consumer panel survey 2011

8/2/2019 Consumer Panel Survey 2011

1/40

National Grocers Association

Consumer

SurveyReport2011

Presented by:


2/40

Consumers are pent up. They want to move on already rom the economicpressures o the past two-plus years. They yearn or the spending reedoms

they once knew. They want ood-and-beverage shopping to be more or bettertimes and home-based entertainment, rather than persist as a rigorous, act-fnding, value-seeking exercise every time they venture to the store.

I only they could wave their debit cards and make that happen.

I only regional retailers could kick start 2011 with well-executed strategiesand themes that snap shoppers out o their current price trance.

One pivotal step in this process: Retailers take what relates to their marketsand operations rom this ongoing annual benchmark research, the 2011National Grocers Association-SupermarketGuru Consumer Panel Report. It is

flled with key consumer insights or ood chains that thrive when the publicappreciates stores or reasons beyond price.

Take caring, or instance, an element explored or the frst time in thisyears study. Do consumers nationwide eel that their primary supermarketcares about them? The good news is that 89% say yes. The bad news is thatmuch o that caring seems tepid: 55% eel the caring is moderate, whilejust 34% say yes, absolutely. This study cites the tangible proo adults lookor as expressions o caring, and readers can take it rom there to show howthey eel about the communities they serve.

This isnt about eeling good. Its a linchpin to unshakeable retailer-consumer-shopper relationships. In tough times, people and stores need eachother more. Not only now, but in economic recovery, people will reward thestores that stood by them when they were vulnerable. Retailers can buildequity by caring today.

Such dierentiation will be key to success in 2011, because a unctionalbuying mindset at the store will limit shoppers willingness to enlarge theirbaskets. Also, ewer trips and a higher share o Quick Trips already show thathouseholds stock-up less and buy what they need when they need it. Just-in-time households are part o Americas landscape.

Whats next? Will living paycheck to paycheck digress into day-by-day ormeal-by-meal ood purchasing? Food retailers need to re-think their oers orthis possibility because the trend is clearly or homes to carry less inventory.Also signifcant: the nations rise in single-person households, whichoutnumber married couples with kids and oten lack storage space or ooditems.

Executive Summary


3/40

Households may stock less, but theyre cooking more, and they eel prettygood about doing it. Indeed, 69% o Americas adults are confdent in thekitchen, 55% like to experiment, create own recipes, and 47% considerthemselves enthusiastic, this survey shows. For the 41% that are novice,tentative, ollow simple recipes, the trade urges them on with helpulwebsites and easy-to-prepare meal solutions.

This seems in perect pitch or consumers and supermarkets in 2011, sincepressures are ahead this year. Among the causes: ood commodity price rises,spurred by global demand, will push up items storewide; ination risk i thegovernment keeps spending and expanding the money supply; persistentdouble-digit unemployment among many population segments; at-as-a-pancake housing prices.

Will this year challenge retailers to keep in tune with ast-changing consumerpriorities? Absolutely. Mainstream grocers are squeezed by the stepped-upood eorts o Target, Walmart, dollar stores and clubs, and by innovative,extreme-value ood outlets such as Aldi and Trader Joes. This has Wall Street

analysts wagging their fngers at mid-tier supermarket chains that they arentconsumer-centric enough and theyve allowed price to dominate todaysmarketplace.

Since price battles hurt all competitors, it will be resh, distinctiveapproaches led by insights in this NGA-Supermarket Guru Report that leadto marketplace wins. Retailers with the will to command markets now havenew ideas to emerge rom economic quicksand and push back orceully withtheir abundant appeals against price retailers.

Credits:Survey development and design:Consumer Insight, Inc. & National Grocers Association

Survey review, analysis and composition:Consumer Insight, Inc. & National Grocers Association

Graphic Design: ConAgra Foods

National Grocers Association and Consumer Insight, Inc.

Methodology

On behal o the National Grocers Association, SupermarketGuru.com conducted anational consumer panel on its website, SupermarketGuru.com between November2010 and early January 2011. In all, 1,718 chie household shoppers detailedtheir experiences, behaviors and sentiment on what appeals to them (or not) aboutsupermarkets, as well as their purchase inuences, eating habits and nutritionalconcerns. A total o 74 shopping attributes were addressed in this years survey.

The SupermarketGuru.com Consumer Panel is an opt-in, ood-involved population omore than 105,000 shoppers that are pre-registered with the site and submitted theirconfdential demographic inormation. Respondents were 80% emale.


4/40

Table of Contents

Primary Food Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Importance o Supermarket Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Rate Your Primary Stores Perormance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Satisaction and Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Purchase Costs and Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Purchase Inuences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Eating Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Nutritional Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time . . . 32

Nutritional Inormation Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


5/40

Convenience Store . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Discount Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Dollar Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Drug Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Gourmet Store . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Grocery Store/Supermarket . . . . 84%

Mass Merchandiser . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Specialty Food Store . . . . . . . . . 4%

Warehouse Club . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%Online store (e.g., Amazonor supermarket website) . . . . . . 0%

Where do you purchase the majority of your FOODS?

1Primary Food Store

For all o the savings strategies shoppers learnedin the recession and have stuck with, chasing bet-ter prices at alternative stores continues to nip atsupermarket share. While supermarkets registered85% last year, they edged down to 84% in thissurvey. The amiliar, local store stays strong, but acrack is visible. Which channels gained? Ware-house clubs and specialty ood stores each rose to4% rom 3% a year ago. Mass merchandiser stores(classic discount ormats and supercenters) heldsteady at 7%, despite their eorts to make ood amore central part o their mix, the data showed.

Supermarket shoppers come largely rom someo the lower income tiers: 16% in the $45,001-$65,000 range and 15% in the $25,001-$45,000tier. Whats signifcant here is that these respec-tive shares were 18% and 16% a year ago, whichmeans many o these budget-squeezed shop-pers went elsewhere to eed their amilies.

Further up the scale, six-fgure shoppers earn-ing $85,001-$105,000 accounted or 11% osupermarket shoppers, up rom 10% a year ago.

Warehouse clubs drew some o the lower-earninghouseholds. The $25,001-$45,000 tier accountedor 16% o shoppers that rely on this channel astheir primary ood resource; theyre in second

place behind the $75,001-$85,000 tier, whichregistered 21% and are presumably better ableto purchase bigger baskets. In clubs, 47% saythey spend $101 or more per week on groceries.

At mass merchandisers, the three lowest incometiers (inclusive o less than $25,000 up to$65,000) account or 43% o shoppers whorely on this channel as their #1 ood provider.


6/40

2Importance of Supermarket Features

Please read this list of factors that may or may not be important when a

person decides where to shop for groceries. For each factor, please tellme whether it is very important, somewhat important, not too important

or not at all important to you when you select a primary grocery store,

that is, the grocery store or supermarket where you spend the most

money on ALL groceries.

A clean, neat storeSame as in each o the past two years, 83% oconsumers say an unclean, untidy store is a dealbreaker. This attribute is a must in order or a storeto attract trafc. One small dierence: while 83%

continue to consider this very important year ateryear, the percentage that says somewhat impor-tant upticked to 17% vs. 16% a year earlier.

High-quality fruits and vegetablesConsumers say they are keeping health a prior-ityand 91% regard a stellar produce departmentas a very important actor in where they buygroceries. This is precisely the same percentageas a year ago, which represented a dramatic fve-point jump rom the 86% level o two years ago.While the recession may have withered wallets, ithasnt hurt consumers resolve on this measure.

Another 9% regard this as somewhat important.Women make up more than eight out o ten (81%)o respondents who say very important, morethan quadrupling the male response. Also, twoo the lowest income tiers ($25,001-$45,000and $45,001-$65,000) make up nearly a col-lective one-third (30%) o consumers who regardhigh-quality produce as very important; per-haps this fgure is aspirational, since many lackconvenient access to stores with this trait.

Women also account or 71% who consider thissomewhat important, up rom 67% a year earlier.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83%

Somewhat Important . . . . . . . . . 17%

Not Too Important . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Not At All Important . . . . . . . . . 0%

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91%





7/40

Importance of Supermarket Features cont.

Selling products beforeuse-before/sell-by dateWho doesnt want resh productsespeciallywith every ood dollar having to count and peoplewanting to minimize waste? Once again, more thaneight out o ten consumers called this very impor-tant. This time, its 82% vs. last years 84%, butsomewhat important edged up a point to 15%,

so theres no loss o ocus on in-date products thatdeliver optimal taste, nutrients and shel lie.

High-quality meatsYear ater year, roughly three out o our consum-ers cite this as a very important trait. This years74% fgure is lower than last years 76%, butthen again E.coli incidents have slowed down.Combined with 19% who regard high-qualitymeats as somewhat important, up rom 17% lastyear, consumers stay consistent on this issue.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%


Not Too Important . . . . . . . . . . . 5%Not At All Important . . . . . . . . . 0%

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82%




Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%




Low pricesThe public is tired o holding tight, even thoughmost continue to do so. Regarding necessities ina ood store, at least, they want the quality anditems they used to enjoy routinely. They also wantto dispatch their shopping in ewer stops (chas-ing low prices in more stores takes time), and theyexpect these stops to be pleasant to visit. Theseare some o our reactions to the dramatic seven-point shit away rom low prices as a primarydeterminant o where to shop or groceries.

Current fgures show just 44% o consum-ers think o price as very important; this isdown rom 51% in each o the past two years.Indeed, todays percentage reverts to the 2008pre-recession sentiment level. Thats signifcantbecause this consumer rame o mind away rom

low prices is coming in advance o a ull recovery.This is good news or retailers that have refnedtheir store appealsbecause now they mattermore. Correlating with this shit, nearly fve outo ten respondents (49%) who say price is veryimportant come rom the three lowest incometiers$25,001-$45,000 (20%), $45,001-$65,000 (17%) and $25,000 or less (12%). Ayear ago, their collective percentage was 56%.

The household size that drove the very importantresponse was two people (38%); thats abouttwice the rate o households with our (18%),one (18%) or three (17%), the data show.

Checking back with the 2003 report, ood prices

were the biggest reason people shopped at a par-ticular store, but just 41% o respondents expressedthis (Best everyday prices 30% and Best sale prices11%). Todays fgures at last are pretty similar again.


8/40


A convenient locationDo identical percentages or the top two answersas a year ago36% very important and 54%somewhat importantreect last years stable gasprices, or a steady willingness to chase low prices instores that might be out o the way? Probably both.

Yet this year could be dierent with gasprices heading or $4 per gallon. Wellsee i shoppers stick closer to home.

Meanwhile, a consistent 90% say this is very/somewhat important in deciding where to shopprimarily or ood. Just two years ago, that veryimportant fgure was 41% vs. the current 36%.

What does this mean? Stores have to up theirgame wherever they can, because householdsare eyeing more shopping alternatives across

a broader geographic range. Convenient loca-tion continues to matter most to the three low-est income groups (rom less than $25,000 to$65,000), who comprise a collective 41% whogive this answer, perhaps because they lack carsto travel in; yet they made up 47% o the veryimportant respondents just one year ago.

Courteous, friendly employeesA wave, nod or smile goes a long way with 95%o consumers who like the welcome needleturned up high when they arrive in the storeand who say this is very/somewhat important

in their ood store o choice. These numbershave remained steady the past ew years.

Accurate shelf tagsConsumers can practically agree on one thing: Getour prices right! Some 98% o respondents regardaccurate shel tags as very/somewhat important;thats a nearly unanimous call to action or retail-ers to avoid an unorgivable sin. O this group, 74%say very, which is the same level as two years ago,but two points lower than last year. Related, thesomewhat fgure rose by three points to 24%, and

the not too important ell by one point to 2%.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%



Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%




Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%





9/40


A store layout that makes it easy to shopFamiliarity breeds shopping efciencynotcontemptin a supermarket. For three straightyears, 91% o consumers suggest this trait addscomort, speed and greater certainty o missions

accomplished when they say it is a very/some-what important actor in the stores they chooseto serve as their primary ood resource. This time,very is 42%, down rom 44% o the past twoyears, but somewhat rose two points to 49%.

Personal safety outside the storeOnce again, 91% o consumers say shoppersecurity is an absolute priority or supermarkets,citing this trait as a very/somewhat importantactor in deciding where they ood-shop. Lastyear, the very fgure jumped by our pointsto 63%; this year it moderated a bit to 61%,but that doesnt diminish its importance.

Boomers are behind this. People in the 50-64age bracket account or 48% o the very respon-dents. Also, women account or 84% o theadults who call this very important; thats uprom 83% last year. And since 52% o veryrespondents work ull time, much o their oodshopping likely occurs in the evening hours.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%




Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%




Items on sale or money-saving specialsConsumers are as driven to save as everwitnessthe 92% respondent accord that this is a very/some-

what important actor in where to buy ood. Feel theadrenaline when people save during successul tradeeventsand reap rewards rom their popularity.

Theres a possible sign o weariness, however,that makes us think some people are tiring o thehunt or specials and would-be air-value priceswithout having to work so hard to fnd them.What we see is a fve-point downshit in the veryimportant fgure, to 55% rom 60% a year ago;this is partly oset by a three-point rise to 37%rom 34% a year ago in somewhat important.

Not surprisingly, the three lowest-income groups(rom less than $25,000 up to $65,000) accountor 45% o respondents who say sales/specials

are very important; while signifcant, this per-centage is down rom the 52% share they rep-resented a year ago. Notable too: two incomegroups that include six-fgure households are thenext most prolifc in calling sales/specials veryimportant. The rush knows no income barriers.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%




10/40


Paying attention to special requests or needsPeople want to eel their primary ood store covetstheir business and will help individualize their shop-ping experience when asked. A cumulative 83%express that flling personal requests is a compel-ling and very/somewhat important store trait. Thismatches the level o a year ago, which was our per-centage points higher than the 79% posted in 2009.

Such needs increase with the aging o the popu-lace, the desire to buy locally grown oods, eathealthier, and satisy multiple generations livingunder one roo. Food buying has become morecomplex or many, and stores that fll specialrequests can gain a decisive competitive edge.

Within the 83% fgure, 39% call this a veryimportant store eature, down just a point romthe 40% a year ago, which itsel was a our-percentage-point increase rom 2009. Clearly, thisdesire has stuck since the recession and will stayhigh on shoppers lists as a store dierentiator.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%Somewhat Important . . . . . . . . . 44%



Fast checkoutFront-end speed is a very/somewhat impor-tant issue to the same 93% o consumersas a year ago, just a tick down rom the 94%who said the same in 2008 and 2009.

Speed/line avoidance is one reason or the grow-ing popularity o sel-checkouts, but these arentor everyone. Theyre not enough to ease mostshoppers rustration o standing in line to pay.

Still, theres less overall intensity on this point in2011. Just 38% say very, down fve points rom43% who said this in 2010, perhaps becausetheyre willing to trade o slightly i they shop ina storeperhaps an alternative storethat helpsthem save money or fll other household needs.

Notably, households that spend $101 or more

each week on groceries (the highest tier in thissurvey) account or 48% o respondents whosay that ast checkout is a very important trait.This is up a ull six points rom the 42% rep-resentation a year ago, so this is another hotissue or supermarkets heaviest shoppers.

Last year, upper-income households ($105,001or above) expressed the most impatience,and accounted or 28% o those who eel astcheckout is very important. This year, theyare also the most impatient, and theyre morevocal about it, at 32% o very respondents.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%




11/40


Nutrition and health informationavailable for shoppersStore guidance helps shoppers fnd their way tomore healthul choices in the ood storeand thatsexactly the involvement people expect. The avail-ability o nutritional and health inormation rocketedup the priority list last year and stays there in 2011.

A nation that is coming to grips with its obesity,and is inspired by The First Lady and an upcom-ing set o new ederal nutrition guidelines wantssupermarkets to be active, not passive, on thispoint. Theyve plied us with so much sugar,

sodium, at and caloriesnow its time to help usmake smarter decisions, is the consumer call.

In 2011, 37% o consumers regard this as veryimportant, the same as last year; another 39% saysomewhat, which is down one point rom 2010.

Households that spend $101 and more per weekon groceries account or 50% who say this isvery important, which suggests that they arebuilding their baskets with better choices. Eveni they buy less junk ood, it appears they con-tinue to spend in the store. Also, people withno children living at home comprise 60% orespondents who say this is very important.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37%




Fresh-food deli or delicatessenThe fve-percentage-point drop in respondents citing

deli as very/somewhat important signifes todaysundamental shit in ood buying, meal prepara-tion and consumption. The reshness appeal, itseems, is being thwarted by high per-pound pricesand requent long waits or service. Also, peoplehave new skills assembling meal components withhealthier choices and executing their dinners athome, so deli oods are nice to have but not a must.

While 70% o consumers still regard resh deli asvery/somewhat important to their primary super-market, this fgure is down rom 75% a year ago.Also, their degree o conviction seems lessjust36% say very this time vs. 42% last year, while thesomewhat respondents nudged up a point to 34%.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%




12/40


A frequent shopper program or savings clubLess inuential on store choice than last year,less than one-quarter o consumers (24%) thinkthis is a very important dierentiator. Perhapsi supermarkets ran more targeted promotions totheir cardholders, these programs would be morein demand. As it is, this our-point dip rom 28%last year signals that people want their savings

and deals in a clear manner, without having to giveup personal inormation or ollow many rules.

This is more o a call or retailers to shore up theircardholder benefts. Right now, people are loyalto their shopping missions and savingsa ringtag doesnt cut it without substance behind it.

Respondents in the three lowest income groups(rom less than $25,000 up to $65,000)account or 45% o very important respon-dents, down a bit rom their 49% represen-tation in each o the prior two years.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%




High-quality seafood departmentPart o the eat-healthier movement, a high-quality

service seaood counter is very important to 48%o consumers in 2011; thats up rom 46% in2010 and 42% in 2009. Add in the 29% who saysomewhat important (down rom 31% in 2010, butup rom 28% in 2009), and this is a pivotal area ormore than three-quarters o supermarket visitors.

Although resh fsh oten costs shoppers more ounceor ounce, many think Omega-3s instead o marbledat when they make their choice and eel it is worthit. A popular change o pace at the dinner table,it also adds a sense o adventure when signs suchas wild caught and Alaskan native are visible.

More mature consumers ocus on fshsome87% are age 40 and older, with Boom-ers between age 50-64 accounting or nearlyhal (48%) o the nations seaood advocates.This makes sense, given their rise in healthissues and desire to eat lighter and better.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%




13/40


PharmacyUntil supermarkets create more cross-connectionsbetween ood, health care and their highly trustedpharmacists (such as education, wellness programs,condition treatments and ood regimens to go withthem), the presence o an in-store pharmacy willnever be among the highest actors in store choice.

The 7% very important fgure in 2011 is downrom 10% in 2010; the 20% somewhat impor-tant fgure remains the same as a year ago.Sure, drug stores seem to be everywhere, butonly supermarkets have everything under oneroo or health. I only theyd do more with it.

As expected, older respondents (50 and above)account or 67% o all who think pharmacy isvery important, because o their susceptibil-ity to more health conditions and their desireto shop in one place. The breakout: people50-64 (46%) and 65 and up (21%).

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%




Private label or store brandsFor all the current talk about private label

share encroachment in so many categories,the nations consumers havent budged muchon thinking o PL as a critical store dierentia-tor. True, more than two out o three (68%) eelthis way, saying it is very/somewhat important,but thats down a point rom last year (69%).

Examining the multi-year trend in respondents say-ing it is very important, the fgures suggest a limitto the trafc-pulling power o PL, at least amonghouseholds auent enough to aord name brandsthey enjoy. In 2009, 27% showed their PL convic-tion, calling it very important; that level droppedto 25% in 2010 and to 22% in 2011. PL atigue?Perhaps, even in the midst o a savings binge.

Notably, respondents rom the three lowestincome tiers (rom less than $25,000 up to$65,000) account or 52% who eel PL is veryimportant. While still the majority, this fgure isdown rom 57% in 2010 and 59% in 2009.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%




14/40


Good selection of ethnic or culturalfoods

This moves up on the importance scale as peopleseek more diverse home meal solutions that avoiddinner table tedium. Named as very/somewhatimportant by 70% in 2011, up rom 67% in 2010,the dierence is all in the very. A three-percent-age-point jump to 24% suggests how householdsare testing their palates with new tastes, as theycook more in their own kitchens. Some 85% whosay very are Caucasian, and 82% are emale.

Organic productsA fve-point swing in its avor has, or the frsttime, nearly one-third o consumers (31%) stat-

ing that the presence o organic products is veryimportant in their choice o a supermarket. Addin 37% who say it is somewhat important (onepoint higher than a year ago), and more thantwo-thirds o consumers are eyeing organic assort-ments when deciding where to ood-shop.

Who wants this most: Boomers 50-64 (43% byage group), women (86% by gender), Caucasian(91% by ethnicity), households with zero chil-dren at home (57%), and households that spend$101 or more per week on groceries (52%).

Self-checkout/self-scanningIn line with the very important drop in astcheckout, the percentage o consumers citingsel-checklanes as a key actor in where they shopalso declined in 2011. Indeed, the combined very/somewhat important fgure o 35% marks a negativeturnabout o a three-year trend; the 2010 fgure was38% (11% very and 27% somewhat important).

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%



Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%



Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%Somewhat Important . . . . . . . . . 26%




15/40


Gas pumps/gasolinePerhaps people dont like to think o gas and ood

togetherunless theyre getting a nickel or adime o each gallon ater surpassing a purchasethreshold in the supermarket. Gas prices havemoved up in recent months, but even that causedno rise in the importance o this eature in storechoicedespite some gas-grocery successes suchas at Kroger and Giant Eagle. While the 3% whocall this very important equals last year, the 9%somewhat level is down rom 12% in 2010.

Online buying serviceAnother non-actor in choice o a supermarket,an overwhelming 87% regard this as not too

important/not at all important. About the sameas in the past three years, just 4% o consum-ers eel this is very important. You cant squeezea graperuit on the computer screen, right?

Being active or involved in thecommunityPeople eel shared responsibility or their neigh-bors welare, and this has shaped adult behaviorand thoughts since the recession. As a result,nearly two-thirds o adults in 2011 expect theirprimary supermarket to look out or communitywelare. The 63% who express this in 2011 (16%

very important and 47% somewhat impor-tant) continue a three-year stretch in whichthis fgure moved up; a year ago, it was 61%(17% very and 44% somewhat important).

High-quality bakeryAre our, whipped cream and chocolate creationsbecoming pass in 2011? Are artisan breadstoo much or everyday meals? Apparently, theyare or some who are cutting non-necessitiesand excess calories rom their purchases.

While a still-signifcant 71% o adults regard high-quality bakery as very/somewhat important to theirchoice o a primary supermarket, thats down fvepercentage points rom the 2010 fgure o 76%.The entire dierence is visible in the very column,which ell rom 38% last year to 33% in 2011.

By the way, the 2010 very fgure marked atwo-point rise over 2009; the 2011 fgureis below that earlier benchmark as well.

A high-quality bakery is most relevant to heaviergrocery spenders; households that spend$81 or more per week on groceries accountor 70% o very important respondents.

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%



Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%




Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%




Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%





16/40


ChildcareCan a store charged with keeping cans straight

also care or kids? Apparently not to most parents.Some 84% say this is not at all important to theirstore choice; by contrast, just one in 50 (2%) deemit very important. Households with the biggestweekly grocery rings$81 and overaccount orthree-quarters (72%) o those who eel this is veryimportant. Also, the three lowest income tiers (romless than $25,000 up to $65,000) comprise 73%o very important respondents, perhaps becausechildcare alternatives would be costly or hard to fnd.

Offers locally grown produce and otherlocal packaged foods

Consumers equate local with healthier, saer, morenutritious oods. They also want to support localgrowers and businesses. As such, local oods are onthe rise as a key determinant in where adults decideto grocery-shop. Some 86% o respondents callthe presence o local oods very/somewhat impor-tant to store choice, up rom 83% a year ago and79% in 2009. More impressive, the very columnadvances to 45% in 2011, up rom 41% in 2010.

Who wants this most? Households with-out children at home (62%), heavier gro-cery spenders o $81 or more per week(66%), and Boomers age 50-64 (45%).

Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%



Very Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%




17/40

3Rate Your Primary Stores Performance

Please rate your primary food STORE on several aspects:

Convenient locationPractically all consumers (95%) eel their primarysupermarket is well located to suit their needs.However, theres a crack that signifes peopleswillingness to shop elsewhere or dierent reasons(we think price, in this economy). The current56% excellent fgure is two points lower thanthe 58% posted in 2010, while the 39% good;fgure is three points higher than last years 36%.

High-quality fruits and vegetablesConsistent with other buy-healthy indicators,retailers apparently get it. Primary ood storeshave earned an excellent/good rating o 90% orespondents. This is up rom 87% in 2010 and

86% in 2009, but more signifcantly the excel-lent column moves up two points to 45% aterrising two points the year beore. People rom allincome tiers gave an excellent response, though31% o them were in the $25,001-$65,000 range.

A clean, neat storeThis third straight year o excellent gains reectshigh levels o consumer satisaction. The cur-rent 56% excellent fgure is a point higher thana year ago and fve points above two years ago.The 40% good fgure is the same as in 2010.

Selling products before use-before/sell-by dateRetailers rebound well on this measure in 2011.The 94% excellent/good rating is three pointsabove 91% in 2010 and one point higher than 93%in 2009. The current 51% excellent component

tops both the 46% o last year and 48% o 2009.

Courteous, friendly employeesStores make shoppers eel about as welcome as ayear earlier, data indicate. An 87% excellent/goodrating by shoppers says theyre pretty satisfed. Thisis higher than 86% in 2010 and 84% in 2009.Excellent keeps driving the gains, up to 44%currently rom 43% in 2010 and 40% in 2009.

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%


18/40

Rate Your Primary Stores Performance cont.

High-quality meatsThis is the core o so many supermarkets thatoperators have to get it right. These fguressuggest theyre improving: the 87% excellent/good rating is the same as a year ago and onepoint higher than in 2009, but the excellentcolumn itsel ticked up by two points to 42%.

Who is giving meats the highest possible score?Adults who spend $81 or more per week ongroceries (67%, up rom last years 61%), peoplewith no children at home (64%), Caucasians(92%) between the ages o 40-64 (70%).

Private label or store brandsAgain in this survey comes a tiny indicatoro possible PL slippage. The 90% excellent/good rating, the same as a year ago, showswidespread consumer appreciation o theseproducts. Yet the excellent component edged

down to 40% rom the 41% posted in 2009 and2010, both years in which households largelyincluded more PL in their savings strategies.

A store layout that makes it easy to shopDo respondents enjoy the in-store routes they take

to missions accomplished? Not so much. Just overone-third (34%) rate their primary ood store excel-lent on layout, the same as a year ago. The goodrating, however, edged up one point rom 2010 to54%, which means layout doesnt get in the way oa store becoming a households grocery destination.

Items on sale or money-saving specialsWith ood price rises already here in 2011, con-sumers continue to be especially sensitive to salesand specials. They say that primary supermarketsare doing as well now as a year ago in deliveringon this measure: the 41% excellent and 47%good ratings are identical to the 2010 survey. Thisis good news because the 2010 fgures posteda our-point gain in the excellent column over

2009, which itsel was higher than in 2008.

The three lowest income groups (rom less than$25,000 up to $65,000) account or 42% orespondents who say excellent; this is downrom their 48% representation in 2010.

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%


19/40


Low pricesHas the chasing o low prices made consumersmore aware o alternative outlets? Have primarysupermarkets been moving prices up? Probablyboth. The 20% excellent rating is certainly notafrmation o a job well done, especially whenthats down three points in a year. The 53%good rating looks better, up one point rom the

2010 level, and drawing the majority opinion.

Notably, more than one-quarter o people keepshopping in a primary supermarket despite beingunhappy with its pricing24% air and 3% poor.

Personal safety outside the storeFood stores raise their grades big here with aour-point jump in excellent to 41%, up rom the37% posted in 2010 and 2009. This drives anupgrade in the composite excellent/good rating to88% in 2011, up rom 87% in 2010 and 2009.

Paying attention to special requests orneedsA combined 70% excellent/good rating onthis measure leaves room or supermarkets toimprove their knack or individualizing a storevisit. While the 21% excellent score is the sameas last year, good dipped by one point to 49%.

With Boomers and health-driven purchasers notshy about making demands, stores that bendto satisy could better protect trips and buildword-o-mouth rom a vocal shopper base.

Fast checkoutThe latest excellent ratings (23%) revert tothe 2009 level, ollowing a brie jump to 25%in 2010. Respondents slid more heavily intothe good column, at 55% in 2011, up rom53% in 2010. The lack o ront-end speed con-tinues to rustrate nearly one-ourth o adults,who vote their primary supermarket as air(20%) or poor (2%) on this measure.

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Fast checkout:

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Accurate shelf tagsMore than nine out o ten (93%) o consum-

ers eel confdent that shel pricing is doneright at their primary supermarket. The cur-rent accuracy rating o 38% excellent is uprom 37% in 2010 and 34% in 2009, while the53% good rating is up one point rom 2010.

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%


20/40


Offers locally grown produce and otherlocal packaged foodsAdvancing here rom 2010, consumers increasinglyapprove o their primary supermarkets go-local eorts.Excellent is up to 23% rom 21% in 2010 and 18%in 2009, while good stays consistent at 38%.

Still, a signifcant 29% rate the ood store they shopin most as air on this point. Small householdsexpress this harsh opinion: 61% have no childrenat home, 16% have one, and 15% have two.

Store has a Frequent Shopper Program,which offers rewards and benetsConsumers pretty equally split their scores on thispoint. Excellent and good are equal at 29%each, and collectively show a majority (58%) inavor o supermarkets initiatives. Yet air andpoor scores reect the negative opinion o morethan our in ten consumers, who are rustratedby the unmet potential o these programs in theirprimary ood stores. They want savings withouttoo many hassles or rules. In 2010, the excel-lent/good rating was the same at 58%, butexcellent by itsel was a more robust 31%.

Offers organic food of all kinds,including produce and packaged foodsA our-point jump in excellent ratings to

28% reects consumer happiness with super-markets eorts to disperse organic oodchoices throughout many categories.

However, the composite excellent/good fgure o70% is one point below the 2010 level o 71%.

Small households are the most content onthis measure (64% o excellent scores comerom those with no children living at home)and the highest grocery tabs (50% o excel-lent raters spend $101 or more each week).

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%

Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

Having nutrition and health informationavailable for shoppers

Down rom ratings o the prior two years, it seemssupermarkets might be taking their eyes o o thisone. That would be bad timing, since healthulood shopping is high among household priorities.

The 65% excellent/good rating in 2011 is belowthe 69% level o 2010 and 66% in 2009. The 19%excellent component is down rom 20% in 2010.At least the heaviest grocery spenders ($81 ormore per week) account or 69% o those thinkingtheir primary store is excellent on this measure.

Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%

Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%


21/40


Which size store would you prefer formost of your food-buying trips?

The sweet spot or consumers is the 30,001-50,000square oot ormat, which they eel presents theright balance or their needs; nearly six in ten (57%)choose this size. While the combo store ormato 50,001-70,000 square eet was the second-most popular choice, it was selected by 19% orespondents, exactly one-third as many as cited theconventional size. For all the talk about Tesco-sizestores, the resh-to-go ormat is apparently thoughto as more or convenience than everyday needs.

Do you feel that your current preferred

store is sized about right for yourneeds?About three-quarters o consumers (74%)say yes. At least with regard to store size, thevast majority o adults are happy with whatsin ront o them. Any gripes about size, aislecomort, walking requirements or assortmentdepth and breadth are minor in comparison.

If your preferred store size wasconvenient to your home, and price/quality was about the same as whereyou shop now, would you switch stores?The majority o consumers (53%) would try it out,and another 22% would defnitely switch. Right-sizing is key because 90% o adults confrm thatsize is a main actor in their store choiceandjust ewer than one in six (16%) say they wouldntentertain a move because they like their cur-rent store enough to keep shopping there.

Whos open to trying it out: Adults who work ull-time(57%), the $101 and over weekly grocery spenders(44%), and two o the three lowest income groups

earning $25,001-$65,000 (30%). These samegroups similarly led the would defnitely switch vote.

4,000 sq. t. or less (c-store) . . . 1%

4,001 to 17,000 sq. t.

(resh to go store) . . . . . . . . . . . 4%17,001 to 30,000 sq. t.(small conventional store) . . . . . 8%

30,001 to 50,000 sq. t.(average store) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%

50,001 to 70,000 sq. t.(combo store) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

70,001+ sq. t. (supercenter) . . 12%

No, too big, too much walking . . 6%

No, too big, too muchassortment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

No, too small, too littleassortment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

No, too small, aisles too narrowor comort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%

No, too small, not enoughservice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Yes, it is perect or me . . . . . . . 74%

Yes, I would defnitely switch . . . 22%I would try it out . . . . . . . . . . . . 53%

No, size is not a main actoror me in store choice . . . . . . . . 10%

No, I like my current store enoughto keep shopping there . . . . . . . 16%


22/40

4Satisfaction and Improvements

Regarding the location where you purchase the majority of your foods:

Satisfaction with primary store meetingmy needs(1 is poor, 10 is excellent)

One point below each o the past two years, two-thirds o consumers (66%) score their preerredsupermarket an 8 or above in satisying their needs.Also down a point, just 10% give the top scoreo 10. It makes sense that these fgures weighttoward the highest scores, since these are thesupermarkets o choice or responding adults.

Leading 2011s givers o generous 10s are thethree lowest income groups (rom less than$25,000 up to $65,000), who account or 49%o this group. Also prominent: $101 and overweekly grocery spenders (46%, up rom 41%in 2010) and households with no children liv-ing at home (77%, up rom 68% in 2010).

Improvements consumers want in theirprimary food stores(Does not add up to 100% becauseo multiple responses)

Heres another sign in the survey o consumersshit towards multiple store appeals and awayrom narrow vision on low price only. Ater twostraight years o price/cost savings topping thelist (46% in 2010 and 48% in 2009), this comesin second in 2011 at 42%. The three lowestincome groups (rom less than $25,000 up to$65,000) account or 42% o respondents cit-ing this as an improvement theyd like to see.

More locally grown oods usurp the leader-ship position at 44%, up rom 41% a yearago. The biggest grocery spenders o $81 andover per week drive this response (67%).

Theres a signifcant drop-o ater these two.More variety/better assortment/wider choicecomes in third at 28%, down rom its 30%level a year ago. More organic oods is ourthat 26%, up signifcantly rom its 20% level in2010. More ethnic oerings is fth at 23%,also up rom its 20% level a year ago.

Theres been quite a shuing o the top fvevs. what adults said in the 2010 survey. Nolonger in the top fve are more resh-madeoods and better customer service/employ-ees, which each registered 22% last year.

One (Poor) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Three. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%

Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%

Seven . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%

Eight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

Nine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%Ten (Excellent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Better customer service/employees20%

More ethnic oerings . . . . . . . . 23%

More resh made oods . . . . . . . 19%

More gourmet oods . . . . . . . . . 19%More imported oods . . . . . . . . . 13%

More organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

More variety/better assortment/widerchoice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%

Nutritional and other healthinormation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Oer better quality products . . . 15%

Price/cost savings . . . . . . . . . . . 42%

No improvements are necessary . 9%

More locally grown oods . . . . . . 44%

More organic oods . . . . . . . . . . 26%

Dont know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%


23/40

4Satisfaction and Improvements cont.

Which of the following would signal toyou that a supermarket CARES about

you?The most visible evidence to consumers isthat a store is clean and well organized (87%).Number two: Prices are air (80%). Third: Pro-duce, meats and seaood are always appeal-ing and resh (77%). Tied or ourth: Carriesthe items and brands that I like (68%) andItems are never or rarely out o date (68%).

Like a supermarket version o the movie Weird Sci-ence, these traits would be in a caring ood storei consumers could create such an entity in a lab.

This is the frst year we ask this question inthe survey. It comes at a time when peopleare drained emotionally rom fnancial chal-

lenges, yet while they look out or their neigh-bors welare. Whos looking out or them?Their primary supermarkets, they hope.

Well be benchmarking this in coming years.

Do you believe your primarysupermarket cares about you?The good news is that 89% say yes. The badnews is that much o that caring seems tepid.The moderately column rings up at a 55%respondent majority, while yes, absolutely comesin at 34%, just over one-third o respondents.Theres room here or supermarkets to step upand demonstrate more tangible ways they careor the communities in which they operate.

Store is clean andwell organized . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87%

Ample parking and is well lit . . . 67%Carries the items andbrands that I like . . . . . . . . . . . 68%

Fulflls special requests . . . . . . . 58%

Shops and delivers or me,or a moderate ee . . . . . . . . . . 9%

Produce, meats and seaoodare always appealing and resh . . 77%

Has resh, local or organicoods available . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%

Items are never or rarely out

o date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68%Contacts me in event o aproduct recall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Has special events that are unor educational (pet days,kids cooking contests, guestspeakers, cooking classes) . . . . . 21%

Experts (butcher, dietitian, pharmacist)are always accessible . . . . . . . . 46%

Suggests creative meal andsnack ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Prices are air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%

Runs many sales on items I use . 57%

Always in-stock on sale items . . . 62%

Cashiers (& baggers) are ast,riendly and oer help to my car 62%

Sends me special deals throughemail, texts or to my cell phone . 34%

Supports local charities . . . . . . . 40%

Yes, absolutely . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%

Moderately . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55%Barely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Not at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%


24/40

5Purchase Costs and Frequency


How much families spend TOTAL eachweek on FOODS in all storesConsumers have taken their appetites home andlet restaurants in the dust, judging by these fg-ures. The highest spending level, more than $136,surged by hal again over a year ago to be leadingclear-cut at 21%. In 2010, this lotiest spendingbracket was tied or frst place with the $96-$105bracket at 14%. But in 2011 more than $136 pro-pels to a substantial lead, while $96-$105 holdssecond place at a repeat 14% level o mention.

They each outpace the #3 tier o $106-$115which, at 10%, is one point lower than lastyear. Ater that, no other spending tier attainsa double-digit mention by consumers.

Just about hal o America (48%) spends $106or more per week on ood bought at retail or theirhouseholds; this is up rom 43% in 2010, and theshit reects more home-based consumption.

FOOD shopping trips per weekThe hunt or reshness advances. The twice aweek trip requency rises two points to 31%,

ollowing up a three-point gain the year beoreto 29%. Concurrently in 2011, once a weekdips two points to 33%, ollowing a two-pointslide a year earlier to 35%. In third place, threetimes a week stays steady at 15%, the samepercentage it held in the prior two years.

Less than $25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

$25-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

$36-45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

$46-55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

$56-65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7%

$66-75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

$76-85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%

$86-95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

$96-105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%$106-115 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

$116-125 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%

$126-135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

More than $136 per week . . . . . 21%

Six or more times a week . . . . . . 1%

Five times a week . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Four times a week . . . . . . . . . . . 6%Three times a week . . . . . . . . . . 15%

Twice a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%

Once a week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

Every two weeks . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Once a month . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%


25/40

6Purchase Inuences


Inuences on food buying(Does not add up to 100% becauseo multiple responses.)

Shoppers have learned to be opportunistic andtake advantage o multiple deals when they can,in order to save money. In this comparison o sav-ings mechanisms, the sequence o the top threeitems is the same as last year, but each carryless inuence on ood buying than in 2010.

For example, stock up on an item when you fnda bargain remains #1 on the list, but at 71%,

which is two points below last years fgure o 73%;look in newspapers or grocery specials remains#2 on the list, but at 59%, which is seven pointsbelow last years fgure o 66%; use cents-ocoupons received in the mail or rom newspapers/magazines remains #3, but at 58%, which is alsoseven points below last years fgure o 65%.

Clearly, trip planning and actual purchasebehaviors in-store are purposeul and ocusedon limiting expenses in 2011. Only one otheractivity comes in above the 50% level o men-tion this yearbuy products on special eveni you hadnt planned to buy them that day;this came in at 58% in the 2010 survey.

Despite limited cash ow, respondents rom twoo the three lowest income groups ($25,001-$65,000) lead consumers who stock up onbargain items, and account or a combined 32%who say they do this. In 2010, the absolute lowestincome group ($25,000 or less) also joined themin the lead, but ewer households in this tier appearable to take advantage o such opportunities thisyear; their representation slips to 8% in 2011.

Look in newspapers or groceryspecials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%

Participate in supermarketrequent shopper or savings clubprograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Stock up on an item when youfnd a bargain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71%

Use cents-o coupons received inthe mail or rom newspapers/magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58%

Compare grocery prices at dierentstores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Buy store brands or lower pricedbrands instead onational brands . . . . . . . . . . . . 49%

Use cents-o coupons received inthe store, such as o the shel, atcheckout or at a kiosk . . . . . . . . 48%

Buy products on special even iyou hadnt planned to buy themthat day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57%

Buy only whats on your list . . . . 21%Buy in larger package sizes . . . . 19%

Go to stores other than yourprimary grocery store oradvertised specials . . . . . . . . . . 38%

Use mail-in rebates orcash reunds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21%


26/40

Social networking toolsThe only place to go is up rom here. Food is aertile area to be mined or new products, recipesand nutrition inormation via Facebook and othersocial media. Already 25% o respondents useFacebook to learn more about oods; thats uprom 19% in 2010. In all, more than one-thirdconsumers now identiy Facebook, You Tube orTwitter as their social networks o choice or oodmatters. This isnt an auent-only practice either;all income groups are shown to be among Face-book users or ood inormation, and two o thelowest income groups ($25,001-$65,000) aremost prominent, accounting or 29% who do so.

Food or beverage appsThe apps explosion hasnt been elt ully yet in theood arena. Nine out o ten survey respondentshavent yet downloaded any iTunes ood or bever-age appthough that could change in 2011 asmore sophisticated apps come to market andgenerate new consumer appeals. The 11% whohave downloaded appsup rom 6% in 2010are27% male, decidedly upscale ($85,001-$145,000lead users and account or 33% o download-ers), heavy grocery buyers (52%, $101 and overper week), and employed ull-time (77%).

Facebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Twitter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

YouTube . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%

Have you downloaded any food orbeverage apps from iTunes?

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89%

Purchase Inuences cont.


27/40

7Eating Habits

How often do you:

Eat home-cooked meals at home?Shop, prepare, serve, eat is Americas routineon the rise. It occurs three or more times aweek or 92% o consumers in 2011, up rom89% in 2010 and 2009, and 87% in 2008.

Dine out in full-service restaurants?Ater skidding to a halt at restaurant entrancesthe past couple o years, consumers are begin-ning to inch back inside their doors in 2011. For

73% o consumers, dining out in ull-serviceeateries occurs three times a month at mostthis yearbut this fgure was 75% in 2010.

Notably, people who eat out one or two timesa week also move up rom 21% in 2010 to23% in 2011. Who are they? Full-time employ-ees (64%), Easterners (35%), and householdsthat tend to earn more; o the seven mostprominent income tiers to dine out this re-quently, fve are in the six-fgure range (48%).

Serve meals using leftovers?Nearly eight out o ten consumers whip let-overs into new meals once or more per week

(56%, one or two times a week; 22%, threeor more times a week) The cumulative 78%fgure in 2011 is one point higher than 2010s77% and our points above 2008s 74%.

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Less than once a month . . . . . . 0%

One to three times a month . . . . 1%

One or two times a week . . . . . . 7%

Three or more times a week . . . . 92%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%



One or two times a week . . . . . . 23%Three or more times a week . . . . 4%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%


One to three times a month . . . . 16%One or two times a week . . . . . . 56%



28/40

Eat at fast-food establishments?Heres where the healthier-eating trend is tak-ing its toll. The never column jumped by ourpoints in 2010 to 22%, and it has boundedahead another fve points to 27%. Concurrently,the less than once a month column, which wasat 39% in 2009 and 2010, edges up to 40%in 2011. Thats a ull two-thirds o adults thatbarely eat ast ood today. Price isnt everything

when it comes to ood, and this is the proo.Meanwhile, ast-ood eaters are doing it less.People who went one to three times a month were29% in 2009 and 27% in 2010; now they are22%. However, the most avid ast-ood eaters, oneor more times a week, were unchanged at 11%.

People with no children living at home makeup 72% o the never respondents. Lastyear, they were 75%, but as the never ol-lowing grew, it acquired a broader base.

Eating Habits cont.

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%



One or two times a week . . . . . . 9%


Eat takeout or home-delivered meals?No signifcant point shits rom a year ago meansthe moderate opportunity or prepared oods insupermarkets remains open. Advantage, super-markets, because ood-store pricing shouts valuevs. restaurants, and one-stop convenience cancover several days worth o meals at once.

However, or 83% o survey respondents, take-out dinner happens just three times or less permonth, about the same as a year ago (84%).Could it happen more i supermarkets mer-chandised it better? Perhaps. Especially i theeconomy begins to truly recover in 2011, peoplemight spend more on takeout beore they tran-sition back to lots more restaurant dining.

The one or two times a week requency o takeoutbumps up one point to 15%. This group is led by:Easterners (41%) employed ull-time (67%), whospend $81 or more per week on groceries (71%).

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%


One to three times a month . . . . 35%One or two times a week . . . . . . 15%



29/40


30/40

Eating Habits cont.

What kind of home cook are you?(Does not add up to 100% becauseo multiple responses)

Heres one positive outcome o the reces-sion that could mean long-term benefts orsupermarkets: More than two-thirds o adultsregard themselves as confdent in the kitchen(69%) and more than hal like to experiment,create own recipes (55%). Also, nearly hal(47%) describe themselves as enthusiastic.

True, 41% say they are novice, tentative, ol-low simple recipes, but the trade is bringingthem along with helpul websites and easy-to-prepare meal solutions. All o this pointsto an America that can get cooking withthe right motivation and opportunities.

Have you been cooking more at homethe past two years?The majority (51%) says yes; another 40%say about the same. The yes answersare driven mostly by the lower- and middle-income tiers; none o the $105,001 andabove income groups accounted or a double-digit share o the yes respondents.

If yes, has the experience improved

your cooking skills?For nearly two-thirds o adults (63%), theanswer is afrmative. For most households,this is a budget-stretching skill that couldalso lead to more supermarket visits.

Is it important to you to become abetter home cook?An overwhelming three-quarters o respondents(75%) are motivated to improve, we believe, toconsistently satisy household members andhave control more o the ingredients they actu-ally eat. This is largely true o households withtwo, three or our people under one roo (75%).

Novice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Tentative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Follow simple recipes . . . . . . . . 31%Follow complex recipes . . . . . . . 35%

Like to experiment,create own recipes . . . . . . . . . . 55%

Cook a ew dishes well . . . . . . . 27%

Confdent in the kitchen . . . . . . 69%

Enthusiastic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Have the magic touch . . . . . . 23%

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51%

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

About the same . . . . . . . . . . . . 40%

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63%

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37%

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75%

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25%


31/40

8Nutritional Concerns

What concerns consumers the MOSTabout the foods they eat?

For the ourth straight year, the simply expresseddesire to be healthy/eat whats good or usheads the list o 18 answer choices. This time,the percentage is 25%, up rom 22% in the threeprior years. A mid-scale income group ($85,001-$105,000) is frst among be healthy respondents,accounting or 15% o all adults saying this.

The spread between be healthy and the #2answer chemical additives (13%, up rom 12%in 2010 and 11% in 2009) is wide. In thirdplace is salt/sodium content, less salt (10%,same as a year ago and up rom 9% in 2009).Ater these, no other answer is in double digits.

How consumers describe their dietAdults acknowledge their progress at diet improve-

ment. The harsh sel-criticism tones down to59% could be a lot healthier/could be somewhathealthier, compared with 62% saying this in 2010and 68% in 2009. About one in ten (11%, up rom10% in 2010) eels righteous enough to say whatthey eat is as healthy as it could possibly be.

The most people who say the way they eatcould be a lot healthier are in the three low-est income groups (rom less than $25,000up to $65,000) at 46%; a year ago,they accounted or 54% saying this.

Fat content, low at . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Sugar content/less sugar . . . . . . 7%

Salt/sodium content, less salt . . 10%

Calories/low calorie . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Cholesterol levels . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Food/nutritional value . . . . . . . . 9%

Chemical additives . . . . . . . . . . 13%

Preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Desire to be healthy/eat whatsgood or us . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25%

Vitamin/mineral content . . . . . . 0%

Balanced diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

Carbohydrate content . . . . . . . . 3%Freshness/purity/no spoilage . . . 3%

Protein value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Fiber content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Dont know/ no answer . . . . . . . 1%

Could be a lot healthier . . . . . . . 10%

Could be somewhat healthier . . . 49%

Is healthy enough . . . . . . . . . . . 31%

As healthy as it couldpossibly be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%


32/40

What people eat to ensure their diet ishealthy

(Does not add up to 100% becauseo multiple responses)

Consistent with the importance they placeon high-quality ruits and vegetables in storechoice, adults once again perch more ruitsand vegetables in the #1 spot on this list ohealthy diet activities. At 88% in 2011, thisscores our points higher than 2010s 84%level and fve points above 2009s 83%.

Banishing bad habits characterize the #2 and#3 vote getters. Less junk ood/snack oodis second at 67%, up rom 64% in 2010and 2009. Less ried oods is #3 at 65%,up rom 63% in 2010 and 62% in 2009.

More whole grains and more resh oodstie or the #4 position at 60%; both were58% in 2010 and 54% in 2009.

Nutritional Concerns cont.

More ruits/vegetables . . . . . . . . 88%

More calcium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Less bread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%More chicken/turkey/white meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%

Less calories/ood low incalories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

More fber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%

Less carbohydrates . . . . . . . . . . 28%

More fsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45%

Less cholesterol/ood low incholesterol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28%

More oods high in vitamins/

minerals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27%Less dairy products . . . . . . . . . . 13%

More resh oods . . . . . . . . . . . . 60%

Less ats/oils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32%

More juices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Less ried oods . . . . . . . . . . . . 65%

More low at or skim milkproducts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31%

Less junk ood/snack ood . . . . . 67%

More meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

Less meats/red meats . . . . . . . . 31%More organically grown/natural oods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Less prepared/processed oods . . 55%

More protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Less salt/sodium/ood low insalt/sodium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%

More salads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%

Less soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50%

More starches(pasta, beans, rice) . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Less sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52%More vitamin/mineralsupplements/pills . . . . . . . . . . . 27%

More balanced diet/more variety . 47%

More water/bottled water . . . . . . 36%

More whole grains . . . . . . . . . . . 60%

More oods with antioxidants . . . 29%


33/40

9When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time

PriceA must or 97% o adults who need to know thetab beore buying. This composite fgure is thesame as in the past two years, though the almostalways fgure (77%) is down a point rom 2010and two points rom 2009. By comparison, almostalways was 72% beore the recession hit.

Brand name

Though still a compelling 90% or almost always/sometimes in 2011, the consumer convictionis not as great as in 2010, when 93% said this.Simply, people are buying more private label andalternative brands to save money, and brandname matters a bit less upon frst-time trial.

Look at health claimsThough related to the eat-healthier movement,the almost always/sometimes fgure actu-ally edges down a point to 83% rom 2010s84%. Two reasons or this: the 43% almost

always fgure in 2010 was a seven-point jumprom 36% in 2009, so there is some settling in2011. Also, health claims can conuse or mis-lead, which blunts their impact at the shel.

Type of preservatives or additivesAnother sign o consumer sensitivity to ingredientsin packaged oods. Precisely 85% o adults readthe fne print on labels almost always/sometimes.The six in ten (59%) almost always componentis up eight points rom 2010s 51% and a con-siderable 17 points rom 2009s 42% level.

Almost Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0%

Almost Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47%

Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Almost Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Almost Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%

Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

How often do they look for ___ when deciding whether or not to

purchase it?


34/40

When Consumers Buy A New Food Product For The First Time cont.

Organic claims

A parallel jump in consumer interest here, aswith other organics survey questions. Sevenout o ten adults (70%) look or these claimsalmost always/sometimes, up rom 65% in2010 and 59% in 2009. Todays 34% almostalways component is six points above 2009s28% and 11 points above 2009s 23% level.

Where the product was madeAnother big rise here, likely due to consum-ers lack o trust in China and other oreignood sources. Nearly eight out o ten consum-ers (79%) look or country o origin beore try-ing a product almost always/sometimes. Thisis up rom 76% in 2010 and 69% in 2009.The latest 44% almost always fgure topsthe 38% level o 2010 and 33% o 2009.

Almost Always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36%Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%

Almost always . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%

Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35%

Hardly Ever . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

Never . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%


35/40

10Nutritional Information Sources

Where consumers learn about nutrition

issues on a regular basis(Does not add up to 100% becauseo multiple responses)

The Internet gives access to many kinds owebsites, blogs, discussion groups and reerenceauthoritiesincluding government agencies andproven ood and nutrition experts. No wonder ithas a sizeable lead as the #1 resource or nutri-tion inormation in America at 74%, down rom75% in 2010, but up rom 70% in 2009.

Access is step one. Trust and understanding aresteps two and three. Consumers online weigh thecredibility and clarity o inormation supplied bysources they reach. Since they eel theyre able to

do this, they keep the Internet as their top choice.Meanwhile, magazines are a clear-cut #2resource at 63%, well above books at 39%,but still some distance behind the Internet.Growth o Web access on smartphones suggeststhis gap will likely expand; or instance, maga-zines were 64% in 2010 and 67% in 2009.

Todays use o books (39%) represents a our-point gain over 35% in 2010 and 32% in2009. However, newspapers (in ourth placeat 33%) slipped rom 37% in 2010 and 38%in 2009. Nevertheless, media ared betterthan individual experts, such as doctors (22%)and nutritionists/dietitians (also 22%).

Which do they trust the MOST?Consumers hesitate to trust any o their nutritioninormation sources, judging by the low ratingsgiven here. Its a similar profle to last year, andthis hesitancy might stem rom so many conictingstudies issued and reported on by media, or toutedby experts who in truth represent special interests.

Even nutritionists/dietitians come in at just16% and doctors at 13%. This could be anopportunity or supermarkets to become vocalvetters and build trust in their stores as cred-ible, straight-talk destination centers or ood.

Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63%

Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%Doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33%

Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39%

Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74%

Friends and amily . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Grocery store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Nutritionist/dietitian . . . . . . . . . 22%

Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Online communities (e.g., iVillage,Second Lie, YouTube) . . . . . . . 27%

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12%

Magazines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9%

Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3%

Doctor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%

Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4%

Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29%

Friends and amily . . . . . . . . . . 6%

Grocery store . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Nutritionist/dietician . . . . . . . . . 16%

Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Online Communities . . . . . . . . . 3%

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%


36/40


37/40

Anonymous Demographics

Your gender

Hours you work each week

Ethnicity

Age bracket

Region of United States of yourprimary residence

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80%

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20%

Full Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56%

Part Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%

Unemployed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10%

Retired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

Full Time Work and Student . . . . 0%

Part Time Work and Student . . . 1%

Caucasian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92%

Arican American . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2%

15 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

25 to 39 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

40 to 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22%

50 to 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%

65 and older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%

East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34%

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26%

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23%


38/40

Anonymous Demographics cont.

Number of people living at primaryresidence

Number of children living at home

Average HOUSEHOLD income

Amount spent each week on groceries

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41%

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17%

5 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8%

0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61%

1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5%

4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

5 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1%

$25,001-$45,000 . . . . . . . . . . 15%

$45,001-$65,000 . . . . . . . . . . 16%$65,001-$85,000 . . . . . . . . . . 6%

$85,001-$105,000 . . . . . . . . . 3%

$65,001-$75,000 . . . . . . . . . . 4%

$75,001-$85,000 . . . . . . . . . . 8%

$85,001-$105,000 . . . . . . . . . 12%

$105,001-$125,000 . . . . . . . . 9%

$125,001-1$45,000 . . . . . . . . 6%

$145,001-$165,000 . . . . . . . . 5%

$165,001-$185,000 . . . . . . . . 3%

$185,001-$205,000 . . . . . . . . 2%$205,001 and above . . . . . . . . 5%

$0-$40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6%

$41-$60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13%

$61-$80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16%

$81-$100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19%

$101 and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46%


39/40

N.G.A. is the national trade association representing the retail and wholesalegrocers that comprise the independent sector o the ood distributionindustry. An independent retailer is a privately owned or controlled oodretail company operating a variety o ormats. Most independent operatorsare serviced by wholesale distributors, while others may be partially or ullysel-distributing. Some are publicly traded but with controlling shares heldby the amily and others are employee owned. Independents are the trueentrepreneurs o the grocery industry and dedicated to their customers,associates, and communities. N.G.A. members include retail and wholesale

grocers, state grocers associations, as well as manuacturers and servicesuppliers. For more inormation about N.G.A. and the independent sectoro the industry, see the N.G.A. website: www.NationalGrocers.org.

Phil Lempert was one o the pioneers o the new inormation media, oundingSupermarketGuru.com in 1994. The website is now one o the leading oodand health resources on the Internet, visited by more than 9 million peopleeach year. SupermarketGuru.com oers thorough ood ratings, analyzes trendsin ood marketing and retail, and eatures health advice, unique recipes,nutrition analysis, allergy alerts and many other resources to help consumersunderstand their ood, health, liestyle and shopping options. Lempert iscontributing editor o Supermarket News, which exclusively runs his columns

both in its magazine and on its website; as well as a content partner withSN which includes custom consumer surveys and other projects. He hasbeen profled and interviewed by USA Today, The New York Times, TheChristian Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Newsweekand Ad Age, and is interviewed by hundreds o publications each year.

As one o Americas leading consumer trend-watchers and analysts, PhilLempert is recognized on television, radio and in print. He is the ood trendseditor and correspondent or NBC News Todayshow, where he reports onconsumer trends, ood saety and money-saving tips, as well as showcasesnew products. He makes regular appearances on ABCs The View, and hasappeared numerous times on The Oprah Winfrey Show, 20/20, CNN, CNBC,Discovery Health and MSNBC, as well as on local television morning and news

programs throughout the country. Phil is the ounder and editor o severale-publications targeted to consumers and businesses: Facts, Figures & theFuture, Food Nutrition and Science, The Lempert Reportand SupermarketGuru.

Phil is a spokesperson or ConAgra Foods and works with various ConAgrabrands and their retail partners to help communicate strategies on savingmoney, healthier eating and ood trend inormation to Americas shoppers.

Lempert is the author o Being the Shopperand Healthy, Wealthy & Wise.His previous books include: Phil Lemperts Supermarket Shopping & ValueGuide, Top Ten Trends for Baby Boomersand Crisis Management: A Workbookfor Survival.

ConAgra Foods, Inc., (NYSE: CAG) is one o North Americas leading oodcompanies, with brands in 97 percent o Americas households. Consumersfnd Banquet, Chef Boyardee, Egg Beaters, Healthy Choice, Hebrew National,Hunts, Marie Callenders, Orville Redenbachers, PAM, Peter Pan, Reddi-wip, Slim Jim, Snack Packand many other ConAgra Foods brands in grocery,convenience, mass merchandise and club stores. ConAgra Foods also hasa strong business-to-business presence, supplying rozen potato and sweetpotato products as well as other vegetable, spice and grain products to a

variety o well-known restaurants, oodservice operators and commercialcustomers. For more inormation, please visit us at www.conagraoods.com.


40/40

consumer panel survey 2011

Documents