A Snapshot of
TODAY’S RETAIL MEAT CASE
2010 N AT ION A L ME AT C A SE S T UDY E X EC U T I V E SUMM A R Y
BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY
KEY FINDINGS
Sealed Air’s Cryovac Food Packaging, The Beef
Checkoff Program and the National Pork Board
teamed up in the first quarter of 2010 to conduct
audits of the nation’s retail meat cases. Texas
Tech University conducted the bulk of the data
collection, and First Stage Marketing analyzed data.
Each protein’s share of package count and pounds
found in the meat case during the audits remained
relatively stable in 2010 when compared to 2007.
Other key findings, however, surfaced and pointed
to the important role information and marketing
claims now have at the meat case.
Surveyors audited 124 retail supermarkets and
nine club stores in 51 metro markets across 31
states on various days of the week at random
times. This summary only addresses the more than
160,000 packages representing more than 288,000
pounds and 21,000 SKUs of meat products
that were captured in supermarkets to further
understand the growing transformation seen in
the retail meat case during the last eight years.
This research project, the National Meat Case
Study (NMCS) 2010, was benchmarked against
the same study conducted in 2002, 2004 and 2007
to provide insights into emerging retail trends.
While reviewing the findings from this 2010
study, it is important to keep in mind the overall
economic and market conditions affecting the
grocery industry during the study period. In the
first quarter of 2010, the U.S. was still feeling the
effects of an economic recession. Among other
things, the recession caused consumers to eat
at home more and dine out less. The Consumer
Confidence Index dropped from 100.3 in
January 2007 to 56.5 in January 2010, and the
unemployment rate rose from 4.6% in 2007 to
9.7% in the first quarter of 2010. Competition
among formats also remained strong during 2010,
as club stores, traditional supermarkets and niche
stores competed for market share.
As you review the executive summary, keep in
mind it is only a summary. There are many more
statistics available as well as entire modules specific
to each protein. Contact one of the partners for
additional information.
1.Store branding numbers changed the most of
any audited categories in the study. The percent
of packages with store branding in the meat
case has tripled since 2004.
2.General consumer information on package grew.
On-package nutrition labeling numbers and
cooking information continued to increase.
This year’s study also captured production
claims, COOL labeling and the use of bilingual
labels for the first time, giving further insight
into the marketing activities taking place
at the meat case.
3.Packaging also changed. The amount of
case ready packaging increased, while average
package weight remained steady at 2 pounds.
4.Products with a natural claim grew in 2010,
up 10 percentage points from 2004.
5.The zero stock analysis shines a spotlight
on potential lost sales by documenting
top selling cuts that were out of stock.
48%
37%
12%
23%
36%
Supplier Brand
Store Brand
No Brand
Within fresh meat, the 3 core proteins (beef, pork and chicken including value added)
38% of SKUs,
29%
27%
represented 94% of linear feet, 89% of all packages and 89%
reinforcing
the
importance of these proteins for category growth and department
profitability.
2004
2007
2010 Changes
in linear feet were driven by a 2 percentage point increase of ground beef linear feet.
PROTEIN’S SHARE OF FRESH MEAT CASE The ratio of full service and self-service linear feet
Protein’s
Share
of LINEAR
Fresh Meat
- % of Linear
Feet of Shelf Service Case
%
OF
FEET Case
OF SELF-SERVICE
CASE
stayed the same in 2010 with 93% self-service
and 7% full-service. Seafood continued to lead the
2%
<1% 1%
2% 3%
1% 3%
2%
Veal
way in the full-service case with 52% of linear feet,
7%
7%
8%
6%
Lamb
26%
26%
26%
27%
although it has steadily decreased from 67% in
Cooking Information on Package - % of Package
Turkey
2002. Beef (21%), pork (10%) and chicken (9%)
Chicken
21%
22%
21%
20%
had the next highest presence in the full-service
Pork
39%
case. Beef (including ground beef) commanded the
12%
12%
14%
37%
Ground Beef
34%
32%
11%
largest share of the self-service case (42%) followed
Beef
42%
30%
28%
28%
by chicken at 27%.
(Whole Muscle)
2002
2004
2007
2010
2002
2004
2007
2010
Bee
On Package Nutrition
Labeling
of Packages
Exact Weight
- %- %
of Packages
BRANDING
2010
2007
2004 44%
57%
61%
C
The biggest news from NMCS 2010 was in the area of
gained against supplier brands. The supplier brand
34%
store branding. The percentage of packages carrying
decreased from 69% in 2007 to 56% in 2010
a store brand has tripled since 2004. Store brands
while the
store brand
2002
2004
2007 increased
2010 from 26% in 2007
increased from 12% in 2004 to 36% in 2010; this
to 35% in 2010.
are 16%
even stronger
56%These trends
21%
71%
51%
22%
15% into account.
64%
growth was at the expense of packages carrying
when
taking
2004
package
counts
6%
31%
13%
34%
4%
supplier brands, which decreased 13 percentage
Store Branding
Ground
- Pork
% of -Packages
Beef Gains
Ground
Beef
Chicken
STORE
BRANDING
% OF
PACKAGESTurkey
points from 2004 to 2010, and no brand packages,
Supplier Brand
down 11 percentage points for the same timeframe.
50%
48%
37%
Store Brand
It appears retailers are taking advantage of the
No Brand
consumers’ no brand preference, as sited in
the Power of Meat studies below to introduce
12%
23%
36%
store brands in hopes of gaining loyalty and
differentiating themselves from competitors.
5%
20%
75%
Beef
8%
Natu
Protein’s
Value-Added
38% Share of29%
27% - % of Package
2007
72% 13% 15%
2010
74%
13%
13%
Source: Power of Meat, An In-Depth Look at Meat Through the Shoppers Eyes, 2007 and 2010.
Store
FRESH MEAT/POULTRY: No brand preference Prefer private brand Prefer national brand
2007
20%
18%
3%
<1% 1%
2% 3%
1% 3%
2%
2010
12%
44%12%
42%
7%
7%
8%
6%
2004
15%
7%
2007
26%
26%
26%
27%
2007
31%2010
21%
2%
CONSUMER BRAND PREFERENCES
Supplier
Store brand growth was seen across all proteins in
2004
2007
2010
2010. Beef store branding increased from 31% in
2%
2007 to 51% in 2010. Store branding of ground
STORE BRANDING BY PROTEIN - % OFVeal
PACKAGES
15%
11%
beef increased from 21% in 2007 to 37% in 2010.
1%
4%
Lamb
Beef
Ground Beef
Pork
Chicken
Pork store branding increased from 19% in 2007
12%
Turkey
27%
2004
27%
18%
56%
77%
to 26% in 2010. Chicken store brands actually
24%Meat Case - % of LinearPork
16%
Protein’s
Share of Fresh
Feet of Shelf Service Case
21%
No Brand
MEATCASE SHARE
FINDINGS
50%
42%
2002
58%
Chicken
69%
43%
Ground
Beef 56%
Veal
11%
15%
Beef
Lamb(Whole Muscle)
19%
Turkey
26%
2010
22%
51% 21%
37%20%
26%
Chicken
35%
2004
58%
75%
Pork
33%
8%
61%
Ground Beef 5%
23%
Beef
31%
9%
(Whole Muscle)
12%
2007
49%
2010
37%
30%
2004
12%
28%
2007
14%
51%
28%
2010
Exact Weight - % of Packages
2
Pork Pac
CONSUMER MESSAGES
FINDINGS
Protein’s Share of Value-Added - % of Package
Consumer communication plays a key role in meat case merchandising.
More information
is being placed on packages and signage to help communicate the many benefits
2%
of today’s meat products. As a result of this importance, many areas of consumer
Veal
15%
11%
communication are getting more emphasis.
1%
4%
Lamb
12%
16%
On-package production claims were collected in 2010.
Top production claims included “minimally
processed,” “hormone free,” “antibiotic free” and
“vegetarian fed.” The total percentage of all fresh
meat packages carrying the “minimally processed”
claim was 27%.
2010
Production Claims - % of Packages
Total
TOTAL PRODUCTION CLAIMS - % OF PACKAGES
Minimally Processed
34% On-pack nutrition labeling has continued to
expand across proteins in the meat case. Beef
2002 increased
2004 from2007
2010to 29% in 2010.
24% in 2007
Ground beef also increased 4 percentage points
from 2007 to 2010. Chicken, turkey, lamb and
veal also increased the amount of packages with
Store Branding Gains Ground - % of Packages
nutrition labeling.
50%
48%
37%
Supplier Brand
Store Brand
No Brand
27.2%
Hormone Free
15.5%
Antibiotic Free
4.7%
Vegetarian Fed 3.9%
Never Ever
1.4%
Billingual Labeling - % of Packages
BILINGUAL LABELING - % OF PACKAGES
Cooking Information
on Package
Package
Bilingual language
usage- %
wasofanother
new item audited in
44%
44%
2007
The “vegetarian fed” claim was also found most
often on chicken (8%), lamb (4%) and ground
beef (3%).
Nutrition labeling on package expanded yet again in 2010,
61%the last four studies
significantly increasing
over
57%
from 34% in 2002 to 61% in 2010.
24%
42%
The “antibiotic free” claim was found on 5% of
all packages. It was most often found on chicken
(8%), ground beef (6%) and lamb (5%).
On Package Nutrition Labeling - % of Packages
Turkey
Pork
Chicken
Ground Beef
Beef (Whole Muscle)
3%
On-package “minimally processed” claims were
found on 57% of chicken, followed by 45% of
turkey. Next was lamb with 34%, veal with 26%
and ground beef with 22%. Just over 15% of
all fresh meat packages were labeled as “hormone
free.” Chicken packages carried the “hormone
free” claim significantly more often than the
other proteins. It was found on 43% of all
chicken packages.
2010. The average of all fresh meat packages with
bilingual information was39%
8%. Ground beef has
37%
the largest
of bilingual packages, with 17%
34% percent
32%
of packages including information in both English
Ground
was followed by beef at
2002 and Spanish.
2004
2007 beef
2010
11%, pork at 8% and lamb at 7%.
27%
17%
11%
8%
7%
5%
4%
Beef Ground Beef Pork
Chicken
Lamb
Veal
Nutritional Labeling on Package - % of Packages
By Species
COOL
Beef
2004
2007
2010
Labeling in 2002
Store - %
of Stores
Audited
5%
7%
3%
Pork
20%
16%
21%
Ground Beef
Chicken
Turkey
9%
7%57%
16%
24%
29%
3% 68% 2% 77%
81%
On Both
32% 17%41% 18% 53%
53%
16%
On Sign
46%
58%
74%
80%
On Package
65%
78%
88%
90%
Veal
6%
8%
10%
29%
Lamb
10%
18%
18%
36%
34% 80%44% 80% 57%
77%
61%
Total
75%
77%
76%
Beef Ground
Beef Pork Chicken Lamb
Veal
% of
On Package Nutrition Labeling - % of Packages
FINDINGS
61%
57%
44%
34%
COOKING
INFORMATION
% OF
Cooking
InformationON
onPACKAGE
Package - %
of PACKAGES
Package
Cooking information on packages increased in 2010,
Billingual Labeling - % of Packages
Cooking
Package
- % 32%
of Package
up 7 Information
percentageonpoints
from
in 2007 to 39%
2002
in 2010. All major proteins increased the percent
39%
of37%
packages with cooking information.
The highest
34%
32% was ground beef with
increase among proteins
an increase of 16 percentage points. The protein
2002
2004
2007
2010
with the highest percentage of packages containing
cooking information was turkey at 76%.
On Package Nutrition Labeling - % of Packages
2007
34%
2010
39%
32%
11%
8%
2007
2010
2002Gains 2004
Store Branding
Ground
-%
of Packages
7%
5%
4%
Supplier Brand
50%Beef
48%Labeling
37%
OnGround
Package
Nutrition
- %Lamb
of Packages
Beef
Pork
Chicken
Store Veal
Brand
No Brand
61%
57%
COOL LABELING
IN-STORE
12%
23%
36% COOL
in Store
- %INFORMATION
of Stores Audited
% OF Labeling
STORES44%
WITH
COOL
34%
3%
7%
7%
3%
2%
5%
38%
29%
27%
On Both
21% 2004
16%
16%
17%
18% 2010On Sign
20%
2002
2007
2004
2007
2010
On Package
Country of Origin Labeling
(COOL)61%
information was
57%
another element
added to the 2010 audit. In the
44%
supermarkets
audited, COOL information was
34%
displayed 75-80% of the time on the package,
2002
2004
2007 The
2010
depending
on the protein.
proteins with the
highest percentage of COOL displayed on package
were lamb and veal, both at 80%. Category A
(USA
only) Gains
was recorded
forofover
70% of beef,
Store
Branding
Ground - %
Packages
pork, chicken and veal. Category B (USA
and
Supplier
Brand
50%
48%
37%
other) was the code found most often on
Storeground
Brand
beef (45%). Lamb was categorized as mainly
No Brand
54% category A and 23% category D (other).
PACKAGING
2004
37%17%
Store Branding Gains Ground - % of Packages
Supplier Brand
76%
77%
77%
80%
80%
75%
50% Case -48%
37%Feet of Shelf
Protein’s Share of Fresh Meat
% of Linear
Service Ca
Store Brand
Ground Pork Chicken Lamb Veal
Beef
No Brand
2%
<1%Beef
1%
2% 3%
1% 3%
2%
% of
Veal
7%
7%
8%
6%
Supermarkets
Lamb
26%
26%
8%
15% 26% 9% 12% 8%
12%
23% 27%11% 36% without COOL
Turkey
12%
23%
36%
Chicken
21%
22%
21%
20%
In addition to information displayed on package like nutrition labeling,
the
38%
29%
27% Pork
38%
29%
27%
12%
12%
14%
audit also evaluated package weight, exact weight and case ready
2004representation.
2007
2010Ground Beef
2004
2007
2010
Average pounds per package has remained consistent
over30%the years
at 2 28%
pounds.Beef
42%
28%
(Whole Muscle)
Case ready representation has continued to increase
to 66%
of all2007
packages
in 2010.
2002
2004
2010
Average pounds per package has remained consistent
Protein’s Share of Fresh Meat Case - % of Linear Feet of Shelf Service Case
at 2 pounds while the number of exact weight
2%
<1% 1%has grown.
2% 3% Chicken
1% 3% and2%pork packages
packages
Veal
7%
6%
tended
to be7%slightly 8%
heavier, averaging
2.5 and 2.1
Lamb
26%
26%
26%
27%
pounds
respectively.
The number
of exact
Turkey weight
packages increased 2 percentage pointsChicken
in the meat
21%
22%
21%
20%
case in 2010 to 24%. Turkey had the most
Pork exact
12%
12%
14%
weight packages at 71% (up 7 percentage
Groundpoints
Beef
from 2007 to 2010).
Beef
42%
30%
28%
28%
2002
2004
2007
2010
(Whole Muscle)
Exact Weight - % of Packages
Case Ready
representation continued to increase,
Exact Weight - % of Packages
jumping 17 percentage points during the last
8 2010
years, from 49% in 2002 to 66% in 2010.
2007
All
proteins either maintained or increased their
2004
percent of case ready packages. Poultry products
continued to have the highest percentage of case
ready products, with turkey at 98% and chicken at
94%. This is followed by ground beef (71%), lamb
56%
21%
16%
71%
(60%), pork
veal (54%)
51%(58%), 22%
15% and beef
64% (31%).
4%
Beef
31%
Ground Beef
6%
13%
Pork
Chicken
Protein Case Ready Growth by Protein, Top Five
2010
2007
Ground Beef 2004
By Species
2002
2004
2007
2010
Change
vs. ‘02
56%
66%
67%
71%
+15
Beef
15%
23%
27%
31%
+16
Pork
37%
50%
56%
58%
+21
Lamb
38%
47%
60%
60%
+22
Veal
2%
28%
37%
56%
51%
21%
54%16%
Protein’s Share of Value-Added - % of Package
51%
22%
15%
60%6%
64% Veal
13% 66%
15%
11%
4%
Beef Ground Beef Pork Lamb
Chicken
Turkey
Pork
24%
Total w/ Poultry
4%
34%
Turkey
Exact Weight - % of Packages
Protein’sEXACT
Share WEIGHT
of Fresh-Meat
Case - % of Linear Feet of Shelf Ser
% OF PACKAGES
2010
2%
<1% 1%
2% 3%
1% 3%
2%
2007
Veal
7%
7%
8%
6%
2004
Lamb
26%
26%
26%
27%
Turkey
Chicken
21%
22%
21%
20%
Pork
71% Ground Beef
56% 12%
21% 12%
16% 14%
51%
22%
15%
64%
6%
34%
31%
13%
4%
Beef
42%
30%
28%
28%
(Whole Muscle)
Turkey
Beef Ground Beef Pork
Chicken
2002
2004
2007
2010
1%
12%
16%
27%
49%
31%
+26 71%
64%
34%+17
Turkey
Na
21%
FINDINGS
NATURAL VS. ORGANIC
42%
22%
21%
20%
12%
12%
14%
30%
28%
28%
Chicken
Pork
Ground Beef
Beef
(Whole Muscle)
2002
2004
2007
The share
of packages
carrying2010
a natural or organic claim showed steady growth again in
Exact
Weight
%
of
Packages
2010. Packages with a natural claim increased to 32%. Packages with the USDA organic
seal remained
very small at 0.9% but still showed an increase compared to prior years.
2010
2007
2004
Packages with a natural claim* increased to 32% of the
packages, up 3 percentage points from 2007. Also,
46% included a natural claim and at least one
production claim; 24%
56%included
21%two production
16%
71%
51%
22%
15%
64%
claims. (See
on6%production
for
31%
13% claims34%
4%the section
more information.)
Nearly
one-third
of
ground
Beef Ground Beef Pork
Chicken
Turkey
beef packages carried a natural claim.Turkey, lamb
and veal also had large increases in the number of
packages labeled as natural products.
Products Labeled Natural - % of Packages
2004
2010
Beef
2%
4%
5%
Ground Beef
7%
25%
31%
Pork
9%
15%
18%
Chicken
61%
67%
59%
Turkey
17%
16%
61%
Lamb
22%
27%
38%
Veal
15%
6%
42%
While only 0.9% of all packages had the organic
seal, the percentage has continued to increase since
2002. Two percent of chicken is labeled organic.
Protein’s
Shareand
of Value-Added
- % beef
of Package
Ground beef
(1.1%)
whole muscle
cuts
(0.5%) showed the most growth since 2007.
Natural and Organic Products - % of Packages
NATURAL AND ORGANIC GROWTH - % OF PACKAGES
2010
2007
2004
32%
29%
22%
2%
*
OUT OF STOCK
2007
In this study, products classified as natural included: 1. Natural as
defined as containing no artificial
ingredient
or added Veal
color and only
15%
11%
1%
minimally processed and 2. Naturally-Raised4%
productsLamb
as defined as
raised
and have never
12% entirely without growth promotants, antibioticsTurkey
27%
been fed animal by-products.
Pork
24%
16%
3%
42%
44%
0.2%
Natural
0.7%
0.9%
Organic
Chicken
Ground Beef
which
products
Beef (Whole
Muscle)
The2007
zero stock analysis revealed
were
out of stock
Pork Packages
Decline during the audit and
showed the potential
for lost sales when top selling cuts were not in the meat case.
2010
In order to analyze zero stock items, a rollup
of top package counts by protein was conducted.
Data regarding the percentage of stores that did
not have these items in stock during the store visit
(zero stock) was then added. Because not all stores
call the same cut by the same name, the product
descriptions found on the price/unit labels were
rolled Production
up for a better
represention.
Claims - % of Packages
Total
Pork has the most to
gain from overcoming
a zero stock situation. Four of the top selling
Minimally Processed
27.2%
pork items were among the top 5 zero stock
Hormone Free
15.5%
items. Back ribs and non-flavored tenderloins
Antibiotic Free 4.7%
were
missing from the case most often, 27% and
Vegetarian
Fed 3.9%
24% respectively.
The analysis showed the Ribeye
Never
Ever
Steaks, Top Sirloin1.4%
Steaks and Cube steaks are
most likely areas of lost profit for retailers in the
beef category. Wings led zero stocks for chicken.
Top Beef, Pork and Chicken Items
Beef
% of Packages
Beef Stew
6.4%
Strip Steak Boneless
5.9%
Ribeye Steak Boneless
5.4%
Sirloin/Top Sirloin Steak Bnls
4.6%
Cubed Steak
Beef
Pork
Ground Beef
Pork
Loin/Top Loin/CC Chops Bnls
4.0%
Chicken
% of Packages
% Zero Stock
0%
2007 8%
Supermarket
201011%
Supermarket
200712%
Club Stores
201011%
Club Stores
% Zero Stock
12.8%
4%
Loin/Top Loin/CC Chops Bone-in
6.4%
15%
Tenderloin (Non-Flavored)
4.4%
24%
Spare Ribs (including St. Louis)
4.3%
19%
3.8%
27%
Pork Pounds Decline
Back Ribs
Chicken
% of Packages 2007
% Zero
Stock
Supermarket
Boneless Breasts (including Skinless)
17.0%
Drumsticks
9.6%
Whole Chicken
(including
Roaster)
Beef Whole
Ground
Beef
Pork
8.2%
Chicken
2010 6%
Supermarket
2007 2%
Club Stores
2010 Club Stores
4%
Thighs
7.8%
7%
Wings
5.8%
11%
CONCLUSION
The data from this series of meat case audits across the country is a valuable tool in
understanding how the national retail meat case is evolving. In addition to the snapshots
provided here of major trends, there are separate modules specific to each protein.
Each protein has additional trending news. Here are a few findings from each protein:
Beef In addition to store
branding, another major
development in 2010 for beef
was value/family packs. Most
beef categories increased the
percentages of total packages
that were family/value packs.
The category that increased the
most was offals, which increased
from 2% in 2007 to 14% in
2010. Ground beef had the
second highest increase from
3% in 2007 to 11% in 2010.
Pork Among the data for
pork, the most change was in
the area of enhanced product.
Enhanced product counts for
pork significantly declined 6
percentage points from 45%
in 2004 to 39% in 2010.
Chicken Many retail areas have
seen an increase in family and
value size packs. Chicken saw a
significant increase in the value/
family packs sold. It increased
from only 6% in 2007 to 15%
in 2010.
Turkey For turkey, the major
change was in natural claims.
Natural claims increased 45
percentage points to 61% of
turkey packages. Also, 71% of
turkey packages are now exact
weight, driven by ground turkey.
Cooking information increased
9 percentage points to 76% of
packages, leading all proteins.
Lamb Nutrition labeling was
a big story for lamb. It doubled
to 36% of lamb packages.
Also, ground lamb increased
4 percentage points to 13%
of lamb packages.
Veal Ground veal increased
11 percentage points to 23%
of veal packages. Veal Scallopini,
a higher priced cut, increased
10 percentage points to 21%
of packages despite the economic
conditions. Nutrition labeling
also increased for veal, up 19
percentage points to 29% of
packages.
PROJECT FUNDING AND CONTACTS
Additional information is available by contacting one of the organizations below.
Funded in Part by
The Beef Checkoff
Sealed Air Corporation
Cryovac Division
National Cattlemen’s
Beef Association
National Pork Board
Retail Marketing
100 Rogers Bridge Road, Building A
Duncan, SC 29334
Email: cryovac.mkt@sealedair.com
Web: cryovac.com
9110 East Nichols Avenue
Centennial, CO 80112
Email: retailmarketing@beef.org
Web: BeefRetail.org
1776 NW 114th Street
Clive, IA 50325
Email: jsutton@pork.org
Web: PorkRetail.org
All rights reserved. No part of this research may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of authorized Sealed Air personnel,
in cooperation with partners the Beef Checkoff Program, and the National Pork Board. P.O. Box 464, Duncan, S.C. 29334-0464.
5000-09/10