a category has moderate to low penetration (27.5% for U.S Total) ◦ Due to this penetration, visibility is moderately low

◦ Brand penetration is small

◦ Long Purchase Cycle (55.1 days)

◦ Private Label◦ Highest household penetration of all brands (15.8)

◦ Highest rate of repeat purchase of all brands (45.5)

◦ Highest dollar share (41.0)

◦ Highest Loyalty for total U.S.

◦ Lowest item dollar per trip

◦ Motts is found on deal most frequently◦ This may explain why senior couples consume this brand most

◦ We classified this as a “Under Fire” Category

Sales slightly over 100 million (183,000,000)

Mid-to-lower GM % of about 42%

Category Assessment Continued…

◦ The smaller retailers, with limited display space, organized their category with only a leading brand plus private label◦ Example: Harp’s was Musselmans and Private Label

◦ Every store retailer competed in Private Label for this category◦ Private Label is incredibly important for this category

◦ Motts was at every store but Walgreens◦ Walgreens is dedicated to their Private Label, Nice! With only 2 SKU of apple sauce◦ Motts Natural 6 Pack Applesauce was found at every store (with the exception of Walgreens)

◦ Motts was the only brand found on deal ◦ Corresponds with the Nielson data

◦ At the Wal-Mart Pleasant Crossings store, there were 2 unique SKUs only to this store◦ Del-Monte Mixed Berry 12 pack and Mott’s Natural No Sugar 6 pack

◦ GoGo would be considered a “Type C” Brand◦ Yielded the highest dollar gross margins by about $0.40 average◦ Although it’s the same price as most apple sauce packs, you get less per ounce.

Perceived Quality GapHow private label is competing

There is a low perceived quality gap in Private Label items nationally◦ Highest household penetration of all brands (15.8)

◦ Highest rate of repeat purchase of all brands (45.5)

◦ Highest dollar share (41.0)

◦ Highest Loyalty for total U.S.

◦ Lowest item dollar per trip

◦ Shortest purchase cycle

Although Private Label does well nationally, this could be attributed to a larger amount of families buying apple sauce for their children rather than senior citizens

Due to lower prices, Private Label does not generate good dollar gross margins

◦Most brands generate slightly above a dollar profit for ever sale

◦ Private Label generates around $0.72 cents

Stores Audited, Depth & Unique SKUsStores Location SKUs Unique SKUs Audited By

Wal-Mart Supercenter MLK Blvd-Fayetteville 54 0 (10 PL) Alyssa

Wal-Mart Supercenter Pleasant Crossing-Rogers 63 2 (10 PL) Ashley

Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market

Citizens Drive-Fayetteville 22 0 Alyssa

Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market

Bentonville 28 0 Ashley

Target Shiloh Drive -Fayetteville

10 0 Alyssa

Target Promenade Blvd - Rogers 14 0 Ashley

Harp’s Garland Ave - Fayetteville 12 0 Alyssa

Harp’s Store 127- 16 0 Ashley

Walgreens School Ave-Fayetteville 2 2 (PL) Alyssa

Walgreens 2 2 (PL) Ashley

Share of Display Space/FacingsReport

Manufacture Faces WMSC-

MLK

Faces WMSC-

PC

Faces Harps-176 Faces Harps-127 Faces Target-

Fay

Faces Target-

Rogers

Del Monte

% of Total Sum 9.4% 5.4% 14.8% 10.5% 9.1%

% of Total N 11.1% 10.9% 25.0% 10.0% 14.3%

N 6 7 4 1 2

GoGo

% of Total Sum 16.2% 16.3% 42.1% 54.5%

% of Total N 31.5% 31.2% 40.0% 57.1%

N 17 20 4 8

Mott's

% of Total Sum 28.2% 28.7% 25.0% 22.2% 47.4% 36.4%

% of Total N 24.1% 25.0% 25.0% 18.8% 50.0% 28.6%

N 13 16 3 3 5 4

Musselman

% of Total Sum 20.5% 19.4% 75.0% 63.0%

% of Total N 14.8% 17.2% 75.0% 56.2%

N 8 11 9 9

Private label

% of Total Sum 25.6% 30.2%

% of Total N 18.5% 15.6%

N 10 10

Total

% of Total Sum 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total N 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N 54 64 12 16 10 14

At Wal-Mart Supercenters, GoGo has the largest share of space

Harps carries mostly Musselmans, while Target also focuses on GoGo facings.

Shares of Gross Margin Dollar

In terms of dollar gross margins, GoGo leads the category followed by Del Monte

Share of Gross Margin by Supplier

Mott’s leads the category in percent gross margin.

Plesant Crossing Wal-Mart MLK Harps 176-Garland Harps 127-Bentonville

% HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index

Race of Head of Household White 74.8% 108 80.4% 117 78.3% 114 84.9% 123 Black 2.6% 22 6.6% 55 7.5% 63 3.9% 33 Hispanic 18.5% 148 4.9% 39 5.1% 41 4.7% 37 Asian 2.5% 58 4.6% 108 5.3% 123 4.0% 95 Other 1.6% 73 3.5% 156 3.8% 169 2.4% 108Number of Persons 1 Person 23.7% 87 47.7% 176 49.4% 182 25.2% 93 2 Persons 28.3% 87 33.2% 103 31.3% 97 29.8% 92 3 Persons 15.6% 96 10.4% 64 11.1% 69 17.9% 111 4 Persons 16.7% 127 5.9% 45 5.3% 40 15.5% 118 5+ Persons 15.7% 141 2.8% 25 2.8% 25 11.6% 104Household Income Under $10,000 1.6% 21 26.4% 345 24.9% 325 3.4% 44 $10,000 - $19,999 9.3% 83 24.7% 221 23.7% 212 7.4% 66 $20,000 - $29,999 7.6% 69 12.2% 112 14.5% 133 9.7% 89 $30,000 - $39,999 6.2% 61 10.3% 102 12.7% 125 10.1% 100 $40,000 - $49,999 11.4% 127 8.0% 89 7.0% 78 9.3% 103 $50,000 - $74,999 22.2% 124 9.0% 50 8.2% 46 18.1% 101 $75,000 - $99,999 12.4% 104 3.2% 27 3.3% 27 8.2% 69 $100,000 - $149,999 14.6% 119 4.2% 34 3.8% 31 15.0% 122 $150,000 or More 14.7% 164 1.9% 21 1.9% 22 18.8% 209Age of Head of Household Age 18 - 24 5.1% 122 25.4% 604 25.3% 601 4.6% 109 Age 25 - 34 16.4% 109 29.2% 193 30.8% 204 17.3% 115 Age 35 - 44 21.1% 122 14.4% 83 14.8% 85 21.7% 125 Age 45 - 54 22.0% 110 10.7% 53 10.3% 51 23.3% 116 Age 55 - 64 16.1% 83 10.9% 56 10.0% 52 16.1% 83 Age 65 - 74 9.7% 74 5.4% 41 4.9% 37 9.4% 72 Age 75 or More 9.4% 88 3.9% 37 3.9% 36 7.5% 70Age and Presence of Children Age < 6 9.3% 126 3.8% 52 5.0% 68 9.8% 133 Age 6 - 17 16.2% 87 8.4% 45 8.7% 47 24.2% 131 Age < 6 & 6 - 17 12.0% 183 2.9% 44 2.5% 38 6.7% 101 No Children 62.5% 93 84.9% 126 83.8% 124 59.3% 88

2 mile RingDemography

2 mile Ring 2 mile Ring 2 mile Ring

Plesant Crossing Wal-Mart MLK Harps 176-Garland Harps 127-Bentonville

% HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index % HHs HHs Index

2 mile RingDemography

2 mile Ring 2 mile Ring 2 mile Ring

Housing Tenure Own 60.5% 93 19.5% 30 17.8% 27 62.3% 96 Rent 39.5% 113 80.5% 230 82.2% 235 37.7% 108Education of Head of Household Not a High School Graduate 16.1% 124 8.6% 66 7.5% 58 7.3% 56 High School Graduate 25.0% 98 16.6% 65 17.2% 68 26.3% 103 Some College 22.0% 77 38.5% 134 41.3% 144 26.6% 93 College Graduate 20.7% 109 20.4% 107 18.6% 98 26.4% 139 Post College Degree 16.2% 117 15.9% 116 15.4% 111 13.3% 97Age of Oldest Child Age Under 6 9.3% 126 3.8% 52 5.0% 68 9.8% 133 Age 6 - 11 12.0% 128 4.2% 44 4.0% 43 11.0% 118 Age 12 - 17 16.2% 103 7.1% 45 7.1% 45 19.8% 126 No Children 62.5% 93 84.9% 126 83.8% 124 59.3% 88Marital Status of Head of Household Single 17.2% 86 48.3% 241 48.4% 241 15.0% 75 Married 58.5% 121 18.6% 38 17.6% 36 54.0% 111 Divorced, Separated & Widowed 24.3% 77 33.1% 105 34.0% 108 31.0% 99Household Composition Married Family with kids 32.5% 160 7.0% 35 7.0% 34 29.3% 144 Married Family without kids 26.0% 92 11.6% 41 10.6% 38 24.7% 88 Female Head Only with kids 4.9% 69 4.8% 67 5.0% 70 8.7% 121 Male Head Only with kids 2.4% 102 1.4% 60 1.7% 72 2.3% 98 Multi-Person Household without kids 10.4% 70 27.4% 184 26.2% 176 9.9% 66 1 Person Household 23.7% 87 47.7% 176 49.4% 182 25.2% 93

Spectra Concentric AreaWal-Mart Supercenter Comparison

MLK: ◦ Race of Head of Household was largely “Other”

◦ One person living in the houses or multiple people living in the house and are non-related.

◦ Low income (Under $10,000)

◦ Young Members of Household

◦ Single with No Children

◦ Largely Renters

◦ Example- Typical College Kid◦ Expectations: Less Depth, Less Private Label

Pleasant Crossings:◦ Majority of Hispanic shoppers

◦ Large Households (4-5 people)

◦ Mid Income Levels or Very higher income levels

◦ Married Family with young kids (Children 11 or under)

◦ Not a high school graduate

◦ Example- Blue Collar Family or Young Family ◦ Expectations: Higher Depth, More Private Label and more Motts

Harp’s ComparisonGarland:◦ Largely Asian or “other”

◦ One person household or multi-person adult home

◦ Low Income

◦ Young Households (18-24)

◦ Single with no children

◦ Rent homes rather than own

◦ Example- Typical College Kid◦ Expectations: Less Depth, Less Private Label

Bentonville:◦ Race is largely white

◦ Larger Households (3-4 people)

◦ Very High income (100,000-150,000+)

◦ Primary age is 35-44. Most are older than 25 but younger than 55

◦ Married Family with young kids or Female Head only with kids

◦ Two age gaps with kids: Children younger than 6 or teenagers 12-17

◦ College Graduate

◦ Example- Idealize Suburban American Family or “The Cleaver Family”◦ Expectations: Higher Depth, More Private Label and Musselmans

Category TacticsVisibility and Location in the Store:• Category was given display space in a middle aisle of all

dry grocery for every retailer.• Most retailers had this category toward one end of the

canned fruit aisle.

Display:• In Wal-Mart’s GoGo is getting the best, eye-level display

while Musselman takes Harp’s, Target also uses GoGo as main display

• Unless a retailer is completely dedicated to Private Label, it is typically found on the bottom shelf of display space

• Brands are kept together within the respected size/package type.

• Representation of the Consumer

Photos taken at Wal-Mart on MLK

Category Comparison

WMWF H-FacingTGTfacing

s WGF KrogerF

% of Total Sum

41.0% 8.7% 53.8% 72.7%

% of Total N

45.7% 9.5% 50.0% 66.7%

N 16 2 3 8

% of Total Sum

16.7% 47.8%

% of Total N

14.3% 47.6%

N 5 10

% of Total Sum

42.3% 43.5% 46.2% 100.0% 27.3%

% of Total N

40.0% 42.9% 50.0% 100.0% 33.3%

N 14 9 3 1 4

% of Total Sum

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total N

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

N 35 21 6 1 12

Total

MFR

Mott's

Musselman's

Private label

Faces WMSC-

MLKFaces

WMSC-PCFaces

Harps-176Faces

Harps-127Faces

Target-Fay

Faces Target-Rogers

N 6 7 4 1 2

% of Total Sum

9.4% 5.4% 14.8% 10.5% 9.1%

% of Total N

11.1% 10.9% 25.0% 10.0% 14.3%

N 17 20 4 8

% of Total Sum

16.2% 16.3% 42.1% 54.5%

% of Total N

31.5% 31.3% 40.0% 57.1%

N 13 16 3 3 5 4

% of Total Sum

28.2% 28.7% 25.0% 22.2% 47.4% 36.4%

% of Total N

24.1% 25.0% 25.0% 18.8% 50.0% 28.6%

N 8 11 9 9

% of Total Sum

20.5% 19.4% 75.0% 63.0%

% of Total N

14.8% 17.2% 75.0% 56.3%

N 10 10

% of Total Sum

25.6% 30.2%

% of Total N

18.5% 15.6%

N 54 64 12 16 10 14

% of Total Sum

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

% of Total N

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Musselman

Private label

Total

Fall 2014

Manufacture

Del Monte

GoGo

Mott's

Spring 2013

Category ComparisonChanges from Spring 2013 Audit File

Spring 2013

◦ Fewer SKUs (60)

◦ Great Value 6 pack were $1.88

◦ Musselmans was sold for $2.42 at Wal-Mart (6 pack)

◦ Harp’s mostly carried Musselmans and Wal-Mart displayed the most Motts

◦ Private label seems to be maintained at the same level. No increase, no decrease.◦ Focused on 2 leading brands and private label specific

to every retailer

◦ Unit 2 Cost were set higher than ours in leading brands such as..◦ Motts (.07)◦ Musselmans (.07)◦ The higher unit two cost cause lower percent gross

margins◦ Around 25%

Fall 2014

◦ More SKUs (66)

◦ Great Value 6 packs are now sold for $1.68

◦ Motts are sold at the same price for a six-pack at Wal-Mart

◦ Musselman has raised their price at Wal-Mart $2.77

◦ For Wal-Mart Supercenters, GoGo had the most display space while Harp’s carried mostly Musselmans.

◦ Had higher gross margins due to lower unit 2 costs◦ Around 42%

Our own findings..◦ Private Label Product Taste Test:

◦ More bland compared to national brand◦ Not as thick as national brand

◦ Comparison testing:◦ Color variation◦ Texture variation

◦ Our preferences:◦ Prefer national brand, specifically Mott’s, to private label brand◦ Mott’s had an overall better flavor and quality than Great Value

◦ As an adult, we would say there is a definite foils aka a bad private labels to steer us to buying the higher margin, national brands.

◦ From the past category audit, we observed innovations in packaging:◦ Del Monte and GoGo are trending toward a “squeezable pouch” rather

than a standard cup.◦ This may help with inventory◦ Provides convenience for mothers who pack their children lunches or

use apple sauce as a snack

Documents

APPLE SAUCE RETAIL BUYING AND MERCHANDISE FALL 2014 By Ashley Cates and Alyssa Mueller